let’s roll

Are you sure he was talking about a situation where you were facing a rapist or murderer, as opposed to something a little less deadly?
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/christian-courage-the-price-of-discipleship?lang=eng

Hmm.
Commandment: completely agree that the commandment is meant to be "thou shalt not murder" - in addition to the great effort the OT uses to distinguish murder from manslaughter, there's also all the killing the Lord commands - if it really meant "never kill anyone", that would make God a hypocrite.
Pacifists in scripture: have to agree, though one of the scriptures I linked above does go on about the reward if you patiently endure your enemy's smiting efforts - but this clearly means your enemy is not a threat to your life, because if he were, there wouldn't be a second, or third, or fourth time.  In general, it is quite clear we are to love others, be patient and tolerant, slow to anger, allow the Lord (and the law) to take care of revenge (justice) if at all possible, and loathe the idea of taking a life.  But it's also pretty clear that we aren't to stand idly by while the wicked go about murdering the righteous.
And I guess I'd need more details on the final paragraph.  I don't know what's in anyone else's head (be it Vort's or the pacifist's or the coward's).  Some may well declare themselves pacifists in order to hide from the coward label (or even deceive themselves about their own lack of courage).  I can also imagine other reasons for someone to choose to be a pacifist - but what does the "extreme" modifier mean?  I don't know, and without knowing, I can't really say more.

A couple of thoughts.
My impression is that mass shooting sites seems to have much more to do with a shooter’s background and agenda...students shooters choose schools, hate crime shooters choose sites where they find those they hate...that’s true even when their background involves hard targets, i.e. shootings at military bases.
Based on what I know of you from this site, I think you’d be a fine neighbor.  If you were my neighbor I’d have no problem with you putting up a sign directed to me.  Of course for it to be accurate, it would have to say.  “I own several guns and know how to use them.  My neighbor owns no guns, but has no issue with me owning mine.  Out of respect for his wishes I’ve promised not to use my guns to protect him.  But, of course, I can’t say I always keep my promises.”
l’d leave it to you as to whether you want to include the last sentence. 😀

Godspeed to you Tyme.
i think I’ve voted by mail for the last time.  I miss standing in line at the polls and seeing my fellow citizens use their franchise in accordance with their beliefs.

One of the attendees at the rally in Missouri became ill in the middle of President Trump's speech.  President Trump paused the speech, called for a doctor in the crowd, and asked the emergency responders to take their time caring for the patient.  It took them 8 minutes to take care of the medical emergency for which President Trump waited patiently.  The crowd of thousands was getting restless in the silence so people were yelling out things like "CNN sucks", etc. but then one person close to the patient raised their hand up in prayer and a moment of silence for the prayer was observed.  The crowd was getting restless again but then one person started singing Amazing Grace to which the crowd of thousands joined in.  The patient was finally taken out for medical care and the rally continued.
This is why CNN sucks.  Listening to what CNN has to say about the President and his supporters is a complete gaslighting of who they are.  Those people at the rally waiting patiently for a medical emergency after hours and hours of waiting in line just to get into the rally, then waiting hours and hours for the President to speak and then praying and singing Amazing Grace have no resemblance to the people CNN likes to tell the world about.
If you want to skim the video, here are the parts I talked about:
Call for a doctor and "Take your time" - 0:10
Prayer - 3:10
"Take your time" leading into Amazing Grace - 6:25
 
 

And I think both viewpoints are valid which is why I appreciated NeuroTypical’s response to my first post on this thread stating that the gospel pavilion is big enough for a variety of views on this topic.

And I think both viewpoints are valid which is why I appreciated NeuroTypical’s response to my first post on this thread stating that the gospel pavilion is big enough for a variety of views on this topic.

And I think both viewpoints are valid which is why I appreciated NeuroTypical’s response to my first post on this thread stating that the gospel pavilion is big enough for a variety of views on this topic.

1. Your son is a dependent child.  He doesn't get to be an adult until he's paying his own way in life.  
2. Another things adults do, is have rules and enforce them...

I've noticed three kinds of responses from my fellow 2nd amendment enthusiasts (for lack of a better term - sounds better than 'gun nutter'):
1- "I can live with being found "inappropriate" at the last day.  Totally willing to meet my maker with such a label.  Doesn't even rise to the level of 'sin' in my book."
2- "I've checked with my bishop and he's fine with me carrying, so I often do."
3- "The priesthood is more powerful than a pistol, and I sustain our leaders, so yes, I follow this policy."
 
I guess I've encountered all three kinds of responses in equal proportions, so I'm not too surprised at the results so far.

From what I've read, yes, many/most mass killers go into the thing with an understanding they won't be coming out alive.  So they tend to keep on killing until he/she is finally opposed by a good guy with a gun.   The New Life Church incident in my neck of the woods is a perfect example.  Bad guy shot up Denver and wasn't stopped.  Then he drove down to Colorado Springs and started shooting up the church.  A concealed-carry permit holder started firing back, so dood dove behind cover and killed himself.  So yeah, the body count probably would have been higher except for that random good guy with a gun.
This pattern seems to happen a lot.

Btw, I’ve got no issue with the 2nd Amendment or anyone’s decision to own a gun.  I wouldn’t want anyone who chooses to do so to think I have any expectation that they would us it to protect me.

My viewpoint is best illustrated by the experience of President Oaks when he and his wife were carjacked/mugged at gunpoint (related in his profile in the latest Ensign).  I can’t imagine ever owning, carrying or using a gun and I’ve lived in East LA and NY.

You're ok in my book, let's roll.  From what they tell me, the gospel's pavilion is big enough to hold both of us.  Thanks for taking the poll.  Honestly, I did not expect to be in the majority here.  But the poll is still young.

Btw, I’ve got no issue with the 2nd Amendment or anyone’s decision to own a gun.  I wouldn’t want anyone who chooses to do so to think I have any expectation that they would us it to protect me.

My viewpoint is best illustrated by the experience of President Oaks when he and his wife were carjacked/mugged at gunpoint (related in his profile in the latest Ensign).  I can’t imagine ever owning, carrying or using a gun and I’ve lived in East LA and NY.

A lot of men worried about what a woman does.
The question should be, 'Would you date or marry a man who wanted to condemn you for something you did before you even met him and before you were a member of the Church?'

Godspeed and best wishes to you as you work on your marriage.
I humbly suggest that your efforts will be more fruitful if approached with a resolve to make your marriage work.
It’s far less likely to be fruitful if you dwell on what you perceive to be the shortcomings and seek affirmation from others that those shortcomings justify you ending the marriage.

Phrases like this are found all through the handbook, instructing us that activities and events are to be gospel-centered, to accomplish the purposes of the Church (or some auxiliary), etc.  The negative, presumptive1 reaction to this (not just in this thread, but also that I've heard in real life) is the part which I find most disturbing.
1As in, presuming an extremely narrow interpretation of the words and of the possible ways to implement the instructions.
It's as if everyone has two lists.  In list one they put the "religious, Church, gospel, spiritual" stuff.  This list has things like Sunday church meetings, prayer, scripture study, serving in a calling, ministering, and such.  In the other list, they put everything else: work, school, entertainment, hobbies, sports, socializing, shopping, etc.
They then place a somber, grey, sans-serif "not fun" watermark over the first list; and a bright, colorful, Chili-Pepper-Extras "fun" watermark over the second list.
Then, when someone reads one of those phrases from the handbook, or counsels / instructs using equivalent wording, everyone frowns and murmurs about having to do the "not fun" list, while sneaking longing glances at the "fun" list.
It's as if everyone thinks (a) the first list cannot be interesting, joyful, and even fun; and (b) the two lists must ever remain as separated as the peas and the chicken in a tv-dinner.  In other words, apparently we cannot think of a Christ-centered way to do fun things.  We cannot imagine a way to make the things in the first list more enjoyable - as if enjoying them would somehow be wrong or impossible.
This whole "we get enough of the gospel, we want to have some fun", as if the two must be separated, reminds me too much of "we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible".
Are we really so unimaginative, so bound by the world's ways, so stuck in childhood and childish ruts and tantrums that we cannot find a way to merge these things?  If so, what hope is there for anyone that exaltation will be joyous?  Do you really suppose that "spiritual" and "fun" will be segregated in the Celestial kingdom?
If the saints cannot figure out how to always remember Christ and have joy at the same time, I fear the world will win and we'll lose more and more to Babylon because the youth have been taught that there's boring Church stuff on one side, and fun worldly stuff on the other, and ne'er the twain shall meet, so you'd best pick one and run with it.  Instead, we ought to be teaching them how to have one list.

I guess if I viewed the only purpose of a TR interview to be to gain entry into the temple, I might agree with you.  But aren’t all interviews an opportunity to ask ourselves, in a Spirit-rich environment, “what lack I yet” and then act on the promptings we get in response?  I think this brother’s experience might be better understood in that light.

I guess if I viewed the only purpose of a TR interview to be to gain entry into the temple, I might agree with you.  But aren’t all interviews an opportunity to ask ourselves, in a Spirit-rich environment, “what lack I yet” and then act on the promptings we get in response?  I think this brother’s experience might be better understood in that light.

I guess if I viewed the only purpose of a TR interview to be to gain entry into the temple, I might agree with you.  But aren’t all interviews an opportunity to ask ourselves, in a Spirit-rich environment, “what lack I yet” and then act on the promptings we get in response?  I think this brother’s experience might be better understood in that light.

I guess if I viewed the only purpose of a TR interview to be to gain entry into the temple, I might agree with you.  But aren’t all interviews an opportunity to ask ourselves, in a Spirit-rich environment, “what lack I yet” and then act on the promptings we get in response?  I think this brother’s experience might be better understood in that light.

A couple of thoughts.
You say the SP says he loves the young people.  Any reason to doubt that? Wouldn’t the greatest manifestation of that love be to do all in his power to help those young people to come to know their Heavenly Father and the Savior (which by definition is “life eternal”)? Wouldn’t an invitation to youth leaders to have youth activities be Christ centered be a demonstration of that love? Is it possible that in interviewing and counseling with youth the SP has noticed some youth don’t have a strong testimony of God and Jesus Christ? In your interactions with the youth, do you feel that a greater love of God and His Son would help the youth better meet the challenges in their lives? If you see value in Christ centered activities, is you reluctance to have more of them based on uncertainty about how effective those activities have been in achieving their purposes? I’m grateful for your service, and that of the SP, with the youth and wish you both Godspeed in helping them remember their divine heritage and realize their divine potential.
 

Or at least listen to it while they pick up trash along the freeway.  That would redefine cruel and unusual punishment.