- Morgan Deane on Steadying the Ark: “May be of interest if you haven’t already read it: https://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/uzzah-killed-for-blind-obedience/” Nov 7, 13:40
- on What Conditions Might Generate a Social Preference for Polygamy?: “Definition of eugenics is as you say a “quasi-Darwinian scenario”. People don’t usually think of mate choice based on their eliteness or reproductive fitness. I don’t think your simulation is a good one. Women and men have many more and important goals in marriage than how many children can they have.” Nov 7, 11:20
- on Church Civil Wars, Liberalization, and Africa: “I think it would be jarring for a not-insignificant minority, but yes, I generally agree that it wouldn’t be foundation shaking, even though theologically it would be a clear move away from the gender complementarianism implicit in the current system.” Nov 7, 04:40
- on Church Civil Wars, Liberalization, and Africa: “Weren’t women some of the earliest leaders among the unofficial adopters of LDS scripture and teachings in Africa? I have no sense if ordination of women is likely any time soon, but it could make little difference overall in some places, including in the U.S. That seems especially likely if ordaining women comes about through a long series of small steps (like recent teachings on priesthood combined with formal recognition of women performing temple ordinances as an order of the priesthood with its own equivalents to quorums and ordination ordinances) rather than a major new canonized revelation.” Nov 6, 19:27
- on Church Civil Wars, Liberalization, and Africa: “Yes, there is definitely a long, technical post to be written at some point on how different Christian churches (including the CoC, ironically) are threading the African polygamy needle (e.g. not recognizing it while not forcing families to break up), with obvious possible implications for our own situation.” Nov 6, 18:54
- on Church Civil Wars, Liberalization, and Africa: “I wonder if the Anglican African Churches keep this stance on polygamy: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-26-church-and-polygamy?subject=Marriage” Nov 6, 18:19
- on What Conditions Might Generate a Social Preference for Polygamy?: “TNC, Your first paragraph made me cringe. Are you suggesting that Utah Mormons were bred to be righteous? Or am I misreading it? I also cringed at your second paragraph, with the notion that polygamy was some sort of welfare system for the absorption of non-elite females with greater spirituality than non-elite males. Then I cringed at the second wives are servants notion in the third paragraph. Count that as a triple-cringe.” Nov 6, 08:59
- on What Conditions Might Generate a Social Preference for Polygamy?: “Are you really sure? In the context of my simulations, yes, I am sure. Recall that in my simulations I have assumed that “there are no synergies among sister wives.”. That eliminates any benefit from free labor. Similarly, (although I did not explicitly mention it in the paper or in an omitted footnote), I assume that there are no synergies between husband and wife other than the bearing of children. Thus, a man’s “status” is of no interest to a first wife because “women have only one goal—to maximize their number of descendants” and there is no mechanism in the simulations for enhanced “status” to result in more children. In the real world, no, I’m not so sure. But I can’t relax the “no synergies” assumption without also accounting for the antagonism polygamy would introduce. (Google tells me that antagonism is the appropriate antonym for synergy.) I have no data that would allow me to weight those factors. Weighting one more heavily than the other would just predetermine the results and weighting them equally would get me right back where I already am.” Nov 6, 08:57
- on Wakara’s America: A Book Review: “Hoosier–I hope that you will enjoy it! Brigham was often explicit (and he wasn’t alone) in expecting to “need” to kill lots of Indians, by which he meant kill lots of Indian men. He cited an uncanonized prophecy from Joseph on this matter. Wakara sometimes supported that killing work, especially the killing of the Timpanogos at Utah Lake (who were his kin, but they were estranged) in 1850. But it was amazing to me that Wakara really wasn’t involved much at all in the “Walker War.” He was far away from the fighting all of 1853-1854. (Ryan Wimmer’s master’s thesis was a treasure trove of primary documents, which allowed me to place Wakara week-by-week). But even though Wakara wasn’t involved beyond the initial confrontation, as soon as the fighting broke out in 1853, Brigham was quick to call it “Walker’s War” and that was picked up by the national press. The point is that settlers blamed the Utes for the violence they started, which is a tradition as long as America is old. (See Lepore’s “The Name of War.”)” Nov 6, 06:43
