Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,093 Excellent

About Kenngo1969

  • Rank
    Master of Bombast

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Julie-Rowe-Inspired Tent City

Recent Profile Visitors

6,504 profile views
  1. It's a good thing that a parent would never have an ulterior motive for wanting to sit in on a bishop's interview with that parent's child (such as serving as a deterrent to the child taking the bishop into the child's confidence about something harmful the parent may be doing to the child). Yes, indeedy! That's a very good thing! After all, parents always have their children's best interests at heart, without fail and without exception. It's those evil bishops ya gotta look out for, though. And its a good thing that no juvenile in a bishop's interview has ever confessed to what, but for the juvenile's minority status, would be considered a crime, in which the presence of a third party may well defeat the priest-penitent privilege which otherwise would attach to the conversation with the bishop! Yes, indeedy, that's a very good thing (but again, gotta look out for them evil bishops!)
  2. Home/Visiting Teaching to be discontinued

    Perhaps. To the extent that anyone looks to an external force or a magical new "program" to change him, he's apt to be disappointed. On the other hand, to the extent that he realizes that he has the power to be the change he seeks, then he will be changed.
  3. Home/Visiting Teaching to be discontinued

    There won't be much of a change in attitude ... unless and until I change my attitude. I can encourage other people to change their attitudes, I can suggest ways to bring such a change about, but, beyond that, the only thing I control is me.
  4. Home/Visiting Teaching to be discontinued

    "No one of consequence." --Westley, as The Dread Pirate "Roberts," to Inigo Montoya as the two prepare to duel
  5. Home/Visiting Teaching to be discontinued

    As Elder Holland pointed out, we need to get rid of the idea, "Oh, I'm a home teacher [or a visiting teacher], so I make a monthly visit." (And as my sister, Jeanne, so aptly pointed out, she doesn't exist simply so people can "check her off of their To-Do List.") No, you're a home or a visiting teacher, so you minister. "I'm a bishop, so I bish." No, you minister. "I'm a stake president, so I prez." No, you minister. "I'm a teacher, so I teach." No, you minister. [Back to [LURK] mode. Don't get used to seeing me. I wouldn't want to disappoint you. (As though anybody cares. I'm sure nobody's given a second thought to my quasi-absence. For me, actually posting is the exception, not the rule.]
  6. President Nelson on Gun Control

    To be fair, Samuel the Lamanite is speaking of the sort of death toll that might result from a rapid-fire or terrorist incident. I made your same point earlier in the thread, but thanks for backing me up.
  7. President Nelson on Gun Control

    I can only refer you to my previous reply, wherein I informed you that said reply would be my last post to you on the subject. Once again, I wish you a very pleasant good evening.
  8. President Nelson on Gun Control

    Not to mention that many of these incidents occurred where gun laws are even more stringent than they are in the United States (which, all denials to the contrary, rather proves my point). And anyone who is so inclined might mention to Samuel the Lamanite that someone skilled in a martial art and/or in hand-to-hand fighting could easily kill a large number of people who lack such skill in rather short order.
  9. President Nelson on Gun Control

    I already told you that my foregoing response would be my last to you on the subject. Again, I wish you a very pleasant good evening.
  10. President Nelson on Gun Control

    Then you obviously don't understand it, so this will be my last post to you on the subject. I wish you a very pleasant good evening.
  11. President Nelson on Gun Control

    You just proved my point. So what if a fully-automatic weapon is unavailable? Has the unavailability of one type of weapon stopped mass shootings or mass killings altogether? No, it hasn't. The specific type of gun or of weapon used has nothing to do with the point that I was making. Ban shotguns, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a rife; ban rifles, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a pistol; ban pistols, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) with bullets will use a revolver; and so on. Ban firearms altogether, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use knives; ban knives, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use bombs; ban bombs and/or their precursors, and someone determined to kill (an)other(s) will use poison; and so on. And banning firearms presupposes that no one who is not subject to the ban will use what (for him, at least) is a legal weapon for illegal, murderous purposes, and the same is true of anyone else who might be exempt from any of the other bans I have mentioned. People who are determined enough to try to kill others will try to kill others no matter what obstacles the law attempts to erect to stop them from fulfilling their murderous designs. Ban everything else, and a person who is determined to kill (an)other(s) will use his bare hands, if necessary. The fault, dear Samuel the Lamanite, is not in our weapons, but in ourselves. One who is determined enough to kill (an)other(s) will attempt to do so regardless what legal obstacles might be placed in his path. I'm not necessarily arguing against sensible weapons-control measures: certainly, we can talk about placing stricter limits on rapid-fire weapons, on high-capacity magazines, and so on. But no matter what weapons are or are not banned, as long as one human harbors within his heart a murderous impulse toward another, as long as anyone who could have stopped another from acting on such an impulse fails to do so, anyone in the vicinity when one decides to act on that impulse runs the risk of falling victim to that actor. As I said earlier, whatever weapons are or are not available, it falls to someone who becomes aware of another's isolation, sadness, or anger (and who also becomes aware of any murderous or destructive plans that person might be making as a result) to make those who can intervene aware of what's going on. That's really the only thing that's going to be effective in cases such as this.
  12. President Nelson on Gun Control

    If there is a law in a particular jurisdiction which is meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then those involved in effecting the particulars of that law (salespeople, would-be purchasers, merchants, law enforcement, et cetera) should be vigilant in doing so. If they are not, they should be held to whatever consequences the law stipulates for such a failure. That said, the greatest effect applied by most laws arises from the voluntary compliance of the law-abiding. If a person is so determined to break the law that he is willing to injure, to maim, and to kill large numbers of his fellow human beings, it is exceedingly unlikely that simply one more law which renders contraband that means by which he seeks to sow such mayhem and death is going to make a huge difference. We should be vigilant. If information comes to our attention which seems to indicate that someone of our acquaintance may harbor such designs, we should bring that person and his purported designs to the attention of the authorities, even if it means that some are likely to dismiss our concerns as "overreacting to kids saying stupid stuff" (my phrase). But if one is determined enough to do great harm, if a high-capacity, rapid-fire weapon is unavailable, he'll use a bomb; if a bomb is unavailable, he will use some other noxious, highly-lethal means; and so on. Most of all, if someone in our orbit seems isolated, distant, sad, or angry, perhaps it falls to us to reach out to him. P.S. And yes, I realize that my purported-but-fictitious "quote" of Tal Bachman is rather ironic in this context.
  13. A mistake upon a mistake?

    "Virtually all scholars" can believe virtually whatever they wish to believe about the Book of Mormon, the other Restoration Scriptures, and about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that belief will have virtually no effect* on my testimony. *I actually understate the case here, of course, simply as a rhetorical device. In reality, the beliefs of "virtually all scholars" will have absolutely no effect on my testimony. In any event, saying that "virtually all scholars" believe something not only may be more than a bit of a stretch, logically, as an appeal to authority, it's a fallacy.