The Folk Prophet

I saw Spirited last night. Now THAT'S how you make a danged movie people! I mean it wasn't perfect, which I'll explain. And people who despise musicals will, obviously, be put off by that aspect of it. But holy cow it was nice to finish a movie and feel satisfied and happy and emotional and uplifted and etc., etc. It's been so long since a movie really did that for me. Was it entirely un-woke? No. Lot's of racial "diversity" in ways that felt very forced. And unnecessarily so. It was set up in such a way that diverse casting was entirely possible without the forced stuff. In particular when they go to 17th century England. It's just so stupid when they do that. And I'm pretty sure there was a gay couple that flashed across the screen at one point...though not so in your face that it HAD to be taken that way. But the story/writing was SO well put together. Not perfectly executed. But pretty good. A few things I had serious problems with that are nonsense. (Like the idea that an otherwise well-adjusted, happy, kid who serves the community and stuff, with a great dad and so-forth, would kill himself because of a single mean post about him online. Good grief.) But the story arch of the main characters (Will Ferrel and Ryan Reynolds) was done so well...and part of how they did that was......... MUSIC. Good golly musicals done right can work. As an example, Will Ferrel has a solo he sings in the start of the show and it does SO much to just bring you into his character, understand his motivations, and root for him. It's done so well. That being said, I'd rate the music as....... good. Like 7-8 out of 10 maybe. I realize that it's a bit subjective. I'm not a huge fan of Pasek & Paul's stuff (Dear Evan Hansen, The Greatest Showman, Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile, A Christmas Story: The Musical, La La Land). They're style's a bit too contemporary for me. That being said, contemporary works here better than it does in, say The Greatest Showman, because this one's set in contemporary times. But still...not my primary preference. But that being said, it was, as I said, good. Catchy stuff overall. And for some I'm sure the music would be a 10. But nothing, music-wise, by itself really sent chills down my spine, so to speak. It was good. Just not PHENOMENAL. Taken as a whole, however, the music was SO effective. By "as a whole", I mean when you put in lyrics and usage. As to working for the story, it WORKED and it worked very well. One particular part had me bawling like a baby. Now, granted, I do that with movies pretty easy (though not very often with the movies they're making now-a-days...which partially explains my enthusiasm for this one), so I'm not suggesting others watching it will all have the same reaction. Without going into spoilers, the message and execution was handled in a way that really moved me, and made me not only feel strongly for the characters, but also related to my own life, and my love and gratitude for my Savior (which wasn't what the show was going for...but I relate everything to that, so.....) Toward the end of the show I was thinking to myself, "Man oh man, they HAVE to end it such-n-such away. Please don't subvert my expectations! Do this right!" And then....to my amazement....they DID. Haha! SO SATISFYING. So it wasn't a twist ending, or subversive, or surprising, or the like, since they did exactly what I hoped they would. But it was satisfying. It made me happy. (Not that everything in the show was exactly what I expected. A few interesting things actually.) That being said... the idea and direction of the ending was done just right...but the execution of the ending was...a bit clunky. Which is too bad. Not terrible. It just could have been done better. And then there were a few issues in the show that bothered me a bit, morally speaking. Some implied sexual stuff, some language, and the like. I wish they'd kept that out. Kept it truly family friendly. It would have been stronger overall as a show that way. So overall I'd rate the show as a 7-8 out of 10 too (right along with the music). A few tweaks to the way they handled a few things and improved music and it'd easily be a 10 for me. Alas...

It would be entirely possible if it weren't for a couple of claimed-conservatives-liberals-in-sheep's-clothing a la Romney. (I realize that calling Romney a straight-up 'liberal' is unfair and I'm exaggerating and insulting beyond fairness because I don't like him as a politician. But my point remains. If the 12 so-called conservatives in the GOP would stand with Lee for unambiguous religious protection, then his amendment would be possible).

I guess it feels arrogant when someone misreads something and then publicly proclaims they have the right of it. Maybe that's unfair of me.

I'm not sure what you think are different reasons of mine. Sounds like with you changing your opinion we're pretty much seeing eye to eye.

You said, "...the Lord is telling the prophets to stop preaching what they have preached before." So I was simply asking what it was you were claiming they were told to stop preaching. It's not particularly important or worth debating. In point of fact, the back and forth we've had doesn't seem that meaningful ultimately. I think the church is preaching compromise. You don't. Okay. No biggie.

So I just listened to the entire section about all this on the Ted Cruz podcast. I think he's mistaken on his information about the church's statement. But I think he's probably got a decent handle on the legal aspects of the bill. The bill states: Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense. Senator Cruz claims that because the bill doesn't prohibit the IRS from coming after tax-exempt status, but only states that the bill itself may not be construed to remove said status, that the danger of the IRS doing just that still exists. He claims that Mike Lee's amendment would strengthen this, specifically prohibiting the IRS from doing such a thing, and that if those claiming the bill already includes those safety's then no one should have a problem with adopting Mike Lee's amendment. He says that 3 of the 12 republicans on board with the bill need to stand strong by stating that they will not vote for it unless Mike Lee's amendment is adopted. It was an interesting listen.

So having looked into it more, the quoted word "anemic" is directly being taken from Mike Lee's statement on the bill. So essentially they accuse Mike Lee of needing to dig deep and reconnect with the wisdom in following a prophet’s lead. A ridiculous thing for them to say.

Jinx!

https://omny.fm/shows/verdict-with-ted-cruz-1/gay-marriage-vote-in-senate-gop-goes-after-biden-c @Just_A_Guy Listen at 12:00 minutes for about 40 seconds.

Yes. Cruz said basically that. He claimed Mitt Romney lobbied and got a single high ranking church member to put out a statement. He didn't say "rogue" or "without authorization" per se, though it may have been implied. He said that the senior member of the church had bad legal advice.

This read of Top Gun '85 is, in my opinion, quite a stretch. Yes, it was a redemption tale. That's plain. But something "real" at the core of it? Here's my take, FWIW. A cocky kid gets his cockiness deflated but then learns to be cocky again. In my view, Top Gun '85 isn't a great movie. It has some cool flying stuff and some good music. But it's not a good movie, not a good message, and decidedly immoral.

So my view on Elon has softened a wee bit once again. Sheesh, I'm all over the place on this. In principle, I still maintain that he needs to let Alex Jones back on. But...where it was making me feel like he wasn't as committed to free speech as he previously claimed, I now see it as an anomaly. He's got a hang-up about Alex Jones because he's particularly sensitive about kids...well, about parents grieving for kids. I understand that. That being said, allowing people to say things that are personally offensive to you is KEY to free speech. So there is an issue there. For things to be as the really ought to be, in my view, Elon has to put aside his personal distaste for what Alex said that is offensive to him. You can't let personal tastes dictate what others can and cannot say and still have free speech. That aside, I am actually quite excited about what this can be. Alex is ambitious. I don't think he's going for just keeping Twitter as Twitter and having a basic level of success at Twitter. He's already stated he plans on adding long-form quality video (competing directly with Youtube but offering higher compensation). That's HUGE. Right now Youtube can censor willy nilly because they have the revenue they want. But if Twitter starts legitimately stealing away Youtubers, and allows free speech without censorship for political views, it could devastate Youtube's revenue. And Elon's talked about re-instating Vine -- pilfering from TikTok (which may or may not have legal issues in the future anyhow...we'll see). And Elon co-founded Paypal. I don't see why he wouldn't add a payment sharing feature. And then there's the Facebook model. And the Google model...all of which Elon could, in theory, incorporate into Twitter. And we get a one stop shop for these social media approaches but with free speech, where people flock, knowing they won't be censored (assuming he gets the Alex Jones problem in order), and advertisers will follow, you can bet. Plus the myriad of other ways he can monetize (like the Paypal model, etc). I've moved squarely into the excited category. If nothing but the long-form video occurs it's still exciting. I've become pretty disenchanted with Youtube. But Rumble and the like just don't have what they need to really compete yet. Twitter, potentially, has the potential to potentially not only compete, but potentially even overtake someday.....potentially. Yeah...this is a bigger deal than I've even previously thought.

If you think my bias leans that direction you don't know me very well. Which, fair enough, you don't know me very well. That is not what it said. I quote: For other Latter-day Saints who consider this bill “anemic” and who don’t see this as a reasonable compromise, their solemn support for this “path forward” will involve digging deep and reconnecting with the wisdom in following a prophet’s lead. If I find the bill anemic or think it isn't strong enough in carving out religious freedom exceptions I'm not following the prophet? There's a serious disconnect of logic there.

God didn't give us a king because we clamored for one. The church isn't suddenly pro-gay marriage. (Despite what's being reported by some.) And we, the church members at large, have not stopped listening to the prophet and his counsel. Wouldn't the "Samuel principle" be something more like if the prophet asked the church members to campaign against gay marriage and we all said, "No...we want gay marriage legal!" and then he said, "Fine. Have it your way."? I guess I don't follow. What, exactly, have the prophets stopped preaching that they used to preach? I'll grant, they talk less openly or bluntly about certain things in public meetings. But the teachings haven't necessarily changed have they? I mean certain ideologies (that weren't really doctrine) are viewed somewhat differently now...but that's not uncommon. I guess you think everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes a basic human right. Compromise has also been the position of the church. I quote from the church news article where they signed an Amicus Brief on the matter years back: The state of Utah, with Church endorsement, recently passed two bills that simultaneously protect religious freedom and ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the areas of housing and employment. “Fairness for all was the call around which all parties rallied. This compromise demonstrated that opposing viewpoints can come together to achieve agreeable ends..." And form a related news release: The effect of the 2015 Utah legislative action is a compromise in the truest sense. The Church has not altered its doctrinal position on homosexual behavior or what constitutes chastity. It has not changed its position on same-sex marriage, and all faiths now have additional protections for their fundamental right to freedom of religious belief and expression. On the LGBT rights side, a gay or transgender person in Utah can no longer be arbitrarily fired from a job or evicted from an apartment based simply on sexual orientation or gender identity. What the church has done, the positions they've taken, and the compromises they have made and are making has been clearly stated and is not hard to understand. There are other quotes I could post, but I didn't feel like quote bombing was going to make my point any better than what I've shared here. You're more than free to see the church's latest statement as somehow different and not speaking of the same compromise in this case. To me, however, it's clear what the church is doing and believes. It is compromise...in the truest sense.

I'm not sure I agree with this. As I said, it's a matter of how one defines things...but, as I've also stated, I almost tend to think that doubt is requisite to faith. People tend to define faith as equivalent to belief. I don't. I think belief is it's own principle, separate from faith. If one is thinking of faith that way then it makes some sense that you cannot both believe and disbelieve something at the same time. But if, as I do, you think of faith as commitment to something, then you surely CAN remain committed to something that you doubt. Not only do I believe this, but I believe the understanding of it is crucial as a solution to all the so-called faith-crises people struggle with. When someone comes across, for example, some disturbing piece of information about Joseph Smith they were not previous aware of, they can still, consciously, actively, and proactively remain committed to their testimony of him, even while going through some cognitive dissonance that introduces logical doubt into their minds. I believe a person can struggle with doubt in something or another, like say baptism, but still choose to exercise faith by acting. As in...I'm not sure...but I'm going to commit anyhow. Is not doing such a thing an obvious act of faith? Clearly if one fully doubts (straight up disbelieves) in something they are unlikely to commit. But the idea that we have to fully believe in something before we can act in faith does not resonate with me. We can have nothing more than the desire to believe, and still act in faith. I mean that's what the whole trial of faith idea means to me. We try out obedience and action and commitment despite not being sure. And by doing so, we are rewarded and our understanding and joy is increase. That's the whole point of having faith, isn't it? The dynamic that suggests we have to believe with no doubt or we cannot exercise faith strikes me a pretty discouraging approach. We will all have our faith tried. Whether we choose...and it is a choice...to respond to the doubt with faith or not is key, imo. But to think that when we have doubt it means we've somehow lost faith...well in my personal experience I know that to be untrue. I've had doubts creep up here and there. That's not always a choice. It happens. But the faith I exert is a choice. Full stop.

Nothing lands an attempt at comedy like it being taken too seriously, eh? Fair enough point you're making, I suppose. But it's also kind of beyond the point. In point of fact, I have watched movies with gay characters in past times that didn't bother me that much. Why? Because they weren't making a woke political message of it. Disney is. It's the woke political messaging I am commenting on as much as anything. As to the morality of movies without the woke political messaging...sure...remove the political messaging and you still get broken morality. But at least you don't have the woke political messaging too, dang it! But there's another related point. If a company is famous for sugary treats and then starts replacing their treats with sugar-free versions and I complain about it, it doesn't exactly resonate with me for someone to try and invalidate my complaint by claiming the sugary treats weren't good for me anyhow.

It was a good article...except.... I can't agree with the final paragraph. Basically: If you don't draw the same conclusions as us you need to dig deep to get in line with the prophet. Uh....okay. You had me with you, publicsquaremag, until that arrogant nonsense.

Perhaps you care to expound on what you mean.

I don't believe the "never turn down a calling" idea. But I do think it's a great place to start from. Struggling over a calling one doesn't want for whatever reason is extremely important to growth, and being driven by feeling like you're supposed to take a calling offered, pretty much no matter what, is very useful to finding humility. But.... there are times and places when, I believe, one SHOULD, indeed, turn down a calling. But...man oh man my danger alert warning lights come a flashin' on at that idea. How easy to abuse, right? How easy to talk oneself into not accepting and justifying it? Don't take what I said above as in any way reflective of my thinking you shouldn't have turned down callings. Your comment was simply a springboard for my thoughts. I'm trying to say I agree with your point. Sometimes it's right. But boy howdy that's a tread-lightly thing.

It is my measured opinion that doubt is a natural thing (call it the natural man, but still...natural). Faith is NOT natural. Faith is a choice. Faith is an action. Faith is commitment. I think a better way to express it would be to say that faith dispels doubt. As we learn in Alma, you exercise faith which causes the seed (the word) you planted to grow. And after it grows, then you no longer doubt. But the seed has to grow first by nourishment and effort. But as Alma says, once it's grown and you taste the fruit of your labors, faith becomes dormant. So you don't need the faith once the doubt it dispelled. In point of fact, I've sometimes thought that doubt is required for faith. With no doubt there's no need for faith. But it's really a definitional (semantic) issue. I allow for the reality that we mean different things when we talk about faith.

I am well aware of the quotes.

Hmm. I think there's a disconnect here of some sort. Anger isn't de-facto wrong or evil. If it were, God would never be angry. I'd post a bunch of scripture speaking of God's anger, but I suspect you are well aware. I consider my anger at certain things to be valiant and righteous. Inward or outward, I am angry because I am on God's side. So, no, I don' think it's damaging to be angry at evil, even when the evil's bound to win in the short term. I get your point though. It could be harmful if one were to let it turn to bitterness in a negative way. I suppose. If I felt that were the case I'd have some concern. But it feels like you're suggesting that because the hordes of savage barbarians are streaming over the crest to kill my outnumbered friends and family that it would be better if I just resigned myself to it and surrendered. Inward, outward, healthy, destructive...that all gets put aside. My family is in danger. I'll fight.

FWIW, I have never accepted the idea that faith and doubt cannot co-exist.

It exists in degrees because "faith" isn't a thing in and of it's self. If someone says, out of the blue, "I have faith" wouldn't the obvious question be, "In what?" Without the in what the comment is kind of meaningless. You have to be having faith IN something. And since "somethings" are, by nature, degrees, then faith has to exist in degrees. "My trust goes this far, but only this far, and no further." Like someone who has faith that paying their tithing will bring blessings, but can't get on board if polygamy came back. Degrees. Or even within tithing... believing that paying tithing will keep you in good standing in the church but not trusting that you'll be okay financially in doing so. Faith in one thing, not in the other. Degrees.

Why can't it be both?