mordorbund

But as to her, that's not physical force.  As to her that's merely a threat to impose psychological trauma, which you've suggested is non-permanent in nature and thereby cannot justify lethal self-defense tactics.
 
 
Psychological harm, Lehi.  Psychological harm.

I'm going to push on this a bit.  Babies are being butchered inside the clinic, from the pro-life perspective.  Young teenage girls are being told it's right for their future, right for their family's reputation, right for freeing their boyfriend from responsibility...then, when guilt settles in, they're told it's THEIR choice.  Never mind, that it was done for everyone else.  In the mean time, the young bio-dads are told they have not say in the matter, no responsibility (other than, perhaps, to help pay the blood money), and we wonder why they act so irresponsibly.
 
Sometimes I wonder if we know more righteous indignation, rather than less.  We're taught to judge nothing, be angry at nothing, not to get our danders up.  Yes, cool and soft-spoken comes across as dignified, sophisticated, respectable and well-bred.  However, this is an issue where some good, old-fashioned Jeremiah-like shouting might be in order.  Rather than being an issue of control, it might be one of being able to sense the heart of God.

If the pro-life side is right--if the unborn is a human life--then is this not an issue like slavery?  Part of what led to the Civil War was some pretty passionate "yelling" by the Abolitionists.  I can't criticize those who protest/counsel at abortion clinics.  We do not know how many minds we're changed--how many babies were saved.  If I'm not mistaken "Jane Roe" was one of them that became pro-life because of demonstrators.
 
Yep...she did convert on this issue:  http://www.endroe.org/roebio.aspx

I've not read this string, but, most people probably think it's okay to have just a little bit more than what they do. 

Something I want to bring back, if I can ever squeeze it out of the monthly budget:
 
I remember back before things got tight (read - we found recurring uses for all our discretionary income), one thing I loved to do, was be able to fund my wife's random charitable card swipes at random checkout counters.  Her favorites were soldiers and cops in line behind her at Chipotle or wherever.  It's amazing how quickly she was always able to create an ad-hoc conspiracy with the cashier, with just a few gestures and meaningful looks, and pay for the next guy along while still remaining anonymous.  I guess it makes a cashier's day to be able to say something like "No charge today - someone else took care of your bill", and then do a stone wall impersonation as the person tries to find out who paid.

Not to keep beating the same drum, but again, I don't see the problem.
 
Let's assume there is a "charity gene". If you have it, you tend to be more charitable. Let us also assume that those who exercised great charity in their premortal state(s) are born with this gene as a result of their premortal actions. (The mechanism for that is unimportant.)
 
What is the problem? Those who have developed their charity are blessed with -- charity. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Those not so blessed may be people who never developed the trait of charity to a high degree. But they can still do so now, in this life. They are not prohibited. Perhaps their path is more difficult to developing that trait, but so what? We believe that we endure the consequences of our choices, for good or for ill. In our hypothetical situation, those with the "charity gene" are not being given an unfair leg up. They are being given exactly what they worked for in that premortal age. What could be more just?

There's 3 more in the refrigerator. I saw their sedan parked out front.

As a mean-spirited person, I can tell you that you call a red-nosed reindeer 'pinocchio' because they both have strange noses. You may also try 'Cyrano' if you think the audience will know the reference. If you want to stick with the shiny, red nose, you may use 'Teddy Kennedy' instead.

For those so inclined, you can sing this to the same tune as We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet.

Someone's got big plans.

Or House of the Rising Sun.

In a somewhat parallel vein, from Sister Eliza R. Snow:
 
Think not when you gather to Zion
Your troubles and trials are through,
That nothing but comfort and pleasure
Are waiting in Zion for you.
No, no, ’tis designed as a furnace,
All substance, all textures to try.
To burn with “wood, hay, and stubble,”
The gold from the dross purify.
 
Think not when you gather to Zion,
That all will be holy and pure;
That fraud and deception are banished,
And confidence wholly secure.
No, no, for the Lord our Redeemer
Has said that the tares with the wheat
Must grow ‘til the great day of burning
Shall render the harvest complete.
 
Think not when you gather to Zion
The Saints here have nothing to do
But look to your personal welfare,
And always be comforting you.
No; those who are faithful are doing
What they find to do with their might;
To gather the scattered of Israel
They labor by day and by night.
 
Think not when you gather to Zion,
The prize and the victory won.
Think not that the warfare is ended,
The work of salvation is done.
No, no; for the great prince of darkness
A tenfold exertion will make,
When he sees you go to the fountain,
Where freely the truth you may take.

First, let me make a distinction about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The letter of the law contains well defined rules, commandments, and rituals. If we live the letter of then we must obey all the rules for if we fail to live one commandment we have broken the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is different. It looks at the intent of the letter and thus contains the spirit of what the letter points to.
 
So, regarding your question as to whether it is just as serious to break the spirit of the law as the letter of the law, I would conclude that it is more serious to break the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ultimately the spirit of the law is what matters. The letter of the law is just a school master to lead us to the spirit. 
 
As to the WoW example you bring up, the spirit of the law certainly does not mandate that we must avoid caffeine. In fact, stating that it does defines the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. 

It has been my experience that these discussions tend to run into two serious issues.
 
The first issue is an attempt to justify not keeping the Letter of the Law by claiming the Spirit of the Law.  The Spirit of the Law should always contain the Letter of the Law.
 
The second issue is an attempt to convert the Spirit of the Law (which is highly personal) into the Letter of the Law (which is for everyone).  The Lord can do that.  The leaders of the Church can do that.  If they have not done it, then we should not attempt to do so.  We should simply live according to the truths the Lord has seen fit to give us for our personal betterment. And allow others to do the same

Bini, I know this isn't your faith anymore; but as it is the faith of your family, you may find it helpful to read this: Suicide: Some Things We Know and Some Things We Do Not

Bini, I know this isn't your faith anymore; but as it is the faith of your family, you may find it helpful to read this: Suicide: Some Things We Know and Some Things We Do Not

Bini, I know this isn't your faith anymore; but as it is the faith of your family, you may find it helpful to read this: Suicide: Some Things We Know and Some Things We Do Not

I don't believe this, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Please cite where Brigham Young ever told women that they need to leave an unrepentant spouse.

I relate more to the one critic in the article:
 
 
And the article itself provides a perfect example of this (you probably noticed the post was an exercise in avoiding the word "said" and other "dead" words):
 
 
A century and a half is now "ancient"?

I saw a teacher poster that offered alternatives to "said". I wanted to tear it on half. Said is a nice invisible word that lets dialogue do its job while maintaining a flow of logic.

By all means, don't miss the (parody of) Ken Burns' documentary on The Galactic Civil War.

YES! That is so weird.
 
I'm fine with fraternals - I've had a roommate for most of my life and can see how having one in utero could be desirable. But I've NEVER wanted to change my appearance to match a roommate. That's just unnatural.
 
And icky.
 
[shivers]
 
Please don't bring it up again.

YES! That is so weird.
 
I'm fine with fraternals - I've had a roommate for most of my life and can see how having one in utero could be desirable. But I've NEVER wanted to change my appearance to match a roommate. That's just unnatural.
 
And icky.
 
[shivers]
 
Please don't bring it up again.

I am sure some do, but I think they're full of politically-correct baloney and should be summarily ignored. Not sure what you mean. Do you think it's not shameful to be a slut? Probably some, but a culture that encourages personal responsibility will always have some amount of victim-blaming.

I'm going to be kind of blunt here. If any of y'all feel you may be triggered by bluntness on this topic, please feel free to skip. My intent is to offer what I see as a reality check, but I certainly don't want to cause undue pain.
No. If you want to know what a "rape culture" looks like, I can link you to some Youtube videos of Yazidi women being auctioned off to the highest bidder that I promise will curdle your blood. That's rape culture. As Mormons we may have room for improvement in the way we talk about things, but I find it frankly offensive that someone would make such a cavalier accusation.And while I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that every priesthood leader deals perfectly with every sex abuse case, it doesn't hurt to point out that LDS bishops are barred by covenant and--in many cases--by law, from making the kinds of factual disclosures that would be necessary to refute specific accusations of misconduct.
And, let's be honest--based on the article you cited, feminists generally have no problem with public shaming as a deterrent to behaviors you see as undesirable. The disagreement is merely regarding what kinds of behavior are worthy of shaming. And for my part--call me old-fashioned; but IMHO unchastity and lust, in both men and women, ARE shameful.
Fair enough, but some things *have* to be said regardless of whether the hearer considers them "helpful" in the moment. And of course, there's a wider audience than just the immediate sufferer.Let us take a different analogy: let's say I went walking through Chicago's toughest neighborhood in a suit coat made of hundred-dollar-bills, and the predictable thing happens, and I get mugged. Yes, it's a highly violative experience that should never have happened. Yes, I have a fundamental right to wear my money coat wherever and whenever I want, and not be judged. Yes, society needs to change to the point where I will be safe and respected regardless of how desirable others may find me or my assets. But the reality is that there *are* things that people can do to reduce (not eliminate, but reduce) their chances of being mugged; and we don't stop talking about those things or shut down neighborhood watch programs just because it may trigger victims of past muggings to unduly blame themselves.
There may be better ways to have these conversations about rape and self-defense and staying out of bad situations--but the conversations themselves do need to happen. Part of recovery from trauma is accepting (or at least acknowledging) the world in its imperfection, and not insisting on putting innocent people at risk just so that the victim doesn't have to confront his own insecurities.
And when I see the most militant of these radical feminist activists demand we *not* train people to avoid situations where the likelihood of rape is increased, the cynic in me can't help but ask: which political and social groups benefit if the total number of rapes in this country maintains, or increases? Which groups lose their power and funding if sexual assault becomes less of a problem? Why would someone *not* want young LDS girls empowered with the knowledge that they can say "no" to a would-be sexual partner?
Because, statistically, the forcible rape rate is down from 37.1/100,000 in 1995 to 26.4/100,000 today. Yet, we're being told that a problem whose incidence has actually been reduced by nearly 30% in twenty years, is somehow getting worse and that we need to tone down our discourse on chastity.
Cui bono?