MarginOfError

How old is this person? If they are still a minor, you can notify a counselor at his school or social services and they will get the ball rolling. If he's already an adult, it gets much harder. As far as I am aware, the most you can do is encourage him to get help. Counseling or therapy from the suicide hotline or from school resources will work. But you can't make an adult go. We held a Bishop's Youth Discussion about suicide for our youth a few months ago. The big take away (we had a licensed therapist lead the discussion) is that talking can be a healing experience. So all your daughter needs to do is listen. Don't offer solutions. Don't try to fix it. Just let him talk. (You can potentially share some of that burden, too. This shouldn't fall entirely on her). For her own sanity, she may want to work on getting others who will listen as well. For an adult, I don't expect the police will do anything until he poses an imminent threat to himself.

Your husband's ex-wife sounds like a nut case. At least on this topic. In these situations, I can't repeat myself enough times So I think the best strategy to handling this emotionally is to quietly acknowledge she's a nut case and ignore anything she has to say on the matter. Frankly, your stake president should have told you the same thing*. * While it may be true that, given decades (centuries?) you may come to like her, that notion is immaterial to your sealing.

And for the record, Satan's platform was not "mandatory compliance." It was more like "Only one option to choose." While those have the same outcome, they are not the same premise. The dispute at hand is whether and where it is moral to impose on one's ability to choose. Generally speaking, I don't have much problem making such impositions when your misguided and boneheaded decisions will negate my own well informed and responsible decisions (and because I don't intend this to be personal, I will state that goes both ways). This is why I question mandatory seat belt laws for adults--an adult that doesn't wear a seat belt injures himself only. But I don't have any problem with public smoking bans; I shouldn't have to be ill because someone else is being a dope. Because of issues of herd immunity and efficacy, vaccinations of communicable diseases fall more along the lines of the smoking ban than they do the seat belt ban. (Where HPV and flu vaccines fit in there is an interesting debate, to which I haven't really committed to a side as far as compliance. But I think that, barring health reasons, people are selfish fools not to avail themselves of them). But I'm open to the idea of accountability for choices. As a compromise, I propose that vaccinated citizens pay the medical costs of all people who contract measles from a vaccinated person, while unvaccinated citizens pay the medical costs of all those who contract measles from an unvaccinated person.

Woah, hold on there...let's look at what you had said that prompted that response: There's nothing in there about government mandated compliance, choice, agency, or any such concept. To be honest, it reads as "meh, they were the weak ones who would have died anyway, so why should we care?"

They may be looking at world wide cases. The math I presented only accounts for U.S. cases, and is pretty straightforward. Here's a better chart (provided on https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases). The vaccine may not have contributed much to the reduction in mortality. But it certainly contributed to the reduction in cases. And there can be no measles-mortality without contracting measles (to say nothing of any of the complications and/or side effects it can bring). I wouldn't call this "small benefit"

And for 60 years, the immuno-compromised have survived this disease because an aggressive vaccination program produced a large enough herd immunity that the disease was nearly eradicated. Our vaccination rate against measles has dipped to 91.1% and we're looking at over 1,000 cases this year already. The efficacy of these vaccination programs has a very small tolerance before the whole things starts coming off the rails. So, I'll repeat what you've said: Statistics are a great too, if you know or can interpret the numbers.

Using these two sources, primarily https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/ https://vaxopedia.org/2018/04/15/when-was-the-last-measles-death-in-the-united-states/ Taking a 1960 US Population of ~ 180 million and averaging out the US population to 325 million over the 2000 - 2018 time frame Excuse my use of Excel. It was convenient. Note that 1959 - 1962 represent the last few years since before the measles vaccine was introduced. By that point, it had reached a historical low in deaths without the aid of the vaccine. (What the vaccine did was prevent cases from developing) The CDC has confirmed over 1000 cases of measles in the U.S. this year alone. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-cases-surpass-1-000-u-s-cdc-says-n1014261

It's the rate for those who contract the disease.

My point is that it is relatively rare for people in the U.S. not to engage in some kind of sexual activity prior to marriage. Even if we succeed in convincing one person to remain chaste until marriage, the doesn't mean the eventual chosen partner has. While that likelihood may increase if marriage is restricted to within the same faith community, it is no guarantee. Conversion, repentance, and divorce are situations in which a person may be on the marriage market after having had sexual partner(s). Thus, the recommendation is to get vaccinated. With sufficiently broad vaccination over a generation or two that 60% of adults fact is likely to fall dramatically. To put it in more personal terms, having my daughter get the HPV vaccine protects her against cervical cancers that may be a consequence of the sexual behaviors of her eventual husband, not of her own. (especially since he may have no idea if he has contracted HPV previously)

Touche, my good man.

Neither were the small pox nor polio vaccines.

And that's fine. But keep your disease ridden sons away from my daughters

Sure. In the same vein that 3.8 per 1,000 Americans are killed in car crashes every year. Again, and I really can't stress this enough, because you don't seem to get it Measles in 2019 kills at 40 times the rate it did BEFORE WE HAD A VACCINE FOR IT Compare it to whatever non-communicable disease for which we have no vaccine all you like. The fact remains WE HAVE A FRICKIN' VACCINE And it still is killing at a greater rate than it was before there was a vaccine. That's a problem worth a little hysteria.

Okay, I'l bite We've established that the mortality rate for measles is 4 in 1,000 cases. Now, let's establish the number of cases of heart disease. It is estimated that about half of US adults have heart disease. Now let's take a US population of 327,000,000, and assume one third of those are not adults. That leaves us with 215,820,000 adults. Half of those have heart disease, or 107,910,000 adults with heart disease. Using that as the denominator with 600,000 as the numerator produces an estimate of 5.5 deaths per 1,000 cases. So you're right, heart disease is a bigger problem by both magnitude and by rate. But the piece that you're leaving out is that we don't have a vaccine for heart disease!!! We have a vaccine for Measles, and it could theoretically be eradicated. I'll also point out that measles has a tendency to kill the young. 66% of heart disease deaths occur after the age of 75. I know that 70 is supposed to be the new 40 or something like that, but let's face it--75 is kind of old Lastly, what the flip do you mean there's no hysteria about diabetes, smoking, obesity, or high blood pressure. We have an entire industry built up around "fitness" and "wellness." We spent billions on a 30 year campaign to keep kids from smoking that largely succeeded. We have a gazillion non-profits out there encouraging children to get outside and play. We have seen an incredible shift in school meal programs (at least in my area, but my understanding is that it was brought about my Michelle Obama's program) to provide more locally sourced, fresh, healthier food in our school systems to help teach children about the importance of nutrition. And every time I go see my doctor I am bombarded with questions about diet, exercise, preventing high blood pressure and diabetes. I get a lot more exposure to preventing those conditions in my life than I do about measles. It just comes pretty consistently, so doesn't appear to be as sensational.

Lastly, I am a statistician (Master's degree in Biostatistics, to be precise), and as someone who grew up very skeptical of vaccines, I poured a lot of hours into reading the peer reviewed research on this topic before choosing to vaccinate my children. The research is sound. The ethics are sound. The statistics are sound. Are there individuals who suffer from vaccination? Without question. But you also have to recognize vaccines are developed, tested, and validated on a sample numbering in the thousands. For a really big trial, it may go as far as tens of thousands. And then we scale those results by expanding their use into a population numbering in the hundreds of millions. We're going to find some outliers. And yes, some people will be injured. It's tragic, and unfortunate. But it is not a reason to suspend vaccination. In fact, the only hope we have of learning how to identify those that are susceptible to injury is to continue the program. I get that this sounds heartless, but consider this (true) case study. There have been two girls in the United States that have died after receiving the HPV vaccine. Anti-HPV vaccine proponents have declared this as sufficient cause to terminate HPV vaccinations, because even one death is too many. That's a lovely sentiment, and I agree that one death is too many. But let's also consider that literally millions of girls have received the HPV vaccine. So the probability that any one girl will be killed by it is less than one in a million. What's more, if the estimates hold that the HPV vaccine will prevent 2,000 cervical cancer deaths per year, then in the past ten years, we will have prevented 20,000 cervical cancer deaths. That puts us in this great bind place of "one death is too many," but apparently we're okay losing the other 20,000? Most often, when people rail against these kinds of health policy ideas, it comes down to "fear of the new thing" and "fear of it happening to me or someone I know." You have my empathy. You really truly do. I have those same fears. yet I will continue to advocate that health policy is best debated and discussed as a matter of cold-hearted statistics where the chosen policy should reflect what is best for the population, not the individual.

Um, 11 deaths out of 2,671 cases. Or about 4.1 deaths per 1,000 cases. Now consider that by 1962 (before the measles vaccine was developed), the mortality rate was about 1 per 10,000 cases. Let me put those in the same units 1959 - 1962: 1 per 10,000 cases 2000 - 2019: 41 per 10,000 cases And mind you, this is a disease that was declared eliminated in 2000--and we are worse off now than we were sixty years ago! The major difference is that we are looking at 2,671 cases in the modern era compared to 4 million cases in the 1959-1962 era. Largely due to vaccination. Perhaps a little hysteria is warranted. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis

This probably isn't true anymore. It is estimated that somewhere between 65 and 70% of adults have some form of HPV. Remember, many of them are asymptomatic. Note also that, at least in the U.S., more than 95% of people will have penetrative sex before they are married. 50% will have had sex before the age of 17. The mean number of sexual partners for Americans is 7.2. While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, public health decisions need to operate in the world in which we live, not the world in which we wish to live.

The HPV vaccines protects against strains of HPV that cause over 70% of cervical cancers. Is has been estimated that widespread vaccination could reduce the number of cervical cancer deaths by as much as 2,000 per year (only about half of cervical cancers are detected in early stages, which have a 92% 5-year survival; advanced stages top out at 50% survival; and then there's the fact that not undergoing cancer treatments at all is generally better than having to undergo them) source: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html What's great is that the 70% thing mentioned above is true for the bi-valent vaccine, which only protects against two strains of HPV (out of about 140). Some critics have complained that the HPV vaccine is pointless because it protects against so few strains, but the target is not HPV--the target is cervical cancer. And even vaccinating against those two strains alone is making a huge dent. Since the original bi-valent came out, there have been quad-valent and oct-valent versions introduced. New to me even is a vaccine that protects against 9 strains, which account for more than 70% of cervical cancers and more than 90% of genital warts. Anyway, I'll stop now. But the reason HPV shots (and I stress, for both males and females) are being pushed is to cut down on cervical cancer. I don't recall them being mandated anywhere, but strongly encouraged. (It's been a few years since I worked in Women's Health, so I may not be fully up to date)

You're in a really tough spot, and so is your husband. It's really hard to take over leadership of a ward that you haven't been in for very long. And while we like to think that we are above petty power struggles, a relatively new member of the ward stepping into a prominent leadership position can really disrupt the established balance of power in a ward. This may not always be a bad thing, but humans are notoriously bad at coping with this kind of disruption. I don't know enough of the situation to know what is causing the discord, but I am pretty comfortable stating that the reasons this one particular family doesn't like your husband as bishop is because your husband is making decisions they don't agree with. This is stressful enough, but becomes even more stressful when the stake president seems to be second guessing those decisions. The bottom line is you need to find a place to vent some of these frustrations. More importantly, your husband needs a place to vent some of his frustrations and share some of the events so that he can get an outside perspective on what is happening. There may be adjustments he can make that will ease the disruption without sacrificing his vision for the ward. It will become difficult for him and you to do so without violating confidences. This forum may be able to absorb some of this, but a non public chat room (where the details are not visible to web searches) would be ideal.

I will take the less popular opinion here and say that you should speak to him. But what you are offering is not a correction, and her certainly wasn't teaching any false doctrine. What his statements needs is a brief statement of nuance. I have used that same scripture to make the same exact point. However, I always add the caveat, "barring cases of mental health and/or depression, those who find themselves happy in this life are likely to find themselves happy in the next." The important part is to focus on the behavior of doing our best to live the gospel and repent--doing so brings lasting joy through eternity. While I have no doubt that your stake presiden(t/cy person thing) would agree, I believe that words are important. Especially when they can affect some of our most vulnerable saints. Adding that one simple caveat is, I feel, a reasonable protection to keep those with mental health struggles from further despair.

Nothing. It's the only thing keeping me functional at the moment

"He then rode away on a bike" I don't know why I find that so funny.

I don't say anything to strangers. Especially adults. I might say something if a group of teenagers is cussing up a storm and there are children around. I've rarely gotten any push back from a teenager when I've said "I know the kids will learn it eventually, but most parents would prefer their six year olds not be exposed to those words just yet." (I've also rarely had to say anything, as most teenagers I've encountered are socially aware enough to dial it back around children) With people I work with, I have never said anything, and most of them choose to self censor around me simply because they have noticed that I don't use the words*. I gave up long ago on getting people to stop invoking the word "God" around me. It's just too pervasive. However, I will speak up when the words "Jesus" and "Christ" are employed inappropriately. I merely say, "I would prefer if you not use the name of my deities in that manner around me." With people I know, that is universally been enough to earn both an apology and a change in behavior. * Funny anecdote: In my current work environment, I've never had a discussion with anyone about the language I choose to use or not use. One of the branches for our software development is named DAAMS, but the database instance it was associated with was named DAAM. I spent more than half a day troubleshooting a problem in the software only to find that I had been trying to point it to the DAAMS database. I stormed over to my supervisor and just started saying. "DAAM....DAAM DAAM DAAM DAAM DAAM." At that point she fell out of her chair (literally) in disbelief of what I was saying. Then I proceeded, "It's DAAM, not DAAMS. Why is the code branch named differently than the database?" After which there was much laughter. More importantly, the database was renamed DAAMS.

Again, since preferential voting tends to favor centrist/moderate candidates, I don't really care if it swings in favor of moderate Republicans. The point is that the gravitates toward more discussion and compromise than our current system, which has become riddled with obstructionists attempting to hold the entire election system hostage to the primaries of two parties.

Maine has this kind of a system. It was approved in the 2016 election and implemented in 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrat-prevails-in-maine-congressional-race-that-used-ranked-choice-voting-system/2018/11/15/e8d81cae-e8ff-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dde449986a96 I'm a big fan of this type of voting. If the U.S. used preferential voting(or ranked choice voting), it's very likely that President Trump would not have won the Republican Primary in 2016. I suspect the Republican who did win it would be president today under preferential voting, and would have won after reallocating smaller party candidate votes. The biggest feature of preferential voting, in my opinion, is that it naturally moves toward centrist opponents with broader appeal, while the current system benefits extremist candidates in the primaries, leaving us stuck with fringe candidates in the general election. The next big advantage is preferential voting would put a sizable nail in the coffin of two-party governance. Over time, you'd see a broader range of political parties, and by casting a high preferential vote for whatever party most closely satisfies your views, you can send a message about what your values are without the same risk of ceding the election to your least preferred candidate*. This would give candidates much better information about what platforms really motivate voters. * The most recent talking point along these lines being that those who were bitter that Senator Sanders lost the Democratic Primary and so voted for Jill Stein in protest may have contributed to President Trump's election--an outcome far less desirable to them than Secretary Clinton. (I'm not sure there were quite enough of these votes to make that big of a difference, but that's one theory)