JohnsonJones

She stabbed him with a BREAD KNIFE.  A BREAD KNIFE.  Seriously...A BREAD KNIFE?  The boyfriend was, well, things I shouldn't say anyways.  If I were her Boyfriend, I'd have admitted to just about anything in regards to it, but saying that he was stabbed by his crazy drugged out girlfriend with a BREAD KNIFE.  It was a stab wound too...not sawing it back and forth...back and forth...in order to cut anything...but a STABBING...with a BREAD KNIFE.  I can't even cut the Italian bread all the way through easily with the bread knives supplied at Italian restuarants(though admittedly, the Italian bread seems to bend down right at the base of the crust so you have an excessively hard time cutting it at that point).
He's never going to live that down.  He should have just said he suffered an accident and had a piece of metal stab into his leg or something (so not the whole truth, but enough to get the doctors to help him).
But, since she's now charged...I think the bigger question wasn't about medical school, but the accusations many are making that it is due to her class/wealth and privilege more than anything else.  It may well be.
It doesn't sound like she is in the specialty phase yet, still in medical school itself.  I'd say if she completes it, the best she may have would be a general practitioner.  Despite the skill she's shown with blunt toothed instruments...it sounds like the cut itself was rather sloppy and ragged, so not exactly what they would be looking for.  Plus her choice of surgical tools for the unexpected operation was probably a poor choice on her part.  It's questionable whether she is even going to be allowed to continue medical school at this point (they say it's under consideration but they have rules for occasions like this).  I don't think she's going to be accepted into being a surgeon, or anything beyond general practitioner even if she DOES get to continue in medical schooling.
That said, I probably wouldn't want her as a heart surgeon either.  Off or on drugs, she doesn't seem to be the type to be able to keep a steady enough attitude to guarantee an ideal where she won't have a rise of emotion and do something stupid while I'm under the knife.  I'd hate to be sitting there without a heart and all...(or worse, with a bread knife sticking out like a monument in the middle of it).
PS: Sorry for the slight humor...it may be a tad off...but...a BREAD KNIFE...I mean, really...it was a BREAD KNIFE!

We have so many allies in the region, I don't think us using nukes on N. Korea would be an answer.  That radiation fallback would come onto S. Korea, Japan, and possibly as far as the Philippines.  However, I think N. Korea has a bad record.  They have done some aggressive acts in the past and nothing says that once they have nukes they will be completely peaceful either.   Eventually, they'll probably attack an army site or a ship or something else out there with a nuke without any provocation from anyone like they have in the past with more conventional weapons.  A nuke does a LOT more damage than a conventional weapon.
In the past, I'd say N. Korea was an annoyance backed up by China.  However, now, they are becoming what I consider a rabid dog.  The ONLY reason I think we have not taken them out before is China...so I say, we strong arm China.  For ever nuke on an ICBM they fly, we fly one towards china.  When China complains, point out that with their reasoning on N. Korea, if we go to war there, China will almost assuredly jump in to the fray...so we might as well attack China forthwith if N. Korea is going to attack us (or our allies). 
I am HEAVILY against war, and do not think we should take an absolute aggressive action at this time, instead relying on diplomacy.  That said, I think the only way to get N. Korea to act sensibly in any manner is to get China to take our concerns seriously...and that hasn't worked without a significant show of force for some time with them.  Instead, we've seen a regional grab by them to expand their borders and threats to Taiwan as we've sat back instead of flexing our muscles.
Flexing is not attacking, I'm solidly against war or attacking, but sometimes you have to show people a reason not to stir (or wake) the sleeping giant.

That's an excellent point.  I think that could actually be accurate.  I had my uncle die in World War 2 in the Pacific Arena.  He was quite young at the time, and because of that I never got to know him.  That particular uncle would be close to the family that I was born into, and so has particularly big effects on my family as a whole.  What is interesting is that he was a member of the LDS church.  He got converted to Mormons soon after he joined the military.  His mother was particularly anti-Mormon (my grandmother), which makes it an even more interesting item.  Due to his death, it meant that his brothers and sisters did not join the church with him, but it left a big enough impression on his close family members to reverberate through the years...and hence...here I am.
I had another Uncle (an Uncle Frank I believe) who was also killed in World War 2 and a cousin, but as my family was not particularly close to that family member, it really doesn't have a major effect on me, at least right now in the physical world (who knows, he may be my guardian angel for my life thus far which means he'd have had a profound effect on me).
Looking at another relative who's spouse served and then got injured and is now disabled 100%, taking care of their spouse and living that marriage is a HARD thing for them.  I think that perhaps the greater challenge sometimes, and the greater sacrifice are those whom the veteran who dies leaves behind, or who suffer from the sacrifice of the veteran.  In that light, I imagine they too give much or all to also protect our freedom, but a different type of sacrifice than expected from those who serve in the military.

My uniform wearing probably doesn't count for much (I did air cargo in the AF Reserves), but.... Saying you can't use soldier's honor as a point of debate unless you've been a soldier is about as good an argument as saying you can't discuss race unless you're black, can't have a view on women's rights unless your'e a woman, etc, no voice on trans-sexuality unless you are transsexual, etc., etc.
One could try and use that argument about Mormonism and Christianity too but, of course, it would never fly because as you well know, not believing in religion or God does not mean you cannot have an opinion about those who do, their actions and morality related to others.
Anyone who's had someone die for them has the right to expect a certain amount of honor given to those who died for them. That is all of us.

The very quote you used to bring up your question answers your question using the bolded words. Chastity and marital activities (read: anything sexual in nature) between gays are incompatible.
The underlined portion also happens to be exactly what Elder Oaks talk singled out, cohabitation and same sex marriage both of which are Satanic counterfeits of the God-ordained family.

Subwoofers rock!

Well, there was this one lady that had her radio so loud that it went through the car between us and then the sound penetrated our vehicle too.  I couldn't understand how she wasn't deaf.
Then the bass hit, and it was like a minor earthquake hit our car doors.  I think the people in the car next to us (between us and the ladies car) glared at her and may have made some bad gestures with their hands or something like that.
 

Just joshing around with the idea presented in the original post.

Well, yes and no.
Billy spends all day in class poking Bobby, sniggering behind his back, tugging his shirt.  Bobby takes it, and takes it, and takes it.  Finally he hauls off and socks Billy in the jaw.
Billy starts punching back and suddenly we’ve got a schoolyard brawl on our hands, in which after a moment Billy produces a knife.
Billy is the American left.  Bobby is the Trump coalition.
Bobby hit Billy knowing (or having good reason to know) that Billy had a knife, but Bobby gambled that Billy wouldn’t actually use it.
Bobby thought wrong.
They’re both idiots; and here we are, and someone’s about to get stabbed, and it might be us.
And we’re in this situation because some redneck gamma-male chihuahuas and their pseudo-conservative, fawning dolly birds decided that it was better to make a show of being an “alpha” than it was to pull your punches and  solve the problem by working through channels.

Let's look at the current President of the United States.  He has been married three times.  The first divorce was caused by adultery with the woman who would become wife number 2.  He has been known to be extremely disrespectful of women.  He mocks the disabled.  He disrespects American Veterans and Heroes (such as John McCain).  This is who the people of America choose to be their president.
However, this is only the latest of a downward spiral of the morality of Presidents the US has been choosing recently.  They had two presidents prior that admitted to trying Marijuana.  The one before that cheated of his wife WHILE IN THE OVAL OFFICE itself. 
This trend is representative of the overall trend of the US morality itself.  As they People of the US move further and further from morality and the Law of the Lord, we will see more and more of them identify the Lord as their enemy.  As enemies of the Lord, is it any surprise that they would also be enemies of those who follow the Lord (aka...Christians).  In fact, if the Book of Revelations is any indicator, as well as other prophets that foretold of these times, we know that their numbers will get larger and more fierce. 
We can feel sadness at the way the world is going, but at the same time we can rejoice, because as the signs become more apparent and the world becomes more as predicted, it means that for us, the faithful, the time appointed for the Lord to return and rule is coming closer than ever before.

Let's look at the current President of the United States.  He has been married three times.  The first divorce was caused by adultery with the woman who would become wife number 2.  He has been known to be extremely disrespectful of women.  He mocks the disabled.  He disrespects American Veterans and Heroes (such as John McCain).  This is who the people of America choose to be their president.
However, this is only the latest of a downward spiral of the morality of Presidents the US has been choosing recently.  They had two presidents prior that admitted to trying Marijuana.  The one before that cheated of his wife WHILE IN THE OVAL OFFICE itself. 
This trend is representative of the overall trend of the US morality itself.  As they People of the US move further and further from morality and the Law of the Lord, we will see more and more of them identify the Lord as their enemy.  As enemies of the Lord, is it any surprise that they would also be enemies of those who follow the Lord (aka...Christians).  In fact, if the Book of Revelations is any indicator, as well as other prophets that foretold of these times, we know that their numbers will get larger and more fierce. 
We can feel sadness at the way the world is going, but at the same time we can rejoice, because as the signs become more apparent and the world becomes more as predicted, it means that for us, the faithful, the time appointed for the Lord to return and rule is coming closer than ever before.

1.  Because he is God.
2.  Because he is God.
3.  Because he is God.
4.  Because he is God.
Title Page to the Book of Mormon:   "And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations"
Testimony of the Three Witnesses:  "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
Any other questions?

I suppose then James E. Talmage was a heretic then:
Invite a student to read aloud the following statement by Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
“That Child to be born of Mary … was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 81). (emphasis added)
Further from Talmage, "Elder Talmage also taught that through Jesus’s mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to ‘lay down His life voluntarily.’ But from His Heavenly Father, Jesus inherited the ability to endure suffering during His atoning sacrifice ‘such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible’ (Jesus the Christ, 613). Since this suffering would be ‘more than man can suffer, except it be unto death’ (Mosiah 3:7), only a Being with power over death could endure it” (New Testament Student Manual [Church Educational System manual, 2014], 141)." (emphasis added) Obviously more than just his obedience and virtue. Without the power granted to him from the traits inherited by being God the Father's son. Without this inherited ability, even if he was virtuous he could not have endured the suffering he endured.
Yep, make no mistake, it isn't a heresy, but yours is definitely a personal opinion on the matter, and a wrong opinion -- make no mistake.  Darn lds.org teaching heresies again: https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-luke/lesson-43-luke-1?lang=eng
Mormon News Room: "We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty road of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death." (emphasis added) http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ
Even more evidence that this thought of Christ inheritance from God the Father, "Matthew 1:18–23. Jesus Christ is the divine son of Heavenly Father and Mary. From Mary He inherited mortality, which allowed Him to die. From His Heavenly Father He inherited immortality and the power to resurrect." (emphasis added)

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).
We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.
A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.
 

Not Mirkwood, but this can be an interesting conundrum when I am some other nations working (normally doing research).  In the Middle East they have a day of prayer on Friday.  It is an interesting thing (as some still believe the seventh day is Saturday, but the prayers are on Friday, and it is Friday that is like our Saturday or Sunday here).  In many places, churches therefore meet on Friday.  Sunday is seen as a normal workday most of the time in many areas.  I tended to try to do two Sabbaths each week at times, one on Friday and one on Sunday.  The first to recognize the government and main religions own religious observances (their day of prayer), and the latter to try to keep my own observance of what I felt is the Sabbath.

Vegas native here. The hurt that I felt from hearing about this event was beyond words. So many lives affected. Vegas as a community has come together and are trying to help in anyway that they can, and it is amazing. Metro police and emergency responders did an amazing job responding to the incident. While my heart aches for my city, I am so proud to be from there as the community comes together. 

You can only choose one answer per question, so...on #2 a little difficult.  Since #3 was based on my answer in #2, it was never, but if I had to include other such things such as working, it may be sometimes (though, unless absolutely necessary, I try not to do any work, or things in that manner)

With regard to Castille, I don't necessarily disagree.  I also agree that when the State removes your civil liberties (life) the bar must be set higher than "officer safety".   I believe there should be a clear and imminent threat of the use of deadly force, not "he might have a gun".  

My statement was simply in opposition to the idea that this is an epidemic or one-sided.

Exactly what Elder Oaks stated, which, it seems in many ways deal directly with the Law of Chastity and the disintegration of the family unit.  As he said, at the time (and maybe to many today, especially the faithful saints) it seemed obvious in regards to the family, so why should they make a statement in that regard.  However, they felt that they needed to and hence the prayed and got inspiration in regards to the Proclamation of the Family.
Today, the hazards that desire the destruction of the family have increased and grown to where, outside of strong Christian homes (which in my category also includes strong LDS homes)m there is a great confusion regarding the morality of the Lord vs. that of the world.  The world says that co-habitation before marriage is not only okay, but the standard thing for young people to do these days.  We know it is wrong, and the proclamation of the family reinforces this in case we ever get to be confused.
I believe it is things like that.

This is what I would tell my daughters in a similar situation.
I am extremely proud of what you have accomplished and I think you have gotten to this point through study, hardwork and dedication.  I would hope that any young man you wish to marry would also recognize these wonderful qualities about you, and choose to support you just as he would want you to support him.  If he has a way to pay for a similar thing for you to do, and you wish to go where he is, you should.  If he cannot pay for this on his own, or has no way to do so, then I would hope that he loves you enough that he would put your own desires before his own.
When I and my wife were first married we had a difference of opinion.  I wanted to go to work immediately in a field that would take us out of state, while she wanted to go to the university where she was already attending.  This was not an easy choice.  I loved my wife, and as a result, I chose to support her.  I utilized the time to increase my own education while also working full time in a different field of work rather than pursuing the type of work I wished to at that time.  This meant that I was able to help her through her college, and she attained her degree debt free.  This choice to support my spouse has been beneficial throughout our married lives, even if I could not see how it would be a benefit then.  It also meant that later, I was able to still get into the career I wanted, and with the increased education I attained, made it easier to go routes I didn't think of previously, and have led to what I am doing today and where I am today.  Instead of being in the private sector, I am instead a historian, which probably would not have happened had I not made the choices I did early in my marriage.
In this instance, it sounds as if your significant other still has many options open to where to attend a university.  If he wishes to marry you, then let him use this as an opportunity to choose a university near you, and show his support of your choices as well.  How he treasures your choices before marriage will indicate how he treasures your choices AFTER marriage.  Because of your special qualities you have a unique possibility with your education, one that he should support and treasure if he supports and treasures you and what YOU want to do and be.
Finally, I would hope that you choose a spouse wisely, because I do not want to go to jail (this is if I were talking to my daughter).  If he decides to be pompous, disrespect you, or other such things, I would be forced to shoot him dead, and we know that would endanger both my eternal salvation, and send me to prison for however short the rest of my life would be.
So, it should be obvious from what I stated above, what I think you should do.  It is ultimately your choice (just like it was with my daughters) on who to marry.

Neither do I.  That was not the comparison being made, and it is a logical fallacy to imply that a wicked man speaking truth invalidates the truth.

When was the last time you walked alone at night through a black community?  Police violence is not even close to the single most significient life-and death issue in black communities.
 
The Traveler

A thought I had on the most recent General Conference (Oct 2017), at least from yesterday's Session.  The most standout talk to me was Dallin H. Oaks Saturday Morning talk on the Proclamation of the Family.  I think it was the most powerful and definitive talk of the conference yesterday.
I think it states many valuable things.  In that light, I think enemies of the church will hate it, try to tear it down, despise it, and do all they can to minimize it.  I think it may be their number one target from this conference in things to tear down or hate because of how strongly it emphasizes the Lords work and purposes in our lives as a family unit.  If you did not catch it, go to LDS.org and watch it.  For me it was the best talk of the entire conference thus far (we haven't seen Sunday's Sessions yet).
I also thought Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk was very good in the Saturday Afternoon session, and realize that I need to work on being more humble and having more humility.

It should be obvious by now that "outside opinions" by mortals will not help.  This decision can only be helped properly by God.  Only He knows what the future holds for the two of you and how to make the most of that future.  If you need us to explain the math and logistics, I'm worried about your preparedness for college (I'm assuming you don't need us for that).  We cannot advise on emotional matters (only you two know your emotions - well, and God).  We cannot tell you the righteous choice - only the righteous default which should be your starting expectation (and which you should already know, unless new to the Church).
In short, I'm suggesting you quit letting strangers on the internet make things harder (and yes, I believe the things said in this thread may well have already made it harder for the Spirit to speak the truth to you, especially if the truth is opposite from your desires1), and go straight to the source of all knowledge, with much fasting and prayer.  IMO, this is a significant opportunity for you and your boyfriend to determine if you are able to be one - a good thing to know before you get engaged.
1 I'm not suggesting it is or isn't, only that it could be.

If they wear a black arm band, get a symbolic tattoo, or do a public service announcement that is standing for something.  Kneeling the national anthem because our nation is not progressing toward perfect equality fast enough is not going to work.
Any race in this nation must recognize that progress has been made toward equality.  Hoping for a perfect nation that accepts all people equally but rejects Christ is foolishness.

Thank-you
First, allow me to apologize if i put words in your mouth.  i thought that was how you felt about the Mormon prophet(s).
As to what we are discussing - i have rambled.  My original intent was to convey the idea to the OP that perhaps much of what feels to her (and and many others)  like the marginalization of women in church and religion in general may have it's roots in Biblical references - and that it is my belief that said references may be more a reflection of the time and the imperfect aspects of the person talking than the mind and will of God.  And then it morphed into a discussion about prophets, who is a prophet, conscience, absolutism, etc.,
i will have to disagree on some of your statements about me - but i see where you are coming from (i lived on that side of the fence for a long time), and respect your passion.