Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

On Latter-day Saints and Family Size


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

@smac97How can you put aside that it's Carlson?

The same way I can put aside the repulsive things Bill Maher has said.  Or Richard Dawkins.  Or South Park.  These are also partisan and divisive voices, but on occasion they make valid points that I think merit some attention.

The same way I can put aside the purported serial philandering and academic plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. and listen to what he had to say about Civil Rights.

The same way I can put aside Martin Luther's raging anti-semitism and listen to what he had to say about religious reform.

The same way I can put aside Harvey Milk's outing of Bill Sipple and his purported ephebophilic relationship with Glen McKinley and appreciate his contributions to civil rights for gay folks.

To be sure, there are past and present figures who are simply beyond the pale.  

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The article mentions him over and over. Sadly the writer of this article doesn't know the real Tucker. 

I don't know that any of us do, either.  

I think you are indulging in the ad hominem fallacy.  Let's focus on the argument, not the person presenting it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same way I can put aside the repulsive

The difference being that each of those people have contributed to society in some way. Tucker is a propagandist spouting outrage machine with zero redeeming qualities. One of the most corrosive influences and in our society. 

Link to comment

There's a pretty quick and direct path to a so-called Godwin's Law "violation" that is also an apt comparison, here.

I mean, Volkswagen turned out to be a pretty good car company, but....

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference being that each of those people have contributed to society in some way. Tucker is a propagandist spouting outrage machine with zero redeeming qualities. One of the most corrosive influences and in our society. 

Ten bucks says I can cherry pick the most outlandish or horrible things said and done by Smac's list of great people, go over them with a random sampling of America's teenagers, and have them say the exact same thing about every single one of 'em except South Park.

"Zero redeeming qualities".  Heh.  Obviously, transparently false on it's face.  Literally can't survive fifteen seconds of genuine thought, or two seconds of charitable thought.  And yet, here we are. 

Imma put in a plug for 1 Corinthians 13 if that's all right with folks k thx bye

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sure are a lot of people in this thread who don't think this is some Handmaid's Tale level stuff happening globally.  China's curve is especially scary, especially with it's "we don't want girls and aren't scared of infanticide" cultural stuff.

Handmaid’s Tale happened because of a lack of big families?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ten bucks says I can cherry pick the most outlandish or horrible things said and done by Smac's list of great people, go over them with a random sampling of America's teenagers, and have them say the exact same thing about every single one of 'em except South Park.

"Zero redeeming qualities".  Heh.  Obviously, transparently false on it's face.  Literally can't survive fifteen seconds of genuine thought, or two seconds of charitable thought.  And yet, here we are. 

Imma put in a plug for 1 Corinthians 13 if that's all right with folks k thx bye

Tucker Carlson already has the entire Russian government propaganda wing defending him. They don’t need any help. You can sit this one out.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Handmaid’s Tale happened because of a lack of big families?

Well, Handmaid's Tale happened because some folks wanted to make a show that people would watch. 

But the global aging population with the humans falling below replacement level deal, should worry us all.  And should at least be a part of the discussion, don'tcha think?

 

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Tucker Carlson already has the entire Russian government propaganda wing defending him. They don’t need any help. You can sit this one out.

*shrug*.   First, I was a fan of Krister Stendahl's guidelines.  Then I was a fan of 1 Cor 13.  These days I'm a massive fan of this guy.  

So, trying hard to channel my inner peacemaker:  I'm not a fan of demonizing people, removing their basic humanity, and ascribing only bad things to any human.   I'll be disagreeing with ya for quite some time, especially when folks like this exist and keep churning out miracles. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ten bucks says I can cherry pick the most outlandish or horrible things said and done by Smac's list of great people, go over them with a random sampling of America's teenagers, and have them say the exact same thing about every single one of 'em except South Park.

"Zero redeeming qualities".  Heh.  Obviously, transparently false on it's face.  Literally can't survive fifteen seconds of genuine thought, or two seconds of charitable thought.  And yet, here we are. 

Imma put in a plug for 1 Corinthians 13 if that's all right with folks k thx bye

His sole societal impact comes from his work as a political commentator. Notably, when sued, his employers admitted he’s a propaganda machine: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes.”

The right wing conservative news network he worked for fired him for his corrosive views. Let that sink in. He’s too toxic even for them. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I read his use of those terms to be an indictment on society’s views on the subject and not legitimate council for everyone to do those literal things.

Like, “too young” as referring to how much of society thinks that getting married any time before your 30’s is getting married to young (I’m even hearing arguments from some celebrities now that people really don’t have any business being married until they’re 40).

Or, how society often defines “more children than you can afford” to be any number of children that doesn’t allow you to spend a large chunk of your resources on entertainment, vacations, and luxury items.

And, how society often defines “tons of children” as any number of children over two.  I was on an airplane flying to the UK last year and had a layover in New York City. I struck up a conversation with a couple sitting behind us on the plane as we were deplaning, and she was shocked that I had four kids. To her, four kids was a ton of kids and she audibly said that she didn’t know how we did it.

The literal interpretation of his advice is not a responsible way to approach adulthood. But I am not interpreting his words literally.  I think the message behind the words—-that society doesn’t actually know where happiness and fulfillment is to found and that doing the opposite of what “they” say has its merits—is good advice.

I don't think he was being literal, but I don't think he meant it all as a joke either.  I think he meant what he said, even if it wasn't literal - he was pushing the boundaries.   

While he may not literally recommend tons of children, he does seem to be advising as a general rule to have more than the standard 1-3 children.  Otherwise, what was his point?  What was he advising?  I think that is terrible advise as a general rule.  It might work great for some, but to push that as wise general advise and counsel, or as an ideal standard is really terrible advise. 

While he may not literally recommend having more children than one can afford, again, he does seem to be advising as a general rule to have more than what is generally accepted by most in society to be affordable (1-3 children), or perhaps he is suggesting that finances shouldn't be much of a factor.  Again, that is all terrible advise as a general rule.  I don't know what else he might have meant by that.

While he may not literally recommend getting married "too young", he does seem to be advising as a general rule to get married younger than what is average in society (most marriages in US are between 25 and 30 years old), otherwise what did he mean?   Again, that is really terrible advise as a general rule.   In fact, "those who wait to marry until they are 25 years old are 24 percent less likely to get divorced".  Again, it might work for some, but to be pushing what is known to be higher risk for divorce is really bad general advice to give. 

 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Zero redeeming qualities".  Heh.  Obviously, transparently false on it's face. 

To respond to this, his public actions have zero redeemable qualities. In contrast to a person like MLK jr. Dr King left a tremendously positive societal impact while also being a flawed human being in his private affairs. Martin Luther the same. The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages needed reforming. Tucker may be a nice guy to friends and family, but his public legacy is nothing but lies and propaganda. Starting a thread by quoting from his public legacy is not a good way to start a thread. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think he was being literal, but I don't think he meant it all as a joke either.  I think he meant what he said, even if it wasn't literal - he was pushing the boundaries.   

While he may not literally recommend tons of children, he does seem to be advising as a general rule to have more than the standard 1-3 children.  Otherwise, what was his point?  What was he advising?  I think that is terrible advise as a general rule.  It might work great for some, but to push that as wise general advise and counsel, or as an ideal standard is really terrible advise. 

While he may not literally recommend having more children than one can afford, again, he does seem to be advising as a general rule to have more than what is generally accepted by most in society to be affordable (1-3 children), or perhaps he is suggesting that finances shouldn't be much of a factor.  Again, that is all terrible advise as a general rule.  I don't know what else he might have meant by that.

While he may not literally recommend getting married "too young", he does seem to be advising as a general rule to get married younger than what is average in society (most marriages in US are between 25 and 30 years old), otherwise what did he mean?   Again, that is really terrible advise as a general rule.   In fact, "those who wait to marry until they are 25 years old are 24 percent less likely to get divorced".  Again, it might work for some, but to be pushing what is known to be higher risk for divorce is really bad general advice to give. 

 

I mentioned in my last post what I thought he was advising. We’ll have to agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, Handmaid's Tale happened because some folks wanted to make a show that people would watch. 

But the global aging population with the humans falling below replacement level deal, should worry us all.  And should at least be a part of the discussion, don'tcha think?

 

Not really. Especially since that isn’t happening except in specific areas and amongst specific demographics. Since Carlson likes to wink at “the great replacement” theory a lot I assume this is what he is warning about. So xenophobia. The population of the United States is in no danger of falling in the near future.

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

*shrug*.   First, I was a fan of Krister Stendahl's guidelines.  Then I was a fan of 1 Cor 13.  These days I'm a massive fan of this guy.  

So, trying hard to channel my inner peacemaker:  I'm not a fan of demonizing people, removing their basic humanity, and ascribing only bad things to any human.   I'll be disagreeing with ya for quite some time, especially when folks like this exist and keep churning out miracles. 

I am not demonizing. I am just saying he is hateful and xenophobic and is wicked and uses the devil’s tactics. He can repent. Until then I am not going to listen carefully to him in case he says something of value. There are better sources to turn to.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference being that each of those people have contributed to society in some way.

I sense of "special pleading" and ad hominem on the way.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Tucker is a propagandist spouting outrage machine with zero redeeming qualities.  One of the most corrosive influences and in our society. 

And there it is.

Let's put aside the ad hominem and politicking and just look at the argument/message.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sense of "special pleading" on the way.

And there it is.

Let's put aside the ad hominem and politicking and just look at the argument/message.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m sure there are other people out there who have made similar statements. Quoting Carlson seems a deliberate choice, for whatever reason. 

As for the topic at hand, I certainly fulfilled my responsibility to multiply and replenish by having 6 kids. While I do not regret having my kids, I would not advise anyone to have a large family unless they are financially and emotionally prepared for what that means. Having kids because one thinks it’s a commandment or responsibility tends to lead to people getting in over their heads. 

I’m reminded of my cousin, who decided not to use birth control because “Heavenly Father won’t send us more children than we can handle.” My uncle replied, “Heavenly Father will send you a hell of a lot of children if you let him.”

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m reminded of my cousin, who decided not to use birth control because “Heavenly Father won’t send us more children than we can handle.” My uncle replied, “Heavenly Father will send you a hell of a lot of children if you let him.”

Sometimes.

Lots of people leave it up to God and end up having many fewer children than they hoped. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes.

Lots of people leave it up to God and end up having many fewer children than they hoped. 

In general, however, leaving it up to God would tend to mean more kids. But I take your point. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I sense of "special pleading" and ad hominem on the way.

And there it is.

Let's put aside the ad hominem and politicking and just look at the argument/message.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, let’s not. You did this deliberately. You brought him into the coversation. You could have found much more innocuous people to get a quote from. You could have found an academic worried about demographic fall-off. You didn’t. You deliberately brought him into the conversation. You knew what was going to happen. You admit you knew the likely result in the OP. Stop trying to pretend you are rising above the fracas you deliberately started. You do this all the time. It is a cliche. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, let’s not. You did this deliberately. You brought him into the coversation. You could have found much more innocuous people to get a quote from. You could have found an academic worried about demographic fall-off. You didn’t. You deliberately brought him into the conversation. You knew what was going to happen. You admit you knew the likely result in the OP. Stop trying to pretend you are rising above the fracas you deliberately started. You do this all the time. It is a cliche. 

Geez. You act like you're fated to have to make an issue of this. I agree I certainly don't need Tucker Carlson to make a very important point but you seem more willing to focus on the 'who' of the exchange rather than the important 'what' of it. Let it go - you do this all the time. Your reaction is cliche. ; )

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Deseret News (Op Ed) : Tucker Carlson wants you to have ‘Mormon levels’ of kids. Is it good advice?

Putting aside Carlson's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point.  Get married.  Have a ton of kids.  Work hard.  "Live boldly."

The "Mormon levels of kids" is a funny line, though unfortunately less apt these days.

"Happier than" being the key phrase.  Cumulatively, yes.  Overall, yes.  Marriage is a wonderful institution, and I highly recommend it.  It requires a lot of time and effort, and it's definitely worth it.

I think this is a fair point.  "Happiness" is a subjective concept.  These days so many of us are distracted from pursuing what's really important, whether the distractions arise from time-consuming pastimes, or inexperience, or social influences/pressures.  The longer I go, the more I feel the resonance of the truths of the Restored Gospel, which after all center on family.

Very cool.

Thoughts?

-Smac

What's interesting is yesterday on the news here (California North Coast) they were talking about a loneliness epidemic. I think having a big family is  great advice.

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

What's interesting is yesterday on the news here (California North Coast) they were talking about a loneliness epidemic. I think having a big family is  great advice.

Avoiding loneliness is a pretty terrible and selfish reason to have kids. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, pogi said:

How is it appropriate to give as general advise to marry "too young", have "tons" of children, and have "more children than you can afford"?  I'm scratching my head here. 

In many countries the family is an enterprise that everyone takes part in. The young adults work or go to school (sometimes both) the elders watch and raise the littles. Frequently they all live on the same property. Much like the old west. 

If you wait until you think you can afford children, school is finished, and you are well into your careers you could find yourself unable to have children. That's what happened to us.

Then you find yourself in your 50s or 60s with no one to leave your knowledge and stuff to. I wish I had a son or daughter to share sailing with and grandchildren to leave our beloved Second Chance to.

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Avoiding loneliness is a pretty terrible and selfish reason to have kids. 

I don’t think so.  When you can’t have kids you can feel pretty lonely when everyone else is having kids.  It’s reasonable for him to speak of loneliness.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...