Schisms in the Church

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is a little better than you make it out to be

Surely you don't mean to say that my posts have been pessimistic lately!

[Carborendum]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Surely you don't mean to say that my posts have been pessimistic lately!

Oh, my!  Where on earth would I get that impression?  

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

People are evil. We're doomed. Now back to sucking my thumb.

I wish I didn't agree with this. Welcome to my seventh decade, where I'm all bitter and cynical.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It is a little better than you make it out to be (at least, in my view).

• If all men were angels, we'd have no need of government.
• If kings were saints, we'd have no need of democracy.

I agree with the latter statement, but not the former. The kingdom of heaven is a kingdom of perfect government, led by a King and Sovereign. That government is perfect and absolutely necessary. The kingdom of God is likewise governed by correct principle, not perfectly but at least in imitation of The Real Thing®. No, I disagree. I think that if all men were angels, we would have full need of government, but we would create a perfect government for the benefit and delight of all.

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Interesting related item:

When Anatess visited with me, she and her husband talked about how in her "conservative Florida" they are dealing with a gospel doctrine instructor who proudly wears a rainbow pin on her lapel each week at Church.  I'm assuming she wears it everywhere.

The story was that this instructor was giving a lesson on "judging".  In said "lesson" she told everyone in the room,

(If Anatess is reading this, please forgive me if I misquoted you.  But that was the flavor of the story).

 

Joke's on the teacher then.

When asked about scheduling an interview to get my recommend reviewed, I explained that I wouldn't be using it anyway because the deformity in my skeletal structure combined with my busted vertebrae (plural) mean it's too difficult for me to make the three hours each way to the nearest temple. It's functionally moot at this point. 

So I guess by their standard I can say and do whatever I please. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

Joke's on the teacher then.

When asked about scheduling an interview to get my recommend reviewed, I explained that I wouldn't be using it anyway because the deformity in my skeletal structure combined with my busted vertebrae (plural) mean it's too difficult for me to make the three hours each way to the nearest temple. It's functionally moot at this point. 

So I guess by their standard I can say and do whatever I please. 

Sorry to hear about your health issues.  But you may want to have the interview anyway.  I remember hearing an address about this very situation.  And the counsel we received was that it was still a good thing to have the recommend even if you can't go due to health reasons.

You might want to consider it.

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Sorry to hear about your health issues.  But you may want to have the interview anyway.  I remember hearing an address about this very situation.  And the counsel we received was that it was still a good thing to have the recommend even if you can't go due to health reasons.

You might want to consider it.

Remember how I said I was essentially trained in psychological warfare? 

And how I talked about having mental health issues? 

And having to "get by" during a long period where I was functionally on my own as people wouldn't listen to me? 

Precious few people understand "I'm still working to improve myself and make amends as needed, probably shouldn't have obtained one in the first place, and only sought one because it was clear to not just myself but a few others that it was the only way for mom to stop harassing me about not having my endowments yet despite being in my 30s". 

edit - I straight up told my bishop at the time that because of the verbal and emotional trauma I went through, especially in regards to my not having ever served a mission, I had no clear benchmark of whether I was "worthy" or not and that I was mainly doing it because I was being badgered into it and I just wanted peace. He still signed off anyway. 

Most people understand "it's too difficult for me to travel because injuries". 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Ironhold

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

Remember how I said I was essentially trained in psychological warfare? 

And how I talked about having mental health issues? 

And having to "get by" during a long period where I was functionally on my own as people wouldn't listen to me? 

Precious few people understand "I'm still working to improve myself and make amends as needed, probably shouldn't have obtained one in the first place, and only sought one because it was clear to not just myself but a few others that it was the only way for mom to stop harassing me about not having my endowments yet despite being in my 30s". 

edit - I straight up told my bishop at the time that because of the verbal and emotional trauma I went through, especially in regards to my not having ever served a mission, I had no clear benchmark of whether I was "worthy" or not and that I was mainly doing it because I was being badgered into it and I just wanted peace. He still signed off anyway. 

Most people understand "it's too difficult for me to travel because injuries". 

I'm not really sure what to make of this.  But I'm getting the impression that I've offended you in some way.  I really didn't mean to.  And if you took my comments as badgering, I apologize.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:48 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Politics is the debate of what should be civil based on what is moral.

That's a luxury one has when one is in a permanent majority and is confident that one's children and grandchildren will remain so.  It's also, to my view, not a luxury that we (whether you define "we" as Latter-day Saints, or Christians, or people with a sense of sexual probity, or people who think childhood innocence is to be valued, or people who gladly embrace the overall Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment moral or civic values our parents handed down to us) possess. 

Quote

I do not believe the majority yet considers drag shows for kids morally equivalent to missionaries preaching. We may be getting their quickly. But not yet.

It's not a question of whether the activities are morally equivalent.  It's a question of whether they, like we, should have the rights to--once having made a contract for the use of a particular space in order to voluntarily associate with like-minded people--have that contract honored.  Of whether they, like we, should be allowed to be the final determiners of what controversial moral values (or lack thereof) their children are exposed to.  

Quote

Depends on what you mean by playing on the field I guess. As I've said, I think protesting is stupid. But not because what's being done isn't wrong and gross. If it comes to proper methods though...voting, establishing laws, getting people fired, etc., then that's pretty much the only field to play on. What other point can be made of the matter than it's wrong and gross and that children should be protected from that which is wrong and gross?

I think history shows that whenever the Church has had to resort to the field of physical confrontation--we've lost.  Sometimes spectacularly, catastrophically so.   

On 2/21/2023 at 5:55 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Where do you draw the line then? Strip shows in front of children -- as long as the contracts are being honored? Pornographic movies? Live sex shows?

Frankly, there are already existing laws about exposure of children to sexualized material, whether gay or straight or tranny; and even parents don't have the right to expose their kids to that.  If that's what's happening at drag queen story hour, then by all means society should act (through appropriate channels). 

But if drag queen story hour is more about dudes wearing dresses that basically cover the essentials:  Is it wrong?  Absolutely.  Stupid?  Yep.  Unhealthy?  Most likely.  Of myself, I'd prefer to see it restricted by law and/or policy. 

But if the law chooses not to address it--well, then, what is your grand strategy to sustainably, permanently keep parents from doing wrong/ stupid/ unhealthy stuff with their own children; and how does a single physical confrontation advance that strategy?  Precisely which children, as a result of this activity, were assured a safe and virtuous upbringing over the long term?  Whose innocence was preserved?  Who felt the ennobling influence of the Holy Ghost?  Whose mind was enlightened?  Who was inspired to virtue?  Whose soul was saved?  The most likely outcome here was that a smattering of deeply misguided parents couldn't get their little ones in to see real, live drag queens reading books; so instead they went home and tuned into YouTube to see real, online drag queens engaged in activities that were probably decidedly less tame than reading books.  Along the way, those kiddies did get firsthand exposure to people being jerks for Jesus; which I'm sure won't leave them with any lasting negative impressions about Christians/Mormons at all.  But, hey--we broke up an event, gave the sadz to some adult weirdos who frankly probably deserved it, and "owned the libs" for a day.  So . . . what?  Yay, us, I guess?  

Now, if LGBTQ advocates are insisting on their right to expose my children to that kind of stuff without notice or consent, then I can see more of a justification for resorting to physical force or perhaps (once all legal avenues are exhausted) even violence; because at that point my civil liberties are under attack and we're back to the justification set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  But so far as I know, that's not what was happening in Pocatello.  

Quote

When is it appropriate for society at large to step in and say, "Nope. Not allowed. I don't care about your contracts or your parental rights. This cannot stand." ??

For me, the question begged by these activists' tactics is not when, but how.  "Society" passes laws and elects representatives who then prescribe policies and hire or dismiss various bureaucrats in accordance with the perceived will of the people. 

That's not what happened in Pocatello.  This wasn't the civic process.  This was a bullying mob--a polite bullying mob, perhaps; but a bullying mob nonetheless.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think history shows that whenever the Church has had to resort to the field of physical confrontation--we've lost.  Sometimes spectacularly, catastrophically so.   

But the Church doesn't stand alone in this matter. 

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So . . . what?  Yay, us, I guess?  

If we all feel this way then, yes.  If enough conservatives would fight then it could matter. But conservatives tend to let libs take over the culture. That's what bothers me I suppose. It strikes me that if we all stood up and did what we should have regarding these things from the start we wouldn't be in the lost cause situation we find ourselves in nowadays. 

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Now, if LGBTQ advocates are insisting on their right to expose my children to that kind of stuff without notice or consent, then I can see more of a justification for resorting to physical force or perhaps (once all legal avenues are exhausted) even violence; because at that point my civil liberties are under attack and we're back to the justification set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  But so far as I know, that's not what was happening in Pocatello.  

How do you feel about the illegality of strip clubs or liquor stores in certain places? The idea being that allowing certain activities brings with it related societal consequences. Do you give any merit to that type of associative restriction?

47 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For me, the question begged by these activists' tactics is not when, but how.

The proper how seems to be failing.

[Traveler]

I am attempting to put together my thoughts.  The first and great principle at the very foundation of G-d’s great Plan of Salvation is Agency.  Adults going to a whatever – is somewhat of an exercise in agency.  My conflict is in determining how I act with love and compassion towards adults doing foolish and immoral things.  But my first obligation is to protect the innocent.

I have argued about morals and laws.  I do not believe in humans passing “natural” laws.  The only laws that humans are capable of are all based on moral beliefs – not natural law.  We may think we can pass a law making pi an even number 3 without any decimals – making it easier to remember and make calculations.  We will not change the universal gravitational constant with laws.  I believe society has the right to make laws based on that society’s morals.  For example, murder (killing) is not a natural law – killing is a very natural part of nature.

I believe society has the right to enact laws to enforce its morals.  But I also believe that enforcement of laws must be uniform and the same for all for a law to be just.  I could talk more on this subject, but we are dealing with something at a public library.

The problem is the public has the right to determine what is acceptable at a public library.  We have made concessions in the entertainment industry to protect children.  We give parents some latitude but if parents (or anyone else) is exposing children to subject matter that is lawfully sexually explicit then we can report such to child protective services.   In fact – it is my understanding that proof of exploration is not necessary, only a possible expectation.   It is up to child protective services to investigate.

We have well defined protection from sexual harassment in our society.  We have also defined children under 18 as especially protected and therefor unable to consent to adults that sexually abuse them.  I believe this is the approach that should be taken – that any sexual behavior that is not allowed or defined in any court by anyone that claims they have been sexually harassed should be referenced and reported.  In addition – I believe those concerned should use their smart phones to take pictures of all those involved as being accessory.    We ought to use to our advantage  that which is already well defined and see that it is applied equally.

Let us begin by defining what is sexual harassment.   I believe we have ample definition already in our legal system.  It is anything sexual that is unwarranted or without consent.   Already within the framework of law – children (under the age of 18) are not considered able to give consent.  Let us not worry about what is done at public libraries beyond documenting if there is anything that can be interpreted as sexual and if children are allowed present.  Let us worry about who brings their children to such events and adults that perform sexually before children and anyone else that is an accessory – including library staff.  Parents involved should be turned over to child protective services and others involved charged with pedophilia and sexual abuse of children.

I also wonder if the Church has been accused of allowing sexual abuse of children with some similarities to what happens in public libraries. 

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not really sure what to make of this.  But I'm getting the impression that I've offended you in some way.  I really didn't mean to.  And if you took my comments as badgering, I apologize.

Simply explaining the situation. 

Basically, IRL I operate on the fringes. Helps me find people who are often overlooked and protect those who aren't able to protect themselves, but I have no illusions about how it's going to turn out. 

[Ironhold]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Frankly, there are already existing laws about exposure of children to sexualized material, whether gay or straight or tranny; and even parents don't have the right to expose their kids to that.  If that's what's happening at drag queen story hour, then by all means society should act (through appropriate channels). 

 

A couple of years ago it was discovered that the people doing drag queen story hour in Houston hadn't done proper background checks and so a registered offender was able to work with children for six months. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:15 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

But the Church doesn't stand alone in this matter. 

I confess, I don't quite follow the line of reasoning here.  We're gonna engage in behavior that will almost certainly lead to brawls with people who expose their kids to stuff we don't like because . . . we [are pretty darned sure we] can win those brawls?  

Quote

If we all feel this way then, yes.  If enough conservatives would fight then it could matter. But conservatives tend to let libs take over the culture. That's what bothers me I suppose. It strikes me that if we all stood up and did what we should have regarding these things from the start we wouldn't be in the lost cause situation we find ourselves in nowadays. 

Sure; but the "fight" should have been carried out (much more effectively) via the political and legal and cultural and intellectual (and, to the degree possible, spiritual) arenas; not through physical disruption and/or intimidation.

Quote

How do you feel about the illegality of strip clubs or liquor stores in certain places? The idea being that allowing certain activities brings with it related societal consequences. Do you give any merit to that type of associative restriction?

Happy to see them regulated/prohibited via state action.  Also don't mind seeing the funders, employees, and patrons being identified and publicly named and shunned by individuals who wish to shun them.  But, not a fan of physically going to those sites and protesting, or entering and taking a seat and witnessing the show under the delusion that I'm somehow preserving someone's innocence.

Quote

The proper how seems to be failing.

I thought we'd just agreed that the proper "how" had pretty much been abandoned (or, at any rate, not fully tried)?   

And . . . we do realize that most of the non-LDS at that protest consider us to be just as damned, and our children in just as grave eternal danger, as they consider the participants of that drag queen story hour--right?  That in their eyes, we all go to the same Hell anyways?  That, if they thought they'd get away with it, they'd do exactly the same thing to us as they just did to the drag queens, and probably even more (as proven by the behavior of their sectarian ancestors across multiple American jurisdictions over the past two centuries)?  

Edited February 24, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I thought we'd just agreed that the proper "how" had pretty much been abandoned (or, at any rate, not fully tried)? 

I don't believe this was agreed upon. 

More tomorrow.

[JohnsonJones]

I didn't know Drag Queen story hour was so prevalent.

This occurred in Pocatello, Idaho?

I was unaware of this.  That's a rather large LDS stronghold (high in Church membership) so, unexpected to me that it would occur there.  I had heard of this happening on one area, but was unaware that this was happening all over the nation (Drag Queen story hour).

When did this start becoming a thing?

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I confess, I don't quite follow the line of reasoning here.  We're gonna engage in behavior that will almost certainly lead to brawls with people who expose their kids to stuff we don't like because . . . we [are pretty darned sure we] can win those brawls?

You made the point that "the Church" loses spectacularly and catastrophically when things become physical. I was pointing out that this isn't "the Church" vs. the mob. It's half the country vs. half the country. Really it's more than that if people would get involved. I'm not using it as justification for violence. I'm simply saying that your argument that "the Church" loses when things turn physical isn't a correct paradigm. I'm saying the premise of your argument in this point is flawed.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; but the "fight" should have been carried out (much more effectively) via the political and legal and cultural and intellectual (and, to the degree possible, spiritual) arenas; not through physical disruption and/or intimidation.

I think the premise here is flawed too, in that I think the fight IS being carried out via the political, legal, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual arenas...and it's not being effective in many cases, and these sorts of actions are, in part, a response to that reality.

I also think your implication that there was "intimidation" involved here is wrong. I mean I can't speak for everyone involved. But as I read it, these weren't big, burly folk carrying baseball bats and chains.

That being said... and I'm not sure this is directly related, the intimidation idea just made me think of it...l My father-in-law was a member of a group called BACA for several decades. For anyone unfamiliar, that's Bikers Against Child Abuse. One of the things they engaged in was escorting in certain situations where there was need. They did this escorting exactly for the purpose of intimidation in order to ensure peace and security. The children and adults involved could more confidently travel to the appropriate courts and what-have-you knowing a bunch of burly bikers had their backs. That was the idea at least. I'm curious if you have a view on BACA. I expect you're familiar with them. Like I said...not exactly related (except in a very conceptual way, I suppose).

On a side side note: My father in law only looked like a biker in that he had a big beard and wore black leather when he rode. Otherwise, he used the beard for a different purpose. This painting is of my father-in-law:

Anyhow...back to the "disruptive" idea... I'm just not convinced that such a thing is wrong. The "how" you disrupt matters. One (with enough money) could disrupt, for example, by purchasing a major social network company to allow more free speech. Or one could lie down in the freeway to block traffic. One could run a campaign to boycott something. Or one could burn down buildings. All these things are "disruptive" and not specifically the political. legal, cultural, or what-have-you arena. Some of them are good ideas. Some of them are terrible evil ideas. Though one could make the argument that all of them could be good ideas in the right time and place.

This particular instance at the library strikes me as falling somewhere in between a good idea and a not-so-great idea. I'm not making the argument that it IS the way, and it definitely SHOULD have happened, and we should ALL be doing likewise. I don't know on that matter. I am, however, judging it a lot less harshly than you. In fact I'm judging it as a net positive thing. I do not see it as the end all perfect response however.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

that I'm somehow preserving someone's innocence.

I don't think that's the point. As you correctly pointed out, the kids of the parents who would take their kids to such an event are probably pretty doomed whether there are drag shows at the library or not. My point is that having drag shows in the community, just like having strip clubs or bars, actually affects the community. The idea here is to curb these things. I don't think the objective is a one time preservation of 2 or 3 or 10 children. It's to remove the offending event from the community. It's one battle in a war. It may not be the most effective tactic...though in this case there was was positive result in that the article stated the Library is reconsidering holding such events moving forward. The idea is that if the people putting on drag shows for children don't get the children or the people who want to see said show, but instead a bunch of sour-faced conservatives sitting there with crossed arms and not really watching...and again and again this is the case...how long before they give up? It's a long game related to community standards. It's not a single case of saving a single kid from witnessing a single thing. And it's about building momentum against the ideology. It's getting people talking. It's helping to put people in the know. It's generating news articles. It's making people aware. It's causing debate.

As much as I'm not a fan of street protests, I have to reluctantly admit that they ARE part of the equation when it comes to social change.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I thought we'd just agreed that the proper "how" had pretty much been abandoned (or, at any rate, not fully tried)?

Maybe I missed it when you suggested such a thing, and you assumed I tacitly agreed then. But that isn't the case. I would assume the proper "how" has been, and is being tried, but it is failing. Per my best understanding, the proper "how" is getting shut down again and again across the country. Those in power, by and large, seem to have bought into the trans narrative. It's a protected class and the only way to help people is to uphold, support, and defend all things trans related. This seems to be true in most all centers of power -- government, social and traditional media, business, etc. Maybe that's cynical of me. But that's how it seems to me.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And . . . we do realize that most of the non-LDS at that protest consider us to be just as damned, and our children in just as grave eternal danger, as they consider the participants of that drag queen story hour--right?  That in their eyes, we all go to the same Hell anyways?  That, if they thought they'd get away with it, they'd do exactly the same thing to us as they just did to the drag queens, and probably even more (as proven by the behavior of their sectarian ancestors across multiple American jurisdictions over the past two centuries)?  

Speaking of cynical.

I wonder, @prisonchaplain, do you feel that way about us all here?

This sounds like the same sort of argument I've heard made of we Latter-day Saints. "You do realize that Mormons consider everyone but them to be damned, and all our children are in grave eternal danger for not being Mormons!"

Yes. Some people are like that. I don't think it's as universal as you imply. Moreover, technically, we Latter-day Saints kind of do believe that...and "Christians" kind of do believe that. But you're stating it in a hyperbolic that fails as an ultimate premise. Because even if all non-LDS Christians thought that, It'd be like suggesting we shouldn't fight alongside Democrats to defeat Hitler because "you do realize that Democrats are socialists who believe......"

And "the Church" has very clearly set an example of working with other faiths for good causes. So I think that idea has proper precedent.

Edited February 24, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I didn't know Drag Queen story hour was so prevalent.

This occurred in Pocatello, Idaho?

You know they have drag events for "all ages' in Provo too, right?

Edited February 24, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Carborendum]

Wheats and Tares:

I know this is stated all the time.  But it is true.  The only thing we need to be careful of is whether we're the wheat or the tare.

Anyone who has been sold on their political beliefs will always try to find justification to believe that their political beliefs are the ones to ensure they're the wheat.  But that is exactly backwards.  That isn't the method to determine if we're on the right side of any issue.

Quote

“I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.

Folks, we're going into a time where EVERY public decision and many seemingly private ones will all seem either unspeakably horrific or absolutely catastrophic.  There will seem to be NO GOOD DECISION TO BE MADE.  How are we to find the Lord's will in all that?

Follow the Prophet.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The only thing we need to be careful of is whether we're the wheat or the tare.

So... since @Just_A_Guy and I see differently on this issue...one of must must be a tare?

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So... since @Just_A_Guy and I see differently on this issue...one of must must be a tare?

I haven't been following your conversation.  Sorry.  I was addressing the thoughts in Grunt's OP.

As conservatives, we can go ahead and feel comfortable in our decisions politically RE: the rainbow brigade.  But instead of thinking about the politics, we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord.

Satan is distracting us with one hand, while stabbing us in the gut with the other.

[Carborendum]

23 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I operate on the fringes. Helps me find people who are often overlooked and protect those who aren't able to protect themselves,

I posted a while back about my flashback with an old classmate Kim.  That was a wakeup call for me.  Since then I've made several friends in the ward and in one other circle that I've just begun participating in.

All my life I had been worried about "me" fitting in.  But ever since I started reaching out to the others who felt like they did not fit in, I've made some people smile whom I had never seen smile before.  That made me smile.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

As conservatives, we can go ahead and feel comfortable in our decisions politically RE: the rainbow brigade.  But instead of thinking about the politics, we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord.

But you can say that about anything.

"Instead of thinking about our jobs we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord."

"Instead of thinking about our homes, (or vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc. etc.,) we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord.

The problem, of course, is that it's not entirely true. We should be thinking about politics, our jobs, homes, vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc., etc. AND we should be thinking about obedience to the Lord. More importantly, the way we think about all of these things should be primarily informed by obedience to the Lord.

Also, we've been counselled by the Lord's prophets to get involved politically. So if we're thinking about obedience to the Lord by way of hearkening unto the counsel of his anointed servants, then we must be thinking about politics at some level.

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Follow the Prophet.

The prophet (and the apostles) have counselled us to get involved politically, and have also continually declared themselves politically neutral, very rarely giving specific counsel in such. So I'm just not sure this sort of comment answers much when it comes to politics.

I mean @Just_A_Guy and I see this issue differently. I'm fairly certain we're both doing our best to follow the prophet. @JohnsonJones and I wildly differ in political views. But I am confident he, also, is doing his best to follow the prophet. You and I often disagree on many issues. But I know you believe it when you say to follow the prophet.

"Follow the prophet" is a starting point. But you seem to be implying that we bury our heads in the sand on politics.

I have no doubt that if the prophet or apostles explicitly said, "vote this way" or "don't attend this or that", etc., that we'd mostly all follow that counsel to the letter. But they don't. Instead they give us principles and tell us to get involved as best we can and as best we know how.

And I have no doubt that many of us are screwing it up pretty badly in our approaches or thoughts. In that I realize that, and realize it might well be me who's screwing it up, I feel it behooves me to be pretty forgiving of others who see it differently than I do.

I know good people who go to rallies and marches and the like all the time. I know others who (like me) would never do such a thing. And I have confidence that in that matter neither has the advantage when it comes to being a wheat or a tare. I know many very good people who believe that supporting Disney in any regard is terrible and all good people should never give their money to Disney again. I know other very good people who are going to Disneyland this year. Are some of them wheat and some of them tares? Which of them are following the prophet? Has the prophet counselled us in a way that we can even begin to make such a choice.

There are so many choices like this that people who try to follow the prophet make very differently. For example, my grandparents, way back in the 80s an 90s, had a video store. They had to struggle with the decision as to whether they'd carry R-rated movies or not. It was a challenge for them, but ultimately they decided that they would. At the time, I questioned that decision. I questioned the decision to open a video store at all where they even had to make such a choice. My grandparents were good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet people.

Another example: my father worked for Nuskin for several decades as a computer programmer. Although he wasn't directly involved in it, I believed Nuskin to be a predatory, evil company (in that they primarily make profit through multi-level-marketing). And I couldn't help but struggle with the idea of whether working for an evil company or not was right. My father is a good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet man.

I could go on. Hopefully what I'm getting at will be clear.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But you can say that about anything.

"Instead of thinking about our jobs we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord."

Of course. That's the point.  We're so aware of the obvious that we ignore it. 

As you recall, Pres Nelson recently said that in the coming days it would be impossible to spiritually survive without the constant influence of the Holy Ghost.  (IIRC) It may have been you who said, "Like we don't need that all the other days?"  (Or it could have been Askandanswer).

No, the point is that the world is getting tougher.  While in my younger years, there were still wicked choices, they weren't shoved in our faces all the time.  And the righteous choices available to us were abundant.  And there were enough righteous people around to remind us what was right. It was easy to choose the right.

In the coming years, it will seem like NO righteous choices are available to us.  So we can only choose from a bunch of bad ones.

Every argument we hear politically is "YOUR position will lead to X bad thing."  And they will be correct.  There are no decisions that will have all good results and no bad results.  But people like to think that it is.

Everything is a question of,"What are we willing to sacrifice to gain a certain benefit?"  We think we've learned the Law of Sacrifice.  We haven't.  I think that many people today don't even know the meaning of the word.  All they know is to focus on the one thing that they know they want at any given moment.

So, then we come to the concept of priorities.  There we have the unenviable task of considering two thngs.

• What good things must be sacrificed for better things?
• What bad things would I be willing to accept to avoid worse things?

@Godless recently threw the conservative position of laissez-faire principles at me to counter the desire to keep children and young adults from transitioning.  And he had a good point.  But it is a question of priorities.  What is better?  What is less worse?

These are things we'd never even think in the 80s because society was different then.  We didn't need to worry about such things because no one even considered it.

I'm heavily considering that the only scriptural solution is what I quoted earlier.  OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE.  Let the voice of the people decide.  And should they choose evil, the Lord will destroy us.

There is no "gotcha" answer that will shut down the wrong side of any debate.  There is always judgment that is to be exercised, priorities to be assesed, and sacrifices to be chosen.  And if more people are guided by righteous principles in their judgment, then we will be spared.  But if the nation falls into sin, the Lord will destroy us because HIS judgment alone, is dependable.

I base the following prediction on nothing more than the evidence I see before ma and patterns shown throughout history (both secular and religious).  If we do not turn around soon, we will be destroyed.  No more pride-prosperity cycle where we can still salvage something.  It will be torn apart and we'll have to start from scratch.

The Ukraine War, the sabre-rattling  about Taiwan, the end of the Petrodollar, the fact that Putin is actually RIGHT (?!?!) about American spirituality.

Quote

First of all targeting the young generations. Lying on every step, distorting historical truth, attacking our culture, the ... traditional religious institutions in our country.

Look at what they’re doing with their own people. They’re destroying the institution of family, their cultural historical identity. And various perversions with regard to children, up to pedophilia, are accepted as the new norm. And priests are forced to recognize and officiate same-sex weddings.

... Millions of people in the West realize they’re being led toward a spiritual catastrophe. People are going mad.

 -- Vladimir Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OM7pNmHvNo

The man whom many consider to be Satan incarnate is actually telling the truth about American moral values?  He's calling us out on our "newspeak"?  AND he's RIGHT?!?!

The newscasters made it appear that it was just propaganda.  But can we deny that his criticisms were justified?  Sure, he doesn't care about any of those things.  He's a freakin' atheist.  But the comments were true.

The world is upside-down.  And we laugh or mock when people try to remind each other about depending on the Holy Ghost and following the Prophet.

I sometimes feel like Jeremiah.  And I figure I'll end up with the same fate.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder, @prisonchaplain, do you feel that way about us all here?

You can watch Pastor Tom Ellis on the Angle Lake Neighborhood Church YouTube channel, and see for yourself.  I like his Sunday School lessons better than his sermons (though I admit to not watching as many of the sermons) - sorry PC.  He's mentioned us once or twice in a negative light - after all, we don't fit with his beliefs.  But I can't remember if he's answered this specific question.