The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    12194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    190

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. Out of curiosity...why? I tend to not simply because of the politics. The lefty news has been hardcore after Tim Ballard, Jim Caveziel, and Angel Studios, ever since Sound of Freedom made some waves. And then this. That alone makes it suspect to me.
  2. Vice doesn't have to "make something up". They only have to repeat accusations without evidence. Have you not been around for the advents of the "Me Too" movement and the way things work now? Here's the way it works for me. When something is reported by the news...I consider it suspect. Who's to say he won't? That being said, suing for slander is a very difficult road. You have to prove intentional deception. You thought Tim Ballard was a sex pervert prior to this?
  3. It. Specifically that Tim Ballard did what he's being accused of. Apparently a statement was released. Tim Ballard says he didn't believe it was from the church (apparently it was), because he had spoken to his Stake President and Bishop and neither of them knew anything about it. He's shocked that the church would release a public condemnation of one of its members without even talking to that member's Bishop or Stake President first. Which does, indeed, sound wrong to me too. But, you know....it happens. The church public relations department releasing a condemnatory statement because of news articles containing accusations isn't proof of wrong doing though. I disbelieve the accusations. We've had all these anti responses to The Sound of Freedom by the leftist news, and then when there are rumors of Tim Ballard running for the Senate to replace Mitt Romney accusations conveniently appear.....in Vice? Convenient. Things may escalate. Things may come out that prove it one way or the other. Tim Ballard may secretly be a sexual predator and evil. But until those proofs come out, I'm inclined to disbelieve it. Assuming he is innocent, I hope the church's response doesn't have the effect of destroying the man and his commitment to the church. He has stated in response that he is faithful and committed. I hope that remains true. Having the church one loves publicly smear them unjustly could be a pretty huge trial of faith. But it happens. The church is made of mortal men who make mortal men mistakes.
  4. It seems to have done a number on Disney too.
  5. The pride cycle is a symptom (or indicator) more than a cause.
  6. I don't think very many would object to a sister leaving a hat or cap on during a prayer. But I also fully understand how a sister would remove it. As @mikbone pounted out, pins would hold hats in place. When it's a cap it's a different issue. But as you said, with the longer hair going through, then it becomes a bigger issue again so...... ??
  7. I don't disagree with some of the theoretical ideas you present here. I just don't find it practical. Beards just aren't a canary in a coal mine any longer. They used to be. They aren't any more. They just aren't a strong social statement any longer. (Not a basic, well trimmed one, at least.) And...from personal experience, I don't understand or agree with the beard thing...and so I'm personally highly offended by your implications!! I'm kidding, of course. But the point is still that I don't fully agree that not understanding or disagreeing with things is relative to a healthy and productive approach to deeper spiritual struggles. I'd say there are a great many righteous, faithful, and committed men who don't understand or agree with the no beard thing. In the relative grand scheme of things, none of us fully understand the things of God. Hence...obedience. But we have plenty of humble obedience to get behind without arbitrary "drift" obedience issues that become as commandments when they are nothing of the sort. That sort of thing, to my best thinking, tends to lead more to arrogance, holier-than-thou-ness, and blind robotic-ness rather than true humility, faith and obedience. Yes...I'm letting my anti-BYU bias bleed through a bit here... I guess I've just known too many robotic, holier-than-thou, arrogant people reared of BYU. You know I've argued strongly for obedience. Even with these sorts of things. I still do. Just wear a white shirt to church! But with the changes happening with a lot of policies and approaches where they're leaning more to "follow the Spirit" I'm just surprised at this one. I accept that my point of view on the matter is from a place of zero purview. It's just my view. I support the brethren. I support BYU. I support the no beard thing. I just have an opinion on it, which is surprised.
  8. No reasonable person needs Trump to convince them of the obvious fact.
  9. Yeah. I had a beard for a few years there. I took a shift as an ordinance worker at the temple though, so...
  10. Here's my latest family pic: Please note........WRONG!!! But dang, look at how cute those stinking kids are!!!
  11. You have to explain that to me. How does the beard ban sift anyone? You mean there are legitimately, otherwise well qualified, righteous, faithful, honorable men who, because they'd have to shave, didn't attend BYU? And that's good.......why?
  12. Doesn't make sense to me. Mission rules are mission rules despite what can and cannot be worn at BYU. They don't require white shirts and ties at BYU, and yet....
  13. Because, as we all well know, Jesus was "slovenly". The strange thing to me is that the no beard thing is 100% cultural. There's no reality to it other than perception. And it is my perception that the entire beard=rebel thing is pretty darned outdated. Obviously wording such as they used with mustaches would make sense. But a well groomed beard still being against the honor code is just weird. It feels very out of touch. Shrug. What do I care?
  14. I'm legitimately surprised they're still asking for no beards to be worn.
  15. Every time new tech comes along people make this sort of claim. I don't buy it at all.
  16. This implies serious problems in home and family. Which is really the primary root of most of society's problems.
  17. I searched just for fun and found: [əˈlekSHən] and /iˈlek.ʃən/ I think both are fine.
  18. Maybe fleeing the country is in order then? I mean if you truly want to keep your distance...right?
  19. I agree. And I also hope and pray for better. But it's without any real hope. Unfortunately, I'm afraid, the best case is we get 4 more years of Biden and progressivism, eventually losing the Supreme Court to the left, eventually losing religious and parental rights, etc., etc. That's probably the best case. The worst case is probably Trump getting thrown in jail, his faithfuls legitimately revolting (Here, Jan 6th...hold my beer...) and we're into full-on civil war, concentration camps for Catholics, etc., etc. Sigh. It's gonna be a rough ride until the Savior returns.
  20. So I really don't get the struggle though. I mean I understand not liking Trump from a moral standpoint. But it's like saying you're struggling with the choice put before you...punched in the face....or shot in the face. Which do you choose? Is there really a struggle in that choice? Edit: I realize I might be discussing what's being struggled over in wildly different terms that you might be meaning. So to be clear, it struck me that the "struggle" is who one would vote for, Trump or Biden. I mean if one really thinks (as some seem to) that Biden is better for the country, then sure... But if one knows full well that Trump is better for the country, but also presumes he's immoral... I dunno. I don't understand that struggle I suppose.
  21. Which, of course, is pointless because none of them have a shot. Which is unfortunate. (I'm currently favoring Ramaswamy, myself...had I the choice.)
  22. I'm not sure it's "skill" that's the issue. I'm sure the "journalist" who wrote the article is perfectly capable of writing something that isn't entirely ignorant and ridiculously biased.
  23. I'd like to point out that the idea (upon which the humor of the comic is predicated) that upon eating the fruit that Adam and Eve immediately developed a perfect comprehensive understanding of good and evil is false. Rather, the idea of "knowledge" of good and evil for having eating the fruit stems from (no pun intended) a path that is chosen that would lead to knowledge of good and evil. We, being fallen as Adam and Eve became upon eating the fruit, are STILL dependent on obedience to God. We do not understand what is good and evil without God.