The Folk Prophet

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.

I vaguely understand why it might be important to keep it under wraps who's being called as the new bishop or something akin. Even then, the only real reason I can think of is for the special "reveal" moment when it's officially announced so everyone can go "Ooooo" together. But why (in your various opinions) do we keep who's been called a secret until they're actually announced for sustaining. Particularly in lesser callings? Like as the Sunday School president, I feel the need to keep it secret from my wife who I've submitted to be the librarian. Which is weird. I can understand why it should be moderately kept under wraps prior to the person accepting the call. Because then there's the potential issue of the resultant gossip if they don't accept the call, or if the bishop simply rejects them...then why? Are they not worthy? Etc. etc. Sure. Makes total sense. But once they've accepted then.... ??? I mean I've been specifically counselled to not tell anyone until I've been sustained when I've been extended callings. Why? Does anyone have a good reason for this thinking that can satisfy my curiosity? Don't get me wrong. I'm not frustrated or anything by the matter. I've just come across several situations recently where it's come to my attention and I've thought, "weird." Like the bishop is talking to me about the librarian's that have accepted (as I'm attending to the library due to not having any librarians) and will be sustained soon, and his wife walks into the library and he clams up like we're the CIA discussing classified national security secrets. I'm not saying he shouldn't. And, generally, for a bishop just keeping things between the involved parties is good practice. But it still felt weird to me. Anyhow...probably a short thread. But..... no one I've asked has been able to give me a satisfying answer. Not that I need satisfaction on the matter. Just.... you know....curious. Thoughts?

No. I want to. No time to do so though. Anyhow, who goes to theaters anymore? 😀 Maybe when it hits streaming.

He was 91 though.

I'm not really even a huge Sondheim fan. But it's still sad he died before the new West Side Story movie premiered and I know he was working on a new musical.

Oh no. 😞

When the cops show up, don't start shooting at them.

Interesting. What definition are you using for "hero"? Putting oneself in harm's way to help one's neighbors seems like a pretty good definition. And that is exactly what he seemed to be doing. So...yeah...I stand by my opinion.

I haven't read the thread, but here's my opinion: Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He deserves a medal.

I saw the preview. I thought the music therein didn't particularly suit my tastes. But that's a one pass preview that didn't include much music. So I'll have an open mind.

I think a deeper consideration of what this means might be in order.

If anyone's interested (and has 15 minutes to spare), here's the demo recording of the prologue to my current project:

There's a saying that there are no stupid questions... 😬

Moroni 8:26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

I just watched the preview and I'm intrigued.

Why wasn't Martin Guerre better? It was, by far, the most anticipated musical for me ever. I was SO excited by it. And then... I mean...it was okay. I still love things about it. But overall, it just wasn't as good as Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil's previous two (Les Miz and Miss Saigon). Yes, they tweaked it and re-released it. But they didn't fix the actual problem. They added new songs that were great. Sure. But they ruined the wonderful orchestrations of the first version by cheaping out on the second version. Overall, I like the original version better, but the re-work included Live With Somebody You Love and Justice Will Be Done which were both wonderful. I can only imagine if they'd had better orchestrations. But.... Anyhow, the actual problem... the story. When I first looked up Martin Guerre when I heard that it was their next musical (because I'd never heard of Martin Guerre), I saw that the movie Sommersby was based on it. I loved that movie! So intense and emotional and powerful. Perfect musical material! For those of you who aren't in the know, Martin Guerre is the story of an imposter. It's based on a real individual. After the real Martin Guerre left his wife and son, someone showed up claiming to be him. He lived with Guerre's wife and son for three years, but then was eventually discovered. The real Martin Guerre retuned for the trial, etc. Here's the wikipedia on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Guerre *SPOILERS: The movie, however, left people in the dark over whether the man was an imposter or not (though it implied he was), and he died in order to save all the good work he'd done, the honor of his wife, etc. And that sacrifice was what made it powerful. The musical followed the truth a bit more, I guess, and you knew the man was an imposter the entire time. And it just wasn't that powerful. Man I wish they'd just done Sommersby set to great music. I mean, sure, call it Martin Guerre. But...there you go. Anyhow, still a loved show of mine. Particularly the original. I mean I only know it from the cast recordings, and because it wasn't popular enough there was never a complete recording, which is unfortunate. My wife actually got to see it in London when it was on originally. She speaks fondly of it. I'd still call Martin Guerre a good show, overall. I'd still say it's one I like a lot. There are some really great numbers in it too. That's as comparted to their fourth effort, The Pirate Queen, which just stunk up the universe. I really wish they'd write another one. They, apparently, having had the mega-huge success with Les Miz and huge success with Miss Saigon, and then faltering with Martin Guerre and taken a huge old face plant with The Pirate Queen, decided they'd done enough and have no new ambition. That's too bad. Rogers and Hammerstein had some less successful shows. They just kept on writing. I sure wish Schönberg and Boublil had done 10 or so instead of 4. But it seems not meant to be. Maybe they secretly have one last triumph up their sleeves. I doubt it. I mean their last work was 2007. Seems clear they quit.