- Peter Wilson on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “@Not a Cougar: Thanks for the comment. It seems like LDS fertility is dropping both due to 1) lower rates of marriage AND 2) lower number of children within marriage. I have reason to suspect the latter effect is larger than the former, but I’m not positive yet. I will give your question some more thought once I have the above question figured out. My general understanding of the evidence is that, generally, cultural factors are more important than public policy. Some economic factors really do matter, especially housing stock / prices. A somewhat different framing of your question that would be a bit more modest of a goal: is there anything the church can do to stop the birth rate from continuing to decline in the U.S.? Sorry I don’t have anything more helpful at this point.” Oct 17, 10:07
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “To be clear, I have no problem with subsidized child or healthcare since it may affect things at the margins, I just don’t think it’s the panacea people make it out to be.” Oct 17, 09:55
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “Peter, thanks for the link to the article. If I’m taking away the correct impression from your article, to the extent we can assign any sort of proximate cause for the decrease in LDS fertility today, it seems to be the same causes for the drop in non-LDS fertility rates 40+ years ago (primarily women in the workforce and increased social acceptance of birth control). While LDS fertility rates appear to be of worry to President Oaks, I think it’s going to take a lot more than an awkward reference in General Conference to get Latter-day Saints to start having children at significantly higher rates than they already do. Any ideas what that might take? A revelation? Bishops having meetings with couples with less than X number of children? I hesitate to bring up subsidized child or healthcare based on the first response above to your post.” Oct 17, 09:38
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “Thank you for not doing the “actually it’s all about the fact that we don’t have Scandinavian safety nets (Norway TFR=1.45), so let’s stop talking about fertility decline and change the subject to that” shell game.” Oct 17, 07:00
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “Curtis, thanks for your thoughts. Compassion is a good topic, because the obligation to have compassion, empathy or love for others doesn’t in itself answer the question about how best to help those in need, and so a variety of approaches and political disagreement is normal. Some on the left would argue that compassion obligates us to permit marginalized members of society to ignore rules, even at the cost of unsafe public spaces. But the response of some on the right has been to renounce any need for compassion or to embrace outright cruelty. Fortunately most politicians are reasonably sensible and we don’t have to choose between only those two options in most elections. But the unhappy truth is that Trump is in fact an unusually wicked leader. To add just one more example, his treatment of Canada, our closest ally, even going so far as to government meetings with fringe Albertan separatists, is utterly shameful. Wherever you look, there are more examples that reach well beyond policy preferences to actual evil. Trying to justify Trump’s actions debased Mike Lee and it will do the same to you if you go down that path.” Oct 16, 15:45
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “As a middle-right conservative without a party, Curtis Pew’s response scares me a whole lot more than the thors of the world. My admitted guess is that thor knows better but has always chosen party and will do so until he dies. But Curtis Pew is like so many people I love and respect who somehow still support the most transparently amoral person we’ve ever elected. I’ve heard so many times over the last 11 years that “Sure, Trump has his faults, but those democrats are just too mean to him and now everyone has Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The problem is that Trump’s faults include literally fomenting a rebellion on Capitol Hill; refusing to peacefully pass power and thus knowingly allowing cops to be bludgeoned by his supporters; actively using government to tamp down political speech he doesn’t like; taking what can only be considered bribes from foreign governments in the form of airplanes; sewing seeds of doubt in the American election process, based on knowing falsehoods; admitting to protecting credibly-accused child abusers; and personally enriching his net worth by $3 billion *in the last two years alone* as he’s mingled his office with his business interests. And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. And the thing that drives me most nuts is that Republicans in DC are mostly looking the other way, abdicating their role as a check on the presidency. They saw what happened to conservatives that spoke up in Trump’s previous term and now they’re pretending that the biggest fleecing of America isn’t really happening. My current governor ran a campaign ad about transgender swimmers this week, an issue which affects all of about a two dozen people/programs in America. Meanwhile, he’s got nothing to say about Trump or his policies or his forever wars or his cozying up to foreign dictators. And most people in my state wouldn’t want to hear it anyway, because then my governor too would have the dreaded “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” This is the easiest civics test we’ve ever taken, and more than half of us are failing. It’s also the easiest “lesser of two evils” analysis that has ever existed in American politics. And more than half of us are failing that too. I have no doubt that the Curtis Pews of the world are sincere; I count them as close friends and family. But it has broken my heart to see otherwise good people defend Trump.” Oct 16, 10:46
- on Mormons, Handbells, and the Issue of Respectability: “Very interesting commentary. Changing perceptions is notoriously difficult. It is even more difficult to clear negative perceptions. One must simultaneously weaken uniqueness to avoid outright rejection while embracing uniqueness to remain authentically the same. To escape the pigeon hole, the perceived topic category needs to be expanded, the most negative and incorrect perceptions must be exorcised, and it needs to be seen as uniquely useful. If you want popularity, you need broad usefulness.” Oct 16, 10:28
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “I want to be very careful in answering because I do take seriously prophetic counsel about trying to be a peacemaker. I will try to be charitable in interpreting what you have said, but ask that you extend the same consideration to me. All your arguments about a moral imperative to oppose Trump assume that he is some kind of unusually wicked leader, a “threat to democracy”. I honestly don’t see it that way. I did not vote for him in 2016 because of his obvious flaws, but once he was elected it seemed to me that his opponents were actually much worse, an opinion I still hold. I’m not going to try to convince you of that, but ask that you accept that we can disagree without condemning each other. I don’t actually think I’ll have to account for a list of sins at the judgement. I was invoking a literary trope to say that voting choices are not often the most significant moral choices we make—and, again, that we can disagree about politics without judging other people’s morality. About compassion: I take very seriously the teachings of Christ and His prophets on the need to care for others. However, I also think that political or government action is often the worst way to express that care. When politicians talk about compassion, their programs usually end up increasing the power and prestige of government actors while only providing dubious benefits for the people they claim to be helping. Paying a generous fast offering and serving in our wards and communities are better ways to follow the Savior. As I said at the start, I’ve tried to express myself in ways that won’t offend others. If I’ve said anything you consider offensive, please forgive me.” Oct 16, 08:14
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “When I stand before the judgement seat, I don’t expect my voting record will be near the top of the list of sins I’m held accountable for. Curtis, I wonder about that. For some elections, more than others, ones voting preference is this microcosm of what ones priorities are and what one is at their core. Given the lack of sunday school lessons about your voting record being brought up on Judgement Day, I suspect you are correct, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder. Take this weeks Come Follow Me reading in Isaiah for example. Isaiah goes over how the people’s Fast’s aren’t doing anything, because they aren’t lifting yokes of oppression. Yes, they weren’t adding to their lists of sins by Fasting, but they weren’t developing empathy as part of their Fasts, which is what God really wants them to do. Gain some empathy and then turn that empathy into action. So just like how you’re thinking about your “lists of sins” (I’m not saying that I don’t too), the people that Isaiah is railing on, are also thinking about keeping their lists of sins short by following the commandment for holding a regular Fast. So it could be that your efforts in breaking or lifting the yokes of oppression are going to matter more on Judgement Day than a list of sins (or list of meals Fasted). And how can you lift yokes of oppression? In a democracy, that would be by voting. Are you voting for those who are trying to lift yokes of systemic oppression, or are you voting for those who say that there is no systemic oppression (because they have advantage and view equality as oppression)? Yes, there is a lot in the gospel about personal keeping of commandments, but once in a while there are these sneaky messages about relationships with the less fortunate and building a Zion community; things which generally have nothing to do with a list of personal sins. It leaves me wondering.” Oct 15, 22:40
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “Curtis Pew, voting is a choice like any other, and it doesn’t come with a special dispensation that lets us escape the consequences for our choices. Under normal circumstances, the difference is probably inconsequential. But we are far from normal circumstances. People keep proudly confessing, right here in the comments on this blog, that they voted for Trump because they hate liberals like me and will enjoy watching me suffer, or because they wanted to watch the system burn, or similarly depraved reasons, and I do not think that they will escape divine judgment for their votes unless they repent. People warned us for years that, based on past behavior, Trump would harm the civic fabric and moral character of this country, and after the critics have been proven correct, continuing to elect people who support Trump is either sinful folly or sinful malice. RLD, I approve of the bibliography, and I usually approve of your calm voice of reason. But we had a chance to return to normal, and we blew it. Now we have to recognize that these are not normal times, and we are a long ways from returning to normal. After Trump attempted to overthrow a democratic election through lies and violence, continuing to vote for his supporters falls closer to supporting the king-men against a free government than it does to choosing between Obama and Romney.” Oct 15, 22:33
