The Folk Prophet

I'm not sure my making up explanations to wave off this or that would hold any more validity than all the explanations given to wave off evidence of suspicious election related activities.

Why does everyone feel the need to be so patronizing? Good grief.

I think I ought to be able to comment on something (specifically a new documentary, that is timely), without having my person commented upon in return. I'm not lamenting here. I'm commenting. You're telling me what I'm feeling on the matter, as if my comment has anything to do with "teams". I don't care who's team won or lost. I care if the game was fairly played. Cheating and dishonesty is wrong from either side of the aisle. And I'm commenting because I saw something about an interesting documentary that implied things and it was...you know...interesting. But even if I believed whole heartedly that the election was absolutely stolen, it doesn't mean I'm moping about feeling like my team lost. You're putting that on me in your reply. Objective analysis does not equal "feelings". I know you like to point out how conservatives in the reverse are just as bad as the liberals. That is, certainly, true in many situations. But I am, politically, quite a bit more fair minded than that. (Get me talking religion and I'm less so, as you might be aware). I am not one of those people who blames Biden for inflation and gives Trump a pass, for example. Trump's spending was out of control! He dropped the ball on a lot of things. And anyhow, I'm on team Jesus. I'm not on team Trump. Sorry. And, I might add, if there really was cheating going on, we sure as shootin' better be aware of it, and better be talking about it as a nation, and better be doing something about it for future elections instead of burying our heads in the sand because the media (mainstream, social, and otherwise) are all crying "Nothing to see here. Move along people. Don't believe your lying eyes." I'm pretty sure we should, actually, discuss history so we don't repeat mistakes. I think I learned that somewhere once.

I was just hearing about the 2000 mules documentary earlier today. Looks interesting. Of course I know that Biden is legally president and Trump, therefore, obviously "lost". Was what happened legally based on fair and square though? Highly dubious imho.

Did he?

Ditto, except I was more impressed with Trump's Supreme Court picks than his policy decisions. I ended up liking his personality overall* (with exceptions**) and feeling disappointed in what he got done... or, rather, didn't get done. *What I mean is that I only knew Trump from the news media, etc. Then after he was elected, I'd listen to his speeches and enjoy and find him funny and the like. Then the news media would report on it and spin the funny joke as racist hate rhetoric. **Sometimes the jokes went too far. And I never appreciate swearing or crudeness.

It is the opposite of dismissive. But I do feel moderately dismissive of your (rather rude) implication that it's dismissive. So.... I don't think you and I are going to agree on the heart of the problem. You're being rude. So I'm done.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say we can't "fully" protect children from it. But even then, that isn't really true to what I meant either. Kids simply seeing a man wearing a dress isn't necessarily damaging in and of itself if the proper responses, teachings and trainings are being done consistently. What I mean when I say we have to protect our children is, in part, that we need to be talking about this with them. Teaching them of the dangers. Teaching them of the corruption. Teaching them of the evil ideologies behind it all. Of course that teaching needs to include Christlike love, humility, patience, longsuffering, kindness, etc. It also means being exceedingly careful with kids and social media, serious consideration of home schooling, monitoring of other entertainment (#cancelDisney), etc. In particular it means affirming young girls of the awesomeness of their being female. I'm seriously not following why you bolded "The insanity is beyond. Beyond beyond." There's nothing contrary to what the church, scriptures, prophesy, or anything teaches in that comment. The insanity is beyond. Your understanding of this is a bit off to me. The church recognizes that biological sex is biological. But it also declares, unapologetically, that gender is eternal. The fact that it recognizes that some people 'identify' as a different gender is not contrary to @Carborendum's comments at all. This cuts both ways, frankly. For instance, there are people in my ward who are upset that a young man who came out as gay earlier this year is still allowed to bless the sacrament and attend the temple. "But he came out! PUBLICLY! There are consequences!" Alas, that is not what the Church expects, requires, or teaches. I do not follow how your response is even related to what @scottyg said. I will validate valid things.

Would you care to specify which statements are inconsistent with what the Church is teaching? I mean other than the obvious "ward shopping", which is a single statement by a single individual.

So apparently we're both mistaken here. In the original show the Rumble ends the first Act. The 2nd Act then opens with I Feel Pretty. It is true that Officer Krumpke is in the 2nd Act, and in the 1961 move it was moved before the Rumble, but just as in the new movie, I Feel Pretty followed the Rumble. However, it was an Act change, with intermission between, which works okay. Interestingly enough, Somewhere was also a solo sung by a character named Consuelo with a Company dance behind it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Story Act 1[edit] "Prologue" – Orchestra, danced by Jets & Sharks "Jet Song" – Riff & Jets "Something's Coming" – Tony "The Dance at the Gym" – Orchestra, danced by Jets & Sharks "Maria" – Tony "Tonight" – Tony & Maria "America" – Anita, Rosalia & Shark Girls "Cool" – Riff & Jets "One Hand, One Heart" – Tony & Maria "Tonight (Quintet & Chorus)" – Riff, Jets, Bernardo, Sharks, Anita, Tony & Maria "The Rumble" – Orchestra, danced by Riff, Bernardo, Sharks & Jets Act 2[edit] "I Feel Pretty" – Maria, Rosalia, Teresita & Francisca[33] "Somewhere" – Consuelo, danced by Company "Procession and Nightmare" – Tony, Maria & Ensemble "Gee, Officer Krupke" – Action, Snowboy & Jets "A Boy Like That / I Have a Love" – Anita & Maria "Finale" – Tony, Maria & Company I guess the point being that what Stephen Spielberg did is apparently actually more in line with the original show.

Sure. But with reservations, mostly based on the apparent ignorance of the younger generations on so many things. Is it iconic for musicals? Undoubtedly. Is it iconic for the broader culture? Yes.... but not like Star Wars, The Beatles, Beethoven or Superman.

Maybe you should consider not relying on anecdots from the "arm of flesh" for your understanding of truth.

I'm not sure how you expect to have an honest discussion on something when your thesis is so blatantly dishonest. Perhaps you aren't dishonest intentionally. Maybe you've simply allowed yourself to be duped by other's dishonesty. But the point remains. This discussion cannot move forward openly and honestly as long as it's corrupted by straight up falsehoods. At the least you're buying into the dishonest standard of redefining terms that progressive types seem to so often engage in. If you aren't bought into the common understanding that dating is defined by romanticism and the ultimate objective of sex then you're going to talk right past every reasonable person on the matter.

Pardon my confusion, but are you suggesting God purposefully and explicitly invited Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa to NOT come unto Him and partake of his gospel? Are you suggesting that if Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa had exercised their agency to join His church that God's work would have been hindered?

I'm not sure what it is you think I'm saying that you're trying to counter.

The idea that concerns me is your proposal that God leads people away from His church in order to lead them back to Him in the future. Whereas God can and does work with our weaknesses to turn them to strengths, he doesn't, that I've ever learned or heard, inspire us to be weak, foolish, sinful, lazy, carnal, devilish, or anything other than Godly, humble, and righteous.

I'll just leave this here for consideration. “Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.” - Joseph Smith

Since these two things are synonymous I'm having difficulty parsing out your thought here.

God doesn't bring anyone into the fold. He invites all to follow and obey and they either come to Him or they do not, based on their own free will and choice. Edit: I know "bring" is a subjective idea, but the point remains... it is upon our agency.

I kind of figured that might be the case.

You think In the Heights and The Wizard of Oz are in the same class of well known?

Right. And I think it would be key that censorship is not part of the proposed solution. There are cases where censorship is appropriate, of course. But for the most part, free speech should reign. In point of fact, that should be the primary directive of any disinformation board. Making sure ALL sides have a voice. There are cases where straight up censorship should exist, but they should be pretty rare, overall.

I'm not suggesting it's possible. I'm simply saying that in a perfect world we'd have it because it is sorely needed. There is, clearly, a great deal of mis and disinformation that's wreaking havoc on the world and our country. It's really bad. But, yeah....it's not going to work to deal with the real mis and disinformation.

Of course. It could, still, theoretically. But it won't. We are headed into the end times. Things will get worse.

This board is sorely needed. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Of course it needs to be run by non-political, intelligent, rational people who have our country's best interests in mind.