Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

775 Excellent


About Nofear

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Admittedly, it started when I let myself get distracted when a statistic (about men) was (in good faith) cited that seemed questionable. The facts took me down a rabbit hole a bit as they defied some of my learning. My bad. Anyway, I stop.
  2. I can largely agree. I suppose it is past time for thread to get back to how an adulterous Mormon gravely mistreated his wives.
  3. That was one of the things found in the studies summaries I cited. Males caused injury more than females. As a consequence society has a lot of social mores against a man hitting a women (rightly so). This has very probably led to the ratio of non-reciprocated violence. We almost never tell a women it's not ok to hit a man (sometimes such is even celebrated (I've posted anecdotal videos of such on this board before)). The physical imbalance also very likely gives rise to the higher rates of use of relational aggression by women -- not that such is anywhere near equivalent, but neither should it be ignored when a couple is having problems. Still, I will stand by my opinion that the rates of intimate partner violence are not nearly so gender imbalanced as to justify a fully one-sided approach to recognition and social pressures to stop the violence. My suspicion is that such an approach (which is the approach we/society are currently using) won't be nearly as efficacious as it could otherwise be. Inasmuch as bishops are exposed to these horrible scenarios, I think they should be aware of the possibilities that it isn't just what society often tells us (e.g. male always to blame and is the aggressor).
  4. if the proplem was significantly unitlateral I suppose a one side approach might help things. As the situation is not nearly as (not even really close) one sided where, efforts to addrress side of things will in the long term help but just confuse things. Bishops should be trained with the reality of things and know they have immediate access to expets. Some are also gifted with spiritual talente an skills to use them.
  5. I will have to vigorously disagree that we just call all domestic abuse male violence against women. It factually is not. Intimate partner violence includes violence of women against men too. And it occurs at a much higher rate than we sometimes like to acknowledge (see prior comment). About half of domestic violence incidence involve reciprocity. Men are more likely to cause physical injury. Women are more likely to be the perpetrator in non-reciprocal violence (~70%). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ Relating these back to Mormonism, whatever training bishops should have with respect to recognizing domestic violence, I think they should also learn to recognize when the husband is the abusee and not just vice versa.
  6. Those statistics don't sound quite right. From the CDC report (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf): "Intimate partner contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking was experienced by 37.3% of U.S. women during their lifetime, with state estimates ranging from 27.8% to 45.3% (all states) and 30.9% of U.S. men, with state estimates ranging from 18.5% to 38.2% (all states)." The 85% figure seems to just divide 30.9/37.9 (=.828). But that doesn't strike me as an appropriate expression of the data. Instead one should take the % / (%+%) giving an ~55% and 45% gender ratio. Count the well known issue of IPV (intimate partner violence) being under-reported by males and the statistics don't paint the same figure that the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence is presenting. Irrespective of which population is the more victimized, domestic violence is a bad thing all around (as is relational aggression).
  7. While I agree with what you say, I offer another purpose which I think is more important. I've long said that one of the smartest things the Church has done is get our 19-21 (not 18-20) year old boys "off the street" as it were. A mission is like a reverse bremsstrahlung. While converting others is good and one of the primary purposes of a mission, the most important convert a missionary can have is their own self. Granted, they needed to be converted before going on a mission, but the mission ideally and often deepens that conversion.
  8. New First Presidency

    I've seen quite a few people upset and disappointed by the new composition of the new First Presidency. Part of that upset is they view the new scenario as one representing a backwards step for the Church (as opposed to Elder Uchtdorf's "progressive" nature). Many hopeful for radical change despair that this new First Presidency is a symbol of the Church digging its heels into old, outdated ways. I do not see it that way, not at all. I fully acknowledge that we, as a Church, do have things that need to change. Much of the membership of the Church is still caught in social conventions and mores that are not quite compatible with a Zion society. I also acknowledge that some of the Brethren may have attitudes about things that might reflect attitudes from decades earlier. But, I strongly believe that for more Zion-like social norms and doctrinal understanding to be adopted by the Church it is not the First Presidency that impairs our progress. We as a people (worldwide, and not just in the US) have to be ready for advancement. Some of the Brethren in the past have held opinions that we might call bigoted today. They are people too. What I have full confidence in is that if we, the membership, are ready for change then Pres. Nelson and his counselors and the rest of the Brethren and other General Officers of the Church won't hold us back -- no matter what their personal short comings imagined or real might be. And if they need a change in mindset, they will change as needed. I believe they will listen to, acknowledge, and give heed to revelation irrespective of their personal preconceptions and facilitate the Church as a whole adopting them. I have vastly far more confidence in the First Presidency executing the will of the Savior for the Church than random bloggers and commentators armchair quarterbacking.
  9. Graphs and more on this study: http://wmbriggs.com/post/17238/ The data is, of course, incontrovertible. Or one can ask a few relevant questions like this blogger does: How likely would the "research" have been similarly cited by some groups if the "results" were the reverse? I would venture to say very likely, at least by several groups (and good chance of being posted on this forum to boot). But, reverse conclusions would have been just as spurious.
  10. The study is not without potentially serious issues but at the very least, the response by the media was vastly hyperbolic: One can find lots on it. I had linked a much more thorough commentary to it a pastor friend but can't find it at the moment (and don't want to take the time to hunt it down). Still, here is a quick grab of some commentaries: https://futurism.com/no-science-does-not-say-that-religious-children-are-more-likely-to-be-immoral/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-with-a-religious-upbringing-show-less-altruism/ https://www.quora.com/A-study-link-in-details-finds-that-religiosity-decreases-altruism-and-increases-punitive-behavior-in-children-Does-it-reflect-a-universal-truth-or-is-the-study-flawed
  11. President Trump visits Welfare Square

    Also interested, if that's ok.
  12. Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

    The bolded statement above doesn't mesh with the statistics I see. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/03/17/family-farms-are-focus-new-agriculture-census-data https://www.farmflavor.com/nebraska/nebraska-family-farms/ Not sure about the whole estate thing (not a farmer myself), but even estate taxes are a significant and non-trivial thing that has to be planned for (see for example: https://ufarm.com/2015/07/11/estate-taxes-nebraska-farmland-mean-heirs/ or http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/death-tax-killing-american-family-farms/). But the thread is about Mormons, large family size, and proposed taxes relevant to such. So, I shan't get into an exchange on this chain of thought. I'm just not persuaded your stated opinions here accurately reflect the situation.
  13. Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

    Here is one of several estimators based on proposals under consideration. I don't trust anything yet though. Very cynical at the moment. http://taxplancalculator.com/calc
  14. Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

    I guess trials are just one of those things that are part of mortality to help us grow. I can take consolation in that some of my trials are externally imposed as opposed to self-inflicted. The Gospel is a great tool (if not the best) in helping us avoid self-inflicted trials. I can also take consolation in the idea that mortality really is just a flash in the pan is it were.
  15. Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

    One of the very best things my wife did for our family was sign us up for a high deductible plan. She did so a year or two before my diagnosis with a chronic disease (which results in uninsured costs of >$100,000). This year past year with my daughter would have been real bad with uninsured costs over >$500,000. Since the HSA can also be applied to braces but the insurance doesn't directly apply, that has also been good. That her work supplements the HSA with the difference her employer would pay between a normal deductible and the HSA is nice too. Maybe HSA's aren't for everybody, but for me and my family, it was an inspired move by my wife (before the medical stuff hit the fan as it were).