Jump to content

Anijen

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Anijen

  1. That is why those who use Wikipedia need to find new sources because it is edited by one sided agenda people who do not want their particular side tarnished. IOW, wikipedia is no longer reliable IMO.
  2. You can move the goalposts all you want. I was replying to your post that Stormrider was not wrong in his quote about revisiting history. That is all my post implied, but you had to answer back by insulting my intelligence. The marriages between 2008 and 2013 were deemed invalid. Sure they took place... Since this post is about the Equality Act which is a federal issue and since the Church responded to it making points at federal issues and since other states and other churches were quoted in the church's response were from many states many outside California. I guess my lack of intelligence was out of bounds to think we were um talking about the Constitution on a federal level not a state level. Besides, when someone is talking about their rights such as the ones you just posted about, er uh, they come from the Constitution and not California's. I was not wrong in any of my statements. Weird, that you now admit I do know what I am talking about (thank you very much) however, according to you I am still wrong... See your words here would make anyone think we are talking about the US Constitution not California's. (1), The word privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is implied in the Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th Amendment), for people who do not know, the Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments. (2) Yes, we have "the constitutional individual right to bear arms" as this issue is specifically stated in the Second Amendment. (3) The word marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and traditionally was done by church leaders. As marriage benefits became secular thus became subject to governmental definition and regulation. However, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is protected by the Constitution as a fundamental right via case law. By California law a marriage required a valid licence. If the licence is invalidated so is the marriage, (although wikipedia says otherwise, I can show case law on this, but it is getting redundant already). The SS marriages and licences were validated by a California court in 2010, but by this time it was at the higher appellate court level which had authority over California's highest appellate courts, which had the final say and that was not until 2013 by the 9th circuit court. You could argue California was ahead of its time by beating SCOTUS by two years, were they protected marriage for all (2015). I do like the more calm attitude toward me (e.g., "Are you sure...") Yes they did and during the time of this court fighting, as you note above, you needed a valid license, not an invalidated licence to get married and to show proof of marriage. That was not done so until the 9th circuit court's decision. Because it was appealed to the higher court outside Cali (the 9th circuit) all decisions, even if made before the 9th circuit decision, did not have legal binding until that time (because the 9th circuit could have went against Cali's court decisions). It only counts as a state constitution. State constitutions are subordinate. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. First, there never was a right to marry for ssc in Cali's constitution. Prop 8 did not alter the state constitution because the state constitution only allowed marriage between a man and a woman and that view was what Prop 8 supported. How could Prop 8 alter the state constitution when it agreed with it at that time? What happened was there were new SSM marriage laws introduced, (these new laws violated the states constitution). Then Prop 8 comes along trying to get rid of the new SSM laws (not the state constitution). In 2010 Prop 8 was invalidated by the state, and by this time the whole kit and kaboodle was moved out of state to a federal court (9th circuit), which ruling happened in 2013. It was in 2015 when SSM became constitutional on a national scale. Even today the state constitution says; marriage is only between a man and a woman, only in a footnote, added many many years later does it say that the view has been found unconstitutional. Evidently clear as mud.
  3. I studied under Dr. Barry A. Feinstein in his Arab/Israeli Crises class in law school. He teaches at USD School of Law and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. perhaps you can hunt his email down. I am certain he could help you.
  4. Forgive me, for disagreeing with you. Perhaps, according to you, my mental disability is blocking my capacity to even understand anything at your high level. Here, are my points: California's constitution was adopted in 1849 and said nothing about SSM California allowed SSM in 2008, but those marriages were later invalidated. California ruled its own constitution unconstitutional in 2010 and was not validated federally until 2013 Finally in 2013 California SSM law was validated by the 9th Cir Ct. SSM was not Constitutionally protected until the Obergefell decision in 2015 California's constitution is subordinate to the US Constitution Even today, the wording of the California Constitution declares marriage is only between a man and a woman (Article I Declaration of Rights, marriage is only mentioned three times) SeekingUnderstanding (appropriately named), but I have no clue and do not know what I am talking about or have no idea.
  5. No. (not SSM), they received that state right after the 9th circuit court decision in 2013 and then the Constitutionally protected by the Obergefell decision in 2015
  6. Thank you so much for knowing what I know or what I do not, know, even more than I could myself. How wonderfully cognizant of you. I will be forever in your debt because you condescended so far below your level to meet me at mine and grace me with your superior intelligence. I will be in your debt, no doubt, and will hereafter swear to research all your posts before I would even dare to post again. Yes, and then they were invalidated, then again, and those licenses (between 2008-2013) were deemed not valid, and finally was overturned and became law 2013. However, as you suggest, I have no clue what I am speaking about, in fact, according to you I have "no idea." Just an FYI I have written two peer reviewed articles defending same sex marriage (arguing against Prop 8). I was 1st in my Constitutional Law Class, 1st in my First Amendment class, and 1st in my Family law class (half the semester was on Obergefell and the lead-up to it). OK, if you so charmingly say so - tu quoque
  7. These day, I think it is almost impossible to remain exclusively neutral regarding politics. Even the Church does not stay completely neutral. However, IMO, they do a very good job. I for one wouldn't mind hearing a little more from the Church regarding politics. I am not a blind faith follower however, I do hold some very libertarian and conservative views, I wouldn't mind being corrected from time to time so that I don't get totally off track. Specifically, I would like to hear more clarification for abortions (I am strongly opposed, even more so than the Church), more about LGBTQ Rights when they go up against First Amendment Rights. So, it would not offend me at all if we see more politics in Church especially in these days when, to me, it appears that these days political lines are growing further apart and further against some gospel topics that I grew up with.
  8. Actually California did not get the right until 2013 (they could not before this time). Furthermore, it wasn't a Constitutionally protected right until 2015. Meaning Cali's gay residents had the right to marry, but at that time it was not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Stormrider was not incorrect, and he was not revising history as you stated.
  9. I too, have considered the issue of loud laughter. After pondering about it, I came to these conclusions: I. When is laughter bad? I instantly thought it is probably bad when our laughter came from another person's weakness, wealth, clothes, looks, sounds, smell, etc.. This type of laughing at another's shame or condition props up our own superiority over them. This is simply then a pride issue. The type of pride President Benson would talk about. Not the type of pride President Uchtdorf spoke of (pleased) of seeing a loved one's succeeding, overcoming... This loud (bad) type of laughing over another brother or sister's failure, weakness, or something were they have no control of, is displeasing to the Lord. II. If we take loud laughter in the context it is given in, in our sacred covenants, then we see Heavenly Father is clearly placing this pridely, we are superior, type of loud laughter with other things that we should not do that displease Him. It is not in the context of other things that please Him, for example, it is in the context were things displease Him, similar to the stay chaste context (the violation of displeases Him). It is not in the context of the things we should do to please Him (e.g., pray always. The obeying of praying always, pleases him and we are blessed even more). Thus, it is not laughter itself, but laughter in a context that would displease our Father in Heaven. III. Loud. Why the descriptor? I believe it comes back to the first point. Loud, means others will hear and of course that would be the point of loudness is just so others can hear. This prideful type of laughter props us up at the same time humiliating the target of our loud laughter. IV. I notice with the loud descriptor, Heavenly Father is not saying laughing is sinful, it is not. Laughing is a natural beautiful thing and is a sign of happiness. Only with the descriptor [loud] is laughter placed in the context we should not do it. To me, the decibel range we laugh in is not the issue, it is the loudness for others to overhear. To me, meaning the arrogant laughter that I am better than you, and that pleases me, and I want others to know I am better, that is when we should avoid all loud laughter.
  10. I really don't blame my Bishop, he is a good man and did have good intentions for my wife to get a blessing. Having said that, what you said is exactly right and how I felt, it was too public for such a personal thing. When later that night when I asked my wife if she would like me to administer to her, she was a little bit upset that he voiced it so loud in the hallway, where the ward gossip could hear (and did remark that I should stop beating my wife). She of course was joking, but if that is the first thing she thought of, even if it was in a joking manner it makes me wonder... My wife then got upset that the Bishop felt she needed a blessing because of her looks (she looked down and overwhelmed). I think my wife was feeling a little bit overwhelmed, we have been dealing with a lot of family health issues and exam failing, etc., A lot of worrying, but still not a good enough reason to loudly proclaim I need to give my wife a very needed blessing. I'm just venting here, all will be well...
  11. Sadly, I have seen this too often and most of the time the Bishop only had the best interest involved. I have stopped counting how many times I sat in leadership meetings, counsel meetings etc., when the Bishop might say something like; "Brother John Doe was excommunicated last night for adultery which arose out of his porn addiction. Brother Doe needs help with his STD. Please tell your teachers not to have Brother Doe invited to say any prayers in class." I have seen/heard Bishop slip out many details that should have been kept confidential. I also think a leadership meeting is not the right place. I would have preferred to see the Bishop pull the EQP aside and privately say to him; "do me a favor and don't have Brother Doe say any of the prayers for a while, thanks." That would have been so much more in keeping up Bishop/Confessor confidentiality, and would help keep rumours and gossip a little at bay. Edited to add; Just last week, my Bishop in a very crowded hallway said in a loud voice "Brother [Anijen], please take your wife to an empty classroom and give your wife a very needed blessing." Nothing wrong with this, but one of the sisters jokingly said to me right after the Bishops remarks; "Brother [Anijen] you need to stop beating your wife." I know the Bishop was well intentioned, but I did feel a little bit a little under the magnifying glass. I asked myself these questions. Why didn't I know my wife needed a blessing, why did she tell the Bishop and not me? I later asked my wife if I could administer to her and she laughed at me and said I didn't ask the Bishop for you to give me a blessing, the Bishop told me; "I looked down and overwhelmed," he just assumed I needed a blessing." Sometimes, I feel Bishops need to reel it in just a little bit keep things more confidential and even keep good things between bishop and member and not the loud publication he thinks it might need.
  12. If the government in the future says it is illegal for any church prohibiting SSM in their church, then the government will, once again, have entangled state and church affairs together. It doesn't matter if the benefit of that entanglement goes to the state or to the church. It doesn't matter if the reasoning was secular (e.g. discrimination) What it does show, that it has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. Those who posit that never will the government force SSM upon a church or prevent the church free exercise of their beliefs are simply wrong. It has happened and will continue to happen. I use the term state here as a catch all term for government whether local, state, or federal, and the term church as a catchall phrase for religion. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment has been in many SCOTUS cases and no doubt will be in many cases in the future. The expressed text is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Here are a few notable SCOTUS cases. You can look them up if you want, but I put the gist of the case and to whom went the benefit of the ruling to save you time: Everson v Board of Education: in a 5-4 vote the court upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of bussing their children to private parochial schools. Note; here, the parents not the parochial school was reimbursed. If the school were to be reimbursed, it is my opinion that would have endorsed religion and would have violated the establishment clause. Benefits both state and church McCollum v Board of Education: in a 8-1 vote the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction (think seminary or institute) violated the Establishment Clause. This was so often practiced in our country's past of teaching a voluntary religious class. After this case, voluntary religious classes have been unconstitutional. This is a little weird because I have taken many religious classes (university level) since this ruling. These classes usually fell under a History rubric. The ones I took were on Islam, Bah Vegeta, Quran. Bahai, Bible, and Judaism. The only difference was they were done by the PhD professors employed and not by an invited instructor. My class on the Bahai religion was basically the professors semester long testimony of its truth. Benefit to the state. Zorach v Clauson: a 6-3 vote on the issue of religious instruction off the schools premises. This case gave students of public schools "release time" so they could spend part of their school day to attend class in their church or synagogues. Note: in the dissent Justice Jackson argued that the public schools were used as "a temporary jail" for the students who chose not to attend release time. Benefit to both church and state. Engel v Vitale: a 6-1 vote that took out prayer from the public schools. This ruling makes it so that the public schools cannot hold any type of prayers, even if participation is not required or the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. Kind of a double standard, the exact same argument and defenses were used but allowed prayers in congressional meetings. Zelman v Simmons-Harris: the court voted 5-4 to allow government assistance to help aid parents whose children were going to private religious schools. My guess is this ruling would allow for aide to private Muslim students, but in today's litigious society a Christian student might still be sued. Note; I am for all students, no matter what religion to get government assistance (privet religious high school level is used often). However, right now, at the college level Most are required to pay back all their student loans, but Muslim refugees get government assistance that currently asks for no repayment. IMO that should go for all religions or none or it would violate SCOTUS's Lemon Test (see next case). Lemon v Kurtzman: a 8-1 vote that said laws that allow direct funding for non-public-use schools or non=secular schools violated the Establishment Clause. The famous Lemon Test came out of this case. Lemon Test: (1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion Reynolds v United States: 9-0 unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Congress has the power to Prohibit polygamy. The defense of it was his religious belief and the practice of the church he was a member of did not matter. One reason I believe that the government should stay out of marriage in general. Thus, we can see if congress can outlaw a religious belief they certainly can make laws that punish any person that violates law even if the law goes against one's religious belief. They day will come, I'm afraid, that there will indeed be legal action to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be mandated to have SSM within our temples.
  13. I do not know why you keep lecturing me about how the title of "Pope" came about. I have never asked about it, and I never needed you to clarify to me its origin, but you keep doing so. My point was that throughout history prior to 1250 AD it was the nobles who controlled much of who was in church leadership positions all the way up to Pope. However, you continue to deny that. Here, is what I am going to reply to. After the death of the Savior, the Church fell into apostasy. Even with apostasy, Christianity still grew despite much persecution and even some being fed to lions in Roman coliseums. Bishops were only in charge of their local congregations, for example the Bishop of Rome was over the church in Rome but not elsewhere. The church really did not come into any power until after Constantine. In 1046 Henry III became king. As custom the pope was suppose to officiate the coronation of the king. At this time, three popes showed up to do the coronation. --King Henry III was disgusted to find these three rival candidates, each claimed to be the rightful Pope. Henry III settled the issue in high handed fashion, he dismissed all three would be Popes and installed another of his own choosing. His first appointee died after a few months in office, and the second lived only a few weeks. Both of them were apparently poisoned factions at Rome that resented imperial intervention. Henry's third appointment of pope reigned for five years and in that time succeeded in transforming the papacy. ~Brian Tierney The Crises of Church and State 1050-1300 page 28 Still, during these times it was common for noblemen to buy bishoprics, appoint abbots, inherit abby's etc.. Henry also selected Pope bruno of Toul (His papal name Leo IX) which was when the church was divided between East and West. It would be Leo IX to start the Investiture Conflict when the church really started gaining power and later around 1250 the Catholic Church started selecting their own Popes. After Henry's selection of Leo IX, Henry III selected Gerard of Chatenov (who was Henry III relative). Now if you continue to posit that no kings selected Popes then you will be going up against history itself, historians from secular and religious documents. I am not just spouting my own theories here, I am quoting historical fact.
  14. Thank you for this information, I already knew it, but perhaps your need to educate me will be beneficial. Thank you. Actually it is very adequate for me to say the kings chose the popes (prior to 13th and parts of 12th century). With an incredible amount of historical evidence to back this up. Ask about any college History professor and they will concur that up until mid 13th century it were the kings who decided who were the Popes, Abbots, Bishops etc. See: The Crises of Church and State 1050-1300 ~ Brian Tierney Church and State Through the Centuries ~ S.Z. Ehler and J.B. Morrall The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII ~ trans. by E. Emerton Monumenta Germaniae Historica Patrologia Latina ~ J.P. Migne The Carolingian Empire ~ Heinrich Fichtenau/translated by Peter Munz Constantine and the Conversion of Europe ~A.H.M. Jones And many, many more. Throughout history as Christianity grew it was the natural belief that the ruler (be it emperor or king) was divinely endowed to control the state, with that power, that ruler also held a sacral role as head and symbol of the peoples religion. Kings were coronated by priests to be the head of state and church. They were given sacred staffs, anointed with oil, and crowns symbolic of that duel role. As time went on (circa 1050) these kingdoms fractured into many creating multiple kingdoms (e.g. France, England, etc..). At this time instead of one Emperor (e.g. Constantine) there were many Kings and their powers diminished. At the same time Christianity was growing with the church having only one leader (the Pope), the church's power and influence grew. The reasoning is because there were now Christians all over the western world. It was between 1050 and 1250 when the great battles between church and state began with the church winning out (around 1250). In my opinion, it is when Innocent III (1198-1216 as Pope) or perhaps Boniface VIII (1294-1303 as Pope) is when the church had total control and authority on choosing their Pope.
  15. I can't see any evidence of Peter as Pope, other than many years later the Catholic church saying he was. However there is much evidence that kings chose the Popes (even the Abbots) up until about mid 11th century then the church eventually took authority away from the kings and started choosing their own popes.
  16. CFR on clear lines. IOW sometype of proof (which makes the clear lines), not just a Catholic utterance. Oh, and while you are at it, could you explain the no apostasy thing, yrt, in that same sentence you refer two churches that today are separate from each other. That separation means one or the other must have broke off (apostatized) from the other one.
  17. Still need a licence to practice in federal courts, both civil cases and criminal cases (which [criminal cases] are only filed by governments; local, state or federal). However, one can practice on reservations without a license, but will have to eventually take and pass a tribal bar exam.
  18. Philippines and India, Im sure you can arrange an arranged marriage. The love part will eventually come, well it worked out for Golde and Tevya
  19. I just chose a random message of yours to say email or message me please (i can't message you for some reason). I might have some options for you to consider considering law licence to practice
  20. It is impossible and possible. Through the grace of Christ, via His atonement, makes it possible to lift us and instantaneously fills the gap of our own weakness. Thus, we can have that constant companionship as long as we are in that repentant stage (e.g. turning toward Him not away).
  21. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I do have a different interpretation of "sustain" as others do. To me, one is not sustaining a church leader such as; when a leader says, it was revelation and the member says it was not.
  22. I see the type of pride that has been warned about in the Book of Mormon. The type of pride that makes one's opinion superior to the Prophets, as if their prideful voices holds equal or greater weight than the Lords chosen Prophets. They see weakness in the Lord's anointed servants, but see only superiority in their prideful opinions. Perhaps the sifting has started. "Both were clearly wrong. as wrong as wrong could be." "Yup. Another mistake πŸ˜‰ It just took longer to correct it!" "😊I rest my case...I am happy but I rest my case on so many things that have come from this."
  23. So in your opinion they are only Prophets and Revelators when they are inspired with issues that you agree with, but they are not when their revelations disagree with issues you are for? If a leader says it was revelation and you say it was not revelation but strong feelings, how exactly is that sustaining them? In the Church there has been many times when revelation has been reversed. Here, it appears to be reversed, but you cannot accept it as revelation because you obviously have a personal issue against their decisions regarding this topic. I do not accept your rationalization of sustaining church leaders and at the same time not sustaining them. You either do or you do not.
  24. ALarson, do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
×
×
  • Create New...