MarginOfError

The survival instinct is so overwhelming, that for someone to override it and take their own life makes me think that they are likely not really in control of themselves at that point.  I suspect they receive a great deal more mercy than your post implies.

It depends on what source you use to pay the change in minimum wage.  If you push the full cost onto consumers, you'll get inflation.  If you push the cost onto high income wage earners (ie, reduced wages at the top of the income bracket) you'll get less inflation.  The ideal balance is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
In economies of scale, the inflation wouldn't really be that much.  Someone did some back of the napkin calculations somewhere (I'm too lazy to look up the link) and found that if McDonald's increased their pay to a minimum wage of $9.50 per hour, they'd have to raise the cost of the Big Mac a total of 2 - 5 cents.  Not particularly burdensome.
 
The problem of increasing the minimum wage is going to be felt most acutely by businesses with 5-20 employees.  And those increased costs might just be enough to put them out of business.  So there are real and serious downsides.
 
But that way I look at it is this: we can choose the kind of pain we want to endure.  We can endure a low minimum wage and increasing poverty, or we can increase the minimum wage to keep up with poverty (for example, working a full time minimum wage job brings your annual income above the poverty line) and lose some small businesses in the short term.  I don't find either of those particularly appealing.  But I'd rather suffer in the short term and address the longer term issue.
 
In my estimation, one of the things we did wrong when we first established the minimum wage was not tying it to inflation.  If we had done so at the start, the wage gap probably wouldn't have grown so big and this wouldn't be so big an issue right now.  Instead, we seem to be at a point where there are two paths to reducing poverty.  Tax the wealthy to pay the welfare bill of those at the bottom, or increase the minimum wage to encourage people to work their way out of poverty.  Neither solution is ideal, because an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of pain, so to speak.

There's a very simple way to get low income wage earners to pay more taxes.  Increase the minimum wage.  And do it right this time, by pinning it to inflation.

It depends on what source you use to pay the change in minimum wage.  If you push the full cost onto consumers, you'll get inflation.  If you push the cost onto high income wage earners (ie, reduced wages at the top of the income bracket) you'll get less inflation.  The ideal balance is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
In economies of scale, the inflation wouldn't really be that much.  Someone did some back of the napkin calculations somewhere (I'm too lazy to look up the link) and found that if McDonald's increased their pay to a minimum wage of $9.50 per hour, they'd have to raise the cost of the Big Mac a total of 2 - 5 cents.  Not particularly burdensome.
 
The problem of increasing the minimum wage is going to be felt most acutely by businesses with 5-20 employees.  And those increased costs might just be enough to put them out of business.  So there are real and serious downsides.
 
But that way I look at it is this: we can choose the kind of pain we want to endure.  We can endure a low minimum wage and increasing poverty, or we can increase the minimum wage to keep up with poverty (for example, working a full time minimum wage job brings your annual income above the poverty line) and lose some small businesses in the short term.  I don't find either of those particularly appealing.  But I'd rather suffer in the short term and address the longer term issue.
 
In my estimation, one of the things we did wrong when we first established the minimum wage was not tying it to inflation.  If we had done so at the start, the wage gap probably wouldn't have grown so big and this wouldn't be so big an issue right now.  Instead, we seem to be at a point where there are two paths to reducing poverty.  Tax the wealthy to pay the welfare bill of those at the bottom, or increase the minimum wage to encourage people to work their way out of poverty.  Neither solution is ideal, because an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of pain, so to speak.

It depends on what source you use to pay the change in minimum wage.  If you push the full cost onto consumers, you'll get inflation.  If you push the cost onto high income wage earners (ie, reduced wages at the top of the income bracket) you'll get less inflation.  The ideal balance is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
In economies of scale, the inflation wouldn't really be that much.  Someone did some back of the napkin calculations somewhere (I'm too lazy to look up the link) and found that if McDonald's increased their pay to a minimum wage of $9.50 per hour, they'd have to raise the cost of the Big Mac a total of 2 - 5 cents.  Not particularly burdensome.
 
The problem of increasing the minimum wage is going to be felt most acutely by businesses with 5-20 employees.  And those increased costs might just be enough to put them out of business.  So there are real and serious downsides.
 
But that way I look at it is this: we can choose the kind of pain we want to endure.  We can endure a low minimum wage and increasing poverty, or we can increase the minimum wage to keep up with poverty (for example, working a full time minimum wage job brings your annual income above the poverty line) and lose some small businesses in the short term.  I don't find either of those particularly appealing.  But I'd rather suffer in the short term and address the longer term issue.
 
In my estimation, one of the things we did wrong when we first established the minimum wage was not tying it to inflation.  If we had done so at the start, the wage gap probably wouldn't have grown so big and this wouldn't be so big an issue right now.  Instead, we seem to be at a point where there are two paths to reducing poverty.  Tax the wealthy to pay the welfare bill of those at the bottom, or increase the minimum wage to encourage people to work their way out of poverty.  Neither solution is ideal, because an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of pain, so to speak.

My Boy Scout troop is hosted by an Episcopal church.  I love Scout Sunday and other days I get to attend their services because I love the rector's sermons.  Everytime I listen to him teach, I feel the Spirit and am greatly edified.
 
If I had been invited, I would have attended his wedding to his husband.

There's a very simple way to get low income wage earners to pay more taxes.  Increase the minimum wage.  And do it right this time, by pinning it to inflation.

There's a very simple way to get low income wage earners to pay more taxes.  Increase the minimum wage.  And do it right this time, by pinning it to inflation.

I don't think our views differ in how we view "all-powerful" but in how we view God's level of involvement in the minute-to-minute affairs of all of creation.  Much like the Deists, I'm of the persuasion that God designed a system and stepped away to let it work--intervening only in certain circumstances as he feels compelled or impressed to do so.  
 
So yes, I believe that birth deformities occur because the Lord designed a system where they would happen from time to time (in a manner that can be quantified by probability distributions observed in nature) as opposed to Him deliberately creating a child with deformities to make a point.

The crux of our disagreement probably comes down to this.  I don't think God has any purpose for allowing Cerbral Palsy to exist.  It just does.  Welcome to the world of stochastic processes.
 
(and if you ask my why God allows nature to work in stochastic processes, my answer will be that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run)
 
 
 
Also, on this, I find it easy to stand by and support the individual in whatever choice the make precisely because I don't agree.  The thing is, neither do I disagree.  I've chosen to be a neutral third party observer, because I find the words "I don't know what decision I would have made in your situation and I hope I never have to" to be much more comforting than "I would have done...."

That's a good question, JAG.  Where do I draw the line?  
 
I don't.  That's the sole purview of the mother/father/parents/family/whatever involved in the situation with the guidance of the Lord and counsel of their priesthood leaders.  
 
I don't say that to be evasive (well, okay, I am trying a little to evade the question), but there are just too many factors involved.  I can't possibly weigh all of them for any person but myself.
 
I was on this kind of discussion with a woman in my ward recently. Her sister has six children.  The sixth was born with cerebral palsy and has been wheelchair bound his entire life.  And it's taken a huge toll on the entire family.  He's now 16 years old and facing the decline into death, having already lived the best of his years.  It's been 16 years of crappy quality of life for him, and substandard quality of life for his family (his mom especially).  
 
Now, I'm not saying I think they should have aborted, nor am I saying that parents in a similar situation now should abort.  What I will say is this: no matter what choice the family makes, I will stand by them whole-heartedly and support them.  Because I get it.  I can sympathize with the devastating despair they face in the situation.  And whether they choose to abort or not, they're going to need as many unconditional friendships as they can get to heal from whatever tragedy they choose.
 
If I'm their bishop or stake president, I might have to make a more formal judgement.  But even that I will delay until the last possible moment I have to.  
 
To me, it isn't about what is 'the right answer' or 'the wrong answer.' (moral relativism at it's best?)  It's about making sure that the family members all have a fair shot achieving their eternal potential.  And unless I'm a part of that family, I don't have any privilege to know what action will accomplish that goal.

If you're biking 8 miles a day, you're already getting more exercise time than most Americans.  Your cardiovascular health is probably in good condition.  If you want to avoid gaining weight,  you would do better to evaluate the kinds of food you eat and monitor your caloric intake.  
 
If you're interested in some light toning work, I don't think a 10 or 15 minute light routine on Sundays would be too distracting.  But it also probably isn't necessary.  So my advice would be, you know, whatever.

Touche.
 
 
 
Oh...and bite me.

The survival instinct is so overwhelming, that for someone to override it and take their own life makes me think that they are likely not really in control of themselves at that point.  I suspect they receive a great deal more mercy than your post implies.

As a cost saving measure, it was common to send missionaries alone on trains in Ukraine before I got there.  Owing to many stories of advances made toward missionaries, the mission eventually decided to spend the extra money to always send two missionaries together...and usually buy out the other two bunks in the cabin as well.  
 
So, long story short, there are exceptions to the pairs rule.

I will confirm what Vort has said.  All three children are considered BIC so long as the mother's sealing covenant has not been cancelled.  And the only way a mother can have that covenant cancelled is sealing cancellation, excommunication, or voluntary name removal.  The actions of the biological father make no difference.
 
And to make explicit something that Vort left implicit: BIC status is a clerical issue.  Some might argue with me about that, but pragmatically, I don't think it makes a difference.  And yes, those three BIC children born to Mary and Sam would most likely be sealed to Mary and Sam at some point (either after Mary's sealing cancellation or posthumously).  This is why I say the BIC is a clerical issue.  The BIC status on a church membership record does not necessarily align with temporal or eternal claims to ancestry.

My understanding is that all the children are BIC. Their mother is under covenant, and they are born to her, so they are all born in that covenant.
 
The old rule of thumb used in plural marriage and after was, "The children follow the mother." Many took this to mean that the children somehow "belong to" the mother and not the father, so the father stood to lose the children if his wife left him. But I believe it really just meant that you can tell the birth sealing status of the child by looking at the marital sealing status of the mother.

I actually think we should stay out of this one a bit, and that going to war would be expensive.  ISIS has done something no other similarly motivated group has managed to do.  They've ticked off not only the US and Israel, but Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  At the rate they are going, they could very well cause all of the middle eastern countries to coalesce a union to exterminate them.  I think it would be prudent to allow the Middle East to deal with their problem on their own terms rather than go in and clean up their mess for them.

I actually think we should stay out of this one a bit, and that going to war would be expensive.  ISIS has done something no other similarly motivated group has managed to do.  They've ticked off not only the US and Israel, but Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  At the rate they are going, they could very well cause all of the middle eastern countries to coalesce a union to exterminate them.  I think it would be prudent to allow the Middle East to deal with their problem on their own terms rather than go in and clean up their mess for them.

As most of you know, I'm pretty vocal about my opinions on these matters, and I've been dismayed at some of the actions taken against Kelly and Dehlin (though I feel more for Kelly than I do Dehlin).  
 
That being said, a weekend or two ago, I listened to an NPR interview with Dehlin and he described his decision to stop going to church last summer.  He no longer holds callings, no longer attends....
 
From where I stand, I'm willing to hear you out on what you have to say if you're contributing to the community.  If he were teaching, or shoveling the walks, or even just attending and being warm and friendly to the members, I would have no problem with him retaining his membership.  But I feel very differently about letting you say some of the things he says as an inside when he isn't contributing to the community.  
 
I fully support his freedom to say whatever he wants.  But if he's not actually going to act as part of the group, he doesn't get to enjoy being a critical voice from inside the group.  

As most of you know, I'm pretty vocal about my opinions on these matters, and I've been dismayed at some of the actions taken against Kelly and Dehlin (though I feel more for Kelly than I do Dehlin).  
 
That being said, a weekend or two ago, I listened to an NPR interview with Dehlin and he described his decision to stop going to church last summer.  He no longer holds callings, no longer attends....
 
From where I stand, I'm willing to hear you out on what you have to say if you're contributing to the community.  If he were teaching, or shoveling the walks, or even just attending and being warm and friendly to the members, I would have no problem with him retaining his membership.  But I feel very differently about letting you say some of the things he says as an inside when he isn't contributing to the community.  
 
I fully support his freedom to say whatever he wants.  But if he's not actually going to act as part of the group, he doesn't get to enjoy being a critical voice from inside the group.  

I actually think we should stay out of this one a bit, and that going to war would be expensive.  ISIS has done something no other similarly motivated group has managed to do.  They've ticked off not only the US and Israel, but Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  At the rate they are going, they could very well cause all of the middle eastern countries to coalesce a union to exterminate them.  I think it would be prudent to allow the Middle East to deal with their problem on their own terms rather than go in and clean up their mess for them.

As most of you know, I'm pretty vocal about my opinions on these matters, and I've been dismayed at some of the actions taken against Kelly and Dehlin (though I feel more for Kelly than I do Dehlin).  
 
That being said, a weekend or two ago, I listened to an NPR interview with Dehlin and he described his decision to stop going to church last summer.  He no longer holds callings, no longer attends....
 
From where I stand, I'm willing to hear you out on what you have to say if you're contributing to the community.  If he were teaching, or shoveling the walks, or even just attending and being warm and friendly to the members, I would have no problem with him retaining his membership.  But I feel very differently about letting you say some of the things he says as an inside when he isn't contributing to the community.  
 
I fully support his freedom to say whatever he wants.  But if he's not actually going to act as part of the group, he doesn't get to enjoy being a critical voice from inside the group.  

As most of you know, I'm pretty vocal about my opinions on these matters, and I've been dismayed at some of the actions taken against Kelly and Dehlin (though I feel more for Kelly than I do Dehlin).  
 
That being said, a weekend or two ago, I listened to an NPR interview with Dehlin and he described his decision to stop going to church last summer.  He no longer holds callings, no longer attends....
 
From where I stand, I'm willing to hear you out on what you have to say if you're contributing to the community.  If he were teaching, or shoveling the walks, or even just attending and being warm and friendly to the members, I would have no problem with him retaining his membership.  But I feel very differently about letting you say some of the things he says as an inside when he isn't contributing to the community.  
 
I fully support his freedom to say whatever he wants.  But if he's not actually going to act as part of the group, he doesn't get to enjoy being a critical voice from inside the group.  

As most of you know, I'm pretty vocal about my opinions on these matters, and I've been dismayed at some of the actions taken against Kelly and Dehlin (though I feel more for Kelly than I do Dehlin).  
 
That being said, a weekend or two ago, I listened to an NPR interview with Dehlin and he described his decision to stop going to church last summer.  He no longer holds callings, no longer attends....
 
From where I stand, I'm willing to hear you out on what you have to say if you're contributing to the community.  If he were teaching, or shoveling the walks, or even just attending and being warm and friendly to the members, I would have no problem with him retaining his membership.  But I feel very differently about letting you say some of the things he says as an inside when he isn't contributing to the community.  
 
I fully support his freedom to say whatever he wants.  But if he's not actually going to act as part of the group, he doesn't get to enjoy being a critical voice from inside the group.