mordorbund

The baby is an innocent because it intends no harm, and in fact is not proactively doing anything to threaten another except existing.
 
The condition is perhaps analogous to an unwitting carrier of a deadly disease who arrives (alone) by boat onto the shores of a new land. You cannot communicate with him, and he will imminently contact others, at which point the disease will spread quickly and wipe out 90% or more of the native population. You can do nothing and millions will die, or you can kill the innocent immigrant and save millions. There are no other options. Which do you choose?
 
This type of Hobson's Choice is not new; it is as old as humanity. Generations far older, wiser, and smarter than us have wrestled with it and failed to find a satisfactory solution. The problem is solvable, but only by taking it to a completely different plane of thought. This is what the Catholic Church has valiantly tried (but IMO failed) to do. I honor them for their efforts. We have no good solution, either. A solution or solutions exist, but they will be revealed from God or found by those who live in Zion, or at least who have the hearts to live there.

If you want an alternate source for the link, go to the LDS online Store's temple clothes page: http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_3074457345616706230_-1_Y_image_0
 
From here, click on "garments" (you'll need to login).
 
Scroll down and click on the ribbon on the right: Do you have any feedback about this page?
 
That link is: https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback
 
It's a match!

Quick, let's rework the rumors; get it out there that the men's garments will change to a Borat-style mankini, and the women's will be sewn together at the knees to make wearing pants outright impossible.

For the purposes of canon law, LDS are non-Christians. LDS baptisms are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and for all intents and purposes we believe that you become Christian through baptism.

When we draw the lines (in the name of tolerance or equality), is it justified to only include (or exclude) groups within a class or should it be the same across a class?
 
For some examples:
 
If the previous practice was denying housing or work because a person is black, should the law be changed to say housing cannot be discriminated on the basis of being "black or white"? or should the legislation state that housing cannot be denied on the basis of "color"?
 
Same question, but now should it only include LGBT? or should we toss in the new cisgendered (just in case)? Or should it be open so that housing cannot be denied on the basis of sexuality?
 
Or would it be better to state only the conditions on which discrimination can occur? For housing, you may discriminate on income, size of family, past rental history, and past credit or payment history for instance.
 
How would this work for job discrimination? And how would you prevent the canary laws (I've coined it, you owe me a nickel every time you use it) from becoming, in essence, Jim Crow laws?

Hmm. I am leaning towards agreeing with Anatess and CatholicLady, in terms of, intent does change morality. When a man goes to war to protect his home and family, and takes lives in the process, it is not murder. I guess that could be debated by some, but I suppose another concept might be if one is attacked, and the victim is able to free themselves by killing their attacker - that's not murder either, it's self defense, by intent. That's my thought process anyway.

The first question is free.....the next one will cost you.....the bill will be in the mail.......Lol!!

If the intended outcome is to kill the baby, then yes, it seems they would want the baby to die, if that is what they are trying to do. No, it is not permissible to "remove" (aka, kill) the baby.
 
No, Catholicism teaches that abortion is not moral. If the intent is removal of the uterus in order to kill the baby, no, that is not allowed. If the uterus is cancerous, however, then yes. It would be permissible to remove a cancerous uterus. If there happens to be a baby in that cancerous uterus, and the baby dies as a side effect of the cancer treatment hysterectomy, that is not considered an abortion, and is not immoral. 

So....... no man knows the day or the hour?......... 
 
Let me get back to you (If it's 10 AM and you haven't heard a good rumor, then it's time to start one).

Maybe you should try liking all my posts.

I did see your examples they had the same problem mine did.
 
If someone knows what the results are of an action they are about to take; chooses to take that action anyway then they intended for that results of that action to happen.  They simply justify it that something else was more important.
 
If you know that cutting out the tube will cause the infant to die.. then cutting out the tube means you intended at some level for the infant to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice, you wished you had other options, but you made the best choice you can.
 
If I know that stabbing my daughter would kill her.  And I do it to stop a bomb that would kill us both, then at some level I intended my daughter to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice that I wished I never had to make, but I made the best choice I could.
 
I can see intent covering when we don't know what is going to happen...  But when we have knowledge of what is going to happen, we can't the say known consequence wasn't what we intended, the best we can say is we wished it wouldn't have happened.

Mirkwood or not, someone has already emptied the cave. The last time I was in there, the only thing remaining was the sword of Laban, unsheathed. It had written upon it the following:
 

This is more for Claire, but you might still enjoy discussing it with your husband CatholicLady.
 
The implications of the revelation on polygamy should lead to a good discussion between you and your boyfriend. The revelation teaches that marriages can be eternally binding. It goes through a few scenarios (sounding somewhat legalese).
 
 
If you are not married for eternity, but rather only until death frees one of you from the covenant, then you have no claim on each other after this life.
 
 
There's two scenarios here. If the two of you are married and the officiator pronounces it to be binding "forever and ever and always" or whatever phrasing is desired, that's really just a grand deception. The ordinance (sacrament) must be "by [the Lord's] word" by someone "anointed and appointed unto this power". Priesthood authority and all that. The only place where this can be done is in the temple.
 
Additionally, if the two of you are married in the temple by someone with authority (we use the term "sealed" for this, or sometime "temple marriages", and even "celestial marriage") you must continue faithful. This is captured in the clause "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise". If one of you breaks the covenant, God will not force the other to be bound.
 
The blessings of such are glorious (and referenced in another one of your threads):
 
 
I would encourage you to have a discussion with your boyfriend about what kind of marriage he envisions for the two of you.

This is more for Claire, but you might still enjoy discussing it with your husband CatholicLady.
 
The implications of the revelation on polygamy should lead to a good discussion between you and your boyfriend. The revelation teaches that marriages can be eternally binding. It goes through a few scenarios (sounding somewhat legalese).
 
 
If you are not married for eternity, but rather only until death frees one of you from the covenant, then you have no claim on each other after this life.
 
 
There's two scenarios here. If the two of you are married and the officiator pronounces it to be binding "forever and ever and always" or whatever phrasing is desired, that's really just a grand deception. The ordinance (sacrament) must be "by [the Lord's] word" by someone "anointed and appointed unto this power". Priesthood authority and all that. The only place where this can be done is in the temple.
 
Additionally, if the two of you are married in the temple by someone with authority (we use the term "sealed" for this, or sometime "temple marriages", and even "celestial marriage") you must continue faithful. This is captured in the clause "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise". If one of you breaks the covenant, God will not force the other to be bound.
 
The blessings of such are glorious (and referenced in another one of your threads):
 
 
I would encourage you to have a discussion with your boyfriend about what kind of marriage he envisions for the two of you.

Claire, this comes from the official church website
 
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

Doctrine wise it starts in D&C 132
 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng
 
And ends in Official Declaration 1
 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Mordorbund likes getting compliments  and has an awesome profile picture   (Does that work  )
 
[edit] Maybe I should have said mordorbund likes people to talk about mordorbund  :)

Oooh!! OOOh!!!!  Do me next!!!

Oooh!! OOOh!!!!  Do me next!!!

Oooh!! OOOh!!!!  Do me next!!!

I would argue that the major downfall in majority-rule systems is largely mitigated by our Constitution.  Yes, I said that there are voices now calling to restrict and restrain the rights of the minority, enshrined in our founding documents.  However, the beauty of our system is that it is very difficult to change.  Even large majorities have failed--many times.  We do not have the Equal Rights Amendment, for example, despite approval rates that were sometimes in the 60s.  Likewise, though some would diminish the First Amendment, in particular, I doubt they will succeed over the long haul.  They will soon return to using intimidation and other culture pressures to enforce political correctness.  Thankful, American rugged individualism means some non-theists will side with us just because they don't like others telling us (or them) what we can and cannot say and believe.
 
So, I continue to agree with Anatess--a general majority-rules system, but undergirded with powerful protections for minorities, is the best thing going right now.

Carlimac's OP question is an excellent one. Where does this leave the free exercise of religion?
 
Here we have an organization whose intent is to instill morality and character into boys. But we don't want that morality to disagree with the state-sanctioned morality. What if that morality is based on religious principles? Does that mean that the state officially condemns certain churches?
 
Additionally, we've seen in times past that the state regulates that your religious principles don't belong in places of business, and the rhetoric of politics suggests that religious morality should remain outside the voting booth. So where does that leave to exercise religion? We may still do so in our own homes, and in church. But as we've seen lately with aggressive CPS stories, if the village morality turns against your religious morality you may no longer have that freedom in your home.
 
Will churches still be able to preach a religious morality that opposes the majority, if only on the Sabbath? 

Carlimac's OP question is an excellent one. Where does this leave the free exercise of religion?
 
Here we have an organization whose intent is to instill morality and character into boys. But we don't want that morality to disagree with the state-sanctioned morality. What if that morality is based on religious principles? Does that mean that the state officially condemns certain churches?
 
Additionally, we've seen in times past that the state regulates that your religious principles don't belong in places of business, and the rhetoric of politics suggests that religious morality should remain outside the voting booth. So where does that leave to exercise religion? We may still do so in our own homes, and in church. But as we've seen lately with aggressive CPS stories, if the village morality turns against your religious morality you may no longer have that freedom in your home.
 
Will churches still be able to preach a religious morality that opposes the majority, if only on the Sabbath? 

Review the parable of the talents (it should be called the parable on the principle of stewardship). At the end, the faithful retain their stewardship.
 
When the earth is celestialized, who will dwell on it? Does God bring in glorified, resurrected persons from someplace else? A new population?
 
When you are exalted with a family, is it someone else's family that is given to you? A new family?
 
When you are resurrected, are you given your own body or some other one? A new body?

This doesn't take a Boston U scientist. We can do it right here on LDS.net, using nothing more than string, some baling wire, and junior high level algebra.
 
The ideal gas law, which is pretty darn close to reality for our purposes, is:
 
PV = nRT
 
where
 
P is pressure
V is volume
n is number of molecules of gas (typically measured in moles)
R is the magical gas constant that makes all the numbers come out right
T is the temperature
 
Since the volume of the football is constant, as are the number of air molecules in the football and the gas constant (hint: gas CONSTANT), we can make this equation super-easy:
 
P∝T
 
where ∝ is the proportionality sign: P is proportional to T (in other words P=aT, where a is a constant). This means that a change in P will exactly reflect the same change in T:
 
ΔP∝ΔT
 
 The pressure dropped at least 1 psi. If we assume the ball was minimally inflated to 12.5 psi and that it was found at 11.5 psi, this is a difference of 1/12.5 = 8%. MINIMUM. The ball was AT LEAST 8% short of its low-end required temperature.
 
That means that the temperature was AT LEAST 8% below the temperature when it was filled (see the proportionality sign above).
 
Now, according to this article, the temperature never dropped below 47° F during the game. Now, 47° F is 8⅓° C (call it 8° C), or a bit over 281 Kelvins. If that represents an 8% drop in temperature, that means the original temperature must have been X such that
 
0.92X = 281
 
or
 
X = 281/0.92 = about 306 Kelvins = 33° C = something over 91° F.
 
MINIMUM.
 
Best possible case: The balls were filled with air at 91° F to the absolute bare minimum allowed, then cooled all the way down to the minimum air temperature recorded during the entire game and measured when they EXACTLY hit that minimum temperature. Of course, if the number was actually more like 1.5 psi too low, that means the air used to inflate the footballs would have had to have been at least 113° F.
 
Credible? Believe it if you want. I'm sure there are people waiting in line to make you a killer deal on the Brooklyn bridge.