The Folk Prophet

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.

I understand and agree. If you meant BYU-H attendance then I tend to agree about not having that be the hill I'd die on. Unless......somehow I determined that the broader fight (freedom, censorship, etc.) needed to be fought on every front including that one...which I'm not sure I would..... Unless I felt that not fighting it at that level meant that down the road some law or rule would force me to vaccinate my child with an experimental non-FDA-approved something or other... So it's a bit of a tough choice honestly. Really though, it's another battle in the war. The war is raging. But is every battle necessary to win, or is retreat viable in some cases without actually hurting the cause? It is my fear that the conservative approach tends to always be retreat. And obviously, hence, the war is being lost. Of course we know that in the "real" war, that the "right" side will win in the end. But in the meantime, what sort of horrors will we face because so many are willing to just shrug off each new thing as "not the hill to die on". I really don't know. I'm just speaking theoretically. In practice, I just don't know. It's so hard to judge when it is the time to declare, "The line must be drawn here! This far! No further!"

What if you firmly believed there was a real chance your child could suffer serious side-effects from it, up to and including possibly dying -- whereas the chances of your child dying from getting Covid was pretty much nill? What if, whether you believed it or not, that was the reality, being hid by all the censorship and political motivations and the like? What hill do you die on? Because the potential unnecessary death of one of my children seems a pretty good theoretical choice to me. Obviously the question is somewhat rhetorical. Because clearly if that isn't the hill you're prepared to die on, you must not believe these risks are as potentially severe as others do. But do you recognize, at least, the reality that some do, indeed, have those sorts of fears, and that those fears have some actual reasonable bases behind them? Just curious.

Maybe related. Interesting either way. (Hmm. A bad word from the comments ends up on the screen at one point. Be warned.)

Yeah, I hate it! And I hate the do-nothing attitude of the republicans. It really does bring up some seriously difficult questions regarding compromise. A prime example is the compromise the nation's founders made with slavery. I think most on the conservative side of the aisle agree that said compromise was good, overall, in that it allowed for the establishment of an institution that could, over time, address the principles under which it was formed, specifically -- all men are created equal and have unalienable rights. And yet it is a burr in the nation's side that they allowed slavery to continue alongside said principles, essentially spitting in those principles' collective faces. What a rough decision to have had to make for those who were adamantly against slavery at that time, but who fervently believed in the need to establish a nation built upon those principles, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the in-practice desecration of them. Even an example so extreme as that is a very difficult moral question. (Edit: Actually the extremity of the example is partly WHY it is so difficult. Part of my suggestion is that maybe it shouldn't be so difficult when the examples are less extreme.)

So I guess the question, really, comes down to this for me? Would Charlie Kirk fight and die to defend my right to worship according to the dictates of my own conscience, despite what he might make of my religion? I don't know the answer to that. But I would suspect that when push comes to shove, and the literal guns and knives war broke out, which side he'd be fighting for. Obviously (and this is why I raised the question) where and when we call someone on "our side" is entirely subjective. Here in this forum, for example, with a few exceptions, we are all on the same side. And yet the forum is full of arguments where we all take different sides. So are we on the same side or not? Well...it's depends on what we mean. There is no political commentator with whom I will side on every issue that I know of. But it seems pretty straight-forward who is generally on what side and who is not. And, obviously, there can be exceptions per policy. I could agree on 99 of a hundred points someone makes but vehemently disagree with that 1 remaining point. Does that make us on opposite side, broadly speaking? It does on the issue. But what about in the overall war? And how do we compromise these things? Few are going to agree on 100% of the issues. The question is how broadly do we draw the line as to sides. In the Civil War, did certain Union factions have in-fighting? Certainly. Were some of them good, and some evil? Certainly. Did some rape and pillage? Definitely. But were they on the same side? Once again...that's subjective and depends on how broadly we define the idea. We talk often about building bridges with certain factions, groups that are very definitely NOT on our side, but then we view those who are very much fighting for the things we believe in (thereby being "on our side" broadly speaking), and we castigate them as not on our side because the don't have our ideal church morality on every matter. It's interesting to consider, is it not? Obviously if said actors are anxiously engaged in raping and pillaging then they are to be fought against and not treated as "on our side" despite their rhetoric. But when they are merely criticizing something (even something we might hold dear), should we be drawing the "side" line so harshly? It's worth consideration. I'm not arguing the point, by the way. Just raising ideas that I think are worth consideration. It stems from the fact that, heretofore, I'd never considered considering Charlie Kirk as some sort of enemy or despot. So the consideration was raised by this thread and his article that, for the first time, hits close to home on an issue where I don't fully agree. (I'm not saying I haven't ever seen any weaknesses in Charlie Kirk's rhetoric or ideas before. But it's always been plain to me that he's bravely fighting on the right side.)