The Folk Prophet

The problem is that Traveler is working with a different definition/view of what agency means. He has this convoluted, manufactured, over-complicated view of the matter, but then tries communicating it without even bothering to acknowledge that he's doing this. I don't think it's intentional on his part...but it causes a great deal of confusion. Agency seems to be a principle that people struggle with. (There are a few other principles that have the same problem). I don't know why. It seems like a simple principle to me. But it's one that seems to be constantly misunderstood. Of course most people, in my view, misunderstand it by over-simplifying it. But then, every so often, you have people that over-complicate it. It seems like there are certain people who tend to overcomplicate everything.

@zil2 I don't have specific thoughts or interpretations, but anxiously await yours.

We had a family in our ward where the wife was Japanese. After a few years, they decided to stop attending their local ward to instead go to a Japanese ward somewhere. But...and here's the big thing... the only reason a "Japenese" ward exists is because of the language. Not the race. If there are language issues, it makes sense. Like having Spanish wards. But separating out because of skin color would be terrible. That's essentially some of what the report was proposing. Let's divide everyone further by separating out those based on skin color into a special place where they can be segregated from white people. That idea's being proposed everywhere and it's shocking. It would make more sense if it wasn't about skin color. Like having a Polynesian club or something because of cultural appreciation. But making it about skin color is...well......racist.

I distinctly recall my dad telling a joke once where there were people working in a mine, and the supervisor assigned everyone (who were different races) to be in charge of different things. The Chinese guy got assigned to be in charge of the supplies. Then, later, the supervisor couldn't find him. He looked, here, there, everywhere. No Chinese guy. He finally searched deep into the mine and the Chinese guy jumps out from behind a mine cart and yells, "SUPPLIES!" That's about the extent of any "racist" jokes in my home growing up.

But it is a problem when it becomes "forced" diversity of race and personalities. Can you imagine if they applied the standards suggested to the church? All of a sudden my ward is a BIG problem. Because...you know...white. So, obviously, racist, right? Anyone of the BIPOC community who feels uncomfortable in my ward...well... obviously we need to have a special meeting place for them...and classes just for them...and ensure we always have BIPOC folk in the bishopric and other leadership...and we have to convince more BIPOC folk to move into the neighborhood...etc., etc... Because otherwise....RACISM! It's the forced diversity that becomes the problem.

Same. Maybe at the end everything is set aright.

So I was reading an article on this and it led me to the Race, Equity, and Belonging report. And I gotta say, reading through it, I was pretty profoundly disturbed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting I disbelieve there is racism at BYU. Nor do I believe BYU shouldn't be doing more to deal with it. But THIS?! I really don't get how a group of educators can seem so woefully uneducated on how to think about these sorts of things. I mean just take the basic premise: "Black, indigenous, and other people of color" (BIPOC) feel unsafe. So one has to ask...why? Right? The question is why. And the answer? Why, racism, of course. That's just the answer. No further exploration needed. They literally mention DezNat in the report. We've discussed that in another thread. No one even considers that people being scared for their lives MIGHT....just maybe...be a problem with the people scared for their lives* rather than silly memes? No one? Of course not. DezNat is a euphemism for Nazi. Right? No further exploration, thought, or understanding needed. That's the problem! Yeah. And some of the other conclusions... Someone in the BIPOC community comes to predominantly white Utah and then deals with some culture shock...(which, of course, is then called "racism")...and one of the proposed solutions... less white people! Really? I mean it's truly, legitimately shocking to me the way these educators seem to think. And, as it relates to this thread, for anyone who cares...the top signatory on the report: Shane Reese. On a side note: my niece on my wife's side once posted on Facebook about this "amazing" book she'd been assigned at BYU that had opened her eyes to her white culpability (that book being How to Be and Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi). Am I truly shocked that concepts that buy into this sort of thing (critical race theory, etc) have bled into educational thinking at BYU? No...no I am not. But as to the potential of seeing any changes for the better in this sort of regard from the new president............................................................ I am thoroughly disenchanted with higher education. For some reason I expect BYU to do better. Because, obviously, the key to solving any victimhood mentality issues is to coddle them, right? Make sure they're never uncomfortable, never have to feel marginalized or teased or looked down upon or insecure or like they don't fit in. We all know that's the key to growing up and becoming a useful member of society, right? And, obviously, those of us who are white never feel those things. *No one considers the cultural "victimhood" and stirred up politics of the matter? No once considers the trophy society we live in as potentially culpable? No one considers social media? Racial fearmongering? Etc., etc.? Nope. It's just white people are racists. Obviously.** **So my daughter (6) is playing a video game currently called Dreamlight Valley. She loves to change the look of her character all the time. One of the things she did, at one point, was make herself into a "goblin". In doing so, she chose the skin color option that was the darkest (essentially black). Perfectly reasonable thinking for a 6-year-old, and entirely unrelated to anything to do with race. I was at a bit of a loss whether to say or do anything of it (I did not, ultimately). Sure, it could be a teaching moment about race...but then that also introduces racial issues to a child who has no sense of it at all, nor should she. She doesn't think of Tiana as a "black" princess. Tiana's just a princess. One she loves. She doesn't think of skin color differences any differently than she thinks of hair color or eye color differences. "Race" isn't meaningful to her. And whereas I know, at some point, I'll have to have the race conversation and make sure she's ready to tread the stupid culture we live in, I didn't feel it was the moment. Anyhow...the thought I had was how innocent it was, and yet how offensive it would be to certain people in certain situations. And, honestly, that's what I feel a lot of "racism" amounts to. It's innocence being interpreted as hurtful and malicious. People taking offence when there is nothing offensive. As I said earlier, I'm sure there are legitimate instances of legitimate racism at BYU. But I find myself truly skeptical that most of what was reported in said report actually qualifies.

...or...it won't be.

Probably correct. But my point is that this Ramaswamy is, imo, not going to be the dark horse. I've seen some commentary that DeSantis's response to Trump's potential arrest has ruined his political career. I think that's overstated...but it's such a fickle, weird game, that who knows. In my point of view (which, when it comes to politics isn't very meaningful), it'll go one of two ways. If not Trump, either the Repub candidate will be milk toast, or extreme. My guess is milk toast. Either way, in the end, I assume, we'll end up with another 4 years of Biden. But SO much can still happen. So we'll see. And, frankly, I've basically gotten to the point where I can't bring myself to care. Because caring is just a good way to be disappointed.

I would vote for him. But...he doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck. Not unless they actually, you know...arrest Trump, throw him in jail, disqualify him from running, and DeSantis chooses not to run. Then....maybe.

Re the whole lists thing: Here's my take. What I tend to believe is the we are imperfect people and, consequently, there's really no perfect system for us, as a whole. As @Carborendum suggested, lists work wonders for some. For others they're terrible. I've heard it expressed that Ministering is the new "higher" way and Home Teaching was the old "lower" way. The thinking is understandable. But I don't believe it. I don't think one was higher and the other lower. They're just different. Ministering is right for our time. I'll trust that. It's not that certain things can't be considered higher or lower. I understand that. That's not the question to me. The question is better or worse. And, as has been suggested, that's subjective. Was everyone born under the Law of Moses better suited to such a law? Is everyone born now better suited to live without the Law of Moses? Somehow I doubt it. Sure...the Law of Moses was a lesser law. There's meaning in that beyond effectiveness. If it was a matter of effectiveness then we'd all be born under the same law. We are all born with different situations under different laws, different cultures, different etc., etc. Then we think (quite arrogantly, I might add) that we have it figured out and know the most effective way. I doubt it. The thing that tends to bother me in any of these sorts of discussions is that arrogance. And not for the arrogance itself. That'll happen here and there. I'm certainly guilty. It's the arrogance that leads to judgmental holier-than-thou-ness. That's the part that bothers me. Of course I'm guilty of that too. And it's complicated. There's a certain level where we can safely say that we should all see things the same, and anyone who doesn't see it that way is at risk. I think that's fair to a certain degree. But that level is faith, obedience, and repentance. It's not in esoteric views of whether Jesus is our "elder brother" or not. But it's more than that... (here's where the complicated comes more into play). It's one thing to believe we need to believe a certain way. It's another to look down our noses at others for believing differently. That's a challenge. How can we believe something is true and important without also looking down our noses at those who see it differently? And then, to complicate up the matter even further...we do our best to preach what we believe to be true, and also do our best to do so humbly and without pride or arrogance, and other's are still offended and still take our views as holier-than-thou. Challenging. What I do believe, however, is that there are clearly those who are just arguing against things in the church because they are trying to justify themselves. And then there are others who are sincere, humble, doing their best, but see things differently -- and perhaps wrongly. I think I can tell the difference. Maybe not. But should we be treating these two in the same manner? Part of me says no...speak truth bluntly. But part of me (a part that's winning out in my current state of thinking) say to give the latter the STRONG benefit of the doubt -- as I would hope others give to me when I am wrong. And perhaps that's true of those trying to justify themselves...because don't we all do that too? I don't know. I'm still fumbling in my attempts to understand how to approach a lot of these things.

I disbelieve that anyone understands such a concept to mean the eating of the bread and drinking of the water are magic pills/ potions that cleanse sin themselves. Or that they can, for example, watch porn just before church and then be completely free of the consequences of that with nothing but the eating and drinking.

Perhaps you think very differently than I do on what separation means. In point of fact, it would be no different, functionally, than giving governing rights back primarily to the States. I don't want Californians and New Yorkers compelling me legally to accept their perversions by way of law. The Federal government consistently takes upon itself more and more power, and fairly consistently moves to the left. Unification with that power means being compelled by it. As they force me and other like-minded individuals or entities to accept their moral codes by way of law, I don't tend to want to unify under that standard. You seem to be suggesting that a division of said power would mean we would lose accessibility to them, like...they wouldn't allow missionaries, churches, God-fearing individuals, etc., to visit or even exist among them. But I'm suggesting that if they are going that direction, (which they seem to be) and we are unified with them, then we go in that direction as well, by force of their laws. It strikes me that it might be better they do it without compelling us to do likewise, and that would be significantly more beneficial to those kept from the truth because they know not where to find it than having that truth swallowed by force into larger "unity". But.... and this is a big but.....it's a meaningless debate. National divorce isn't a possibility. It can't happen. It won't happen. I think fighting for State's rights is the better fight.

I'm still not wearing a danged mask!

Must we be a unified nation to shine a light in the darkness?

Interesting. I have never equated "elder brother" with "big buddy". That being said, other than the language of "big buddy" itself being less solemn than appropriate, the concept doesn't feel diminutive unless it's diametrically in opposition to the Christ's role, which it is not. In fact, it's interesting that you inject a sense of "reduced" to the matter at all. The primary times I've seen Christ "reduced" to nothing but a "big buddy" is outside the Church....speaking of less solemn than appropriate: In contrast, I have seen arguments made concerning other points of doctrine coming from those not of our church that claim our views diminish God. As in the idea that believing we can become as God is diminishes God somehow. Or that God having a physical body diminishes him. Etc. But, once again, I've primarily heard this from those not of our church. Alternately, I've heard many within the church argue that God being a "normal" man at one point who went through "normal" mortality would diminish Him. And therefore they argue that God must have been the Savior of His mortality. Whereas I know that might be the case...the implication that He would be diminished if it were not the case... I wonder what the difference is in thinking or, perhaps, in how I was taught. None of these things would diminish God in any way. All power, all love, and all knowledge is all power, all love, and all knowledge.

This is a much better question than my leading ones.

Okay, so you believe the prophets and apostles are, at times, tools of the devil and are leading us all astray with misleading and false teachings. That part's clear. But as to how the belief that Jesus is our elder brother destroys our potential for exaltation...?? How does looking at the name of the church address that question?

Help me understand... You think that believing Jesus Christ is our brother is leading people away from Him? That people are losing out on their exaltation because of that belief? Moreover... you believe that something that has been taught in manuals, expressed in hundreds if not thousands of church talks, and is generally believe by almost every faithful member in the church, is actually a lie from Satan? That Brigham Young, Parley P Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, Thomas S. Monson, and the like were tools of Satan?

What a strange this to say, and an even stranger emotional response. Why, on earth, would this be "irritating"? The things some people find to annoy themselves.

FWIW, modern fertility treatment creates children "after the manner of the flesh" without the need for sexual intercourse. It's always been strange to me that people feel the need to work out the details of these things though. Can we not simply accept the literal truth of Jesus being God and Mary's physical son without profaning them? Seems a reasonable idea to me. Accordingly, I won't comment further on the matter.

While it is true that "racist" has been expanded to mean other things, the accusation of "racist" has not. Accordingly I reject the expanded meaning.

I do not believe this.

Not saying I disagree... but cannot help but consider the founding of the country and the related riotous (and, indeed, war inducing) actions when trying to judge these matters. I'm not suggesting that good people should be rioting. I just cannot help but wonder on such matters.

It strikes me that this point of view may be the root of why we see this differently.