mirkwood

Yes they are safe. They have reduced both officer and suspect injuries.
Would I tase a kid? Depends on the circumstances. I would not be inclined to tase a 7 year old, or even an 11 year old, but they could do something to change that picture. Hard to say.
Same with a pregnant woman. I'd be disinclined, but they could do something to change that.
I fought a 17 heard old football player once. He wore me and my partner out...literally, there was nothing left with open handed techniques. So I tased him. Twice. It did not have the desired effect, so I pepper sprayed him. That worked.
I went on a suicidal male with a knife. He turned towards us with a knife. He got tased multiple times. He did not get shot because of the tasing.
Another guy lunged for a knife during a welfare check. He got tased multiple times. Without the taser he got shot instead.
Three of us and three or four firefighters brawled with a coke head. He tried to grab my gun during the fight. The use of the taser got him in handcuffs.
Four of us were breaking up a drunken party. My partner and I were in the backyard dealing with about 20 drunks. One decided he needed to go to jail and got handcuffed. The other 19 drunks didn't like that and started advancing on us with mayhem in mind. My taser pointed at them scared them into backing away and gave us time to get more help on scene.
My partner arrived on a domestic with a knife. Husband is in the driveway threatening his wife with a butcher knife. My partner snuck up behind him and tased him before he even knew he was there. Without a taser, that likely becomes a shooting instead.
A guy answers the door with a knife in his hand. Taser to the chest and we did not have to shoot him as he threatened us.
The list goes on and on.

Or, another way to put it, pride --- *bum bum bum* -- Beware of Pride - from a Prophet's mouth. :)
 
Edit: What a great article by President Benson!

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

Just read this article and found it highly fascinating and quite insightful:
 
http://www.millennialstar.org/the-mormon-intellectuals-trojan-horses/
 
Not sure how much discussion it will generate, but, from my perspective at least, it's fairly spot on.
 
For those who don't wish to read through it, the Trojan horses it lists that intellectuals use to undermine the church are:
 
Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation. Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”. Overemphasizing the importance of church history. Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.  
As I've seen a significant amount of just these issues, constantly repeated even here in this forum, I thought there might be some interesting discussion (or debate) to come of it. 

Heart
 

Awww...crap...

Awww...crap...

Dude...the danites are coming for you now.

The round of 16 and forward pool at work has me sitting at top so far.  I only missed the US Belgium game.  I have Germany winning the WC and the Netherlands taking 3rd.

Minions explain the World Cup.
 

Admittedly this is just me being contrary, show up wearing more cloth next time.

The best thing to do when something like that occurs is realize they're only trying to be kind. They thought you were in an abusive situation and sought to help you.
 
Just laugh at their naivete, explain that this is your choice but you appreciate their concern and then go on your way.

People are ignorant.  Stand for your beliefs and don't back down.

To the critics:
 
Stop emoting and get the facts as Hobby Lobby was covering 16 out of 20 birth control prevention pills or other devices. They just did not want to pay for the 4 methods that were abortion related, after conception pills.  Women have the right to choose whether or not they get pregnant, but Hobby Lobby was not willing to go as far as paying for them to choose to kill an unborn child.

I would never bring up the subject in RS like she did.  She opened that can of worms knowing it was going to irritate the majority of the women in the room.  We come to church to be uplifted - not listen to that. 

The subject of one's excommunication should never be a part of a Relief Society lesson or a Sunday School lesson.

Doesn't the fact she didn't attend the disciplinary council itself demonstrate a lack of faith and perhaps even contempt for the authority of the Church?
 
Her actions certainly didn't match her claims of faith.
 
If it's Priesthood authority she truly sought it seemed counteractive to simultaneously repudiate it.

I don't know about making things worse.  There have been far worse things that have happened to/in/about/by the church and it's still here.  I wouldn't hang the disposition of a worldwide church on one person and their action.  Look at the Catholic church, they're still around and they've had scandal after scandal after scandal.  Besides, I would surmise that the total number of members who let themselves be affected by this is a pretty small number. 
 
As for those who go to their church leadership and demand a disciplinary hearing, well, I dunno, it seems they let the beauty of the gospel be defined by one person.  I don't know about you folks, but I never and will never hang my fortunes on one, mortal person, especially the likes of Kate Kelly or John Dehlin.  I've said it before and I reiterate it here - I've listened to both and read what they have to say and I can come to only one conclusion - they are both wolves in sheep's clothing that will do nothing but devour for their own aggrandizement and conceit.  Been there, done that so I know their type and I know their slick methods.  Their fruits are not good.
 
If you're having a faith crisis, go listen to Bill Reel who runs mormondiscussionpodcast.org and the Fair Mormon Blog.  He had a faith crisis when he was a Bishop.  There may be nothing flashy or dramatic about his work, but that's how the Lord works, not by creating conflict, distention, and disharmony but by acknowledging and helping.
 
If the church survived the death of a prophet, an extermination order, the priesthood ban, the September 6 (which I believe some have come back into the church), the salamander letter, ERA, polygamy, Prop 8, ect, then I do believe the church will go on just fine after the excommunication of Kate Kelly and potentially John Dehlin.

I think that all separation, wheat and chaff style, will be done by the individual being separated. We remove ourselves from God, not the other way around, right?

It would seem that if the Church were more interested in appearance, they would have done more dialogue.
 
Now, I would not have been opposed to a more complex dialogue between the OW and the Church.  Could they have given more specific answers to Kelly's questions?  Sure.
 
But it also seems that could possibly end up in a toddler conversation of eternal "Why?"

How is this not an answer?
 
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It's obvious to many of us, but those aren't the answers that many want to hear.

Here are your scriptural references:  The prophet said so, let alone it's a long established and ancient pattern that has been established in ALL scripture.
 
Kate Kelly teaches that God has no gender, that God is both man and women.  That is 100% false doctrine taken from the ordain women website, which is a group that she started.
 
Kate Kelly was asked not to publicly protest and she did.  That is one of many examples of how she exactly opposed the Church and it's leaders.
 
If you are actively teaching doctrine that is false and you continue teaching after your bishop tells you to stop, then yes- you really can get excommunicated because that is apostasy.  It really does happen, it's what the scriptures and God says to do, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

I think President Hinckley said it as plainly as it can be said.  This is on mormon.org:
 
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:
“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program.
 
http://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church
 
If the prophet takes it to prayer and inquires of the Lord and the Lord tells him no through personal revelation...does it have to be written down or some kind of scripture?  Ir we truly believe that President Hinckley or President Monson or any of those great men before them aren't prophets and don't receive answers to their prayers...then...I don't know.
 
The why's of so many things hasn't been revealed to us.  Sometimes we have to be satisfied and have faith that we'll have answers in due time.
 
Right now I'm satisfied with what President Hinckley said..."The Lord has put it that way."

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng&cid=facebook-shared
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
June 28, 2014
In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.
We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.
Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.
The Council of
The First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints