The Folk Prophet

Maybe you and I understand the idea of what it is to compromise differently. I'd say bending with the wind to not be uprooted is, indeed, the very nature of compromise. Edit: Moreover, the commentary "to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals" is clearly a statement of compromise.

So I've been watching all the conservative commentary on this and they're all mad and claiming that no one that calls themselves conservative should be voting for or supporting this act (a sentiment with which I agree), and so I decided to look at what the Church said on the matter: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement An interesting contrast. I think and still fear what the conservative commentators are saying is true. This will be abused. Our religious rights will be (at some level) infringed upon. And conservatives should not be caving on this matter. It's merely another drop down the slippery slope we're obviously on. But I see where the church is coming from. It basically reads to me as, we lost this war, so compromise is the way forward. Fair enough. I'll admit I've never understood the "heal relationships and foster understanding" type of language. Nor will the passage of such a bill do a thing, in my opinion, to heal any relationships or foster any type of understanding, other than the corrupting influence such things are inclined to have on society at large as to overall acceptance of things that were unthinkable a decade back. But I understand the church's wish to foster understanding, certainly, and to heal relationships as well. And so a statement of hope that such will be the case makes sense. And, to be fair, the statement isn't saying the passage of the bill will be key to healing relationships. It simply says much can be done as we work to compromise that can heal relationships. And that is, I suppose, theoretically true. Except I still can't say I, personally, believe it. What can be done to heal relationships that are broken because of core doctrine that cannot and will not change? The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work. But that isn't the point in doing what's right. Whether it works or not, we do what's right. Period. But I just don't think relationships, for the most part, over this and similar issues, are very salvageable. My cynicism is turned up to 11 when it comes to the woke mob, apparently. Of course the church is concerned with the individual. So even if it mean a single relationship was partially salvaged, that would be worth any effort of compromise. That has to be weighed against damage done by the compromise. I'll admit I tend to fear that damage a lot and, hence, my above stated concerns. But I trust God leads the church and knows what's right in responding to these issues. And so I won't critique. I just admit I don't understand.

I cannot help but wonder, when considering the above, where humor fits in to righteousness. Actually finding something funny often seems uncivilized and even repulsive. My initial response to what you wrote was to think, "buzzkill!" But in writing that I realize I might be being uncivilized and perhaps repulsive. Would Christ make fun of someone? Ever? So I have to curb my natural response and accept that perhaps it's time to retire my hilarious (to myself) old-man voice. One of the things I love about the show The Chosen is how Jesus actually cracks jokes. And they are, oft times, at the expense of his apostles. But I also do not accept The Chosen as an accurate portrayal of Christ. Did Christ really crack jokes? Who know? I wouldn't dare write a Joke for Christ were I developing a show about Him. But in context, in The Chosen, I believe they mostly work. They're chiding, rather than straight up mean. They work to help influence and guide His apostles, to my thinking. Jokes can work like that. They say, "hey, you're taking yourself to seriously." But alternatively, I've noted when I've had someone crack a joke at my expense in the same sort of well-meaning way, and it's quite hurt my feelings, that I felt they shouldn't have done so, and that they're uncivilized and rude. But maybe that sort of thing is good for me (being made fun of sometimes). Christ would know. Just because I'm offended at something someone says doesn't mean it was wrong. My sense is, however, when considering the golden rule, that we should never make fun of others. I have no conclusions here. Your response just sparked thought. I am torn as well.

Analogous to personal salvation, I believe.

I don't disagree with this. I just think it's interesting to ponder. Saying "The Mormon's...." is actually quite in line with the idea of saying, "The Jews..." or saying "The blacks..." or the like. It's really just a question of whether it always should be taken as anti-whatever. Maybe it should. I'm certainly not arguing it shouldn't. I'm just posing the question as food for thought on these issues. But I can see how someone (perhaps foolishly) in saying such a thing may not have actually meant it in a racist way. See Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue jokes on the matter. "Two words one should never say together.... 'the' and 'Jews'...." Saying "the" and anything runs the risk of being a statement of stereotyping. The Mormons. The Blacks. The Jews. The Baptists. The White Men. The Chinese. But you can solve most of that by swapping the word "the" for the word "some" or a "a few". But often, even then, it's still taken as racist/prejudice, particularly with Jews. I think saying, "Some Jews....." or even "A few Jews..." would be looked at as just as anti-Semitic as as saying "The Jews..." In other words, the broad point I'm trying to make is that certain things are more sensitive than others due to historical prejudice, and that sensitivity, while understandable, can make it difficult to speak of things frankly and factually in certain instances, which is a theoretical problem.

FWIW, I somewhat disagree with this logic. I'll explain. (This for the sake of discussion, not by way of argument or contention. And this is sort of thinking as I go and trying to explain the way I feel about it more than even perfectly reasoned out reasoning...so.....) I don't buy the meaning everyone translates "raise seed unto the Lord" to mean, logically speaking. That the Lord would command polygamy only for the express purpose of creating more righteous people implies 3 things to me. 1. The Lord would ALWAYS command polygamy then because it is His work and His glory to save His children. And 2. Those who are born under polygamy have a better unfair chance at salvation than those who weren't. 3. The responsiveness people have to certain blessings or trials as to being more righteous seems to be tied to too many other factors to be a set standard. (I mean Jacob specifically says the reason they are NOT to practice it is because the Lord wants raise up a righteous branch (vs 25-26). That is not to say I reject the truth of "raising up seed unto the Lord" being a reason why the Lord commands plural marriage. I just don't buy the common logic that it means more numbers of righteous people, or that it's an eternal truth of what plural marriage will always lead to. To my thinking it's retconning logic into pre-conceived truths. Something some of the finest minds in the church are guilty of, and for which they have come up with myriads of wildly differing points of view on the matter. (I definitely don't buy the "our culture is superior, so our logic is best" approach to these sorts of things. We're way too corrupted in our thinking by, among other things, the Disney-princess, happily-ever-after culture we've been raised in as to concerning love and marriage. And that corruption is growing rather than getting better.) Were I to apply my best logic (which is likely retconned into my understanding as much as anyone's logic is), I'd say we desperately need plural marriage now to humble us, try us, and weed out the chaff. Population of church members is really not the issue. Righteousness is. I don't believe re-instigating plural marriage would increase the numbers of the church members. I do believe it would increase the righteousness of those who abjectly humbled themselves to obey. I'd also guess that there's actually a pretty big statistical problem of the number of righteous women to men (though I don't have hard data on that), which implies a need as well, and I expect that number would increase were plural marriage re-instated. When push comes to shove, most men in the church would say, "How can I take on such a thing as a 2nd family?" Women would be the ones more likely to humble themselves and share a husband with another women. Men would be more likely to be like, "I barely have time to watch my sports as it is!" Okay...maybe that's too cynical of me.... Anyhow, in other words, I translate "raise up seed to the Lord" to mean that the Lord knows when that is going to be the result, and will command it in those times for a very specific purpose He has that we probably don't understand. I don't think that means that (as has been interpreted by some) the monogamy is "the standard" and plural marriage is the exceptions. I think that marriage is the standard, plural marriage IS marriage, and that the Lord gives us commands now and then that are best and right for what He knows we need in our times. That being said, I'm clearly wrong on some of my thinking or plural marriage would be reinstated already. But I also know that were plural marriage reinstated tomorrow, there'd be a mad scramble by people (fine minds and otherwise) to retcon our logic to fit the why and wherefore of it all. The simple truth is we don't understand the why and wherefore of plural marriage. The moderately cryptic teachings from Jacob on the matter don't solve the riddle at all to my thinking. Neither do the moderately cryptic teachings in D&C 132 (which seem to me to contradict Jacob on the matter without some level of logical retconning). I tend to think it's safer to just let it lie. We don't need to understand plural marriage. We only need to humble ourselves, obey, and follow the prophet. Not that I begrudge you or others reasoning the matter out as best you can. Like I said, I'm just sharing. Not trying to debate (though I recognize that disagreement naturally implies debate, and that's fine. It's just not my objective.)

I can't help but wonder how much of this sort of feeling (which I share) is manmade, cultural, carnal, and unimportant eternally. And...if so...actually, theoretically, harmful. In other words, the intensity of relationship and emotional support and the fulfillment that we see as fundamental to marriage might be based on some level of selfishness -- something we have been culturally trained to feel is important, when it is actually a negative thing that we must, ultimately, overcome.

It's hard to not feel that way a bit.

This is such a multi-faceted, interesting situation for thought. I have a few questions for consideration: 1. Do we, as Latter-day Saints, not believe the tribes of Israel were scattered and ancestors of various races the world over at some level? Heck, don't we believe the Native Americans to be Hebrews? Is that not the same theory the book proposes of Africans? Do we not accept that potential reality? 2. Is it anti-Christian to point out that that Christians engaged in certain things? (Like the Crusades or the inquisition burning witches). No one calls someone anti-Christian for merely pointing out that Christians actually engaged in those things. So is it or is it not fair that if someone suggests Jews engaged in certain things it is labelled immediately anti-Semitic? This is really interesting to consider. Obviously the difference is the oppression and hatred the Jews have faced, with similar accusations (false or not) being leveled as justification. But the implication of saying, the Christians once engaged in burning people as witches unfairly -- doesn't read as, "so let's kill them all in retribution". But suggesting the Jews engaged in any given thing does, indeed, read as just such. Which could be used, in theory, as a suppression of fact/truth. 3. Is it really reasonable to believe that in the entire history of time, since the killing of Jesus, that the Jews have never engaged in anything fishy? (I'm not saying they have or have not. I'm just thinking through the implications here.) 4. Does saying that "some-group" engaged in something automatically mean every member of "some-group" did it? As in, "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is a factually true statement. Is saying that anti-Mormon? I think we tend to take it that way with Jews though. (I suppose in our sensitive moments, and in context, we take that sort of thing as anti-Mormon too...so....) "The Jews did such-n-such" is automatically read as ALL Jews were engaged in some sort of hive-mind action and they're all to blame. For example, you'll often see the theoretically anti-Semitic idea that Jews control certain industries. And factually they likely do. But saying so is taken to mean the universal "Jews" rather than some Jews. It's really interesting to consider. (I'm not suggesting right or wrong here...just thinking through things.) 5. So the book proposes that "the Jews" suppressed the truth of the Hebrew roots of the literally Semitic tribes in Africa. And because of the history of Jew-blame leading to horrific things, this is immediately written off as being unworthy of consideration because it's anti-Semitic (ignoring the fact that Semitic is a much broader term than "Jew") because it must mean all Jews and will lead to horrific things, the implication being Jews are evil or something. And the truth of anti-Jew sentiment has, historically, done exactly that. and therefore, the response is understandable. But is truth, in such cases, potentially being suppressed at times because of that sort of response? I don't claim to have answers to all of this. And I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be highly wary of things that are critical of "the Jews". But having a certain group that is entirely above criticism for any reason strikes me as dangerous. Alternatively embracing any criticism of the Jews feels....you know...dangerous. As for Kyrie Irving, he clearly stated he didn't embrace everything in the book. What interested him was the Hebrew thread to Africa. Which is, as I pointed out, something we believe too. The fact that some are translating that thread to mean Blacks are Jews is semantic ignorance. It would be like us trying to claim Native Americans are Jews. Hebrew is not synonymous with "Jew". And neither is Semitic. It seems Semitic is a broader term than even Hebrew. And Hebrew is broader than Jew. Just because your chihuahua is a dog doesn't make it a Golden Retriever. But pointing out that your chihuahua is a "dog" and that some people consider Golden Retrievers to be the only real "dogs" and that chihuahuas are rats rather than dogs is not anti-Canine. (Which is exactly what is being said when they state "I can't be anti-Semitic". They are saying they are Semitic too.) Note: Just to be clear, the chihuahua/Golden Retriever was a totally random choice and is not meaning to compare any race to a specific breed of dog. It was meant only to discuss the language in an easy to understand way. Jews are Hebrews who are Semitic, just as chihuahuas are dogs who are canines. That doesn't work the other way. All Semitic people are not Hebrews and all Hebrew people are not Jews. Even then it doesn't work perfectly as an example, because I'm comparing language classifications to racial classifications, which is exactly the comparison I'm trying to make. Yes, I'm overexplaining this, but that's because I've found historically that people either willfully or ignorantly misunderstand analogies and expect someone to reply, "How dare you suggest black people are rat dogs!"

Sure. But my point, I think, remains. Their reaction and attitudes and responses are their own. Ours is to serve, sacrifice, give, and love. If we serve, sacrifice, give, and love and it isn't appreciated, we have still done as commanded. Alternatively, methinks, if we say, "well they don't deserve this because of their attitude", might we be falling into the exact trap warned against by King Benjamin. Are we not all beggars applies to having a bad attitude and not having gratitude and soliciting for what we "really" want. We all do this at some level. I understand that it says, "succor those that stand in need of succor", the implication being that those who don't really stand in "need", don't...um....need our succor. And I'm not suggesting that we just give to any con man who comes along even though we know they're conning us. That is certainly a judgement call to be made, listening to the Spirit and using our best wisdom. But I do think there is danger in approaching giving with a dominating cynicism. I pose this question for consideration: Who is better off at judgment day, he who gives freely to the beggar he knows to be running a con, or he who withholds giving because he suspects a con? Once again, I'm not suggesting we blind ourselves to wisdom and give our money to conmen. But I do think there is value in considering the above question as we ponder on how to give. As for me (and this is my advice for @Backroads fwiw), I give through the church and only through the church. If I feel I'm not giving enough, I donate more to fast offerings, ward Santa drives, humanitarian aid, etc. Only through church donations. Go buy a bunch of stuff through the vending boxes they put up at Temple Square or some such. There are plenty of ways to give and serve in and through the church.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how sponsoring a Christmas can be abused like giving money to a beggar that's just going to buy alcohol or something. I mean if you're buying stuff for a family for Christmas, you buy the stuff. So any abusive things you buy, you bought, so.... Or am I misunderstanding? As far as actually knowing whether the family actually "needs" the sponsoring or not...I wouldn't, personally, stress to much about that. Here's how I figure...if they lied that's on them on judgment day. I was still charitable.

When I was a temple worker years back, we attended a special meeting that was just for temple workers in the Mount Timpanogos district. Elder Bednar was one of the speakers. When he first stood up to talk, he started by saying something along the lines of, "Okay...so you all are my peeps here...my homeboys...my buddies...so I can talk with you like I wouldn't otherwise...." (I don't remember the exact phrasing he used, but it was something casual like that...) And then he proceeded to speak bluntly on things more akin to the way you might have heard them in the open past preaching you speak of. My take away... well, frankly... an application of, "Don't cast your pearls before swine." I know that's not the whole story. It's multi-faceted I'm sure, related to gathering, etc. Among other things. But the stated comment was that he couldn't talk frankly in the open any longer. But for anyone who cares to look, the exact same teachings are still present. Yes, it does seem sometimes that they've changed the messaging. I've struggled with it, emotionally speaking, in the past (it's related to why I'm less active in the forum here than I once was). Once I let go a bit and just committed to humility, all that struggle faded away. I can still speak intellectually on the conflict I faced, but emotionally it's a non thing. I see people who fall away, just as is suggested in the OP, because they feel the church isn't standing strong for the values they once did (or in the way they once did). It's a sad thing. The means Satan uses to deceive and destroy are varied and complex. When push comes to shove, there's a reason faith, humility and obedience are key principles of the gospel. And more and more as I go through life I believe that the "test" that we are here for is one of humility vs. pride. It's multiple choice. A. Humility. B. Pride. One could phrase that a myriad of different ways and still be accurate (a trial of faith, for example, which is the same thing). But that's a solid way to look at it in my opinion. We either humble ourselves or we don't.

Of course we don't know exactly how God's power works, so it's all a bit speculative. But my understanding is that God has direct power. And we have access, by our faith (and official authority given by Him), to God's power. So no, we cannot raise someone from the dead ourselves. God can. And by and through His authority and power we do such things. I speculate as well (though we don't know for sure), that Jesus did not merely have access to God's power through His faith, but rather IS God, and has and had the direct power that God the Father does. I really don't know for sure, but I believe when Jesus calmed the storm it was by Jesus's command that the weather calmed, rather than by God the Father's alone, as would be more the case if we, by the authority of the priesthood, commanded the storm to calm and it obeyed. Of course all Jesus did was also by the Father's power and command (His will), because they are one. But still, it strikes me as different. Jesus did and does defer to the Father. But Jesus created the earth by His word. He is the word. He is the law. He is the power. That's my sense. DNA is not really the issue at hand -- like an implication someone has a higher midichlorian count or some such. He is, simply, God. My best understanding is that things (elements, etc.) obey God because He is God, whether that be through honor, respect, fear, knowledge, or what-have-you...all things are subject to Him. We are not God. All things are not subject to us. I guess the question is whether that was true in Jesus's mortality or not. I believe it was. All things were still subject to Him even as a mortal man. Maybe I'm mistaken. But that's my best understanding.

I've always had a bit of an issue with this question. It strikes me, a bit, like asking what would Michael Jordan do in the last 3 seconds of a tight game, or what would Bruce Lee do in a fight, or what would someone who has skills and knowledge that I don't have do in a situation. If I had that skill and knowledge then I'd be able to do what they did. But I don't. So how can I? Jesus had knowledge and control that I do not. And that means it's a two-fold problem doing as He would have done. The first problem is that if you don't have knowledge you cannot choose based on that knowledge. Jesus had knowledge. He knew what was right and wrong perfectly in every situation. He knew when it was right to give solace and when it was right to bring out the whip. He knew when to show kindness and when to call people a den of vipers. I don't. Secondly, he had abilities that I don't. He could escape the raging mob by slipping from them. He could turn the water into wine. He could multiply the loaves and fishes. I can't. That means there's an obvious answer. We don't have knowledge and power as Jesus did. But He still does. So we turn to him, through the Spirit, for guidance and power. And we trust in Him to give that according to His and the Father's promises, if we obey and listen. What it doesn't mean, I think, is the superficial application we tend to see. "Jesus would always be kind. Jesus would always help. Jesus would always forgive." None of these things are true. And it certainly means that whatever a bunch of other people think about what He would do has little bearing. I'm not saying the seeking of counsel is useless. Of course counsel is worth consideration. But we should do what's right. Not what other's believe is right. But what IS right. But when push comes to shove, only God really knows what's right.

So I'd say that my concept of a hero is someone who's willing to sacrifice for a greater cause. I'd say Kanye fits. But let's take your definition. Rally around? Well, yeah...you have a point. Kanye's probably not a great one to rally around. But there's no question that there are those who do rally around him. So... Admire? Well that I don't think can be taken as a whole. It's not just yes or no. It's kind of per thing. I don't admire a lot of what Kanye does. I very much admire some of the things he's doing. Use as an example? Same thing. When it comes to his willingness to stand up against the celebrity narrative and speak his mind, he is a really great example to follow. I'm not arguing Kanye is a hero. But I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that he is, in many ways. But, yeah...he's pretty messed up (unstable) in other ways. I just don't know the two things are mutually exclusive.

How do you define "hero"?

You know, it's surprising how many might be.... so many who think the out and proud thing is somehow in line with the gospel.

I agree with this. But I also believe that God, being no respecter of persons, and perfectly just in all His doings, will hold the person who lived in a time of little turmoil and was given timely opportunity for course changes to the same accountability, ultimately, as the person who lived in extreme turmoil and had little time to change course. I don't know how that all works. But I trust it will be fair. Maybe it's related to when and why each of us was born when and why we were. Maybe it'll be worked out through choices in the spirit world. Maybe something else. I've never understood how a man living into his 80s in an overall peaceful time has the same test as the man living only into his 30s in a raucous and evil time. The test does not seem equal to all. But I trust, somehow, it is. And maybe that means a bit more strictness against the one who had it easy and a bit more leniency and understanding for the one who did not. I dunno. What I do know is that the requirement to seek the Spirit or we will be separated from the wheat and not survive is not new. That is an eternal doctrine. The fact that President Nelson told us we won't survive in the coming days without learning to seek the Spirit doesn't mean that those who lived in the 80s, 70s, 60s, and for all time, etc., could survive without learning to seek the Spirit.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I'm not sure it's all relevant, so let me simplify by asking this. Are you suggesting that one seeks the guiding influence of the Holy Ghost through means other than obedience? I mean, clearly, it's not a 1 to 1 perfect-obedience or no Holy Ghost. But that seems like a logical fallacy argument as a counterpoint to what I'm suggesting. My comment does not even imply that the Holy Ghost is incapable of guiding us when we aren't obedient (that's the part that could be unpacked in a great amount of depth and might be an interesting conversation....) But how, exactly, do we seek the Holy Ghost if it isn't through at least an effort of some level of obedience?

Of course I posted my other replies before I finished reading everything you'd written. Typical of me. I see you are suggesting what I replied. I am a big believer in obedience. I think it is plain that obedience is the umbrella under which all else falls. I don't think I, personally, distinguish between blind obedience and faith. In point of fact, I'd contend that the blindness is requisite to the faith. The whole point of our mortal experience is to blind us, after all. Moreover, having faith is a commandment and falls under the umbrella of obedience. As does having charity. As does seeking the spirit. As does not being commanded in all things and using our best wisdom. There's just no getting away from obedience in the end. There's a difference, of course, between a tight structure of specific rules (law of Moses style) and a looser structure of general rules. But they're both still rules. And clearly the prior can distract from the later, and cause problems. We saw that in the time of Christ. The Jews had lost sight of what was important and focused solely on the rules. But that's not really the whole story. The fact is that they'd changed, added to, and ignored the rules. Looking beyond the mark isn't simply focusing too much on the rules. It's breaking the rules. The rule says don't look beyond the mark. Anyhow, it's an interesting discussion.

How does one qualify for the guiding power of the Holy Ghost though? Is it not through obedience? Agreed...except that we're all on a path. There was a time I begrudgingly did certain things that now I do willingly and happily. But if I'm honest, there are still certain things I do somewhat begrudgingly. (Fasting is one example). Maybe I'm secretly a tare. But I like to think not. I don't know. Maybe what I'm trying to say is coming across, maybe not. And I could, of course be wrong. But I sure like the think that despite my bad attitudes and mortal weaknesses that my willingness to be obedient will be sufficient. And by golly, I sure believe that's what I've been promised.

I watched an interview with Bob Chapek. I've secretly been hoping that he had a long game to get the woke out of Disney. He doesn't. He's a spineless idiot who's sold his soul to his woke employees. He actually claimed that keeping his "cast members" happy was the key to keeping his customers happy, in that most people's love of Disney stems from great experiences with cast member. It might be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard someone say. I don't think voting with our wallets is going to make the difference. Build your own Disney isn't going to work out. (But bless The Daily Wire for trying). And companies are just writing off conservatives who actually vote with their wallets as a sunk cost. Moreover, as they stick to their woke guns, people will give in and come back little by little as they determine it's just the way it is. Very few will stick to their guns and never consume Disney again. Honestly the amount of people who still consume Disney with all the woke-ness in it even within church members is shocking to me. But they do. I hate Disney for their betrayal so much.

Well, you know I was just trying to out lawyer the lawyer anyhow, right? Since I actually knew exactly what you meant.

Something I also do all the time.

Well, as I said, that doesn't logically equate to me. What they changed it from was (not exact quotes) "don't date before age 16" to "don't date before you're mature enough (consider 16)". So it's really not that big of a change. It just allows for the reality that some kids and parents may determine that they are okay to go on a date in the right circumstance prior to the 16th birthday. It does, also, allow for those who want to, to abuse the idea entirely and have really no restrictions on dating age. That doesn't seem related to when people marry or "poop" out kids.