The good things about the Church

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, DT_ said:

Here's something very concerning, "Diabetes UK is warning that children born to women with gestational diabetes are six times more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes later in life."  https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/gestational-diabetes-and-children

"Many babies whose mothers had gestational diabetes have no related health problems. But research has suggested that your baby may be at greater risk of developing obesity and or diabetes in later life. "  https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/pregnancy-complications/gestational-diabetes/long-term-implications-gestational-diabetes

Being "over age 25" is a risk factor.  https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/preventing-gestational-diabetes#risk-factors

I honestly don't understand why society is turning a blind eye to this.   

What benjamin macguire said fits many of my initial thoughts and concerns with this. I would also add that these issues are not just simply telling people to marry young, but making structural shifts that allow for earlier establishment...and even that doesn't guarantee a sudden shift downward in age. Others are going to have a difficult time sussing out larger factors that may correlate with age but aren't directly tied to age (like obesity, sugar intake, general health, and other factors). And no matter how much may be encouraged to get the age to drop, most women will give birth at some point post 25. The church culture can also still encourage larger families. Even if someone gets married super young and has their first kid between the age of 20-22 with a healthy spacing of say 2-3 years between pregnancies. They would only have 2 kids before the were edging to 25. Most active LDS families still have more than 2 kids. My friends who are mostly of childbearing age have all had children post 25. The bigger difference of those of my friends who married younger than I did (I married 6 days shy of 30) is more in the number of kids they've had and the resources available when they did it. They have more kids I have more resources. 

Personally, I see the age of first having young children more as a trade of. Younger allows you the ability to be "done" with kids earlier, have more children more easily if one is so inclined, and have more time to work through fertility concerns if they arise. You may also have more energy that just isn't there as much in the 30's compared to the 20's. Children in 30's likewise have trade-offs. my friends who had kids pre-25 in school who were strapped and stressed trying to finish off college with a kid in tow, living in basement apartments, and eating closer to a college diet than they probably would have liked. When I had my daughter at 31, I had a house, with a garden, a very healthy diet, and established careers that made good pay. My younger friends were winging it more and dealt more with mom-guilt and uncertainty while at times working through some of their own childhood emotional baggage. I already had through my biggest issues and had watched enough of my friends/other peers work through their shiz to know that kids generally will land right with a few bare-min standards of care. So which one's better? I have no clue. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by BlueDreams

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe Joseph F. Smith was a pagan.

“The Saints should not be unwise, but rather understand what the will of the Lord is, and practice moderation in all things. They should avoid excesses and cease from sin, putting far from them ‘the lusts of men’; and in their amusements and pastimes adopt a course that looks to the spirit as well as the letter, the intention and not the act alone, the whole and not the part, which is the meaning of moderation. In this way their conduct will be reasonable and becoming, and they shall find no trouble in understanding the will of the Lord.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 239.)

As for the OP, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. My daughter and her husband recently stopped going to church. She's in the stage where "the church sucks," and she's not seeing a lot of positive things. I told her it's important to get the anger and hurt out, and later she'll be able to see more clearly the good and the bad. 

Hah! Thanks JK! I was thinking today that I should ask, even though the idea originates outside of Scripture and Christian tradition, in what should we not be moderate? It is an appeal to reason, to giving each good its proper place and priority. I think the Christian should hold that everything that is canonized is true, but not all truth is canonized. Nobody is wrong about everything, even Greek philosophers. What is wrong with "moderation in all things"? I had heard it from the Catholic side, and did not realize its origin. Now I hear it from the LDS side!

Thanks again jkwilliams.

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

In what should we not be moderate?

I might suggest three easy responses that work for me: adultery, hatred, and loving God.

Beyond that, most of the time when I hear the phrase, it's from people who are criticising devotion/commitment. For example, my apostatising flatmate when I was a postgraduate student in America frequently cautioned me to be 'moderate in all things' whenever he thought I was being too committed in my discipleship (including leaving an hour early for church so that I could pick up four other people who lacked private transportation). I finally figured out that he believed the phrase was in the Bible. I was certain it wasn't, but I didn't know its origin, so that was the first time I Googled it.

I find it stands in stark opposition to a number of scriptural injunctions, including the Lord's statement in Revelation 3:15-16:

Quote

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[3DOP]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I might suggest three easy responses that work for me: adultery, hatred, and loving God.

Beyond that, most of the time when I hear the phrase, it's from people who are criticising devotion/commitment. For example, my apostatising flatmate when I was a postgraduate student in America frequently cautioned me to be 'moderate in all things' whenever he thought I was being too committed in my discipleship (including leaving an hour early for church so that I could pick up four other people who lacked private transportation). I finally figured out that he believed the phrase was in the Bible. I was certain it wasn't, but I didn't know its origin, so that was the first time I Googled it.

I find it stands in stark opposition to a number of scriptural injunctions, including the Lord's statement in Revelation 3:15-16:

I do not propose moderation for that which is always and everywhere evil, such as adultery. I am not sure what you mean by hatred. We should not even hate our enemies. We should hate that which is always and everywhere evil. It seems to me to be difficult to squeeze coffee and alcohol into that category. As I understand the expression under discussion it refers to that which is good sometimes and in some places. Created things like "Peace, Baseball, Beer, Joy, War, Boxing, Tolstoy, Wine, Church, Tennis, Family, Monastics, Economics, Politics, Scotland, Oceans, Prayer, Heaven, Flowers, Space, Bobby Darin, Time, Dracula, Rivers, Fire, Angels, Aquinas, Real Estate, Maureen O'Hara, Fish, Wind, Honey, Motion, The First Lady of Song, Lava, Stomach Acid, Merging, Jumping, Water Softeners, Barbecue, Bone, Bananas, Skin, American Football, Olivia de Havilland, and Michaelangelo."  All created things can be loved to excess. One cannot love the Supreme Good, God, to excess. We need not worry that we could develop an inordinate love of God that exceeds reason. As understood by the Catholic Church, and apparently Joseph F. Smith (LDS), the expression is to be applied to every good which God creates, but not to God who is all good, nor to goods which have been corrupted, and are always and everywhere evil.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I do not propose moderation for that which is always and everywhere evil, such as adultery. I am not sure what you mean by hatred. We should not even hate our enemies. We should hate that which is always and everywhere evil. It seems to me to be difficult to squeeze coffee and alcohol into that category. As I understand the expression under discussion it refers to that which is good sometimes and in some places. Created things like "Peace, Baseball, Beer, Joy, War, Boxing, Tolstoy, Wine, Church, Tennis, Family, Monastics, Economics, Politics, Scotland, Oceans, Prayer, Heaven, Flowers, Space, Bobby Darin, Time, Dracula, Rivers, Fire, Angels, Aquinas, Real Estate, Maureen O'Hara, Fish, Wind, Honey, Motion, The First Lady of Song, Lava, Stomach Acid, Merging, Jumping, Water Softeners, Barbecue, Bone, Bananas, Skin, American Football, Olivia de Havilland, and Michaelangelo."  All created things can be loved to excess. One cannot love the Supreme Good, God, to excess. We need not worry that we could develop an inordinate love of God that exceeds reason. As understood by the Catholic Church, and apparently Joseph F. Smith (LDS), the expression is to be applied to every good which God creates, but not to God who is all good, nor to goods which have been corrupted, and are always and everywhere evil.

Well said, Rory. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/21/2022 at 7:57 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have never found this particular Pagan injunction to be very useful, to be honest

I find it interesting that you attack the source of this idea, when your very own church gives you the admonition to seek out truth wherever it is. What does it matter that this idea comes from a pagan source? It looks like you’re trying to play a gotcha game, Hamba. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I find it interesting that you attack the source of this idea, when your very own church gives you the admonition to seek out truth wherever it is.

You're misreading me, I'm afraid. No attack whatsoever. I simply haven't found it to be very useful.

[carbon dioxide]

What really does it mean to be moderate.  There is no definition for it.  A heavy drinker of 8 beers a day might decide to become moderate and go to 5 beers a day.  The problem with moderation is it is not always easy to be moderate.  Even moderate drinkers sometimes go off the deep end. 

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Beyond that, most of the time when I hear the phrase, it's from people who are criticising devotion/commitment. For example, my apostatising flatmate when I was a postgraduate student in America frequently cautioned me to be 'moderate in all things' whenever he thought I was being too committed in my discipleship (including leaving an hour early for church so that I could pick up four other people who lacked private transportation).

I remember talking to a co-worker one morning in the break room at my first job after college. She was asking if I was going to start a pot coffee, and I just kind of smiled and joked, 'Sorry, I'm one of those hard-core Mormons, remember? I don't even know how to work the thing.'

She said, 'Ah, come on Amulek. What's the problem? Just a little won't hurt. What about moderation in all things?'

I replied, 'You and Jake have been married for, what? Just over a month now? Would you say that marital fidelity is one of those things that you only expect from him in moderation? I mean, just a little unfaithfulness wouldn't hurt. Right?'

She said, 'Hmm...good point. I'll make the coffee.'

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Amulek

[3DOP]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What really does it mean to be moderate.  There is no definition for it.  A heavy drinker of 8 beers a day might decide to become moderate and go to 5 beers a day.  The problem with moderation is it is not always easy to be moderate.  Even moderate drinkers sometimes go off the deep end. 

Moderate means this: Not too much. Not too little. No one has the authority to prohibit the love of a created, natural good on the basis that it might lead to idolatry. Every created, natural good has this danger associated with it. If we had to prohibit every good that can lead to abuse, there would not be any created good that would be permissible.   

I do not defend Hamba's flatmate who apparently misused this expression to be critical of Hamba's desire to help people get to church. I am thinking Hamba might have had a bad personal experience with someone abusing "moderation in all things". 

I agree that moderation might be difficult. Do Christians have the liberty to reject moderation on the basis that "it is not always easy"? All created goods can be abused, can become idols, and are therefore a danger to virtue. But the answer to this cannot possibly be to prohibit these goods! I already admitted that alcohol is one of the more dangerous goods that God permits. But according to Sacred Scripture, it is assuredly not always and everywhere evil. (I have offered to give references repeatedly. No one seems to doubt that they can be provided.) 

Going off the "deep end"? You say that moderate drinkers do that? But if they do, they are violating the need to observe moderation! They are immoderate. Anybody can go off the "deep end" with any created good. All that means is that they have violated the need to be moderate.

Edited August 24, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

I remember talking to a co-worker one morning in the break room at my first job after college. She was asking if I was going to start a pot coffee, and I just kind of smiled and joked, 'Sorry, I'm one of those hard-core Mormons, remember? I don't even know how to work the thing.'

She said, 'Ah, come on Amulek. What's the problem? Just a little won't hurt. What about moderation in all things?'

I replied, 'You and Jake have been married for, what? Just over a month now? Would you say that marital fidelity is one of those things that you only expect from him in moderation? I mean, just a little unfaithfulness wouldn't hurt. Right?'

She said, 'Hmm...good point. I'll make the coffee.'

 

It is okay to not drink coffee or make coffee. It is immoderate to say that coffee is everywhere and always evil.

It is okay to never engage in any sexual activity whatever. It would be immoderate to say that all sexual activity is always and everywhere evil.

With regards to being faithful to one's spouse, it is moderate to do so. It is immoderate not to do so.

It is okay to never have a drop of alcohol, but it would be immoderate to propose that every use of alcohol is always and everywhere evil.

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well said, Rory. 

Thanks Jesse. I always value your opinion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But according to Sacred Scripture, it is assuredly not always and everywhere evil. (I have offered to give references repeatedly. No one seems to doubt that they can be provided.) 

I don't think anyone here doubts that God allowed -- and participated in! -- the consumption of wine (in the variety that that word appears to designate in translation) during earlier times.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[DT_]

On 8/22/2022 at 4:58 PM, BlueDreams said:

 So which one's better? I have no clue.

I understand. According to one study, "Single women are expected to grow +1.2% annually from 2018-2030 compared with +0.8% for the overall U.S. population" https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-economy

 Do you think the increase is going to be a problem? Will it be harder for single women over 30 to find the right partner?

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by DT_

[3DOP]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:14 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think anyone here doubts that God allowed -- and participated in! -- the consumption of wine (in the variety that that word appears to designate in translation) during earlier times.

Hi Hamba across "the pond".

I was going to let this go but today's "communion antiphon", on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost reads as follows: "The earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works O Lord, that Thou mayst bring forth bread out of the earth, and wine that may cheer the heart of man; that he may make the face cheerful with oil, and that bread may strengthen man's heart."  It made me think that I should perhaps clarify my thoughts as I have expressed them above.

In the Old Testament, the Nazarites gave up for God wine and strong drink. It was an acceptable offering. One does not offer to God that which is despicable and sinful. One offers only that which is good for a sacrifice. That is the principle upon which the Catholic Church approves of and accepts vows of consecrated virginity. The Catholic Church does not say that marriage is wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament that elevates the soul to God by grace! It is a great good desired almost universally by all souls who are naturally disposed to it. Those who are NOT disposed to Holy Matrimony are not even in a position to offer up virginity as a sacrifice. Every good celibate Catholic priest, or religious sister or brother, has given up that which is lawful and desirable.

Since I believe that one may take a vow to be celibate for the sake of God's kingdom, I cannot be critical of one, who like the Nazarites of old, vow never to use wine or strong drink. I am fine with the Word of Wisdom in its prohibitions of alcohol and hot beverages, until it's practitioners begin to imagine that these prohibitions are in place because these things are evil. And even worse, if they would, as DT, a self-identified person who has doubts about the Church (LDS), would advocate and applaud that these things that are good in moderation should be outlawed because they can be abused.

The same wine that "makes glad the heart of man", was what made Lot and Noah, drunken. St Paul writes to the Ephesians, "...be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess..." The same wine that can make one drunk unto excess, also "makes glad the heart of man". If there can be discovered a thing that is inappropriate in moderation, the use of alcoholic beverages cannot be included.

I am usually asked by a fellow Catholic who discovers why I, as a former Baptist minister, became Catholic. I never mention this subject. I forget about it. I never know where to start when I am asked that question. But this thread makes me recall that I came to the place as a Baptist preacher, where I could not in good conscience accept the teaching of the kind of Baptists with which I was associated, that the taking of wine or strong drink, was always and everywhere evil. I had been taught by them that our Lord turned the water into fruit juice at the wedding feast at Cana. It was far from the deciding factor, but such implausible sophistry helped make it easier to be happy to be associated with a less rigorous position against alcohol. My son, also a Traditional Catholic, has recently accepted an assignment as a county deputy sheriff, to apprehend and help prosecute those who are found to be driving under the influence of wine and strong drink. I know of no Catholic who defends abuse of this thing that also "makes glad the heart of man". But neither can a Catholic in good conscience say that every use of alcohol is always and everywhere bad.

3DOP

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by 3DOP

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 hours ago, DT_ said:

Do you think the increase is going to be a problem? Will it be harder for single women over 30 to find the right partner?

I think it will be a problem from the perspective that you bring. I think it will continue to be harder for those single women who want to marry to find a partner that they are willing to marry. (I am still interested in understanding what you mean by "the right partner). I also think that the Morgan Stanley research you reference is not the friend you think it is. Take a look at this from the Census Bureau. There are a couple things to look at -

First, the percentage of the population that is over 65 will continue to grow very rapidly through 2030. After this, it begins to be static for a period of time (at least for a few decades). 2030 is a bit of a inflection point in these predictions because this is when nearly all of the baby boomers will be gone. But the reason why this is important in understanding the Morgan Stanley research is that the Morgan Stanley research is correlated around the expectation of currently single. It is not distinguishing the 'was never married' group from the 'is single now' group. The baby boomer generation - unlike younger generations (X, millennial, etc), is still experience high divorce rates - and, the lower life expectancy of men versus women means that in this growing older population there will simply be more women than men over all. When we couple this with the trend that older women who go from married to single status (for whatever reason) are far less likely to re-marry than any other group (younger women and men of all ages), this means that these figures don't lead me to conclude from that study that this data accurately reflects the statistics that you want it to. This doesn't mean that I don't expect to see the number of women who never marry to increase, I do - but I don't have any way of using the Morgan Stanley research to come to any sort of conclusion about this change. The second issue is this question of marriage. While marriage is in decline, a large part of this decline is that marriage is being replaced by cohabitation. So women may still be finding "the right partner" but deciding not to get married. As marriage has become more of a trophy than a necessary part of functioning within society or even of raising children, many individuals no longer feel a need to get married (and to experience the economic penalties associated with marriage).

Second, the Census Bureau prediction that I linked also predicts another very significant shift that will occur in 2030 - right at the end of the Morgan Stanley predictions:

Quote

by 2030, net international migration is expected to become the primary driver of population growth in the United States—another demographic milestone for the country (Figure 6).

One thing about immigrant populations is that historically, it normally takes at least two generations for them to join the population trends of their new host country. With an increasing percentage of foreign born individuals in the population, this will actually tend to increase fertility rates for a period of time, and they will likely offset some of the potential declines in marriage rates and age at first child-birth that we see currently. I am not sure that Morgan Stanley is dealing with these predictions in their research (they may be) - but in any case, 2030 is likely to be at least a temporary inflection point in these statistics - especially as it relates to Morgan Stanley's interest in the make up of the labor force and its impact on growth and recession cycles. As the Census Bureau's report also notes:

Quote

This gap is important because the foreign-born are more likely to be in the labor force. What is more, young first generation immigrants are more likely to have full-time jobs than their native peers (although that does not necessarily mean those jobs are better paying).

Anyway, this is my two cents. What are the conclusions I take from this? Part of our historical problem is that we have significantly under-valued the work in the home that women have contributed. This had lead to really unequal treatment of women within the home. As women take over the work place (as the Morgan Stanley study discusses), this will have the effect of moving women into greater and greater equality. This leads to greater equity in house-work. And as women become the drivers of the economy (as they overtake men in education and training) , will lead to the expectation that men will take over more home work since their labor outside the home is of less value than their wives - the housework adds to their value in marriage. These are the kinds of factors that will impact these decisions over marriage and children. If we want to encourage women to have children when they are younger, then we (as a society) need to figure out how to prevent childbirths from creating a life-long penalty to careers and earnings. Until we do this, these trends are not likely to change significantly - other than that as women become more economically successful than men, it's quite possible that the trend for older men marrying younger women will likely shift in the other direction, with older women marrying younger men and this will lead to a higher percentage of older men instead of women remaining single (i.e. women may start having more trophy husbands ....).

Edited August 28, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[DT_]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Until we do this, these trends are not likely to change significantly - other than that as women become more economically successful than men, it's quite possible that the trend for older men marrying younger women will likely shift in the other direction, with older women marrying younger men and this will lead to a higher percentage of older men instead of women remaining single (i.e. women may start having more trophy husbands ....).

We'll have to wait to see what happens. What does evolution predict?  Do you think romantic preferences are going to change in the future?  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-38707-001

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think it will be a problem from the perspective that you bring. I think it will continue to be harder for those single women who want to marry to find a partner that they are willing to marry. (I am still interested in understanding what you mean by "the right partner). I also think that the Morgan Stanley research you reference is not the friend you think it is. Take a look at this from the Census Bureau. There are a couple things to look at -

Interesting.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, DT_ said:

We'll have to wait to see what happens. What does evolution predict?  Do you think romantic preferences are going to change in the future?  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-38707-001

I think you will get more mileage if you search on the issue of "assortative mating preferences." There are a number of historical tendencies. Physical categories like height, skin color, and so on, can all come up - but most of these categories are trending downward in terms of significance. There is a broad range of characteristics that help determine who gets married to whom. Did you read that article? Let me quote a short bit from it:

Quote

age was the second strongest predictor of the response rate experienced by men (Pawlowski & Koziel’s, 2002). Education was the only stronger predictor—another indicator of resource earning potential.

Age is an important component. People do not often marry (or enter into relationships with) those that have far different ages from their own. You might consider the public response to one notable exception (if you are old enough to remember - I remember discussing it quite negatively): Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall. Smith was 24, had been through a failed marriage (married at 17), and was working at a strip club when she met Marshall (an oil billionaire). A year after her divorce was final, they married. She was 25 I think, he was 89. However, as noted above, and as I have mentioned several times in this thread, currently the strongest indicator in marriage is education - people consistently marry those who have similar levels of education (both higher and lower) more than any other factor. This is a shift from 30 years ago - from the 1960s through the 1990s, equal education was a strong indicator that a marriage would end in divorce.

Evolution doesn't predict much - it usually is used to try to explain various features. Evolution, to the extent that we are the product of evolution, occurred potentially over millions of years. There may be some evolutionary hints in the way that we function biologically, but evolution cannot be used to explain (let alone to predict) changes that occur over a short period of time. A really good book (at least as far as my opinion goes) that illustrates how this discussion occurs would be Out of Eden. However, there are certain trends which follow all cultures as they change in similar (and predictable) ways. These have been labeled the first demographic transition and the second demographic transition. The link is to a fairly low-level discussion of the idea. There is still a lot of discussion about the second demographic transition since it was more predictive than the description of the first - and its predictions are in a fairly contested space. As an example, the wiki article notes: "In 2015, Nicholas Eberstadt, political economist at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, described the Second Demographic Transition as one in which "long, stable marriages are out, and divorce or separation are in, along with serial cohabitation and increasingly contingent liaisons." This might be an expectation for an increasingly postmodern society. But, since 2015, evidence leads in other directions - long, stable marriages are forming between partners with similar higher levels of education - and these marriages have reversed the divorce trend (and to some extent they buck the trend of overall marriage decline), and will potentially lead to a period with very low divorce rates among the few who actually marry.

You ask about romantic preferences, but, in reality, romantic preferences are largely a very modern innovation. Love is viewed as a potential evolutionary issue (our children require significant and lengthy hands on development - so parents who cared for their children potentially had more that survived to adulthood). But romantic love as we understand it today was only very rarely discussed in Europe prior to the 1600s. 400 years later, it has come to dominate the relationship landscape. So while love exists, and even romantic love exists in some form or other across nearly all groups, the expression and the value placed on it are very culturally specific. What is interesting to me is that the entire courtship process has changed. Dating for my kids was/is quite different from dating that I experienced decades ago. And that was a vastly different thing from what was experienced 150 years ago. Think of Tinder as an example (I think all of my children had some level of involvement with dating apps). A big shift has been the role of parents in partner choice. Hooking up is a relatively modern invention. Some of this has been moved forward as we move from a modern to a post-modern society (where the focus is increasingly on the individual as opposed to large groups, and a challenge for authority - even family authority as a part of that individualization). And let's not forget interracial dating. So you ask if I think that romantic preferences are going to change in the future? Almost certainly. But those preferences are going to change as part of larger cultural shifts - and not so much independently on their own. Technology and education are certainly accelerating cultural shifts.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[Bernard Gui]

Sorry

Edited August 29, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[DT_]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

However, as noted above, and as I have mentioned several times in this thread, currently the strongest indicator in marriage is education - people consistently marry those who have similar levels of education (both higher and lower) more than any other factor. This is a shift from 30 years ago - from the 1960s through the 1990s, equal education was a strong indicator that a marriage would end in divorce.

I understand, I was simply replying to your statement about the "trend for older men marrying younger women will likely shift in the other direction". On average, men are two or three years older, I doubt it's going to be the other way around in the future. Possible, but unlikely. 

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Evolution doesn't predict much - it usually is used to try to explain various features. Evolution, to the extent that we are the product of evolution, occurred potentially over millions of years. There may be some evolutionary hints in the way that we function biologically, but evolution cannot be used to explain (let alone to predict) changes that occur over a short period of time.

True, I should've worded my question differently. Evolution can explain why we humans behave the way we do. It makes evolutionary sense when women are attracted to men who are a little bit older. Do you consider evolutionary psychology to be legitimate science? 

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-38707-001

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32196435/

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 So you ask if I think that romantic preferences are going to change in the future? Almost certainly. But those preferences are going to change as part of larger cultural shifts - and not so much independently on their own. Technology and education are certainly accelerating cultural shifts.

Would you say a higher relationship standard is one of the factors that explains why people are getting married later in life? I understand you explained the primary reason is economics, but I would like to know your opinion on this article.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-our-unions/202208/the-rise-lonely-single-men

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DT_

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, DT_ said:

I understand, I was simply replying to your statement about the "trend for older men marrying younger women will likely shift in the other direction". On average, men are two or three years older, I doubt it's going to be the other way around in the future. Possible, but unlikely. 

I apologize that this is so long. Once I get started ...

Right - it depends on why older men marry younger women, and why older women don't marry younger men. Consider for a moment polygamy in Mormon history. This created all sorts of interesting dynamics in marriage - but one of them was the fact that polygamy tends to create an imbalance in available partners. Within polygamous societies (like early Mormonism) this is fixed by offsetting cohorts to increase partner availability for the one-to-more than one gender (in this case for men). When older men marry younger women, assuming population growth, the younger cohort has more available partners to connect with the fewer available partners in the older cohort. This is a cultural pressure. I'll add more to this in a minute.

9 hours ago, DT_ said:

True, I should've worded my question differently. Evolution can explain why we humans behave the way we do. It makes evolutionary sense when women are attracted to men who are a little bit older. Do you consider evolutionary psychology to be legitimate science? 

This is not exactly how it works. With every polygamous species that we know of (going back to the book that I referenced earlier), there is an observable difference between genders in the direction of the polygamy. Let me quote a bit from it (page 10):

Quote

Once again, and as expected, the degree of sexual bimaturism among animals varies directly and consistently with their degree of polygyny. Sexual maturation occurs at roughly the same age for males and females in primate species that are monogamous: for example, Latin American marmosets and owl monkeys. Among polygynous species such as rhesus macaques, squirrel monkeys and, indeed, nearly all primates (human as well as nonhuman), males mature more slowly. Thus they reach social and sexual maturity later than do females, when they are considerably older and larger than “their” females and also, not coincidentally, considerably older and larger than the other, less successful males. The sexual bimaturism so familiar to observers of Western teenagers (and to those teenagers themselves!) is a crosscultural universal. ... As if it were needed, here is further reason to have confidence in the significance of Findings 1, 2, and 3: among those exceedingly rare species that are polyandrous (“reversed polygyny” in which one female is socially and sexually paired with more than one male), the preceding correlations of sexual dimorphism in size, behavior, and age at maturity are predictably reversed, with females larger and more aggressive than males and becoming sexually mature later rather than earlier.

So, this is more complicated - because in part our cultural issues with age differences minimize the evolutionary impact. That is, men may be attracted to younger women (girls) because they have reached sexual maturity, and women may not be interested in young men because they haven't. But, these factors are eclipsed by economic issues, cultural norms, societal expectations, and so on.  Just because there is an attraction doesn't mean that there is subsequent union formation. The idea that marriage is a market space in which partners bring various options to the negotiating table and individuals tend to try to marry upwards (on both sides) may have its roots in evolutionary psychology, but the details cannot be evolutionary - the values themselves are cultural and contextual. The biggest and strongest are no longer the most successful in our society.

There is, of course, a further caveat. Women have a fertility window that is much smaller than men's. This is a function of evolutionary development. It means older men can marry younger women and have children with them. This may be a part of the discussion, but I don't think it is a huge component. This is particularly true with the development of the companionate marriage (and the even later development of what has been termed the individualized marriage). These trends have very little to do with any sort of evolutionary push (they could even be viewed as running counter to our evolutionary development). So while I have a very positive view of evolution as an explanatory tool, I find that it is helpful only in some parts of the discussion about marriage in our society and not so much in other parts.

In our system, options for moving up the social ladder are quite limited (and they are statistically getting worse as our societies are becoming much more stratified economically). Marriage is one way to do this. One of the key indicators of economic stability (and a chance for upward mobility) is education. When actually parsed finely, education itself seems to be surpassed by a few very specific correlations. This study indicated that a number of job related features could be used to predict the likelihood of entering into a first marriage. Men with higher than average fringe benefits from their employer had a significantly higher chance of getting married (a standard deviation higher than the average translated to a 15% greater chance). Company provided health insurance (especially with dental insurance) and life insurance also increased the chance of marriage substantially. For women, it was a little different. Having higher than average fringe benefits actually increased the chances for women by 19%. Health insurance, dental insurance and life insurance all made noticeable impacts. Unlike with men, women also see a boost from having a job with a union contract. In all cases, having non-standard shifts and working for hourly wages (without a contract) both created deterrents to marriage. This is really granular. As I noted earlier, I think that we can use the idea of evolutionary psychology to talk about how marriage may be in some ways the result of a negotiation process in which value is brought by both parties - but - what is valuable isn't set by evolution. Evolutionary views would suggest that fertility, physical impressiveness, and so on, would be the driving forces in attraction - and this may be true on some level - but these factors don't correlate with actual marriages and other forms of union.

9 hours ago, DT_ said:

Would you say a higher relationship standard is one of the factors that explains why people are getting married later in life? I understand you explained the primary reason is economics, but I would like to know your opinion on this article.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-our-unions/202208/the-rise-lonely-single-men

I don't think the article is particularly interesting or valuable. Then again, I am not single, and I have never used a dating app. The article only loosely explains why there is an increasing supply of single men. It isn't that there are fewer single women. The number of single people is growing in the United States at a relatively linear pace that goes back to the 1960s. In the last decade (according to the Census Bureau), the number of single person households grew from 33 million to 37 million (28% of all households in the US are single person households).

So a couple of bits of granular data to help us understand the issue here. At older ages, currently, women who are single outpace men who are single by a wide margin. At 65+, 50.7% of women are single (6% never married, 44.7% divorced or widows). For men, this is only 28.7% (6.2% never married, and 22.5% are widowers or divorcees). There is very little difference between the percentage of never married. This is important for the discussion below because the life expectancy gap doesn't fully explain this difference. Men are more willing than women to remarry after spousal death or divorce. This adds more older men to the pool competing for younger women.

As you move back through the age categories for never married, you get a sense of a shift and then a coming back together for this never married group. They start off and end roughly the same, but the gap really kicks off for those aged 25-29 years - for men in that age group, you have 74.2% never married and for women its 62.8%. The gap stays in place for those aged 30-34: 48.2% versus 37.7%. And then by age 44, it's dropped back down to what it was for individuals in their early 20s. What is going on here? Generally speaking, you have a group of older men that is competing with younger men for recently graduated women. There are simply more men around for the women who are going to get married. And men (unlike women) are more willing to marry a younger partner.

The article points out that older, traditional forms of dating are gone - dating apps are the way to go. This approach to dating is problematic in a market that doesn't favor men (because there are more men competing than women for a variety of reasons). And because of the distance between the dating app and the interpersonal connection which follows, men may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to some of their competitors. The article says, if you want to win, work on building a skill set which will help you stand out - especially against the older established men who are still looking. But, for those who don't find a partner quickly the men keep competing - until eventually (even if it happens at an older age) they eventually become competitive for a variety of reasons, and the numbers re-balance. I don't have any issues with this advice. I think that it reflects problems with how we meet people in our internet society, and shifts in how we date and pick partners that is currently in transition - and we may reinvent the wheel (or our grandchildren might) which may help change this situation.

Higher relationship standards are a factor (depending on what you mean by the term). But I think that you have to be more granular than this. Marriages aren't occurring as often until after education is completed. Is this a higher relationship standard? Not really. People are waiting to start looking for marriage until their education is completed - and then they are looking for someone who is in a similar place. It is this looking for someone in a similar place that would be the new higher relationship standard, and not the reason why people wait (if that makes sense). Women tend to have a higher standard than men do (apparently). But it is this difference in standards between men and women that creates the imbalance in the pool of people looking for partners - and this leads to more women marrying earlier and some men marrying later.

That's my two cents for what it may be worth.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[DT_]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

as I have mentioned several times in this thread, currently the strongest indicator in marriage is education - people consistently marry those who have similar levels of education (both higher and lower) more than any other factor.

I understand. The main concern is that people are having children later in life. I'll come back to read the rest.

Edited August 29, 2022 by DT_

[BlueDreams]

On 8/28/2022 at 8:56 AM, 3DOP said:

Hi Hamba across "the pond".

I was going to let this go but today's "communion antiphon", on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost reads as follows: "The earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works O Lord, that Thou mayst bring forth bread out of the earth, and wine that may cheer the heart of man; that he may make the face cheerful with oil, and that bread may strengthen man's heart."  It made me think that I should perhaps clarify my thoughts as I have expressed them above.

In the Old Testament, the Nazarites gave up for God wine and strong drink. It was an acceptable offering. One does not offer to God that which is despicable and sinful. One offers only that which is good for a sacrifice. That is the principle upon which the Catholic Church approves of and accepts vows of consecrated virginity. The Catholic Church does not say that marriage is wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament that elevates the soul to God by grace! It is a great good desired almost universally by all souls who are naturally disposed to it. Those who are NOT disposed to Holy Matrimony are not even in a position to offer up virginity as a sacrifice. Every good celibate Catholic priest, or religious sister or brother, has given up that which is lawful and desirable.

Since I believe that one may take a vow to be celibate for the sake of God's kingdom, I cannot be critical of one, who like the Nazarites of old, vow never to use wine or strong drink. I am fine with the Word of Wisdom in its prohibitions of alcohol and hot beverages, until it's practitioners begin to imagine that these prohibitions are in place because these things are evil. And even worse, if they would, as DT, a self-identified person who has doubts about the Church (LDS), would advocate and applaud that these things that are good in moderation should be outlawed because they can be abused.

The same wine that "makes glad the heart of man", was what made Lot and Noah, drunken. St Paul writes to the Ephesians, "...be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess..." The same wine that can make one drunk unto excess, also "makes glad the heart of man". If there can be discovered a thing that is inappropriate in moderation, the use of alcoholic beverages cannot be included.

I am usually asked by a fellow Catholic who discovers why I, as a former Baptist minister, became Catholic. I never mention this subject. I forget about it. I never know where to start when I am asked that question. But this thread makes me recall that I came to the place as a Baptist preacher, where I could not in good conscience accept the teaching of the kind of Baptists with which I was associated, that the taking of wine or strong drink, was always and everywhere evil. I had been taught by them that our Lord turned the water into fruit juice at the wedding feast at Cana. It was far from the deciding factor, but such implausible sophistry helped make it easier to be happy to be associated with a less rigorous position against alcohol. My son, also a Traditional Catholic, has recently accepted an assignment as a county deputy sheriff, to apprehend and help prosecute those who are found to be driving under the influence of wine and strong drink. I know of no Catholic who defends abuse of this thing that also "makes glad the heart of man". But neither can a Catholic in good conscience say that every use of alcohol is always and everywhere bad.

3DOP

 

I haven't been apart of this conversation and may have a slightly different take than what's been apparent. FWIW, I don't think the WOW describes alcohol as universally bad. We also have the BoM, that strongly infers that both nephites and lamanites drank alcoholic beverages, with stories similar to the bible that act as cautionary tales against overdrinking and the effects of too much strong drink. But no real condemnation of moderate drinking.

Rather than universally condemning alcohol from the beginning of time, the WoW starts off for why it's being given by stating "showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days 3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."

Bolds give the context. This is likely a unique take from both the baptist and catholic position. It's basically saying in our current context and day, strong alcoholic drinks aren't good for you most of the time and generally not "good for the belly." This is due to the fall out it likely will have on the weak saints as well as evil design of conspiring people who will use it and promote it for their own purposes that may negatively effect others. It also gives one  exception, though that would later fall out of practice in later years for the saints.  

Our time, our general health, our drinks, and likely our drinking habits are not comparable to what it was like 2-6k years ago. There's indications that quite often wine was diluted with water and was a better alternative than straight up water or other drinks that were more likely to have problems with contamination. In that context, a little wine was likely a little better for the body and was worth celebrating considering the alternative may give you water born disease and could kill you faster than the alcohol would. Depending the community it may have been more seasonal and more likely to be used carefully, as there wasn't a never ending supply and general storage was likely not as good at preserving wine for long periods. Our context

So we don't need Jesus to be a teetotaler or one who insists that others never imbibe while he lived on earth. That's not what's claimed in the WoW. We just need to know that for us NOW, most forms of alcoholic beverage are best avoided and not good for our general health in our day of purified water and several other drinking options that weren't as readily available then. 

 

With luv,

BD   

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

apologize that this is so long. Once I get started ...

Your kind of long is worth it.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Right - it depends on why older men marry younger women, and why older women don't marry younger men. Consider for a moment polygamy in Mormon history. This created all sorts of interesting dynamics in marriage - but one of them was the fact that polygamy tends to create an imbalance in available partners. Within polygamous societies (like early Mormonism) this is fixed by offsetting cohorts to increase partner availability for the one-to-more than one gender (in this case for men). When older men marry younger women, assuming population growth, the younger cohort has more available partners to connect with the fewer available partners in the older cohort. This is a cultural pressure. I'll add more to this in a minute.

Okay, I don't often challenge non-political assertions so directly but I have to say - this is nonsense. Men want younger women because men are dogs. It really isn't much beyond that.

We know fertility argument fails because when 60s culture imprinted desirableness on thin women, we got a big shift of men being dogs toward thin women. We just aren't that complex.