The Folk Prophet

So, for what it's worth I would argue that the above bolded is not accurate. So I would therefore argue that with advanced enough algorithms, beauty can be entirely created through logic and technique.

Who taught AI that half rhymes were acceptable?

I know that's hard. And I don't know you... but by golly I feel proud of you anyhow!

I don't believe this. I'll explain for what it's worth. To possess something is to own it. To be possessed is to be owned by -- or to put it another way, to belong to. We do, indeed, have a great deal of understanding, insight, and doctrine concerning being owned by or belonging to both Christ and the adversary, and the opposing forces they represent. We have scads of information and teachings on being free from or ensnared in and by the powers of Satan, belonging to his great and abominable church or belonging to Christ's. More information than any other source on earth. By implication you seem to be saying that Jesus Christ is the only thing the Holy Ghost testifies of. That idea is not correct. Well, it's correct in a round about way. Because all that is true is centered around Christ. But the Spirit testifies of truth. And certainly the truth about being possessed of an evil spirit is centered around Christ, particularly in that Christ is the way, the light and the truth to freedom from such possession. Nonsense. Judging others takes no time at all.

I think we agree. But I believe the bounds of that power are actually fairly explicit and nowhere near as unknown as some suggest. I won't go into details, because I never know what should and should not actually be discussed (beyond that which I know should not be discussed)...but.... Consider the various teaching in the temple on these things. Perhaps we are more susceptible to the powers of Satan before making covenants. Making covenants is, in part, specifically to protect us from Satan.

I'm rethinking my position as I consider the pig episode from Mark 5.

I'd had the same thought. Luke states: And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And then in Mark we get: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. That's about all we get on the matter. It could very well simply represent physical maladies she had that were cured that had nothing to do with righteousness. Seven maybe. Perhaps bi-polar, schizophrenia, headachey, grumpy, sneezy, sleepy and bashful. That, of course, doesn't account for the possessed man where the evil spirits knew Jesus, named himself Legion (edit: I meant themselves. His pronouns are they/them. Literally this time.), begged to be sent to and then entered the body of 2000 pigs.

I realized as I pondered on this that it seems to be backed by scripture: Mosiah 4:14-15 And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the devil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.

It's a good point you make here. Emotionally it stresses me. But...yeah.

Kind of depends on what you mean by evil. (I mean, specifically, those not yet of the age of accountability). If evil is defined as exercising agency to disobey God then, no, children cannot choose evil. If it's simply acts that cause harm then, sure. But is the cat who harms the mouse evil?

I have a few related comments here. These aren't contradictory or meant by way of an attempt to debate anything. They're just thoughts I had. 1. I do believe evil spirits exist. They're literal and real and exert influence in the world. 2. The brain has the potential to do all sorts of wack-a-doodle stuff without the help of any evil spirits. 3. I'm not sure a spirit has the ability to make our muscles not work or literally bind our tongue. (Like...what.... reached into our head with their demon fingers to the exact necessary spot in our brain and squeezes and, all of a sudden....?? I mean...maybe... I'm just not sure...) But I tend towards the idea that that's not how things work. (Going back to the idea that I believe you suggested before. If they could do that sort of things why don't they do it more?) 4. How, exactly, does one keep far away from evil spirits who can come and attack someone in their sleep? On that last point...I'm reminded again... I never dedicated my home. I really need to do that. 5. I believe that people tend to attribute way more to evil spirits and Satan than feels correct to me. It's kind of almost a pet peeve of mine when people stand up in church and talk about how they were having a fight with their spouse and throw in some comment about how it was Satan really working on them. Or even worse...they say something about how their kids made them late for church and it was obvious Satan was trying to keep them from coming. It kind of bugs me. Not relative to anything but my own thoughts: (and please keep in mind here, once again, I'm not suggesting your experiences aren't valid...I'm just blabbing), but if all evil stems from Satan then...how, exactly, did Satan choose evil? We have the ability to exercise our agency to choose evil entirely outside of Satan's influence. The fact that Satan and his minions are out there influencing us makes it all the harder.

FWIW, I actually do (arrogantly) believe I understand what possession is. But I also admit that my believing I understand it doesn't actually mean I understand it. That being said, I don't think it means what most people think it means. I also think it's FAR more common than most people believe. Hollywood has, for the most part, corrupted any potential people have of actually understanding the concept, I believe. They see it as a literal spirit stepping into a person's body and taking it over as if it's a meat puppet. I'll admit, the biblical descriptions of it don't help in that regard. But I don't think that has anything to do with what possession actually is, nor do I believe that has ever actually happened or is even possible. Once again....my beliefs, but think a lot of the scriptural descriptions of possession as allegorical (at least partially) more than literal. I also see it as a general state rather than a specific, concrete thing (which is why I claim to understand it...because I see it as a concept rather than "demon literally entered into his body and controls his brain and muscles now"). It means being under the strong influence of something or someone. The how (biochemistry, brain activity, etc.) might vary. I could expand an awful lot on my ideas...and, I'm not sure I've even fully fleshed them out. so I'll leave it at that. But I dunno...just thought I'd share.

Or a programming glitch in the matrix.

I should amend my "permanently" a bit I think. I say it because I believe that should be the commitment based on the current conditions. But.... conditions can change. I mean if he were to come to you a year later fully converted to the gospel and strongly faithful, etc., then "permanently" might not at that time apply. But you should be very, very, VERY careful about who you marry. And marrying someone who is faithful and righteous above all else matters so much more than being in love and getting along. I'm not saying you shouldn't be in love or get along. I'm just suggesting a priority hierarchy. #1 should always be God and the gospel. In everything! And most particularly in whom we marry. Marriage is, after all, the pinnacle covenant we can make in this life. It it the culmination of all else we do in the gospel. It is the core unit of godhood itself! It is sacred beyond compare.

Right. I just struggle with that because of all the teaching we do have about protecting ourselves from Satan...you know...putting on the whole armor of God, etc. But it's all secretly meaningless? We're constantly taught how to protect ourselves, and the ideas you're proposing as potential via the questioning require the consideration that such teachings aren't actually meaningful. I just can't quite get on board with that, even at the level of questioning it. I firmly believe that putting on the whole armor of God protects us. It's really that simple for me.

I accept this idea about, you know...everything. But it feels a bit wishy washy. Yes, the only things I know are the feelings and thoughts I've had. So, no...I don't "know". I very strongly believe though. That's true of pretty much every point of gospel truth. But either way, you have to admit, this is a fascinating discussion.

I had the same thought. I was thinking something along those lines concerning the boy who'd been possessed that @Carborendum mentioned. Also...the whole "as far as it is translated correctly" idea. Really in discussing possession at all, there are some semantic ideas that need to be straightened out. They have not been, doctrinally speaking. So as carb has implied...we really don't understand, so it's hard to take too firm a stance. Which, to my best understanding, is the meaning of being possessed. Agency swallowed up. That seems like a good explanation of the matter. Otherwise...it's just temptation or trial. Possession implies something more.

By implication, the fact that I deny the potential that I can be possessed if I remain true and faithful, actually puts me at risk of being possessed.

I'm pretty sure, if you continue reading, that this example supports the idea that we, indeed, do have control over the matter through obedience, whereas by reaching out to God in the moment, the darkness was vanquished. Plus...I think we're getting into some strange ideas about what possession is.

If we have no control over it via obedience, then how, exactly, are we supposed to be cautious?

Why do yo believe this? Can you back up this idea with any teachings or scripture? Because I believe, if one were to look into it, that it would be pretty easy to back up the idea that anyone who is righteous would be immune to possession. But backing up the idea that, you know...say...President Nelson could be walking along and all of a sudden...whammo... Mephistopheles is now running the church.... I mean come on. (Edit: I realize you said "some" are afforded protection, and certainly included the prophet in this. But why would it only be some?) Yeah...I know...I used a silly example. But the principle seems to apply across the board. We are promised safety in obedience...again and again and again. We are protected from Satan and his influence by adherence to faith to and obedience in Christ. We open ourselves to the influence of Satan by disobedience to and disregard for Christ. I think finding such teachings would be pretty easy. I think one might find a few obscure anecdotes of people being possessed even though they were being righteous...but they would only be that...stories. Stories that didn't align with known doctrinal principles to my understanding.

Yeah. It seems their conclusion is that because there isn't underrepresentation in the fields, that must mean it's bias. That's not a logical (dare I say...scientific) conclusion.

Jinx!

Curious. So...we do know that Mary was possessed of seven devils. Just out of curiosity...what sort of behavior do you believe leads to such a state? Or do you believe behavior is sometimes irrelevant to such a thing? A good and righteous person walking along and then all of a sudden...bam...possessed?

@JohnsonJones, I have no direct input on vaccinations, and despite having some wariness about the Covid vaccines, specifically, I am pro vaccine...so this question isn't really a counter -- just a related curiosity: How do you account for something like this: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/everyone-deserves-quality-medical-care-delivered-without-bias Particularly statements such as... "Despite widespread support from major medical associations for gender-affirming care as the accepted standard,..." and "Our AMA strongly opposes these types of discriminatory actions as dangerous government intrusions into the practice of medicine." I mean... apparently according to "science" anyone who considers gender affirming care wrong falls into the same category as you're placing anti-vaxxers. The AMA seems fully behind it. We religious fanatics need to trust the scientists/doctors, right? Like I said, I'm not standing up, full-stop, for anti-vaxxers. I find their positions moderately nutty, overall. But I find myself in, pretty much, exactly the same position as they are when it comes to gender issues. Makes me kind of think we're moving into an age where, indeed, science IS a religion. Well...really politics is...and the science is being corrupted by the politics. It sure feels that way with many things.