The Folk Prophet

I guess it shows how isolated I actually am that I haven't heard of DezNat until today. For anyone else who's also unfamiliar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DezNat https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/01/31/unholy-war-deznat-troops/ So....this actually relates to the thoughts I've been having regarding The Joseph Smith Foundation somewhat, in that my view of their message aside, I don't think most church adjacent organizations/foundations end up being a good idea . In short...the Church is sufficient. We don't need foundations to teach us the truth. But it's SUCH a fascinating thing to me. Because I also see the potential for good to come of such foundations. This very forum exists because of a foundation. But I also left this forum for quite some time because of articles being published that offended my sense of right and wrong. I kind of see both sides of it. Anyhow, in the internetland...the world wide web...there is this cultural phenomenon of memes. And there are places where speech is still free (4chan, etc) where this culture developed, then spread to the wider internet. That brings with it some very good things, and some very, very bad things. The idea behind memes are to have fun, but also express truth. They're often meant to make you laugh, but also make you think. Sometimes the thinking isn't a part of the equation. Sometimes the laughing isn't. But when a meme hits, it's great. But as we all know...the way we think isn't consistent...and the things we find funny aren't either. So the DezNat hashtag starts, and the idea is to promote solid faithfulness to the church, the prophet, God, and truth. But to also have fun. To play the "internet" game the "progressives" play on their own turf to an extent. (Like I said...a microcosm of broader culture, clearly.) Think about the nasty rhetoric the right sometimes engages in politically, the support of Trump, the existence of The Proud Boys, etc. But then take solidly, conservative, faithful Latter-day Saints and.... I mean you're still going to get some of the world's nastiness mixed in because people are people. But... then there's this other side to the coin. There are a lot of people who are good people, supporting what they believe to be truth and right, that are called terrible things simply for not buying into the woke ideologies. Nazi! Bigot! Racist! Just for thinking we should...control our borders or something. Well, the phenomenon bleeds into the church culture too. On the one hand you have some actual nasty DezNat posts. But on the other you have legitimate efforts to uphold and sustain truth and right. But both are called hateful, bigoted, violent, etc. Then you put into that mix humor...and now you've got a real storm going on. Because some people cannot tell where funny crosses the line. And complicating it further, everyone interprets those things differently...and those interpretations are all, sort of, legitimate. Maybe. I mean, a meme with President Kimball holding an automatic weapon isn't funny...right? Or is it? I dunno. I didn't laugh. But the meme with the guy in sunglasses and the caption, "Hey kid. Wanna blood atone some apostates?" had me legit belly laughing. But that's because I took it as a joke. If I believed it to be a serious call to violence (which...who knows...but I assume not), I wouldn't find it funny at all. But some on the "progressive" side of things are seriously offended. Knowing this, shouldn't true followers of Christ do all in their power to remove offense? Or...should they? Christ was willing to offend. But we're counselled to not intentionally give offense. But that doesn't actually work in practice. Testifying of Jesus gives offense. If we know that are we to never testify of Him? Of course not. Is it only the offense through humor that should be removed? Is the message that apostacy leads to damnation and hell something that shouldn't be said...ever? Or is implying it through humor in a meme a better way? Or a worse way? I don't know. This all confuses me. I see both sides. Standing up against the evil seems important. Doing so with humor has a way of working. And it's a natural way to involve the youth. But it also has a way of offending. And that can, in turn, breed intentionally trying to offend. Particularly in the immature. I dunno. I'm somewhat torn. I know I'd never use the hashtag DezNat on a post. Of that much I'm confident. That's not really my concern. (Though I could see someone, legitimately, taking just the opposite view.) It's just all so fascinating. In person these things aren't as much of an issue. Or maybe they are. I honestly don't know. But the internet creates these phenomenon in a fascinating way. Some hashtag meant to do good...and could do good...but also does some bad...and has inclinations to do bad... Isn't that the internet? Technology? And then the twisting and lying and censoring and bias from the other side...well that makes it all impossible to judge. I'm not one to condemn immediately because some extremely woke lefty claims their life feels threatened. But.... maybe I should condemn for that reason alone? Garr. I don't know. Anyhow...just another fascinating thing I came across so I'm sharing for discussion. There's more to say...but I'll save it for other posts maybe.

Crying isn't the Spirit. It's a response some people have to the Spirit. The Spirit interacts with us each on our own levels. You don't have to cry. That being said, have you sought the Spirit? Have you plead with the Lord to know the things you wish to know? Have you put the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to the Lord based on His direction in Moroni 10:3-5? Some of us need to struggle more than others for the answers we seek. I don't know why. But I trust the Lord. He wants you to work for it. Study the Book of Mormon. Ponder on it. And then sincerely ask the Lord if it is true. It may take some time and effort, but if you seek and ask with real intent He WILL answer. I promise you that. Don't give up. This struggle is the act of faith the Lord has put before you. Show Him your faith! Faith is commitment. Faith is effort. Faith is trust DESPITE the doubts you have. Faith precedes the miracle. A witness from the Holy Ghost is a miracle. Give God your faith, unconditionally, and He will give you that miracle. He has promised He will. He will! And...may I suggest you, prayerfully, reconsider talking to your father. I know a father can feel unapproachable to a 15 yr old girl. And I don't know your father, of course. But I know when my daughter is 15 that if she has such concerns that I would SO much want her to share that with me! I can't say that strongly enough. So that advice comes to you from the position of my being a father with a daughter.

You could always ask him to. I can't guarantee what another will do though.

I used to visit an organization's page, that I won't mention here, whose hobby horse was standing against homosexual stuff. When the church started softening their approach this group became very critical of the church and church leaders. I stopped visiting them entirely.

Why don't you talk to your dad about it instead?

Of course I understood that. That being said...without details I must reserve judgment.

They should be at 0%.

I know we've only met a few times...but enough to say that I don't think of you as just some random guy on the internet. But I think I know you well enough to not take your statement with huge grain of salt. Which is why I'm itching now for a bunch of details that you can't share, apparently... because I do tend to trust you. That being said, and this was my point before, I have always been skeptical of the Joseph and folk-magic narrative. I don't need the Stoddards and their foundation, which I only discovered today, for that.

Sorry for the self-quote, but I wanted to reference what I said here for context: I found a blog post by James Stoddard on why he doesn't celebrate Halloween. And, as is always the case when people I've known have explained it to me, I find the points filled with non-sequitur reasoning. And...as is typically the case... it's a bit of a red flag. Not a major one. I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't celebrate Halloween must be looking beyond the mark somehow. I'm not saying they must be. But....... I should probably start a new thread on the matter. But it's not really worth arguing about if anyone disagrees with me. So I'll leave off on the commentary here. But if anyone wants to go at me on the merits or evils of Halloween, feel free to start said new thread and we'll get into it.

As the video suggested, the problem is the implied connection to the occult, which was the entire point of the claims in the first place. People who hated Joseph wanted to connect him to the occult to discredit him as a man of God. And that's exactly why the ideas of him using the stone to seek treasure and then using it to do God's work doesn't click with me. The suggestion that occult magic was pre-truth training to the actual work of God has never set well with me. I accept that this "new history" narrative could explain itself in that way, and, fine. But it's an unnecessary pill to have to try and swallow, imo. There are, basically, two approaches to ideas such as, "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to do magic!" 1. Apologetic explanation of the ubiquity of folk-magic followed by some bending over backwards to justify its usage hand-in-hand with the gospel. 2. I don't believe that. My feelings incline fairly strongly towards #2.

Okay, I finished the videos an now I'm down the rabbit hole! Haha. If it weren't for @Just_A_Guy's post I would probably be pretty firmly behind The Joseph Smith Foundation and what they seem to represent. I've only found one thing that I'm like, "weird" about, and that is the implication I read somewhere that they (The Stoddards) didn't celebrate Christmas or Halloween. Weird. Otherwise, everything seems like just in line with my thinking... but..... the difference is -- I'm not publishing. So when I believe in the "Old History" and the church has started to embrace the "New History" (For those who care...the Old History rejected folk-magic and treasure seeking as part of the narrative and the New History accepts it and attempts to interweave it) I'm not standing publicly against a position being expressed as "official" by the church. But, yeah... I've never bought into or really accepted the stone in the hat narrative. But because I don't have a "foundation" that's committed to express such ideas, when the church changes its position on such a matter I can just shrug and say, "Meh. We'll find out someday." For the most part. Related to this, I was reading James Stoddard's obituary (he died in 2021 at the age of 50, a year younger than I am now (of lung cancer, for anyone interested)), and was struck by the similarities to myself in so many things. Music composer, software engineer, heavily into church doctrine, history, family man, etc.. But then Just_A_Guy suggests there's potential malice at play here and I'm all like....WHAAAAT?!?! I mean comparisons to Denver Snuffer? The first time I ever saw anything by or about Snuffer there were red-flags all over the place. That isn't the case here. So I'm at a bit of a loss. Anyhow, interesting.

Without detail, can you say how you are familiar? Personal? Or hearsay? Can you state what these weird beliefs are?

I'm not sure what this has to do with historical claims or even interpretation of claims. I understand the whole "character" thing when it comes to lawyering...destroy someone's character so they are viewed as an unreliable witness accordingly...sure. But it's also, technically, a logical fallacy and a courtroom trick rather than a legitimate way to find truth. I have long been skeptical of a lot Richard Bushman's "history". In point of fact I'm skeptical of most history. History is incredibly unreliable when it comes to "fact". If someone does, somehow, point out a logical, fact based reason to view something a certain way, it's still logical and fact based regardless of that person's good or evil motive. To disregard the logic, fact-based reality because the revealer of said logic and fact has bad motives feels problematic. (Obviously there are problems with trusting them as well...which is not what I'm suggesting be done.) Watching the videos now.... I'll have more to say, I'm sure. (Edit: I realize what a can of worms this comment opens where I'm criticizing Bushman for not discrediting certain sources because of "character" when I'm arguing that character attacks are a logical fallacy. I can, actually, explain myself...but.... Hopefully it will lead to an interesting and informative discussion/debate. Writing all my thoughts in one post would be a novel. But we'll see how things go.)

If one is going to use semantics in this way, it strikes me that it's easy enough to de-paradox the issue by looking at it thusly: Christ paid for our sins. But that doesn't mean there's no price for us to pay for repentance. The price given is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. We don't pay the full price of sin, but we must all pay the price Christ set for us.

Yeah, I think that's common. And I believe it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about what I mentioned to @mikbone, that mental health is as much spiritual as it is physical (and maybe more so). That being said...I don't talk to my bishop about my mental health. I talk to him about my spiritual health. A bishop is, indeed, unqualified to be counseling me on my physical brain health. Would someone go to the bishop for a diagnosis and treatment for being physically ill? The idea's ridiculous. And a bishop's response to someone doing that should be, "Go see a doctor." So I think it's interesting. I certainly don't believe anyone who has a physical (chemical or otherwise) issue causing mental health issues should be discussing that with their bishop for medical advice. But I believe they should be discussing it with their bishop as it relates to the spiritual (and, certainly, so the bishop understands them better). That is no different that the fact that I'd tell my bishop if I had cancer. It wouldn't be for medical counsel. But I'd want the ward support and feel the bishop ought to be aware of the trials of his flock. I agree on this too. That being said, I tend to believe that the larger reason people in the church don't like mental health counseling is because they're smart enough to realize that mental health counseling is nothing but snake oil! On a serious note -- what I personally believe (and can only assume others in the church see it likewise): The reason I don't have any interest in mental health counseling is because the gospel of Christ is sufficient. I don't believe my bishop has any specific training on mental health. But the gospel, itself, encompasses all that anyone needs for their mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. That won't cover the physical. If a person needs drugs, they need drugs. The gospel can't provide those drugs. That's the medical side of the matter. The rest...the gospel is sufficient. That's my take. It's not relative to undermining anything. It's just not needful. A waste of time and money -- and potentially harmful when the "wisdom of man" creeps in. But...I have to admit, when I really hold that view up against some of my others it doesn't always stack up. For example, if one were to say the Word of Wisdom is sufficient, hence I need to other diet plan or training... Well I'd consider that foolishness. So my thinking on mental health isn't necessarily consistent... That being said...there are an awful lot of snake oil diet/fitness plans out there too. And I've been snowballed by many of them. When push comes to shove, diet and exercise is simple and takes no elaborate plan beyond discipline and hard work...two principles easily covered by the gospel. So maybe the gospel is sufficient after all?

Ah man. I was hoping I'd found the magic source that allowed me to justify never getting a colonoscopy!

I doubt we will reach this state. The reason being: I think there's something metaphysical (a.k.a. spiritual) about how the brain works that physical science can't uncover. Just my view. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of physically related things that cannot be improved. But a completely physical approach to a "normal status" while not addressing the spiritual? I don't think that will work out.

I have too. And although not about therapy, which I tend to think of as a big con, I kind of see both sides of the debate when it comes to medication. I think, on the one hand, that the fact that everyone's kids being home from school for the "pandemic" (yes, I put that in quotes ) led to Adderall shortages is shameful. On the flip side, I just got a prescription for A.D.D. medication myself (not that I can get any at the current time), my brother is on A.D.D. medication too. And my wife, father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother, sister, etc. are all on medication of some sort or another for depression. And the medicine makes a big difference in all of our lives. So I'm just not sure what to think about it. Once as an adult my brother joked with me as we were discussing this matter, saying, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?" And boy howdy do I still hold that to be true. My A.D.D. didn't make me be bad. I was just bad sometime. Because kids are bad sometimes. So stop putting "bad" kids on Speed to turn them into robots! Arggh! I really hate it. Especially when a lot of these kids are "bad" because they have terrible, impatient, inattentive parents and are put into an effectual prison-factory every day called school. I wasn't on medication as a kid because no one even knew that A.D.D. was a thing. I'm so grateful for that. I'm not a fan of putting kids on medicine. I'm so grateful my childhood wasn't medicated away. But with adults, however... well I don't see how the use of a crutch when you have a missing leg is a problem. There has to be balance and wisdom in that thinking though, especially when it comes to mental things. And I can't say I fully understand the wisdom and balance. But with some people it's obvious. Many of those I listed above who are on depression medication...when they are off it....you know it! And it's not good. That being said, are there theoretically alternatives? Sure. I think people suffered a lot less from depression when they were too tired to think about it from all the hard work they had to do all day just to survive in ye olden days (I say think because who knows for sure). Plowing in the fields all day is a good remedy for a lot of mental issues, methinks. But... I'm not going to recommend my wife take up butter churning, sew (and then wash) all the clothes by hand, etc., etc., to deal with the depression issues she has. Life is what it is. We have it easy. And that leads to problems for a lot of people. Whatever the cause, people have mental broken legs and need crutches. But I just don't know. I really don't. I don't know what I'm talking about. I understand A.D.D. brain. (On a side note, my doctor told me that if it wasn't for the lack of severe depression after the manic, what I described to her sounded like Bi-Polar (to be fair...mild Bi-Polar..but still...)). But I don't understand depression. I still feel like the "just learn have a positive mental attitude" response is appropriate. But I've been told, firmly, that such an answer is wrong. And because I have my own weird mental things...I can accept that others do despite my "just get over it" tendencies*. *Which is sort of my natural response to a lot of my own issues. I suppress that response in favor of what I believe is the wiser course. But maybe I'm wrong. Like I said.... I just don't know. On a side note: I have A.D.D. but very little in the way of A.D.H.D. The hyper part wasn't really a thing for me, for the most part. A bit...but no more than a typical kid. But the daydreaming and lack of attention and bedwetting and all that....that I had down in spades. Now...to relate that back to the temple changes somehow................................................................................................um....

Yeah, I remember I said I was going to check that one out. I never did. Hmm. Guess I still need to.

A con man repenting of his ways because he finds real love? A town forgiving him because of the good he actually brought? That doesn't sound telestial to me. FWIW, (and, once again, it depends on what one means by "elevated", though I took @LDSGator's meaning as "popular" or "generally viewed as worthy of praise"), in my opinion The Music Man is a phenomenal piece of high art living in the rather low brow world where musical theater often lives. And it manages to do it without the "high art" uppity trappings of shows like Les Miz. I would argue that The Music Man was both elevated and good.

Or..... you have heard of Spotify, right?

Sure...maybe. It depends, I guess, on what one considers "elevated" or "good". But certainly Martin Guerre falls into that category. If you go to movie musicals then The Happiest Millionaire fits. There are others that, I believe, are elevated but not good that I still quite enjoy (as do many others, which is why they're elevated), such as Hello Dolly. And then there are those that are elevated but not good that I don't care for, such as Carousel. Actually there are probably a host of these. And then there are those that are elevated but only sort of good but elevated as if they're "the best" that I think are...fine. Such as Singing In the Rain.

I'm not trying to say, "you did TOO say that" with the following. I accept that I may have misunderstood. But you had said, "In the early 1970's I was born into a nation, a culture, and a church, that did not believe it was possible for a husband to sexually abuse his wife." I can see the nation and culture thing. And I can see it as more prevalent in the church. So I accept the "cultural change" point. What I don't accept is the phrasing that it was the church at large that thought that way, or that it was common for most members of the church to believe that. I disbelieve that, generally, moderately faithful, honorable, trying-to-be-like-Christ, members of the church believed it was impossible to sexually abuse one's wife, whether they thought about it in explicit terms of "sexual abuse" or "rape" or not. The world once believed it was the husband's right to kill his wife if he so wished. The gospel of Christ has always taught a higher way. You can set it up this way where it has to be, specifically addressing "spouse sexual abuse" with that exact phrase and, sure. But if you are addressing the idea of being abusive to one's wife then it's pretty easy. For one example, Joseph F. Smith taught: "The husband should treat his wife with the utmost courtesy and respect. The husband should never insult her; he should never speak slightly of her, but should always hold her in the highest esteem in the home... "I can not understand how a man can be unkind to any woman, much less to the wife of his bosom, and the mother of his children, and I am told that there are those who are absolutely brutal, but they are unworthy the name of men." "My brethren, can you mistreat your wives, the mothers of your children? Can you help treating them with love and kindness? Can you help trying to make their lives as comfortable and happy as possible, lightening their burdens to the utmost of your ability, making life pleasant for them and for their children in their homes? How can you help it? How can any one help feeling an intense interest in the mother of his children, and also in his children? If we possess the Spirit of God, we can not do otherwise. It is only when men depart from the right spirit, when they digress from their duty, that they will neglect or dishonor any soul that is committed to their care. They are bound to honor their wives and children." It's pretty hard to read into such comments a big, UNLESS....... "if she's not in the mood for sex, feel free to force yourself on her anyway!" And no right-thinking, decent, faithful man would ever believe so.

So just in case anyone missed it, Elder Oaks's statement: "Some of our members have expressed concerns that the new national Respect for Marriage law is in conflict with the Church’s teachings against same-sex marriage. We see a need to clarify the Church’s position on that new law. At the time the national Respect for Marriage Act was adopted, the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage bills previously proposed in the Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom. The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act. The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act did restate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that added little because that law was already in effect under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The focus of the Church’s efforts was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom. As signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act included valuable provisions to assure that no federal or state laws could be used to harm the religious or conscience rights of faith-based institutions or their members. In the end, the total law ensures that religious organizations, religious schools, and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it specifically provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom. Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward. We will be alert to proposed future state action and legislation as we continue our defense of religious freedom."

Which parts? I find the idea that in ye olden days of the 1970s the brethren in the church all felt it was hunky-dory to essentially rape your wife against her will because she should have just known better in getting married is ridiculous. Nor do I think there was as much of a universal "deep and hostile distrust of counseling, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and mood altering medication" as he implied either. Sure there was some. Still is. And rightly so, imo. Of course being distrustful of psychology and believing it's okay to force yourself on your wife aren't even remotely in the same categories either. So...that's a bit of a strange thing to throw out there as "similarly".