Jump to content

Kenngo1969

Contributor
  • Content Count

    8,865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,348 Excellent

About Kenngo1969

  • Rank
    Master of Bombast

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

7,991 profile views
  1. Viola? We've never met. I don't know her from Eve, but I'm sure she's a lovely woman. (Any female friend of yours must be, as far as I'm concerned!) Is she married? Pehaps you could mention to her that I'm single, and introduce us?
  2. You missed the point ... badly. Whooooooooosh!!!
  3. Do I know enough about any given change in such requirements to know whether such a change was "arbitrary"? I'm not sure I do: Obviously, your mileage varies. To each, his own. If Temple worthiness requirements were changed to require that candidates demonstrate the ability to stand on their heads while rubbing their tummies counterclockwise and clucking like chickens, I'm not sure I could do that, but being Temple worthy and participating in Temple ordinances is important enough to me that I certainly would try to do so.
  4. As for coffee, in a previous "did-you-know-that-it-has-antioxidants-in-it?" thread, I commented, "I don't care if it's the very elixir of life. I have covenanted not to drink it, and I know I will be blessed for keeping my covenants." To each, his or her own, and your mileage may vary, et cetera.
  5. That does seem to be your answer anytime anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints experiences any mind of financial hardship, Tacenda, but there's no commandment requiring anyone to fall behind on bills, incur late fees, and then seek help from the bishop.
  6. @provoman I'm not a lawyer. @smac97 ? And even if I were, I couldn't speak to California law. I'm not sure what those who drafted the law in question had in mind when they used the term "legal cause." These are simply general observations, not legal advice. Generally, in order for a plaintiff to prevail in a tort (civil wrong) action, s/he must show two kinds if causation: (1) that but for the defendant's wrongful act or omission, the harm alleged would not have occurred (often called "but for" causation); and (2) legal or proximate causation, that the harm is so closely related in time and circumstance to the defendant's act or omission that the defendant should be held liable for the harm caused. The statute's drafters probably are referring to the latter, but, honestly, I don't know.
  7. I don't think you're correct that mere longevity, standing alone, bestows credibility for most. Think about in-real-life relationships for a second: As different as Cyber-acquaintances might be, there are some key similarities. Regardless of the length of the relationship, why do you trust the people you trust? Over the course of your relationship and in your interactions with them, have they "shot straight" with you? Do they "call spades spades"? Do they try to use you to further their own possibly-inscrutable ends? Have you found them to be reliable? Truthful? Is the information they give you verifiable? Reliable? There are people I've known a long time who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and there are people I've known a comparatively short time who I trust implicitly. And it's not simply having strong opinions that puts a poster sideways with another poster or with the community. If that were so, this would be the Cyber equivalent of a never-ending bloodbath. This may not be the most civil corner of Cyberspace at times, but it is far from that.
  8. Visitor: There will have to be, relatively speaking, very few righteous men in heaven if all of them are to have multiple wives. Color me doubtful. Even relatively few men on Earth since the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ have had multiple wives. (Heck, some of us are still looking for one ... Long-term bachelor here!)
  9. Meeting? Skype? IM? Conference call? As a general matter, in an effort to streamline and simplify, I thought the Fourteenth Article of Faith ("We believe in meetings, we have endured many meetings, and we hope to be able to endure all meetings. If there are any meetings which are virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these meetings." ) had been repealed. If the powers-that-be in your area are requiring (an)other meeting(s), you could always do it via one of the remote modes I mention above and, if-and-when someone asks you if you held the required meeting, you could always answer (truthfully, in my book), "Yep!" (And what they don't know won't hurt them!)
  10. Duncan, I cannot read an account such as that one without contributing a link to this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/music/library/hymns/how-firm-a-foundation?lang=eng&_r=1 Cheers!
  11. So, your priorities are different than their priorities, and they shouldn't be? Why is that? Why should you, or anyone else, get the opportunity to determine their priorities?
  12. Not to mention dumb ... as in, unable to speak.
  13. This is simply one opinion of one member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to one of our Roman Catholic Church friends, so take it for what it's worth (or not), but I think that our understanding of space and time and relationships (to name just three such things) is going to have to undergo a radical shift for us even to begin to understand Eternity.
×
×
  • Create New...