The Folk Prophet

Otherwise known as...... kids.

It seems clear (to me, at least) that the Lord, who is the Creator, the Advocate, and the Judge, set aside those eternal roles during his mortal sojourn. To the woman taken in adultery, in the very act, his words were, "Neither do I condemn thee." How could the Creator and Judge, he who literally gave the Law, refuse to condemn someone so obviously guilty? Simply because it was not yet the time of condemnation. That time will come, inexorably and unfailingly, but for us, it hasn't come yet. Today is the period set aside for us to repent. The night will indeed come wherein no labor can be performed, so we need to take advantage while the sun shines.
For the record, I believe you both are saying essentially the same thing, and I agree with the both of you. I wish I had so absolutely little regard for money as to honestly not care whether someone or other was "fair", especially my brother.

Well, there you go.  I have be taught this before and it just flew on by. (Link to D&C 112:21-29)
Verses 25 & 26:
So, the cleansing will start in the Church, and move out from there.  And, from the footnotes: 1 Peter 4:17-18.
Anywho, I've always just thought of this as a single event where the wicked are destroyed prior to the Millennium.  To me, these verses are saying that it will start with cleansing the Church, and then the rest of the world.
Thank you, @mikbone for finding that reference!

Let's stick a pin in that for a moment.
Look at the exchange thus far:
My statement: in order to do X, we need to deny ourselves of all ungodliness. Your response: We cannot deny ourselves of all ungodliness because that means we have to be perfect, which we cannot do.  Therefore X is impossible under that requirement. I pointed to Moroni who tells us that the grace of Christ is only sufficient for us if we deny ourselves of all ungodliness. Then, by Moroni's statement, we cannot obtain the Grace of Christ. If, instead, "denying ourselves of all ungodliness" means something different (let's suppose, for discussion purposes, a figure of speech for a less absolute condition) then we can achieve it.
Thus we come back to the discussion about the gathering.  If we can achieve that condition, then we can achieve the gathering.

The problem is that Traveler is working with a different definition/view of what agency means. He has this convoluted, manufactured, over-complicated view of the matter, but then tries communicating it without even bothering to acknowledge that he's doing this. I don't think it's intentional on his part...but it causes a great deal of confusion.
Agency seems to be a principle that people struggle with. (There are a few other principles that have the same problem). I don't know why. It seems like a simple principle to me. But it's one that seems to be constantly misunderstood. Of course most people, in my view, misunderstand it by over-simplifying it. But then, every so often, you have people that over-complicate it. It seems like there are certain people who tend to overcomplicate everything.

Maybe what you mean is something different than what I'm taking this to mean, but as it's written.... then there can be no proper gathering then, because we cannot rid ourselves of "all" ungodliness. It comes across as if you're saying that God cannot do His work unless we're perfect. That's clearly not true.
 

Well, after three hours lying awake in bed, I've given up on sleep, so I may as well add my thoughts, which are the long-winded version of what @mikbone wrote.
Verse 39 sets the time - the end of the world, so just before the Millennium.
Verse 40 sets the actors "angels or messengers sent of heaven" - I would note that this could be prophets and apostles, resurrected beings, righteous spirits, whoever, but those on the Lord's errand, with authority.
Verse 42 gets more specific about timing - before the Lord himself comes (presumably for all to see, in his glory, though that's my presumption).
Verse 43 is the what the actors will be doing, and this is the interesting bit - they will "gather out of his kingdom" - clearly, the "Kingdom of God" - which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as opposed to the Kingdom of Heaven).  And what will they gather?
"all things that offend" - false traditions, beliefs, teachings, or practices that have entered the Church (my interpretation) "them which do iniquity" - I perceive this to mean those who aren't even trying to keep their covenants - whether through indifference, or willful rebellion, or by choosing to be "deceived".  I think it includes those who are hiding in the Church, pretending to be the faithful but who actively want to destroy the Church; and those who have been deceived into believing the world's philosophies and are trying "in good faith" (believing they're right) to convince other members to come over to their way of thinking; and those who just can't be bothered with actually keeping their covenants. And these will be cast out of the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church) into the world (among the wicked who do not claim membership).  Whether that's literal (e.g. excommunication) or figurative (not sure how that will work, but whatever), they will be out, and they will be wailing and gnashing their teeth over how unfair we are, how they've been wronged, and perhaps about how unpleasant life is outside the Church and in the world.
And then after they have been cast out of the Church, out from among gathered Israel, then the wicked (aka world) will be destroyed.
I don't recall ever hearing about the extra step of casting workers of iniquity out of the Church.  Not that it's surprising or anything, of course it would happen - whether by their own choice or by "force" - it's just not something I ever noticed before.  And I suppose I'm noticing it now because it's so easy to imagine, given everything going on in the world today.
(For the record, this does not encourage me to judge my neighbor, but rather to make sure I'm not a worker of iniquity, and that I haven't embraced anything that offends, lest I trail along after it's cast out.)

@zil2 I don't have specific thoughts or interpretations, but anxiously await yours.

This is the only bit of your list that holds any water for me.  Every other place there is to go with this discussion is pointless as either pure speculation and pointing out what proves or fails to prove what, or as pointing out that some things ought not to be spoken.  I've written and deleted half a dozen responses, so I'm gonna follow TFP's example and give up.  This just has nowhere to go.

I'm more inclined to believe, accept, and have faith in the "general" understanding that afflictions are provided so that God and his Son, Jesus Christ are glorified. I love this example with the blind man and the apostle's question to the Lord. There are a lot of lessons wrapped in one verse.
I'm more inclined to accept the general idea that afflictions will result due to having mortal bodies. As a result of having mortal bodies, the possibilities of mutations, that some of us would be born blind, deaf, lame, etc... I can't see any individual saying and agreeing with the Lord, "Yes, when I'm 3 years old I agree, and want to be diagnosed with cancer, and then die at age 6." We can hypothesis all the unfortunate scenarios and horrendous scenarios in this life. Tyrants is another good example. "Yes, I want to and agree to becoming a tyrant. I accept and agree to that I will raise an army, create mass murder, and then end my own life." What person, who would have been trained and tutored by a God think this would be OK and agree to it.
I'm more inclined, to see God's foreknowledge, as a way in providing a means -- to escape -- and a way out if we use our agency wisely. I'm more inclined to accept that God didn't make the person blind, but that the plan provided a mortal weak body which could result (and does result) in mutations. Those mutations -- in general -- are a means to glorify God and would glorify God through miracles. Very similar to what happened on my mission. I don't believe there was some predestined result in the man who was healed, but I do believe our mortal bodies created an opportunity for God to be glorified in him and through his priesthood.
Just as we all have the agency, every circumstance can be an opportunity to glorify God or to reject him. I am fond of Nephi's words, "nevertheless, the Lord did suffer it that he might show forth his power, unto the fulfilling of his word which he had spoken concerning the wicked." The Lord suffers many forms of afflictions so that his power can be shown forth such that he might be glorified, and in many cases his promises fulfilled.

I think that just as earthly institutions have curricula designed by teachers (not by the students who are woefully ignorant and unqualified to design their own curriculum), ours, while surely designed (to the extent necessary) for the individual, are designed by God.  I just can't get on board with the idea that I helped plan every little detail of my mortal life - it seems irrational to me, and unnecessary.  I don't believe for a second that it was, is, or will be necessary in order for my agency to function.  In fact, it sounds downright contrary to my agency functioning.  I also believe that the details of my life could have been different in a nearly infinite number of ways and still have taught me the same lessons I needed to learn in order, eventually, to be able to make that final, educated-by-experience choice between good and evil.
If I turn out to be wrong, and immortal me saw and approved every second of my mortal existence, well, OK, whatever.  But I may well slap her silly and say, "What the devil were you thinking!?"

So, yesterday I was reading the Come, Follow Me lesson, and read Matthew 13.  In the footnotes, I noted the JST verses:
Now, I'm sure we've all read the various interpretations of the "wheat & tares" parable.  But this time through, this bit of the JST really caught my eye, especially verses 42-43.  I'm wondering if anyone else sees there what I see, which is something I don't think I've ever heard explicitly mentioned.  I don't want to prime the pump, so I'll reply later with my thoughts (was going to use a spoiler block, but that's not an option here).  Would appreciate your thoughts.

We had a family in our ward where the wife was Japanese. After a few years, they decided to stop attending their local ward to instead go to a Japanese ward somewhere. But...and here's the big thing... the only reason a "Japenese" ward exists is because of the language. Not the race.
If there are language issues, it makes sense. Like having Spanish wards. But separating out because of skin color would be terrible. That's essentially some of what the report was proposing. Let's divide everyone further by separating out those based on skin color into a special place where they can be segregated from white people. That idea's being proposed everywhere and it's shocking.
It would make more sense if it wasn't about skin color. Like having a Polynesian club or something because of cultural appreciation. But making it about skin color is...well......racist.

We had a family in our ward where the wife was Japanese. After a few years, they decided to stop attending their local ward to instead go to a Japanese ward somewhere. But...and here's the big thing... the only reason a "Japenese" ward exists is because of the language. Not the race.
If there are language issues, it makes sense. Like having Spanish wards. But separating out because of skin color would be terrible. That's essentially some of what the report was proposing. Let's divide everyone further by separating out those based on skin color into a special place where they can be segregated from white people. That idea's being proposed everywhere and it's shocking.
It would make more sense if it wasn't about skin color. Like having a Polynesian club or something because of cultural appreciation. But making it about skin color is...well......racist.

You know, I've never been asked if I would like to have an Asian class or anything of the sort.  The last ward I was in there was another Korean family (recent immigrants) who attended.  I became good friends with the father.
When boundary changes moved us to a different stake, I was the only Asian in the ward (my children of course were half-Asian).  Then all of a sudden in one weekend, we seemed to have a mass migration of part-Asian families.  No one asked any of us if we needed a new class or anything of the sort.  No one bothered asking if I or anyone else felt left out or ostracized or treated differently because we were Asian.  And I never cared.
I understand that Blacks probably have it worse, and especially in the Church because of the whole priesthood ban thing and all that came with it.  But I've been in wards with some black people who never felt singled out.  They were part of the community.

But it is a problem when it becomes "forced" diversity of race and personalities.
Can you imagine if they applied the standards suggested to the church? All of a sudden my ward is a BIG problem. Because...you know...white. So, obviously, racist, right? Anyone of the BIPOC community who feels uncomfortable in my ward...well... obviously we need to have a special meeting place for them...and classes just for them...and ensure we always have BIPOC folk in the bishopric and other leadership...and we have to convince more BIPOC folk to move into the neighborhood...etc., etc... Because otherwise....RACISM!
It's the forced diversity that becomes the problem.

But it is a problem when it becomes "forced" diversity of race and personalities.
Can you imagine if they applied the standards suggested to the church? All of a sudden my ward is a BIG problem. Because...you know...white. So, obviously, racist, right? Anyone of the BIPOC community who feels uncomfortable in my ward...well... obviously we need to have a special meeting place for them...and classes just for them...and ensure we always have BIPOC folk in the bishopric and other leadership...and we have to convince more BIPOC folk to move into the neighborhood...etc., etc... Because otherwise....RACISM!
It's the forced diversity that becomes the problem.

So I was reading an article on this and it led me to the Race, Equity, and Belonging report. And I gotta say, reading through it, I was pretty profoundly disturbed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting I disbelieve there is racism at BYU. Nor do I believe BYU shouldn't be doing more to deal with it. But THIS?!
I really don't get how a group of educators can seem so woefully uneducated on how to think about these sorts of things.
I mean just take the basic premise: "Black, indigenous, and other people of color" (BIPOC) feel unsafe.
So one has to ask...why? Right? The question is why. And the answer? Why, racism, of course. That's just the answer. No further exploration needed.
They literally mention DezNat in the report. We've discussed that in another thread. No one even considers that people being scared for their lives MIGHT....just maybe...be a problem with the people scared for their lives* rather than silly memes? No one? Of course not. DezNat is a euphemism for Nazi. Right? No further exploration, thought, or understanding needed. That's the problem! Yeah.
And some of the other conclusions... Someone in the BIPOC community comes to predominantly white Utah and then deals with some culture shock...(which, of course, is then called "racism")...and one of the proposed solutions... less white people!
Really?
I mean it's truly, legitimately shocking to me the way these educators seem to think. And, as it relates to this thread, for anyone who cares...the top signatory on the report: Shane Reese.
On a side note: my niece on my wife's side once posted on Facebook about this "amazing" book she'd been assigned at BYU that had opened her eyes to her white culpability (that book being How to Be and Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi).
Am I truly shocked that concepts that buy into this sort of thing (critical race theory, etc) have bled into educational thinking at BYU? No...no I am not. But as to the potential of seeing any changes for the better in this sort of regard from the new president............................................................
I am thoroughly disenchanted with higher education. For some reason I expect BYU to do better.
Because, obviously, the key to solving any victimhood mentality issues is to coddle them, right? Make sure they're never uncomfortable, never have to feel marginalized or teased or looked down upon or insecure or like they don't fit in. We all know that's the key to growing up and becoming a useful member of society, right? And, obviously, those of us who are white never feel those things.
 
*No one considers the cultural "victimhood" and stirred up politics of the matter? No once considers the trophy society we live in as potentially culpable? No one considers social media? Racial fearmongering? Etc., etc.? Nope. It's just white people are racists. Obviously.**
**So my daughter (6) is playing a video game currently called Dreamlight Valley. She loves to change the look of her character all the time. One of the things she did, at one point, was make herself into a "goblin". In doing so, she chose the skin color option that was the darkest (essentially black). Perfectly reasonable thinking for a 6-year-old, and entirely unrelated to anything to do with race. I was at a bit of a loss whether to say or do anything of it (I did not, ultimately). Sure, it could be a teaching moment about race...but then that also introduces racial issues to a child who has no sense of it at all, nor should she. She doesn't think of Tiana as a "black" princess. Tiana's just a princess. One she loves. She doesn't think of skin color differences any differently than she thinks of hair color or eye color differences. "Race" isn't meaningful to her. And whereas I know, at some point, I'll have to have the race conversation and make sure she's ready to tread the stupid culture we live in, I didn't feel it was the moment. Anyhow...the thought I had was how innocent it was, and yet how offensive it would be to certain people in certain situations. And, honestly, that's what I feel a lot of "racism" amounts to. It's innocence being interpreted as hurtful and malicious. People taking offence when there is nothing offensive. As I said earlier, I'm sure there are legitimate instances of legitimate racism at BYU. But I find myself truly skeptical that most of what was reported in said report actually qualifies.

I couldn’t even be bothered to finish reading the report.  I was irritated within the first couple pages and was bored @ page 10.
Amazing how Official Declaration #2 is 1.5 pages and is clear and simple.
Whereas this above document is 60+ pages of recommendations based upon current social trends as opposed to the scriptures…
Where in the scriptures do you see the Lord honoring diversity?  How about unity and melting pot imagery instead?
I hate racism, bullying of any sort, and can’t bear to see the strong oppress the weak.  The Savior is the perfect example.
I would have liked to see more scripture passages and less wokeism…

Interesting.  

Some of the usual suspects on Twitter are up in arms because Reese authored a letter last year defending BYU’s decision to shut down a program offering speech therapy to transgender folks.
But, yeah.  My earlier comment arose because a) the Q12 have hinted for a while that the GAs aren’t entirely happy with the direction that BYU has taken; but b) if there’s such a thing as a professional “swamp” or secularist/libertine “deep state” at BYU, Reese’s credentials suggest that he likely to be neck-deep in it. I would have expected the Q12 to bring in an outsider to clean house.

So I was reading an article on this and it led me to the Race, Equity, and Belonging report. And I gotta say, reading through it, I was pretty profoundly disturbed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting I disbelieve there is racism at BYU. Nor do I believe BYU shouldn't be doing more to deal with it. But THIS?!
I really don't get how a group of educators can seem so woefully uneducated on how to think about these sorts of things.
I mean just take the basic premise: "Black, indigenous, and other people of color" (BIPOC) feel unsafe.
So one has to ask...why? Right? The question is why. And the answer? Why, racism, of course. That's just the answer. No further exploration needed.
They literally mention DezNat in the report. We've discussed that in another thread. No one even considers that people being scared for their lives MIGHT....just maybe...be a problem with the people scared for their lives* rather than silly memes? No one? Of course not. DezNat is a euphemism for Nazi. Right? No further exploration, thought, or understanding needed. That's the problem! Yeah.
And some of the other conclusions... Someone in the BIPOC community comes to predominantly white Utah and then deals with some culture shock...(which, of course, is then called "racism")...and one of the proposed solutions... less white people!
Really?
I mean it's truly, legitimately shocking to me the way these educators seem to think. And, as it relates to this thread, for anyone who cares...the top signatory on the report: Shane Reese.
On a side note: my niece on my wife's side once posted on Facebook about this "amazing" book she'd been assigned at BYU that had opened her eyes to her white culpability (that book being How to Be and Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi).
Am I truly shocked that concepts that buy into this sort of thing (critical race theory, etc) have bled into educational thinking at BYU? No...no I am not. But as to the potential of seeing any changes for the better in this sort of regard from the new president............................................................
I am thoroughly disenchanted with higher education. For some reason I expect BYU to do better.
Because, obviously, the key to solving any victimhood mentality issues is to coddle them, right? Make sure they're never uncomfortable, never have to feel marginalized or teased or looked down upon or insecure or like they don't fit in. We all know that's the key to growing up and becoming a useful member of society, right? And, obviously, those of us who are white never feel those things.
 
*No one considers the cultural "victimhood" and stirred up politics of the matter? No once considers the trophy society we live in as potentially culpable? No one considers social media? Racial fearmongering? Etc., etc.? Nope. It's just white people are racists. Obviously.**
**So my daughter (6) is playing a video game currently called Dreamlight Valley. She loves to change the look of her character all the time. One of the things she did, at one point, was make herself into a "goblin". In doing so, she chose the skin color option that was the darkest (essentially black). Perfectly reasonable thinking for a 6-year-old, and entirely unrelated to anything to do with race. I was at a bit of a loss whether to say or do anything of it (I did not, ultimately). Sure, it could be a teaching moment about race...but then that also introduces racial issues to a child who has no sense of it at all, nor should she. She doesn't think of Tiana as a "black" princess. Tiana's just a princess. One she loves. She doesn't think of skin color differences any differently than she thinks of hair color or eye color differences. "Race" isn't meaningful to her. And whereas I know, at some point, I'll have to have the race conversation and make sure she's ready to tread the stupid culture we live in, I didn't feel it was the moment. Anyhow...the thought I had was how innocent it was, and yet how offensive it would be to certain people in certain situations. And, honestly, that's what I feel a lot of "racism" amounts to. It's innocence being interpreted as hurtful and malicious. People taking offence when there is nothing offensive. As I said earlier, I'm sure there are legitimate instances of legitimate racism at BYU. But I find myself truly skeptical that most of what was reported in said report actually qualifies.

So I was reading an article on this and it led me to the Race, Equity, and Belonging report. And I gotta say, reading through it, I was pretty profoundly disturbed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting I disbelieve there is racism at BYU. Nor do I believe BYU shouldn't be doing more to deal with it. But THIS?!
I really don't get how a group of educators can seem so woefully uneducated on how to think about these sorts of things.
I mean just take the basic premise: "Black, indigenous, and other people of color" (BIPOC) feel unsafe.
So one has to ask...why? Right? The question is why. And the answer? Why, racism, of course. That's just the answer. No further exploration needed.
They literally mention DezNat in the report. We've discussed that in another thread. No one even considers that people being scared for their lives MIGHT....just maybe...be a problem with the people scared for their lives* rather than silly memes? No one? Of course not. DezNat is a euphemism for Nazi. Right? No further exploration, thought, or understanding needed. That's the problem! Yeah.
And some of the other conclusions... Someone in the BIPOC community comes to predominantly white Utah and then deals with some culture shock...(which, of course, is then called "racism")...and one of the proposed solutions... less white people!
Really?
I mean it's truly, legitimately shocking to me the way these educators seem to think. And, as it relates to this thread, for anyone who cares...the top signatory on the report: Shane Reese.
On a side note: my niece on my wife's side once posted on Facebook about this "amazing" book she'd been assigned at BYU that had opened her eyes to her white culpability (that book being How to Be and Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi).
Am I truly shocked that concepts that buy into this sort of thing (critical race theory, etc) have bled into educational thinking at BYU? No...no I am not. But as to the potential of seeing any changes for the better in this sort of regard from the new president............................................................
I am thoroughly disenchanted with higher education. For some reason I expect BYU to do better.
Because, obviously, the key to solving any victimhood mentality issues is to coddle them, right? Make sure they're never uncomfortable, never have to feel marginalized or teased or looked down upon or insecure or like they don't fit in. We all know that's the key to growing up and becoming a useful member of society, right? And, obviously, those of us who are white never feel those things.
 
*No one considers the cultural "victimhood" and stirred up politics of the matter? No once considers the trophy society we live in as potentially culpable? No one considers social media? Racial fearmongering? Etc., etc.? Nope. It's just white people are racists. Obviously.**
**So my daughter (6) is playing a video game currently called Dreamlight Valley. She loves to change the look of her character all the time. One of the things she did, at one point, was make herself into a "goblin". In doing so, she chose the skin color option that was the darkest (essentially black). Perfectly reasonable thinking for a 6-year-old, and entirely unrelated to anything to do with race. I was at a bit of a loss whether to say or do anything of it (I did not, ultimately). Sure, it could be a teaching moment about race...but then that also introduces racial issues to a child who has no sense of it at all, nor should she. She doesn't think of Tiana as a "black" princess. Tiana's just a princess. One she loves. She doesn't think of skin color differences any differently than she thinks of hair color or eye color differences. "Race" isn't meaningful to her. And whereas I know, at some point, I'll have to have the race conversation and make sure she's ready to tread the stupid culture we live in, I didn't feel it was the moment. Anyhow...the thought I had was how innocent it was, and yet how offensive it would be to certain people in certain situations. And, honestly, that's what I feel a lot of "racism" amounts to. It's innocence being interpreted as hurtful and malicious. People taking offence when there is nothing offensive. As I said earlier, I'm sure there are legitimate instances of legitimate racism at BYU. But I find myself truly skeptical that most of what was reported in said report actually qualifies.

Probably correct. But my point is that this Ramaswamy is, imo, not going to be the dark horse.
I've seen some commentary that DeSantis's response to Trump's potential arrest has ruined his political career. I think that's overstated...but it's such a fickle, weird game, that who knows.
In my point of view (which, when it comes to politics isn't very meaningful), it'll go one of two ways. If not Trump, either the Repub candidate will be milk toast, or extreme. My guess is milk toast. Either way, in the end, I assume, we'll end up with another 4 years of Biden. But SO much can still happen. So we'll see.
And, frankly, I've basically gotten to the point where I can't bring myself to care. Because caring is just a good way to be disappointed.

I would vote for him. But...he doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck. Not unless they actually, you know...arrest Trump, throw him in jail, disqualify him from running, and DeSantis chooses not to run. Then....maybe.