Jump to content

jbarm

Members
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

jbarm's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

122

Reputation

  1. I would guess some of you are also advocates of the removal of "Onward Christian Soldiers " and "Army of Helaman" from LDS music curriculum too. Might incite the Danites to rise up and attack folks. Jb
  2. It would be nice if California Boy, his apparent alter ego Canadiandude and HappyJackWagon and the like would quit quibbling around the edges with these attacks on semantics of a speech by a GA and state what they really want, which is... Unequivocal moral endorsement of gay sexual relations sanctioned by the Church. Just say that is what you want and that you will not be satisfied until it happens. Anything else you say is just obfuscation of your real intent. Be up front and honest about your strategy and goals. Everything else is just noise. I can respect your opinion if you are at least honest about your real objectives. Sheesh. Jb
  3. I really didn't miss the point. The underlying point of the critics is that the Church needs to embrace and endorse gay marriage to truly be pro family or whatever. This post is making the same argument, just from an oblique angle.
  4. I know... If the Church only endorsed gay marriage or female ordination then it would grow, right? Community of Christ did so and saw 25 % of members leave. Episcopalian Church did so and has seen a 50% drop in membership. Potential retention of a few liberal members at the cost of losing the core of conservative members is quite irrational. If the Church is just an expensive club which changes its rules to meet the whims of it's members then it will follow the same path. Jb
  5. I think you hit the nail on the head for the folks complaining the most about the Women's session and the FP speakers. I suspect they are really wanting to have women's priesthood ordination but don't want to fight that battle head on. Just like most of those complaining about gay rights on this forum seem to be really aiming for gay temple marriage but won't say it out loud. If those are your real goals, be honest about it and quit quibbling about these minor issues. Jb
  6. I have to chuckle at the proposed 'solutions' to declining birth rates in the Church or US. If only some rich entity (Church or US Gov't) would give free housing, free education, free childcare -- then birthrates would increase. Too bad people haven't looked at the results of such efforts to increase birthrates already attempted around the globe: Empirical evidence is these efforts do not make much of difference in fertility rates. Sweden and Norway both are heavily socialized, offering generous paid familial leave, subsidized or free childcare, direct subsidies to parents who have children. Net result: declines in birthrates despite these efforts well below replacement levels of 2.1 births per woman. Singapore offers direct cash payments to parents of children to try to boost fertility rates, but has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.1 births per woman). South Korea is offering something similar to new parents and they are below 1 birth per woman and their total population is shrinking. Japan has offered such subsidies and their population is dropping by over 400,000 people per year. Utah used to have the highest fertility rate in the US and is now in 4th place -- but Utah's rate is now below the replacement rate at only 1.99 births per woman. HIgher education, careers and later marriage ages for women are the primary cause of lower birthrates, not the lack of some gov't or Church subsidy. Prime years for child bearing are taken up with those activities (which I am in favor of for my daughters), so basic math shows a lower potential number of children can be borne during a shorter available time period for bearing children. 'Children of record' total numbers have been declining in the Church for the last 5 years or so, thus reflecting the lower birth rates in the Church. Social programs can't stop this decline as long as women are empowered to get educated, work outside the home and choose when and if they get married. Nothing can stop this trend, especially superficial and ineffective subsidies favored by the 'government will save us' faction. I can't see any way to turn the demographic tide either within or without the Church. jb
×
×
  • Create New...