The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    11507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    161

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Anddenex in Gays and the church   
    I think this needs to be reconciled with: 
    "wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."
  2. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in Gays and the church   
    Can you concretely explain exactly what it means to receive or receive not the Spirit? (I'm not sure it's a concrete idea.)
    But that aside...I'm not sure it's fully relevant to what I'm talking about, which is our imperfections as teachers or learners -- imperfections that don't disappear when the Spirit witnesses truth to us, right?
    I mean take this very exchange. I "taught" an idea. You "taught" another in response to me.
    Were we both moved up on by the Spirit before we posted? If not, does that mean we shouldn't have posted? And if we were moved upon to post, does that mean you fully understood my post or I fully understood yours? And if I didn't understand yours, was that my fault because of my weaknesses, or yours because of yours? And vice-versa?
    Do you get what I'm getting at?
  3. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Fether in Gays and the church   
    For his struggles, of course.
  4. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Vort in Gays and the church   
    This is an interesting thing to think about regarding responsibility? Where does it lie? I mean wherein are we, the "teachers" culpable? Are we meant to (as I tend to believe) speak truth the best way we know how, and that fulfills our obligation...or must we learn mind-reading, advanced psychology, and have perfect, pure empathy for everyone's point of view or the failure is ours?
    And what teaching methods are required, really, on the other end of the spectrum, before an individual literally "can" or "cannot" understand? Is the onus for understanding on the teacher or the learner, ultimately?
    It's a challenging question. It's an idea I've been pondering on a lot regarding parenting, particularly. I want to teach my children well. But I can only do it the best that I can do it. And I have to accept that they have agency, and no matter what I do, they will still have agency. And I have to reconcile the ideas that no matter how much I teach and protect and guide my children, even IF successfully, there are so many children who aren't taught right, aren't protected, and aren't guided -- and they have every bit the same chance for exaltation per their agency as my children will.
    Obviously the answer is relative to each individual. We are asked to do our best and the Atonement makes up for the rest. Everyone's best is not the same. For some, the best they can do is throw books at people. And that is sufficient....for them...if it is truly their best.
    As for Archuleta... where does the blame actually lie? Who knows? We live in such a corrupt world that calling out accountability is tremendously difficult. And we shouldn't, really, anyhow. Judge not, and all that. We can definitely judge whether we think any course of action is wise or not though. Some of his are not. That seems clear. But does someone raised as he was in the world we live in even stand a chance at correct thinking? And if they don't, are they accountable?
    I do not know. Go ask your Pop.
  5. Love
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Comp in Gays and the church   
    So I'm not going to say I think this is wrong by any means because, you know, wiser men than me...etc... But relying on it too much feels somewhat like relying on the arm of flesh rather than the arm of God. I know that's going way too far...and I only put it out that way because it was the thought I had, but I accept it's not exactly the same thing... still....
    I tend to hope I didn't plan my own trials because I pretty much expect that I am, and was, pretty darned stupid about everything. If I planned my own trials then I'm pert darned sure I'd mess it up...too harsh, or too easy for my needs. The idea that I know (or knew) myself and my needs better than anyone else is a problematic, flawed idea. The Lord knows me. The Lord knows my needs. The Lord knows what I need best to grow. The Lord knows what trials I can and should face. I sincerely hope and believe that He designed this. Not me.
    Anyhow, not trying to debate the point. Just sharing my view.
  6. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Backroads in DIY book binding.   
    I've wanted to. Particularly to make custom leather bindings. Could be fun.
  7. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from classylady in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    FWIW, I blatantly speculate carnal desire and learning to control it is more a similitude and/or a lower level thing that doesn't tie directly to itself the way you're speculating. As I see it, when an individual is as God is, the mastery of self is, clearly, a part of that. But that doesn't mean there's a one to one relationship in what we do in mortality with our carnal selves to what we must master in the eternities.
    As an example, my mother once suggested that what she looked forward to in the eternities was being able to water-ski again. I remember thinking in response that that's like presuming as a child that when you grow up you'll be able to play with blocks all you want to! Or pick your nose and eat it all you want to. Or eat a whole bag of some disgusting candy that only kids like. Or never go to bed. Or do nothing but watch TV all day. Etc., etc. Now as an adult, it's true. I can do any of those things. But having actually grown up, I don't want to. (My examples may be imperfect, but hopefully my idea is coming across). I thought to myself, why would a perfected, exalted being who has past, present and future constantly before them, sees all, knows all, can command all things and have all power, and can, presumably, travel anywhere they want or need to instantly... why would such a being want to be dragged behind a motor boat while standing on a piece of wood for fun?
    Additionally, I have nowhere near the desires and temptations (sexually speaking) that I did when I was younger. Part of that may be a lowered libido....but partly I just grew up. The idea of going to a club and dirty dancing with a stranger, for example, might have had an appeal when I was in my 20s. Now the idea sounds disgusting and stupid. Point being, things change in the way we think and feel as we mature. And we have no comprehension of God's maturity, but...just that glimmer of difference in mortality suggests something to me.
    I see young teenagers engaged in activities that are "fun" and I think they're stupid and have stupid interests and desires and cannot imagine how anyone could find such silly things fun -- despite the fact that I found things like that fun when I was a teenager. Inane, giggling silliness just isn't appealing anymore. I grew up.
    But I digress.
    My speculative point is that, yes, learning to overcome the carnal is important -- but I don't know that that translates to some sort of reality that we'll always have those carnal desires pressing on us in some sort of manner.
    FWIW, I also speculate just the opposite of your final statement. I tend to believe physical drive is a result of our fallen state. I don't tend to think we'll have physical drives -- or, rather, the perfection of our bodies means the removal of physical drives. Our need/drive to sleep, eat, take in oxygen, have sex, etc., I believe to be temporal. In point of fact, no more hunger, pain, or fatigue is, indeed, scriptural. I do understand your speculation, and, yes...maybe... Removal of hunger might not mean removal of the joy of eating. But since our enjoyment of eating stems directly from our bodies' need to fuel itself....
    It'll sure be interesting to find out someday how it's all going to work though, right?
  8. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    FWIW, I blatantly speculate carnal desire and learning to control it is more a similitude and/or a lower level thing that doesn't tie directly to itself the way you're speculating. As I see it, when an individual is as God is, the mastery of self is, clearly, a part of that. But that doesn't mean there's a one to one relationship in what we do in mortality with our carnal selves to what we must master in the eternities.
    As an example, my mother once suggested that what she looked forward to in the eternities was being able to water-ski again. I remember thinking in response that that's like presuming as a child that when you grow up you'll be able to play with blocks all you want to! Or pick your nose and eat it all you want to. Or eat a whole bag of some disgusting candy that only kids like. Or never go to bed. Or do nothing but watch TV all day. Etc., etc. Now as an adult, it's true. I can do any of those things. But having actually grown up, I don't want to. (My examples may be imperfect, but hopefully my idea is coming across). I thought to myself, why would a perfected, exalted being who has past, present and future constantly before them, sees all, knows all, can command all things and have all power, and can, presumably, travel anywhere they want or need to instantly... why would such a being want to be dragged behind a motor boat while standing on a piece of wood for fun?
    Additionally, I have nowhere near the desires and temptations (sexually speaking) that I did when I was younger. Part of that may be a lowered libido....but partly I just grew up. The idea of going to a club and dirty dancing with a stranger, for example, might have had an appeal when I was in my 20s. Now the idea sounds disgusting and stupid. Point being, things change in the way we think and feel as we mature. And we have no comprehension of God's maturity, but...just that glimmer of difference in mortality suggests something to me.
    I see young teenagers engaged in activities that are "fun" and I think they're stupid and have stupid interests and desires and cannot imagine how anyone could find such silly things fun -- despite the fact that I found things like that fun when I was a teenager. Inane, giggling silliness just isn't appealing anymore. I grew up.
    But I digress.
    My speculative point is that, yes, learning to overcome the carnal is important -- but I don't know that that translates to some sort of reality that we'll always have those carnal desires pressing on us in some sort of manner.
    FWIW, I also speculate just the opposite of your final statement. I tend to believe physical drive is a result of our fallen state. I don't tend to think we'll have physical drives -- or, rather, the perfection of our bodies means the removal of physical drives. Our need/drive to sleep, eat, take in oxygen, have sex, etc., I believe to be temporal. In point of fact, no more hunger, pain, or fatigue is, indeed, scriptural. I do understand your speculation, and, yes...maybe... Removal of hunger might not mean removal of the joy of eating. But since our enjoyment of eating stems directly from our bodies' need to fuel itself....
    It'll sure be interesting to find out someday how it's all going to work though, right?
  9. Haha
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Still_Small_Voice in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    Which is my point.
    I don't conclude that we, as Celestial Beings, don't have sex. In point of fact, I rather, secretly, hope we do.  But I certainly don't conclude we do either. I conclude we don't know.
    And, therefore, presumedly, must poop and pee somehow.
  10. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    Maybe it is.
    But do you assume God has to eat three times a day or He get's hungry too? That if He doesn't drink water He'll die or thirst? That he needs Oxygen to breath? That he needs to sleep? Etc. etc.?
    The idea that everything translates from mortality to the eternities is, in my opinion, clearly not going to be the case.
    I think that most people haven't bothered to really think about the matter. They just assume that because they have hormones rushing through them driving them to strongly desire sexual activity in mortality that the same will be true in the eternities. I don't think that logic follows.
    The question was asked, "what is stopping them from living together as if they are married. Nothing I assume?" The entire premise of the question is based on the idea of sex. Because that's the end all of "as if they are married". Otherwise why can't the question be, "as if they are brothers", or "as if they are roommates" or, "as if they are father and daughter" or, "As if they are best friends." etc., etc. The thing that differentiates marriage from other relationships is the sexual, procreative nature of it. That's the reason marriage, as an institution, exists. Because of sex and the resultant procreation. The question presupposes that  sex is part of the equation in the afterlife. I'm not convinced it will be, and I think anyone who cares to put a level of thought into the matter would question the matter in the same way.
    Am I determined that I'm right in such a supposition? No. It's supposition. But for anyone to presume we know the other way around to be factual (that Telestial beings will be driven by hormones and sex) is also supposition.
    Now the questions I raised on "Celestial sex" are only related in that I was trying to suggest that we don't know, at any level, how that's really going to work or be. But it wasn't specific to the question about Telestial beings living "as if they are married".
  11. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    A few thoughts I had in response to having read the above comment. It seems to me that.....
    Chastity is a principle that is directly related to the carnal -- it is to control the carnal within the bounds of the Lord's law. It exists because there is a sex drive. The sex drive is a result of our physical, mortal bodies. A lot of our mortal drives are the carnal that we must overcome. Hunger, fatigue, the drive for sex, etc. These things, as best I understand, will not be part of a perfected resurrected individual's needs. I know many fancy that some sort of physical eternal sexual mating is part of Celestial Glory. I think that's silly. Why would that be the case? It's hard to put into explicit detail without being too...you know...explicit... but... why would the creation of spirit bodies by perfected physical ones be the same messy, mortal, fallen method that is the means of procreation in mortality? First, it isn't like to like...meaning it's flesh and bone creating spirit. Second, certainly the rest of the mortal, physical process of procreation is not the same. Mortal procreation is a painful, toil-filled, harsh experience. It's part of our fallen nature. I don't know how things will work...but I don't think it's going to be carnal coupling leading to 9 months of gestation and then physical birthing of children. Will physical sex even be something needed? I dunno.
    Anyhow, chastity only applies because of the drive for sex and procreation. You can be naked in a locker room where you aren't sexually driven to procreate with the other's naked there without breaking the law of chastity in doing so. Etc. etc.
    Whether resurrected bodies have a physical, chemical, hormonal drive to procreate is an unknown, of course. But I see no reason to presume that we'll have the need for such a drive, even in the celestial kingdom. And I most certainly see no reason to presume Terrestrial or Telestial beings will have the need for such a drive, being as we know they won't have the ability to procreate. Why would creatures that have no ability to procreate have a sex drive -- or even the physical means of procreation at any level.
    Am I suggesting those in the lower kingdoms won't have genitalia? Well.....no. I'm just asking the question.  But who knows. It's entirely possible though. But a sex drive? That seems unnecessary and unlikely to me.
    Anyhow...just spring-boarding off your comment.
  12. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Vort in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    FWIW, I blatantly speculate carnal desire and learning to control it is more a similitude and/or a lower level thing that doesn't tie directly to itself the way you're speculating. As I see it, when an individual is as God is, the mastery of self is, clearly, a part of that. But that doesn't mean there's a one to one relationship in what we do in mortality with our carnal selves to what we must master in the eternities.
    As an example, my mother once suggested that what she looked forward to in the eternities was being able to water-ski again. I remember thinking in response that that's like presuming as a child that when you grow up you'll be able to play with blocks all you want to! Or pick your nose and eat it all you want to. Or eat a whole bag of some disgusting candy that only kids like. Or never go to bed. Or do nothing but watch TV all day. Etc., etc. Now as an adult, it's true. I can do any of those things. But having actually grown up, I don't want to. (My examples may be imperfect, but hopefully my idea is coming across). I thought to myself, why would a perfected, exalted being who has past, present and future constantly before them, sees all, knows all, can command all things and have all power, and can, presumably, travel anywhere they want or need to instantly... why would such a being want to be dragged behind a motor boat while standing on a piece of wood for fun?
    Additionally, I have nowhere near the desires and temptations (sexually speaking) that I did when I was younger. Part of that may be a lowered libido....but partly I just grew up. The idea of going to a club and dirty dancing with a stranger, for example, might have had an appeal when I was in my 20s. Now the idea sounds disgusting and stupid. Point being, things change in the way we think and feel as we mature. And we have no comprehension of God's maturity, but...just that glimmer of difference in mortality suggests something to me.
    I see young teenagers engaged in activities that are "fun" and I think they're stupid and have stupid interests and desires and cannot imagine how anyone could find such silly things fun -- despite the fact that I found things like that fun when I was a teenager. Inane, giggling silliness just isn't appealing anymore. I grew up.
    But I digress.
    My speculative point is that, yes, learning to overcome the carnal is important -- but I don't know that that translates to some sort of reality that we'll always have those carnal desires pressing on us in some sort of manner.
    FWIW, I also speculate just the opposite of your final statement. I tend to believe physical drive is a result of our fallen state. I don't tend to think we'll have physical drives -- or, rather, the perfection of our bodies means the removal of physical drives. Our need/drive to sleep, eat, take in oxygen, have sex, etc., I believe to be temporal. In point of fact, no more hunger, pain, or fatigue is, indeed, scriptural. I do understand your speculation, and, yes...maybe... Removal of hunger might not mean removal of the joy of eating. But since our enjoyment of eating stems directly from our bodies' need to fuel itself....
    It'll sure be interesting to find out someday how it's all going to work though, right?
  13. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    Which is my point.
    I don't conclude that we, as Celestial Beings, don't have sex. In point of fact, I rather, secretly, hope we do.  But I certainly don't conclude we do either. I conclude we don't know.
    And, therefore, presumedly, must poop and pee somehow.
  14. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from mordorbund in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    Maybe it is.
    But do you assume God has to eat three times a day or He get's hungry too? That if He doesn't drink water He'll die or thirst? That he needs Oxygen to breath? That he needs to sleep? Etc. etc.?
    The idea that everything translates from mortality to the eternities is, in my opinion, clearly not going to be the case.
    I think that most people haven't bothered to really think about the matter. They just assume that because they have hormones rushing through them driving them to strongly desire sexual activity in mortality that the same will be true in the eternities. I don't think that logic follows.
    The question was asked, "what is stopping them from living together as if they are married. Nothing I assume?" The entire premise of the question is based on the idea of sex. Because that's the end all of "as if they are married". Otherwise why can't the question be, "as if they are brothers", or "as if they are roommates" or, "as if they are father and daughter" or, "As if they are best friends." etc., etc. The thing that differentiates marriage from other relationships is the sexual, procreative nature of it. That's the reason marriage, as an institution, exists. Because of sex and the resultant procreation. The question presupposes that  sex is part of the equation in the afterlife. I'm not convinced it will be, and I think anyone who cares to put a level of thought into the matter would question the matter in the same way.
    Am I determined that I'm right in such a supposition? No. It's supposition. But for anyone to presume we know the other way around to be factual (that Telestial beings will be driven by hormones and sex) is also supposition.
    Now the questions I raised on "Celestial sex" are only related in that I was trying to suggest that we don't know, at any level, how that's really going to work or be. But it wasn't specific to the question about Telestial beings living "as if they are married".
  15. Thanks
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Anddenex in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    I'm not sure what you think we're actually disagreeing on. My only point was that we don't know. Do you think we do know?
    My other thoughts were entirely what-if, maybe, who knows, speculative sorts of thoughts -- so there's really nothing to disagree with me on.
  16. Thanks
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Anddenex in What does “Eternal Families” mean?   
    A few thoughts I had in response to having read the above comment. It seems to me that.....
    Chastity is a principle that is directly related to the carnal -- it is to control the carnal within the bounds of the Lord's law. It exists because there is a sex drive. The sex drive is a result of our physical, mortal bodies. A lot of our mortal drives are the carnal that we must overcome. Hunger, fatigue, the drive for sex, etc. These things, as best I understand, will not be part of a perfected resurrected individual's needs. I know many fancy that some sort of physical eternal sexual mating is part of Celestial Glory. I think that's silly. Why would that be the case? It's hard to put into explicit detail without being too...you know...explicit... but... why would the creation of spirit bodies by perfected physical ones be the same messy, mortal, fallen method that is the means of procreation in mortality? First, it isn't like to like...meaning it's flesh and bone creating spirit. Second, certainly the rest of the mortal, physical process of procreation is not the same. Mortal procreation is a painful, toil-filled, harsh experience. It's part of our fallen nature. I don't know how things will work...but I don't think it's going to be carnal coupling leading to 9 months of gestation and then physical birthing of children. Will physical sex even be something needed? I dunno.
    Anyhow, chastity only applies because of the drive for sex and procreation. You can be naked in a locker room where you aren't sexually driven to procreate with the other's naked there without breaking the law of chastity in doing so. Etc. etc.
    Whether resurrected bodies have a physical, chemical, hormonal drive to procreate is an unknown, of course. But I see no reason to presume that we'll have the need for such a drive, even in the celestial kingdom. And I most certainly see no reason to presume Terrestrial or Telestial beings will have the need for such a drive, being as we know they won't have the ability to procreate. Why would creatures that have no ability to procreate have a sex drive -- or even the physical means of procreation at any level.
    Am I suggesting those in the lower kingdoms won't have genitalia? Well.....no. I'm just asking the question.  But who knows. It's entirely possible though. But a sex drive? That seems unnecessary and unlikely to me.
    Anyhow...just spring-boarding off your comment.
  17. Like
    The Folk Prophet reacted to Grunt in Calling secrecy   
    In MY personal experience there have been times where there was reason to keep a calling secret and times I couldn't understand why.
    Reasons I've seen to keep it a secret were:
    1.  Person in the calling currently didn't know they were being released.  
    2.  Person being called wanted time to think about counselors or other positions under their purview that might change.
    3.  Bishop wanted to tell the President "over" the person being called to a different position.
    These are just the reasons I've seen, but there are likely others as well.   
  18. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from MrShorty in Calling secrecy   
    I vaguely understand why it might be important to keep it under wraps who's being called as the new bishop or something akin. Even then, the only real reason I can think of is for the special "reveal" moment when it's officially announced so everyone can go "Ooooo" together.
    But why (in your various opinions) do we keep who's been called a secret until they're actually announced for sustaining. Particularly in lesser callings? Like as the Sunday School president, I feel the need to keep it secret from my wife who I've submitted to be the librarian. Which is weird. 
    I can understand why it should be moderately kept under wraps prior to the person accepting the call. Because then there's the potential issue of the resultant gossip if they don't accept the call, or if the bishop simply rejects them...then why? Are they not worthy? Etc. etc. Sure. Makes total sense. But once they've accepted then.... ???
    I mean I've been specifically counselled to not tell anyone until I've been sustained when I've been extended callings. Why? Does anyone have a good reason for this thinking that can satisfy my curiosity?
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not frustrated or anything by the matter. I've just come across several situations recently where it's come to my attention and I've thought, "weird." Like the bishop is talking to me about the librarian's that have accepted (as I'm attending to the library due to not having any librarians) and will be sustained soon, and his wife walks into the library and he clams up like we're the CIA discussing classified national security secrets. I'm not saying he shouldn't. And, generally, for a bishop just keeping things between the involved parties is good practice. But it still felt weird to me.
    Anyhow...probably a short thread. But..... no one I've asked has been able to give me a satisfying answer. Not that I need satisfaction on the matter. Just.... you know....curious.
    Thoughts?
  19. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    I'm not really even a huge Sondheim fan. But it's still sad he died before the new West Side Story movie premiered and I know he was working on a new musical. 
  20. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    He was 91 though. 
  21. Sad
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from LDSGator in Musicals   
    Oh no. 😞
  22. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Anddenex in Kyle Rittenhouse   
    I haven't read the thread, but here's my opinion:
    Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He deserves a medal.
  23. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from Still_Small_Voice in Elder Holland at BYU   
    It's a very difficult subject, and I'm sure I'm off in my thinking in some ways. But it strikes me that a lot of "middle ground" is a good way to inadvertently increase the problems rather than help in the overall grand scheme of things. There's a simple principle of the gospel. You cannot stand with one foot in the kingdom of God and one foot in Babylon. You can't be lukewarm. No one who looks back is fit for the kingdom of God. Etc., etc.
    To me these sorts of ideas make the response of the church via policy very difficult. It's a balance between allowing wheat and tares to grow together, lest you inadvertently destroy some of the wheat while trying to remove the tares, and setting standards that clearly dictate the need to get on board and commit and to get both feet out of Babylon. Middle ground policies, to my thinking, run the risk of teaching people that it's okay to fence sit. It's okay to dabble in Babylon. It's okay to let your minds and hearts be of the world, rather than just in the world.
    Additionally, no one has ever been excluded from coming to Christ. Not by harsh policies. Not by His commandments. Not by temporal restrictions. None of those sorts of things have ever restricted anyone from humbling themselves and turning with full purpose to Christ. Every time there is a "middle ground" policy change to accommodate people under the idea that they are being excluded otherwise, a false principle is, perhaps, inadvertently being taught -- that you don't have to humble yourself and come to Christ with full purpose of heart. Just complain, rant, and rave enough and then the church will change to accommodate you. But that's not how Christ's gospel really works. He stands with open arms. But we must come to Him. We must knock. We must ask. We must humble ourselves. We must choose to obey. We must endue to the end.
    So to me, when people are struggling to humble themselves and the church's response is, "Oh...you poor baby...let's change things then so you don't have to humble yourself" it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good thing.
    But as I said, I'm sure I'm off in my thinking in some ways. And it's not my purview whatsoever. And I trust the leadership of the church to guide it by revelation. So...we'll see. It'll be interesting to see what they do with BYU and church guidelines moving forward.
  24. Like
    The Folk Prophet reacted to Jeremy A in Musicals   
    I've only read the first page of replies, but I thought I would comment on musicals:
    I'm not sure what my favorite is, but I enjoy Phantom, Les Mis, Sound of Music, Oliver!, Evita, and Annie. I can't think of any others at this moment. I really enjoy Phantom, Les Mis, Sound of Music, and Oliver! I want to say my mom started me with musicals, but I've seen musicals my entire life. My mom did, however, introduce Les Mis to me. It was one musical where all the songs were good with only one standing out: "Master of the House."
    With Phantom, the title song stood out. I didn't like the movie version, because they cut the main musical number short. That song is the best part of the play, and they cut its length. I couldn't get into it. The Les Mis movie is great. For that one, they sang live, so the soundtrack had all the background noises. Brief spoiler ahead: I'm glad they took out the back-breaking sound in the soundtrack. It made that scene more intense and more painful. The end credits music wasn't in the soundtrack, however.
    "Sound of Music" is an interesting one, especially "Sixteen Going on Seventeen." Things are much different regarding the roles of men and women. It's also difficult to pick a favorite song. I'm reminded of "Wind It Up" by Gwen Stefani, and she samples music from "The Lonely Goatherd." I digress.
    I don't know what to say about Oliver! One thing I noticed is that "Who Will Buy?" is longer in the movie, and they never released a full soundtrack version of that song. There are some extended bits in that sequence that I'm glad isn't in the soundtrack. There's an extended release of "The Sound of Music" that I got as soon as I saw it available. I don't know if there's an extended release of the original "Annie," but there are many more movies that have extended releases. That list is off-topic.
    Oh, Annie is interesting. For some reason I don't remember, I hated "Tomorrow" when I first heard it in second grade. Of course, when I said I hated it at school, people would sing the song more. However, there are two songs that I don't like from the movie, and I deleted them. I forget the titles, but I believe one was "Little Girls," the one sung by the scammy orphanage leader, Miss Hannigan. I definitely don't remember the other title, but it was the song when Miss Hannigan and the other two conceive of kidnapping Annie to collect a ransom. I saw the movie briefly and saw the ending to "Little Girls" and realized how much I hated the song and that I forgot I deleted it.
    My wife got me interested in Evita. How Madonna got cast as Evita is something of a mystery, although she lost a lot of weight for that role. The only song that stands out is "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina," one that Donna Summer covered. I haven't seen the movie in full, however. She also likes Chicago, and I haven't heard the soundtrack or seen the movie all the way through yet. I do remember not liking the Queen Latifah version of "He Had It Coming," but I believe I changed my mind.
    My mom enjoys "Fiddler on the Roof" and "West Side Story," but I haven't heard the soundtrack or seen the full movie before. I didn't get into them as much as others. The only Rogers and Hammerstein musical I like is "The Sound of Music." I haven't really seen the others.
    Oh, that reminds me of Judy Garland. I just can't get into liking her music. I actually feel sorry for her, because the studio overworked her to the point of exhaustion and blamed her for the exhaustion. All she wanted to do was entertain people, but other people made that difficult for her. Her most famous song, I would guess, is "Over the Rainbow" from "Wizard of Oz." I've heard many cover versions, including one by Sowelu from Japan. It's a great dance version, but I don't have the soundtrack to "Wizard of Oz." I haven't really wanted to get it, either.
    Finally, I'll talk about Shirley Temple. My favorite movie of hers was "Heidi." It's not a musical, but my mom and my sister loved her other movies. I believe her most famous song is "Good Ship Lollipop." I haven't watched any of her other movies all the way through, but I sure loved her version of "Heidi."
  25. Like
    The Folk Prophet got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Musicals   
    If anyone's interested (and has 15 minutes to spare), here's the demo recording of the prologue to my current project: