The Unflinching Pragmatism of the LDS Church

[Calm]

FM talk and elsewhere and linked to on LDS.org by Sharon Eubanks where she reports how the African woman loves the Church  and explains why with the comment about how the Church is teaching their husbands not to beat them as part of being righteous priesthood holders.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Edit:  changed my mind. Instead I would suggest adding a link to the Wikipedia article of Chris Korda who is the person in the picture who just happens to look like KK with her glasses on.

Done.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could be a hoax where someone has photo imaged the placard as is often done with church billboards and other things.  It may be a vicious commentary on her joining planned parenthood.  I would suggest removing it.

Edit:  changed my mind. Instead I would suggest adding a link to the Wikipedia article of Chris Korda who is the person in the picture who just happens to look like KK with her glasses on.

The fake church marquee possibility occurred to me too. 

How did you identify the person? That's some good sleuthing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Since you asked, I think the church could do better at making a distinction between consensual sex and rape.

To clarify what I mean, my daughter shared with me a 3 minute video about consent that claims "consent is everything."  She says this is highly emphasized at her college. The video makes the point in a way that is entertaining, clever, PG and can be watched here.  The church's teachings about chastity theoretically make teachings about consent irrelevant, but in practical matters, consent IS relevant and somehow needs to be taught. 

The Mormon/BYU culture teaches abstinence and gives rules that are designed to keep people away from falling to the temptation of premarital sex.  That's all well and good, and of course there are great benefits to sticking with that program.

However, it is almost inevitable that a certain percentage of people are going to break some of the hedge rules and in the heat of the moment decide to have sex.  Of course we all know about the list of sins where the sin right underneath murder is sex outside of marriage.  Unfortunately, the list doesn't distinguish between consensual sex and non-consensual sex.  So if you are a guy in the heat of the moment, and you are with a woman that chose to put herself into a compromising situation, you might not care about whether or not no means no--after all, she asked for it be drinking or staying up late or wearing a skirt that was a little too short or by getting a little too hot and heavy with you or whatever.  And since having sex is a sin next to murder anyway, could it really be any worse if it's with a girl that is passed out or is pushing you away and saying no or otherwise isn't consenting?  And she probably won't tell anyone anyway because she has been conditioned to think that it is her fault for tempting you and even if she doesn't think that, she knows that if she complains to the police or Title IX office about being the victim of a felony, she'll likely be kicked out of school. 

So as a widespread social issue that the Church should be better addressing, it needs to emphasize that regardless of what lead up to the moment, non-consensual sex is called rape and is infinitely worse than consensual sex outside of marriage and is also a felony.  Sure, it can teach that you shouldn't have sex until you are married, but it should also teach that sex with somebody who doesn't consent is called rape and the church and university will do everything in their power to support the victim and bring the perpetrator to justice.

I agree with this. 

Bad as sex outside of marriage is, sexual assault or rape is so much worse, and this needs to be impressed upon men and boys who are Church members. If it is not an offense automatically punishable by excommunication, it ought to be. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fake church marquee possibility occurred to me too. 

How did you identify the person? That's some good sleuthing. 

Name on the video is hers, just did a search on that.  No biggie.

[Calm]

"The church's teachings about chastity theoretically make teachings about consent irrelevant...."

Huh?  Even if one assumes all sex is in marriage (which I am hoping is your point), rape can still occur between husband and wife even if it took way too long for American society and laws to accept that.

And iirc, the Church directly teaches that consent in marriage is an absolute.  I may be wrong though, but my memory says no spouse should be pressured into sexual acts s/he is uncomfortable with.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

With regards to environmentalism and population growth, the Church ought to acknowledge that zero population (increase) is in fact the answer. 

The Most Important Video You'll Ever See explains why.

This isn't to say that every family with more than two kids is evil.  If you want to have a large family there is nothing wrong with that, but society as a whole needs to have a balance between people, technology, and the environment.  The reason the population bomb scare scenarios of the 60's didn't come to fruition is partly because of the green revelation and increasing food production, but also because of mega trends of people choosing to have fewer kids.  People that have small families should be thanked, not derided. 

If you personally want more than two kids, you should hope that other families want to have fewer than two kids.  And if you want fewer than two, you should hope that others want to have more.  Having people on the planet is great, but unchecked exponential growth will necessarily lead to calamity.  There needs to be a balance.

One thing that Paul Ehrlich never quite understood is that his efforts were counterproductive precisely where they should not have been:  Right here at home in the USA.  On a worldwide scale it may be true that there is indeed a "population bomb," but here in the USA we do not even have enough procreation to replace ourselves (and the same applies in Europe and Japan), which means that an aging population depends on fewer and fewer working people to provide social security for a growing number of retired.  Only immigration can make up the difference, which means that Europe, for example, will eventually be majority Muslim.  Paul Ehrlich also failed to understand the deleterious effects of the better educated and upper middle class having fewer children:  An entire tradition can die out and not be replaced.

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One thing that Paul Ehrlich never quite understood is that his efforts were counterproductive precisely where they should not have been:  Right here at home in the USA.  On a worldwide scale it may be true that there is indeed a "population bomb," but here in the USA we do not even have enough procreation to replace ourselves (and the same applies in Europe and Japan), which means that an aging population depends on fewer and fewer working people to provide social security for a growing number of retired.  Only immigration can make up the difference, which means that Europe, for example, will eventually be majority Muslim.  Paul Ehrlich also failed to understand the deleterious effects of the better educated and upper middle class having fewer children:  An entire tradition can die out and not be replaced.

ZPG hysteria. One of the less-than-fond memories of growing up in the sixties and seventies. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those are great things, and I am glad to see the Church trying them out.  But the "trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for environmentalism'" which I had in mind is stuff like this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:

Or these:

• Guests Will Fly Halfway Around the World for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Climate Change Speech.
• Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work: Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane.
• Obama Flies Personal Trainer from Chicago to White House Every Week.
• And oh so many more.

There is, I think, a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled "environmentalists."  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath.  See, e.g., the following:

Environmentalism's Deep Misanthropy

Environmentalists against humans: Green is the Color of Misanthropy

Radical Environmentalism Hides Hatred for Humanity

Anti-Humanism Subverts Environmental Movement

Perhaps "silliness" is not the most apt descriptor.  There are some facets of what passes for "environmentalism" that are downright toxic.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's noteworthy that the beloved British author Charles D-I-c-kens was contemptuous of Malthus and his devotees, as he made his villain, Ebenezer Scrooge, one of them. To wit:

"If [the poor] be like to die, they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population."

Toxic indeed!

Edited September 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Zero population isn't the answer.

Pretty sure there is a song that says it is.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure there is a song that says it is.

Yeah, I think I remember that song from that 80s musical, "Saturday's Warrior."

[Rivers]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this. 

Bad as sex outside of marriage is, sexual assault or rape is so much worse, and this needs to be impressed upon men and boys who are Church members. If it is not an offense automatically punishable by excommunication, it ought to be. 

I was under the impression that things like sexual assault, rape, and female genital mutilation are obviously evil and we therefore don't need to be told these things are bad.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was under the impression that things like sexual assault, rape, and female genital mutilation are obviously evil and we therefore don't need to be told these things are bad.

When one's culture says otherwise, people may be confused and need to be taught the truth.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Calm

[Buckeye]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I live in an area of Provo that is, how should I put it, somewhat socioeconomically modest.  Unemployment and underemployment is an important focus in our stake and in our ward.

Our bishop has notified us of a joint initiative by the LDS Business College and the Church's Employment Resource Services Centers to develop "short-course, online training" courses for minimal cost ($200-$400).  these courses have been developed by conferring with local companies, who have described the skills sets they need and have agreed to give individuals who complete these courses an interview.  The jobs pay $15 or more, have benefits, and are upwardly mobile.  The training includes interview skills, on-the-job tips, etc.

This is just one of many such efforts by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Awesome. Almost makes me want to live in Provo.

 

.... almost.

[gopher]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Name on the video is hers, just did a search on that.  No biggie.

Using the Chrome browser, you can right click the image and select "Search Google for image" and it'll return links to Chris Korda.  It's a quick way to find out more information about an image on a web page.

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One thing that Paul Ehrlich never quite understood is that his efforts were counterproductive precisely where they should not have been:  Right here at home in the USA.  On a worldwide scale it may be true that there is indeed a "population bomb," but here in the USA we do not even have enough procreation to replace ourselves (and the same applies in Europe and Japan), which means that an aging population depends on fewer and fewer working people to provide social security for a growing number of retired.  Only immigration can make up the difference, which means that Europe, for example, will eventually be majority Muslim.  Paul Ehrlich also failed to understand the deleterious effects of the better educated and upper middle class having fewer children:  An entire tradition can die out and not be replaced.

I understand what you are saying in detail, but it doesn't mean that growing exponentially so that the average population doesn't age is the answer. The reason the population bomb in the U.S. didn't explode is because very quickly a large number enlightened people have chosen to be responsible and have small families. People heading Ehrilch's warning and thereby averting a disaster doesn't prove that the warning was wrong.  Elrich was right, and we should collectively pat ourselves on the back for listening to him. To be clear I'm not implying that folks with large families are irresponsible--I'm saying that enough people are having small families that the system as a whole can support the large families for the folks that want them.  Further, they should be grateful to those large families--they supply the labor force that the country needs.

I understand in detail the demographic strain that an aging population is putting on Social Security.  It's partly caused by people having fewer kids, but is also caused by people living longer.  And the problem is exasperated by the high cost in medical expenses we pay in order to keep old people living longer. 

The cultural tradition of white, upper-middle class Europeans is not in any danger of being put on the endangered species list in the foreseeable future.   

Another example to consider is China.  China's one-child per family policy was drastic and is causing an incredible amount of strain on a population there that is aging very rapidly.  However, that doesn't mean that the policy was a bad one, and it certainly doesn't mean that the entire tradition of Chinese culture will die out and not be replaced.  What the policy does mean is that China averted trying to be now feeding 2 billion people, with a population quickly racing towards 4 billion and then 8 billion and then 16 billion, etc.  Dealing with an old population in China is a painful, difficult thing, but that doesn't mean that it is worse than the alternative.

Continuously having large families so that we always have a population that is young on average isn't the long-term answer.  It can't be.  In 1960, the U.S. growth rate was doubling every 35 years or so.  If we kept on growing at that rate there would still be a lot of pressure on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because of increasing longevity, but let's assume we keep on having kids at that rate so that there is always a large and growing group of workers to pay taxes into Social Security etc.

If we plugged into that rate again, what would happen?  Just to put it into perspective, there are about 39 million people in California and 3 million people in Utah.  What's the "right" number of people for Utah?  Is there an upper-bound on how many people can live there with a reasonably comfortable standard of living?

Year       Utah Population
2016               3,000,000
2051               6,000,000
2086             12,000,000
2121             24,000,000
2156             48,000,000
2191             96,000,000
2268           192,000,000
2303           384,000,000

So if we went by the guideline that every family should have four kids on average, then in 100 years there will be more people in Utah than are now in California, and by the time Salt Lake City is as old as Boston, there will be more people in Utah than currently exist in the entire United States.  If we grow like that then the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets could very well be mostly melted away, which implies that almost all of Florida will be under water, along with most of the major cities on our eastern seaboard.  So not only will we have hundreds of millions of native Utahns to deal with, if we get our share of people that are displaced from elsewhere in America, we might have hundreds of millions of them, too.

But say technology keeps up and we can figure out how use Utah's limited resources to feed 384 million people.  Will Utah be able to feed 800 million in another 40 years?  1.6 billion 40 years after that?  3.2 billion?  6.4 billion?

If we tried to keep the average age very young so that there wouldn't be strains on our social systems due to an aging population, that is what will happen to the population of Utah, and it wouldn't stop until we either chose to stop or nature uses war, disease, and starvation to make the choice for us.  Stopping is painful, but doing it now on our own terms is infinitely better than the alternative.

Growing exponentially so that the average population doesn't age is not the answer.  It can't be. 

The answer is enough people choosing to have small families--ideally across all cultures--so that the total population is at a sustainable level with a high quality of living for all.  Zero population is in fact the answer, my friend.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One thing that Paul Ehrlich never quite understood is that his efforts were counterproductive precisely where they should not have been:  Right here at home in the USA.  On a worldwide scale it may be true that there is indeed a "population bomb," but here in the USA we do not even have enough procreation to replace ourselves (and the same applies in Europe and Japan), which means that an aging population depends on fewer and fewer working people to provide social security for a growing number of retired.  Only immigration can make up the difference, which means that Europe, for example, will eventually be majority Muslim.  Paul Ehrlich also failed to understand the deleterious effects of the better educated and upper middle class having fewer children:  An entire tradition can die out and not be replaced.

The problem isn't in the absolute number of people in the US. We could carry over a billion people like India. If we all wanted to live like a peasant living in India.

Carrying Capacity:

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

When one's culture says otherwise, people may be confused and need to be taught the truth.

And one should never underestimate the human capacity for rationalization. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And one should never underestimate the human capacity for rationalization. 

This is the truest thing you have ever put on this board..IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Yeah, I think I remember that song from that 80s musical, "Saturday's Warrior."

I think Analytics was obliquely alluding to that when he said, "Zero population is indeed the answer."

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

When one's culture says otherwise, people may be confused and need to be taught the truth.

I find male genital mutilation pretty unpalatable, yet my (American) culture says otherwise. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

....................................................................................

Growing exponentially so that the average population doesn't age is not the answer.  It can't be. 

The answer is enough people choosing to have small families--ideally across all cultures--so that the total population is at a sustainable level with a high quality of living for all.  Zero population is in fact the answer, my friend.

Very imaginative, linear thinking on your part, Analytics.  Unfortunately your analysis fails to get a grip on reality.  For one thing, I did not suggest exponential growth, which is just as damaging as ZPG a la Ehrlich, and we see what his approach means in Japan, Europe, and the USA -- where we cannot even replace ourselves.  The birthrate/fertility rate here in the USA is below replacement, i.e., a couple on average is having less than two children.  This means that the population is diminishing, not remaining stable, and not growing.  I am in favor of dynamic equilibrium in large systems of this kind, and am not even concerned with some growth (based on the carrying capacity which sometimesaint has just mentioned) in areas where it can be environmentally sustained.  But that is not the problem we actually face here in America.

Your horrendous straw-man growth projections in Utah are just silly, and have to do at present with high birthrate in one small part of the overall American population, along with regional population shifts.  The only reason for any growth at all in America is immigration, which I strongly favor, even though it robs developing countries of their best-educated people.

The real problem (which Paul Ehrlich ignored) is that we face major debacles on a Malthusian scale this century in both India and China (and nearby areas), where diminishing precipitation in the Himalayas will leave most of humanity without adequate water for irrigation and drinking -- aside from industrial uses.  The resulting political upheavals will mean destabilization and war.  To think that we can simply sit the situation out is not an option.  The whole planet will suffer.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find male genital mutilation pretty unpalatable, yet my (American) culture says otherwise. 

It is a bit of a mixed bag among LDS. Taught by JS but not by today's Saints.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Circumcision

[thesometimesaint]

ZGP means Zero Percent Growth. Not a declining population is some area's and not in others.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population+in+1970+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is a bit of a mixed bag among LDS. Taught by JS but not by today's Saints.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Circumcision

I find the statement in Encyclopedia of Mormonism confusing. If Joseph "affirmed the perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant," does that mean he promoted animal sacrifice and other arcane aspects of the Mosaic law? I think not. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant incorporates the fulfillment of the law of Moses with the coming of Christ, including the ending of both sacrifice by the shedding of blood and the ritual of circumcision. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd