The Folk Prophet

I was thinking about my comment to @LDSGator last night and thought I actually needed to clarify it a bit. First, I wanted to state that the idea of the 3 Rs being important and everything else being icing is only theoretically the case for an individual, but it is NOT the case for society at large. If no one ever learned anything but reading, writing and arithmetic that would not be a better state than diversity of knowledge and learning. Second, the comment that everything else is icing isn't meant to imply that icing isn't good. What, after all, is cake without icing? Unappealing. Icing makes the cake. Third, in discussing it with my wife I had stated something along the lines of your point above... The important things to teach are actually 4 fold. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and.........wait for it........ a love of learning. Yep. That's exactly what I said to my wife. Well, it was that and how to learn sort of rolled up into a single concept. Learning to learn. So I appreciate what you've shared here. As it relates to the, which is better homeschooling or public schooling, question.... well I don't think there's an answer to that because the question isn't actually meaningful. It's the variables within either state that make either better or worse. Making the broader argument that one is better than the other is an argument about those variables. It's an argument that the overall variables involved in the public arena have changed or corrupted for the worse, making public schooling overall more dangerous, and that the variables involved in homeschooling have changed and improved, making homeschooling overall safer. That argument can never be applied individually without looking at the specific variables in the specific instance.

Seriously though. I don't recall a thing about high school chemistry. And yet I'm a functioning adult. Reading, writing, arithmetic. That's important. If you can't give your kids that you've got a problem. The rest is icing.

So what? A... who needs high school chemistry? and B... Google and Wikipedia have mastered it. 😀

I'll have to think on this. But my inclination is to not see it this way. I'm not saying no schooling is better. I'm saying they both feel as bad as each other in many cases. (I mean in the most grievous cases of terrible public schooling, no schooling might be better). I try and look at this from an eternal perspective. Who is better off? The uneducated or the corruptly educated? To be learned is good... but there's a big IF attached to that.

There are a few flaws with this thinking, imo. Firstly, it implies that drastic reform of policy, process, rules, etc., has any chance and actually reforming the issues at hand. It might help...maybe...but it's like any organization -- it's run by people. As long as the people therein are evil, the system will be evil, no matter what reform occurs. The reform needs to be in people's hearts or any system reform will fail. Secondly, and this I think matters as much, even if some level of system reform worked on the education system itself, it wouldn't reform/fix the other major problem I have with putting my kids into public education.......the other students. Even when I was in K-12 school in the 70s and 80s, looking back, the worst part was the other kids. I would not, even now, intentionally subject my children to the things I faced because of other kids. The bullying, the immoral influences, the bad examples, the importance of social hierarchy, etc. etc. Yes, I understand that children actually need to be exposed to these sorts of things. Kids have to face the bad to learn how to, you know...face it. But I believe 5 years old is too young for what they must face, even 40 years back...and much more so now. And what's going on with students now-a-days...I'm honestly not sure 12, 13, 14, etc., is even old enough. Depends on the kid, of course. And having not been totally destroyed at 5, 6, 7, perhaps 12, 13, 14 would be fine. I don't know. It's a huge challenge to consider. I lament that I must raise my children in such a world. And I don't know the answers, beyond the fact that there's no way I'm sending my kids to school at 5. And my motivation is not driven by the teachers' or the system's problems. It's driven by the other kids.

Batman was based on Zorro who was based on The Scarlet Pimpernel, the original superhero. That had nothing to do with the humorous anecdote offered. I just happened to read it the other day and thought, cool. I taught my 5 year old daughter the Batman smells version this Christmas.

This has been a point of......curiosity...maybe for me. I'm not sure that's the word. It's one of the few semi-critiques I have of the show. It doesn't, necessarily, diminish my enjoyment of the show. It's just one of those, "not how I'd have done it" things. But since we don't really know, we don't really know. There are some examples of this where I sort of just flat out think they're doing it wrong...like having Jesus needing to work out the details and then "practice" the sermon on the mount. Just feels wrong to me. But then there are the moments of Jesus's humor, about which I just don't know how to feel. I actually really love that they did it. I like the character. It's enjoyable and fun. Etc. But....... a lot of humor (including Jesus's in the show) is based on sarcasm. And sarcasm is a lie, ultimately. Everyone understands it's a lie, which is why it's funny. It's that understanding that makes sarcasm work. But when Jesus says something that is plainly false as a joke I struggle a bit with it. Because he's saying something untrue. (for example, Jesus might have a line like, "And we all know Peter never get's into fights with anyone...." and everyone laughs because Peter's known for having gotten into fights in the past.) Like I said, kind of more a curiosity than a complaint. I, personally, wouldn't dare do such a thing. Putting words into Jesus's mouth that aren't truth...nope....I wouldn't do it. But the fact that they did it hasn't really bothered me too much...because they're obviously jokes. But intellectually I'm aware of it and feel unsure.

FWIW, I recommend reading (or re-reading) Teaching in the Savior's Way and following the council therein prayerfully. In point of fact, I suggest everyone and anyone add a bit of reading from it to their daily scripture study.

I speculate that in the Celestial Kingdom we will all have the same personality. Which translates to the reality that we will be indistinguishable one from another. Which means it won't matter who we're sealed to in the end. It is the sealing that is important rather than individual personhood. This speculation doesn't tie into the topic at hand. It's just a speculation I'm making.

I don't think I can comment on this topic without being rude. So if everyone can just imagine what I said, that we got into a huge argument, and then finally I apologized for coming across rudely and walked away, I'd appreciate it. Seriously though....these sorts of discussions have me gnashing my teeth with frustration! Argh!

Almost everything should be declassified. A few things... nuclear codes, spies names, etc., qualify. The rest....declassify! Problem solved.

https://eppc.org/publication/a-science-based-case-for-ending-the-porn-epidemic/ This is a long read. But for anyone who has the patience, it was incredibly fascinating. Also incredibly scary. Beyond the porn epidemic itself, the implications re: homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, interest in trans stuff, etc., etc., are not in line with the established group think of the day at all (you're born that way, you can't help it, you can't change it, etc.) Note: He throws in the random conclusion at one point "The point is not to try to start a moral panic about the internet turning men gay—the point is that it’s not turning them gay." But the comment doesn't seem to align with the logic and evidence given behind the rest of the article at all. It seems like the more logical conclusion would be that it did, indeed, turn them gay, and then they did, indeed, stop being gay once they stopped feeding their brains on porn. But even that conclusion seems spurious. Drawing concrete black-and-white conclusions from such things when the reality is extremely complex and influenced by so many variables is problematic. Meaning, it seems reasonable, to me, to conclude that satisfying the shock lure that in turn feeds our brain certain chemicals and alters our brain chemistry is almost certainly a factor in sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a one-to-one reality of sexual orientation either. tldr responses are welcome, btw, but just be aware.... you may not know what you're talking about then. And just because of how fascinating the concepts are, I recommend taking the time and actually reading the article. There's a lot of value there when it comes to thinking through these issues.

FWIW, I think the potential of the future ending up like any movie has about at much chance as did Back to the Future II's prediction about it. I think the accuracy therein was...what...0%?

My point is that you seem to be equating the idea of a "witness" with an "ah ha" moment...or that at least you seem to imply that you think @CV75 is only referring to that. But I believe (he (she? sorry?) can correct me if I'm wrong) that having an "ah ha" moment is a reaction, not the witness itself. The witness merely is. It's something that occurs. It's like being a witness to anything. You either saw the guy steal the car or you didn't. You either heard the gunshot or you didn't. You either felt something or you did not. You either had a thought enter your head or you did not. If you are a witness to something then you are. Period. Whether one responds emotionally to that, or whether one thinks, "Ah ha" or not doesn't change the reality of the witness, or the fact that one could, if one so chooses, bear testimony of what one is a witness of. The Spirit bears witness of something that the Spirit has witnessed, and then we can bear witness of what the Spirit has communicated to us. But the Spirit has born witness to me of various things many times that were not "Ah ha" moments. That's because, for the most part, when the Spirit bears witness to me it is a confirmation of something I already know or believe or have had a witness of prior. It might remind me of the power of the original witness, but it isn't an "Ah ha". More importantly, I think (and this goes to @CV75's point I believe), sometimes people are given a witness and ignore it, deny it, or otherwise consider it flawed at some level or another. They still have the experience. They merely don't respond with an "Ah ha". I hope that makes my point clear.

I'll also be happy to ditch capitalism once replicators are invented.

Who said the witnessing of something or other had to be an "ah ha" moment?

It can...but it's not key. And, frankly, it runs the risk of the whole meat before milk thing. The milk is testimony. Explanations are useless without that testimony. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I have to refer to the process whereby we have been taught to know of the truth of the gospel. Read the Book of Mormon, ponder it, and get on one's knees, seeking the truth from God with humility and faith. None of the other stuff, ultimately, really matters. I mean it can help for certain people in certain situations. But it will never actually be key to knowing God. There is only one key to knowing God. That is the witness of the Holy Spirit. That is the means we are to find and know God and His truth on this earth. Therefore, the best we can do is what guides others to follow that path.

I've been watching Motley Crue documentaries the last few. Does that count?

I was thinking about stigmatization the other day and had the thought that in some ways it was/is healthier for a society to stigmatize certain things. Of course the current narrative is that doing so leads to suicide. I think that's clearly nonsense and can easily be seen by the numbers. It strikes me that having something societally disapproved of actually suppresses it. And I don't mean it just keeps everyone "in the closet" about any given matter. It does that too...and I'm not entirely sure that's so bad either...but not what I mean. I think it actually suppresses the existence of certain things in certain people. I'm not sure on my thinking though. Despite the fact that I had this thought, it's hard for me to buy into a narrative that we should mistreat people. That doesn't seem right. And I can't reconcile the idea that society should stigmatize certain people but we as individuals should not. Maybe at some point in the future I'll unify those ideas somehow and come back and share my brilliant idea with you all. 😋

So I get what you're saying and somewhat agree in theory. In practice, however, my cynicism is strong. And I believe justifiably so. There are just certain things that scream "red flag"! For example, my wife's cousin's wife (I'll just call her a cousin moving forward for ease's sake)... I heard from my wife's aunt that this cousin was reading a certain book. I can't recall what the book was, but I was familiar with it and just the fact that she was reading it was immediately a big ol' red flag. My gut sense was "Whoa...that's not good." I think I even expressed some concern to my wife's aunt. Anyhow, a year down the road and, surprise, surprise, this cousin and her husband announced they were leaving the church. Do I take any pleasure that my gut feeling was right? No. It is heartbreaking. Am I under the logical delusion that my gut feelings are always right? No. Do I believe that everyone who's ever read a "Ol' Jo was a con-man and a lecher" type book lost their testimony and left the church? No, I don't. But I do have gut feelings about certain things that seem to turn out to be correct an awful lot. And, frankly, I think most people, if honest with themselves, would have the same gut feelings. I think there's this general view that we're somehow meant to suppress all such feelings and stare blankly and daftly at such issues as if we don't have any discernment abilities at all. How dare we judge, after-all, right? But here's the thing: when I heard about my cousin reading said book, I maintained a firm hope. I did suppress the gut feeling to an extent in favor of that hope. I understand the desire to not pre-judge or assume the worst when you hear certain things. I could have been wrong, after all. Maybe the cousin could have been reading the book for academic purposes and had no testimony struggles behind the event whatsoever. I have enough discernment and intelligence to pretty well know that wasn't the case, however. But I still maintained hope I was wrong. But I wasn't. People declaring themselves gay in a "coming out" type public move is a huge red flag. All the arguments about how it's "the same" as other struggles people are struggling against might have logical validity, but the gut feeling remains. Part of that is experience. How often do we see said people remain faithful after coming out? Sure...it happens. But more often then not, it seems, the writing's on the wall. But the other part is just my sense of logic. I don't buy the reasons people give for coming out. Helping others. Showing humility. All those ideas...it doesn't feel right. My gut tells me it's pride, not humility, that generally seems to drive coming out. It's my sense that the individuals who keeps said issues largely to themselves are significantly more likely to be the faithful who struggle to overcome in likewise manner to other struggles. But I also understand that isn't going to be an absolute truth. You may gather, from my comments, that my larger issue is the public coming out, rather than the struggle itself. I think that is probably accurate. Another, related issue, is that I believe certain sins just ought to be kept to oneself. I don't believe the "confess them" part of the equation means publicly. And this is particularly true when it comes to sexually related issues. I don't want people standing up in sacrament meeting and telling my 5-year-old how they prefer their sex. I don't want the "Daddy, what's pornography?", "Daddy, what's a lesbian?", "Daddy, what's adultery?", "Daddy, what's sodomy?", or the like type question because of church. I don't need to know the detail that Billy-bob likes boys, and I definitely don't want to have to explain that to my young children. And I highly question the motives of those who want to get up in front of children and "confess" their sexual proclivities. I understand kids are going to come across stuff like that and it has to be dealt with. That doesn't, however, mean people shouldn't worry about keeping such matters private, as they ought to be. That's not to say I think those who come out publicly in forums where children won't know of it means there are no red flags jumping. It's just a side-note. Here are some detailed replies to your questions: Yes. I'd say "worried" is a better description than "ticked off". Yes. I think "taking issue" is accurate. I do take issue with it. @Vort and @Anddenex addressed this in part. My red flag commentary above addresses other parts of it. There's probably more to my taking issue with it too that I haven't been able to articulate yet. But this is correct. I do take issue with it. Yes. I do see a difference. And it is a massive difference. And if, in those cases where my red flag feelings are wrong, one remains committed because their admission isn't based in some level of embracing and feeding then hooray. But part of my concern is that the public admission feels an awful lot like a form of embracing and feeding. It may not be feeding it a full-on main course. But it sure feels like a little snack, if nothing else. But in the cases where it isn't, I think we agree. Identity politics, for one. FWIW, AA and similar programs that teach "I'm a [whatever]" have never fully set well (sat well??) with me. I've never much cared for the idea of "once you're this, you're always this" type ideas. I dislike the concept. I understand the admission of the problem idea. But beyond that, declaring oneself as such a thing seems kind of problematic to me. I mean I get why. It kind of makes sense. Sort of. It just seems like at a certain point one ought to be able to say they aren't what they were. Isn't that what repentance is all about? Anyhow...just a side thought. I'm not sure I've given it enough thought to really discuss. I have no idea. How many LDS folk suffer in silence? Do those who suffer in silence do so because they haven't bought the push? Have all those who come out done so because of that push? Who knows. I'd guess those who publicly come out generally have bought into it. In fact that seems (from my perception and experience) to be the common narrative they give behind their decision to come out. Yes. Though I still think declaring oneself "gay" is problematic from the get go. But, yes, I believe that. Yes. It's a tricky question due to the somewhat broad semantic understanding people have of "sinning". I think a better way to ask it would be to ask if a person who believes that about themselves can be worthy. The answer to that is clearly a yes. But if anything that isn't perfection is sin then anything that isn't perfect is something to strive to overcome and not be. And accepting that one just "is" imperfect and it cannot be overcome is not a perfect way to think, and is therefore, semantically speaking, sinful. But does everyone who thinks of themselves as "gay" think they cannot overcome it? Probably not. And an even more complicated question: does one engaging in certain activities that are less than ideal at one level or another, but doing so innocently, qualify those activities as sinful? I think that has to be accounted for. I believe it is wrong to declare oneself "gay" as an identity. But if someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, and does so in good faith, committed to doing right, but in the end I'm correct and they're mistaken, did they really sin? I mean if you flip that around and say in the end that they were right and I was mistaken does it mean I could be currently engaged in sin with my views? I'd like to think not? And so I have to understand that their actions, although I consider them wrong, perhaps ought not be labelled "sin", in that sin requires knowledge and understanding.

You bring up some interesting thoughts. I'll try and reply in detail tomorrow. Hopefully my response will be interesting as well.

@MrShorty The inclination of homosexuals or heterosexuals to prioritize sex isn't really the core point I'm getting at. It's the response by others to that prioritization that I'm really commenting on. It's the "heroically deciding to be their authentic selves" narrative that differs now-a-days. I believe that social responses of that sort do play a role into why homosexuals might prioritize sexual fulfillment higher, but it's not a point meant to be some sort of universal blanket of truth. I am merely musing about how and why there might be challenges for homosexuals above and beyond those of heterosexuals in various regards. There are certainly challenges of heterosexual lust above and beyond homosexual lust too.

FWIW, my interpretation is as follows (2 points): First, there is likely meaning in the fact they used the word is and not the word was. It does not say "the Church disavows that black skin was ever a sign of a curse". That is a different meaning than the way it was phrased. The theory that it is, point blank, de facto, always a sign of a curse is disavowed. The theory that it was, ever, in certain instances, for a time, a sign of a curse, was not said. 2ndly, and this may or may not be grasping at straws, there may be meaning to the fact that they specifically say "black" skin, which is generally understood to be those of black African decent who were denied the priesthood (which is the subject of the essay). It seems to not be referring to the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites, who are certainly not considered "black" in today's nomenclature. That being said, there's still Moses 7:8 and 22 (and Moses 5:40, relatively) to deal with. Which doesn't specifically speak of a "curse", but in plain reading does seem to be just that regarding the children of Canaan. Which, yeah.... based on the essay quotation you gave and method 1 as described by @Vort, it's probably best for the general member to interpret that scripture in a way that doesn't subscribe to the plain reading of it as a "curse" of any sort at this current time -- unless one allows for my first point (as I do), that there may well have been times where such a thing was a curse (or sign of a curse, as it were), but that doesn't mean it is the eternal reality of black skin.

@NeuroTypical, another thought I just had about the struggle difference, which is also an attitude/thinking issue imo, is that when one is heterosexual, when one gets into a situation where one cannot be sexually fulfilled by one's ideal sexual ideas, one accepts that that doesn't, ultimately matter. But for some reason in the homosexual world, that ends up being the main thing that matters. That's a dangerous idea. You have a man who's wife has gotten older, saggy, wrinkly, fat, etc. and he accepts it. I even know many men who have married someone who isn't attractive. And they know it. Sure, his most natural self would prefer a 20-something, perky, smooth-skinned vixen. He puts that aside. Daily. He knows that's not what's actually important. But then we see these guys like Ed Smart, who after having father's children with a woman*, decides that his interest in dudes is the priority over family and gospel, and casts it all aside for that interest, for some sort of unicorny "fulfillment". I use Ed Smart because he's a public figure, but I know many, many instances of the same. I'm not saying no man ever leaves his older wife for a younger, hotter woman. Of course. But as a general rule, society (especially in the church) looks down on that. Men who leave their wife and family to be gay are often celebrated as courageous. Of course on the other side of the coin, men who leave their old wife for a younger one, but stay faithful in the church, can, after a time, move past all such judgment. They can move on to have a happy, fulfilled, and righteous life with the younger woman. They can even, presumably, fully repent of it even if they did it for lustful wrong reasons, and even if they don't leave the younger woman to remarry the old one (I can't really judge that, of course.) They can overcome the lust, remain faithful to the new woman even as she ages, etc. But a gay man who left a woman for a man can have no such thing. He must, indeed, leave the man to be faithful again. * I added this to make a point. If a man has obviously "slept" with his wife then he has an outlet for sexual intimacy. People like to talk about not being attracted to a person as if that's the end all of sexual intimacy. And yet they accept that a man with an ugly wife can still be sexually "satisfied" but the gay man who's having sexual activity with a woman cannot. Moreover, the implication in the church membership seems to be that somehow that man never having sex again and staying entirely celibate (including self pleasure) is the better option than having sexual activity with someone who isn't as attractive to them. I dunno. Seems like flawed thinking to me. I know the recommendation to marry a woman if you're gay in the church is no longer en vogue. But I think, once more, that's a reaction to a societal attitude problem based in the corrupt concept that fulfilling one's sexual lusts is the key to happiness. And, sure...if a gay man literally cannot get aroused with a woman...that might be something else (not something I actually believe is generally true, any more than I believe a 100% straight man couldn't get aroused intentionally with another dude**). But when a man's fathered children with a woman............ I mean..... you know. ** This is something that is very difficult to talk about (especially here) because it requires uncomfortable (or inappropriate) discussion. Especially for straight men. The idea that they could, actually, have another guy start doing stuff to them and certain things would happen in response is something they don't want to even think about. Understandably. But it strikes me that whether one wants to think that such a thing is possible or not, it is reality. As is demonstrated by, if nothing else, all the gay guys who have fathered children.