The Folk Prophet

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.

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?