The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
-
36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Interesting. Cute kids and lovely wife.
Who was in that video you posted a few months ago? You and a buddy were discussing a doctrinal matter or something on what looked like a podcast. I assumed the one with the long grizzled beard was you. Were you the other one? I thought he also had a beard, but just shorter.
... at least I thought you said it was you in the video.
Yeah. I had a beard for a few years there. I took a shift as an ordinance worker at the temple though, so...
-
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
Says the man with a highland cattle hanging off his chin.
Here's my latest family pic: Please note........WRONG!!!
But dang, look at how cute those stinking kids are!!!
- Just_A_Guy, Carborendum, Vort and 1 other
-
3
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
If remember correctly from his biography, even 40 years ago as president of BYU, President Oaks expressed his belief that the beard ban was cultural, not theologically necessary; and that he personally would have preferred its removal.
The fact that it remains in place all these years later suggests to me that perhaps the beard ban served, and continues to serve, a sort of “sifting function” at BYU that the General Authorities feel is desirable.
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?
-
8 hours ago, estradling75 said:
If I were to guess.... (and it is only a guess) I would say that it is because the Missionary grooming standards are not going to change. And after Family and local church leaders the CES group might be the next most influential group for the future missionaries. Having less potential stumbling blocks seems wise.
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....
-
10 hours ago, laronius said:
I know for me, if I'm going to be lazy and just let something go it will be facial hair. Not that I let it get to full beard but 3-4 days growth before I shave. Maybe they see that as the first sign of becoming slovenly. I guess there needs to be something that sets guys apart from the rest of the world.
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?
-
-
-
17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
What scares me more than the influence of technology aids, are the massive impact of closing schools for COVID. Kids spent 2 years failing to learn to read/write/spell/speak/research/graduate/etc. Everyone's numbers are lower. Teachers are struggling, students have lower test scores and higher rates of mental illness and suicide attempts.
This implies serious problems in home and family. Which is really the primary root of most of society's problems.
- LDSGator, Vort, NeuroTypical and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
I've noticed a lot of people pronouncing an "A" in place of "e" or "i" in some words, particularly when that letter is followed by an "m."
Immediately = Ammediately
Election = Alection.
Anyone else notice this shift in speech? Has this been around for a while? I'm finding that older people are also doing this. I've never noticed it before this year.
I searched just for fun and found:
[əˈlekSHən]
and
/iˈlek.ʃən/
I think both are fine.
-
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I have long believed that if (to use the language of ancient Judah’s conundrum) we keep our distance from Egypt even when threatened by Samaria, Syria, and Babylon—that deliverance will ultimately come. I think that’s the subtext between D&C 98:10. We have all, over the last couple of centuries, been led down the primrose path of embracing progressively more cunning and less thoughtful leaders; and we probably ought to have drawn a bright line long before now. But Trump strikes me as an opportunity to awaken to our awful situation.
Maybe fleeing the country is in order then? I mean if you truly want to keep your distance...right?
-
11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
We're America. We're supposed to be better than this. So, if I really have a choice between being punched and being shot, wow, is this what we've come to? I'm still hoping and praying for better.
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.
-
21 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
Wow, @Just_A_Guy. You put to words exactly what I've struggled. @Grunt if you were looking for a straight answer to why I'm struggling, you just got it.
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.
-
-
18 hours ago, Vort said:
A deeply ignorant article. Unsurprising; it's not like we aren't used to that. But still irritating. You'd think that a journalist would be more careful, though endless experience has shown this belief to be naive.
18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:@Vort doesn't appreciate the skills of the journalist who penned the article. OK. How about my guess that some LDS youth are struggling, in the same way as their Evangelical counterparts, with the politics of their elders--especially when it comes to supporting the previous president?
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.
-
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.
-
“Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on ‘tradition’ without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards,”
After careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues...I end up voting pretty much a straight ticket.
I don't like the Republican party at all. So when and if I find a Democrat who supports positions of good and right....well....they wouldn't be a Democrat any more now, would they?
As far as voting independent or other parties....sure... it could happen.
-
6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
No, there is no "deeper" point. As far as I can tell, he's saying that there are four kingdoms. And if we were to measure them, Outer Darkness would have a glory rating of zero.
It's a bit like saying that a merchant that went bankrupt is still a merchant who doesn't sell anything.
It's the same logic musicians use to call themselves "employed".
- Carborendum and askandanswer
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
This is much closer to how George Bernard Shaw wanted the story to end. I agree with him. Higgins is (a) much too old for Eliza and (b) much too big a jerk for anyone. Shaw wanted her to marry Freddy, who may have been "a bit of a silly arse", but at least he was Eliza's age, and he could have matured as he got older.
Modern feminist versions have her marrying no one, but striking out as an independent woman.
I'm happy with either - just so long as she doesn't marry that old fossil Higgins, who just cares about having his slippers brought to him.
Hmm. I never got the sense that she came back to "marry" Higgins.
I don't disagree that the ending could have been something better...but not this. This was terrible -- empty -- sad -- unsatisfying. I think ideally there needed to be a true equilibrium established between them somehow that kept them in each other's lives for the better. Not sure what that would be. But her just walking off forever does not feel satisfactory.
-
6 hours ago, Jalouis said:
The biggest issue I found when exploring the several AI art sites I found was that if I DID use them to illustrate my fantasy fiction novels, they could not be copyrighted.
Why would you want to copyright art that you didn't create?
Edit: Let me expand on that...
If you submitted a novel to a publisher and they picked it up and then had it illustrated by a professional artist.... you wouldn't own the copyright to those illustrations either. -
11 hours ago, Vort said:
It strikes me as cynical to proclaim that one can fast by making some sacrifice other than not eating. "I didn't watch TV for a day, so I fasted." That violates the plain meaning of words. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you personally are being cynical. I trust your sincerity. But I do believe that the reasoning of a fast not being a fast from food (as if there's any other kind of fast) is indeed deeply cynical. It's like following the law of chastity by, I don't know, cleaning the kitchen.
I think the cynical response is the suggestion that I'm saying the lackadaisical turning off of the TV on Sunday equates to a fast.
It feels like this debate has, perhaps, run it's course and continuing doesn't have a ton of value. So I'll back out now.
Thanks for the back and forth on it.
-
3 minutes ago, Vort said:
I am not conscious that I have spoken against this teaching. I don't see where President Smith suggested that one can fulfill the law of the fast without fasting.
I thought we'd established that I wasn't saying one can fulfill the law of the fast without fasting. (Though I do understand that you are narrowing fasting to mean food and drink and nothing else.)
Clearly we are interpreting things differently. It's been taught many times and places (I didn't share a lot of them because they aren't "authoritative" quotes from the prophet or the like) that we should adjust our fast according to what we can do and be wise in the matter, and that we can obtain the blessings of fasting in doing so. The fact that the fasting from food and drink for 24 hours is "no iron-clad law" unto us and that we need "to exercise wisdom and discretion" sounds pretty much like exactly what I've trying to say. Either you are reading it differently, thinking I mean something different than I do, or just don't agree. C'est la etc.I will grant that his quote doesn't explicitly specify that one can fast from something other than food and drink...though that feels like a perfectly appropriate understanding of "no iron-clad law" and "wisdom and discretion" to me.
2 minutes ago, Vort said:Ah, man, you don't expect me to read ALL the posts do you?
-
More from President Joseph F. Smith: “There is such a thing as overdoing. A man may fast and pray till he kills himself; and there isn’t any necessity for it; nor wisdom in it. … The Lord can hear a simple prayer, offered in faith, in half a dozen words, and he will recognize fasting that may not continue more than twenty-four hours, just as readily and as effectually as He will answer a prayer of a thousand words and fasting for a month. … The Lord will accept that which is enough, with a good deal more pleasure and satisfaction than that which is too much and unnecessary” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1912, 133–34).
Updated CES Standards
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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.