The Folk Prophet

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.)

When we look at this without our "sustain our (LDS) institutions" bias, it's not hard to see the argument. Imagine, if you will, that something like...say.... Amazon wouldn't sell you anything unless you proved you had a vaccination first. Replace Amazon with any private, public, or government company or institution and consider.... How do you feel about that? I, personally, dislike it very much. I don't like the idea of being forced to get a vaccine in order to interact with this or that. But.... I recognize Amazon's "right" to do such a thing. But I'd definitely complain about it. In my humble opinion, BYU-H has little reason to "require" the vaccine. But as has been pointed out, it might be a state thing. In which case the state should be criticized instead of BYU-H. But it is, indeed, anti-science in my view. Yes, Charlie Kirk's rhetoric is a bit over the top here. But that's kind of his job and his schtick. I'm not sure it's worth getting too riled up over. I agree with the general sentiment that forcing vaccines on people isn't good. He's overstating the issues -- because we're in a war -- but I generally think, yeah. Knock it off with treating a "flu" like it's the freaking measles of smallpox or something!

Maybe you misunderstand my point.

So do you guys remember when Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni? I remember when I watched this I just busted out laughing. Not because I thought it was ridiculous...but because I knew that so many people would find it ridiculous and just HATE it because they were thinking small-mindedly on the matter and have strong biases. Which was true. In other words, I laughed because it was inadvertent trolling. I don't think Mike meant to troll (he certainly does sometimes, but I don't think so this time). I think he was sincere. But boy howdy is such a statement geared to raise hackles. Anyhow, I bring it up in regards to "sides" and who's "side" we're on. Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc. And so, obviously, if that's the criteria for "sides" then none of them are "on our side". But is that the criteria? We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right? What "side" is "our" side in that regard? I don't believe in party-line thinking. I know you two don't either. But in general principle, what's the standard by which someone counts as "on our side"? I knew what Senator Lee meant. I think Latter-day Saints who were thinking myopically were bound to take his comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni as a comparison of righteousness. That's obvious nonsense. And Mike Lee didn't mean that. He's not an idiot. He knows very well Trump is not righteous like Captain Moroni. What was he comparing then? Obviously, the fight for "the cause". Which cause? Well, the principles set forth in the Title of Liberty: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." This is what Senator Lee meant. There is (was) a man at the head of our nation fighting for "the cause" of freedom. Was it a perfect comparison? No. Few are. But the point was obvious. Do you want to sell out your rights to religion, freedom and family to someone who hates them and is actively working to destroy such, or do you want to vote for the man who's fighting tooth and nail to protect such? So I cannot help but wonder where we quibble over "sides" based on specific foibles, personality traits, or individual points with which we disagree. Because when I consider Charlie Kirk, I think there's no doubt what cause he fights for. And there is no doubt that cause is aligned with mine and my "side". Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. But as an overall "side" goes...Charlie Kirk is one of the frontline warriors fighting the good fight. Of that there is little doubt in my view.

This is incorrect. Agency is a gift from God and cannot be abrogated by any but one's own self. Satan indeed seeks to destroy the agency of man; this he does by encouraging sin. Sin destroys man's agency. Another thing people seem to get wrong on this matter (I haven't read through all the replies so I don't know what @Traveler is saying in this specific thing) is the following idea: They seem to imply that having a consequence for action equates to choosing for others. If you walk in on your children watching a bad movie and you ground them for a month, is that really in line with Satan's plan? Whose plan was it that we would stand accountable for the choices we make? God's or Satan's? And what is being grounded for a month for watching a bad movie if it's not standing accountable for one's choices? To literally make a choice for another, one would have to like...I dunno...blind their kids so they couldn't watch a bad movie. I had a debate once on Facebook (one of the few I've had there because Faceboook is awful) where a ward member was claiming that government restrictions was Satan's plan. Same sort of thinking...but it's seriously flawed. The government or a parent or anyone imposing consequence for action is much more in line with God's plan than Satan's. I actually agree with the guy about the evils of certain government restrictions -- I was simply pointing out to him that the reason could not be the argument he was making because that's not what agency was and/or is. God removed and removes all sorts of "freedoms" from us. I, for example, cannot fly like Superman. I cannot walk through solid objects. I cannot hold my breath for an hour. Etc. God imposed those restrictions on me. Not Satan. And God, not Satan, is the one who will hold me accountable for sin. Satan is the one who would not only "let" me engage in sin without consequence (a lie, of course, because he is the great liar...but he would claim there would be no consequence. And he wouldn't actually impose the consequence), but he would revel in my poor choices. God is the one who would sorrow in, impose consequences upon, and even inject chastisement by way of deterrent to correct my path. When we chastise and impose consequence upon others for their choices it is in line with God's plan. The oft heard argument that doing so is Satan's plan is.......you know....in line with Satan's plan.

Well how do you understand the idea of how walking up to someone else and punching them in the mouth works with agency? How is asking God to do that for you any different? (Assuming that getting punched in the mouth is what "softens" their heart/resolve). I think it's pretty straightforward if we look at agency as what it is instead of the convoluted ideas that seem to be out there. Agency is choice and accountability. It's that we are accountable for the choices we make. Therefore, if we aren't able to make a choice (aka, I didn't choose to get punched in the mouth by Vort), then we aren't accountable. God softening someone's heart doesn't have anything more to do with agency than God sending one person down to be born in poverty outside the gospel and another to be born into wealth inside the gospel. Both individuals stand accountable for the choices they make. If God interferes in choices (like killing people in a flood, commanding one to kill another, etc.) then the people affected by that lack of choice aren't accountable for it. Nor are they rewarded for it. Now how this idea plays into the original question isn't quite as straight forward. But I think @Traveler hit the nail on the head in his reply. Edit: I understand that I'm oversimplifying. That's intentional. There are, indeed, clearly mysteries in how this will all work out.

I had a conversation with my neighbor about racism on Sunday. He's a black man from Haiti. He talked about racism (per my request) and his perception on the matter. It was really interesting. He did open my eyes a bit to the reality of racism. (I live in a bubble, after all, being in Utah.) But he was also, clearly, biased because of the experiences he'd had. Which was also interesting to me. He read racism into all of his negative experiences. Every experience he described I've dealt with. Crappy bosses abusing you. Difficulty with landlords. People calling you names or just randomly mistreating you. Etc., etc. He read race into all of those experiences. Whereas I'm sure that race was part of the equation, I'm not convinced he sees all his negative interactions through the right lens. People are abusive jerks everywhere and to every one. Don't get me wrong. Racism is clearly a real issue that still exists in today's world. (Half of his negative experiences were from the 1970s...and it's just not the same world anymore...but I digress...) But seeing everything through a racial lens really distorts things I think. I'm not sure I have a point other than that the conversation was very interesting.

This is what every rational person in the world thinks. The problem of course, being that irrational thought has become more the norm.

Ah. So the implication is that anyone's moral outrage at the idea the gays are actually openly coming for our children is just theater? We're all just pretending it's offensive? @Godless? By the way Vort, the question was meant by way of a literal interpretation. Meaning I meant what's wrong with literally clutching your pearls, rather than the figurative meaning. Trying to make a point... but failed.

I'd be even more difficult than that. What, pray tell, is wrong with clutching one's pearls. Like we're not meant to be shocked and upset by horrific event things because they're common place? Oh...so another kid on the block was gruesomely murdered. C'est la vie. No biggie.

The problem is that what "it's okay to be gay" means in our world and in theirs is VERY different. As is on par for the course for the gay "activists". They coop language and then twist it. And conservatives acquiesce to the language usage and then wonder why they lose the culture again and again. (Language isn't the only weapon used...but it's a huge one.) This is more of the same. They're both twisting "we're coming for your children" from the negative implication that most people mean to a "positive" one for a laugh (which is SO creepy), and concurrently twist the meaning of "love and tolerance" to mean what they say it should in the same breath. Because, who, after all, is going to argue against the idea of love and tolerance?! So they win the war of words by twisting meanings. And it's part of the way that they do, indeed, come for the children. I mean the core catchphrase of the agenda is a lie of words. "Love is love". It's a lie. They're not talking about love. They're talking about sex. The phrase should be "Sex is sex". At least then it'd be honest.

I don't believe this. It was an honest message that they obviously sincerely meant couched in a modicum of humor so they had a "it's satire" escape route when they got the criticism they knew they'd get. But it was not satire. They said what they meant and they meant what they said. They want to convert everyone to their idea of what love and tolerance is. That's what the lyrics said. And they mean it.

Maybe it's just my inability to communicate clearly, but this is still rather frustrating. I think you're reading personal attack into it. It was meant as a generalized rhetorical idea. This sort of chip-on-the-shoulder responses to things that people seem determined to have (me as well I'm sure) really keeps me from really being very interested in returning to conversation here (or anywhere on the internet, honestly). You can't have a conversation on matters...even with someone you generally agree with and respect, without it becoming a "personal attack"? Why are you taking this to mean that I'm calling you a liar instead of taking it to mean (how I meant it) that I think viewing Harvard's intentions as neutrally innocent is simply not calling a spade a spade? It's really frustrating. Either way....I'm really not invested in proving myself right or having some throw-down hurtful debate. I just thought the survey thingy was flawed and wanted to express the matter. So I'll step out of the mix now and go back to my reading only status. Edit: How I meant it: I think it would be a bit of a disingenuous approach for us to assume that... How you took it: I think you're being disingenuous... I do apologize that I wasn't more clear in my writing. I, honestly, meant no personal attack. I probably shouldn't have used that word...and probably wasn't using it entirely correctly.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that studies such as this are innocent. Maybe you don't mean to say that. Maybe I'm reading into things. But how could one not read such an idea into things in today's culture? How, exactly, do you think the result that "90 some-odd percent of white people have implicit bias towards black people" will be used? Edit, I realized right after I wrote this that you literally answered my question in your first sentence. So I apologize for skimming/skipping that. But I would suggest that Harvard is not some innocent bystander that has no culpability in the matter. They know, darned well, how this sort of thing will be spun too. And they (at some level) are spinning it themselves in many ways. Edit further: Let me be more explicit. During the 2020–2021 academic year, for example, Ibram X Kendi (author of How to Be and Antiracist) is serving as the Frances B. Cashin Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University.

We all have bias in everything we think and feel. That should be obvious.

To really determine that, I think you'd have to do the test many times, and you'd have to do the same thing with images that you know you associate as bad/good, and do the test with random images and words that were neither good nor bad (but secretly assigned as such behind the scenes) and, etc., etc... You know...all that pesky "science" stuff.

It "should", yes. But I don't think it actually does. As with most of these sorts of things.... I think it was flawed. And, to be fair, I'm saying that despite the fact that it probably got it right for me. That is to say, I probably feel "slightly warmer" to whites than blacks. Well....yeah. I live in Utah. I don't know hardly any black people. So the people I feel warmest towards are white --- you know, family, neighbors, friends. But the test couldn't possibly have assumed that from my theoretical subconscious association of wider noses with negative words or something. Weird. I happen to know that my ability to mentally separate pictures from words is high though...so I'm guessing the test was calculating the time it took between responses, and either I'm wrong and the test is brilliant and the milliseconds longer I took to indicate a "good" word after it showed a black person is, actually, based on my real life "warmth" towards my friends and family and neighbors* OR, it was sheer coincidence. I'm confident it was the latter. Or....the woefully inadequate survey questions made assumptions because of the way I answered a few things because they were garbage questions. If you ask someone if they think black people are lazy, for example, it's not actually going to indicate a thing about racism. Rather, it needs to ask if they think black people are lazier than white people. And, moreover, it really needs to ask follow up questions about the whys and wherefores of such questions to actually determine if the view has anything to do with the color of their skin. Of course for most answers like that I put the neither agree nor disagree answer because how on earth could I possibly know the motivations of people I've never met or associated with? But there were a few that I know I answered in terms of, "Well, yeah...black people are whatever... because they're people. And all people are that way." *Actually my next door neighbor is a black guy. Great guy actually. Ah...but you see....you must have taken 4 milliseconds longer to indicate a positive word after seeing a Black face than you did when seeing an Asian one. Psychology! Clearly you want to kill your father and sleep with your mother.

So what you're saying is that if I'm righteous, I might have a harem of 72 bikini clad virgins given to me in heaven? I hear what I want to hear.

Regardless of the semantics and meaning of what it is to be loved by God, I'm not sure what that has to do with our being good enough or not. If God's love is unconditional then speaking of goodness in terms of "enough for God's love" is like if I asked if someone is healthy enough, and they take it to mean I was asking if they were going to live forever. That's not really within the scope or point of asking the question. When asking whether we, individually, are good enough or not, God's love for us isn't the criterion we ought to be considering. Am I good enough to qualify for God's love? That question, itself, seems to be based on some Luciferian lie. No, I'm not. Fortunately that doesn't matter. He loves me anyway. In fact, He loves me so much that He provided a way for me in the Atonement to be saved despite the fact that I will never be good enough on my own. Maybe that's what NeuroTypical is saying. I'm not sure.

Some people are not good enough to be worth the air they breath. But.... I think the fact that the question was A) In church/priesthood quorum and, B) not qualified, I think the implicit idea is "overall", rather than for something specific. That being said, I do understand that it could be helpful for some to consider the question with qualifications added, and/or by using an altered definition of the word "good". I was just curious if anyone took the strong stand that, no...there is none "good" but God. If we were good enough we wouldn't need the Atonement. If we were good enough we wouldn't need to repent ever. If we were good enough we'd be translated. Etc. Good, in this case, being defined as righteous.

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?

I thought I'd weigh in as the study of faith has been a pet pursuit of mine and I have what I like to think of as insight into it. First, "faith" is often conflated with "belief". But they're not the same thing. We are commanded to believe. That is its own principle. We are also commanded to have faith. That is a different principle. In point of fact, believing is an act of faith. But so is the following of all council and command. In fact having faith is an act of faith. The best word to describe faith that I've come up with is "commitment". So why not just say commitment? Well, because faith contains the idea that it is without a sure knowledge. It is a commitment to despite sure knowledge. I think that's the best way I've come up with understanding it. We could also use terms like loyalty, belief in*, dedication to, etc., and they are all tied together. *"Belief" or "belief in" can be synonymous with faith if one understands that to mean something more than simply "believing they exist" but actually believing in as in trusting in, committed to the idea of, dedicated to the reality of, etc. So despite the fact that I started by saying faith is conflated with belief and they're not the same, I must confess that what I really mean is that I think most people tend to conflate the complexity of faith with the simplicity of "I believe that God exists", which isn't faith at all -- as clearly demonstrated by the fact that Satan himself believes God exists, and yet clearly has no faith in Him. But believing that God has power to save, loves us, has all power, all knowledge, will keep His word, etc., etc... well that's a more complex idea that ties in more directly with the idea of faith...but... one can believe in all those things and still abandon their commitment to God, and thereby show no faith. When I was a kid I would often look at Hebrews 11:1 thinking it was a definitional statement of faith. But I think it's pretty clear that it is not. It's simply saying that faith (commitment) is the substance of (reason for) things hoped for. Or in other words, we have hope because of faith. That's not defining faith. The same thing with "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Not a definition. Just a statement of logic and reality. Yes. (Depending on what you mean by "greater than"). More important in this life? Yes. That probably depends on the receiver and what impacts them more. Not if we know something. Why would it be improper to say we know something if we know something, and who are you to claim those saying they know something don't really know it? Yes. More so that witnessing something with our own eyes. Much more so. I think the third. Faith isn't knowledge or belief. It exists alongside those things. But I think it's a mistake to suggest that saying "I know X..." is inherently flawed. It's not. But the idea that one shouldn't say "I know" if they don't has some validity. If one means "I trust in and am committed to despite not knowing" then that might be the better thing to say. Maybe. Yes. Moreso. Considering color blindness, the way light works, and examples of "the blue dress or the white dress" etc., I'd say your suggestion that sight is the most reliable is quite flawed. Seeing God face to face has nothing to do with faith. I would directly you to the examples of Laman and Lemuel who experienced direct interactions with God and angels and still did not have faith. I would also direct you to a myriad of examples of people who've had countless spiritual experiences but then fall away and leave the church. Because they lacked faith. Testimony is not faith. A witness is the witnessing of. That is all. If one has had an experience, one can testify they've had it. That doesn't mean they trust it, believe it, don't deny it ever, don't turn their backs on it, etc., etc. Seeing God face to face doesn't ensure anything but further damnation for the wicked. I think "seen" here isn't meaning literally with the eyes. It strikes me it's more generic. When you know, you know. When you have faith your are committed to, despite not knowing fully. When you know fully, you probably (and this is my best reasoning on the matter) don't need "faith" any more because you then have commitment with full understanding, and I think faith (at least per these scriptures) is being defined as commitment without full understanding. That being said, as @estradling75 said, it (faith) doesn't seem to be 100% definitionally consistent in usage. And there is certainly an argument to be made that one maintains faith even when having full knowledge and understanding. But not in the way Alma used the term, it seems. But as to the question, does perfect knowledge come from sight?" Absolutely not. There is nothing more reliable than the pure light and knowledge from God given to us as spiritual revelation. Nothing more concrete. No communication more perfect. Without it, we are lost. This is valuable if it is true. But I'd contend that claiming one knows the color of a car from looking at it but doesn't know if the Book of Mormon is true despite spiritual confirmation that it is is a very flawed premise. Once again...who are you to say who "knows" what? Speak for yourself. The two are not mutually exclusive in my view. I know certain things because of revelation. I also have faith in things. I don't undermine the one by the other. They are both true. I testify of what I know. That's what testimony means. I experienced. I witnessed. I felt. Etc. I testify of those things. That's what bearing testimony is. Saying I believe something that I haven't experienced IS NOT A TESTIMONY. What kind of witness would that make? "Did you see the murder happen?" "No. But I believe that John did it." That's not a testimony. Why is that the biggest aspect? I believe, as I've explained, the biggest aspect of faith is commitment. The knowledge relationship to it ties in...but not, I think, what really what makes or breaks faith. Faith is a choice. If it wasn't a choice then it couldn't be a commandment. We would have no agency in the matter. We couldn't be held accountable for not having it. Because we're speaking of what we "know". (I do understand that there are some who say they know when they don't. But I think you're mistaken to assume that's the typical case.) This is an interesting thing worth thinking about. I'll think about it.

I shared that with you in secret! I don't appreciate you using it as one of your examples.

As one who's essentially left the forum I can comment (as I happen to have joined back in for a day or two for a specific discussion). But since this thread is here during that time, (I won't be around long), I'll comment from my perspective. I think the reason I left the forum may be the issue at hand. When the division becomes as great as it has between two factions, those factions struggle for civility. I'll label those factions conservatism and progressivism, but those are relative terms. Still, it should be understood. And I don't mean politically. Politics only interest me as to how they relate to the eternal. These two factions, so divided, struggle to bond in any regard. And, really, in my opinion, they should not bond, because one of them is team Satan and the other is team God. But the result is conflict. So I find myself at an impasse. I have two desires -- two principles -- that are at odds one with another. 1. Civility and unity. 2. The need to stand strong and fight against what I see as the increasing growth of evil and its encroachment upon society. Keep in mind, the struggle I'm talking about on these two things is not with others. It is with myself. I wish to be civil and united. I also cannot engage with what I consider evil without taking a stand against it. I do not feel I can or should abandon either of these principles. And yet...how? And so I finally came to a point where the only option for me was to walk away. I can't fight the one fight without losing the other and vice versa. So I retreated instead. The plain truth is that the divide between good and evil is growing. And that, I believe, is the root of the problem. The growth of evil demands a violent, bloody fight! (I'm not suggesting literal, physical, fighting. I'm just being metaphorical here). It demands it! And yet...who wants to be in bloody, violent fights all the time? It's depressing, disheartening, discouraging, unpleasant, and just no fun. And yet, part of me feels like I've pulled a Jonah. But still.... Yes...I realize I'm worse than pretty much anyone else in my views in this regard. And therefore it is, frankly, surprising I engaged as long as I did. But it was, for the most part, no fun. And I came to the point where it broke me. And maybe that is a good thing. Maybe I've been wrong all along in my views on fighting the good fight. Or maybe I just suck at it.