Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,375 Excellent

About Anijen

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 01/01/1868

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,280 profile views
  1. I can see your point and am happy to see you do not expect perfection from the Prophets 100% of the time. I believe they have lead us, in spite of their imperfections. I also think that the so called imperfections people see are so minor, a tempest in a teapot. It makes me feel better that are leaders are not perfect, sometimes make mistakes, because Heavenly Father still places his trust in them, it gives me hope not bitterness (not saying you're bitter).
  2. This thread is supposed to be about faith crisis and the alleged infallibility of the prophets. Like most threads that inquire about controversial issues it has somehow evolved into the gay issue with people blaming the church. I can't imagine the Bishop with a shotgun forcing people to get married. There was a time marriage was strongly encouraged. Bishops advised it, Mission Presidents, etc.. However, there never was a time that the actual choice to marry has been taken out of our hands. If we feel we are pushed or even forced into a marriage we should have not entered into then who is really at blame? Is it not ourselves? Furthermore, marriage in the cultural of the western world, even between hetrosexual couples is at a 50% risk of divorce, thus it cannot all be the church fault (if at all). I am reminded of countries were arranged marriages are the norm, were the divorce rate is about 2%. It seems that if we are in a marriage pushed upon us it is our own fault not the church if it ends in divorce.
  3. It appears to me that when members have a "cascade failure," they try to make up a part of that failure with other stronger parts with the stronger areas of their testimony (e.g. testimony of prayer or testimony of tithing). However, at the same time their weakness, which was the source of the cascade failure is often supported with other weaknesses maybe they have or by witnessing other members weaknesses in the same area and they might adopt those defenses they have or seen in other members with similar weaknesses (cascading failures). These weaknesses in this thread is the failure to accept leaders such as prophets and apostles opinions compared to what is actual truth, even if that truth is an unknown at the time (i.e. Cumorah in New York or Cumorah in mesoamerica, or even a cumorah elsewhere or both. With my own weakness of cynicism, I often see others as excusing or justifying their cascading failures. Some are smooth and talented in covering up their own disdain for the church or its leaders some are not as talented. Although, I would like to overcome this weakness of cynicism, I place myself as one who is staunchly on our prophets side sometimes blindly so and sometimes I defend the church, its leaders without first thinking of the manner I do it. I have offended some here because of that, I apologize. I love to read Kevin Christensons posts they are always spot on and informative, I love to read Smac's post he is always balanced and has a mature writing style that allows for his disagreements without the offending tone. I will try to assimilate these two brethrens writing style to improve my own.
  4. Sorry just getting back from a much needed vacation abroad and just saw this today. NO, no, no, none of this "you first" stuff. You made the claim of pre-Columbian languages, now you back it up. This is an official CFR. As for my resources: New York Anthropology Depart New York Archaeology Association South Dakota Bureau of Indian Affairs Chief Left Hand Tribal Law College University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept. Brian Stubbs Ancient American Language Expert see this article here
  5. Same here, I liked him, I did not know he became a critic.
  6. A few answers on standing: First I am discussing standing at a federal issue not standing for state courts. The state courts have almost unlimited power to hear a case, a federal court is limited in their jurisdiction. I. The plaintiff must have enough of a challenge that a favorable decision may be redressed. This means that the plaintiff is likely to recover from the defendant. 2. The plaintiff needs to have suffered an actual injury. This means harm has occurred. if harm has not happened yet then it is not ripe. if it has already happened but has been resolved then it is moot. In cases of mootness, if the injury can happen again but gets resolved before it comes to trial then there is an exception to mootness and can be heard (e.g. abortion, but pregnancy and birth happened before it came to trial). Note: organizations (i.e. the Sierra Club) also may be plaintiffs if the injury has a direct connection with their members. 3. The injury must be directly related connection to the case. This simply means the issue brought before the court is raised because of the harm caused. Other Concerns Mentioned: 1. Calm, has mentioned propaganda and agenda. To me agenda is really not as important as a person who has been harmed no matter if he is gay, African-American, Muslim, Christian (including LDS). Even if ADF's agenda has focus on Christian clients (which they do), IMO it is a client who feels he/she has been harmed and do not have the financial or other means to have their side heard. 2. Action initiated for legislation is acceptable. Homer Plessy intentionally provoked litigation by refusing to go to the "colored section." It was one of the Supreme Courts worse ruling ever (see Plessy v. Ferguson), and it was eventually overturned. The Masterpiece case, the plaintiffs actively sought out a Christian baker who would refuse to bake their wedding cake. Even though I side with the defendant on this case, I am not opposed to the plaintiffs trying to find ways to get their voice heard. When I have written on this case in the past I have stated that the plaintiffs looked for bakers who would refuse them not because I thought provoking legislation is bad, but to show other purpose. 3. Robert F. Smith mentioned the ADF is lax and unprofessional. Just an FYI, the ADF is a respected legal organization within legal circles even if you dont like them. FYI, the ADF, has won 80% of their cases, over 55 at the Supreme Court. Although fairly new (established 1994) they are considered a legitimate and powerful legal source. Their website says they have: over 3,300 allied attorneys 300+ allied organizations have did over 1,000,000 pro-bono hours (that is over $215 million in fees that clients did not have to pay) trained over 2,100 attorneys have over $50 million in case funding Yes, the ACLU, is also a great organization and have been around for almost 100 years. I think legal advocacy organizations are a pretty good thing. I might not agree with some of the cases they defend, but I am glad to see there is a way for someone to get legal help, including counsel if they cannot afford it. I have contributed to both the ACLU and ADF. I have also contributed to the Innocence Project. Despite how any of us may feel about the ADF, it should be considered a legitimate legal organization.
  7. Emphasis mine in both quotes.. SMAC wrote: Just a small curious question, I sincerely would like to know; if the paper is a Phd dissertation, (as SMAC mentioned in the OP), does that not mean it was peer reviewed by the Phd holders evaluating that dissertation and I always thought dissertations in their nature is a form of publishing?
  8. Put on your big boy pants. It is alright to call into question the truthfulness of an Apostle, but I cannot question the truthfulness of an anonymous poster claiming he was a perfect missionary, who led the mission in baptisms? I'm tired of posters who rail on the Church and its leaders and posters who defend them.
  9. Oh, but it is okay for you to question the candor of Elder Ballard? CFR on your grand missionary achievements. show me a mission news letter, or a companion or mission president we can interview and if it turns out you were the perfect missionary as you claim, I will issue an apology.
  10. Divorce is a misunderstood thing. In the past it was available to all by a writ, but those were a bit pricey so poorer couples would just leave each other (like you mentioned). However, divorce has always been a requirement here in the U.S.. That is one reason in the past that some alleged marriages were tainted with the rumor of scandal because the thought that a previous marriage a divorce was not achieved prior to their current marriage.. Today, if a couple is in a common law marriage they still would have to get a divorce. There is no such thing as a common law divorce. see here for a Brief History of Divorce
  11. Is it okay to allow posters to question the truthfulness of an Apostle of the Lord? If so, can we question the truthfulness of a poster with a history of angst against the church?
  12. IMO, I think you are lying and you take every opportunity to lie in wait to deceive.
  13. I'm sure the Holy Ghost had some credit too.
  14. Yes, in some circumstances, such as to those who are underage, (if I sold alcohol, or to those who have ebola, etc.) you get the picture. I think some people only see what they want to see. I think you are one of those persons. This is what I see, from my perspective; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hurt and/or offended you in the past, it appears to me you cannot get past that. Additionally, you are gay man with a strong desire to change the LDs members views because if we simply cannot see it your way, well, then we must be bigoted and homophobic. I know you feel private businesses should not discriminate for any reason, but from my point of view you must believe it is alright when a govt entity discriminates. It is obvious to me that Phillips was exercising his constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Phillips said he would have sold them other items, including cakes, just not a wedding cake. Now, as a businessman myself, I would have baked the cake, but the Court is not going by my beliefs, your beliefs, but by Phillips beliefs. When the state of Colorado ordered random warrantless searches of Phillips business records, fined him an unproportionately amount of money (compared to the charge), AND ordered Phillips and all his employees to undergo therapy they were the people showing discrimination when they [Colorado] violated Phillips constitutional right of believing how he wishes. Bottomline, I think it is wrong to force a person how to believe, even if that belief is prejudicial. I just answered this, see above. The government was the discriminator. Yes I do. The Little Rock Nine, the young girl who was following a black girl to school yelling obscenities and racial slurs has come out and apologized and said she was raised to hate blacks and it was through education that she had come to find how wrong she was. https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/field/image/LittleRockNine_0925_0.jpg Stop it already. I never implied I do not want to talk about George Wallace at all and I am not ignoring anything. Please, be cognizant of your wording, you do not have the power to know what I think. Please clean up the tone and be more respectful. Wow, what a jump. I do not want, nor have I ever implied that my plan is to eliminate accommodation or civil rights laws. No, elimination of them would not work. I am saying discriminatory statutes are being weaponized to force people how to think, that is what I feel is wrong.
  15. What, r u shere? That was my source of credibility. Also, let's keep it cordial guys, please?
  • Create New...