Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,859 Excellent

About Kenngo1969

  • Rank
    Master of Bombast

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6,142 profile views
  1. Mormons are "creepy and admirable"

    In the overwhelming majority of cases, their judgment is not based on a weighing of any evidence which might bear on the matter (pro or con), but, rather, is a simple a priori, ipso facto, res ipsa loquitur conclusion that religious belief, whatever the substance of the belief, is not tenable. You're welcome. Glad I could clear that up for you.
  2. Circumcision

    Fair enough. Generally, far be it from me to question most any of the CDC's expertise or wisdom. However, I'd like to know what the incidence of any of any of these conditions is and how directly traceable non-circumcision is to any of them (a correlation is not a cause): The less prevalent they are, and/or the less directly traceable any of them is to non-circumcision, the more the law of diminishing returns applies. Is circumcision the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?
  3. Jesus's statements on marriage

    Not necessarily. You could ask yourself, "Do I have enough faith in a God who [purportedly] is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-Loving to believe that He wouldn't have to tell any of His Children who are faithful, 'I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry. This is the best I could do'?" I find it revealing that even though no one else is certain how s/he's going to feel or what s/he's going to believe after the resurrection, or after the first few aeons of Eternity, anyone whose sexuality falls far enough outside where most sexuality falls on the continuum purporting to measure such things is absolutely certain that nothing on that score is going to change. In contrast to you, I have absolutely no idea, given the limits of human perception, cognition, reasoning, and so on, what it's going to be like to be resurrected or what life will be like after the first few aeons of Eternity, and I think that's rather the whole point. Yes, I realize it's rather like comparing apples to Buicks, but, like you, I have my own reasons for wondering, "Lord, why has Thou thus dealt with me?" In contrast to you, however, I don't have all of the answers yet. The only thing I know for sure is that, "They shall not be ashamed that wait for me" (Isaiah 49:23). For whatever reason, you seem to be fond of kicking me in the teeth, metaphorically speaking, when this subject or similar subjects come up, so I won't be surprised if it happens again. Because of that, however, if I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if this is my only reply to you. Have a lovely day.
  4. Circumcision

    That right there may tell a discerning reader anything s/he needs to know about circumcision. If insurance won't cover it, there's a good likelihood it isn't as necessary, medically speaking, as some might have us believe.
  5. Jesus's statements on marriage

    That's almost entirely up to you.
  6. 4th Sundays in 2018

    I know, again, that your mileage will vary, but what I get out of a class, whether I find it interesting or not, is very nearly entirely up to me. I can come prepared, both spiritually and with respect to the lesson, for the class; I can pray for a teacher; I can talk to my Sunday School presidency and/or to the bishopric with any suggestions I might have for improving teaching, including endorsing Teacher Development and participating as invited and as circumstances dictate; depending on my relationship with the teacher, I can speak directly to him or her with any suggestions I might have; if a class is boring and I'm not doing anything to make it un-boring, whose fault is that? I can liven up a "boring" class by participating more. All of these things, with respect to the quality of the lesson, actually are within my control. Ultimately, a teacher's responsibility is to encourage his or her students to draw close to the Spirit so He can do the teaching. But you're absolutely right if you believe that if I come to class expecting to be spoon-fed a terrific lesson while not having bothered to do any of this, I'm apt to be sorely disappointed. But even if none of the things I've mentioned succeed in improving the quality of lessons, I've still sat in so-called "sub-par" Sunday School lessons and been profoundly influenced by sudden insights I have discovered, with the Spirit's guidance, on my own (and those insights may or may not have had anything to do with the lesson or with the topic under discussion). Any disagreement between us notwithstanding, I do wish you well. Thanks, -Ken
  7. Here's what one PSR had to say about the "Tongue of Angels": https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-tongue-of-angels?lang=eng
  8. Jesus's statements on marriage

    I'm not sure how receptive your friend might be to something like this, but perhaps, if nothing else, he would be open enough to it to read out of curiosity about your beliefs. Here's what one of the Lord's Living Prophets had to say on the subject: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng
  9. 4th Sundays in 2018

    Hopefully, by the end of that six months, we'll all be much better at keeping the Sabbath. While, certainly, I'm far from perfect in that regard, and while your mileage may vary, I confess that my recent "enforced sabbatical" from more active Church attendance and participation has made me appreciate the Sabbath that much more. (I'm glad that Exodus 31:15 isn't enforced ... )
  10. Be ye therefore perfect.

    Spoken/posted like someone who didn't bother to read the talk, right? Just sayin'!
  11. Slander requires a specific target. I disagree with you. I bear you no ill will, that disagreement notwithstanding. (In any event, Calmoriah has provided the evidence you requested. If you find that insufficient, that's your prerogative. I disagree.) A certain subset of gays and lesbians are militant, litigious, not wont to find any common ground with their adversaries, and so on. If that glass slipper fits, perhaps some introspection is in order. If not, no one will force you to wear it. This will be my last post on the subject and on this thread. Good day.
  12. I know what opprobrium is. I stand by my previous responses. (In attempting to dialogue with your interlocutors, you might fare better if you were to cease condescending to them. As it seems that you are unwilling to do that, this will be my last post to you on the thread.)
  13. So ... people can trespass on private property (that is, they can commit a crime), as long as they do so peacefully? "Peaceful" trespassing isn't a crime? As long as they don't burn anything, shout anything, et cetera, anyone who wishes to do so can hold up a sign on my premises saying "God Hates Kenngo1969"?
  14. OK, but that's not consistent with a "they-deserve-all-the-public-opprobrium-they-get" position.
  15. So, all laws are, ipso facto, res ipsa loquitur, and self-evidently, simply by their mere passage, just, good, and right, then? There's no such thing as an unjust law, a bad law, a defective law, a law which fails to accomplish its intended purpose, or a law that (whatever that law's intended noble purpose) results in unintended harmful consequences? While it's certainly true that we share an aversion to, e.g., Jim Crow laws (as I'm sure most everyone here does; I haven't heard anyone argue in favor of such laws, and I'm sure they would be marginalized by most everyone else here if they were to do so), do you even realize what damage that gross overgeneralization does to your position, even in the minds of many of those who agree with you? Are there any limits on this "all the public opprobrium they get"? Does that mean it's not OK to burn a cross in the back yard of a black family's home or to picket a home where a gay person or people live with a sign that says, "God Hates Fags," on the one hand, but it is OK to start a bonfire in a business owner's yard in protest or to picket a business owner's home with a sign that says, "God Hates Those Who Hate Fags"? Gay students deserve an an education free of harassment, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded off of campus (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")? Gay workers deserve to be able to make a living, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded out of a job (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")? No, The Sometime Saint, arguably, what they "deserve" is to be subject to the consequences of violating the law, and no more. Or do you really mean to endorse the sort of anarchy implicit in the "all the public opprobrium they get" position? If so, that certainly does not speak well of you, nor does it speak well of those who agree with you.