Jump to content

Kenngo1969

Contributor
  • Content Count

    9,523
  • Joined

Everything posted by Kenngo1969

  1. Bless you and those in your flock, Brother.
  2. I've had a couple of fairly lengthy phone calls from the missionaries serving in my area. They're good-hearted young men, I have appreciated their reaching out, and I've felt the Holy Spirit as they have done so. I've told them that while there's no doubt that trying to do missionary work in current circumstances is especially challenging, the Lord is mindful of them, of their circumstances, and of their sacrifices. There's so much about current circumstances (indeed, sometimes, about circumstances even in the best of times) that is outside of our control: As I've said so many times, the only thing we can control is our reaction to our circumstances.
  3. I believe that scripture, and I want to have faith ... (in many ways, I do: In more than one way, my life has been miraculous, and I certainly cannot deny the Hand of God in my life in some very obvious ways, though His seeming silence on other matters does puzzle me somewhat) ... but, faith notwithstanding, I'd want to make sure I had the necessary antivenom handy, just in case!
  4. Jeeezzzz, man! (Or, as Joe Biden says, "C'mon, man!" ) People who have more than the casual interest I have in most things really annoy me! Teachers' pets, always the first to raise their hands, the whole bit! (Just messin' with ya, OGHoosier! All in good fun. All in good fun! )
  5. This one, too! +1! P.S.: I notice that one of your interests is herpetology. Do you play with snakes? (You needn't derail the thread. You can reach me at Greatgourdini(at)gmail(d0t)com, if you wish. I'd love to hear from you.)
  6. This deserves to be upvoted, at least in my book, but you have to have at least 25 posts for me to do that!
  7. I'm sorry for what you went through. So often, regrettably, it is those who think they are the exceptions who prove the necessity for the rule (and to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about those who attempted to counsel you, not about you, OK?) I wish you well.
  8. He sings! I never knew that! He has the sort of speaking voice I could listen to for hours, but I never knew he sings! (My respect for him, never lacking in the first place, has grown even more ... but of course, it's another reason to miss him! ) And it's surprising to hear him sing because the timbre of his singing voice is quite different from that of his speaking voice. More:
  9. Hmm. So we have all of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated, eh? Huh. Who knew? Why hasn't this discovery been publicized much more widely?
  10. God's responsible for toilet maintenance, eh? Who knew? I know it's no laughing matter for your in-law or for you, but, you know ... laugh-or-scream ...
  11. Yes, and I think that same principle would apply to other leaders, as well (Elders Quorum Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, Deacons Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents ... )
  12. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking the directive is applicable to a situation where, if, say, you were the President of your Elders Quorum, and Brother Jones from your quorum comes to you and says, "President Duncan, I'm suing Brother Smith"--also from your quorum--"and I need you to be a witness ..." Your involvement could implicate the Church of Jesus Christ, and/or one of the parties might try to hold the Church liable for something that you do or for something that you failed to do.
  13. Ahhh, Jane, ya big Party Pooper! Ya beat me ... but only by a few seconds!
  14. I don't know, but I cannot possibly imagine how a court is going to want to open the floodgates to this type of suit under these circumstances.
  15. It may be true that there are no anonymous witnesses, lawyers, or judges in your profession, but whether he happens to be anonymous here has nothing to do with the quality of his work. And I notice that my comment on your seeming delight in being able to pigeonhole people simply so you can dismiss them stands unrebutted. (In fact, you prove my point by saying, essentially, once again, "Meh! He's anonymous! Who cares what he thinks!") P.S.: What if someone who is adverse to you comes to you and says, "Counselor, I know someone who can torpedo your case. I'm not authorized to reveal who he is, but he can torpedo your case"? I realize that someone who is adverse to you cannot simply spring such a witness on you and your client as an 11th Hour Surprise (except, perhaps, as an impeachment witness: but I don't think you'd be very happy if your client or another witness who is favorable to you had just finished testifying, only to have someone who is adverse to you completely unravel that witness's testimony). Except in the case of impeachment, eventually, your opponent would have to lay his cards on the table. Still, in the interim, would you wave your hand airily and assure your client, "Meh! Who cares about him! He's anonymous!" or might you, instead, have at least a few more questions for your client?
  16. Although I mistook certain of his credentials earlier in the thread, and although we've never met in real life, I know who he is. You seem to delight in pigeonholing people simply so you can dismiss them ("Meh, s/he's [anonymous/liberal/conservative]! Who cares what s/he thinks!") One might think a more careful approach would be more useful in your line of work, but to each his own.
  17. ¡Podemos platicar, entonces, en el idioma celestial!
  18. The correspondence with (or presence of) Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was an unexpected discovery. Why would you expect someone who makes an unexpected discovery necessarily to have a degree in a discipline that's related to the discovery? It seems to me that that would rather be like dismissing the preliminary finding of an emergency physician that one has a cardiac problem simply because said physician isn't a cardiologist (yes, it's true that potentially, my analogy is a life-and-death matter, while the matters under discussion here are not, but still ...). It's too bad that Brigham Young University doesn't have anyone on the faculty with an advanced degree in Early Modern English Lit (or that there's no one elsewhere with a degree in that discipline) who can take a look at the findings of the Messrs. Carmack and Skousen. Oh. Wait ... P.S. Should we dismiss your research into Mountain Meadows simply because you're not an historian?
  19. Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively. (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)
  20. Cool! So, you're thinking of sharing it here, perhaps?
×
×
  • Create New...