Jump to content

Stormin' Mormon

Members
  • Posts

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stormin' Mormon

  • Birthday 05/23/1977

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tucson, AZ

Recent Profile Visitors

1,907 profile views

Stormin' Mormon's Achievements

Experienced

Experienced (11/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

655

Reputation

  1. In my opinion, judicial review is inevitable where you have a written constitution that is explicitly "the supreme law of the land." Courts often have to adjudicate between conflicting laws and decide which law is controlling or applicable. Where there is a conflict between a statuary law and the "supreme law of the land," what else is a court supposed to do? It must rule that the "supreme law of the land" is controlling and that the conflicting law has no valid force. Marbury v Madison was rather clever in establishing this principle. By abandoning a minor additional power granted to it by Congress, it established a precedent that granted it much greater authority in future cases. One of the parties in MvM wanted the court to issue a writ of mandamus, and the court judged that even though an act of Congress had granted it the authority to do so, the constitution did not grant SCOTUS the authority to grant such a writ. With two laws in conflict, the court reasoned that the constitution had precedent and was the controlling authority. The court did not therefore have the congressionally-granted authority to issue the writ. It was the judicial equivalent of a humble brag.
  2. In order for Griswold to be in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court, you would need all of the following: 1. A state leguslature willing to pass a law banning contraceptives 2. A governor willing to sign such a law 3. A state official willing to enforce the law 4. Lower court judges willing to uphold that enforcement OR state officials willing to expend the resources on a costly appeal. That very unpoularity will likely keep it from ever becoming a SCOTUS issue again.
  3. What a graceless and disgusting comment. Way to lean into the bitter ex-mo stereotype. That'll do a lot for your image and cred on this board.
  4. Presiding authorities have keys. The keys are the authority to direct when and how priesthood authority is to be used. Some ordinances require that a key-holder authorize their performance. Others do not. Blessing my children when they are sick does not require permission from a bishop or stake president. Blessing the sacrament in my home during the pandemic did. I could not have done so unless the Bishop (who holds those keys) had authorized me to do so. I could go to another stake and bless the sick without any sort of recommend because that is an ordinance that does not require keys. I could not, however, go to another stake and perform a baptism without the key-holder in that stake authorizing me to do so. And since they don't know me from Adam, they require a recommend from my home unit to ensure that they are authorizing a worthy priesthood holder to perform those ordinances.
  5. After further reflection, I think a temple recommend would be required for performing an ordinance that 1) requires keys AND 2) is performed outside of one's home ward or stake. If that's the case, the ordinance could have been performed without the recommend if it had occurred in your home stake. It wasn't the ordinance per se that required the recommend, but the circumstances in which it was performed. Even then, the recommend is only a convenient shortcut, I think. Back in the 1990s, before teenagers received limited use temple recommends, I had to get a special recommend (not a temple recommend) from my home-ward Bishop in order to go to a neighboring stake to ordain my best friend to the Aaronic Priesthood. (He was a convert and his father was not a member, so he chose me to do it). I suppose that a temple recommend can be used in that same manner. Long story short: Today I learned that a grave dedication is a priesthood ordinance requiring keys. Hadn't known that before. I thought it was more akin to a home dedication or a father's blessing, neither of which are priesthood ordinances that require keys. Moving on now. As you were...
  6. Huh? Really? That's weird. As far as I know, that would make it the only Melchizedek priesthood ordinance (performed outside of a temple) that requires a temple recommend to perform. Is there any handbook citation on this? Did one of your local leaders make a mistake by requiring the recommend? I'm really quite baffled.
  7. No, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation, which "occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in multiple ways, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument." The word "single" can mean various things, depending on the context. When a word has multiple or ambiguous meanings, you've got to be careful when you take its meaning from one context and transplant that meaning into another context.
  8. I wonder if an appropriate solution would be to double the amount of time we spend with each book of scripture. Two years each in the OT, NT, BOM, and D&C. Maybe mix it up a little, so we don't go so long between books, so that Year One is the first half of the OT, Year Two is the Gospels, etc, Year Five is the second half of the OT, Year Six is Acts and the Epistles, etc. Might make it harder to mirror seminary and Come Follow Me, but it could allow for deeper dives into the scriptures. In my last SS class (not yesterday, but the last time I taught before that), we covered the Book of Numbers. The WHOLE book in a single 45 minute lesson. And then we had an off-week, a fifth Sunday, a Stake conference, and then another off week, and then we meet again (yesterday) and we're already deep inside 1 Samuel. So much scriptural territory that we just skipped over, that I didn't even get a chance to give a mediocre lesson for.
  9. Don't hold your breath on the Catholic church changing very much to accomodate gay couples and civil unions. While they have softened their tone in recent years (much like the LDS church), and done more with outreach to the LGBTQ community (much like the LDS church), there have been no effort to change doctrine and policy (much like the LDS church). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/europe/pope-gay-civil-unions.html
  10. Key word there: fair. I don't think that @smac97 would disagree that these things are open to scrutiny, as long as it is fair and even-handed.
  11. There's a lot we can't know, but that doesn't justify just making stuff up about real people in order to fit a desired narrative. Her sister is not the absolute authority, and no one here is making that argument. But she is AN authority, and possibly the best authority we have at the moment. Her opinions oughtn't be dismissed so casually.
  12. "Taking a break from Church" could mean a couple of different things. It could mean taking a break from meetings, callings, attendance, but continuing to live the standards. This is what most of the worldwide church membership did through much of 2020 and 2021. Our ward is still doing Youtube streams, so we still have a few members of our ward who are doing this. This is a softer break, and I doubt it portends a more permanent break in the near future. Or it could mean a harder break. Breaking with the Word of Wisdom, tithing, sabbath observance, etc. I think this kind of break could easily lead to a more permanent severing of ties. I suspect that if the individuals in the OP wanted to take the first type of break, they would have had their fill over the last couple of years. I'm not one to question motives, but the timing on this break leads me to believe that it might be the second kind of break. Had it come a few years earlier or a few years later, I prolly wouldn't be assuming that or jumping to this unfair conclusion.
  13. Do you really want to define speech that broadly? To define it as being present in a specific location at a specific time? Cuz if that's the definition we go with, there's a whole host of gay wedding services that can now be reclassified as speech.
  14. It's even more than that. Of those 46 Sunday lessons, less than half of them will be Come Follow Me Lessons. The others will be 5th Sunday lessons and EQ/RS lessons (which in my stake, at least, focus on a talk from the most recent General Conference). Assuming that none of your stake conferences happen on a first or third Sunday, there are only 22 CFM lessons in a year, which works out to 54 pages of text per lesson.
  15. Thanks. That's great. I had heard the following quote before, but was unaware that it was so old, that it dates back to 1972. With regards to the injunction against imbibing such drinks "under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit," I did a personal experiment last year, in which I gave up the Dew for two months. Once I found that I could easily do it and I wasn't experiencing any withdrawal symptoms, I went back to it. What I DID find, however, was that my Diet Dew habit wasn't the result of addiction, but rather the need to fill a specific dietary and fiscal niche. Treating myself to a Diet Dew once or twice a week was a sweet treat with zero calories that set me back less than a buck (a little bit more these days, but still pretty cheap). During my two-month experiment, I struggled to find something that was comparable in cost and calories.
×
×
  • Create New...