The Folk Prophet

FWIW, I think the potential of the future ending up like any movie has about at much chance as did Back to the Future II's prediction about it. I think the accuracy therein was...what...0%?

My point is that you seem to be equating the idea of a "witness" with an "ah ha" moment...or that at least you seem to imply that you think @CV75 is only referring to that. But I believe (he (she? sorry?) can correct me if I'm wrong) that having an "ah ha" moment is a reaction, not the witness itself. The witness merely is. It's something that occurs. It's like being a witness to anything. You either saw the guy steal the car or you didn't. You either heard the gunshot or you didn't. You either felt something or you did not. You either had a thought enter your head or you did not. If you are a witness to something then you are. Period. Whether one responds emotionally to that, or whether one thinks, "Ah ha" or not doesn't change the reality of the witness, or the fact that one could, if one so chooses, bear testimony of what one is a witness of. The Spirit bears witness of something that the Spirit has witnessed, and then we can bear witness of what the Spirit has communicated to us. But the Spirit has born witness to me of various things many times that were not "Ah ha" moments. That's because, for the most part, when the Spirit bears witness to me it is a confirmation of something I already know or believe or have had a witness of prior. It might remind me of the power of the original witness, but it isn't an "Ah ha". More importantly, I think (and this goes to @CV75's point I believe), sometimes people are given a witness and ignore it, deny it, or otherwise consider it flawed at some level or another. They still have the experience. They merely don't respond with an "Ah ha". I hope that makes my point clear.

I'll also be happy to ditch capitalism once replicators are invented.

Who said the witnessing of something or other had to be an "ah ha" moment?

It can...but it's not key. And, frankly, it runs the risk of the whole meat before milk thing. The milk is testimony. Explanations are useless without that testimony. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I have to refer to the process whereby we have been taught to know of the truth of the gospel. Read the Book of Mormon, ponder it, and get on one's knees, seeking the truth from God with humility and faith. None of the other stuff, ultimately, really matters. I mean it can help for certain people in certain situations. But it will never actually be key to knowing God. There is only one key to knowing God. That is the witness of the Holy Spirit. That is the means we are to find and know God and His truth on this earth. Therefore, the best we can do is what guides others to follow that path.

I've been watching Motley Crue documentaries the last few. Does that count?

I was thinking about stigmatization the other day and had the thought that in some ways it was/is healthier for a society to stigmatize certain things. Of course the current narrative is that doing so leads to suicide. I think that's clearly nonsense and can easily be seen by the numbers. It strikes me that having something societally disapproved of actually suppresses it. And I don't mean it just keeps everyone "in the closet" about any given matter. It does that too...and I'm not entirely sure that's so bad either...but not what I mean. I think it actually suppresses the existence of certain things in certain people. I'm not sure on my thinking though. Despite the fact that I had this thought, it's hard for me to buy into a narrative that we should mistreat people. That doesn't seem right. And I can't reconcile the idea that society should stigmatize certain people but we as individuals should not. Maybe at some point in the future I'll unify those ideas somehow and come back and share my brilliant idea with you all. 😋

So I get what you're saying and somewhat agree in theory. In practice, however, my cynicism is strong. And I believe justifiably so. There are just certain things that scream "red flag"! For example, my wife's cousin's wife (I'll just call her a cousin moving forward for ease's sake)... I heard from my wife's aunt that this cousin was reading a certain book. I can't recall what the book was, but I was familiar with it and just the fact that she was reading it was immediately a big ol' red flag. My gut sense was "Whoa...that's not good." I think I even expressed some concern to my wife's aunt. Anyhow, a year down the road and, surprise, surprise, this cousin and her husband announced they were leaving the church. Do I take any pleasure that my gut feeling was right? No. It is heartbreaking. Am I under the logical delusion that my gut feelings are always right? No. Do I believe that everyone who's ever read a "Ol' Jo was a con-man and a lecher" type book lost their testimony and left the church? No, I don't. But I do have gut feelings about certain things that seem to turn out to be correct an awful lot. And, frankly, I think most people, if honest with themselves, would have the same gut feelings. I think there's this general view that we're somehow meant to suppress all such feelings and stare blankly and daftly at such issues as if we don't have any discernment abilities at all. How dare we judge, after-all, right? But here's the thing: when I heard about my cousin reading said book, I maintained a firm hope. I did suppress the gut feeling to an extent in favor of that hope. I understand the desire to not pre-judge or assume the worst when you hear certain things. I could have been wrong, after all. Maybe the cousin could have been reading the book for academic purposes and had no testimony struggles behind the event whatsoever. I have enough discernment and intelligence to pretty well know that wasn't the case, however. But I still maintained hope I was wrong. But I wasn't. People declaring themselves gay in a "coming out" type public move is a huge red flag. All the arguments about how it's "the same" as other struggles people are struggling against might have logical validity, but the gut feeling remains. Part of that is experience. How often do we see said people remain faithful after coming out? Sure...it happens. But more often then not, it seems, the writing's on the wall. But the other part is just my sense of logic. I don't buy the reasons people give for coming out. Helping others. Showing humility. All those ideas...it doesn't feel right. My gut tells me it's pride, not humility, that generally seems to drive coming out. It's my sense that the individuals who keeps said issues largely to themselves are significantly more likely to be the faithful who struggle to overcome in likewise manner to other struggles. But I also understand that isn't going to be an absolute truth. You may gather, from my comments, that my larger issue is the public coming out, rather than the struggle itself. I think that is probably accurate. Another, related issue, is that I believe certain sins just ought to be kept to oneself. I don't believe the "confess them" part of the equation means publicly. And this is particularly true when it comes to sexually related issues. I don't want people standing up in sacrament meeting and telling my 5-year-old how they prefer their sex. I don't want the "Daddy, what's pornography?", "Daddy, what's a lesbian?", "Daddy, what's adultery?", "Daddy, what's sodomy?", or the like type question because of church. I don't need to know the detail that Billy-bob likes boys, and I definitely don't want to have to explain that to my young children. And I highly question the motives of those who want to get up in front of children and "confess" their sexual proclivities. I understand kids are going to come across stuff like that and it has to be dealt with. That doesn't, however, mean people shouldn't worry about keeping such matters private, as they ought to be. That's not to say I think those who come out publicly in forums where children won't know of it means there are no red flags jumping. It's just a side-note. Here are some detailed replies to your questions: Yes. I'd say "worried" is a better description than "ticked off". Yes. I think "taking issue" is accurate. I do take issue with it. @Vort and @Anddenex addressed this in part. My red flag commentary above addresses other parts of it. There's probably more to my taking issue with it too that I haven't been able to articulate yet. But this is correct. I do take issue with it. Yes. I do see a difference. And it is a massive difference. And if, in those cases where my red flag feelings are wrong, one remains committed because their admission isn't based in some level of embracing and feeding then hooray. But part of my concern is that the public admission feels an awful lot like a form of embracing and feeding. It may not be feeding it a full-on main course. But it sure feels like a little snack, if nothing else. But in the cases where it isn't, I think we agree. Identity politics, for one. FWIW, AA and similar programs that teach "I'm a [whatever]" have never fully set well (sat well??) with me. I've never much cared for the idea of "once you're this, you're always this" type ideas. I dislike the concept. I understand the admission of the problem idea. But beyond that, declaring oneself as such a thing seems kind of problematic to me. I mean I get why. It kind of makes sense. Sort of. It just seems like at a certain point one ought to be able to say they aren't what they were. Isn't that what repentance is all about? Anyhow...just a side thought. I'm not sure I've given it enough thought to really discuss. I have no idea. How many LDS folk suffer in silence? Do those who suffer in silence do so because they haven't bought the push? Have all those who come out done so because of that push? Who knows. I'd guess those who publicly come out generally have bought into it. In fact that seems (from my perception and experience) to be the common narrative they give behind their decision to come out. Yes. Though I still think declaring oneself "gay" is problematic from the get go. But, yes, I believe that. Yes. It's a tricky question due to the somewhat broad semantic understanding people have of "sinning". I think a better way to ask it would be to ask if a person who believes that about themselves can be worthy. The answer to that is clearly a yes. But if anything that isn't perfection is sin then anything that isn't perfect is something to strive to overcome and not be. And accepting that one just "is" imperfect and it cannot be overcome is not a perfect way to think, and is therefore, semantically speaking, sinful. But does everyone who thinks of themselves as "gay" think they cannot overcome it? Probably not. And an even more complicated question: does one engaging in certain activities that are less than ideal at one level or another, but doing so innocently, qualify those activities as sinful? I think that has to be accounted for. I believe it is wrong to declare oneself "gay" as an identity. But if someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, and does so in good faith, committed to doing right, but in the end I'm correct and they're mistaken, did they really sin? I mean if you flip that around and say in the end that they were right and I was mistaken does it mean I could be currently engaged in sin with my views? I'd like to think not? And so I have to understand that their actions, although I consider them wrong, perhaps ought not be labelled "sin", in that sin requires knowledge and understanding.

You bring up some interesting thoughts. I'll try and reply in detail tomorrow. Hopefully my response will be interesting as well.

@MrShorty The inclination of homosexuals or heterosexuals to prioritize sex isn't really the core point I'm getting at. It's the response by others to that prioritization that I'm really commenting on. It's the "heroically deciding to be their authentic selves" narrative that differs now-a-days. I believe that social responses of that sort do play a role into why homosexuals might prioritize sexual fulfillment higher, but it's not a point meant to be some sort of universal blanket of truth. I am merely musing about how and why there might be challenges for homosexuals above and beyond those of heterosexuals in various regards. There are certainly challenges of heterosexual lust above and beyond homosexual lust too.

FWIW, my interpretation is as follows (2 points): First, there is likely meaning in the fact they used the word is and not the word was. It does not say "the Church disavows that black skin was ever a sign of a curse". That is a different meaning than the way it was phrased. The theory that it is, point blank, de facto, always a sign of a curse is disavowed. The theory that it was, ever, in certain instances, for a time, a sign of a curse, was not said. 2ndly, and this may or may not be grasping at straws, there may be meaning to the fact that they specifically say "black" skin, which is generally understood to be those of black African decent who were denied the priesthood (which is the subject of the essay). It seems to not be referring to the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites, who are certainly not considered "black" in today's nomenclature. That being said, there's still Moses 7:8 and 22 (and Moses 5:40, relatively) to deal with. Which doesn't specifically speak of a "curse", but in plain reading does seem to be just that regarding the children of Canaan. Which, yeah.... based on the essay quotation you gave and method 1 as described by @Vort, it's probably best for the general member to interpret that scripture in a way that doesn't subscribe to the plain reading of it as a "curse" of any sort at this current time -- unless one allows for my first point (as I do), that there may well have been times where such a thing was a curse (or sign of a curse, as it were), but that doesn't mean it is the eternal reality of black skin.

@NeuroTypical, another thought I just had about the struggle difference, which is also an attitude/thinking issue imo, is that when one is heterosexual, when one gets into a situation where one cannot be sexually fulfilled by one's ideal sexual ideas, one accepts that that doesn't, ultimately matter. But for some reason in the homosexual world, that ends up being the main thing that matters. That's a dangerous idea. You have a man who's wife has gotten older, saggy, wrinkly, fat, etc. and he accepts it. I even know many men who have married someone who isn't attractive. And they know it. Sure, his most natural self would prefer a 20-something, perky, smooth-skinned vixen. He puts that aside. Daily. He knows that's not what's actually important. But then we see these guys like Ed Smart, who after having father's children with a woman*, decides that his interest in dudes is the priority over family and gospel, and casts it all aside for that interest, for some sort of unicorny "fulfillment". I use Ed Smart because he's a public figure, but I know many, many instances of the same. I'm not saying no man ever leaves his older wife for a younger, hotter woman. Of course. But as a general rule, society (especially in the church) looks down on that. Men who leave their wife and family to be gay are often celebrated as courageous. Of course on the other side of the coin, men who leave their old wife for a younger one, but stay faithful in the church, can, after a time, move past all such judgment. They can move on to have a happy, fulfilled, and righteous life with the younger woman. They can even, presumably, fully repent of it even if they did it for lustful wrong reasons, and even if they don't leave the younger woman to remarry the old one (I can't really judge that, of course.) They can overcome the lust, remain faithful to the new woman even as she ages, etc. But a gay man who left a woman for a man can have no such thing. He must, indeed, leave the man to be faithful again. * I added this to make a point. If a man has obviously "slept" with his wife then he has an outlet for sexual intimacy. People like to talk about not being attracted to a person as if that's the end all of sexual intimacy. And yet they accept that a man with an ugly wife can still be sexually "satisfied" but the gay man who's having sexual activity with a woman cannot. Moreover, the implication in the church membership seems to be that somehow that man never having sex again and staying entirely celibate (including self pleasure) is the better option than having sexual activity with someone who isn't as attractive to them. I dunno. Seems like flawed thinking to me. I know the recommendation to marry a woman if you're gay in the church is no longer en vogue. But I think, once more, that's a reaction to a societal attitude problem based in the corrupt concept that fulfilling one's sexual lusts is the key to happiness. And, sure...if a gay man literally cannot get aroused with a woman...that might be something else (not something I actually believe is generally true, any more than I believe a 100% straight man couldn't get aroused intentionally with another dude**). But when a man's fathered children with a woman............ I mean..... you know. ** This is something that is very difficult to talk about (especially here) because it requires uncomfortable (or inappropriate) discussion. Especially for straight men. The idea that they could, actually, have another guy start doing stuff to them and certain things would happen in response is something they don't want to even think about. Understandably. But it strikes me that whether one wants to think that such a thing is possible or not, it is reality. As is demonstrated by, if nothing else, all the gay guys who have fathered children.

Hehe. If felt like you were assuming that @LineUponLine was saying no people who are gay here on earth will end up in the Celestial Kingdom. I assumed he meant that anyone who is gay in mortality will no longer be gay in the Celestial Kingdom. I didn't mean to imply you were assuming that there would be gay folk trotting around Celestialized but still harboring sexual lust for people of the same sex. I simply meant (because I assumed you had assumed what LineUponLine was saying as stated in my first paragraph here), that if someone were to make such an argument it would be assuming that gay folk would be trotting around Celestialized but still harboring sexual lust for people of the same sex. But I can see how it came across as if I were accusing you of assuming such a thing. What I really meant was that I assume you don't think such a thing, and therefore expected you'd take my reasoning as legitimate. This is kind of a separate, but interesting, idea. Thinking on it, I think there's something more to the alphabet folk struggle. And that something more, among other things, is exactly what I'm railing against in my first reply to you. People, by and large, seem to be adopting the assumption that gay is okay. Not okay in the same way as heterosexual struggles are "okay" as long as you repent...but legitimately okey-dokey, "God made me this way, therefore it's wholesome and good, and I have no need to overcome it, but the better choice, after all my trauma in trying to overcome it, is to accept who I really am and push society to accept it too", okay. Obviously there are some semantics there that are difficult to deal with. It's similar to asking whether it's okay to not be perfect. Well...depends on what you mean by "okay", right? It just seems a lot of homosexualite types (and I mean faithfuls in the church) are adopting a "gay is good" type attitude. The affirming of oneself as "okay to be gay" seems the priority. And I consider that priority pretty dangerous. I get your point from the perspective of God though -- in that repentant people are repentant...and God is no respector of persons, etc. But as far as the mortal challenge of it... ESPECIALLY in our times... I don't think it is a similar struggle in most cases. I do realize I'm probably discussing something other than you mean. So if you're enjoying the back and forth, feel free to clarify or correct or what-have-you. I'm trying really hard to not be confrontational as I share my ideas about thoughts here, so if it's coming across that way I apologize.

Seems like a pointless line of inquiry. First, anyone who is Celestialized will have accepted God and Christ in full. Obviously that means that if LineUponLine gets there he will have accepted all truth as truth, and therefore if gay stuff is part of it then he will have accepted it. Obviously. Beyond that however, @LineUponLine's reasoning is perfectly sound here. To expect there will be people who are still sexually attracted to members of the same sex in the Celestial kingdom is an extraordinary expectation. Of course it's possible. Based on all we've been taught, however, it seems exceedingly unlikely, and there are no reasons other than trendy current social justice-based views to twist oneself over backwards to make such an exceedingly unlikely presumption. I also think making such assumptions is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. We are to strive to become like God. Would someone make the argument that God might be gay? That our Heavenly Mother isn't female? I'm sure some would make such a ridiculous claim. Maybe God's hair is made of spaghetti and he has green skin too. These ideas are not what we are taught. We should not presume ridiculous things that are not taught. But short of such a presumption, anyone who struggles with gayness should be striving to overcome -- despite the potential that they might not in this life -- because we should be striving to be as God is. To accept that gayness is eternal is to accept that anyone who has such a struggle need not bother striving to become as God is.

One of the challenges we often can face is when method 2 stems from method 1. The church teaches a certain thing or a certain thing a certain way, so one interprets accordingly. Then the church changes the way they're, on the whole, teaching it. It can be very difficult then to adjust one's thinking on the matter. Even for those who have been stalwart Method 1ers their entire life. It calls for a lot of humility and putting of oneself aside.

I expect he'll hire a CEO with the same priorities he has. Because, of course he will. Those priorities were his whole point in purchasing the thing.

Haha. Punny.

I think he should step down.

Apparently it was hacked Privacy ICAO Address that isn't meant to be publicly available. As @Carborendum points out, the fact that it was made publicly available doesn't mean it SHOULD have been publicly available, or that Elon is wrong in this instance.

That's beyond the point though. It may or may not be doxing. It doesn't need to be for Elon to be consistent. It only needs to be true that he THINKS it's doxing. I'm not saying Elon has being consistent across the board. He hasn't. I just don't think this particular case is inconsistent in any regard. FWIW, Elon claimed that tracking his plane was not possible without revealing private information. It seems clear he believes what was done crossed a doxing line. Which seems fine to me. Moreover, they weren't permanent bans. They were warning bans sending a message. This isn't allowed. Which it probably shouldn't be. I'd also guess those banned would feel the exact same way as Elon did had their information been shared in like manner. Now if the same thing happens to someone on the left and Musk shrugs it off and doesn't ban in like kind, sure....then he's behaving like a leftist. I wouldn't put it past him. Most people aren't entirely consistent. We all let our biases sway us, knowingly or not.

Fierce critique and doxing aren't exactly the same. One could accuse him of being overly paranoid, but banning over that isn't exactly the same as just being a fierce critic.

I wonder if this is really as common as some think it is.

I assume you're saying that the confrontation is the valuable gift, right? Is this really a result of schools/home-schooling? I cannot help but wonder if this sort of thing is really a nurture thing, or if it tends more towards nature. I really don't know.

You have to learn to use terms like "comorbidities" and "in flagrante delicto" more often then.

Hmm. This is interesting to think about and I'm not sure what to make of my thoughts. On the one hand, I understand what @mikbone is saying. On the other, I've known a few effeminate guys who, indeed, made me uncomfortable, but my sense of their effeminate nature that it was just that...just their nature. It wasn't a put on. It wasn't because they were "gay". Both men I'm thinking of were (and are, as far as I know) in really good relationships, married to women, with children, good fathers, active in the church with testimonies, etc.... Of course maybe they'll end up leaving all that for their "authentic" selves in the future...but that's not my sense. I don't believe either of them were effeminate because of their "sexuality". They just communicated in animated tones that come across as effeminate, and make similar hand gestures and movements. I honestly don't think that everyone who is like that harbors some underlying sexual issues. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. It does naturally make me uncomfortable too. But I put that aside in those cases. Alternatively, I've known several men/boys who are perfectly masculine in their behavior, and then they "come out" and their behavior changes. Suddenly they start talking with a lisp and making limp-wristed gestures and the like. Their "authentic" selves my hat! It's so clearly a put on in the same way some previously normal kid shows up to school one day wearing some extreme costume. I'm sorry Steve...but no...dressing up like someone from the Matrix is not your authentic self. I know...that dates me a bit. I just distinctly recall that happening quite a bit when that movie was popular. These people would show up to school (I was in college at the time) wearing long black leather trench coats and dark eyeliner. Of course I recall the same sort of thing in my high-school days (in the 80s) where some kid would show up to school one day wearing a "cowboy" outfit, or had gone "preppy" or the like (dating myself even further here.) Some people, obviously, wear effeminate as a costume.