• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Kenngo1969

Contributor
  • Content count

    6,584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Kenngo1969 last won the day on October 24 2015

Kenngo1969 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,913 Excellent

About Kenngo1969

  • Rank
    Master of Bombast

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

5,264 profile views
  1. I'm curious: What programs would you like to see UVU offer, including graduate programs? P.S.: I asked that before I read Rain's reply to you. Are there any other programs you think UVU should offer? P.P.S.: When you say "Utah needs more than one school like the UofU," what, exactly, do you mean? Now that you apparently have been enlightened about the number of programs UVU offers, does that fit the bill, or are there other ways you wish UVU were like the U?
  2. I suppose we're simply talking semantics at this point, but I don't see any practical difference between the two. Gotta go! Phones to answer!
  3. Fair enough. As I see it (and this is simply my rough-and-ready take on things. I haven't done exhaustive research and will be unlikely to have hard numbers or anything else to back this up), while I'm not saying that a liberal arts education won't provide anyone with useful, marketable skills, I think, generally, it's far better for someone to graduate prepared to go out into the real world with the kind of hard skills UVU provides than it would be for UVU to graduate another few thousand liberal arts graduates every year, who then have to compete for the same jobs with the thousands of liberal arts graduates who graduated the year before that, and so on. Gotta go! There are phones to answer! I'll check back later. (I'll get fired if I get caught with a portable device on the production floor at my job, so, you'll simply have to wait, on the edge of your seat, all aquiver, with 'bated breath, for my next reply, which I know you will all be doing! )
  4. I haven't read the thread in awhile, but I think that was the allegation of at least one other poster (Sunstoned?).
  5. When you say, "I do think Utah needs another university in this area beyond BYU which is why I think UVU was first formed," are you talking about UVU's transition to university status, or are you talking about its inception? If you're talking about the former, perhaps you have a point, but the mission of UVU at its inception (although, of course, it wasn't called that then) was technical and vocational education. I'm afraid I'm a bit jaundiced: As much as I love school and learning for learning's sake, it seems I'm destined forever to remain in a rut of being obscenely overeducated and/or being obscenely underemployed. It seems I have far more education than I'll ever use. (I got an associate's and a bachelor's and ... got a job answering phones. Decided I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life, went back to school, lost my nerve and withdrew before receiving any credit, and ... got a job answering phones. Decided I really didn't want to do that for the rest of my life, swallowed an enormous amount of pride, went back, graduated (albeit by the skin of my teeth and literally against all odds) and ... now I've got another job answering phones. This is yet another jaundiced overstatement, but it seems as though everything that has happened to me from the moment I got that degree (more years ago now that I care to admit) is part of a giant conspiracy to try to make me regret getting it. I don't, and I won't, even if I'm never able to convince anyone else that I'm actually good for something besides answering phones, but I think someone is far better off with a useful trade or technical education than I am with my gaudy post-bachelor's.
  6. Cacheman: Perhaps that was more me reading between the lines, but if I'm not sure I want a job (as Matt Holland wasn't at first), why, in Heaven's name, would I attempt to name-drop, pull strings, and so on, in order to get it? Clark Goble: I agree with you that a school may be able to fulfill more than one mission, at least in theory, but, on the other hand, cold, hard, practical realities are an entirely different thing. There's only so much money to go around. If someone seeking funding says, "[X] is our mission," and a funder says, "Great, I support [X]," then the fund-seeker switches gears and seeks funding for [Y] (or seeks funding for [Y] in addition to funding for [X]) (e.g., liberal arts education, as opposed to more technical or practical education) that funder will, rightly, start asking, "Wait a minute. I thought you said [X] was your mission."
  7. Yes, I know it's a smelly, stinky old thread, but I thought this had some bearing on the question. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865676358/UVU-President-Matt-Holland-talks-school-mission-roots.html The writer notes that Matt Holland didn't necessarily want the job at Utah Valley University/UVU (at least, not at first), didn't lobby for it, and, apparently, didn't have anyone else lobby for it on his behalf. Matt Holland is more of a "pure" academic, more of an (and I'm not using this as an insult, a purpose for which it is often employed) Ivory Tower type. Matt Holland has resisted the impulse (favored by some) to turn UVU into "BYU-Orem," i.e., a research-oriented university, keeping it true to its vocational technical roots. Happy reading!
  8. I don't accept your premise that the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "besmirched" by proxy ordinances, nor do I accept your premise that, strictly speaking, "the hope of recognition and public praise" is the aim of the Church of Jesus Christ when its service is publicized. I stand by my assertion that Matthew 6:1 does not require that the Church of Jesus Christ allow its detractors to drive the narrative regarding it. And if you're really concerned with the public image and good name of the Church of Jesus Christ, why not give it and its leaders the benefit of the doubt regarding their motivations when such service is publicized?
  9. And while we're at it, My Dear Johnnie Cake ... ... wasn't it you who started a thread just a week or two ago on this very Board professing to be gravely concerned about how something-or-other (proxy baptisms of such admittedly thoroughly-reprobate historical figures such as Hitler, I believe it was) adversely impacted the reputation of our (that is, your and my) beloved Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yet, now, it seems that you're so thoroughly unconcerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that you feel that its attempts to garner positive publicity (an effort undertaken, at least in part, to prevent its enemies from controlling the narrative regarding it) simply is an unseemly instance of "doing one's alms before men, to be seen of them." It would seem to me that someone who is so concerned with the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ as you profess to be would, at least, give the organization and its leaders the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motivations for fomenting positive publicity, even if he happens to disagree with those efforts. You, though, seem conflicted: A week or two ago, you were the equivalent of thoroughly aghast ... yes, positively aghast, you were ... at the cavalier attitude displayed by those of us who were unconcerned about the notion that allowing proxy ordinances to be performed on behalf of someone who, undeniably, is one of history's most evil, most vile, most thoroughly reprobate figures (at least, what he did could be characterized as such) could negatively impact the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Yet, now, the Church of Jesus Christ shouldn't draw any attention to itself when it does something good, because that's simply "doing one's alms before men." Pray tell, which is it, Johnnie Cake? Are you genuinely concerned about the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ, or aren't you? Pick a horse and ride it.
  10. I suppose we'll simply have to disagree about the merits of not allowing someone who is opposed to an organization to drive the agenda when it comes to what that organization does. In any event, no one is holding a gun to the editor's head demanding that his newspaper cover relief efforts undertaken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. If the editor doesn't deem such efforts newsworthy, he doesn't have to cover them. Thanks, -Ken
  11. I don't think your use of the word credibility is appropriate here, Cali-Cali-Boy. It imputes bad faith/dishonesty to your interlocutors when they simply disagree with you. (Credibility = Believability, which implies Dishonesty). But at least you finally got your facts/history straight. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to give anyone else credit for setting you straight on that score, but ... https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/on-gay-marriage-and-religious-conscience/
  12. http://lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Crockett.pdf Just ... didn't want to toot your own horn too loudly, there, Bro. Crockett?
  13. I think Chief Justice Roberts was managing his local McDonald's before President Bush the younger plucked him out of obscurity and offered him his current position. Similarly, Justice Alito was pumping gas. Justice Thomas was a greeter at Wal-Mart before President Bush the elder appointed him, while Justice Scalia was a busboy at an Italian restaurant (though I think, at least, it was a four-star Italian restaurant) before President Reagan appointed him. I think they've all got their high school diplomas, but I'm not sure ...
  14. Who's being dishonest? And simply because I'm wearing something that clearly identifies the organization with which I am affiliated doesn't mean I'm doing my alms before men, to be seen of them. There's a difference between identifying my organization and identifying my-self. If I wore a t-shirt that said, "See what Kenngo1969 is doing? Isn't Kenngo1969 a great guy for doing it?" then you could certainly argue that I'm doing my alms before men, to be seen of them. However, I fail to see how the same applies simply to identifying my organization. And as USU78 points out, sometimes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can't win: He goes "incognito" for a period of time on his mission and is accused of not being honest for an alleged attempt to conceal the organization he represents, but don't do that, on the other hand, and he's accused by those of your ilk of doing alms before men, to be seen of them.
  15. Alrighty. So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is simply supposed to lie supine while the Ed Deckers, Jeremy Runnellses, Dr. Shadeses, et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseam control the narrative. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up!