Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Younger = Gayer. More on Margin Creep.

August 16th, 2015 by Bookslinger

This is a follow-up to a previous post.

The margins have already begun to creep.   The article illustrates points that I’ve made in comments here and at Millennialstar.org. Especially how the changes start in the younger age cohorts and accelerate with each upcoming age group.

The shocking, to me, stat is that 6% of the current 18-24 age group self identify as “fully gay” compared to 4% of the whole population.  That’s a 50% increase in the incidence rate.

And this in a society that has only recently legalized SSM. Which I contend will be the knee-of-the-curve due to the widespread destigmatizing/promotional effects to come as same-sex couples will feature  more prominently in entertainment media, advertising, and academic curricula.

The current 18-24 age cohort did not grow up with the full-on SSM (ie official societal/governmental acceptance of same sex sexual behavior) media/education programming during their formative years. Children age four and younger  now, and all children yet to be born, will spend their entire formative years being exposed to a new socio-sexual paradigm in media and academia that explicitly and implicitly tells them “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sex  with the same sex.”

Update, May 12, 2016: Further evidence.

Update, June 2, 2016: Further evidence.

Comments (50)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , ,
August 16th, 2015 20:00:54
50 comments

Joseph Hertzlinger
August 16, 2015

Wouldn’t you expect the Row effect to cause an eventual reversal?


Joseph Hertzlinger
August 16, 2015

That should be “Roe effect.” Maybe I should proofread my posts.


MC
August 17, 2015

In the past I’ve expressed skepticism at Bookslinger’s contention that the pro-gay propaganda was intended to turn more kids gay, rather than simply used as a cudgel to crush Christianity and the family. But I’ve come around. I don’t know how else you explain this:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/04/19/parents-outraged-as-anti-bullying-conference-turns-into-pornographic-pro-gay-event-196884


John Mansfield
August 17, 2015

Steve Sailer once wrote that the church (meaning the Catholic church) was so successful at stamping out the bulk of homosexuality that it couldn’t quite believe that there exists a residue of hardcore homosexuals who can’t be dissuaded from the practice. For several evil reasons our societies have chosen to make life less sexually frustrating for the hardcore homosexuals, and in so doing is giving license to a larger group of men who would have conformed to heterosexual norms and thereby lived happier lives.


Bookslinger
August 17, 2015

JH: I expect the Second Coming to reverse it.

JM: I no longer have the source/cite, but there was an elderly Catholic priest, who after hearing decades of confessions, observed/concluded that only a small percentage of homosexual men were “true” (his word) homosexuals. My memory is that he gave the figure as either 5% or 15%. He said, and this was his wording best I can remember, “the rest are in it for the ‘kink’.”

“and in so doing is giving license to a larger group of men who would have conformed to heterosexual norms and thereby lived happier lives.”

Thank-you. That encapsulates my creeping-margin arguments. I have to credit “Jane Galt”, who I’ve quoted in a separate post, as helping form my opinion and argument.

According to Jane, We’ e seen the pattern before, destigmatizing bad behavior as a means of compassion to those who accidentally or naively or or stupidly or innocently fell into a bad situation, eg (Jane Galt’s examples) out of wedlock pregnancy, welfare, and divorce.

Intent is hard to prove. But intentions are secondary or tertiary in the argument. The destigmatizing of oow-births, welfare and divorce were done with the best of intentions. The questions of what the real world effects of social change will be are completely unrelated to intent. “Good intentions” are merely a smoke screen or diversionary tactic to confuse the what-should-be-obvious outcomes.


Vader
August 17, 2015

I would guess that the Roe effect will lead to a new equilibrium, with possibly a slight reversal due to diminishment of novelty. It will, however, be a less satisfactory equilibrium.


G.
August 17, 2015

Well, Books., I’m still not completely on board, but you are certainly eroding my scepticism.


Wilhelm
August 17, 2015

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Thus Alexander Pope


Bruce Charlton
August 17, 2015

Individuals can hold complex moral positions – but politics cannot. Politics, in practice – and whatever is asserted, it is always very simple and dichotomous: for or against, pro- or anti-, us or them.

If politics is not ‘against’ then it is ‘pro’.

The best that can be hoped for is the mercy of individuals to compensate for the built in crudity of the system (e.g. we are against, you have broken the rules, but we will be merciful in this specific instance) – but with all important decisions now made by committees and by voting, we typically just get the crudity.


Gerry
August 19, 2015

Yes but don’t you see the inevitable reply in 5 years when this is bearing fruit, no pun intended…

The “increase” will just be viewed as the natural state of making as it’s obvious the 25% of people were always homosexual and now we are enlightened enough not to oppress people and keep them in the closet.

In the post post-modern world the reality can always be bent toward your politics.


Bookslinger
August 19, 2015

Gerry, Yes, the blind nihilists will still be blind nihilists.


Zen
December 5, 2015

Where to start here…. I am not quite sure, but I will make an attempt.

Much of what people are doing is just posturing, for the flattery of the World, even if not conscientiously so.

But there are quite a few churches that take a very relaxed approach to pre-marital sex, so it should not surprise me that they don’t feel strongly about immorality in general.

Is it Natural? Sure, I would not particularly argue against that. But that doesn’t mean good. That is called the Naturalist Fallacy. Plague and venomous snakes are also natural. (Logic 101 here, this is not a promising start for you)

“justify slavery and treating women as second-class citizens.” Nothing irritates me quite so much a shallow, smug reading of scripture. This alone tells me, if you have read the scriptures, “you have not understood them”.

“put the homosexual in the same category as murderers, adulterers, and child molesters.”
We have not said this, but it is immoral.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the encounter with Lot puts a very different spin on what he was trying to say. Still, arguing Sodom wasn’t so bad is not a strong place to start debating.

What does Judges 19 have to do with the price of tea in China? This is not an argument. This is rambling. The argument about Sodom being destroyed for lack of hospitality is really a stretch.

You say that scholars say this or that, while ignoring how the ancient Jews themselves understood the scriptures.

You try to argue that since we are created in the image of God, that any inborn inclinations must also come from God. Wow….. this is terrible, terrible argument. You DO NOT understand the doctrine of original sin and the Fall of Man. We ALL have some inborn weaknesses. All of us. God expects us to repent. In fact, he has commanded us to preach nothing but repentance.

Also, experts think pedophiles may have also been “born that way” and none of us would say that gives them an excuse.

It also quite ignores the commandment, for a man to cleave unto his wife.

And calling Jesus left leaning… oh veh. Maybe for those who though he was too right leaning. You really got to start reading that Bible. You aren’t even ready for the Book of Mormon.

We could argue here what those passages mean, and the interpretation of ancient idolatry, but let’s cut to the chase. Your arguments are pleading and looking for any possible interpretation that gives license to what you want.

You see, while you can wrest and mangle the words of ancient prophets to your heart’s content, you will have a much harder time doing that to modern prophets. And modern prophets have made it quite clear that certain things are commanded, and others are forbidden.

And to you I say, repent. Repent of your pride and flattery. Repent of your immorality and cease justifying sin in the name of love. Cease contorting the Word of God.


Bruce Charlton
December 6, 2015

The argument that I personally find most decisive concerns not negative prohibitions; but what does God *want* – as revealed in scripture and other authoratative revelations: How does He positively wish us to live in relation to sex and sexuality (in essence and in outline) in terms of his plan for our salvation and exaltation?

The answer to *that* seems crystal clear to me – as unambiguous as anything ever is in this mortal life.


Tony Iveson
December 6, 2015

OK then. In your view of God’s view, the fact that I feel love for my partner of 36 years, and know that he is good and kind to his neighbours and friends, counts for nothing. He believes in God, and Christ, he loves them and he prays. He also loves me.

But in your the love does not count.

I’ll repeat that:

But in your view the love does not count.

And I thought that God loved love, and that it was Satan who could not love, and tried to destroy it wherever it was found.

Nevertheless, I thank you, you have made your position very clear.


Tony Iveson
December 6, 2015

[Ed.–comment trotting out the tired old canards that conservatives are bigots and haters and judgmental has been removed. While of course a completely accurate description of the blog proprietor, who is a grumpy old man stewed in poisonous venoms, its a slur on his cobloggers. Further such effusions will be similarly defenestrated.]


Tony Iveson
December 6, 2015

Your removing my comment really surprised me. It was a genuine feeling I had. It didn’t contain foul language – it was an opinion fairly expressed. It just seems like the worst sort of censorship. I wouldn’t have done it to you.


Bookslinger
December 6, 2015

Tony, your first comment in this thread was TLDR, but I skimmed it.

Two things:

1. every imperfection or sickeness, both physical and mental will be cured/healed/removed in the resurrection. Schizophrenics and depressives and all other mental issue cases will be cured. Resurrected bodies will be disease free, and will receive back all missing limbs, etc.

Same-sex attraction will therefore (and as explicitly stated by Apostle Dalin Oaks) be cured/removed in the resurrection of individuals so afflicted. There will be no gays after the resurrection, and according to Mormon theology, _everyone_ born on planet earth gets resurrected.

2. This post is not about the 5 to 15% of homosexuals who are, for lack of a better phrase, “born gay”. This is about the 85% to 95% who are molded, groomed, tricked, abused, seduced or somehow “made gay”; and now, as many articles are starting to admit, some are are even _choosing_ to “do” gay, or even “be” gay.

As the original author of this post, I’m going to exercise my prerogative to delete your off topic comment. if you wish to post another comment, and focus on the subject, you are welcome to.

To restate, the topic is that set of people who are choosing, consciously or not, to engage in homosexual behavior _who would not have otherwise done so without the current wholesale societal acceptance of homosexual sex acts_.

As a lifetime participant in the homosexual millieu, you know damn well that not all gays are born gay. And you know damn well that as a long-term monogamous gay man, you are in an extremely small minority of gay men.


Bookslinger
December 6, 2015

In regards to a comment that another editor deleted, you wrote:
“Your removing my comment really surprised me. It was a genuine feeling I had. It didn’t contain foul language – it was an opinion fairly expressed. It just seems like the worst sort of censorship. I wouldn’t have done it to you.”

Homosexual _advocacy_ and links to anti-Mormon web sites will (usually) be deleted. Whining will just be mocked.


Tony Iveson
December 6, 2015

“As a lifetime participant in the homosexual millieu, you know damn well that not all gays are born gay. And you know damn well that as a long-term monogamous gay man, you are in an extremely small minority of gay men.”

Sincerely, no I don’t believe you can make people gay. Their orientation has to be gay from birth. I feel it to be so. I have always been gay. Other gay people I have spoken to say the same. If society has determined that it is OK to be gay, and people are freed to feel sane about themselves, and included, then I think that is a good thing. Now, when it comes to bisexuality, I also beleive that people are born that way. I am perfectly willing to believe that modern mores, the media, and whatever else have given the message that it is OK for bisexuals too to express and act on the same-sex side of their nature, AS WELL AS the opposite sex side. Now that is where I disagree with modern society. Not because I see the same-sex attraction aspect in the bisexual as intrinsically evil, but because bisexuality and permission to act on it, challenges monogamy. I do not like it when I have witnessed a bi-sexual person leave their partner, whether of the same or opposite sex, and go off with the other sex (whichever it is). Where is the life-long commitment? Where is the stability? Where is the love? I think the message from society should be monogamy, monogamy, monogamy, whether the same or opposite sex. This goes for gays and straights and bisexuals. People owe it to each other not to cause hurt and pain.

Now, of course, I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I felt I had to make my position clear.

Now for the next bit.

“Same-sex attraction will therefore (and as explicitly stated by Apostle Dalin Oaks) be cured/removed in the resurrection of individuals so afflicted. There will be no gays after the resurrection, and according to Mormon theology, _everyone_ born on planet earth gets resurrected.”

Sex – pfui – who needs it – not me. Just assure me that I will be able to still love my partner with all my heart (the other organ does not matter at all). It cannot be part of God’s plan to make the love part dissolve, as well as the same-sex attraction surely? Perhaps from your Mormon viewpoint, it will be a “purified love”.

If you don’t know, perhaps you could ask an Elder or Apostle (sorry, I am unfamiliar with your terminology).


G.
December 6, 2015

Love, of course. But sex/gender isn’t pfui. These fleshly vessels is who we are.

Any road, no more gay advocacy. You are otherwise welcome, but preaching the reigning dogmas of the Gods of the Marketplace is no more suitable here than lectures on Jupiter in the catacombs.

The prohibition is for my definition of advocacy, not yours


Bookslinger
December 6, 2015

Tony, again I’ll remind you, this post was not about the tiny minority of monogamous or seeking-to-be-monogamous homosexuals.

You, if indeed you are monogamous, know you are in the tiny tiny minority. Hyper-promiscuity is part and parcel of the modern male homosexual lifestyle. Old queens who have settled down together are rare.

Gay gyms with rooms to let by the hour, gay bath houses, glory holes, all attest to the hyper-promiscuous lifestyle.

Prison sex and ancient Greece illustrate that homosexual activity can be chosen under certain social conditions, and that one doesn’t have to “be” gay in order to “do” gay.

What the post -is- about, is how such social conditions are being created in our society at large today, and the effects, namely that more teens and young adults are identifying as homosexual or bisexual to varying degrees.

Ellen Degeneres, Rosie Odonnel, and Miley Cyrus are role models. So is Elton John, and scores or other celebrities and performers who tout their homosexuality or bisexuality.

Google: on the down low after prison
to see that continued homosexual activity -after- prison (among men who were strictly heterosexual before prison) is a rising problem, especially in the African-American community.

I’m not going to argue against the idea that homosexual couples can be asexual, as it occurs among heterosexual couples too. But that’s not the subject here either.

The more you feign ignorance of what is extant in the wider non-monogamous community, the more you are losing credibility.

And google: pro-choice sexuality
it’s a thing now.


Tony Iveson
December 6, 2015

I’m not feigning ignorance of gay behaviour – promiscuity and a butterfly lifestyle. I don’t like it and I never did. I think that if someone is gay, they should still find one partner for life, based on love, not simply sex. Remember, I said:

” I think the message from society should be monogamy, monogamy, monogamy, whether the same or opposite sex. This goes for gays and straights and bisexuals. People owe it to each other not to cause hurt and pain.”

I’ve always opened my mouth and put both feet in quite willingly with promiscuity, whoever was indulging in it. I’ve seen the fallout too often to fail to take a position on it. A few moments of sexual pleasure with someone new, weighed against a life time of love with one person – people are so silly to themselves, and repeatedly so.

I know that gay people are capable of monogamy. I know plenty of long-term couples. You also said:

“Old queens who have settled down together are rare”.

I’m 58, and I’ve been with my partner for 36 years. I wasn’t an “Old” queen way back then when we made our decision. The way you have expressed it is sort of amusing, but I can assure you that we are not a couple of Old Queens, who, after a life-time of debauchery thought we had better settle down to make each other cocoa and warm the carpet slippers because no-one else wanted us anymore.

Promiscuity is a bad thing.


MC
December 6, 2015

“Sex – pfui – who needs it – not me. Just assure me that I will be able to still love my partner with all my heart (the other organ does not matter at all).”

Who knew that the Junior Anti-Sex League had a senior auxiliary?

I can see why Tony is so insistent on advocating for acceptance of homosexuality in this forum. After all, he only has the government, the media, the educational system, the mainline churches, and big business on his side. What is all that against the power of this fully armed and operational Mormon blog?


G.
December 6, 2015

Tony, take a hint. No more in this thread. Guys, cool it. Tony can’t respond so no need for parting shots.


Simon
December 6, 2015

I, too, am curious as to why Tony is here. What is your purpose here, Tony?


Simon
December 6, 2015

Ooops, sorry, G.


G.
June 2, 2016

I saw that and expected you would post it. It does seem to support your theory.


cc
June 3, 2016

It’s strange for someone to claim that love epitomized in gay fornication trumps all. The apex in true love is that it creates something more than itself. Gay fornication can never do that. True sex involves reproductive organs, whether or not reproduction actually occurs.

I do feel the members of the church lost a bit of their moral and social foundation in being all in for support of birth control. I’m not saying it can not have it’s place, but we’ve so entirely divorced sex from procreation in our society it’s no wonder we talk about two men having sex, as if such a thing were possible.

That there are male/female relationships that do not result in reproduction out of biological defect or personal choice, does not change the fact that sex is obviously designed around reproduction and zeal with which we as a society has divorced sex from reproduction is no less insidious than the harping in church we hear about divorcing consequence from our use of moral agency.

Look in the mirror Saints. We should be uncomfortable about widespread birth control as a default. I’m not opposed to birth control by any means. But it should be revisited as a specific “tool” in building our family and not a way to avoid the blessings that come from using our agency responsibly.


Vader
June 3, 2016

“Look in the mirror Saints. We should be uncomfortable about widespread birth control as a default. I’m not opposed to birth control by any means. But it should be revisited as a specific “tool” in building our family and not a way to avoid the blessings that come from using our agency responsibly.’

Perhaps you’re either much younger or much older than I am. My impression from my aggregate lifetime experience in the Church is that this is pretty much the balance the Church has tried to strike.


Cc
June 3, 2016

How does one teach that balance without actually saying it?

Prohibition on tea down to the color of the leaf? Check.

First presidency letter 1969: it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.

True to the faith birth control topic in 2000s:While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one another

Now I’ve got no problem with striking a balance. Clearly sex accomplishs both. Importantly, it can still accomplish both without birth control, while birth control defeats the primary purpose of sex and more importantly lays the ground work for misunderstanding marriage and family.

Notice that statement. “One” purpose of sex is children. Not the primary purpose. Just one of them. The other is love. So homosexual advocates have their philosophy enshrined in true to the faiths section on birth control.

Wouldn’t it be better to teach, the primary purpose of sex is to enable husband’s and wives to fullfill their godlike roles as procreators. In fulfilling their their role as procreator man and woman are drawn nearer together as husband and wife in loving unity. Naturally, we should procreate responsibly and with care to our situation.

I’m not saying we are totally wrong, but in striking a balance we’ve made a new philosophical framework that puts the cart before the horse. They are both important; cart and horse. But only one drives the other.


G.
June 4, 2016

I see your point, CC. If nothing else, I wish Mormon couples made using birth control a matter of discussion and prayer instead of just taking it as an assumption.


Bookslinger
June 4, 2016

CC: since birth control was a hot-button issue in the church in the 70’s and 80’s, I’m confident that the Brethren sought the Lord’s will in the matter of any changes in policy and formal church teachings.

At the same time, I’m open to the possibility that the Lord said something like “okay, if that’s what the people want, let them have their way, and they can just have the lesser law then.” For which there is already a pattern in scripture, and in a few items of history in the modern church, going back to consecration/tithing, and as recently as changes to the initiatory and the endowment.

I heard the “birth control = evil” line from members well into the 80’s, long after the church changed its stance.

Whether because of scrupulosity or plain misunderstanding, or even false rumors, I’ve heard _of_ members who think procreation is the _sole_ purpose, and they _only_ have sex when trying to conceive, abstaining during the non-fertile part of the cycle, and giving up sex entirely after their last desired child is conceived. (I wonder if that is mormon urban legend, or if there really are/have been people like that.)

Anyway, to bring it back to the O.P., committed gay men in “loving” relationships are rare. Promiscuity and short term relationships are part and parcel of the western male gay lifestyle, and likely non-western as well. Gay men who have gotten married are a tiny minority of gay men. And most of those who do get married have “open” marriages, at least under agreed-upon conditions (eg, one partner being out of town). That last being one of the dirty secrets that is slowly coming to light.


Vader
June 4, 2016

“(I wonder if that is mormon urban legend, or if there really are/have been people like that.)”

I have known of such couples.

I have known of a couple where that was apparently the understanding of just one of the partners. The strain on the marriage when the other partner realized that the first partner was serious about it can only be imagined.

If my recollections are correct, Joseph Smith scandalized his contemporaries by suggesting that sex for companionship in marriage was nearly as important as sex for procreation, in a day when sex was largely identified with the forbidden fruit in the Genesis story and therefore presumptively wicked except for procreation. I think we ought not too quickly dismiss the Church’s efforts at balance nor make the mistake of thinking that the balance point aimed at in an earlier day is the right one to aim at in our day.

It seems clear to me that the most important function of sex is procreation; that this includes sex that is not likely to result in conception but which tends to strengthen the emotional ties between parents, which is a direct benefit to their offspring; and that sex with no real possibility of conception is not sinful per se within a marriage.

The question is one of when a couple may artificially render their intercourse nonfertile. I would be inclined to think that this is acceptable when the alternative is no intercourse at all, either because the health of the parents would be seriously impaired by another pregnancy, or the parents are still potentially fertile but would be quite old by the time the child would be ready to leave home (I’m talking couples on the cusp of menopause) or (deep breath) the couple genuinely have reached their limit of the number of children the have the resources to support. The last one is the sticky one, because it would be so hard to formulate any system of rules for making the decision straightforward. I am quite convinced that my relatively small family was nonetheless larger than my emotional resources were able to support (truth be told, I’m prepared to argue that I am one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, and ought not to have sought marriage at all). But I have no doubt the most common error couples make is to underestimate their resources and limit themselves to too few children. I have seen widely published estimates of the cost of raising a child that I am convinced deliberately grossly overestimate the cost.

Let me try it this way: The sin is not in having sexual relations within marriage that (by nature or design) are not fertile. The sin is in not having children. Refraining from having any sex at all would not render deliberate childlessness unsinful.

On the changes to the Endowment: The members of the church weren’t offered a choice whether to accept a “watered-down” version, nor am I aware of any mass rebellion in the Church against the full-proof version. I am therefore extremely reluctant to blame the membership for the watering down. I am much more inclined to blame the wider wicked world. To hearken back to changes long before even my day: The United States is still under the curse the Lord placed upon it after the assassination of the Prophet. If we no longer regularly recite that curse, and some of us swear our loyalty to the Constitution, that doesn’t mean the curse has passed.

Disclaimer: I am no official spokesman for the Church, and my opinions are doubtless discolored by my own abject failure as husband and father and by the fact that I have not been sexually active in many years. Sour grapes, and all.


Leo Brown
June 5, 2016

Coming late to this discussion. That the number of people who self-identify as fully gay is rapidly growing in the youngest age cohort seems as odds with the idea that there is a gay gene, that orientation is immutable, and that people are gay only because they are born that way. It now seems more like a youthful fad now trending (and promoted behind the scenes) on Facebook. But that would be less useful as a political and legal stance.


Leo
June 5, 2016

make that “at odds”


seriouslypleasedropit
June 5, 2016

^What Vader said.


G.
June 6, 2016

Good essay length comment by Vader. My concerns–I would not raise them to the level of objections–are threefold:

1. The birthrates of the Saints are dropping. There is what Traddies call a contraceptive mindset.

2. the Saints are too casual about it. They take permission as sanction. There are serious concerns about the hormonal effects, about the interference with intimacy that barriers create, and there is a need for moral reflection–but the Saints take it as a matter of course.

3. At the society level, all of the dire predictions of birth control opponents back in the day have come true.


Vader
June 6, 2016

Yes, that seems a good capsule summary of the concerns. When the birthrate drops even as the absolute wealth of the Saints increases, one can only conclude that either many Saints are deceived about the true cost of children, or their values are off. Or both.

There are times I regret having a family at all, because of my great sense of failure at it. But there are other times I wish I could have had more children. [Dropping briefly out of character: Our reasons for stopping when we did were my age and my wife’s health, and not any sense I was conscious of that our resource limit was reached. I think I can defend that choice. Still, the end of childbearing was a sorrowful milestone.]


Bruce Charlton
June 6, 2016

Given my erstwhile academic interest (http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk) – now rather on the back-burner – this comment thread was of great relevance.

My overview is that the ‘problem’ of controlling human reproduction by controlling fertility is one that has never really been ‘solved’ by any group for more than a few generations.

In recent generations the Saints have *so far* done a better job than any other group I know of in terms of voluntarily regulating fertility in a sensible way in a world of low mortality – but the causal factors are constantly shifting; and – being a product of multiple individual decisions – average fertility rate is not something that can (or should) be fine-tuned at a mass level.

The groups that maintain fertility rates *well above* replacement are those who practise patriarchal religions and are cut off form Western values (including the Western economy – most often by heavy reliance upon economic subsidy of some kind – welfare, charity etc.)

Mormons have managed fertility rates roughly one child above US norms (more for wealthier, less for poorer) – but Mormons are engaged with the West and especially the national economy (and value the economic autonomy of families), and it seems that as the national norm (of the US native population) has declined below replacement, then the Mormon average is being pulled down too.

Therefore, *something* will have to change.


cc
June 7, 2016

” I’m confident that the Brethren sought the Lord’s will in the matter of any changes in policy and formal church teachings.”

I don’t disagree with this, but I do think at the same time (perhaps) one of the results that comes with long serving authorities is they have settled the issue in their mind. They’ve been convinced, received revelation, taught it, and moved on. They don’t need to keep fighting that war so to speak.

Meanwhile, another generation comes up, and the once clear and settled firm teachings isn’t so longer direct but has variation built into it as liberal folk doctrine creeps into the void. It’s not as if we can expect the Brethren to harp on about birth control all the time, so there will always be a void. And I’m not suggesting that it’s a negative to have long term authorities, as it’s almost universally positive. But I can see how various topics from socialism, birth control, homosexuality, and next gay marriage, which were once settled issues, spoke on frequently, become less spoken about (because do we really need every conference address to be about that?!) and those pernicious liberal folk doctrines creep in, become accepted in the name of love and tolerance, and then obfuscate the plain and precious truth.

I’m not blaming the authorities by any means. The only ones to blame is the body of the church itself for having our own micro-apostasies.


Bruce Charlton
June 7, 2016

Actually – it seems that things are better than I had thought assuming the Pew Survey is correct an average Mormon fertility rate of 3.4 children per woman is probably good enough for the time being, leaving a little room for decline (since these are older adults with ‘completed’ fertility):

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/22/mormons-more-likely-to-marry-have-more-children-than-other-u-s-religious-groups/


Bookslinger
June 7, 2016

Admittedly, I’m to blame too. But let’s try to keep the comments relevant to the OP. Perhaps someone would like to start a new birth-dearth thread, or post a comment to one of the older BD threads.


Zen
June 7, 2016

Joseph Smith is reported to have said, that the time would come when none but the women of the latter-day saints would bear children.

At the time, I am sure that sounded like a crazy prophecy, but more and more it begins to seem reasonable.


Bookslinger
June 12, 2016

Role model effect, and mistaken self-identification before sexual maturity:

http://postsecret.com/2016/06/11/white-house-secrets/15-ellen/%23main


Anonymous
June 12, 2016

American popculture is a sewer, pumped directly into our homes through the TV set.

This has, perhaps, always been true.

But after not watching American television at all for almost twenty years, I happened to be in places where TV sets were turned on and running, and discovered what I suppose must be termed the new normal, and will not attempt to describe it in this venue other than to say that millions of Americans apparently now watch “situation comedies” that would have made Caligula retch.

I have reached the conclusion that if you have children, allowing them to watch television, or attend public schools–at least in the US–amounts to child abuse. It’s ham-handed agitprop masquerading as entertainment, and it never ceases. As the man says, “what they see is what they’ll be.” What they see on the television is what they will consider normal and proper.

It makes me glad that I never had children.


Zen
October 10, 2016

I’ll take that and raise you this:
Only Half of Millennials Want a Monogamous Relationship

They positively delight in the destruction of monogamy.

http://www.pride.com/dating/2016/10/03/only-half-millennials-want-monogamous-relationship

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.