- Kent Larsen 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
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “And here I am thinking that the church needs to figure out how to be more friendly for couples with one or two children. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the greater Seattle Metro area. Urban cores are growing in population, while the number of church going members drops. Buildings built in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, which used to contain multiple wards now host only one, or have been sold off. Whereas some building on the “edge of civilization” are bursting at the seams with active families. I suspect that it’s some sort of life style thing where people who live in the urban centers, who might be interested in the message or doctrine of the church, feel like they don’t belong, because their family doesn’t fit the image of the church, and so don’t continue to conversion. If the percentage of members held steady, the church buildings should be seeing increased usage, due to the increase in population. But they’re not. I feel like there’s an artificial blockage preventing local residents from becoming active members who would use the buildings.” Oct 17, 12:50
- on Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics: “I agree Stephen. While culture and economics are certainly intertwined–I believe the drop in the birth rate has more to do with cultural elements than it does with purely economic concerns.” Oct 17, 12:40
- 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
