The Folk Prophet

The apology was in response to this:

Action figures!! They're action figures!

Noted. Never bring dolls to show to Lakumi at work.

I am skeptical that they really believe this. Seems more like a tactic to win debate and force agenda.

???? Did you even read the article?

I have already told you, as have others. It is not a proof I can share with you. Nor would I if I could, for God has specified his method for proving himself and I would not go against it even if I had the power.

*nod* I understand.

This is just plain and simply false. What is true is that many, despite proof, still refuse to believe.

If someone asked me what I did over the weekend and I said I had gone to the temple, and they translated that as me trying to convert them, that's their problem, not mine. If someone wants to know what I did over the weekend I'm telling them and I'm telling them the truth, not hiding it. Moreover, my objective is to do as the Savior has commanded that I do, not worry about what people want me to do. So if someone is upset at my "trying to convert them" they can take it up with Jesus in the afterlife. I will follow His words.

You are making the common mistake of applying sociology to personal experience. Being able to show proof of something to another, or having a broad acceptance of something in society, is entirely irrelevant to a personal experience with God. I cannot prove religion to anyone. No one else can prove religion to another. In that, you are correct. But God can and does prove religion to many. And that is as valid to them as their understanding that the sun comes up every day. It does not matter that they cannot prove it to others. It matters that God proved it to them. Your experience with God is yours. If you have an angel appear to you, you will know you had an angel appear to you. I may not believe you. Society may not believe you. You would have no way of proving it. But you would know it as surely as you know the sun is in the sky.

Hmm. I'm not sure I've ever felt uncomfortable wearing my religion on my sleeve. There are always those who will look down at you for something like that. But the same is true of all my interests. I really enjoy motorcycles, for example, and when I ride my bike I wear a retro 80s motorcycle jacket because it's fun for me (and provides some basic protection). When it's cold enough, I also wear chaps. I am sure that when I walk into the store dressed that way that many people look down at it and think I'm playing dress up or am a rough character, or just a Village People fan... :) Others, I'm sure, do not judge me in that regard and just see me as a biker, and think it's fine, or even cool. So... I see it the same way with religion. Yes, football is more commonly popular. But there are those who hate it. So even though you are correct statistically, I think when it comes to one-on-one interactions that those statistics don't much matter. People will either judge you or not. If they do, so be it. If they don't, it does open up opportunity, I think. Moreover, the kind of person who is going to look down on someone for being religious is not going to overcome that and turn to God because that someone chooses to hide their religion, right?

HI Anatess, Let me apologize again. I mean it sincerely. I do understand what it is like to be misunderstood. I cannot help but question the claim that you weren't defensive in your post at all though, even if it was only just a wee bit. Let me break it down from my perspective and why I read it that way. Perhaps in correcting my read of your post we can get to understand one another better and improve future communication. There were three specific sentences/phrases that read as defensive. "You can take offense and have shoulder chips all day long." I read a presumption that you assume I (or others) have a chip on my shoulder. Even if I read this as not personal, it still reads as if you are presuming others have chips on their shoulders and that is the only reason for offense to be taken. It sounds defensive because it sounds like the blame for offense it being entirely pushed onto others. "...what in blazes is causing you such agitation..." Why the "in blazes" addition? It reads as aggravated. Am I misreading that? Is this something you've picked up in American English that you think injecting "in blazes" is acceptable, polite speech? Yes, I will admit, there is a time and place where "tone", as we talked about, would allow for this sort of phrasing, but even then, most of the time when I've really upset others its been in my use of casual and flippant phrasing. It strikes me (and I'm learning this slowly) that it is better to remain formal in speech so as to avoid problems like this. "You may think you know the answer..." Once more, it reads like you are assuming that I (or others like me) are arrogant and think we know everything. As if the offense taken is always the fault of the person taking the offense. Now, I freely and candidly admit that I may be taking everything you said wrong. I'm not angry or frustrated after your explanation, and my posting this response is an honest attempt to further useful dialogue and understanding.

How is a spiritual witness less proof than seeing something with one's own eyes? You sound like a man blind since birth claiming he'd disbelieve something even if he saw it. You say yourself you have no experience with having a spiritual witness. If that's the case then your viewpoint on spiritual witnesses is not relevant, just as that blind man's viewpoint on vision is not relevant. He has no viewpoint and so anything he says about vision can't really be utilized. There are those who refuse to believe so-called scientific proof. I myself disbelieve certain things they claim to have proved. I am skeptical because they fly in the face of other things I know to be true. On top of that, we know, as mortals, we can see things incorrectly, misread things, misunderstand, and generally make great mistakes. Therefore, accepting anything as absolute proof takes faith. We take it for granted that we all live on faith every day. That's because we were all born and raised to do so. For all any of us know we all exist inside the Matrix and nothing we see is real. We take it on faith that that is not the case. A witness from the spirit qualifies as truth every bit as much as evidence from the scientific community. And, frankly, I trust God much more than I do the left-winged, agenda driven scientist who are doing their utmost to prove that God does not exist.

If I thought I knew the answer I wouldn't be asking the question. I would also contend that an exception to the rule (American English not the first language or the like) does not mean that there are no rules, and the fact that you might struggle with context of phrases like "pretty good" does not mean that everyone does, and despite that, there are very, very obvious moments of rudeness thrown out there. To be clear, I'm not talking about you...lest you think I'm trying to accuse. I am certain I am guilty of some of those moments myself. And the truth is, despite some misunderstandings that you and I have had, you have been significantly more civil than many. If you don't understand what is and isn't a rude tone in English, I can understand that. Though you also said yourself that you quit trying, which no one's likely to succeed at civility without actually trying for it. Speaking of tone...I'm sensing hostility in your replies, which I suppose I may be misreading per the above...in which case I apologize...but as it's causing me to feel some frustration, I'm disengaging.

Holland's. Why? First, it was Holland. But the subject and approach set very well with me. I think there is a lot of false philosophizing in the church (and out of it) toward the idea of love that entirely miss what true love is. The end-all of righteousness is not a hippie philosophy. I have often thought, myself, how people misuse Jesus as an example of love, claiming...for example, that Jesus would accept such-and-such sin because he loves everyone, and entirely ignore the fact that Jesus said some majorly harsh things, and ran people out of the temple with a whip. The end all of righteousness is God's will. This is what Jesus taught (keep my commandments), and Holland, as is his forte, expressed this so very well. Moreover, we must stand for right regardless of who we offend. This must be balanced with an honest and sincere effort to be kind, loving, tolerant, etc. But those things can never be used to justify falsehoods.

But that's really another point. That is to say, whether we find someone else's p.o.v. entirely stupid or blatantly apostate, we should still interact with them civilly, right?

Tone, in my opinion, can very often be read in the way words are put together. But not always. There are many times that I see tone taken wrongly, or have had my tone taken wrongly, or have taken other's tones wrongly. I think some go about with chips on their shoulders, actually, and take offense often where it is not meant. However, there are other times where people are clearly stating something in a way that is meant to be less than civil. Sometimes, you call them on it, and they deny it. That's when I disengage. I will call people on lack of civility, but if they don't own up to it, what good does it do to continue. Disengaging can be hard, however. Pride rears it's ugly head in the anonymity of forum-land even easier than it does in person. People say things in forums that they would never, ever say in person. I say that's a check point we could all follow. Would I say this to their face using these words, etc...?

You are the paramount example of civility in these forums PC.

Disagreement does not need to equate to incivility though. There are those those on the forum that I disagree with fairly consistently, but the discourse remains entirely civil.

Habits take time to break. Long term practice of positive thought patterns can yield results. So those things you are doing, stick with them diligently. Beyond that, the Spirit is the answer. Having the Spirit with you constantly will bring you peace. This takes effort and constant struggle. The Spirit attends when we obey, including prayer, diligent scripture study, etc, but also takes effort to listen and look for it constantly. That is another thing that we can practice, I believe, into a long term habit.

I agree. I see no reason to cook with wine. I would not have it, or any form of alcohol, in my home. That's my take.

"...a missionary opportunity? " <== note the . That means it was a joke. :)

Suggested workplace comment to open up opportunity: "So I was outside taking care of my deseret and thinking about Kolob, and I found myself really wishing I owned a Urim and Thummim." No?

You don't think that would open up a missionary opportunity?

Oh...Kolob. And Kokaubeam.