The Unflinching Pragmatism of the LDS Church

[waveslider]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Could you clarify your point?  Do you think those links prove that "it isn't melting like everyone keeps telling us it is", or are they examples of the debunked lies that everyone keeps telling us?

If you want more clarification I suggest you follow the posts that preceded this one and where the original suggestion that Florida would soon be submerged under water due to Global Warming. Yes, and yes.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's quite clear that you have no clue about what I do and do not get. All I've argued is that the world ought to get to a point where it is in long-term equilibrium with the environment.   Low fertility in the West, immigration, real population bombs elsewhere, less than ZPG in some populations, immigration, the Philippines, America, Japan, the economics of aging populations, whether Catholics listen to the pope, and Dr. Ehrlich's vasectomy have no bearing on that fact.

The LDS Church has historically taught that couples should get married young, start having kids young, and have large families.  The general concept was that "multiply and replenish the earth" was the first commandment and means we should all have as many children as we can, without regard to the economic challenges of large families.  The Church has backed away from that position, and a growing percentage of Mormons are disregarding this advice anyway.  

All I'm saying is that in terms of having "unflinching pragmatism," the church should teach that how many children you have is a personal matter, and there is nothing wrong with limiting your particular family to 2 kids or fewer if that's what you think is best.  Yes, if too many people have very small families that leads to other economic problems.  But as general advice, 2 or 3 kids is a decent family size, and in general there is nothing wrong with some families having more and others having less, just as long as overall it stays in balance.  Do you disagree with that advice?

If changes in technology continue the long-term equilibrium point will continue to fluctuate as well. If industrialized agriculture broke down tomorrow people would be dying off in large numbers within a year. If agricultural efficiency improves we can support a larger population.

Unless something bigger hits (Second Coming PLEASE) the biggest changes in population supported will be how we cope with a decreasing need for economic labor over the next 50 years and what that does to the economy.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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

The LDS Church has historically taught that couples should get married young, start having kids young, and have large families.  The general concept was that "multiply and replenish the earth" was the first commandment and means we should all have as many children as we can, without regard to the economic challenges of large families.  The Church has backed away from that position, and a growing percentage of Mormons are disregarding this advice anyway.  

All I'm saying is that in terms of having "unflinching pragmatism," the church should teach that how many children you have is a personal matter, and there is nothing wrong with limiting your particular family to 2 kids or fewer if that's what you think is best.  Yes, if too many people have very small families that leads to other economic problems.  But as general advice, 2 or 3 kids is a decent family size, and in general there is nothing wrong with some families having more and others having less, just as long as overall it stays in balance.  Do you disagree with that advice?

The LDS Church already teaches "that how many children you have is a personal matter," and I am satisfied to see you finally admit that having too few children can present problems.  However, rather than put things in regional terms, you still only address a generic need for worldwide balance, the same problem Dr Ehrlich had. Since history is oscillatory and unpredictable, rather than linear, we need to be supple and resilient in addressing future problems.  We are not doing a very good job of that here in the West, even though we are in a far better position than the rest of mankind.

[Thinking]

This discussion about population control reminds me of a scene from The Matrix.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

With the exact same job history as well?  (I know that some difference still remains, but it tends to be significantly diminished in some areas when time working/experience gets taken into account)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/archive/women-in-the-labor-force-a-databook-2015.pdf

This report is 105 pages long if you want a comprehensive study.

But if you want stats:

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womens-earnings-and-income

 

[gopher]

At which point would you feel the church has gone too far in addressing social issues?  The church got beat up over the SSM fight, even from within by the more progressive members.  The church also doesn't just speak out on issues, but often establishes programs to deal with them.  We have employment centers, addiction and recovery groups, education (including Pathways which has been an enormously success in my ward), bishop's storehouses, etc.  Should the church get involved in also creating programs for healthcare (if the ACA crashes and burns), sponsoring homeschool programs (due to failing and increasingly hostile to church standards in public schools), helping members with home ownership or other worthy goals?  One complaint from my ex-mo family was they felt the church was too involved in telling them how to live their lives.  I'm sure there are many more social issues where the church could get involved, but should they? 

Edited September 24, 2016 by gopher

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would add that it mean no more than two kids per family on average.  Ideally, people who don't want kids and wouldn't want to be parents will have fewer than two, and people that do want to have kids and would make good parents would have more than two.  As long as there is a long-term equilibrium, we won't need to rely on plagues, wars, and starvation to keep the population under control.  Hopefully this balanced can be achieved by people living their own lives the way they want without heavy handed government interference.  Linking this to the OP, I would suggest the church better emphasize that family size is a personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with choosing to have a smaller family if that's what you think is right for you.

The number and spacing of  children is the responsibility of the parents according to the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

If you want more clarification I suggest you follow the posts that preceded this one and where the original suggestion that Florida would soon be submerged under water due to Global Warming. Yes, and yes.

No! Florida will not soon be underwater. Some parts experience flooding by sea water already. The melting at the North Pole and rising water temperature expansion due to Global Warming are the cause.

SEE http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article41416653.html

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The number and spacing of  children is the responsibility of the parents according to the Church.

Glad to hear it.  But in terms of promoting "unflinching pragmatism," it would be nice to hear an explicit message that humanity has successfully multiplied and replenished the earth, and going forward our goal is to live in balance with it, not to multiply.

[Teancum]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:55 AM, smac97 said:

The LDS Church has, for many years, been teaching many good and virtuous principles about what could be called "righteous living."  Some of these teachings necessarily require the Church to address social ills.  Recently, Elder Holland addressed one that has not been raised previously.  See here:

The Brethren have been rather direct in addressing many other societal problems: verbal/sexual/physical/emotional abuse, pornography, substance abuse, and so on.  Although FGM is perhaps not "on the radar" for many Latter-day Saints in the U.S. and elsewhere, it is clearly a serious problem.  I am glad it is being addressed.

More from the article:

Well done, Elder Holland!

The Church also has much to say about personal/family finances (avoid debt, avoid profligate expenditures, etc.), food storage, emergency preparedness, voting and civic duties, community service and outreach, personal health and wellness, emphasis on family, parental responsibilities, and so on.  This is in addition to the Church's emphasis on "spiritual" things like missionary work, family history and temple work, serving in Church callings, visiting and home teaching, reading scriptures, prayer, and so on.

In sum, I appreciate that the LDS Church is striving to be both deeply spiritual and deeply pragmatic.  I have long valued this counsel from Pres. Joseph F. Smith:

So here's a question: Are there other widespread social issues which you think the Church should be addressing (or addressing with greater emphasis)?  Care for the environment comes to mind (practical stuff, not the trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for "environmentalism" in some quarters). 

I'd also like to see a renewed emphasis on family gardens, food storage and emergency preparedness.  Although not well-known in the US, the Church has been working extensively in many countries to help with clean water, personal hygiene, and community gardening (my brother works for the Church and is heavily involved in these efforts).

On a personal note, my family signed up for a community garden, and we have been astounded at how much food comes out of it.  More vine-ripened tomatoes than we know what to do with, squash, kale, chard, etc.  

Also, I used a portion of last year's tax refund to purchase an in-home freeze dryer.  It was an expensive purchase on the front end, but I think it will end up being worthwhile.  Having paid for and having it sit in my storage room has made me want to use it.  A lot.  I have been using it consistently for about 8 months, and I now have large stores of freeze dried meats (chicken, sausage, pork, beef), fruits (apples, bananas, mangoes, strawberries, cherries, pineapple), eggs (raw egg crystals, scrambled eggs, omelettes), cheeses (cheddar, mozzarella, parmesan), vegetables (all sorts), sauces, soups, breakfasts, desserts, ready-to-eat meals, etc.  The shelf-life for freeze dried food is considerably longer than frozen or canned goods (low end is 7 years for eggs, but 15-30 years for most other types of food), and the taste and nutritional value is much, much better.

I have also been gradually purchasing quantities of dry goods from the LDS Cannery (sugar, oats, wheat, rice, spaghetti, milk powder, etc.).  

We also have neighbors with a plum tree that overhangs our back yard, so last Saturday we picked about 40 pounds (in less than 30 minutes) and made about 4-5 gallons of delicious plum jam.  We froze the remaining pureed plums for freeze drying next week.

We also have two apple trees in our back yard with a huge load of apples on them.  I expect to harvest hundreds of pounds of apples, which we will turn into applesauce, apple butter (which my kids sell in our front yard), frozen pie/cobbler filling, freeze drying, and distributing to neighbors and friends.

Our ward is also planning an emergency preparedness event for November.  It will be a potluck dinner, but we will also be talking about three emergency preparedness topics: water storage/filtration, emergency heating options, and one more yet to be determined.  We also have four members of our ward enrolled in CERT training at the local fire station.  

In sum, I feel a lot more prepared than I did a year ago, partly because I have turned food storage into a hobby, but primarily because of the Church's teachings.  The World seems to be getting a bit more touch-and-go these days, so as time goes on I find listening to the counsel of the Church makes more and more sense.  I am grateful for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you have provided some very good documentation of some wonderful things the LDS Church does and some things that the Church leaders have taken positions on. Some of them are really great. Others maybe not depending on your views.  But I do not have a problem if the Church advocates social issues that fit its perceived mission.

What else would I like to see? Here are a few:

1:  The issues of war and some of what the USA has done regarding preemptive wars like Iraq.

2: I would like the leaders to speak more about political neutrality and emphasize that the Church encompasses many people of many political influences.  I would like them to denounce the idea that seems so prevalent among LDS members in the USA that one must be a conservative to be in good standing with the Church so people like BC Space understand the political neutrality of the Church in no uncertain terms.

3: I would like them to speak out more about economic and social injustice and put more money behind such words.

 

4:  This one is likely to stir the pot but I would like the Church to publish its financial information.  This to me is a put your money where your mouth is.

 

 

 

[strappinglad]

There is some " spitting into the wind " and " straightening deck chairs on the Titanic " going on here.

All growth in nature is ' exponential' There is such a thing as exponential ' decay ' but that is not how nature usually works. Some years ago near where I live, the population of deer rose considerably over a few good years . Then came a particularly bad winter. Deer starved by the hundreds. The population dropped by about 90 % . That's how Nature works . Sorry, but that is probably how it will happen to humans too.

I find it interesting that the vocal environmentalists would be really miffed it they were collectively restricted from the use of planes, trains, and automobiles and kept off all computers and other devices that are built with petroleum .The Canadian environment guru , Suzuki , decried the excessive emissions of airlines.... and promptly took a flight to Australia. Maybe we could ask all the Malthusian types to volunteer to stand against the wall first.

China's one child policy may have slowed population growth , but it created a demographic nightmare with a major imbalance  between genders . Ugliness awaits in the near future.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Glad to hear it.  But in terms of promoting "unflinching pragmatism," it would be nice to hear an explicit message that humanity has successfully multiplied and replenished the earth, and going forward our goal is to live in balance with it, not to multiply.

I have 3 children, and 5 Grands.

[thesometimesaint]

22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

There is some " spitting into the wind " and " straightening deck chairs on the Titanic " going on here.

All growth in nature is ' exponential' There is such a thing as exponential ' decay ' but that is not how nature usually works. Some years ago near where I live, the population of deer rose considerably over a few good years . Then came a particularly bad winter. Deer starved by the hundreds. The population dropped by about 90 % . That's how Nature works . Sorry, but that is probably how it will happen to humans too.

I find it interesting that the vocal environmentalists would be really miffed it they were collectively restricted from the use of planes, trains, and automobiles and kept off all computers and other devices that are built with petroleum .The Canadian environment guru , Suzuki , decried the excessive emissions of airlines.... and promptly took a flight to Australia. Maybe we could ask all the Malthusian types to volunteer to stand against the wall first.

China's one child policy may have slowed population growth , but it created a demographic nightmare with a major imbalance  between genders . Ugliness awaits in the near future.

Shooting the messenger again I see.  The key is in using our resources wisely. Retreating into the early 20th Century will do nothing but add misery on top of death.

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have 3 children, and 5 Grands.

Congratulations!  

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:09 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

How about the gender gap in wages? Should women, just because they are women, be paid 75% of man's wage for doing the same job? Statistics from the US and Europe show that women, in all the major industrial nations, receive remarkablely less pay than men when doing the exact same job with the exact same qualifications. 

Is there a logical reason that such an ijustice exists? Does this make sense as a method to discourage women from leaving the home and placing themselves in the job market? Does this also make sense for women who, because of circumstances, must put themselves back in the work force?

If an employer -- greedy capitalist pig that he is -- could hire equally qualified women  to do the same exact job as male workers -- yet get away with paying them substantially less -- why would he hire any male workers at all?   

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/22/2016 at 11:41 AM, The Nehor said:

I loved the story about a high-profile individual buying an incredibly environmentally-friendly car and having flown in from Europe on a specially chartered plane.....that provided more envionmental impact in that one flight then any ten cars over their entire lifetime.

I haven't figured out whether the cause of this stuff is a desire to be showy or people just being plain stupid. I tend towards the latter. I find stupidity is more often the cause of human error then actual malice.

Power hungry progressives want the peanut gallery to do as they say and not as they do.  They want to be exempt from their own decisions they place on us.  Every time the president says that there is no place in American society for AR-15 and other semi-automatic guns as they are "weapons of war" but they have no problem being protected by security forces that use those same guns.  They want the guns to protect themselves but the average person, nope.  Celebs constantly tell us about gun control while these same people go around with armed security. 

Edited September 25, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[thesometimesaint]

Given American History it might be a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of would be, and real, political assassins.

SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2016/09/keith-olbermann-repudiating-trumps-sick

Edited September 25, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

What else would I like to see? Here are a few:

1:  The issues of war and some of what the USA has done regarding preemptive wars like Iraq.

That's an interesting thought.  There is a sort of problem with differentiation and labels here.  The Church's stance on war is fairly concise:

Quote

The Saints are to renounce war and proclaim peace. However, under certain circumstances, war is justified (see D&C 98:16–18, 33–48; see also Ecclesiastes 3:1–8; Alma 43:45–47; 46:12, 19–21).

D&C 98:33-48 is particularly instructive.

What are your thoughts about how far the Church should go into the particulars of such things?  Do you also think the Church should publicly critique the morality of The Vietnam War?  The Korean Conflict?  World War II?

And what about other moral-and-political issues?  For example, the Church generally opposes, with some narrow exceptions, elective abortion.  Do you also think the Church should speak out against Planned Parenthood?  Should it criticize the Democratic Party Platform's "strong and unequivocal" support of Roe v. Wade?

What about same-sex marriage?  Do you support the Church's publicly speaking on this issue?

Quote

2: I would like the leaders to speak more about political neutrality and emphasize that the Church encompasses many people of many political influences.  I would like them to denounce the idea that seems so prevalent among LDS members in the USA that one must be a conservative to be in good standing with the Church so people like BC Space understand the political neutrality of the Church in no uncertain terms.

Hmm.  I think the Church does a pretty good job of maintaining political neutrality.  Its members, however, are not so constrained.

Also, what are your thoughts about instances going the other way, such as Gregory Prince, a Democrat, publicly declaring that Mitt Romney's political statements "sull{y}" Mormonism, that Romney is "not the face of Mormonism," that Romney did not care about poor people, etc. (sentiments with which Sen. Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, and also a member of the Church, publicly agreed)?

Quote

3: I would like them to speak out more about economic and social injustice and put more money behind such words.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?  And what "money" do you think the Church should invest?  Invest in what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2016 by smac97

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Power hungry progressives want the peanut gallery to do as they say and not as they do.  They want to be exempt from their own decisions they place on us.  Every time the president says that there is no place in American society for AR-15 and other semi-automatic guns as they are "weapons of war" but they have no problem being protected by security forces that use those same guns.  They want the guns to protect themselves but the average person, nope.  Celebs constantly tell us about gun control while these same people go around with armed security. 

The average person is not a political target for violence. Unless you seriously think you need an armed escort too and that various violent groups are chomping at the bit to shoot you as a symbolic gesture.

[waveslider]

19 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No! Florida will not soon be underwater. Some parts experience flooding by sea water already. The melting at the North Pole and rising water temperature expansion due to Global Warming are the cause.

SEE http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article41416653.html

Perhaps you could use a more up to date article. Your article link here talks of climate change predictions from global warming. All of those predictions for the past 18 years have all failed to come to pass. The Earth isn't warming and the ice isn't melting any more than normal. If you went back a few of my previous posts here, I left two links to the amount of ice that is currently on both poles, and they are actually up to date. The poles obviously aren't melting and aren't going to cause flooding. It's a bunch of politically and governmental funded science fraud. You can believe what you want, but I choose to look for myself at the data, instead of listening to all their hype. With the internet there is absolutely no excuse to be ignorant of the data ourselves, and the truth of the matter is, is that the data doesn't match the global warming theory at all.

[waveslider]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Given American History it might be a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of would be, and real, political assassins.

SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2016/09/keith-olbermann-repudiating-trumps-sick

And how do you do that? Create more infringing laws that only law abiding citizens abide by anyway, leaving only the lawless (criminals) with guns they get on the black market? I think it might be a better idea to have more law abiding citizens with guns to help stop a would be assassin, not take more guns away from law abiding citizens.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The average person is not a political target for violence. Unless you seriously think you need an armed escort too and that various violent groups are chomping at the bit to shoot you as a symbolic gesture.

So people who only are random targets of violence don't deserve to have arms for defense? Only political targets should be allowed to have armed defense? All people should have a right to defend themselves from any form of violence, especially since the 2nd amendment is supposed to guarantee that right. Too bad so many people don't want to follow their oath of office in upholding the constitution, but instead want to regulate and take guns away.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

And how do you do that? Create more infringing laws that only law abiding citizens abide by anyway, leaving only the lawless (criminals) with guns they get on the black market? I think it might be a better idea to have more law abiding citizens with guns to help stop a would be assassin, not take more guns away from law abiding citizens.

ALL LAWS infringe on "law abiding citizens". I've never committed murder. Do we need laws against me committing murder?

How about more background checks, closing the Gun Show loophole, Smart Guns, no internet sales of guns, more training on the proper use of firearms, etc., etc., etc.?

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

Perhaps you could use a more up to date article. Your article link here talks of climate change predictions from global warming. All of those predictions for the past 18 years have all failed to come to pass. The Earth isn't warming and the ice isn't melting any more than normal. If you went back a few of my previous posts here, I left two links to the amount of ice that is currently on both poles, and they are actually up to date. The poles obviously aren't melting and aren't going to cause flooding. It's a bunch of politically and governmental funded science fraud. You can believe what you want, but I choose to look for myself at the data, instead of listening to all their hype. With the internet there is absolutely no excuse to be ignorant of the data ourselves, and the truth of the matter is, is that the data doesn't match the global warming theory at all.

IS 2016 up-to-date enough for you.

SEE http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

You have demonstrated that you have neither the skill, nor aptitude to evaluate scientific data yourself.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

So people who only are random targets of violence don't deserve to have arms for defense? Only political targets should be allowed to have armed defense? All people should have a right to defend themselves from any form of violence, especially since the 2nd amendment is supposed to guarantee that right. Too bad so many people don't want to follow their oath of office in upholding the constitution, but instead want to regulate and take guns away.

So people who only are random targets of violence don't deserve to have nukes in case someone targets their home with an ICBM? Only governments should be allowed to have armed nuclear weapons?All people should have a right to defend themselves from any form of violence, especially since the 2nd amendment is supposed to guarantee that right. Too bad so many people don't want to follow their oath of office in upholding the constitution, but instead want to regulate and take guns away.

The logic holds if you hold it as absolute. It also means I should be allowed to have mustard gas, anthrax, and all kinds of fun weapons of mass destruction. If you hold a more nuanced view where a reasonable level of self-defense is permissible then there is room to discuss what kind of weapons people should be allowed to have and balance personal and public safety.