The Folk Prophet

This makes it a much bigger deal, of course. 'Exacerbated' is, perhaps, not strong enough a word. Edit: I might add also, that the social media "trendiness/craze" of it is false. Meaning....it feels like the whole world has gone crazy. But they haven't. It's just that anyone who isn't crazy is censored on social media. It's a serious part of the problem. (Which is why I brought up Elon Musk earlier.)

I am so distraught at what's going on with this stuff. It's SO terrible and having a daughter now...it just breaks me heart. Up to a year or so ago it hadn't hit too close to home, and I hadn't even realized how much of an epidemic it is, even in happy valley Utah, even in the Church, even everywhere. Now I have extended family (a close cousin's daughter) who had decided they're Trans. And I've heard of example after example from friends and family in their wards, schools, etc. We have to protect our children from this! Thanks @Just_A_Guy for the resource on it. We need even more. The insanity is beyond. Beyond beyond. And it's going to get worse. Elon Musks purchase of Twitter is helpful. It also won't be enough.

I'm not sure I'd call them "failures" as much as "not successes". 😀 Okay...failures to succeed then, I supposed. My point is....it wasn't a "failure" of a movie, per se. It was okay. It just could have been much better. I would say it was a "good" film, but not a great one. I enjoyed it okay. Didn't hate anything in particular. But, yeah....I won't be too bothered if I never see it again... Hmm. Maybe that does make it a failure. It wasn't like some of the movies I've legitimately disliked. Like Pixar's The Good Dinosaur. FAILURE!

No, not the effeminate one with the lisp!! I can't believe it!

Another thought: I'm totally torn on West Side Story flopping. I want all "woke" content to flop. But I want musicals to succeed and lead to more musicals. So... Hollywood is stupid. That's all I know for certain about them. They're stupid.

I remember hearing that now that you mention it.

My understanding (I haven't seen it, just what I've heard) is Star Trek is WAY worse on this. I wouldn't say West Side Story, overall, sacrificed plot for the woke. It just emphasized the one line in a weird way that weakened it. Otherwise, the story (and I mean even Anybodys story) wasn't weaked by making her (him? it?) trans. It was the same story. A girl that desperately wanted to be a part of the boy's club, but wasn't accepted, and then found a bit of acceptance when she (he? it?) stepped up and helped. Exactly the same as the original. It was just turning the "buddy-boy" from a meaningless slang to a meaningful, dramatic, "hey, he said, BOY!" moment that was so lame.

So I finally saw Stephen Spielberg's West Side Story. Here's my thoughts. So first, the SJW elephant in the room...the change of the character Anybodys from a tomboy to a trans character. Did it hurt the show? Yes. Conversely, did it improve the show? No. Did it destroy it? Well....yes....ish.... in the current state of culture it would be something that I'd steer clear of generally. Outside the culture, could it have been an interesting idea to have a female character that thinks she's a boy and to deal with some of the conflict around that? Sure. But in today's world, it came across as pandering to the left and forced. And, of course, anything right now that pushes that kind of narrative is harmful. But even taking those critiques out of the mix...it was still handled badly. Particularly in once scene. Spoilers moving forward, if anyone cares. So in the original movie (1961), Anybodys runs off to look for Tony and the line is, "Hey. You done good buddyboy." She replies, "Thanks, daddio." In this version it's the same line, but handled: "Hey." Big pause....melodramatic camera zoom in for the line.... "You done good.......buddy-boy!" Anybodys nods dramatically and turns to exit. The camera zoom is SO bad. Like just terrible. A perfect example of ruining something for "THE MESSAGE". In the 1961 movie the lines worked great. Here...it came across as cheesy and terrible. Just bad directing and camera work, acting choices and everything, right in the middle of what was, overall excellent directing, camera work, acting choices, etc. Just terrible. Okay...so that's out of the way. Now putting that "woke" garbage aside, what did I think of the movie, overall? Well, it's West Side Story. It's great. So the question is: did it improve on things? Yes in some ways. No in others. The overall... I'd say the 1961 version is better on the whole. This version had some things that were better, but on the whole, it wasn't as good. Obviously the directing, camera work, lighting, etc., were superior. No question on that. The other big changes were in the order of the songs and additions or changes to the story. Some of those worked. Some didn't. Some were just meaningless changes that didn't add or subtract, but were fine. For example. the west side is having the slums torn down to build the Lincoln Center. So the street gang's worlds are ending anyhow one way or another. Did this story change hurt anything? No? Did it help? Not really. It was fine. Interesting I guess. Fine. They moved One Hand, One Heart to earlier in the show and had them sing it while visiting a church. This worked. It was cool. It was better placement for the song. Some of the other changes to the song order were worse, but not terribly so. Specifically, they put Cool earlier in the show and changed it so Tony was telling Riff to be Cool and not have the rumble. This....kind of....worked. Sort of. But it wasn't better. It was, in my opinion, worse. But it was...fine. Like I said. Not terrible. And the choreography was fun. Just conceptually....it didn't quite work. Now for the terrible... they moved I Feel Pretty from the start of the 2nd Act to immediately following the rumble. This was terrible. It absolutely killed the emotions and tension from the rumble. I had noted that they hadn't done I Feel Pretty earlier. And partly I thought they'd cut it. And I wasn't sad. I Feel Pretty is, and always has been, the worst song from the show. It's a throw away song. And I dislike it. But....it's popular. So I would have been surprised if they'd actually cut it. But in the 1961 version it comes at a point where having a throw away song is acceptable. It's kind of before the story really starts moving again, and before the second Act drama really starts to build. So it's always been fine. But putting it right after the rumble was not fine. It was really bad. I'm actually shocked that such a horrible decision was made with it. Some other things that were improvements: the singing was great! Like really, really good. I was very impressed, overall. Particularly Maria. I really loved her voice, and I typically don't like sopranos. Tony was great. Anita was great. But the giving of Somewhere to Rita Moreno to sing.... okay...fine again. It worked. I got it. But I missed it for Tony and Maria (even more so since I enjoyed their singing performances so much), and even more so...that means the reprise in the end scene was Tonight instead...and that just felt wrong somehow.... but I'll admit that might be sentiment talking. So I'll give that change a pass overall. And it was nice to have Rita Moreno sing it as a solo. In point of fact, a broader overall critique I have of West Side Story as a musical is that Maria doesn't have a solo. She sort of has I Feel Pretty...which I hate...but doesn't have a good aria to sing. She should. But I digress. Officer Krumpke was one of the weaker entries in this version. Not terrible. But not as entertaining as the older movie (primarily because of the performances). The rest of the musical pieces were all pretty good. Some of them played better than the 1961 versions (Tonight, Maria, One Hand, One Heart, A Boy Like That/I Have A Love). Some of them were just as good (Jet Song, Something's Coming, America), and some, as mentioned, were not as good. Actually the performances were all at least as good with the exception of Officer Krumpke. Even when they were not as good in the show because of placement (like I feel Pretty), the performances were as good or better, mostly. Maybe not Cool. It was fine. But the 1961 version performance is pretty killer. The choreography? It was fine. It was good. I liked it. Was it better than the 1961 version? No. But it was enjoyable. The rumble was....meh. It was fine. In some ways it was stronger than the other...but in some ways not. For some reason they had Tony actually fist fight Bernardo. In the 1961 version Tony takes a fighting stance at one point but stops immediately. I thought that was stronger. And the way Tony went from totally chill to fighting Bernado didn't feel very realistic here. And the lead into the usage of knives wasn't as cool or emotional. Etc. It was fine. Not as strong. Let's see. I think that basically covers it. Probably more detail than anyone cares to read. But if you made it through, those were my thoughts. Will I purchase it? I..........don't................think so...... I mean I would in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the trans thing. Does that bother me enough to keep me from buying it? I have such strong feelings about the matter in the current political and social climate that I don't know if I can separate that from it. Which basically means I'll default to not buying it. But is it because I really was bothered by what they did there? I can't say for sure. I can say, however, that unlike some other things, that if someone I knew purchased it I wouldn't judge and scorn their decision to do so. So overall, it was a good version. Not as good (overall) as the 1961 version. Hurt by some woke stuff and some weird decisions. But still, quite good.

Here's the latest song I wrote for my Joseph Smith musical if anyone's interested:

Of course we have no obligation to be morally consistent with our bans and boycotts.

I don't believe anyone thinks they'll bring Disney to their knees. Enough bad press and profit loss though and maybe they'll go a bit more politically neutral. That's the best we hope, I think. And yet you'd likely immediately see how conservatives tend to judge all liberals only by the extreme wackos. Disney's full power, ultimately, stems from their customer base though. They are an example of free-market capitslism (mostly). And they're dumping sugar in their own gas tank and still expecting to win races. Ditto.

We agree on that point I think we may differ in our understanding of joy and what sort of thing kills it. I have seen a few views implying this, but by and large I think most conservative parents are more reasonable than that. I'm not going to burn my copy of Cinderella. But I'm not buying any more Disney product without reviewing it first. And anything with that sort of "woke" content loses my money. I also won't, generally, pay for services like Disney+ because that content permeates it. As for going to the parks... I dunno. If I expect to see princesses in drag there's no way in stink I'm taking my family. And I wouldn't put that past Disney. So...??? I think you're seeing this parental response as a formal call for boycott... but that is not what it is. There will be some of that. But go to any ad, for example, for Disney+ on Facebook and read the comments. People aren't calling for boycotts. They are simply declaring they will not consume product from a company that's going after their kids. Disney has alienated their core Market. That is just bad business any way you cut it. Most of Disney's customer base (outside of Marvel or Star Wars) is families, not millennial SJWs. At least half (likely more based on polling) of that customer base is now being motivated to turn elsewhere for entertainment. That's not good for Disney. And I think you're seriously underestimating how bad this will be for them. But time, as you said, will tell. None of these things have anywhere near the family customer base as Disney, or the outraged negative publicity going on. Not even close. And finally... good! If only we could, as a society, be more puritanical! Sure, there's going TOO puritanical. But society has swung SO far the other way that we sorely need this.

Disney seems to be targeting children directly. Buying a car doesn't directly teach your children about sexuality. Watching a Disney show very well might. I doubt if Disney simply kept supporting leftist things behind the scenes that many would say much. Because they say they will intentionally put such things in their children shows as an agenda, it brings everything to the forefront and puts people into defense mode. People worry about taking their children to Disneyland and getting drag princes and princesses. It's a direct attack. Parents who are worried about their children being taught leftist sex and gender ideaologies are killjoys?

Of course I know you're right. And I feel guilt over the feelings of fear and whatnot that I have. My children don't need to ever experience Disneyland. But boy howdy that makes me sad. If you don't hear from me again I suppose I've been turned into a pillar of salt.

Right. And it is my supposition that unless Disney does some serious course correction here, that the size and influence of what's happened in the past few weeks is going to be much greater than what's gone on before. And that leaves me moderately hopeful. That's my primary thesis I guess.

Except the boycott was definitely PART of it. Some (particularly the companies) seem to be unwilling and unable to comprehend that. Disney has been bleeding money on their movies since they really started going woke. With few exceptions, their movies are (relatively) failing. And yes, Covid and all that is part of it. But there is no question that the dissatisfaction people have with the woke garbage is a big part of it. But there's also the fact that some of the movies just haven't been that good. Because there are always going to be multiple components in failure, it's easy to focus on one thing and excuse the other. And that is what Disney and other companies are clearly doing. They have excuse after excuse as to why their current approaches aren't doing as well. But then you get a movie like Spider-man No Way Home come along and...somehow Disney thinks that putting the gay kiss back into the children's Buzz Lightyear movie doesn't basically guarantees it's not going to do very well. It's delusional. But they'll come up with many an excuse as to why it underperforms. None of those excuses will be the inclusion of the gay kiss. Maybe I'm wrong and parents, in droves, will take their kids to see it and then purchase it and etc., etc., anyhow. Maybe it'll be the next big Disney hit. Heaven help us all if that is the case. The Wokeness/Brokeness scale is not the only variable in the matter. That is true. You can't make a crappy move without wokeness and expect success. And if you make a crappy movie with wokeness in it's going to fail because it's no good as a movie, despite any wokeness. And you can't make any movie in a pandemic and expect it to be a hit. And if you make a really, really good movie with wokeness in it it may well still do well. Wokeness is not the end all of it. But when you get middling movies that make 100 mill instead of 150 mill because of wokeness, that's still a 50 mill a movie loss. How all those numbers actually work and how much wokeness will actually hurt a company is an unknown. But the plain fact that it is, indeed, hurting companies seems indisputable. Disney, and all companies, would be wise to wise-up and stay politically neutral. It is, decidedly, more difficult to become neutral after having allowed the wokeness to bleed in though. They all should have stayed neutral throughout.

"Just fine" is relative though.

Yes, but, apparently, a spineless one. We'll see though. Maybe he'll surprise us. As I understand it from the things I've followed, Iger had political ambitions and did more than took his eyes off things...he encouraged/pushed it. I've heard this theory...but....the last week or two seem to imply that he's not so in control or willing after all. Maybe. We'll see. I would love it if this is the case and the result of this is all the wacko's that have been outted as wackos get fired. But....really? I'm doubtful. No. But as I said. Hope. I think this is a bigger deal. They've (Disney) really put it out there. They've stated in no uncertain terms that they are coming for the children with their agenda. It's a real wake up call to a lot of people who've been able to write off things thus far. I could, of course, be wrong. And I'm sure you'll see it differently. But I don't think Disney is going to only lose a little bit of business because of this. They're going to lose a LOT of business. The question is more, in my opinion, whether they'll learn from that or just take the standard course so many companies are. Blame the toxic fandom and press forward losing money. I expect they will do just that. And, as I said, the culture is moving further and further into the extreme, and eventually it'll catch up to Disney's vision. And Disney can take it. They will still make tons of money. As much as they lose out on profits they could have had, they'll still make money. They'll still have people paying for Disney+. They'll still have people go to their parks. Etc. So, yes, you're right that Disney will probably weather the matter without too much suffering. But that's only because they're a behemoth that can take getting several of their thousands of heads chopped off without dying. I think though that you're underestimating the response this will garner. I don't think it's like them on the sly saying they put a gay character in Beauty and the Beast. It's big news. And it hits people in ways that really matters to them. But I could be totally wrong. I probably am. I'm just....sort of....kind of.....a little......hopeful. But not really.

Disney has really shot themselves in the foot here with this Florida bill thing. Of course, they may be too big and strong for that to really matter. But....I suspect they're going to hurt from what they're doing, and badly. It will be very interesting to see what happens. As for my hope, I hope Bob Chapek is fired because he's spineless, and some hard-nosed business guy comes in and lays down the law and starts firing anyone who dares bring up progressive ideas. Short of that, I hope they continue down their radical path and die a slow and painful death. Of course neither of those things will actually likely happen. More likely they'll weather the storm until the parents who are all hating on them now get in line with the progressive ideologies being pushed, and they'll be back on top again. Either that or all the parents who are hating on them right now won't, in actuality, put their money where their mouths are. Actually that's probably the most likely thing. People will complain about Disney for a while, but everyone will keep dumping their money into the devil's coffers. And then, of course, the consumption of Disney media will be a part of the means where all these conservative parents who are hating on Disney now slowly sell their souls. Everything is terrible. I'm so depressed. But...one can hope.

It's easier to not care what people think of you when you don't interact with them. One of the reasons I'm less active on the forum now is because it was often difficult to be told day-in and day-out that I was a terrible person that was everything that was wrong with the Church. It's much easier, not interacting as much now, and therefore not being constantly told such things, and to look at such comments as "I don't care what they think". But that's mostly because I'm not thinking about it. If I ponder on the matter again, I start wondering about the merit of some of the commentary. That's a good and a bad thing I suppose. It's good for me to work on drawing nearer to Christ personally. But...if I'm blind to a flaw because I'm burying my head in the sand because it's difficult to face, then I'm not working on improving that flaw. Of course thrown into the mix is the question of whether anything anyone else thinks of me is, indeed, a flaw with me or a flaw with them. Christ himself was hated and persecuted. Being hated and treated like you're everything wrong with the church doesn't make it true. But by golly it's sure hard to not wonder sometimes if there is truth in it. And that can be very hard on a person. That being said, my retreat wasn't cowardly. For those who recall, I left the forum on principle because of some of the, what I considered to be, offensive articles being published. It was an act of principle. I'm moderately more involved now because the articles stopped doing that (which I understand is a budgetary issue (regardless..good riddance says I)), but I'm still not getting involved again like I was because I really don't relish going back to that 2 or 3 times a week feeling terrible about myself because of commentary on the forum here. So my interactions are light. In that regard, I can certainly understand how getting to a point where not caring what others thought of me would be freeing.

Well, this life has been specifically designated as a test, the reward and punishment following said test. You seem to have missed the point I made that it's relative, and that everything but the complete salvation or complete damnation will be both reward and punishment. Clearly, relatively, the Telestial Kingdom will be a reward comparted to Hell and/or Perdition. Obviously. It will also, and this is my point, be a punishment compared to Celestial glory. When one casts off the relative nature of various states, and addresses only one side of the equation, they're missing some important ideas I think. And whereas we, if not Exalted, won't have the experience of being Celestial beings to compare a lesser state too...we all did live with our Father in Heaven, and not returning to be with Him again will be something I think we'll be very, very aware of. We don't understand the eternities, and for us to apply our mortal ideas to them is, I believe, not particularly useful. Anyone presuming they or others don't want what they cannot even begin to fathom is foolishness. We need to trust God. We can't comprehend His glory. What we DO know and can comprehend is that it is our job, by commandment, to declare repentance and teach faith in and obedience to Christ. We shouldn't presume anyone isn't fit, in any regard, for that. That is left to God. As I was reading through your post I thought of children too. I was mindful of the times my daughter has rejected some yummy food or another we made for her because she, in her silly-minded childness, decided for whatever reason it was going to be gross, without really understanding or trying it (And I'm talking sweets and dessert type things I know she'd like if she'd give it a shot). That's what I thought of when you suggest many would say, "No thanks, that's not for me" of eternal life. Children rejecting delicious wonderful things with a complete lack of understanding. It's a pretty good analogy actually. If I offered my 2-year-old a billion dollars or a toy truck he'd take the toy truck any day of the week. God asks us to trust him with faith and humility, not with actual knowledge and understanding of what we're getting or not in the eternities. I believe our relative comprehension of things is less compared to God than my 2-year-old's is to me. So I don't buy the whole self-judge thing so much. God is our judge for a reason. Of course we'll be part of the judgement. But the philosophy that we'll just chose where we want to go on judgement day falls flat. Because we're silly children who are incapable. What's being "proven" is not our ability to choose this reward or that. It's our ability to humble ourselves, obey, and repent. If we were held to account for our ability to choose the correct reward for ourselves we would almost certainly get it wrong. Of course those who will receive Telestial glory are, indeed, the covetous. I just find the logic funny. All those who are the greedy, selfish, prideful, power-hungry, money mad, whore-mongers are the ones who will say, "No thanks, that's not for me" to unlimited power and glory? I'm not sure we know this. But jealousy and regret are not synonyms. I'm suggesting the latter. Those in lesser glories need not be jealous of those in higher to regret their choices.

I am always concerned, and bit surprised, when people write of the Telestial kingdom as no big deal, and try and excuse away this or that based on the idea that all will be "glory". It's like they have no concept of the relative nature of glory and punishment. Punishment is always relative. Glory is always relative. And they are relative to each other. There is only one state of perfect glory. All else is, relatively, punishment. There is only one state of perfect punishment. All else is, relatively, glory. This seems like a perfectly obvious idea to me, but apparently it isn't to all. It's like saying to two guys: to one, "For the next 50 years you get $100 because of your choices." and to the other, "For the next 50 years you get a billion dollars because of your choices," and then ignoring the reality that the guy who got $100 can't buy food for more than a few days, can't pay rent, can't buy a TV, can't get a car, etc., etc. but then saying, "it's not a punishment....you received money didn't you? It's a glory and an honor to have received this free $100. You couldn't abide a billion. It wasn't 'right' for you. And you chose the $100 by your own actions, so obviously you should be contented and happy with what you received." Of course it is a reward and a glory. Of course it wasn't right for him. Of course he chose it. But he still can't do the things the guy getting the billion can, obviously. And relatively, it's obviously punishment too. And people seem to think that because the guy made choices that led him to only get the $100 that he'll, therefore, be perfectly satisfied, contented, and honored to have made those choices and received the glory he did. At some level, sure...he'll make do with what he has. He has to. He'll learn a level of contentment with his lot. We all do with our lots to some degree. But to treat it like there will be no discontentment with our failure, we won't feel punished by it, and that we won't eternally regret what we chose just sort of baffles me.

I think he meant @Just_A_Guy.

I read it. Basically: Some people use what I think is twisted reasoning, so here's my twisted reasoning that you should accept because I think you should. In other words, standard By Common Consent fare

The article states: "Any continuing employees who choose not to opt in to the standard, as well as employees who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ, must continue to meet existing employment and ecclesiastical standards." Which directly contradicts the claim that "all" CES employees "must" have a temple recommend. All of them have to...except the ones that don't.