The Folk Prophet

Of that there is little doubt. (And I'd say the thoughtless buying into the narrative is a big part of that problem)

I have no idea how you can say this? It's the narrative that the leftist media has been pushing since Obama was elected. An awful lot of people just thoughtlessly accept it.

And none of these struggles will matter if we are humble, obedient, and repent when we make mistakes. All of these struggles will matter if we are prideful, disobedient, and fail to repent. Upon this common ground is the equity of God.

"appears" to be according to what...? FWIW I fully and completely reject this idea. I do not believe it to be biological. I believe there are biological traits that might incline one towards things that relate, but... Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it were fully biological, unchangeable, etc. Then still... ...this is still not an apples to apples comparison. It's comparing a persons, due to their skin color, being unable to have the priesthood to a person, due to their tastes, being unable to indulge in their tastes while remaining faithful and in good standing in the church. The need to not indulge in tastes that are sinful is common to ALL people in the church. It is not exclusive to homosexuals. Some people have tastes that are further out of bounds than others. But we all have out of bounds tastes. I've been "punished" in the same way throughout my life by having to repress my nastier urges to stay in good standing in the church. Though I would think it should be obvious that calling that a "punishment" is kind of flawed. FWIW, mere "skin color" was not the issue at hand in the priesthood restriction. Lineage was. But I digress. There was nothing they could refrain from to get the priesthood. Everyone has to refrain from certain things to qualify for blessings. Everyone. But even a perfect, sinless man, were that possible, could not have the priesthood prior to 1978 if he was of black African descent. And, for consideration also, women still cannot by virtue of being a woman. That, at least, would indeed be a legitimate comparison of ideas.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2016-03-0023-no-blessings-denied-the-faithful?lang=eng I'll trust in the prophets and apostles, thank you very much.

But that difficulty is a choice. Blacks not being given the priesthood was not their choice. Someone choosing to believe the Church is wrong in homosexuality is something they can choose to not believe and the conflict is resolved. No more difficulty in that regard.

Why don't they have access to the high blessings? Belief is a choice.

Any two things can be compared. The question is whether there is any worth to the comparison.

Someone who is gay can already participate fully in all the blessings of the church if they choose to through their obedience. Which means there's no comparison to be made at all.

I almost hesitate to go into this because, in a way, I somewhat agree with the idea that it doesn't hurt to wear a mask. Somewhat*. Where I fully agree is that it not only doesn't hurt, but is imperative that we follow the prophet's council. And it's become such a huge political issue that I'm not sure anyone can really approach it without severe bias in the mix. I know I have bias. (*I say somewhat because I think there is, indeed, harm in everyone pretending that the butt-naked emperor's new cloths are anything but butt-nakedness. But...that's a different discussion.) But... It strikes me as spurious math to translate the fact that a mask might catch, say, even 75% of the virus particles (cloth masks don't...but...) to that meaning one is 75% more protected from the virus when masks are being worn. The virus, as per my best understanding, is not airborne. It transfers by touch. Snot, saliva, etc., get on the hands, the hands touch other surfaces, others then touch those surfaces, and then touch their eyes, mouth etc. The percent of effectiveness masks has is only a percent of effectiveness in the overall equation. If someone is symptomatic, then the phlegm, snot, sneezing, coughing, etc... The cloth masks stop a percent (the amount is debatable, but it seems likely it's not a large percent) of that. But particularly with the sacrament. If someone has the virus, then the sacrament, which involves touching and mouths, is a sure-fire way to pass the virus. It's more like wearing a prophylactic during the dinner date but then taking it off for the dirty deed. I don't know how the parts per whatever of virus to surface area affects the chances of catching it. If someone sneezes without a cloth mask and spreads a million parts of the virus onto a surface vs a someone who sneezes with a mask and only spreads 2.5-thousand parts...does that mathematically equate to a 75% less chance of catching it from that surface? I think not. There comes a point where the chance of catching the virus from the amount of virus hanging out on the surfaces is pretty much 100%. Not wearing a mask may double, triple, quadruple the amount of virus hanging around (maybe...), and it doesn't change the chance of getting sick if the amount of virus hanging around is high enough. The conclusion that lessening the viral load by some percent means the chance of getting sick is lessened by some percent is a spurious one. That wearing a mask increases the chance of not passing the virus by some percent is likely somewhat true (with a proper mask, certainly true)...but mathematically, just based on how it's passed, me sitting there breathing, a-symptomatically, with no other interactions has such a low chance of passing the virus anyhow, that we're talking moving the safety measure, in that case, from something like 1% to .8% chance from the mask-wearing difference alone. Essentially from nil to nil. Yes, that's 20% less risk of passing it. But in the grand chance of passing it it's practically meaningless. Whereas being around someone who's symptomatically carrying the virus the chance of getting the virus (particularly with the Omicron variant) is extremely high, and the wearing of a mask lowers that risk from very high to...very high minus some exceedingly small point of some overall percent. (Note...all the numbers I'm throwing out are merely examples for reasoning's purpose. I don't know what the actual numbers are or what the actual correct mathematical conclusions are. But I know they aren't what mask-advocates are saying they are because the logic doesn't work.) Additionally, (as best I know) everyone's getting Omicron. Period. Masked, vaccinated, etc. We're all getting it. If that's true, then what are we protecting ourselves against, exactly? I understand that being vaccinated typically means the results of catching it are less severe. So there's protection there. But masking doesn't affect how severely one gets it. This seems to be playing out in what's being seen. Areas that mask and have mandates and are stringent about it are getting just as sick as those who don't. There doesn't seem to be much value to masking or locking down. In theory, both might have benefits. In practice, they just don't seem to make a difference. Anyhow, I'm sure the argument could go on...and to, really, no great benefit. I don't feel I need to convince you that the wearing of masks is dumb (though I would dearly love to convince places that mandate it of that). I would, however, hope you'd accept that the reasoning some have in thinking they're dumb isn't simply because they're "deceived". It is not that simple. It's not as simple as, "well if I breath out X amount of virus without a mask and only Y percent of that with a mask that's Z% less risk to my neighbor, and that's a small price to pay". Smart, intelligent, thoughtful, people have good reasons to consider masks dumb. When you throw in the political oppression aspect, they have good reason to resist. Does that mean they should resist the prophet? No. But that doesn't mean they're straight up deceived.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this. Anti-maskers are deceived into thinking masks don't work? I'm a pretty rabid anti-masker myself. Don't get me wrong...I wear one in meetings when I can't socially distance. Because I believe in obedience. But here's what reason tells me: If I had the right mask and could, actually, wear it properly (washing hands first, applying a fresh, sanitary mask properly, and then leaving it alone the entire time I wore it), then...it still wouldn't do me any good in church because I have a 2 young children. If someone has the virus in church, what logic tells me, is that it's getting spread. My kids are touching stuff -- nay -- licking stuff. And they're ripping my mask off. And etc., etc. And I don't wear the right mask. Who does? And even if I did...others don't. And then..., you know, I don't wear it properly (how can I with children clawing at my face?, and I pull it down for the Sacrament, which lets the germs out/in as I touch the trays where other people are eating from...and etc., etc., etc.) And all that has nothing to do with what the institutions of science say and don't say. Throw in that side of things and my rebellion against "the science" in that particular thing is complete. So am I deceived in my anti-masking attitude? Shrug. Nevertheless, I will wear one in church meetings when I can't socially distance. I will follow the prophet. But no way am I putting on that stupid face diaper to meaninglessly virtue signal elsewhere. But I'll tell you what, some of the best, most honorable, intelligent, obedient, good people in my ward are some who have decided that wearing a mask in church isn't the path for them. I don't think I'll judge them. (I'm not saying you are judging...I just wondered wherein the conclusion stems from that those who, in my opinion, have very reasonable views on masks and the inefficacy of the practice are "deceived")

Depends on what you think agency means. In my opinion, agency is one of the most misunderstood principles. But maybe that's because I misunderstand it. Who knows. But I don't think it means what you seem to be implying it means. In your thinking, does consent have to be specific in every regard to qualify as "agency" or can it be a general, "I give to Thee, the Lord, consent to do unto whatsoever thing Thou seest fit to inflict upon me because I trust in Thee." Do we need to be fully in the know to give consent, or does trust in the Lord count? Clearly we "consented" to the Lord's plan, in general. I mean that was the war in heaven. Those who didn't consent became Satan's followers, were cast out, and are sons of perdition. Of course the other big problem with the idea of pre-mortal consent for earthly trials is that it doesn't take agency usage in life that brings trials upon us into account. Even if we consented to be born into wealth or poverty, that doesn't really matter as to how we use our agency to squander wealth or be fiscally responsible. Hence the financial trials or blessings we may or may not have might well be much more connected to our mortal choices than they were to pre-mortal choices.

I think this needs to be reconciled with: "wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."

Can you concretely explain exactly what it means to receive or receive not the Spirit? (I'm not sure it's a concrete idea.) But that aside...I'm not sure it's fully relevant to what I'm talking about, which is our imperfections as teachers or learners -- imperfections that don't disappear when the Spirit witnesses truth to us, right? I mean take this very exchange. I "taught" an idea. You "taught" another in response to me. Were we both moved up on by the Spirit before we posted? If not, does that mean we shouldn't have posted? And if we were moved upon to post, does that mean you fully understood my post or I fully understood yours? And if I didn't understand yours, was that my fault because of my weaknesses, or yours because of yours? And vice-versa? Do you get what I'm getting at?

For his struggles, of course.

This is an interesting thing to think about regarding responsibility? Where does it lie? I mean wherein are we, the "teachers" culpable? Are we meant to (as I tend to believe) speak truth the best way we know how, and that fulfills our obligation...or must we learn mind-reading, advanced psychology, and have perfect, pure empathy for everyone's point of view or the failure is ours? And what teaching methods are required, really, on the other end of the spectrum, before an individual literally "can" or "cannot" understand? Is the onus for understanding on the teacher or the learner, ultimately? It's a challenging question. It's an idea I've been pondering on a lot regarding parenting, particularly. I want to teach my children well. But I can only do it the best that I can do it. And I have to accept that they have agency, and no matter what I do, they will still have agency. And I have to reconcile the ideas that no matter how much I teach and protect and guide my children, even IF successfully, there are so many children who aren't taught right, aren't protected, and aren't guided -- and they have every bit the same chance for exaltation per their agency as my children will. Obviously the answer is relative to each individual. We are asked to do our best and the Atonement makes up for the rest. Everyone's best is not the same. For some, the best they can do is throw books at people. And that is sufficient....for them...if it is truly their best. As for Archuleta... where does the blame actually lie? Who knows? We live in such a corrupt world that calling out accountability is tremendously difficult. And we shouldn't, really, anyhow. Judge not, and all that. We can definitely judge whether we think any course of action is wise or not though. Some of his are not. That seems clear. But does someone raised as he was in the world we live in even stand a chance at correct thinking? And if they don't, are they accountable? I do not know. Go ask your Pop.

So I'm not going to say I think this is wrong by any means because, you know, wiser men than me...etc... But relying on it too much feels somewhat like relying on the arm of flesh rather than the arm of God. I know that's going way too far...and I only put it out that way because it was the thought I had, but I accept it's not exactly the same thing... still.... I tend to hope I didn't plan my own trials because I pretty much expect that I am, and was, pretty darned stupid about everything. If I planned my own trials then I'm pert darned sure I'd mess it up...too harsh, or too easy for my needs. The idea that I know (or knew) myself and my needs better than anyone else is a problematic, flawed idea. The Lord knows me. The Lord knows my needs. The Lord knows what I need best to grow. The Lord knows what trials I can and should face. I sincerely hope and believe that He designed this. Not me. Anyhow, not trying to debate the point. Just sharing my view.

I've wanted to. Particularly to make custom leather bindings. Could be fun.

FWIW, I blatantly speculate carnal desire and learning to control it is more a similitude and/or a lower level thing that doesn't tie directly to itself the way you're speculating. As I see it, when an individual is as God is, the mastery of self is, clearly, a part of that. But that doesn't mean there's a one to one relationship in what we do in mortality with our carnal selves to what we must master in the eternities. As an example, my mother once suggested that what she looked forward to in the eternities was being able to water-ski again. I remember thinking in response that that's like presuming as a child that when you grow up you'll be able to play with blocks all you want to! Or pick your nose and eat it all you want to. Or eat a whole bag of some disgusting candy that only kids like. Or never go to bed. Or do nothing but watch TV all day. Etc., etc. Now as an adult, it's true. I can do any of those things. But having actually grown up, I don't want to. (My examples may be imperfect, but hopefully my idea is coming across). I thought to myself, why would a perfected, exalted being who has past, present and future constantly before them, sees all, knows all, can command all things and have all power, and can, presumably, travel anywhere they want or need to instantly... why would such a being want to be dragged behind a motor boat while standing on a piece of wood for fun? Additionally, I have nowhere near the desires and temptations (sexually speaking) that I did when I was younger. Part of that may be a lowered libido....but partly I just grew up. The idea of going to a club and dirty dancing with a stranger, for example, might have had an appeal when I was in my 20s. Now the idea sounds disgusting and stupid. Point being, things change in the way we think and feel as we mature. And we have no comprehension of God's maturity, but...just that glimmer of difference in mortality suggests something to me. I see young teenagers engaged in activities that are "fun" and I think they're stupid and have stupid interests and desires and cannot imagine how anyone could find such silly things fun -- despite the fact that I found things like that fun when I was a teenager. Inane, giggling silliness just isn't appealing anymore. I grew up. But I digress. My speculative point is that, yes, learning to overcome the carnal is important -- but I don't know that that translates to some sort of reality that we'll always have those carnal desires pressing on us in some sort of manner. FWIW, I also speculate just the opposite of your final statement. I tend to believe physical drive is a result of our fallen state. I don't tend to think we'll have physical drives -- or, rather, the perfection of our bodies means the removal of physical drives. Our need/drive to sleep, eat, take in oxygen, have sex, etc., I believe to be temporal. In point of fact, no more hunger, pain, or fatigue is, indeed, scriptural. I do understand your speculation, and, yes...maybe... Removal of hunger might not mean removal of the joy of eating. But since our enjoyment of eating stems directly from our bodies' need to fuel itself.... It'll sure be interesting to find out someday how it's all going to work though, right?

Which is my point. I don't conclude that we, as Celestial Beings, don't have sex. In point of fact, I rather, secretly, hope we do. But I certainly don't conclude we do either. I conclude we don't know. And, therefore, presumedly, must poop and pee somehow.

Btw, I'm not suggesting chastity isn't an eternal law. It's a question of application. Like having a law against murder among resurrected beings. The law would still be, theoretically, eternally true...but you can't murder a resurrected being. So....sure. Still a law. Just not really applicable.

Maybe it is. But do you assume God has to eat three times a day or He get's hungry too? That if He doesn't drink water He'll die or thirst? That he needs Oxygen to breath? That he needs to sleep? Etc. etc.? The idea that everything translates from mortality to the eternities is, in my opinion, clearly not going to be the case. I think that most people haven't bothered to really think about the matter. They just assume that because they have hormones rushing through them driving them to strongly desire sexual activity in mortality that the same will be true in the eternities. I don't think that logic follows. The question was asked, "what is stopping them from living together as if they are married. Nothing I assume?" The entire premise of the question is based on the idea of sex. Because that's the end all of "as if they are married". Otherwise why can't the question be, "as if they are brothers", or "as if they are roommates" or, "as if they are father and daughter" or, "As if they are best friends." etc., etc. The thing that differentiates marriage from other relationships is the sexual, procreative nature of it. That's the reason marriage, as an institution, exists. Because of sex and the resultant procreation. The question presupposes that sex is part of the equation in the afterlife. I'm not convinced it will be, and I think anyone who cares to put a level of thought into the matter would question the matter in the same way. Am I determined that I'm right in such a supposition? No. It's supposition. But for anyone to presume we know the other way around to be factual (that Telestial beings will be driven by hormones and sex) is also supposition. Now the questions I raised on "Celestial sex" are only related in that I was trying to suggest that we don't know, at any level, how that's really going to work or be. But it wasn't specific to the question about Telestial beings living "as if they are married".

I'm not sure what you think we're actually disagreeing on. My only point was that we don't know. Do you think we do know? My other thoughts were entirely what-if, maybe, who knows, speculative sorts of thoughts -- so there's really nothing to disagree with me on.

A few thoughts I had in response to having read the above comment. It seems to me that..... Chastity is a principle that is directly related to the carnal -- it is to control the carnal within the bounds of the Lord's law. It exists because there is a sex drive. The sex drive is a result of our physical, mortal bodies. A lot of our mortal drives are the carnal that we must overcome. Hunger, fatigue, the drive for sex, etc. These things, as best I understand, will not be part of a perfected resurrected individual's needs. I know many fancy that some sort of physical eternal sexual mating is part of Celestial Glory. I think that's silly. Why would that be the case? It's hard to put into explicit detail without being too...you know...explicit... but... why would the creation of spirit bodies by perfected physical ones be the same messy, mortal, fallen method that is the means of procreation in mortality? First, it isn't like to like...meaning it's flesh and bone creating spirit. Second, certainly the rest of the mortal, physical process of procreation is not the same. Mortal procreation is a painful, toil-filled, harsh experience. It's part of our fallen nature. I don't know how things will work...but I don't think it's going to be carnal coupling leading to 9 months of gestation and then physical birthing of children. Will physical sex even be something needed? I dunno. Anyhow, chastity only applies because of the drive for sex and procreation. You can be naked in a locker room where you aren't sexually driven to procreate with the other's naked there without breaking the law of chastity in doing so. Etc. etc. Whether resurrected bodies have a physical, chemical, hormonal drive to procreate is an unknown, of course. But I see no reason to presume that we'll have the need for such a drive, even in the celestial kingdom. And I most certainly see no reason to presume Terrestrial or Telestial beings will have the need for such a drive, being as we know they won't have the ability to procreate. Why would creatures that have no ability to procreate have a sex drive -- or even the physical means of procreation at any level. Am I suggesting those in the lower kingdoms won't have genitalia? Well.....no. I'm just asking the question. But who knows. It's entirely possible though. But a sex drive? That seems unnecessary and unlikely to me. Anyhow...just spring-boarding off your comment.

Is there something worse about complaining about the to-be bishop vs complaining about the sustained bishop? Or do you mean to imply that once sustained, those who would complain before, having now sustained, wouldn't complain any more? I guess that makes some sort of sense I guess. Doesn't seem to apply to the "who's the new librarian" idea though.