- Stephen Fleming on Thoughts on Our Polygamy Problems: “Right, I talk about the priesthood ban in the OP too. But racism was common to the culture, but polygamy was not. Bank failures were common, polygamy was not. I think comments on this thread indicate that the religion’s founder implementing of wicked policy that was very much out of step with the larger society calls into question the legitimacy of that founder.” Oct 18, 15:50
- on Thoughts on Our Polygamy Problems: “How about the black priesthood/temple ban? You can either throw God under the bus or paint BY in a bad light. I prefer not to blame God, but the “doctrine” continued until 1972. So there is at least one precedent for overturning a “doctrine” even though it had a long history. Neither JS nor BY were perfect. JS had polygamy, a bank failure, lying to Emma, etc. BY had the black ban, Adam-God, blood atonement, formalizing polygamy, and perhaps MMM. Our leaders, all of them, were flawed.” Oct 18, 15:40
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “My memory is that it isn’t clear. As with most things, Brigham Young claimed he learned it from JS, but it was mostly associated with BY.” Oct 18, 15:13
- on Thoughts on Our Polygamy Problems: “Texas, yes, I do see church leaders departing from Joseph Smith’s utopian teachings. Roger, this is one of the points I bring up in the OP and will discuss more later. Are you suggesting that we just pretend that the church presidents from JS to HJ Grant didn’t practice polygamy? That fact makes “moving on” is a real challenge, I’d argue. If JS was a real bad guy for implementing the practice, many would argue that that suggests problems with the church he founded.” Oct 18, 13:53
- on Thoughts on Our Polygamy Problems: “Polygamy was a failed (and/or disastrous) social experiment. Like the United Order. D&C 132 needs to be either edited or deleted. Trying to justify polygamy is a losing proposition. You end up throwing God under the bus, or painting JS in an extremely bad light. As for allowing men to marry more than one woman in the Temple, that practice needs to stop. As for how all this will be sorted out in the post-existence, it’s not worth speculating about. Apologists need to move on.” Oct 18, 12:20
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “There seems to be an underlying assumption that smaller families are bad (or at least a problem). That is only true if the Church is worried about membership numbers or future tithing sources. In today’s America, economic and practical realities make having large families impractical. For example, every child over 16 needs a car to handle their busy schedule of school and extra curricular activities. Particularly, if both parents work. One problem with smaller families is the graying of America and what that does for social safety nets. Half the current Church members live in developing countries. Many are barely eking out an existence. President Oaks needs to be careful about preaching large families for these members. The Church is a global organization and it needs to act like one.” Oct 18, 11:49
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “Coffinberry I think you are right! I believe that economic and practical barriers are primary for most LDS people that I know. I also believe that some people just don’t want to be parents. It’s draining and unfulfilling for them. So they have fewer or no children because they don’t enjoy parenting. In the past people were not as free to make those decisions. It’s easy for me to remember families I knew growing up with a lot of children who seemed very stressed and unhappy due to the parents (especially the mother) not enjoying or being good at the only role that was socially acceptable. Women who did not want to be mothers were wicked and selfish.” Oct 18, 07:16
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “I have said for decades that it is the cost of transporting more than 2 children. I stand by that today. The US is set up to be a car-dependent system. Most places do not have anything remotely like reasonable public transportation (and even with that it is hard to transport more kids han you have hands for). It is a very steep cliff, both in up front purchase cost and in long term operating costs including fuel and insurance, to move from a car that can transport 2 kids to a car that can transport 3 or more. That big step slowed us having our third and fourth, back at the turn of the century. Going from 4 to more than that takes a massively huge vehicle, especially if you need to tote more than bodies (soccer/lacrosse/camping/suitcases?). It is a significant issue for my adult children, now.” Oct 18, 06:06
- on CFM 10/19-10/25: Thoughts and Poetry for “Before I Formed Thee in the Belly I Knew Thee”: “The problem was more with the assumptions he made and his projection of those assumptions onto me. I do NOT hold the views that he claimed I do, and I find it quite offensive that he projected his defensiveness about politics onto me, assuming that I hold views contrary to his. I’m trying to be vague about what my views are and what he accused me of believing so that the political issue doesn’t become the conversation here. Let me just say that his accusation is 100% incorrect, his assumption about my intentions is 100% wrong, and his reading of the above post is also 100% inaccurate — and I don’t see any way to read the post the way he did without some kind of bias.” Oct 17, 13:47
