The Folk Prophet

The phrase "regret mistakes made" is an interesting one. Obviously it depends on what one means by "regret".

Some people start salivating at hearing things they disagree with.

That's a great analogy. Still...something feels a bit off about coining a phrase or naming an organization that is outside of the church even if it's pro church. I can't quite place my finger on what feels off about it. It just feels off. If the church had an official movement called Deseret Nation and it was focused on bringing about Zion I'd be on board. Also...something about the usage of the word "Nation" feels...inflammatory. And if it's really about Zion, then why not use Zion. #zion. I could get behind that. But really, why isn't the church sufficient. Why not #churchOfJesusChristofLatterDaySaints or #churchOfJesusChrist or something if it's really just about supporting the gospel. I feel like there are a hundred hashtags that could do the job without A) being cryptic (I had to look up what DezNat meant after seeing it referred to somewhere) B) being weird (as you pointed out...why the z instead of the s? And why the abbreviation? Why not #DeseretNation?) and C) being inclined to be viewed as a dog whistle because of the usage of the word "nation" (naturally associated with nationalism -- which, fair or not, is associated with white supremacy, racism, etc). So, yeah. I get your point. And I agree...but there's still something wrong here to my sensibilities.

Yeah. Everyone has to decide for themselves. And I'm sure there are those who feel strongly against Halloween or Harry Potter who will be in good shape come judgement day. But it sure feels looking beyond the mark to me. But...in my family, we made the decision to keep our church clothes on all day on Sunday. We do it to help remind us that it's Sunday. But I'm sure there are others who consider that sort of approach extreme, looking beyond the mark, or otherwise weird. But one big difference...I don't suggest or even imply in ANY way that those who don't keep their church clothes on all day Sunday are inviting Satan into their lives.

If the father wasn't a counselor I'd agree. It's a bit tricky because he is. But it's also a judgment call on the bishops' part. There's no rule I'm aware of that the bishop can't make the determination that this sort of thing needs to be shared with a parent. The parent has the presiding right over their child. In a way it'd be like asking if you shared something with your Stake President could you expect him to not share it with the bishop? I could be mistaken. And were it some sort of sin then I think maybe it would be different. But when I was in ward council, we discussed members who struggled with doubts and how we could help them all the time. It's not the same sort of private matter as confessing serious sin to a bishop or the like (which the bishop would, indeed, keep to himself).

I disagree. There is very much something wrong with making such a false a terrible statement that throws faithful, righteous members under the bus by stating their desire to protect children is hateful. Edit: I just noticed you wrote "nothing more than that". I had read it as "nothing wrong with that". My view is the same...but my "disagreement" with what you said isn't. Sorry for that.

Where is the line? Is this something they would be disciplined for? Does the Church actually have a position on whether drag queen library hour is good or bad? What are your individual thoughts? Um... that quote from the Stake president is ridiculous! Like....seriously problematic.

Maybe. I don't though. I think the intent is to have fun while engaging in something that they take deadly serious. Sustaining the gospel. I don't think fun is the point. It think it's a method.

As pointed out, it's just a hashtag. So it's very hard to say what any given individual feels or things who uses that hashtag. Some may be just having fun. Some may be deadly serious.

It is something that I have found some people believe with excessive conviction. Here are the 5 reasons they give on their site re: Halloween, to which I'll respond to with my opinions: Reason #1: The power of Satan is real. Never tell your kids witches aren’t real. If you're celebrating Satan and real witches then I agree. But that's not what we do in my family. We don't conflate the entirely fictional witches and wizards of the entirely fictional Harry Potter universe with real witches either. And such a conflation has always struck me as a bit silly. That being said, even if one were to fully embrace the "never dress up as a witch" idea, then don't dress up as a witch. Problem solved. That being said, some of the most righteous, wholesome, good families I know have had their kids show up trick or treating as witches. I just find the idea that if you engage in such you're inviting Satan into your life extremely holier-than-thou from that perspective. It's just not true. Painting your face green and putting on a pointy hat has NOTHING to do with Satan or Satanism or witchcraft. It's entirely silly fiction. And, if I do say so myself, a lot of fun. Reason #2: Satan causes extreme suffering. Yep. But, once again, the correlation of Halloween and Satan is only true if one is putting Satan into the mix. Don't put Satan into the mix in your celebration of Halloween. Reason #3: Halloween and other elements of Satanism mock God & His Priesthood Absolute rubbish on the Halloween point. Obviously Satanism mocks God. But once again, Halloween does not equal Satanism unless you make it so. We don't. Reason #4: Engaging in Satanic rituals, witchcraft and so forth is condemned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants & Pearl of Great Price. Same point. It's the typical logic anti-Halloweeners use. They present Halloween as if it's equivalent to a Satanic ritual. Period. No discussion. It just is. But that point is simply not true. Reason #5: I know the history of Halloween Irrelevant. Yes, it comes from a pagan ritual. So what? It is not a religious thing in my family. It's a fun family tradition involving candy, pumpkins, dress-up, neighborly visits, and love. The ghosts and ghouls are fictional fun and have nothing to do with real ghosts and ghouls. No real witch every had green skin. And zombies don't exist. In short...I grew up on Halloween and -- shockingly -- I'm not a devil worshipper, Satan lover, corrupted Pagan, or anything of the sort. Neither were my parents. In point of fact, I'm a faithful Latter-day Saint, temple recommend holding priesthood holder -- surprise surprise. I know. Shocking, right? Since, apparently, I invite Satan into my life yearly in October. When some holier-than-thou uppity gospel snob starts preaching to me that I'm NOT faithful, have invited Satan into my life, and that they have some higher way or path because they don't dress up and go trick-or-treating it is utterly laughable to me. Finally, if the prophets and apostles felt dressing up and trick-or-treating was a problem they would preach against it. They'd ban trunk-or-treating on church property. They don't do this because they're not nutty over-zealous wackos*. If they change their minds, I will too. *I realize that this is a subjective thing. According to some views, they are very much nutty over-zealous wackos. So, like I said...my opinion. Everyone has to come to their own conclusions about these things, of course. But I just find the "no Halloween" logic so bizarre. And if they don't celebrate Christmas it's even more bizarre. Because I can see, obviously, how certain parts of the world's Halloween traditions should be avoided. I mean one could apply the same to Christmas. The commercialism and greed can be problematic. That should be avoided. And another point. Neither Halloween, nor Christmas, nor Easter itself, are actually religious holidays for Latter-day Saints. The only holiday we have is Sunday each week. Otherwise, Christ is meant to be a at the core of all we do. If Christ is the core of one's Halloween traditions then it is a good thing. When my family dresses up and we take our kids trick-or-treating Christ is the center of it. First and foremost in all we do is to do as He did. Our priority is our neighbors, sharing, and giving them an opportunity to share. It's loving and laughing. It's politeness, kindness, service, and joy. It's family bonds. Halloween gives opportunity for this, even with one's face painted green while wearing a pointy hat and carrying a broom. Why on earth anyone would take such a silly, meaningless thing and apply this idea that selfless, serving, loving, Christlike, Sister So-n-so is "bringing Satan into her life!!!" is beyond me. It's ludicrous.

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?