The Folk Prophet

I haven't fully followed this thread or read through the details of what JJ wrote, so this isn't meant to refer to him, but I've seen others argue similarly. And I always have to wonder how they reconcile stories like Job, among others, with such an idea.

I wonder if he's still see it that way with the astounding drop in religious affiliation that's occurred since. I was going to suggest that he'd maybe view the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ stuff as more threatening...but then I realized that most of Christianity seems to have embraced that stuff and doesn't view it as a threat at all.

Haha. Well... a few things. 1. You're probably right, and probably less than ideal of me. But: 2. I've been around and seen enough of PC's posts and thoughts to think I know that, yes, while he would, ideally, see us all converted away from our faith traditions to his, that doesn't mean he would wish to do so by staging a sit-in in our chapels so we cannot attend, nor does he even come anywhere CLOSE to believing the idea that our church and faith traditions are equivalent in wrongness to a drag queen reading time session. 3. I must admit that bringing PC into the matter was a tactic. For which, if I have made him uncomfortable, I apologize. But the tactic was just that...does @Just_A_Guy really think people like PC believe "Mormonism" is in any way equivalent to transvestites on display for kids? But the weakness of the tactic (which JaG may well point out because...you know...he's JaG....) is that PC is clearly not representative of all "Christian" ministers or the like out there, in that he's part of this forum and they are not. That and his behavior and input is civil, respectful, and fair. The fact that PC is like that is possibly (probably) an anomaly. Particularly when we see a lot of other so-called "Christian" folk come in and behave rather badly regarding our doctrine. No. If @prisonchaplain considered my being a Latter-day Saint just as problematic and evil as were I a groomer transvestite it would bother me.

It's really context based, which was the point I was trying to make with @Just_A_Guy. We believe there's Christ's church and the church of the Devil. Which means that from a certain point of view we believe all faiths that are not part of what we believe to be Christ's legitimate church are part of the the church of the Devil. But we can understand that there are degrees. It's not like understanding that means we believe you're either a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or you're a Satan worshipper. I expect that's true of most reasonable Christians too. It's a context thing. From their perspective, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of their idea of the church of the Devil in the same way we believe theirs is. And their goal, accordingly, just as ours, would be to lead as many as possible to believe in their "correct" faith tradition instead of the corrupted faith tradition. I'll grant there's more of a narrative in our church now-a-days to see the good in other faiths, which narrative doesn't exist in other Christian denominations. But I still think that narrative is in context to the battle being fought. Sure...if we're talking about conversion the "Christian" goal is to eradicate "Mormonism". They don't want us preaching or teaching, leading souls away from their ideas of God and truth. But when it comes to fighting for child protection or the like, I don't think that's an argument against us joining together in a cause. Moreover, I don't think most reasonable people, no matter what faith, would be like, "We must defeat pornography, the trans epidemic, the homosexual agenda, and.......the Mormons. Because all are equivalent!" Don't get me wrong. I have no delusions that there aren't some "Christian" preachers and denominations who do just that. I just don't think it's as common or pervasive as suggested, or that it means we're acting the hypocrite by joining together with other Christians to fight against these things because they see us in a negative light. I expect they see it in a hierarchy or priority. Just_A_Guy's argument that the sit-in is the wrong method is fine. But applying the "they'd do the same to us if they could" idea doesn't connect. Because surely, were the method correct per his thinking, JaG would agree that joining forces with other like minded individuals who also happen to belong to other church's, some hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to legally, politically, and culturally curb these damaging things is a good idea. And that refusing to join with them because they would legally, politically, and culturally remove all Mormonism from the world isn't related to whether we should join hands in noble and good causes in the proper time, place, and way.

I don't think anyone really cares about the R-rating so much as the WHY the movies are rated R. Moreover...I think that interpreting discussion points as being "dogged" is a bit of a mischaracterization. But suggesting that people who don't think watching shows with nudity, extreme violence or gore, and tons of f-bombs is a good idea, that must mean they would therefore have a problem with "rock music" doesn't equate. FWIW, I love Metallica. One of my favorites. But I will not listen to Am I Evil or Last Caress. There is, certainly, a bit of "just for good measure" when it comes to members not watching R-rated shows. For example.... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is rated R. But good golly....why?!? It's SO mellow compared to even most PG-13 movies nowadays. I think there's a strong case to be made that disregarding that rating is fine. That being said...I certainly wouldn't think badly of someone who determined to not watch it "just for good measure", so to speak, because of the rating. But I'm pretty positive there aren't many who would doggedly demand that another not watch it because of the rating either. If someone is watching Babylon or The Wolf of Wall Street or the like then that's another matter. Rate them R...NC-17, PG-13, or G and I'd still say they shouldn't be viewed. It's the content. But to suggest that my view on those equals "how dare you listen to that devil music?!?" is just silly. I will say, however, that my views on the "no R-rating" thing has changed somewhat in recent times.

But you can say that about anything. "Instead of thinking about our jobs we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord." "Instead of thinking about our homes, (or vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc. etc.,) we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord. The problem, of course, is that it's not entirely true. We should be thinking about politics, our jobs, homes, vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc., etc. AND we should be thinking about obedience to the Lord. More importantly, the way we think about all of these things should be primarily informed by obedience to the Lord. Also, we've been counselled by the Lord's prophets to get involved politically. So if we're thinking about obedience to the Lord by way of hearkening unto the counsel of his anointed servants, then we must be thinking about politics at some level. The prophet (and the apostles) have counselled us to get involved politically, and have also continually declared themselves politically neutral, very rarely giving specific counsel in such. So I'm just not sure this sort of comment answers much when it comes to politics. I mean @Just_A_Guy and I see this issue differently. I'm fairly certain we're both doing our best to follow the prophet. @JohnsonJones and I wildly differ in political views. But I am confident he, also, is doing his best to follow the prophet. You and I often disagree on many issues. But I know you believe it when you say to follow the prophet. "Follow the prophet" is a starting point. But you seem to be implying that we bury our heads in the sand on politics. I have no doubt that if the prophet or apostles explicitly said, "vote this way" or "don't attend this or that", etc., that we'd mostly all follow that counsel to the letter. But they don't. Instead they give us principles and tell us to get involved as best we can and as best we know how. And I have no doubt that many of us are screwing it up pretty badly in our approaches or thoughts. In that I realize that, and realize it might well be me who's screwing it up, I feel it behooves me to be pretty forgiving of others who see it differently than I do. I know good people who go to rallies and marches and the like all the time. I know others who (like me) would never do such a thing. And I have confidence that in that matter neither has the advantage when it comes to being a wheat or a tare. I know many very good people who believe that supporting Disney in any regard is terrible and all good people should never give their money to Disney again. I know other very good people who are going to Disneyland this year. Are some of them wheat and some of them tares? Which of them are following the prophet? Has the prophet counselled us in a way that we can even begin to make such a choice. There are so many choices like this that people who try to follow the prophet make very differently. For example, my grandparents, way back in the 80s an 90s, had a video store. They had to struggle with the decision as to whether they'd carry R-rated movies or not. It was a challenge for them, but ultimately they decided that they would. At the time, I questioned that decision. I questioned the decision to open a video store at all where they even had to make such a choice. My grandparents were good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet people. Another example: my father worked for Nuskin for several decades as a computer programmer. Although he wasn't directly involved in it, I believed Nuskin to be a predatory, evil company (in that they primarily make profit through multi-level-marketing). And I couldn't help but struggle with the idea of whether working for an evil company or not was right. My father is a good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet man. I could go on. Hopefully what I'm getting at will be clear.

Maybe, just maybe....defining someone by their generation is just as problematic as defining them by their race.

So... since @Just_A_Guy and I see differently on this issue...one of must must be a tare?

You know they have drag events for "all ages' in Provo too, right?

You made the point that "the Church" loses spectacularly and catastrophically when things become physical. I was pointing out that this isn't "the Church" vs. the mob. It's half the country vs. half the country. Really it's more than that if people would get involved. I'm not using it as justification for violence. I'm simply saying that your argument that "the Church" loses when things turn physical isn't a correct paradigm. I'm saying the premise of your argument in this point is flawed. I think the premise here is flawed too, in that I think the fight IS being carried out via the political, legal, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual arenas...and it's not being effective in many cases, and these sorts of actions are, in part, a response to that reality. I also think your implication that there was "intimidation" involved here is wrong. I mean I can't speak for everyone involved. But as I read it, these weren't big, burly folk carrying baseball bats and chains. That being said... and I'm not sure this is directly related, the intimidation idea just made me think of it...l My father-in-law was a member of a group called BACA for several decades. For anyone unfamiliar, that's Bikers Against Child Abuse. One of the things they engaged in was escorting in certain situations where there was need. They did this escorting exactly for the purpose of intimidation in order to ensure peace and security. The children and adults involved could more confidently travel to the appropriate courts and what-have-you knowing a bunch of burly bikers had their backs. That was the idea at least. I'm curious if you have a view on BACA. I expect you're familiar with them. Like I said...not exactly related (except in a very conceptual way, I suppose). On a side side note: My father in law only looked like a biker in that he had a big beard and wore black leather when he rode. Otherwise, he used the beard for a different purpose. This painting is of my father-in-law: Anyhow...back to the "disruptive" idea... I'm just not convinced that such a thing is wrong. The "how" you disrupt matters. One (with enough money) could disrupt, for example, by purchasing a major social network company to allow more free speech. Or one could lie down in the freeway to block traffic. One could run a campaign to boycott something. Or one could burn down buildings. All these things are "disruptive" and not specifically the political. legal, cultural, or what-have-you arena. Some of them are good ideas. Some of them are terrible evil ideas. Though one could make the argument that all of them could be good ideas in the right time and place. This particular instance at the library strikes me as falling somewhere in between a good idea and a not-so-great idea. I'm not making the argument that it IS the way, and it definitely SHOULD have happened, and we should ALL be doing likewise. I don't know on that matter. I am, however, judging it a lot less harshly than you. In fact I'm judging it as a net positive thing. I do not see it as the end all perfect response however. I don't think that's the point. As you correctly pointed out, the kids of the parents who would take their kids to such an event are probably pretty doomed whether there are drag shows at the library or not. My point is that having drag shows in the community, just like having strip clubs or bars, actually affects the community. The idea here is to curb these things. I don't think the objective is a one time preservation of 2 or 3 or 10 children. It's to remove the offending event from the community. It's one battle in a war. It may not be the most effective tactic...though in this case there was was positive result in that the article stated the Library is reconsidering holding such events moving forward. The idea is that if the people putting on drag shows for children don't get the children or the people who want to see said show, but instead a bunch of sour-faced conservatives sitting there with crossed arms and not really watching...and again and again this is the case...how long before they give up? It's a long game related to community standards. It's not a single case of saving a single kid from witnessing a single thing. And it's about building momentum against the ideology. It's getting people talking. It's helping to put people in the know. It's generating news articles. It's making people aware. It's causing debate. As much as I'm not a fan of street protests, I have to reluctantly admit that they ARE part of the equation when it comes to social change. Maybe I missed it when you suggested such a thing, and you assumed I tacitly agreed then. But that isn't the case. I would assume the proper "how" has been, and is being tried, but it is failing. Per my best understanding, the proper "how" is getting shut down again and again across the country. Those in power, by and large, seem to have bought into the trans narrative. It's a protected class and the only way to help people is to uphold, support, and defend all things trans related. This seems to be true in most all centers of power -- government, social and traditional media, business, etc. Maybe that's cynical of me. But that's how it seems to me. Speaking of cynical. I wonder, @prisonchaplain, do you feel that way about us all here? This sounds like the same sort of argument I've heard made of we Latter-day Saints. "You do realize that Mormons consider everyone but them to be damned, and all our children are in grave eternal danger for not being Mormons!" Yes. Some people are like that. I don't think it's as universal as you imply. Moreover, technically, we Latter-day Saints kind of do believe that...and "Christians" kind of do believe that. But you're stating it in a hyperbolic that fails as an ultimate premise. Because even if all non-LDS Christians thought that, It'd be like suggesting we shouldn't fight alongside Democrats to defeat Hitler because "you do realize that Democrats are socialists who believe......" And "the Church" has very clearly set an example of working with other faiths for good causes. So I think that idea has proper precedent.

I don't believe this was agreed upon. More tomorrow.

Sure. But that's like saying my generation was defined by parachute pants. I lived through my generation....the actual amount of people who actually wore parachute pants was about...4...and I think most of them did so on TV shows. Generations get defined by their extremes. But that doesn't mean the extremes actually represents the great majority.

Strikes me as highly unlikely. But who knows.

Who says you interpreted what He said correctly? Maybe what He said was, "You're done, for now" and in your mortal weakness you just didn't understand the "for now" part.

I've never heard the concept of a premortal family other all of us being God's children. Is that something you picked up from somewhere or is it just the unorthodox thing? edit: I mean I guess Saturday's Warrior alluded to something akin...but.......??

But the Church doesn't stand alone in this matter. If we all feel this way then, yes. If enough conservatives would fight then it could matter. But conservatives tend to let libs take over the culture. That's what bothers me I suppose. It strikes me that if we all stood up and did what we should have regarding these things from the start we wouldn't be in the lost cause situation we find ourselves in nowadays. How do you feel about the illegality of strip clubs or liquor stores in certain places? The idea being that allowing certain activities brings with it related societal consequences. Do you give any merit to that type of associative restriction? The proper how seems to be failing.

Surely you don't mean to say that my posts have been pessimistic lately!

I hear ya. I want to be clear too. I AM trying to be a stick in the mud. I'm not just trying to be a stick in the mud. At some level, we should all be sticks in the mud though....relatively speaking.

I don't think the implication here is that someone who doesn't choose to partake in South Park has no sense of humor.... I would hope not. I think I've stated this before...but South Park is funny. But I still maintain it shouldn't be watched, generally speaking. I know people who claim religion is unbearably dull, church is unbearably dull, scripture reading is unbearably dull, seminary or institute is unbearably dull, the temple is unbearably dull, etc. It cannot help but strike me that "dull" is in the eye of the receiver, and that, perhaps, when certain things are viewed as dull, maybe the problem isn't always with the things. And some things that aren't dull...drugs, pornography, violence, sex, alcohol, etc. I dunno. I'm just not convinced using whether something is dull or not is a valid measuring stick as to it's worth. Lest you think I'm just being contrary...I'm not. I get your point. There is some value, obviously, in quality of production and presentation. And humor is useful in both. But there are, ultimately, more important things that, when put up against how exciting something is perceived to be or not, matter a whole lot more.

So this does tie into my earlier thoughts and does support what @Just_A_Guy is suggesting. There is a certain level where if I want to be left alone to raise my children the way I want to, then I have to be willing to let others be left alone and raise their children the way they want to...no matter how terrible I think their parenting choices are. It just feels awfully different to say something such as one parent should have the right to deny their children sugar while another has the right to give their child sugar, vs. one parent has the right to protect their children from perverse sexual ideologies while another has the right to expose their children to pornography, convince them they're trans, and chop off their body parts. In theory...I get the point...it just.......... really? It really goes back to my overall political philosophy. Nothing works out if people are evil. People are evil. We're doomed. Now back to sucking my thumb.

Well, Homer did constantly choke his son. Haha. Hilarious. *wipes tear from eye* Good times.

Fine. (Pun intended). I acquiesce.

Same.

On a side note: I know many who would claim the exact same for shows like The Simpsons. But I love The Simpsons and think it's fine. So...you know... we all have to judge for ourselves on these things.

I have a more...conservative thought... No one should watch it. Funny is not a virtue. I'll just leave this here for everyone's consideration: "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I'm not trying to just be a stick in the mud. I get that there's a level of balance when it comes to consuming entertainment. I'm not one who says never watch anything that isn't produced by the church or the like. Never read a book that isn't scripture...or something. I'm not suggesting that. I get that sometimes there's going to be something that's more crude than ideal in shows or movies that we can, reasonably, just ignore. But it just strikes me the South Park crosses so far over that line that it really should be avoided by anyone who legitimately seeks after that which is virtuous and is legitimately striving to remove that which is unholy from their lives. And since I believe we should all be seeking and striving after such things...well.... Just my thoughts.