Kenngo1969

Cacheman, Not intending to duplicate what you just posted, but I doubt the articles are identical. I'm sure that each has nuances that the other does not. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/15/22231416/higher-ed-board-expresses-unanimous-support-of-usu-president-noelle-cockett It'd be interesting to see what the breakdown is as to how many players who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who had concerns and those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ who had concerns.

I'm not telling you anything you couldn't learn by watching Star Wars.

I don't really know the answer to her question (what the genesis of the power is), but (while I certainly don't know for sure), to say that God allowed Satan to retain any power would be to say (indirectly, at least) that God is responsible for evil, and I don't think that's the case. If it really is true that: (1) there is opposition in all things (see 2 Nephi 2:11), and if (2) there are divine laws, (3) obedience to which endows one with heavenly power, is the opposite of that: (1) since there is opposition in all things (2) there are evil or "devilish" laws, (3) obedience to which endo

Huh. AD Hartwell and President Cockett were concerned that Coach Maile's ethnicity and religion would be an impediment to recruiting efforts at USU, yet BSU had no such qualms. Makes one wonder what BSU and its powers-that-be know that USU and its powers-that-be do not.

Hmm. Yet you don't seem to have any problem imputing dishonesty or disingenuousness to Brent Hall. Why is that? Pot, meet kettle? Can dish it out, but can't take it? They are? I wouldn't call your treatment of Brent Hall exactly "neutral." We must employ vastly different definitions of that word. Ah, well. Vive le difference, I suppose. Carry on.

I'm flattered to be the [albeit unnamed] subject of a thread, though I thought personal threads were disallowed. I suppose it depends on who you are and how selectively the Mods feel like enforcing the rules. Ah, well! Don't mind me! Carry on!

No, not to the extent that ALJ Catten's decision is recognized as precedent. (Frankly, for reasons which are too complicated to get into here, I'm not sure to what degree his decision would be recognized as precedent if POST/DPS were to be confronted with a similar set of facts in the future regarding a different law enforcement agency, but perhaps that's what he's trying to do, to say, "Hey, Legislature! You need to fix this!")* Although he says that the DPS investigation satisfied the investigation requirement imposed by the relevant statute, later, in what, essentially are his fin

Well, I really couldn't go "commando," even if I wanted to, so ...

Okay, it turns out (but, in my defense, I was completely unaware of this before I visited another thread he started) that I'm not on good terms with the person whose grammar I corrected once, but the reason(s) for that is/are: (1) because he totally misread what I wrote and/or (2) because he seems determined to misread me and/or to take offense. And I suppose it doesn't matter what one tries to do to get or to stay on someone's good side if all he's going to do is save up rocks to throw at you when he thinks that's his best course of action. And in light of (2), I'm not sure what I can do ab

No, that's not what I said ... at all. Even if that's what you got from my post (because, say, for argument's sake, I was unclear expressing myself), if you took the time to read what I linked to, you would have reached the opposite conclusion. You seem to be determined to take offense, and/or to misread me. Read what I said again: If one is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and if one has a halfway-functioning brain, questions are inevitable. Inevitability of questions notwithstanding, however, doubt and faith are choices. Personally, I don't question Book of Mor

If I find out, after having done something, that a certain practice is frowned upon, I'm only accountable if I engage in the practice after I hear that it is frowned upon. I would say that if a current or recent prophet says something that contradicts what a previous prophet said, what the current or recent prophet says controls. If a current prophet has not spoken on a subject upon which his long-ago predecessors spoke freely, I think that's probably a clue as to how concerned the Lord is about the subject currently. My $0.02, actual value may vary, void where prohibited, restrictions appl

Is this survey academic in nature? Are you pursuing a Master's or Doctorate? Are you part of a research team?

Not fair! I haven't been banned from a thread for correcting someone's grammar in ... well, a few days, at least! Insofar as I know, I'm on good terms with the last person whose grammar I corrected.

Here's the ALJ's full decision (if this works). In 3, 2, 1 ... https://www.scribd.com/document/490526728/ALJ-Catten-Decision-Re-BYUPD-Decertification