"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  From KUTV:

When a property owner gives a person permission to go on its property, that permission is constrained.  I have permission to go into Wal-Mart, but only during business hours.  And I can't break the door down to get in.  And after I get in I can't set up a stand to sell my son's freeze-dried skittles.  Nor can I light up a cigar.  Nor can I go in there and loudly proclaim my political opinions.  Nor can I endlessly loiter in the parking lot.  And so on.

What I can do is go into the store, behave in an orderly fashion, look for and purchase products, and then leave.  

Most of the time actual or formal permission is not given, but is instead implied.  This permission is called "license."  See here:

And here:

In the context of the Y, it "is BYU property."  BYU generally provides the public with free access.  But that access is not unlimited.  Visitors can "exceed the scope" of the license given by BYU, such as by using the Y for "public expression."  And if visitors exceed the scope of the license, they have committed a trespass.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't think anyone was really concerned.  There was no harm done, just free speech.

Quote

 

BYU Police Lt. Jeff Long told the Daily Universe they had received three calls about the BYU Y  rainbow lights, but said they didn’t respond because, “no crime was committed.”

“Flashlights don’t meet the elements of vandalism,” Long told the school paper.

 

https://kslnewsradio.com/1944384/students-light-byu-y-in-rainbow-colors/

Edited March 6, 2021 by sunstoned

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Seems like about as peaceful a way to protest as I’ve ever seen. Good for them. 

Really beautifully symbolic, too. Just light.

[The Nehor]

And they say kids these days are lazy.

[Thinking]

 

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

Tact is a wonderful skill that I am still trying to perfect.

 

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Drama is to be expected in the LGBTQ crowd.  I think they even have pageants where they appoint drama queens and drama kings.

I guess you're still working on it.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Drama is to be expected in the LGBTQ crowd.  I think they even have pageants where they appoint drama queens and drama kings.

Yeah, that may be a little over the top but still sounds more fun than a church dance so who am I to judge?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/4/2021 at 9:34 PM, smac97 said:

From the Daily Universe:

Ah.  That must be it.

I'm curious if the administration at BYU are on board with lighting the Y with the rainbow colors, or if this was a student-led sort of thing.

The link above is to a story from March 2 announcing the "counter-protest."  From that link:

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

One element that (as far as I can tell from a distance) seems to be absent from this year’s event that was present last year is an adversarial, confrontational attitude from activists with regard to the position of the university administration — and, by extension, the Church — on homosexual relationships on campus and what would or would not be tolerated. 
 

I think collective blame for the turmoil of a year ago rests largely with those in charge. They did not give a clear or accurate or unified signal early on, and  it ultimately was far too long in coming. The goings-on this year seem peaceful, and that is attributable to everyone understanding what the official position is, unlike last year. 
 

Added later: I should have read through this thread first. I see now there has been rancor expressed this year. 
 

Ah well. Wishful thinking on my part. My bad. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Never mind, smac and I were posting the same quote at the same time and he hit "save" first  

Likely story. 😉 

[california boy]

It is interesting to me that according to The Daily. Universe article, the people supporting the LGBT community were more than willing to identify both their first and last names.  They were not ashamed for standing up and supporting the LGNT community.  While those doing the counter Proclamation on the Family protest were only willing to give their first names.  Maybe in their hearts they had some shame in what they were doing.  Maybe they questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach.

It is also interesting that the March 4th event was brought about because of the actions of the Church a year ago.  I wonder if it will grow each year like what happened with Prop 8. 

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that according to The Daily. Universe article, the people supporting the LGBT community were more than willing to identify both their first and last names.  They were not ashamed for standing up and supporting the LGNT community.  While those doing the counter Proclamation on the Family protest were only willing to give their first names.  Maybe in their hearts they had some shame in what they were doing.  Maybe they questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach.

It is also interesting that the March 4th event was brought about because of the actions of the Church a year ago.  I wonder if it will grow each year like what happened with Prop 8. 

I don't agree with the counter protest at all.  But I would not be surprised if the counter protest people did not want to give their names because they know that society as a whole does not agree with them and that a lot of people have the power to bully them for their views.

Here is a really good article on how society is now forcing people to choose silence (or anonymity) to protect themselves from the repercussions of espousing an idea or belief that a prominent group disagrees with.  It provides many examples to support its conclusions, which is--"In this ideology, if you do not tweet the right tweet or share the right slogan or post the right motto and visual on Instagram, your whole life can be ruined."

The idea that these people somehow know that they are being unChristlike and that's why they don't want their names known doesn't make sense to me.  It implies that their beliefs aren't sincere--that they are giving lip service to their religious beliefs but they don't actually believe them--and I don't think we can say that.  I think they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.

Edited March 6, 2021 by bluebell

[AtlanticMike]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't agree with the counter protest at all.  But I would not be surprised if the counter protest people did not want to give their names because they know that society as a whole does not agree with them and that society has the power to bully them for their views.

You said, "society has the power to bully them for their views", that is probably the biggest threat we face in the coming years. And I mean "threat" because there is potential for real violence if we keep canceling people for their views. 

    I dont do social media because it's depressing to me. There are people who believe shame and ridicule is the best way to change society, not realizing how dangerous it is to back people into a corner. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You said, "society has the power to bully them for their views", that is probably the biggest threat we face in the coming years. And I mean "threat" because there is potential for real violence if we keep canceling people for their views. 

    I dont do social media because it's depressing to me. There are people who believe shame and ridicule is the best way to change society, not realizing how dangerous it is to back people into a corner. 

Shame and ridicule have always been used this way. The sudden concern is about who is being shamed and ridiculed. It is that people who have been using this tool for decades suddenly find themselves falling into the pit they dug for their neighbor and now they are calling “foul”.

Edited March 6, 2021 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You said, "society has the power to bully them for their views", that is probably the biggest threat we face in the coming years. And I mean "threat" because there is potential for real violence if we keep canceling people for their views. 

    I dont do social media because it's depressing to me. There are people who believe shame and ridicule is the best way to change society, not realizing how dangerous it is to back people into a corner. 

Like Nehor is saying, cancel culture is just a new name for an established thing. I remember when people didn't even speak of homosexuality or gay people in "polite" company. And it's barely done so if at all in LDS meetings. They've been cancelled in the prevailing culture longer than any of us have been alive.

 

 

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Shame and ridicule have always been used this way. The sudden concern is about who is being shamed and ridiculed. It is that people who have been using this tool for decades suddenly find themselves falling into the pit they dug for their neighbor and now they are calling “foul”.

You might want to turn off the news channels and decompress. I don't know of anyone who has "dug a pit for their neighbor. "  

One of my favorite sayings is, "What you think you become, what you feel you attract, what you imagine you create." If you're always telling someone they're a victim, they'll have a victim mentality and base their life around that, it really is that simple. 

      If where we live is so bad, why do people risk death to get here? 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Shame and ridicule have always been used this way. The sudden concern is about who is being shamed and ridiculed. It is that people who have been using this tool for decades suddenly find themselves falling into the pit they dug for their neighbor and now they are calling “foul”.

If you read the article, you'll find that your assessment is really one sided.  Liberals are feeling this 'shame' as much as conservatives.  Liberals are being forced to "self-silence" as much as conservatives are.

[AtlanticMike]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Like Nehor is saying, cancel culture is just a new name for an established thing. I remember when people didn't even speak of homosexuality or gay people in "polite" company. And it's barely done so if at all in LDS meetings. They've been cancelled in the prevailing culture longer than any of us have been alive.

 

 

So you're saying ridicule and shame is how we should change minds?

[Nofear]

A double edged sword, but pretty relevant to today.

 

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. ... So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants." --Bertrand Russell

 

 

[SteveO]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Shame and ridicule have always been used this way. The sudden concern is about who is being shamed and ridiculed. It is that people who have been using this tool for decades suddenly find themselves falling into the pit they dug for their neighbor and now they are calling “foul”.

This sounds like that time in the Bible when Christ said to use the same tactics your enemies used against you.  Timeless for a reason.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that according to The Daily. Universe article, the people supporting the LGBT community were more than willing to identify both their first and last names.  

It is interesting to me, too.  It's as if there is a popular position and an unpopular one.  

Quote

They were not ashamed for standing up and supporting the LGNT community.  While those doing the counter Proclamation on the Family protest were only willing to give their first names.  Maybe in their hearts they had some shame in what they were doing.

I'm not sure that it has much to do with "shame."  Perhaps it has more to do with self-preservation.

If you dare subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe - the student-run paper at BYU - describing the flyers for your "protest" as "controversial."  Meanwhile, no such slanted editorializing is used when describing the "Color the Campus" protest.

If you subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe quoting someone with the popular opinion as characterizing you as "the dumb close-minded few."  Again, there is no corollary insulting characterization of the popular position.

If you subscribe to the popular position, KUTV does you the favor of re-publishing your social media advertisement of your protest.  You know, the thread of tweets that demanded that BYU (and, I think, those who subscribe to the unpopular position) not be an "obstacle," and that it/they is/are acting on "hate."

Quote

Maybe they questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach.

Or maybe they're cognizant of the "cancel culture" running rampant on college campuses these days.

Maybe they think some will try to use "cancel culture" tactics to punish them for the content of their speech because, well, that is already happening. 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be "controversial."

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be an "obstacle." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be motivated by "hate." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be one of "the dumb close-minded few."

It may just be that some Latter-day Saints want to advocate for an unpopular opinion, but not be targeted by cancel culture bullies.  I think it is interesting that "{n}o one else holding an umbrella {at the counter-protest} was willing to talk to The Daily Universe."  No one.  I think it may be because the student writers at The Daily Universe have - as is apparently S.O.P. for many actual and aspiring "journalists" these days - abandoned the intention of (and heck, even a pretense about or effort toward) producing "objective" news writing.  Advocacy journalism is the order of the day.

Additionally, it may just be that the counter-protesters are not really wanting to fight.  None of them seems to have slandered the "Color the Campus" folks.  None of them accused the protesters of "hate."  Maybe they wanted to share their viewpoint, but not bring down the wrath of the bullies who are out to shame and silence anyone who dares voice a divergent point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2021 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

So you're saying ridicule and shame is how we should change minds?

Nope, I am making an observation.

People work with the tools and knowledge that they have. As a society, we have a lot to learn collectively. And right now as in any other moment in history, people of all sorts are fighting different battles. Some are fighting for ideals, others for power, etc., others merely for their own existence. I believe that kindness in general can resolve an enormous number of dilemmas we face, but some people may have to give up more, especially more for those who are not already operating through kindness. And those people can be anywhere in that spectrum. 

[provoman]

....,,,.

Edited March 6, 2021 by provoman

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, Nofear said:

A double edged sword, but pretty relevant to today.

 

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. ... So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants." --Bertrand Russell

 

 

So if I get angry that a male pastor preaches a sermon about how wives should never say no to sex and need to stay thin, no matter the size of her husband, so he doesn't stray, that means that I'm subconsciously aware that I have no good reason for thinking that he is wrong??

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You might want to turn off the news channels and decompress. I don't know of anyone who has "dug a pit for their neighbor. "  

One of my favorite sayings is, "What you think you become, what you feel you attract, what you imagine you create." If you're always telling someone they're a victim, they'll have a victim mentality and base their life around that, it really is that simple. 

      If where we live is so bad, why do people risk death to get here? 

I haven’t watched cable news in over six months other than a few clips. I prefer to read. Watching that stuff rots your brain and gives people the illusion they are well-informed when all they get is headlines pounded into their head repeatedly.. The only time I watched it for years was in the company break room and that is not a thing anymore.

Your statement is true about cancel culture but you are going the wrong way. Seriously the concept of “cancel culture” is one of the biggest grifts out there right now. It is a money machine. Take three recent examples going from more innocuous to downright funny:

First the Muppet Show. I loved the Muppet show as a kid and I watched some clips with my niece a few days ago. Still funny. The owners of the show and Netflix put it on Netflix but put a few short warnings at the beginning of a few episodes that had extreme caricatures of various cultures that can be seen as offensive. The shows were not pulled off the streaming site. They are more widely available than ever but somehow hordes are crying out that they were “cancelled”. How were they cancelled. I can literally go watch it right now and so can a massive proportion of America.

Then we the “Mr. Potato Head” scandal. It seems that the company that makes it decided to rebrand their brand as “Potato Head” instead of “Mr Potato Head”. They are still selling both Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head toys. The smaller logo on the toy just says “Potato Head”. People reacted as if they were stealing Mr. Potato Head’s gender or something. That is silly of course. Anyone who has both the Mr. and Mrs. toys knows that the parts are interchangeable and if every kid who has both has made some wacky combo. They have always been a weird toy. Also why does no one complain that the toys are built so you store the detached body parts in the toy’s butt? That has been going on for years. Seems like that should be setting off alarm bells. There were already videos of parents destroying their kid’s toys before the logo thing was clarified and I really wonder if that was deliberate. Seems like a good way to intentionally obsolete some toys so you can sell the parents who destroyed them new ones. Even if they do not buy Potato Head toys a disturbing amount of the toy industry is a monopoly.

Finally the funniest case of all. The Dr. Seuss controversy. I have it on good authority that some news stations were fixated on this for several days and I am pretty sure they weren’t slow news days. When you go over what happened it is downright ridiculous. The publishing house that owns the right to Dr. Seuss books decided to discontinue a few of the more obscure Seuss books that had some racist caricatures in them. They were not politically or socially pressured to do so and they had every legal right to make that decision. People went nuts about Dr. Seuss being cancelled by the “radical left”. In retaliation they bit at the publisher’s sales price on Dr. Seuss books and sales skyrocketed. Then they smugly laughed at this as proof that they are “fighting back”. So, to recap, they got upset over something and retaliated by spending a lot of money going to the people who did the thing they don’t like and generated lots of free advertising for them. We have the sad situation of at least one person in Congress posting a video of themselves reading a Dr. Seuss book in protest (not a no longer published one involving the ‘slanty’ eyes of Asians though). So they are throwing money at people to protest against the people they are literally giving money to. If I didn’t know better I would thing they are all deeply stupid.

So which side is getting mad and being little snowflakes about stupid petty stuff?

All of those were corporate decisions.

Oh, and I can’t mention Dr. Seuss without asking if they are sure that he would be their ally.

Again, seriously DID NO ONE Google that slogan before they started using it or was it deliberate?

Edited March 6, 2021 by The Nehor

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So if I get angry that a male pastor preaches a sermon about how wives should never say no to sex and need to stay thin, no matter the size of her husband, so he doesn't stray, that means that I'm subconsciously aware that I have no good reason for thinking that he is wrong??

A sign doesn't necessarily mean that it is so.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I can see your point. I read a lot of your posts and I don’t think you hate LGBT people.

I don't.  I really don't.  I've repeatedly rejected the accusation a number of times, and do so again.  I have likewise further declared my love, compassion and concern for these folks, and do so again.

I personally know and love too many LGBT folks to harbor animus in my heart against them.  I also have no need or reason to do so.  They are a part of me, and I of them.  The same goes for people of different races, cultures, and political ideologies.  As a Latter-day Saint, I take seriously the injunction to "love thy neighbor" (D&C 59:6, 3 Nephi 12:43, Matt. 19:19, Lev. 19:18).  I occasionally do get a bit over-heated in discussions on this board, but I don't think I have descended into any "hateful" remarks or rhetoric.  

Quote

You seem to come at things logically and also from a doctrinal POV, but you seem open to some things changing.

Sure.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

I see much of the agitation / protesting by members of the Church against the Church and its doctrines to be unfortunate.  I don't think that is appropriate behavior for those who are under covenant.  The Church is not a political construct.  The Brethren should certainly listen to what we have to say, but in the end they must be guided principally by revelation, not by popular opinion.  Meanwhile, how we communicate with the Brethren is almost as important as what we communicate.  Public protests and arm-twisting and caustic, adversarial rhetoric is not the way to go.

My approach in these things is heavily influenced by a concept taught in the scriptures: counsel.  I can appreciate, and even admire to an extent, the zeal with which members of the Church speak regarding LGBT advocacy.  However, I am concerned that increasing portions of this advocacy are running afoul of Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I think some of the "zeal" we are seeing is becoming incompatible with the unity we are commanded to pursue, with the concept of stewardship, with the sustaining of the leaders of the Church, with efficacious and enduring discipleship and activity/service in the Church.

I have been disturbed to read about members of the Church hoping that Elder So-and-So dies so that he can be replaced by a more preferable Elder Such-and-Such, apparently based on notions that Elder Such-and-Such will be more amenable to altering the doctrines of the Church relative to the Law of Chastity.  It's as if these folks think the leadership of the Lord's Church is a matter of chance and expediency, rather than the Lord's will.  And the very idea of members of the Church affirmatively and publicly hoping for the deaths of certain leaders of the Church is disgusting.

I've said this a few times, but I'll say it again here: I see parallels between our day and John 6, which describes a large-scale disaffection arising when the Savior taught his "Bread of Life" sermon.  In it were things that were unpopular with his disciples, that were difficult - impossible - for them to hear and accept:

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and enhancing the Church's reputation and popularity cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.  But as a result of His teaching this, "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

I think something similar is happening now, but instead of the "Bread of Life" being the impetus for leaving, we have the Law of Chastity's teachings about homosexual-behavior.  I think in the future we will look back and see that many will have left, will have "walked no more" with the Lord's Church, because of the Church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity.

Now, I suppose it is abstractedly and theoretically possible that the leaders of the Church have been uniformly and consistently and perpetually wrong to teach, as a divinely-revealed principle, that homosexual behavior is incompatible with the Law of Chastity, and is therefore prohibited amongst the members of the Church.  I'm not particularly inclined to lend credence to this possibility, as I just don't see it as being part of the plan.  Nevertheless, I am theoretically open to it.  "He will yet reveal many great and important things..." and all that.

But here's the thing: If this great change is going to come, it will come to the Brethren through revelation.  I don't believe it is appropriate for those under covenant to resort to pressure tactics, publicity stunts, etc. so as to attempt to bring the Church to heel and coerce it into changing its teachings.  I just don't think that's right.  I don't think that's how the Lord's kingdom is supposed to work.  I think these efforts contravene the Lord's plan for us.  And I think such efforts will ultimately and necessarily fail.  As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

{T}he Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.

I am really quite sanguine about the future of the Church.  It will persevere, survive, and continue to flourish.  That said, I also think there will be many who will leave.  That makes me very sad, particularly when I look at loved ones and friends who are leaving.  I retain my optimism by going back to the beginning.  Faith and repentance.  Prayer and sacred ordinances.  Service to and love of others.  And as regarding the governance of the Church, I rely on . . . counsel.  Counsel via personal revelation ultimately, but also from the Lord's servants.  My approach on this has been aptly described in these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

As to our current and ongoing social/doctrinal controversy regarding homosexual behavior and same-sex marrage, I have my own personal views that are informed by social, scientific/biological, cultural and other factors, and by my own experiences.  I am becoming less inclined to listen to the hectoring bullies who advocate for their position by trying to shame and silence other viewpoints by summarily declaring them to be based on bigotry and hate.  The more shrill accusations I see, the less inclined I am to listen to the accusers.  I take such accusations as evidence of weakness.  Their position cannot be sustained by reasoned and principled argument and persuasion, so they go with horrible accusations, shaming, "cancelling," lawfare, anything to silence divergent opinions.

I am becoming more determined to take counsel from sources in whom I repose more faith and trust.  The scriptures are chockablock with exhortations pertaining to receiving counsel from the Lord:

• "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."  (2 Nephi 28:30.)

• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10.)

• "Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide."  (Helaman 12:6.)

• "Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my people—you have many things to do and to repent of; for behold, your sins have come up unto me, and are not pardoned, because you seek to counsel in your own ways."  (D&C 56:14.)

• "Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.  They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble.  In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me."  (D&C 101:6-8.)

• "And that those who call themselves after my name might be chastened for a little season with a sore and grievous chastisement, because they did not hearken altogether unto the precepts and commandments which I gave unto them.  But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them.  Behold they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very hour.  And by hearkening to observe all the words which I, the Lord their God, shall speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet, and the earth is given unto the saints, to possess it forever and ever.  But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them.  For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men."  (D&C 103:4-10.)

• "There has been a day of calling, but the time has come for a day of choosing; and let those be chosen that are worthy.  And it shall be manifest unto my servant, by the voice of the Spirit, those that are chosen; and they shall be sanctified; And inasmuch as they follow the counsel which they receive, they shall have power after many days to accomplish all things pertaining to Zion."  (D&C 105:35-37.)

• "And if any man shall seek to build up himself, and seeketh not my counsel, he shall have no power, and his folly shall be made manifest."  (D&C 136:19.)

• "{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  (Isaiah 30:9-10.)

• "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him."  (1 Kings 18:21.)

• "Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also."  (Moses 7:35.)

In other words, I hope to find "the righteousness of God," and not the supposed and alternative "righteousness" advanced by those who purport to "have a zeal of God," but whose zeal is "not according to knowledge" and is "ignorant of God's righteousness."

Quote

I hope I am not speaking out of turn because I don’t know you. Their rhetoric is probably meant to wake people up, and help us see things from a different POV. Also, to them it may feel like “hate.” I think that is when we show more love. 

To accuse others of hate, particularly when they don't know those others in any meaningful way, is pretty darn presumptuous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2021 by smac97

[SteveO]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I haven’t watched cable news in over six months other than a few clips. I prefer to read. Watching that stuff rots your brain and gives people the illusion they are well-informed when all they get is headlines pounded into their head repeatedly.. The only time I watched it for years was in the company break room and that is not a thing anymore.

Your statement is true about cancel culture but you are going the wrong way. Seriously the concept of “cancel culture” is one of the biggest grifts out there right now. It is a money machine. Take three recent examples going from more innocuous to downright funny:

First the Muppet Show. I loved the Muppet show as a kid and I watched some clips with my niece a few days ago. Still funny. The owners of the show and Netflix put it on Netflix but put a few short warnings at the beginning of a few episodes that had extreme caricatures of various cultures that can be seen as offensive. The shows were not pulled off the streaming site. They are more widely available than ever but somehow hordes are crying out that they were “cancelled”. How were they cancelled. I can literally go watch it right now and so can a massive proportion of America.

Then we the “Mr. Potato Head” scandal. It seems that the company that makes it decided to rebrand their brand as “Potato Head” instead of “Mr Potato Head”. They are still selling both Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head toys. The smaller logo on the toy just says “Potato Head”. People reacted as if they were stealing Mr. Potato Head’s gender or something. That is silly of course. Anyone who has both the Mr. and Mrs. toys knows that the parts are interchangeable and if every kid who has both has made some wacky combo. They have always been a weird toy. Also why does no one complain that the toys are built so you store the detached body parts in the toy’s butt? That has been going on for years. Seems like that should be setting off alarm bells. There were already videos of parents destroying their kid’s toys before the logo thing was clarified and I really wonder if that was deliberate. Seems like a good way to intentionally obsolete some toys so you can sell the parents who destroyed them new ones. Even if they do not buy Potato Head toys a disturbing amount of the toy industry is a monopoly.

Finally the funniest case of all. The Dr. Seuss controversy. I have it on good authority that some news stations were fixated on this for several days and I am pretty sure they weren’t slow news days. When you go over what happened it is downright ridiculous. The publishing house that owns the right to Dr. Seuss books decided to discontinue a few of the more obscure Seuss books that had some racist caricatures in them. They were not politically or socially pressured to do so and they had every legal right to make that decision. People went nuts about Dr. Seuss being cancelled by the “radical left”. In retaliation they bit at the publisher’s sales price on Dr. Seuss books and sales skyrocketed. Then they smugly laughed at this as proof that they are “fighting back”. So, to recap, they got upset over something and retaliated by spending a lot of money going to the people who did the thing they don’t like and generated lots of free advertising for them. We have the sad situation of at least one person in Congress posting a video of themselves reading a Dr. Seuss book in protest (not a no longer published one involving the ‘slanty’ eyes of Asians though). So they are throwing money at people to protest against the people they are literally giving money to. If I didn’t know better I would thing they are all deeply stupid.

So which side is getting mad and being little snowflakes about stupid petty stuff?

All of those were corporate decisions.

Oh, and I can’t mention Dr. Seuss without asking if they are sure that he would be their ally.

Again, seriously DID NO ONE Google that slogan before they started using it or was it deliberate?

Now do the bachelor controversy where a girl’s life is being ruined for going to a “Southern Belle” themed party when she was still in high school.  Knee slapper.  And the funniest part?  Even after she’s apologized—they won’t leave her alone!  Ha ha ha!

Or when college students’ scholarships are being pulled for stupid indiscretions when they were teenagers.

Or how about those white women in Portland, Oregon whose small business was ruined because they were selling Mexican Food—cultural appropriation, you see.

Or how about that guy who lost his job for making an “okay” hand gesture at a traffic light.  You know what was funny about that one?  Guy was Hispanic and was just sitting in traffic not trying to bother anyone.

In an effort to show how dumb “cancel culture” is, you’re giving (coincidently) the dumbest examples currently available.  Normal people aren’t concerned with those examples.  There are surveys showing that not even traditional liberals are comfortable saying what they think anymore.  And real people are getting their lives ruined.

I know the nihilism appeals to a guy like you  with nothing to lose.  But some of us do.