The Folk Prophet

FWIW, I think they are set in stone, and must be done in the correct order always. There's lots of reasons for that, many taught in the temple, per my best understanding.

I think you're partially right. But I think there's also, perhaps, more significance to some of the things (physically, etc.) than we might think. To understand these things (which I don't...but have had some insights), takes a lot of time and inspiration and etc., etc.

Easy: Good people = Good world Boom! Go do it!

I joked with my wife that if we ever move out of Utah she should get a "Mormon" related tattoo as a conversation starter and a missionary tool. She scowled at me.

This pretty much sums up about 90% of all Trump hatred. On almost every point made by those who dislike him it's about the same. Lies, upon lies, upon lies.

I think it's funny that people feel the need to throw this out all the time in speaking of how we react to any given thing. But it's such nonsense. Of COURSE sometimes violence is the answer. Obviously.

Um... breaking covenants is apostasy whether one encourages others to do so or not. Granted, encouraging others to do so makes it all worse. But still...the implication that if you just quietly go off and "do your thing" in rebellion against God that you're not in apostasy doesn't quite work.

Just based on the title of the thread and watching the trailer for it: The way I see it is: a bunch of women rebel against the church and its teachings and the consequence is that their lives are all ruined. Doesn't seem "designed to give the church a bad name", per se, even though the women are bad talking the church in the start of the trailer. But the consequence of their views and attitudes doesn't seem to be joy and peace. Not that I'm going to watch it. I have no interest in that sort of stuff. But I just thought while watching the trailer that it's a pretty primo example of what I see happen when people abandon the church and it's teachings. I've seen it directly with family and friends. They have good, wholesome lives, but complain about the church's restrictions and teachings, then determine they'll be happier if they leave, then within a few years...drinking, drugs, divorce, destruction, misery, pain and ruin. Which seems to be what happens here. Yep. Sounds about right. Granted, I don't know how the show will wrap up. In the end they will likely try to spin it like it was all for the good and they're all better off for their rebellion. Probably.

I think I could take him.

Consequences and "hell" are essentially synonymous. One doesn't need to believe in the so-called Christian idea of a burning lake of fire and brimstone to understand what it means to be in a state of hell. By saying "imagine there's no hell" the suggestion is to imagine if nothing hurts. No pain. No sorrow. No consequence. You don't fall down and break your neck and become a paraplegic, living your life in a new hell...no...imagine if that never happened... And as I said...it's a silly rubbish idea, whether one is an atheist or not. I mean I could be wrong. Maybe John Lennon only literally meant to imagine there was no Christian flaming lake of fire where the wicked go after death. 🤷‍♂️ But truth is. Generally, I'd say that theistic religious claims are truth claims though, and those who hold them believe them to be the arbiter of morality...because they believe them to be true. They are or they aren't. Really, your belief that @LDSGator would karate you into oblivion is a religious claim, when it comes right down to it. An expression of faith. But truth doesn't change based on claims. Which describe my problem with the song. Essentially, what it boils down to for me is, "Imagine that truth isn't true." Kumbaya. Let's all pretend. I mean it's a fine song if it isn't taken too seriously. As a real philosophical idea though, it's woefully lame.

Adherence to the idea that there's no heaven or God works on an individual level? Or the idea that there's no hell, hence no consequence for action? Of course it's easy to ignore God and think the wisdom of man has all the answers. But adherence to fantasy idealism doesn't really work on any level...individual or otherwise. Pretending there are no bad guys in the world won't magically makes them all disappear. The message in Imagine is pretty rubbish, imo.

It's not a saving ordinance. And it wouldn't anyhow. Even endowment sessions must abide by the law that we believe in honoring and obeying.

This. And these are the polls that matter. And they are all within the margin of error. T.D.S. much?

Not really. The averages of polling data have Harris and Trump within the margin of error too close to say. Anyone claiming that either candidate is likely to win is guessing at this point.

I'm legitimately confused by this comment. The polls, all together, are showing pretty much a dead heat. It's impossible to say who it looks like will win.

I did not say this.

Please don't call it my party.

To be fair, I mean no one should care about my opinion on whether Trump or Kamala would win. Not that no one should care about any of my opinions.

You're under the impression that Republicans were winning prior to Trump? Even if you take the Republican candidate "wins", they sure as heck haven't been winning on policy or conservative values. They've lost, and lost, and lost and lost. Republicans talk a lot...and then do little to nothing...except increase budgets and allow the culture to slide further to the left. The reality is, sadly, that the country is slowly sliding into decline. And returning to the way it was before Trump doesn't change that at all. The decline will continue. But...to be fair...it doesn't really matter. If the Trump-esqe type politics continue...we're doomed. If we return to "normal" Republicans running...we're doomed. And, of course, if the Democrats win anything ever...we're doomed. Yeah... I know... I've become a doomsayer. Because.... we're doomed. Politically speaking. The only hope, (and, blessedly, the sure hope), is in Christ. Until Christ returns, things will continue to get worse. Trump or no Trump. That being said.... the Republicans aren't returning to normal. And neither are the Democrats (who, in my opinion, have gone WAY further astray from what they once were than the MAGA influence had gone from what Republicans were). FWIW...if you care about my opinion, which of course, no one does, nor should they...but.... in my opinion.... As soon as Kamala debates Trump.... Well...it's going to be as bad for her as it was for Biden. She's less able to speak (off the cuff) than he was. And that's saying something.

Please...never! I'm not saying that in relationship to Trump. Just....no.

His arrogance is off-putting to me.

The home page is terribly annoying. Of course that sort of sums up the things that seem to appeal to the TikTok generation. Terribly annoying.

It strikes me that your answer (in sync with my thinking) demonstrates they are the same at the core. If one has faith, one is faithful. If one is faithful, one has faith. If one has no faith, one is not faithful. If one is not faithful, one is not having faith. I can understand that the usage of the words has different contextual usage. Of course. But they essentially, and in practice, amount to the same thing. Stating one "has" faith but then not remaining faithful puts a lie to the statement that one has faith. They are inseparable. Restating the quote from the Bible Dictionary in my reply to @Sal, "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always moves its possessor to some kind of physical and mental action;", might well be stated, "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always [means being faithful];" Having faith. Acting in good faith. Being faithful. Showing faith. Etc., etc.... it's basically all the same. By the way, the only reason I'm harping on this is because it is quite true that in common usage, "having faith" does mean to simply "believe". And that is problematic. In many ways, that idea is taught us by the movies. You know...Hollywood wisdom. Just what we want guiding our eternal understanding, right?

Exclamation point aside, I think that's a pretty narrow and limiting view of it. Moreover, I think it's incorrect. Though I will grant that is the primary kids answer that's often the typical view. But I'd suggest that "belief" is it's own principle. One we are commanded on as well. I think belief plays a role in faith. But claiming faith and belief to be synonymous, as I said, seems limiting. Words have different meaning, of course. And "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:" is, indeed ONE of the definitions of it. I don't tend to think, however, that when the scriptures or the prophets and apostles discuss faith that they're exclusively speaking of "belief in the unseen", though sometimes they may be. In point of fact, the Bible Dictionary explicitly states: "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always moves its possessor to some kind of physical and mental action;" Though, I will grant, the Bible Dictionary entry on faith is, in my opinion, flawed. I mean it says, for example, "Although faith is a gift, it must be cultured and sought after until it grows from a tiny seed to a great tree." This is scripturally incorrect. Alma does not teach that of faith. The seed that is planted, must be cultured, and which grows from a tiny seed to a great tree is not faith. As Alma clearly states: "Now, we will compare the word unto a seed...." (Alma 32:28) But I digress. I think there's room for a broader understanding of what faith is, how it relates to faithfulness, and how application of the two are, in many ways, similar. And I believe it is, as I said, limiting to closing oneself off to that sort of thinking.

I can see that (obviously it's semantics). But...a dog does darned too have faith in their owner! 😀 Literally, the dictionary gives one of the definitions of faithful as "full of faith", though it terms the definition obsolete. But I have little doubt that many scriptural usages of that word mean exactly that. I don't see that, necessarily, as the singular meaning of "faithful" in the scriptures. But in my study I have determined that to be what it likely often means. Actually, even more importantly, to my understanding, I think understanding it in reverse is useful... as in the meaning of "to have faith" means to be faithful.