The Folk Prophet

So the real question is....what is your preferred DAW? Please note that the wrong response will get you quickly corrected. Haha. J/k of course.

Well, I certainly don't believe the church has disavowed part of the Book of Mormon. My take on the essays... Well, they're not canon. That's not to say I believe they're wrong. I just tend to let sleeping dogs lie on a lot of those matters. I certainly think it would be particularly unwise to reject the essays and preach the things they've proclaimed as disavowed as if they're true doctrine. One thing I have presumed is that to "disavow" something is not, necessarily, to declare it wrong. It means to no longer support or to disassociate from. We don't support those old statements as true, or associate them with doctrine. That doesn't mean they were wrong though. I'm not arguing any old teachings were right, mind you. I feel like the take away is "we don't know", and that should be our general attitude on it. We don't know. So, no, I don't think Brigham Young has been blamed for false teachings. The implication seems more that we don't understand it all, and it's not important that we do. So let it go.

I'm not a fan of retconning plain scripture to try and fit modern biases. The Nephites didn't, apparently, find dark skin as appealing. Do we really need to equate that to the American slave trade, Jim Crow, and lynchings?

I dunno. Seems like you have to contend with Alma 3:6 in this sort of interpretation. "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

Good point. And we can't forget Ohioians and Palmyraians. And the Shakers.

Yeah, there are certain degrees that should, indeed, require accredited college degrees. Engineers and doctors are two obvious ones.

The church was clearly trying to clean house under the table to keep it from becoming a huge scandal. Way to go. You just outed them.

We only hate Missourians. 😃

Yeah, that image above was posted by him on Twitter.

No way. He knew it was evil, and did it intentionally. He also knew it would get him booted. His whole schtick is to try and destigmatize the ability to talk about certain things. He's going about it in a terrible way. But the provocative nature of doing outlandish things is his standard operating procedure. It's been ramped up, for sure. But it's perfectly in line with the Kanye who jumped up on stage with Taylor Swift saying, "Imma let you finish...." He knew the harm. His delusion is that he seems to think his efforts will initiate change for the good.

FWIW, in my opinion, I don't believe this is true. Only in certain industries, but there are plenty others where this doesn't matter so much. Certain jobs, sure. But just "finding work" (and well paying work). Nah. Don't agree.

This isn't a defense of Kanye in any way, because I doubt he knew this when he posted that symbol, but apparently it's not an anti-Semitic symbol, but actually a symbol used by a "UFO religion" Raëlism - Wikipedia

When even Alex Jones is extremely uncomfortable with what you're saying....maybe there's a problem.

The problem is this is assuming a big universal "they" who all act in concert and do exactly what "they" want "they" to do. (They're preferred pronoun is "they", in case it wasn't clear). But the person suing BYU for not letting them something or other because they're gay married isn't going to necessarily be thinking politics. I do think what you're suggesting is a positive thing though. Taken all the way to the supreme court, the favor goes to the religious...and it would hurt the left politically. Interesting.

It's really a question of how a court interprets "in celebration of".

Recent rulings didn't have the new law behind them. But I hope you're right.

Well, in a way the honor code is now potentially against the law if people are "married". The school cannot be forced to perform gay marriages. And it can't have tax breaks or other government benefits removed because of their views. But it isn't protected from law suits. Say, for example, a gay married person applies to BYU and gets rejected based on the honor code. The law doesn't allow for the Federal government to remove any benefits to the school, but it doesn't prohibit law suits forcing the school to accept legally recognized marriage as equal in all regards. I mean this is one of a myriad of examples one could come up with. It was off the top of my head, so it may not be perfect. But, you know, if people can sue and think there's a shot at a payout...you know they will. And when it comes to sticking it to religious people, the motivation is even higher. I could be entirely wrong. I hope I am. But.....???

What are the chances BYU gets sued over this bill now fairly soon after it's signed into law?

So I was watching live last night when Kanye "Ye" walked out on Tim Pool. Man, the guy cannot communicate. And he can't take criticism. He's really hurting himself here. I kind of get what he's saying re "the Jews". He's trying to make the point that people generalize "black" people and it's fine, but if you do it with "Jews" it's gasp, choke, spit. The problem with that, of course, is that the solution isn't to demand we can generalize "the Jews", but rather to demand that we stop generalizing "the Blacks". Anyhow, it's unfortunate. Kanye had the potential to be a force for some good. Unfortunately he's just too messed up.

One potential unforeseen benefit for Tesla in all of this is people like myself who, heretofore, would never be caught dead buying a pretension lefty-loved vehicle like a Tesla. But now...I dunno. I think I might enjoy getting one now just to stick it to all the Alissa Milanos out there. I'm joking somewhat, of course. I don't think there are that many people like me out there.

I assume you took it as condescending because I said you didn't seem to be following my thoughts. I wasn't assuming or meaning to imply you were stupid. I was meaning to imply that I had failed to communicate. I had meant for the comment that I had been cryptic to communicated that, but apparently it did not. And it seems I also failed in my effort to explain what I meant by the constitution not having teeth.

...deleted... Ever since the site changed I keep accidentally quoting myself instead of editing myself. Grr.

Semi-related idea: There's this running commentary in conservative circles that "politics is downstream of culture." (Andrew Breitbart) While that is true, I think it needs to be acknowledged that culture is also downstream of politics and the same toilet-bowl kind of way.

I would suggest it is both.

It's an amusing pwn (as the kids call it...or...do they? Is "pwn" still a thing? I don't know.), but it's not very logically sound. It's not like buying a VW is actually putting money into the hands of Hitler and the Nazis. If you believe Elon is such, then buying a Tesla would be. So.... I know. Nothing to help the joke along by criticizing its logical merit. But good golly it's been bugging me all day that none of the commentary I've seen on the matter points this out. So I figured I'd ruin the joke here. Sorry.