How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Wait. Who, exactly, are we taking about that's had this break with reality on the "conservative" side? QAnon? Or, you know...Ben Shapiro?

The QAnon set has lost their mind. Ben Shapiro is one of the reasons why I’m still a republican. 
 

Obviously I speak only for me. And yes, I disagree with Shaprio on many issues, but he’s a calm, reasonable voice for conservatism. 

[Fether]

@mrmarklin another thing to consider is what happens if the first presidency starts releasing more letters that we disagree with politically? What if laws start being passed to start teaching more racial history in schools and the presidency sends out a letter urging everyone to embrace these histories so we can weed out the prejudice that permeates our society? Do we write that off as being just another PR statement?

[Fether]

Just now, LDSGator said:

Ben Shapiro is one of the reasons why I’m still a republican. 
 

Obviously I speak only for me. And yes, I disagree with Shaprio on many issues, but he’s a calm, reasonable voice for conservatism. 

Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder are great. But they too fall into the “let’s attack the far far left!” Boat quite often.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder are great. But they too fall into the “let’s attack the far far left!” Boat quite often.

Yes, agree totally. They also try to paint anyone who has liberal viewpoints as “far left”. And, to be fair, many liberal commentators paint anyone who isn’t in favor of partial birth abortion as a right wing Nazi. So, once again, both sides are the issue. 

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

If the only people at risk were adults whom willfully choose to not vax, that would be one thing (my sympathy is low for them).  But it's not: we still have unprotected kids, including our new baby, all of those people whom still need medical care to be available for non-covid stuff, and exhausted health care workers like my dad.

Well, the good news about kiddos has been the same good news since the thing started.  Pretty much none of them get sick or die from COVID.

Go pick any city/county/state/or national data set and chart it out by age.  You'll find something that looks like this:

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wait. Who, exactly, are we taking about that's had this break with reality on the "conservative" side? QAnon? Or, you know...Ben Shapiro?

I don’t follow Shapiro religiously; but from what I’ve seen he seems to have been a fairly consistent voice of reason and doesn’t seem particularly interested in throwing bones to the QAnon crowd in order to keep them in the fold—which is more than can be said for much of the elected GOP officials at the national level.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, LDSGator said:

The QAnon set has lost their mind. Ben Shapiro is one of the reasons why I’m still a republican. 
 

Obviously I speak only for me. And yes, I disagree with Shaprio on many issues, but he’s a calm, reasonable voice for conservatism. 

Haha. I'm not sure Ben Shapiro qualifies as "calm". But I agree he basically has reasonable approaches to most things.

[LDSGator]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha. I'm not sure Ben Shapiro qualifies as "calm". But I agree he basically has reasonable approaches to most things.

You may be right, I don’t follow him much and don’t listen to his show. I heard his interviews on Joe Rogan’s show and saw him on Politically Incorrect once. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t follow Shapiro religiously; but from what I’ve seen he seems to have been a fairly consistent voice of reason and doesn’t seem particularly interested in throwing bones to the QAnon crowd in order to keep them in the fold—which is more than can be said for much of the elected GOP officials at the national level.

I think the above "much" (bolded) is hyperbole. Granted, I don't follow all of them. But the ones that hit the news amount to like.....2. And having followed them to see what the fuss is about...there's a lot of lying done in the news about them. So I'm not so sure I see it. But I stand to be corrected.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yes, agree totally. They also try to paint anyone who has liberal viewpoints as “far left”. And, to be fair, many liberal commentators paint anyone who isn’t in favor of partial birth abortion as a right wing Nazi. So, once again, both sides are the issue. 

In defense of attacking the far left:

Progressivism, by its nature, is in a constant state of transition where today’s “far left” is tomorrow’s mainstream.  Things that Barack Obama would never have dared to openly support in 2008–gay marriage and the gay cake wars, fully nationalized/socialized healthcare, retreat from “the good war” in Afghanistan, taxation of conservative-leaning secular and religious nonprofit organizations, universal basic income, and critical race theory and reparations—are mainstream Democratic positions today.

Traditionally, the left goes more to the left; and the right also goes more to the left.  Extremists are the advancing vanguard of the left and the retreating rearguard of the right; the one is a threat, the other is mostly irrelevant.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In defense of attacking the far left:

Progressivism, by its nature, is in a constant state of transition where today’s “far left” is tomorrow’s mainstream.  Things that Barak Obama would never have dared to openly support in 2008–gay marriage, fully nationalized/socialized healthcare, retreat from “the good war” in Afghanistan, taxation of conservative-leaning secular and religious nonprofit organizations, universal basic income, and critical race theory and reparations—are mainstream Democratic positions today.

Traditionally, the left goes more to the left; and the right also goes more to the left.  Extremists are the advancing vanguard of the left and the retreating rearguard of the right; the one is a threat, the other is mostly irrelevant.

Understand my friend. Don’t fully agree, but I see where you are coming from. 

[estradling75]

For me God is in charge and leading his church.

My experience with revelation is that it comes line upon line... but I often want to jump ahead.. sometime going so far as to conclude that the Lord told me X... So Y, and  Z must also be true...  Only to find out I was totally wrong about Y and Z.

A variation of this plays out at the church level... The Lord gives a command and we ask why? and we make assumptions about what is coming next.  Historically our assumptions and the explanations we get isn't always on target, even when that explanation is from a church leaders, and the guidance/direction/command is of God.  The Lord rarely gives his reasoning, but we demand it of our leaders.  Which means we can get correct divine guidance but faulty reasoning from our leaders.

So for me while I do not agree with the reasons being given (and possibly being flawed) but I see the guidance being of God and so I am going to respond accordingly.

Having said that everyone has to navigate these things as they think best and I need to let them.

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 Don’t fully agree.....

Speaking of living in fantasy land.   

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Speaking of living in fantasy land.   

What? I live in a fantasy land? 
 

::sits back and dreams of the Gators winning the BCS championship this year :: 

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

For me God is in charge and leading his church.

My experience with revelation is that it comes line upon line... but I often want to jump ahead.. sometime going so far as to conclude that the Lord told me X... So Y, and  Z must also be true...  Only to find out I was totally wrong about Y and Z.

A variation of this plays out at the church level... The Lord gives a command and we ask why? and we make assumptions about what is coming next.  Historically our assumptions and the explanations we get isn't always on target, even when that explanation is from a church leaders, and the guidance/direction/command is of God.  The Lord rarely gives his reasoning, but we demand it of our leaders.  Which means we can get correct divine guidance but faulty reasoning from our leaders.

So for me while I do not agree with the reasons being given (and possibly being flawed) but I see the guidance being of God and so I am going to respond accordingly.

Having said that everyone has to navigate these things as they think best and I need to let them.

Excellent point. If one were to view our leaders cynically (as many do) then the moderately recent changes regarding things like the baptism of children of homosexual couples and the change to removing and then adding back in the Saturday night conference session and etc., etc.,... one can get thrown off track pretty easily. It can put people in a precarious position when they adamantly defend (particularly with smug rhetoric) something and then the leadership changes direction. I've been there. It's tough. That's partially why I think taking all of this with a bit of forgiveness as to other's opinions on it is in order. We have people claiming it was PR. I think (like has been suggested) that's dangerous and wrong. But..... you never know. Next week the leadership may put out a new letter stating that it was for PR. Who knows? I don't really believe that will happen, of course, but I would be surprised if they don't put out a clarifying communication that puts a great emphasis on prayer and listening to the Spirit on the matter. Either way...using a First Presidency letter as ammo for attacking one's fellow Saints is a very bad thing.

Edited August 16, 2021 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Either way...using a First Presidency letter as ammo for attacking one's fellow Saints is a very bad thing.

As is attacking Saints who are acting in a particular way specifically because of said letter.

(Not trying to suggest that you’re doing this, by the way!)

Also:  I think the reasoning and rhetoric at this link is slightly . . . grating and I may quibble with the way he uses a couple of sources/anecdotes; but I think I agree with most of it in substance and it’s worth reading.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

What, exactly, is divine protection? When we receive promises that we, our wives, and our children will be "protected" in a temporal sense, what does that mean? What event would disprove that promise and show it to be a false prophecy? How many should be injured or maimed or end up dead before we're justified in saying, "Nope, that wasn't true"?

When words of promises or prophecy can be recontextualized at any moment to mean anything the speaker wants them to mean, of what value are they?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

As is attacking Saints who are acting in a particular way specifically because of said letter.

(Not trying to suggest that you’re doing this, by the way!)

So, FWIW, I was actually discussing this idea with my wife just earlier so I'll share my thoughts here.

As with many things, speaking principles of truth is good. Of course timing and tact are important.

But I was saying, referencing one facebook post that I quoted a line from earlier, that if someone posted on Facebook something akin to, "Here's a study on the vaccine safety and effectiveness and the dangers of not getting vaccinated. Combined with the letter from the First Presidency, I would recommend to any that are against getting vaccination that you study these things carefully, continue to pray and listen to the Spirit, but consider carefully.....etc...." I'm not sure very many people would feel attacked. When the post is, "I'm pleading with you with all my remaining patience to drop your pride and repent!......" Well, you get the idea.

Along those lines, expressing the idea that we should trust that God leads the church and follow the prophet isn't an attack on anyone. Pointing out that we should be forgiving and loving of our fellow men isn't attacking anyone. But both of these things can be attacks if they're phrased from a position of condescension.

Also....there is, I believe, (and this should be obvious to anyone who knows me) a time and a place to attack. If someone says the prophet is a lying conman just trying to milk us all out of our freedoms and steal our money then I'm not going to begrudge an attack on them. But I'll also say this. Facebook is the WRONG place to express any of these ideas.

Does the person who posted said patronizing post to Facebook I mentioned above really think that anyone read that and accordingly decided to get the vaccine when they weren't planning on it before?

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

Also:  I think the reasoning and rhetoric at this link is slightly . . . grating [...]  I think I agree with most of it in substance and it’s worth reading.

 

I'm curious why you found it grating. I did not. I agree with it in substance too and sent it to one of my friends who's really upset about things.

Side thought: as to the "most of it" idea...I disagree with the stake president and ward decisions that "We follow the prophet" = "Wear masks at church" idea, In that though I joked earlier about it just being an excuse, I actually believe that the letter specifically included the phrase "in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible" because it meant in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

What, exactly, is divine protection? When we receive promises that we, our wives, and our children will be "protected" in a temporal sense, what does that mean? What event would disprove that promise and show it to be a false prophecy? How many should be injured or maimed or end up dead before we're justified in saying, "Nope, that wasn't true"?

When words of promises or prophecy can be recontextualized at any moment to mean anything the speaker wants them to mean, of what value are they?

This is not a question I need answered for myself. Why? Because I trust Heavenly Father. That doesn't mean I trust Him to do as I understand, believe, feel, or think. I trust HIM. I trust Him to be what He is -- good, right, fair, and just. Whether I understand the mortal experience and "why" it all went down the way it did when I paid my tithing but then lost my job or some such scenario is irrelevant. If my wife and children died after I was promised protection and then obeyed cannot and will not shake my faith because that's not what my faith is based on. I trust Him. If He takes my wife and children home to Him it was good, right, fair, and just, whether it feels so or not.

That is a hard won view. And it may be severely tried if I actually do lose something such as a child someday. But it is my commitment nonetheless. And I trust someday, regardless of what may feel impossible to understand in this life, that we will understand.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If someone says the prophet is a lying conman just trying to milk us all out of our freedoms and steal our money then I'm not going to begrudge an attack on them

It’s probably best to ignore someone who says that. That’s really insulting. 

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You defending the artistic virtues of Barry Manilow is not “talking”.

Oh he did that to you too?

[Just_A_Guy]

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm curious why you found it grating. I did not. I agree with it in substance too and sent it to one of my friends who's really upset about things.

Hard for me to articulate, other that in tone it feels a little more absolutist than I’m comfortable with at this moment in my life.  😕

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s probably best to ignore someone who says that. That’s really insulting. 

Yeah. My attitude has changed on that a bit, which is why I phrased it the way I did. I had written, "....then I'm going to attack them..." but I rethought it and changed it before posting because I'm so much less inclined to want to engage in argument nowadays. There's a time and place to fight. But as I said....Facebook sure ain't it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Hard for me to articulate, other that in tone it feels a little more absolutist than I’m comfortable with at this moment in my life.  😕

Well I need to call you to repentance then. Obviously.