The following represents the position of myself and most, but probably not all, of my family. I have one son, in particular, who is a member of the LDS church and might not agree with all of the following.

We do not discriminate against any religion, regardless to whom or what people may pray or worship. People may pray to and worship the rising Sun or to Buddah or whatever it may be, so long as they allow others this same privilege, and they also take responsibility for whatever results their actions bring to themselves and to society.

We do not discriminate against any lifestyle choices, whether it is LGBT, or any other lifestyle choice, again as long as they allow others this same privilege, and they also take responsibility for whatever results their actions bring to themselves and to society.

We endorse a principle that is known in academia as the “Harm Principle”, but we choose to call it by another name, “Freedom From Harm To Others”.

For us, the meaning of “taking responsibility for one’s actions” means a person’s actions should not create harm to others, and in cases where harm is created, it needs to be rectified (corrected and made whole) to the greatest extent possible.

The meaning of “harm”, in this context, is when a person impedes the creation of “Value” as described in our Mission Statement (below). In #1 of the Mission Statement, the meaning of "Value" is determined by each individual for themselves, whatever each individual person decides is valuable for themselves, but also within the infringement limitations described there. In contrast, for statement #2, "Value" is defined by everybody else EXCEPT themselves. They do not get the privilege of deciding what is "Valuable" for somebody else -- the intended recipient of the "Value" gets to make that decision for anything under statement #2.

Mission Statement:

1. We will defend and protect each person's right to create "Value" for themselves, through the pursuit of their own dreams, and to the extent that they also allow others to do the same.

2. We will encourage each person to create "Value" for society, not just for themselves, to the extent that the intended recipients of that "Value" judges it to be valuable.

And for us, “Value” (under statement #1) means that when we evaluate an idea, principle, or doctrine, we will evaluate it completely within the context of the theoretical benefit we perceive it can yield to society here on earth, independent of any specific ideas of heaven or an afterlife.

One way that we find helpful in that evaluation is to ask ourselves the question, “if everybody on earth were to adopt the idea that is under consideration, what would happen to humanity?”

For example, some religious groups believe that the best course of action for a person is to remain celibate (abstain from marriage and sexual relations). But if everybody on earth were to adopt that idea, what would happen to the human race? It would go extinct in one generation. So, we reject that idea as having no personal value to us. However, if somebody else deems that this course of action brings Value to themselves, we will support them in that decision.

Some religious groups might advocate that a person should embark on some course of action purely under the idea that they will receive blessings in heaven for doing so. But we believe that the action must also have at least a theoretical argument for producing a benefit to mankind here on earth, independent of any ideas of heaven. Thus, if the idea is based purely on the premise of “blessings in heaven”, and upon no other principle, we reject it as having no personal value to us.

Another way we might express our own personal definition of “Value” is: we reject any idea that would influence our way of life that is not plausibly supportable by science. That might be considered to be a controversial statement to many, but we can express the idea yet again with the following: we believe that (1) the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and (2) the religion of Jesus Christ, are synonymous terms, and we also believe that it will always be in complete harmony with science. We might not (yet) understand some of the science it is based on, but it will always be in harmony with it.

Thus, the creation of “Value”, as it pertains to the Mission Statement, will always be via actions that are themselves in harmony with science, and designed to help the human race on this earth, independent of any specific ideas of heaven.

That’s a definition that many people will not accept. But that’s OK. We don’t care if they accept it or not.

Police Officers:

My wife’s little brother is Chief of Police in a little northern town, and his wife is a Utah State Highway Patrol (a Utah Trooper). I have a nephew that retired as a Utah Trooper. And I have several sons all of whom are considering Police Academy. When you have family members and loved ones who put their lives on the line in the regular course of duty, it gives you a deeper appreciation for the duties and sacrifices the men and women in law enforcement make for the protection and service of the community. While there are always going to be a few bad apples in any apple cart, we believe police officers (in general) are an honorable group, and we support them with respect and appreciation, and we urge all others to do the same.


2nd Amendment and Guns:

There is an “anti-gun” element in the country that is trying to paint “pro-gun” people as right-wing fringe fanatics. We think that is ludicrous. But rather than try to argue with them, our position is quite simple:

We support the gun policies that the majority of the “boots on the ground” police officers desire to see enacted, who are also in the jurisdiction where the policies would take effect.

We do NOT support, say, New Jersey Police Officers deciding what Salt Lake City gun policies should be. But we DO support Salt Lake City Police Officers deciding what Salt Lake City gun policies should be.

That’s our position. Pure and simple. When it comes to gun policies, we support the police.

Polygamy:

We live in Utah. I get asked about polygamy all the time.

First, let me say that I am not a polygamist. I am a third-generation descendent of Orson Pratt, who was one of the original Apostles of the LDS church, and was also a polygamist (in the mid-1800’s). But there has been no polygamy in my line since him. And any claims to the contrary are patently false.

For polygamy, our analysis of it really boils down to nothing more than a simple math problem:

For any society that:

1. Has (roughly) an equal number of boys and girls born each year, AND...
2. Has (roughly) equal mortality rates between boys and girls, AND...
3. Has very few, if any, divorces, AND...
4. Everyone gets married, AND...
5. Girls, on average, choose a husband who is older than them, AND...
6. The society is growing, THEN...

For such a society, simple mathematics tells us that polygamy must exist. If it does not exist in that society, then it means one or more of the above six items is false for that people.

This must be the case because if the above six items are all true, it means that a larger set of girls from a later generation is marrying, on average, a smaller set of boys from an earlier generation, due to the growing population, and the fact that the girls (on average) are marrying men older than themselves.

If we are not going to allow polygamy, what do you propose we do instead? Do you propose to require (by force of law) that the girls must marry men of their own age? Or do you propose to require (by force of law) that they have fewer children (so that it is not a growing population) like China has done? Or do you propose (by force of law) to tell some of the girls they cannot get married?

It’s a math problem. You are going to have to pick one of the above, because there are no other mathematical possibilities. None. You may not like it, but you must pick one of the above. It boils down to mathematics, and math doesn't care about your social or religious beliefs.

As for my family, we believe that the government shouldn't be involved in any way with intimate unions and/or relationships of any kind among informed consenting adults. Period. And all of the arguments to the contrary are usually straw men and/or bring in yet other issues that likewise should be none of the government’s business.

Our Mission Statement says we shall “defend and protect each person's right to create "Value" for themselves, through the pursuit of their own dreams, and to the extent that they also allow others to do the same.” This means that for someone else, if they believe that polygamy creates “Value” to them, and they are informed consenting adults, and they are committing no other crime, we will support their decision. We not only will support it, but we will “defend and protect” their right to live that life style, to the best of our ability, within whatever legal framework we are able to do so.

And that is not a popular position to have in the Mormon-controlled state of Utah. But we don’t care. That is our position, and we will stand by it, because it’s the right thing to do.

We, as a people, and as citizens of the United States, should defend and protect the Methodists, or the Protestants, Muslim, LDS, Catholic, or Hindu, or any other group in their rights. The government is for the protection of all it's citizens, whatever their religious views, opinions, or lifestyle choices may be, and nobody should be permitted to overstep the proper bounds or to interfere with the rights of others in their pursuit of what each believes to be of value to themselves, as long as they in turn respect those same boundaries for others, and commit no other crime in doing so.

Nevin Pratt

I think your math is off, Nevin.
Sorry.

It is not all that common for women to marry men older than they are. In my family, most of the women are older than their husbands or within a few years of the same age. I reject that idea as a "given"

I lived next door to some Pratts in Linden when I was like 6. They had some mean little girls.

Kudos for thinking things through, and making mostly reasonable decisions.
One point to consider: the "gospel" (or religion) of "Jesus Christ" is already outside of being "plausibly supported by science." Way, way, outside. Declaring ahead of time that it will always be supported by science already sets you up as dogmatic rather than analytical; that the premise is already false sets you up as choosing a comforting belief over facts.

But hey, most of the rest is pretty darn admirable. :)

Please. Your "philosophy" is transparent.

Your math makes zero sense, but the glaring omission of age of consent makes perfect sense, as does who gets to decide whom may own weapons.

It would be typical that a 14 year-old has "the agency" to decide if she "chooses" to marry a 42 year old, but not the agency to shoot him in her attempts to thwart his unwanted advances or "marriage."

Please, Neville, your math only works if the "community" ousts the young men, as polygs are known to do.

You are NOT about "non-harm." You are about oppression trying to ride the coat-tails of individual human rights. You are about screwing little girls. You are about creating standing armies in private communities to enforce the rape of children.

Give us a break.

>
> Your math makes zero sense,

Some people are just math illiterate, I guess.

OK, here is a sample math breakdown, based on a hypothetical 3% annual population growth rate, and a hypothetical initial birth of 100,000 male babies, and an equal birth of 100,000 female babies:

YEAR 1 = 100,000 babies (of each sex)
YEAR 2 = 103,000 babies
YEAR 3 = 106,090 babies
YEAR 4 = 109,273 babies
YEAR 5 = 112,551 babies
YEAR 6 = 115,927 babies

Now suppose, on average, girls are choosing men for husbands that are, on average, six years older than themselves.

This would mean that when the above babies reach marriageable age, 115,927 females would be selecting husbands from a group of 100,000 males.

You either need to allow polygamy, OR tell 14% of the girls they can never get married, OR tell the girls they cannot have as many children (like China does), OR insist that the girls marry men their own age, and not men that are older than them.

It's simple math.

I personally don't care WHICH of those alternatives they choose, AS LONG AS IT IS DONE WILLINGLY, with FULL CONSENT, and with FULL KNOWLEDGE among the adults making that decision for themselves.

Also, my article PERMEATES from top to bottom with the need for them to be FULLY INFORMED CONSENTING ADULTS, and PERMEATES with the need for them to choose FREELY and WILLINGLY.

Sheesh. Read the article. And think.

Nevin

P.S. My name is not "Neville".

nevinpratt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now suppose, on average, girls are choosing men
> for husbands that are, on average, six years older
> than themselves.
>
> This would mean that when the above babies reach
> marriageable age, 115,927 females would be
> selecting husbands from a group of 100,000 males.

If the *average* is that women (girls choose husbands?) choose husbands six years older, then based on a standard distribution curve, around 5% of women would be picking husbands 10-15 years older than them, and around 5% of women would be picking husbands 10-15 years younger than them. And the median group (those picking husbands around 6 years older) would represent only about 10% of the entire population.

Then there's the birth ratio, which isn't 1:1 -- it's about 1.07 boys to 1 girl. Making your "problem" less of a "problem as well.

The math still doesn't work out :)

Besides the birth ratio, the difference in mortality rates tend to bring things back into equalization. I say the math works.

But whether the math works or not, people need to be allowed to choose whatever they desire (LGBT or whatever), if they are informed consenting adults. As I said in my thesis:

"As for my family, we believe that the government shouldn't be involved in any way with intimate unions and/or relationships of any kind among informed consenting adults. Period."

Nevin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2016 01:50PM by nevinpratt.

nevinpratt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides the birth ratio, the difference in
> mortality rates tend to bring things back into
> equalization. I say the math works.

OK, but mortality rates don't matter much at marrying age...

> But whether the math works or not, people need to
> be allowed to choose whatever they desire (LGBT or
> whatever), if they are informed consenting
> adults.

I don't disagree. The issue with polygamy has often been "consenting," though. Is a woman raised since childhood with the indoctrination of the inevitability of her being a polygamist wife capable of consent? I don't know.

>
> I don't disagree. The issue with polygamy has
> often been "consenting," though. Is a woman
> raised since childhood with the indoctrination of
> the inevitability of her being a polygamist wife
> capable of consent? I don't know.

I (and my family) STRONGLY advocate advanced education for men AND women, including education that gives them an in-depth world view of as much as possible.

But we will also support their decision if they willingly choose not to do that.

Nevin

I may be missing something which has actually been mentioned, but if not...

1) There is no numerical inclusion that I see of GLBT people who choose (not surprisingly) GLBT relationships (something that is going to steadily increase in the next three or so decades), skewing the traditional male-to-female ratios...

2) There is no accounting that I see of relationships where female partners are older than male partners (something that is also probably going to increase in the next few decades.....real-life "Hollywood" "today" is very often "our" culture "tomorrow")...

3) There is no accounting for relationships of more than two people (something that is also, very probably, going to increase in the next few decades), again skewing the traditional male-to-female ratios

There are no hard numbers available because right now these existing instances are still relatively small numerically, but books and films (which began, in a larger-society way, in the 1960s)...plus increasing real-life social and legal examples which amount to the beginning stages of societal change (such as legal gay marriage, and the present ability to create more-than-two legal relationships, even if these do not yet rise to the threshold of legal marriage)...point to a different societal "mix" thirty years from now.

When the year 2046 dawns, it is very likely that the now more unfamiliar (and now still controversial) societal realities will include all of the above elements (and for many different reasons, some of them economic, and all of them in service of supporting the relationships individuals choose for themselves).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2016 02:32PM by Tevai.

Yes, I agree. There's a LOT of potential demographic data missing. But when/if/where that data becomes available, and can be incorporated into the model, it still will boil down to a "math problem".

Furthermore, there's an entire class of cases where the "Harm Principle" will not apply. Google it and you will start to see the tip of the iceberg on this.

And, as this data is collected, the data may point in an entirely unexpected direction. And if it does, that is where we need to go.

But people need to be allowed to make their own choices in life, unencumbered by pressures from other people. And when in the absence of clear data pointing otherwise, we should *always* err on the side of freedom of choice.

Nevin

You start out in the realm of "okay, not too extreme" and end up by using some bizarre mathematical calculations to justify what, in practice, turns out to be abusive, coercive and deeply perverted--polygamy. I'm not talking about the subsidized fantasy of the Las Vegas group. I am talking about the 10 year old girls raped by Warren Jeffs and the stunting of the health and lives of those young women given no other choices.

Law enforcement: I have law enforcement family members and friends too--good people who do their honest best. The "bad apples"--whether there are only a few or whether there is a culture of bad apples (in some areas) are a disgrace and a danger to the good officers. They should be tossed in jail or tossed out on their fat a**es! To protect them is criminally stupid. Bad apples endanger the lives of all other officers! Yes, All Lives Matter, but the reason Black Lives Matter was and is necessary is that so many times, people behaved as though black lives did not matter in the least! Additionally, every person of any color, race or creed who has a mentally ill family member should be shaking with fear that some trigger and power-happy bad apple will "take charge."

There should be a basic and consistent gun law throughout the country--a bare minimum, if you will. Should towns, cities, or states care to impose additional restrictions, go for it!

A bit of a rant, but.....

> I am talking about the 10 year old girls raped by
> Warren Jeffs and the stunting of the health and
> lives of those young women given no other choices.

I agree. This is repulsive.

Did you not read the part where I said, "...and commit no other crime in doing so"?

Also, from a follow-up post of mine..."I (and my family) STRONGLY advocate advanced education for men AND women, including education that gives them an in-depth world view of as much as possible.".

This should help guard against false indoctrinations occurring from childhood, as so often happens. Education is a potential tool to help people not fall for indoctrination nonsense.

Nevin

Uh...don't mean to interject, but isn't this "recovery FROM Mormonism"?

And part of "recovery" (at least here on RfM) is discussing and venting about what is wrong with Mormonism, polygamy being a large part of that. It is easily shown that Joseph Smith came up with the whole multi-wife thing to feed his avarice and hunger for power; his inner circle was drawn in too, while publicly denying it, even when proselytizing, so drew in new members under false pretenses. D&C 132, the revelation that permitted/commanded polygamy, wasn't even followed properly by Joseph Smith, even if it was a from God.

So....why are we talking about it here, again?

Most people find it disgusting, and many people have been hurt by it under the guise of religion. Legally married men have mistresses, so having another actual consenting wife might not be a big deal, as long as there no welfare cheating going on.