The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    12194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    190

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. When you suggest that all the good and faithful brethren in the church, my father-in-law, my neighbors, my friends, and oft times me, are not following the prophet because we have facial hair, and are essentially the same as those who are drinking alcohol and coffee, and then virtue blink in feigned wide-eyed innocence like it's not meant to be offensive or antagonistic...sorry....it doesn't play. It's rude and it's wrong.
  2. Give me a freaking break. You should know exactly what I'm saying. Are you trying to be antagonistic?
  3. The implication that "Mormons" don't wear beards wasn't very accurate. Brock didn't seem to catch that he was thinking that meant for all Latter-day Saints rather than just BYU and/or leadership like roles. Things like that can be problematic. Thinking that if you join the church you can't wear a beard anymore is going to drive some away. A minor complaint though.
  4. Thanks. I'm an okay singer. I'm a decent producer, so I can make myself sound even better than I am. Everything is relative though. What I would give to get some really, legitimately GREAT singers to sing for me though. Maybe someday.
  5. I have before. But... https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCrAik2zq2hrmBY0M6jrGMrQ
  6. Interesting. I didn't consider this forum when I stated I'd never been "censored". I was only thinking Facebook, Youtube, etc. I have actually had a post or two edited or removed in the past here, now that I think of it. Dang it @pam!!! You think that because I help program a client and inventory management system for someone that I'm worthy of an expert opinion status on internet censorship? Thanks!! I'll take it!
  7. I'm a web developer for my day job. If I could just get some fans for my YouTube channel then maybe I could monetize things and do it for a living. But... yeah. I have no idea how to build an audience.
  8. Disagree. (Putting aside that I'm not "professional" when it comes to music (I only wish I was)), I despise certain forms of art as a matter of taste. Some of those forms are art are very beloved by an awful lot of people. Me having the view that Taylor Swift is incredibly overrated, or that no one should have been interested in the Barbie movie isn't meaningful. It's just my personal opinions. And if I think your singing voice is terrible but a billion people love it and pay to hear it then what's the point being theoretically "qualified" for that view? Also....not really true. An awful lot of people listen to an awful lot of other people on their views about abortion, tax policy and religion. I mean all I do all day while I work is listen to people talking about that stuff. Yes, it sometimes has more to do with confirmation bias and entertainment than it does respect for the individuals or trusting them as qualified in any way. But either way, it's not accurate to say that no one cares about other people's opinions. I think, in fact, that this very forum proves that idea wrong. If no one cared about anyone else's opinions then what are any of us doing here? At least I would hope we'd have some level of interest in what others have to say on any given matter rather than just being 100% narcissistic. I know I'm one to talk more than listen, and maybe a bigger offender in that regard than many...and yet I STILL care about other's views and want to hear what others think on various matters. And...even more important..... I almost care MORE about their opinions if I don't agree with them. Disagreeing with others views is not the same as not caring about those views. I mean the very idea that someone is pro abortion and the other is anti abortion means they don't care about each others opinion.... well that would just solve all the problems. But we DEEPLY care about those issues. And the more people who are into baby slaughter, high taxes, and anti-religion, the more I worry about the world, and the more I actually do care about their opinions. Because their opinions, when they gain enough popularity and power, effect the world.
  9. What's the point of a freaking survey then? That being said... I'm not sure it's really a matter of opinion (though it gets pretty blurred, obviously). So perhaps that word was poorly chosen. The fact is that I have had several people I know censored on social media. That's not my opinion. And I have not been censored on social media, but I have self censored out of fear. That's not my opinion either. It might be my opinion that social media tends to censor conservative views more...but that's because I'm not armed with the data to prove it more than an opinion. I suspect that opinion is correct...but yeah...that one's just my opinion.... And finally... that no one cares....that's not true. Some people care very much about the opinions of random strangers. They probably all shouldn't. But to suggest that no one cares is factually inaccurate. A LOT of people care way more than they should. And some people care and SHOULD care. For example, businesses should definitely care about the collective opinions of their customers. Obviously a single opinion shouldn't be their concern. But that's the point of surveys and the like. If the consensus of opinions is that your product, service, or elsewise sucks, then they very well should care. And some companies actually do.
  10. I gotchya. So the fact that I answered that I've never been censored (yet), but only self-censor will probably be interpreted as my opinion doesn't count. Yeah.
  11. Because of friends and family we all know who don't self-censor and report it when they are.
  12. I believe this is true. I also believe He is more strict, severe, and harsh than most of us give Him credit for. Here's my take, for what it's worth. People pit justice against mercy as if they're opposing forces (not saying you're doing that, just generally). My view has always been that justice encompasses mercy. Justice is equivalent to fairness. God is perfectly just. He is perfectly fair. The atonement and God's plan for us with it is designed so that God can be just. Perfectly. Without the atonement I don't think God could be perfectly just. With it He can. That's why it was done. That's why it is His plan. In His perfectness he satisfies justice. I know the scriptures speak of the theoretical, no mercy without the atonement. But I think there's also no justice without the atonement. As if God would send us to earth, give us no way to repent, and then condemn us all. He would not do that. It would not be just. But he also would not do as Satan's plan implied either...save us all regardless. That also wouldn't be just. Justice will be. Period. There will be no "you deserved this but you're getting that instead". Everyone will get what they deserve*. They will get what they deserve BECAUSE of the atonement. (Of course we're getting into semantics here a bit, because from another view practically no one will get what they deserve. Since by strict law we all deserve the darkest hell.) Mercy cannot rob justice. It must be PART of justice. Justice must be. God cannot be unfair. Will not be unfair. He won't punish when it isn't deserved*. He won't reward when it isn't deserved (once again "deserved" being a semantically relative term*.) He made a way for us to escape the condemnation required from our sin. Christ paid that price. Therefore we can repent. *The way we "deserve" anything is through the conditions set -- which conditions are faith in His name, obedience to His law, and repentance when we transgress that law. In other words, God will not condemn any who repent... that is his mercy. But he will not save any who do not repent. That is His justice. So yes, his mercy is greater than we understand. But we cannot and should not think that means that any of us can be saved in our sins. We can and will be saved from our sins if we repent. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved, and no amount of presumed mercy can or will change that.
  13. Without having read the thread or the details of it, but just looking at the question: Is Faith in Jesus Christ More Important for our Salvation than the Condition of our Hearts? The simple, plain and obvious answer is yes. Faith in Jesus Christ is more important for our salvation than the condition of our heart. The reason for Jesus Christ's atonement is EXACTLY because of the guaranteed failure we'll all have in our heart's conditions. It is through faith in Him (and associated repentance) that we are redeemed BY Him, not by ourselves and our condition, status, prowess, etc.,etc.
  14. The home page of the church has a Common questions section and the first question is: Are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian? The answer given: Yes! As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World. He loves us all more than we can imagine. We consider ourselves devoted followers of Jesus. While some of our beliefs are distinct, we believe that through His life, ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from sin, suffering, and death.
  15. Actually, yes. "And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." - Moroni 7:18 What? You think I'm making stuff up here? I'm not sure what your point is anyhow. Isn't "wrongfully" and "unrighteously" about equivalent? He doesn't say "wrongly". He says "wrongfully". I think that distinction matters. I'm not saying we can't make mistakes. I'm saying that we need to be careful in the spirit with which we judge and make sure it isn't done "wrongfully", or "unrighteously". It does lead one to wonder. Though I think it would be just as unfair to presume that as it is to presume Tim is guilty. I maintain...there isn't enough information to presume either way. Only when it seems decidedly convenient to the situation at hand. And particularly when the left doesn't seem to mind most sexual misconduct until perpetrated by someone on the right. But it's a problem on both sides of the aisle. Whenever there's any indication of any sort of impropriety on the other side the left and the right begin to salivate. I understand why. But the side of me that tries knows it's still not right.
  16. It's still a sin to judge wrongfully. At the risk of sounding like I'm being patronizing, I'll leave these here despite the fact that you're obviously well aware: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment." "See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." I'm sure we could get into some debates over how these things relate to "jumping to conclusions". I don't disagree that jumping to a conclusion is a reflex. That doesn't make said conclusion right to have jumped to. I think it behooves us to step back and say, "Nope...even though that's my reflex, I'm going to suppress it and CHOOSE be charitable in my unwillingness to presume evil." The fact that jumping to a conclusion is the natural man thing to do doesn't mean we shouldn't be making every effort to divorce ourselves from those tendencies, especially if we're aware that there's likely bias involved. And, most importantly, I think that by making such choices and putting in such effort, while turning to the Savior and His atonement, we actually CAN divorce ourselves from those tendencies, and to SHOULD expect that of ourselves. So I agree. The natural man is.....natural. But we should, and can, put off the natural man, with time, effort, practice, and the help of the Spirit. It's a deeper subject than "don't judge" of course. Judgement is always deeper than the way people make it out to be. The idea of not judging at all is silly. It's not possible. Every thought, actions, word, etc., requires judgement. There is no neutral. So we should be taking care to not judge wrongly, unfairly, meanly, unkindly, unforgivingly, hatefully, pridefully, etc., etc. PARTICULARLY, when it's a situation of hearsay and rumor.
  17. Apropos of nothing: This sounds like: "To believe that teenagers can refrain from having sex is asking quite a bit. So let's just hand out condoms to all the 14-year-olds. We can't expect people to control their animal natures." Sorry Carb.... I'm going to continue to expect better of you.
  18. I think the primary difference (to my thinking) is Tim's claims. I see no reason to judge him as guilty when he claims he's not. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt is the charitable approach. He may be a dirt bag scum con man pervert. But until that comes out concretely, I'll presume he's being honest. I know it can be read that one must choose between support for Tim or support for the church. I don't think so. I give the benefit of the doubt to both, and will wait and see.... or never know and maintain said benefit of the doubt. I have no delusions that all members who claim to be "in good standing" are. I also have no delusions that all apostles are and have been perfect and never make poor choices in frustration or anger. As I've said, in this case the accusations against Tim seem awfully convenient which makes me suspicious. And it strikes me that he's been universally presumed guilty without due process. I may be wrong. That's just how it strikes me. On the actual accusations re: sexual stuff....it's SO very fishy. Like I get that sometimes someone under cover might need to get into some less than ideal predicaments. And how to balance that with moral cleanliness escapes me. But the accusations, beside being conveniently anonymous are...that he sent pics of himself in his underwear and asked women to shower with him to maintain cover. REALLY?!? Pictures in boxers or his tighty-whiteys? (Ooo...sexy....) And the LUDICROUS concept that alone in their hotel room he tried to convince a woman that they had to get naked, even though no one was watching, and shower together? Either he's the dumbest idiot in the world and believed the women to be the dumbest idiots in the world too or something is seriously off here. Maybe I missed something.
  19. I don't think it takes an outside view to have this impression. It's mine as well. I believe Tim Ballard name dropped anecdotally. I believe that was perceived by Elder Ballard as name dropping for gain. I think it's irresponsible of the church to condemn him publicly like they did though. Assuming the other allegations are false, they may have entirely destroyed his career. Someone should have called him and asked him to not use Elder Ballard's name any more. He probably (from my best understanding...which may be way off), would have complied -- even apologized. But by publicly "denouncing" him, if all he made was a rather innocent mistake of telling what he felt was an interesting anecdote, not good. I think, maybe, why I feel this way is I can see anyone in Tim Ballard's position doing the same. If I was working on a project and one of the prophets or apostles said, even in passing, "You're doing great!" or anything akin to that, I might well share that and get myself into trouble too. Which, you know.... lesson to learn I suppose. Of course there may be things that went on that I'm unaware of. I only know that Tim Ballard stated that he never used Elder Ballard's name to self promote, and I believe that he believes that.
  20. Haha. I see. Yeah, I think you're usually right. In this case I don't believe what's being reported because of my bias against the news rather than my bias towards anything, however.