The Folk Prophet

I am well aware of the quotes.

Hmm. I think there's a disconnect here of some sort. Anger isn't de-facto wrong or evil. If it were, God would never be angry. I'd post a bunch of scripture speaking of God's anger, but I suspect you are well aware. I consider my anger at certain things to be valiant and righteous. Inward or outward, I am angry because I am on God's side. So, no, I don' think it's damaging to be angry at evil, even when the evil's bound to win in the short term. I get your point though. It could be harmful if one were to let it turn to bitterness in a negative way. I suppose. If I felt that were the case I'd have some concern. But it feels like you're suggesting that because the hordes of savage barbarians are streaming over the crest to kill my outnumbered friends and family that it would be better if I just resigned myself to it and surrendered. Inward, outward, healthy, destructive...that all gets put aside. My family is in danger. I'll fight.

FWIW, I have never accepted the idea that faith and doubt cannot co-exist.

It exists in degrees because "faith" isn't a thing in and of it's self. If someone says, out of the blue, "I have faith" wouldn't the obvious question be, "In what?" Without the in what the comment is kind of meaningless. You have to be having faith IN something. And since "somethings" are, by nature, degrees, then faith has to exist in degrees. "My trust goes this far, but only this far, and no further." Like someone who has faith that paying their tithing will bring blessings, but can't get on board if polygamy came back. Degrees. Or even within tithing... believing that paying tithing will keep you in good standing in the church but not trusting that you'll be okay financially in doing so. Faith in one thing, not in the other. Degrees.

Why can't it be both?

This is exactly what Disney's board, apparently, believes, which is why they brought Iger back in. I think there's a clear reality to what you're suggesting. There's obviously more than just "woke" going on in Disney's problems. My contention is that getting rid of the woke is key, however. You say people swallow the bitter pill to take in Disney...but that doesn't explain disastrous performances such as Lightyear. It's hard to say anything as fact, because we don't know for sure. The argument could be made that not using Tim Allen was the issue. Or just the nature of the story they told. They missed the boat on many issues, obviously. But... I would have checked it out despite those things. A lot of people would. But put a gay kiss in and...sorry. Not gonna pay for that. Sure, you have things like Doctor Strange and the Two-mom's Multiverse that perform pretty well despite that silly addition. Well, it's not a kid's show. So there's a difference in that regard. But, yeah, to an extent people will ignore certain things if they like the rest of what's happening there. And maybe if Lightyear was perfect and awesome in all other regards but still had the gay kiss it would have performed well. It's impossible to know. I think you've long had a blind eye to the realities of alienating one's core audience. You consistently disregard the potential that "boycotts" have any effect. And I mostly agree with you. But there's a difference between a straight up boycott and half of your core audience being organically turned off by what you're producing. I don't think what's happened to Disney is a boycott. If ones customers love chocolate and buys a product because it's got chocolate and then the company stops selling chocolate the customers stop buying. It's not a boycott. I'm just going to get my chocolate elsewhere because Disney gave me the bird. I think you severely underestimate what Disney actually is, as a product, to SO many people. Sure there are other customers. They are popular with a variety of sorts. But the primary product has ALWAYS been family friendly. And now they stopped selling family friendly. There's going to be be consequences. Yes, they'll still sell. Obviously. They're a juggernaut. But when they expect to make 20 billion and they only make 10 billion they freak out. They alienated half their core customer base. They can keep on doing that. They'll still make the 10 billion. But if they hadn't done so they could have made 20 billion. But maybe not. It's all speculative. The only thing I know for sure.... I'm don't with Disney. They can kiss my grits. I have no interest in their woke garbage. I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment. I'm not boycotting. I just don't care. I don't like what they're serving any longer. They changed their menu so I'll go out to eat somewhere else. And a lot of people, I believe, feel the same. Maybe I overestimate how many. Maybe you underestimate. The only thing I can say for sure is what I'll pay for and what I won't. And what others I know have told me. Time will tell. And just so we're clear as to the "argument" I'm making. I suspect you may actually be completely right. It saddens me. But I worry most people don't actually care a whit if there's gay kisses in their kid's shows.

I'm curious how you explain the drop in revenue, stock, and the firing of Chapek then.

That is true. But...the discontent has, legitimately, grown beyond the haters-gonna-hate, "toxic fans" crowd, and Disney has been losing money like mad. Hence, the firing -- which makes sense. If you are CEO of a company and under your reign the company starts bleeding money and you don't turn that around, the likelihood is that you're going to get fired. No surprises there. The problem with Iger is not the people who complained about Iger back in the heyday of Disney success under him. There were still haters that hated, sure. But the massive failures Disney's had in recent years are, according to all rumors I've heard, Iger's doing. Chapek's failure was being a coward. He caved to the woke employees that Iger, purposefully, hired. Iger turned Disney woke, not Chapek. Chapek's failure, and people complaining about him, was in not being strong willed enough to get that garbage out of Disney. So, yeah...makes sense Chapek was fired. But then the board brings in the guy who actually caused the problems? It speaks to how clueless the board actually is as to what the problems are. That being said...it is possible (though I don't hold out much hope) that Iger, despite his leftist leanings, is a stronger-willed business-man first who understands that he has to put his personal ideology aside and do what's right for the company's profit. He could also come from a "no more woke" stance from a business perspective instead of an ideology one. "I love the woke, but we have to make the right business choices." Whereas Chapek, being known as a more conservative (registered Republican) couldn't make the same claim. So you never know. Iger might do that. But I think it's HIGHLY doubtful. This is one case where it's not just complaining by extremists. It's legitimately hurting Disney. Parents DO NOT WANT gay kisses in their children's shows. It's the simplest equation in the world. Get that garbage out and Disney will recover pretty quickly, despite all the lefty-twitterfied complaints. Keep going with it and parents will continue to veer away. Righting the ship is a hard, if not impossible, task though. I will not subscribe to Disney+ because it has Lightyear and other materials like that. Even if Disney stopped making material with that stuff in it, I won't subscribe unless they removed all that stuff. And they won't ever do that. I know a lot of people who feel the same. A LOT of people. Disney is just dead to an awful lot of folks. But if they started making good, non-woke movies again, I'll go see them. If I can trust that I won't have my children subjected to trans-princesses at their parks, I'll visit their parks. There's a path forward for Disney. But they, apparently, don't have a clue what that path is. Iger's likely path will be to double down on the woke, purchase more IPs and companies hoping to profit off people's nostalgia. It won't work. The biggest way to turn people off nostalgia bait now-a-days is to have Disney purchase the IP. That's a sure sign the property will be ruined. R.I.P. Star Wars R.I.P. Indiana Jones R.I.P. Marvel R.I.P. Pixar A moment of silence..... ....and let's all go watch Top Gun: Maverick again.

I think there's bit of a disconnect here. I don't want people to be Nazis. But if they actually are Nazis, I defend their right to be so, and to say so, and to express their views (that are legal). Of course I don't want Nazis everywhere. But restricting freedom of speech is not the means of curbing that. Don't misunderstand me. I see what you're getting at. It's a problem. I'm not sure of the solution. But what I do believe is that restricting free speech by declaring views you dislike as "hate" speech is too easily abused.

Anything that takes away freedom is a freedom killer. Including.....freedom. 😮

Yes in part. But my broader concern is his refusal to consider unblocking Alex Jones, and his jerk replies without even bothering to explain himself.. I agree with Viva Frei's take on the matter. Alex is a litmus test for free speech. Fail that test, and you fail the test. Love Alex or despise him -- free speech is free speech. Viva points this out. Musk replies, "Too bad." Sure. Get the porn off of there. Disallow things that are already otherwise illegal. Etc. Beyond that, if he caves to advertisers then he's simply letting advertisers dictate the country's freedom of speech. That's not freedom. That dictatorship by corporation (which is the entire battle being fought in this matter). It's either free speech or it isn't. Moreover, I don't believe there are no advertisers willing to allow free speech. Bring people onto the site, and advertisers will follow. Twitter usage is way up, apparently. I agree. But not nearly as stringent is still too stringent if it doesn't allow, per Elon's own proclamations, free speech. We absolutely have to get to a place where these social media platforms are free. We cannot be suppressing ideas in the forum of ideas. Yes, the limited reach idea is EXTREMELY concerning. Shadow-banning is as good as banning. And who gets to decide what is and is not hateful? Look...Elon's current plans and paths are only relevant in one regard...proving that free speech is superior. But that cannot be proven if free speech isn't allowed. He has to allow free speech and then have it shown that Twitter, accordingly, improves not only Twitter as a company, but the nation as a whole. That's the importance of it. Beyond that it's relatively meaningless. But allow free speech, then get the advertisers back anyhow (which would happen), and make Twitter wealthier than it's ever been, and maybe more successful than other companies, all the while fairing up information and elections integrity and so-forth. That could change social media moving forward. Whether Elon makes his money back or not...who cares? Honestly changing section 230 is much more important as an idea. But what happens with Twitter may well play a huge part in that.

Apparently Elon Musk was straight up lying about his free speech intentions for Twitter. I've lost my Elon Musk fandom again.

...

It really doesn't strike me the church "supports" it. It really struck me more as, "Hey, the writing's on the wall...they're going to pass this thing. But we're grateful religious freedom has been carved out into it. Let's do our best to all get along."

That was @Carborendum. I'm not sure I quite see it that way. I'm still thinking.

Maybe you and I understand the idea of what it is to compromise differently. I'd say bending with the wind to not be uprooted is, indeed, the very nature of compromise. Edit: Moreover, the commentary "to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals" is clearly a statement of compromise.

So I've been watching all the conservative commentary on this and they're all mad and claiming that no one that calls themselves conservative should be voting for or supporting this act (a sentiment with which I agree), and so I decided to look at what the Church said on the matter: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement An interesting contrast. I think and still fear what the conservative commentators are saying is true. This will be abused. Our religious rights will be (at some level) infringed upon. And conservatives should not be caving on this matter. It's merely another drop down the slippery slope we're obviously on. But I see where the church is coming from. It basically reads to me as, we lost this war, so compromise is the way forward. Fair enough. I'll admit I've never understood the "heal relationships and foster understanding" type of language. Nor will the passage of such a bill do a thing, in my opinion, to heal any relationships or foster any type of understanding, other than the corrupting influence such things are inclined to have on society at large as to overall acceptance of things that were unthinkable a decade back. But I understand the church's wish to foster understanding, certainly, and to heal relationships as well. And so a statement of hope that such will be the case makes sense. And, to be fair, the statement isn't saying the passage of the bill will be key to healing relationships. It simply says much can be done as we work to compromise that can heal relationships. And that is, I suppose, theoretically true. Except I still can't say I, personally, believe it. What can be done to heal relationships that are broken because of core doctrine that cannot and will not change? The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work. But that isn't the point in doing what's right. Whether it works or not, we do what's right. Period. But I just don't think relationships, for the most part, over this and similar issues, are very salvageable. My cynicism is turned up to 11 when it comes to the woke mob, apparently. Of course the church is concerned with the individual. So even if it mean a single relationship was partially salvaged, that would be worth any effort of compromise. That has to be weighed against damage done by the compromise. I'll admit I tend to fear that damage a lot and, hence, my above stated concerns. But I trust God leads the church and knows what's right in responding to these issues. And so I won't critique. I just admit I don't understand.

I cannot help but wonder, when considering the above, where humor fits in to righteousness. Actually finding something funny often seems uncivilized and even repulsive. My initial response to what you wrote was to think, "buzzkill!" But in writing that I realize I might be being uncivilized and perhaps repulsive. Would Christ make fun of someone? Ever? So I have to curb my natural response and accept that perhaps it's time to retire my hilarious (to myself) old-man voice. One of the things I love about the show The Chosen is how Jesus actually cracks jokes. And they are, oft times, at the expense of his apostles. But I also do not accept The Chosen as an accurate portrayal of Christ. Did Christ really crack jokes? Who know? I wouldn't dare write a Joke for Christ were I developing a show about Him. But in context, in The Chosen, I believe they mostly work. They're chiding, rather than straight up mean. They work to help influence and guide His apostles, to my thinking. Jokes can work like that. They say, "hey, you're taking yourself to seriously." But alternatively, I've noted when I've had someone crack a joke at my expense in the same sort of well-meaning way, and it's quite hurt my feelings, that I felt they shouldn't have done so, and that they're uncivilized and rude. But maybe that sort of thing is good for me (being made fun of sometimes). Christ would know. Just because I'm offended at something someone says doesn't mean it was wrong. My sense is, however, when considering the golden rule, that we should never make fun of others. I have no conclusions here. Your response just sparked thought. I am torn as well.

Analogous to personal salvation, I believe.

I don't disagree with this. I just think it's interesting to ponder. Saying "The Mormon's...." is actually quite in line with the idea of saying, "The Jews..." or saying "The blacks..." or the like. It's really just a question of whether it always should be taken as anti-whatever. Maybe it should. I'm certainly not arguing it shouldn't. I'm just posing the question as food for thought on these issues. But I can see how someone (perhaps foolishly) in saying such a thing may not have actually meant it in a racist way. See Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue jokes on the matter. "Two words one should never say together.... 'the' and 'Jews'...." Saying "the" and anything runs the risk of being a statement of stereotyping. The Mormons. The Blacks. The Jews. The Baptists. The White Men. The Chinese. But you can solve most of that by swapping the word "the" for the word "some" or a "a few". But often, even then, it's still taken as racist/prejudice, particularly with Jews. I think saying, "Some Jews....." or even "A few Jews..." would be looked at as just as anti-Semitic as as saying "The Jews..." In other words, the broad point I'm trying to make is that certain things are more sensitive than others due to historical prejudice, and that sensitivity, while understandable, can make it difficult to speak of things frankly and factually in certain instances, which is a theoretical problem.

FWIW, I somewhat disagree with this logic. I'll explain. (This for the sake of discussion, not by way of argument or contention. And this is sort of thinking as I go and trying to explain the way I feel about it more than even perfectly reasoned out reasoning...so.....) I don't buy the meaning everyone translates "raise seed unto the Lord" to mean, logically speaking. That the Lord would command polygamy only for the express purpose of creating more righteous people implies 3 things to me. 1. The Lord would ALWAYS command polygamy then because it is His work and His glory to save His children. And 2. Those who are born under polygamy have a better unfair chance at salvation than those who weren't. 3. The responsiveness people have to certain blessings or trials as to being more righteous seems to be tied to too many other factors to be a set standard. (I mean Jacob specifically says the reason they are NOT to practice it is because the Lord wants raise up a righteous branch (vs 25-26). That is not to say I reject the truth of "raising up seed unto the Lord" being a reason why the Lord commands plural marriage. I just don't buy the common logic that it means more numbers of righteous people, or that it's an eternal truth of what plural marriage will always lead to. To my thinking it's retconning logic into pre-conceived truths. Something some of the finest minds in the church are guilty of, and for which they have come up with myriads of wildly differing points of view on the matter. (I definitely don't buy the "our culture is superior, so our logic is best" approach to these sorts of things. We're way too corrupted in our thinking by, among other things, the Disney-princess, happily-ever-after culture we've been raised in as to concerning love and marriage. And that corruption is growing rather than getting better.) Were I to apply my best logic (which is likely retconned into my understanding as much as anyone's logic is), I'd say we desperately need plural marriage now to humble us, try us, and weed out the chaff. Population of church members is really not the issue. Righteousness is. I don't believe re-instigating plural marriage would increase the numbers of the church members. I do believe it would increase the righteousness of those who abjectly humbled themselves to obey. I'd also guess that there's actually a pretty big statistical problem of the number of righteous women to men (though I don't have hard data on that), which implies a need as well, and I expect that number would increase were plural marriage re-instated. When push comes to shove, most men in the church would say, "How can I take on such a thing as a 2nd family?" Women would be the ones more likely to humble themselves and share a husband with another women. Men would be more likely to be like, "I barely have time to watch my sports as it is!" Okay...maybe that's too cynical of me.... Anyhow, in other words, I translate "raise up seed to the Lord" to mean that the Lord knows when that is going to be the result, and will command it in those times for a very specific purpose He has that we probably don't understand. I don't think that means that (as has been interpreted by some) the monogamy is "the standard" and plural marriage is the exceptions. I think that marriage is the standard, plural marriage IS marriage, and that the Lord gives us commands now and then that are best and right for what He knows we need in our times. That being said, I'm clearly wrong on some of my thinking or plural marriage would be reinstated already. But I also know that were plural marriage reinstated tomorrow, there'd be a mad scramble by people (fine minds and otherwise) to retcon our logic to fit the why and wherefore of it all. The simple truth is we don't understand the why and wherefore of plural marriage. The moderately cryptic teachings from Jacob on the matter don't solve the riddle at all to my thinking. Neither do the moderately cryptic teachings in D&C 132 (which seem to me to contradict Jacob on the matter without some level of logical retconning). I tend to think it's safer to just let it lie. We don't need to understand plural marriage. We only need to humble ourselves, obey, and follow the prophet. Not that I begrudge you or others reasoning the matter out as best you can. Like I said, I'm just sharing. Not trying to debate (though I recognize that disagreement naturally implies debate, and that's fine. It's just not my objective.)

I can't help but wonder how much of this sort of feeling (which I share) is manmade, cultural, carnal, and unimportant eternally. And...if so...actually, theoretically, harmful. In other words, the intensity of relationship and emotional support and the fulfillment that we see as fundamental to marriage might be based on some level of selfishness -- something we have been culturally trained to feel is important, when it is actually a negative thing that we must, ultimately, overcome.

It's hard to not feel that way a bit.

This is such a multi-faceted, interesting situation for thought. I have a few questions for consideration: 1. Do we, as Latter-day Saints, not believe the tribes of Israel were scattered and ancestors of various races the world over at some level? Heck, don't we believe the Native Americans to be Hebrews? Is that not the same theory the book proposes of Africans? Do we not accept that potential reality? 2. Is it anti-Christian to point out that that Christians engaged in certain things? (Like the Crusades or the inquisition burning witches). No one calls someone anti-Christian for merely pointing out that Christians actually engaged in those things. So is it or is it not fair that if someone suggests Jews engaged in certain things it is labelled immediately anti-Semitic? This is really interesting to consider. Obviously the difference is the oppression and hatred the Jews have faced, with similar accusations (false or not) being leveled as justification. But the implication of saying, the Christians once engaged in burning people as witches unfairly -- doesn't read as, "so let's kill them all in retribution". But suggesting the Jews engaged in any given thing does, indeed, read as just such. Which could be used, in theory, as a suppression of fact/truth. 3. Is it really reasonable to believe that in the entire history of time, since the killing of Jesus, that the Jews have never engaged in anything fishy? (I'm not saying they have or have not. I'm just thinking through the implications here.) 4. Does saying that "some-group" engaged in something automatically mean every member of "some-group" did it? As in, "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is a factually true statement. Is saying that anti-Mormon? I think we tend to take it that way with Jews though. (I suppose in our sensitive moments, and in context, we take that sort of thing as anti-Mormon too...so....) "The Jews did such-n-such" is automatically read as ALL Jews were engaged in some sort of hive-mind action and they're all to blame. For example, you'll often see the theoretically anti-Semitic idea that Jews control certain industries. And factually they likely do. But saying so is taken to mean the universal "Jews" rather than some Jews. It's really interesting to consider. (I'm not suggesting right or wrong here...just thinking through things.) 5. So the book proposes that "the Jews" suppressed the truth of the Hebrew roots of the literally Semitic tribes in Africa. And because of the history of Jew-blame leading to horrific things, this is immediately written off as being unworthy of consideration because it's anti-Semitic (ignoring the fact that Semitic is a much broader term than "Jew") because it must mean all Jews and will lead to horrific things, the implication being Jews are evil or something. And the truth of anti-Jew sentiment has, historically, done exactly that. and therefore, the response is understandable. But is truth, in such cases, potentially being suppressed at times because of that sort of response? I don't claim to have answers to all of this. And I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be highly wary of things that are critical of "the Jews". But having a certain group that is entirely above criticism for any reason strikes me as dangerous. Alternatively embracing any criticism of the Jews feels....you know...dangerous. As for Kyrie Irving, he clearly stated he didn't embrace everything in the book. What interested him was the Hebrew thread to Africa. Which is, as I pointed out, something we believe too. The fact that some are translating that thread to mean Blacks are Jews is semantic ignorance. It would be like us trying to claim Native Americans are Jews. Hebrew is not synonymous with "Jew". And neither is Semitic. It seems Semitic is a broader term than even Hebrew. And Hebrew is broader than Jew. Just because your chihuahua is a dog doesn't make it a Golden Retriever. But pointing out that your chihuahua is a "dog" and that some people consider Golden Retrievers to be the only real "dogs" and that chihuahuas are rats rather than dogs is not anti-Canine. (Which is exactly what is being said when they state "I can't be anti-Semitic". They are saying they are Semitic too.) Note: Just to be clear, the chihuahua/Golden Retriever was a totally random choice and is not meaning to compare any race to a specific breed of dog. It was meant only to discuss the language in an easy to understand way. Jews are Hebrews who are Semitic, just as chihuahuas are dogs who are canines. That doesn't work the other way. All Semitic people are not Hebrews and all Hebrew people are not Jews. Even then it doesn't work perfectly as an example, because I'm comparing language classifications to racial classifications, which is exactly the comparison I'm trying to make. Yes, I'm overexplaining this, but that's because I've found historically that people either willfully or ignorantly misunderstand analogies and expect someone to reply, "How dare you suggest black people are rat dogs!"

Sure. But my point, I think, remains. Their reaction and attitudes and responses are their own. Ours is to serve, sacrifice, give, and love. If we serve, sacrifice, give, and love and it isn't appreciated, we have still done as commanded. Alternatively, methinks, if we say, "well they don't deserve this because of their attitude", might we be falling into the exact trap warned against by King Benjamin. Are we not all beggars applies to having a bad attitude and not having gratitude and soliciting for what we "really" want. We all do this at some level. I understand that it says, "succor those that stand in need of succor", the implication being that those who don't really stand in "need", don't...um....need our succor. And I'm not suggesting that we just give to any con man who comes along even though we know they're conning us. That is certainly a judgement call to be made, listening to the Spirit and using our best wisdom. But I do think there is danger in approaching giving with a dominating cynicism. I pose this question for consideration: Who is better off at judgment day, he who gives freely to the beggar he knows to be running a con, or he who withholds giving because he suspects a con? Once again, I'm not suggesting we blind ourselves to wisdom and give our money to conmen. But I do think there is value in considering the above question as we ponder on how to give. As for me (and this is my advice for @Backroads fwiw), I give through the church and only through the church. If I feel I'm not giving enough, I donate more to fast offerings, ward Santa drives, humanitarian aid, etc. Only through church donations. Go buy a bunch of stuff through the vending boxes they put up at Temple Square or some such. There are plenty of ways to give and serve in and through the church.