The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
Just to add something-our professional opinions certainly matter. You are absolutely qualified to tell me my singing voice is terrible.
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?
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:But once you and I start talking about abortion, tax policy and religion-people probably won’t listen.
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.
- Connie, Still_Small_Voice and LDSGator
-
3
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
I think it’s important to remember that your opinion (and mine) doesn’t matter at all except to our family-and maybe our friends. Other than that, no one cares.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:
The point I was making was last sentence of my previous post.
- They lure you in with one question, then they draw a pre-designed conclusion.
- And they NEVER ASK the respondents the important question about "how do you know?"
- They simply pose that question when criticizing the responses.
They don't dare actually allow a response to the question. That would destroy the narrative.
NOTE: I'm not accusing Connie of such subterfuge. But surveys like this are used specifically to make such points and paint respondents in a bad light.
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.
-
-
17 hours ago, clbent04 said:
I believe God is more merciful, understanding, and forgiving than most of us give Him credit for.
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.
- zil2 and mordorbund
-
2
-
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.
-
3 hours ago, clbent04 said:
Growing up in the LDS Church I recall members reacting defensively to the statement that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church.
Does the Church try to position itself as a Christian church or is this more of a cultural thing?
Considering the many atrocities that have been conducted under the banner of Christianity, should the Church even want to position itself as such?
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I recently heard someone share how they don't want to be associated with Christianity, but they are a follower of Jesus.
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. -
-
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:
No, it is a sin to judge unrighteously.
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".
4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:but it does sort of lead one to wonder whether President Ballard improperly judged Tim as guilty.
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.
4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:One other thing to bear in mind about this is that we tend to immediately assume that leftist accusations of sexual misconduct against conservatives are ab initio fabrications.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Jumping to conclusions is a reflex. It is unconscious. We tend to do this without even being aware of it.
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.
- Vort and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
As a matter of procedure, you are of course correct. But to believe that the average person (myself included) can divorce their own tendency to jump to conclusions sufficiently as to not even entertain a whiff of judgement one way or the other is asking quite a bit.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Indeed.
Then again, the scenarios exonerating Tim are also based in an awful lot of speculation.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Undercover work is necessarily shady business (I defended a couple of prostitutes who got caught in a massage parlor sting about 10-15 years ago; and after reading the report of what the SLC vice squad officers did, I really don’t know how those guys could go home and look their wives in the eye each night. Suffice it to say—they enjoyed their jobs. A lot.)
I could easily envision a scenario where people who were already part of Tim’s organization (so, no donor/financial gain aspect to it) got uncomfortable with some of his methods and were reassured by him with something along the lines of “Don’t worry about this psychic thing, I have President Ballard’s personal blessing that what we are doing is totally legit!”
Do I believe that President Ballard withdrew association from Tim without attempting to offer so much as a word of explanation? As someone who believes in President Ballard’s prophetic calling and good intentions and general character as a minister and a gentleman: No; no I don’t. Maybe he tried to reach out and Tim, basking in the success of his new movie, refused to take the call. Or maybe he *did* get through to Tim and that Tim now, as an experienced undercover operator, is using his particular set of deception and manipulation skills in order to misrepresent his past activities and entice his current audience into believing that he and they have the same fundamental values.
Maybe. Maybe. And Maybe.
An awful lot of speculation.
-
16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
Sometimes outside views help. My impression is that self-promotion is deeply frowned upon in LDS circles. Worse would be to use church leadership for personal benefit. My sense, then, is that leadership took great offense at Ballard's name-dropping and use of LDS connections. They did so on behalf of the Church. I'm not sure any of this controversy speaks to other allegations against him or to whether or not his future political aspirations are plausible or commendable.
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.
- mirkwood and prisonchaplain
-
1
-
1
-
1 minute ago, LDSGator said:
My sympathies are with the church though. I fear Tim Ballard tried to take advantage of the genuinely sweet nature of the LDS apostles and leadership, who I will defend 100%. I think they sometimes get conned by jerks and sleazeballs looking for political or social gains. Like I’ve always said, LDS (including the leaders) can be too nice and trusting 😞
Your strange blend of cynicism and faith is charming.
-
1 minute ago, LDSGator said:
Lol. No, I have no opinion of the man at all. I’ve thought of him as often as he thinks of me.
It’s pretty clear what I thought. I thought before that people only believe the news is “true” if it confirms what they already believe. If it goes against their moral/religious/political views then they automatically think it’s “fake news” or disbelieve it.
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.
-
37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
But I tend to believe it.
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.
- Jedi_Nephite and Traveler
-
1
-
1
-
54 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
but I highly doubt Vice just made something up.
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.
55 minutes ago, LDSGator said:Why hasn’t Ballard sued them for slander?
Who's to say he won't?
That being said, suing for slander is a very difficult road. You have to prove intentional deception.
57 minutes ago, LDSGator said:To me it’s validating because it proves something I always thought. It’s fake news when it says something we disagree with, and it’s only real if it confirms my pre existing beliefs. So I do feel like I was absolutely right. Again
You thought Tim Ballard was a sex pervert prior to this?
-
16 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
So who is wrong here? Did Tim Ballard do anything wrong or is the church wrong? Did the church release an official statement?
Well, do you believe Tim Ballard or Vice?
Choose.
-
1 minute ago, LDSGator said:
What do you disbelieve?
It.
Specifically that Tim Ballard did what he's being accused of.
14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:Did the church not release a statement or take down anything?
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.
- LDSGator, Anddenex, JohnsonJones and 2 others
-
5
-
I disbelieve it.
-
-
The pride cycle is a symptom (or indicator) more than a cause.
- Backroads, askandanswer and mirkwood
-
3
-
46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I'd agree that ANYone wearing a baseball cap in sacrament meeting is most likely committing a faux pas (let alone taking it off or leaving it on during prayer). The example I gave was at the dinner table.
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...... ??
Survey about censorship on social media
in General Discussion
Posted
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.