The Folk Prophet

It's kind of in the between, right? It's really a "renewal" ordinance for our baptismal covenant. But....really...no, it is not. Here's how you tell. Do we do said ordinance for the dead? No? Then it's not a required ordinance.

Once could argue that ALL we do in God's name is 'salvific'. Because it is. But that, I believe, misses my point. But...no...by definition, healing the sick is not a saving ordinance. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/ordinances?lang=eng (Edit: the definition of a "saving ordinance" is one that is required for exaltation.) (Edit 2: I realize that by putting the "saving" in quotes at the end there that you're playing semantics. But that's actually, I think, detrimental to clarity. When we talk of saving ordinances in the church it has a specific meaning.)

I won't quote this to you, as I know you're well familiar, but I will quote it here for anyone reading along for consideration: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" It strikes me, accordingly, that the responsibility and attitude of who presides in the home is squarely on the shoulders of those being presided over. 'Tis true, the rhetoric has been shaped so as to to not offend the weak among us. But those who know and understand know and understand. The authority of a father in his home is not ceremonial. But neither is is taken by the father as an act of dominance. It is given by way of respect when the father exercises his priesthood by persuasion, gentleness, meekness, etc.

FWIW, I do not believe this to be true.

A bishop has the authority to extend callings. This is priesthood authority that is not administering covenants. A relief-society president has priesthood authority as well to run the relief-society organization in her ward.

Whereas this is obviously true, it's somewhat like saying, "It is ALWAYS better to be in good health than in bad health." Or, "It is ALWAYS better to have electricity in the home." These things are self evident. But....they are also eternally less relevant. I think that's the important thing to understand. It is always better to have a worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home, but...if one does not, when we stand before God on judgment day, we will account for ourselves and what we did with that which was given to us. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, I believe, that when we don't have the ideal, we are eternally, nonetheless, on equal footing. Whenever there is a discussion of Priesthood power or purpose in church the discussion almost always turns to blessing the sick or giving father's blessings or the like. Just so we're clear, the following is not shouting at you (I know you know this, but for other's reading so it's clear), but simply shouting my own frustration as a general statement... (and I'll also clarify that I know YOU know this, so I'm not lecturing at you...just riffing off the topic at hand)........... THOSE AREN'T SAVING ORDINANCES!!! One could go their whole life and never have a Priesthood blessing when they're sick or a father's blessing when they start school and it wouldn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. These things are blessing to us from God, and they are advantages in the same way any blessing is. But they aren't the true purpose and power of the Priesthood. Sickness and sorrow are part of the mortal condition. It is truly wonderful that sometimes we can alleviate these things by the power of the Priesthood. But we will, nonetheless, continue on in sickness and sorrow until we die, because that's mortal life. But if we don't have the saving ordinances and the sealing power then we are all doomed. If one does not have a worthy Priesthood holder leading in their home then it is another state of sorrow and sickness that isn't the ideal. True. But it is not "the" difference, (unless one is in that state by choice of wickedness without repentance, of course) as all this will be rectified if we have sufficiently humbled ourselves and chosen and followed Christ.

How do you figure?

To be pedantic and nit pick the stink out of this......... that's not really an "and". Killing a baby is included in "not having" them. (Unrelated anecdote: The other day I was playing a video game with my daughter (who's 4) and we were just shooting a wall over and over again and I just kind of commented casually, "Man, we're shooting the stink out of this wall!" A while later, mommy came in the room and my daughter jumped up and exclaimed, "Mommy, we shooted the smell out of it!")

Statistically (I believe) that doesn't hold up though. A "conservative" family with 10 kids might have 2 or 3 go liberal. More likely, even if said family was LDS and 2 or 3 left the church, they'd mostly likely still be politically conservative for the most part. But even if those 2 or 3 went liberal -- that's still 7 or 8 solid conservatives. I don't know for sure the actual numbers, but I've heard that is the case before. And I can speak from my own family that this is VERY true. I come from a family of 9 kids. We are all conservative. My older sister has 10 kids. So far the adult children are all conservative (very, very conservative). I have another brother who has 10 kids. They all lean conservative. Etc. This is also true for my cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. We are ALL conservative, because our parents all taught us these values. There are (in the cousins) here and there a few that went off the rails in one way or another and have, indeed, left the church. Politically, for the most part, they're still conservative (though they do tend towards liberal ideas when it comes to morality issues like gay marriage or something). It will be interesting to see. But I think in a few decades we may see some interesting things happening politically. But then again....Satan is working hard. And the corrupting forces at work are extreme. So....yes. It is complicated.

Assuming this was true....then sure. But... ...conversely, liberals are the ones who aren't having babies.

One serious problem with charts and stats like this is that they are lacking information which makes them also unreliable. Specifically...what percentage of the people who die from Covid had underlying health issues? The chart implies that if you're over 75 you might have a 10-30% change of death. But what if you're 75 but in really good health? Then is your chance of dying from it 10%+? Or is it more line with, say, a 30 yr old with no underlying health issues? It strikes me that the underlying health issues might well be the primary reason for the age differences...in that the older you get the more likely you are to have underlying health issues. But they neglect to include that information in the stats for the most part.

The problem is there's been this kooky (sp?) anti-vax stuff that's...you know...kooky. And so when a vaccine comes out where "normal" people might have legitimate concerns, it all gets lumped in with the kookiness. I mean the same thing happens with various other issues. Take Pizza-gate. The kookiness was off the scales. And yet....Epstein Island. But anyone who expresses any suspicion about powerful people being involved in any sort of evil plots gets lumped in with the kooks who buy into all the Pizza-gate stuff. The same has happened with the vote and "fraud". Reasonable people are still reasonable....but somehow, all of a sudden, anyone who questions the potential danger of a rushed-to-market vaccine with scores of anecdotal issues being shared...and the even more suspicious suppression of those anecdotes...anyone who has what I believe are legitimate concerns about something that is, in my opinion, legitimately concerning, gets cast out of "polite" society, up to and including not being allowed to attend their otherwise dream college. That's HIGHLY concerning to me in principle. So I tend to understand the up-in-arms-ness of it all. I dislike this. It feels defeatist. It's probably true. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

@Just_A_Guy Don't get me started on the honor code. Of course it's BYU-H's prerogative. I just disagree with the stance. And on #4 -- that's where my distrust-spidey-sense really starts to tingle.

Incidentally, the CDC, apparently predicts that fully vaccinating 1 million female 12-17-year-olds would prevent 1 death.

Unless I misunderstood, you said there would be 20 million less deaths if "everyone" got vaccinated. Assuming I didn't misunderstand, do you really think that math is sound? If, for example, everyone except those under the age of...say....18 (with the exception of those who had serious health issues of one sort or another) got vaccinated, that the amount of deaths would be significantly different than if "everyone" got vaccinated? The death curve by age doesn't fit that narrative. Now if you were making a herd-immunity argument then there might be some sense to it. But the straight-up statistical argument that "everyone" getting vaccinated would mean 20 million less deaths, vs age 50 and older.... I'd dare bet that if the general approach was age 50 and over AND anyone with underlying health issues that we'd see about the same resultant mortality rates. That's not even addressing a whole bunch of other fallacies. But I'm not so interested in a huge debate on the matter, so I'll just let those be.

So why is the refusal of the 47% in Hawaii to get vaccinated a BYU-H applicant's problem? (Edit: Because I know I get in trouble for the way I state things a lot, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you're being convoluted or nonsensical below. I'm saying that (as I'm sure you're well aware, because it was your point) you are reducing my ideas to a sentence that is convoluted and nonsensical. By which you are suggesting that I am expressing a convoluted and nonsensical idea.) I'm not sure how you're getting that convoluted and actually nonsensical idea out of what I'm saying. I don't think anyone ought to be forcing the Covid vaccine for any reason. Incentivizing? That's tougher. It's a bit hard for me to discuss this in that I am not sure how I really feel. I don't trust ANYONE! I don't trust the government. I don't trust the CDC. I don't trust the news media. I don't trust "conservative" sources. Everyone's biased and everyone has an agenda. And I don't trust anything or anyone. So...thanks for that...everybody. I mean the First Presidency (who I do trust) told us to "...counsel with a competent medical professional..." And I find myself, for the first time in my life, thinking, "Who is that?!" What medical professional, in today's world, can I trust to not have political bias, or not be swayed by one vehement side or the other, or not be corrupted by the severe censorship going on, or not be corrupted by rebellion against the severe censorship going on?* I honestly don't know what to think. But I do know that I HATE the idea of being forced into something instead of being able to do my best to weed through it all myself and make a decision on my own behalf and on behalf of my children. In this particular case, I tend to think BYU-H should err on the side of those who don't want the vaccine for whatever reason. And particularly if they've gotten a "doctor's note". I grant BYU-H's right to be snots about this. I just think they're being snots. And I think they're being snots because of an overarching narrative that is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous, that instead of being very wary of (or even noting), they seem to be embracing. That narrative is way more dangerous than the pandemic could even pretend to be. *Edit: Not to mention this idea: If a medical professional told someone to not get vaccinated and then that person or someone they loved died, whoo boy howdy LAWSUIT! But if the Dr. recommend vaccination...everyone's legally immune (pun recognized but not intended). Speaking of incentives and trust.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm trying to lead you to a conclusion. The point, I suppose, is that to my best (albeit limited) understanding...if there are 100 people in the room and 99 of them are vaccinated and 1 is not then I believe we have herd immunity there. I don't know what the specifics numbers are, but it does seem to strike me that until there are enough individuals not vaccinated to affect herd immunity then being stringent in the issuing of exceptions doesn't make much sense except as some sort of virtue signaling. When they eliminate immunity from previous infection from the definition I'd say it is. But that is probably not relevant to the discussion at hand. Just griping.

That is accurate according to the WHO's new definition of herd immunity, yes. But I'm afraid I don't follow or understand how that answers my question.

Do I really need to explain the Covid death rates for 4 and 1 year olds?

This seems like a seriously flawed conclusion when "everyone" includes my 4 year old daughter and my 1 year old son.

Why aren't those people vaccinated?

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Who's detriment? How?

I'm just not sure I can get on board with the idea that publicly calling out a college for a vaccine policy (particularly one that is so politically charged) is right in line with attacking the church itself.

FWIW, I don't think it's really that black-and-white. Most debates on the matter I've been in or seen are not someone making excuses for poor behavior, but simply one side accusing the other of making excuses, when the other side is actually in favor of that behavior. What I mean by that, by way of example, is that I've never seen anyone (though I'm sure it happens...but I doubt with church members) justify Trump's comments about grabbing women by the privates. That sort of thing is viewed by the "excuse makers", as I see it, more like the high-school friend you knew who used to say things like that, but when they actually grew up and matured, are now good, faithful people. You let go of the past poor behavior. But the broader "making excuses for" is more like this, to my mind: The prophets, and even Jesus Himself, said things that were taken as TERRIBLE by some. They called people names, told them they were children of hell, pointed out the flaws in blunt terms, etc. And there are those who, per my understanding, simply think that more of that actually ought to be happening in the political arena. When someone's a hypocritical, murdering, child of hell, they ought to be called a hypocritical, murdering, child of hell. It's less about making excuses for poor behavior as it is about a strong debate over what behavior is actually "poor". That's just my take. I could be completely and entirely wrong. I cannot read other member's minds. Only my own. By by golly I quite liked it when Trump ripped certain people a new one, and generally (not always) thought he said what just honestly needed to be said.

You think someone's dream of attending school in Hawaii is because of academics? As for the rest of your post, and a lot of other posts here... it's pretty easy to sit there as an arm chair quarterback in these matters and judge from that throne. I wonder why we aren't more understanding in some of these things. It is natural to defend our institutions I suppose. (Though why people defend BYU is often beyond me. I'm not a fan.) But why don't we lean towards benefit of the doubt. Why aren't we more inclined to mourn with someone who's mourning? I understand of course. I do the exact same thing. I think I'm a bit on the other side of the fence on this one because I really despise the draconian, nonsensical garbage surrounding the "pandemic". I hate this stuff. I'm actually very much on the girl's side in this case, naturally. Which makes me step back and consider when I'm not on someone's side how holier-than-thou judgmental I might be when I'm not on someone's side. Of course I accept the potential that she's an evil person attacking the church in bad faith as a spoiled brat. But for some reason I see a separation of "The Church" and the overbearing bureaucratic institution that these colleges are, despite the fact that they're owned by "The Church". On the other hand, were I in a similar situation, whereas my inclination may be to go public and stick it to them as hard as possible in the same way, the fact that they're church owned would probably make me forbear. But I'd secretly feel that was even MORE unfair, like I was being manipulated into being bullied by the bureaucracy of it all because it was "church" owned. It's one of the reasons I've always turned down opportunities to work for the church. Everyone has times they hate their job and their boss. When you work for the church that means..... well, you know. You get a jerk for a supervisor and suddenly you're manipulated into... I digress. Anyhow, either way -- despite the fact that I see this particular issue in a slightly different manner than those here who I might normally agree with (although I admit that my feelings are probably wrong) -- I do wonder why we tend to arm-chair judge these things so easily. I apologize if this post also sounds judgey. I just thought it would be interesting to consider since I'm seeing things differently here, so forgive me if I came across too harsh or something.