posted
BlackBlade, what I am having trouble understanding is how your role is different from your wife's in this respect. If she disagrees that you are following God's counsel, she is under no obligation to follow you, and so, to, for you towards her. So what then makes one of you the "head" of the household?
Honest question -- it's not clear to me, but I'd like to understand how you see it.
quote:However, in this instance if you automatically have the tie-breaking vote, then in every disagreement you are the one who decides whether you will follow your wife's preference or yours. You can choose to defer to her, in which case you are choosing in favor of hers. She can choose not to defer to you, but if you feel strongly enough about it her choices are to defer or push it to a stalemate, in which case you get to decide. So the only time her preference is the choice is because you chose to give the choice to her.
I'm not sure why you're asking this.
quote: In the worst case scenario I could say, "You have to trust me on this," and she could very easily say, "I'm sorry but I think you're disastrously wrong on this and I can't go along with it." Tiffany has only promised to love, honor, and obey her husband so long as he is following God's council. If she is not convinced that I and God are in agreement why would she capitulate?
Doesn't that answer it?
His wife only has to defer to him if she believes he is acting in accordance with God's will. He only has the power to 'give her the choice' insofar as she believes he is being obedient to God.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why you think I was asking a question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase, then: "I'm not sure why you think this can be addressed to Blackblade."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're making too much out of it here. Yes, the LDS man's stated role is to preside in the home. It is also made abundantly clear, time and time again, that the man is not to exercise any improper control or dominion in the home. As soon as he does that, he loses any authority he might have had. It is not his place to be anything but kind, considerate, helpful, and humble when working with his wife. They are equal partners, as I've said before. The relationship, and the responsibilities therein, are no different than those not of the LDS faith, especially those who have posted here.
That the man is given the role to preside is for the benefit of his wife and children, who can call on the divine power available through that role for their benefit as needed. He does not take it upon himself, or gain any leverage from that role. It is a service role, and a burden rather than anything to exalt him.
Like I've already said, and BB has said for his family, I make decisions in harmony with my wife. I really do. We decide things together. I do not request the final vote in anything, and I often defer to her judgment. We do our very best to make sure we are in consensus on every decision before it is made. My goal is to build our relationship based on trust, love, and respect, not to assume sole power in my home. I know many LDS husbands and fathers with the same desires. I know men not of my faith with the same desires. We don't have a monopoly on it. I really do hope this helps to some small degree dispel the notion of some insidious patriarchy we're trying to cultivate in the church. It is simply not so.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not seeing why it is necessary to designate a head of the household if, in the end, you both have equal power and responsibility toward the marriage.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways: the man is the head of the household but if he's a good and righteous head of the household then he will act in accordance with his wife and they will be partners. This argument is not even unique to the LDS church. There is a passage in (I think) Ephesians that talks about the role of a man as the head of his family as Christ is the head of the church. It comes up often, and in the end they try to explain it away by talking about how a good man will behave in that role. But I've never bought it. You can't have it both ways.
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce. Of course, the argument would need to be more important than our marriage but then again, the only reason we would not eventually come to a consensus would be if somehow, the argument were more important than our marriage.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why you think I was asking a question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase, then: "I'm not sure why you think this can be addressed to Blackblade."
Because Black Blade stated that he believes there needs to be a mechanism in place to give one partner the dedciding vote if consensus cannot be reached. Other people have disagreed, and he expressed that, while he hopes never to have to use it, he really thinks it needs to be there just in case. I expressed the opinion that if the mechanism is there, it is being used whether he intends it or not. He said he didn't understand my reasoning, and I interpreted his post as a request for clarification.
I note of further clarification: nothing I have posted is meant to question what LDS doctrine means by head of the household or presiding over the family or anything else. I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce.
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce.
Or rock-paper-scissors.
My husband won't let me use that. I always win. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
So do I, for what it's worth. My interpretation of D&C 121
quote:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
...maintains that the idea of being an inherent tie-breaker by virtue of the priesthood (or manhood) is antithetical to how the priesthood is supposed to be viewed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claudia: As I'm thinking about it, I don't think I have the words right now to adequately respond to your honest query. I by nature am a pretty accommodating creature. I take my wife's beliefs as seriously as my own, and so I confess I have not put much thought into when I would have to act independently, though I believe such a principle may be necessary in certain instances.
It just seems plausible that a circumstance could arise where both points of view are of equal merit to the adherents, as the time to deliberate is already exhausted, and both husband and wife agree either person prevailing is preferable to doing nothing, that one of them is designated to make the decision on which route to take.
Again, this is a topic of which I am less set in stone than others, but there it is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I get the difference between how an LDS husband (as steward of the family) and wife (who, if I understand, isn't steward of the family) are supposed to behave. From what many people are saying, it doesn't seem like there are differences.
If that's the case, what is the meaning of one of them being a steward and the other a stewardee?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, It seems to me that a way of resolving disputes where the partners just don't agree is something that should be tailored to the couple (I'd probably go with trading off so that whoever made the deciding vote the last time accedes this time), rather than dealt with as a general "the man is always right" rule. But then I thought, this is part of LDS spiritual beliefs, correct?
Is it that God or some other spiritual force makes it so that the man should be the deciding vote?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: I was not advocating "the man is always right," nor does Mormonism advocate any inherent ability within males to be right more often than women. Most scriptures dealing with this relationship are dated, and seem to fit the social norms of that time period. The church's "The Family: A Proclamation To the World" seems to be the most modern specific instructions as to how God wishes a household ought to be conducted.
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Preside, is a tough word to describe for me. My previous post about presiding over priesthood ordinances concerning the family is definitely in that category. Beyond that things get fuzzy.
With Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (and this is the Mormon understanding of the event) Eve made a rational decision without initially informing Adam, she then presented the case to Adam who saw the wisdom and necessity in what Eve said. Both of them were visited by God afterward and first Adam passed the buck on to Eve who passed the buck on to Satan. After cursing Satan God then addresses Eve and states the effects of being fallen in regards to childbirth. He then does the same to Adam in regards to his role in providing sustenance for his family.
Finally, Adam and Eve are explained the manner in which they can be redeemed from the fall (ala Jesus), and part of that arrangement is Eve promising to obey Adam as he obeys God, and Adam swearing to obey God in all things.
Again, I can't put my finger firmly down on this principle, I'm still thinking about it. Perhaps I am conflating "stewardship" with "dominion."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm still not seeing why it is necessary to designate a head of the household if, in the end, you both have equal power and responsibility toward the marriage.
One of the primary responsibilities of a man who holds the priesthood is to make sure his home is blessed and protected by the power of God. That, I think, is the definition of "preside." Like I said above, presiding is a function of service specific to the priesthood. It does in no way diminish the wife and mother's leadership role in the home. The fact that the man presides in the home means his family can be blessed through the power of the priesthood. It does not make his "throne" one inch higher than his wife's. But there does have to be that designation--and I think it's there primarily to remind the man not to shirk his responsibilities.
Is that distinction apparent?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, If the man isn't always right, why should he be the one who always is the tie-breaker?
---
I think the thing that isn't coming across here is that there is something the husband has which the wife lacks in regards to the household but we're not getting what this is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, I'm not sure how the gibes up with the man being the "head of the household" and the wife not.
It may be that the terms that seem to denote authority to me aren't supposed to be interpreted that way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the title is merely a way to get a man to avoid "shirking his responsibilities", why don't women similarly need a title to encourage them?
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man who holds the priesthood leads his family in Church participation so they will know the gospel and be under the protection of the covenants and ordinances. If you are to enjoy the blessings of the Lord, you must set your own homes in order. Together with your wife, you determine the spiritual climate of your home. Your first obligation is to get your own spiritual life in order through regular scriptural study and daily prayer. Secure and honor your priesthood and temple covenants; encourage your family to do the same.
Take seriously your responsibility to teach the gospel to your family through regular family home evening, family prayer, devotional and scripture-reading time, and other teaching moments. Give special emphasis to preparation for missionary service and temple marriage. As patriarch in the home, exercise your priesthood through performing the appropriate ordinances for your family and by giving blessings to your wife and children. Next to your own salvation, brethren, there is nothing so important to you as the salvation of your wife and children.
quote:I'm not sure how the gibes up with the man being the "head of the household" and the wife not.
I'm not calling the man the sole head of household. That is a joint title, IMO.
quote:If the title is merely a way to get a man to avoid "shirking his responsibilities", why don't women similarly need a title to encourage them?
It's not "merely" a way to get a man not to shirk his responsibilities. I should have put a smiley after that statement. But it is and should be a sobering reminder to him to take his responsibilities in his family seriously.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so Scott and advice for robots seem to be indicating that the special role for the father isn't about breaking ties or getting a deciding vote, but rather about being the spiritual leader of the household...does that sound like a remotely correct interpretation?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
So...men should go to work and women should stay home and have babies? Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spiritual leader? Not necessarily. Not in the sense of a holy man. Again, that's a shared role between mom and dad. As the priesthood leader, however, the husband is responsible to watch over the home and ensure that spiritual guidance is there, and share in providing it. He is accountable for that.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."
So no, women don't just stay home and make babies and men go to work, and anything else is not OK. I don't have any children right now, but my wife and I have decided that I need to move towards employment that will permit her to quit her job and to start having children. That's us, I have a very good friend who is a stay at home dad while his wife works. They've decided that she doesn't want to pursue a career and so while he is at home he is figuring out what he can do to fill the roll. I don't see anything wrong in either of our approaches.
Raising children is a crucial part of Christianity as far as Mormonism is concerned. As men do not have the child bearing facilities it makes sense that to some degree women tend towards child rearing while men provide. Since we don't live in an exclusively agrarian or industrial society anymore, men and women have a significantly more flexibility.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ahve seen many times that when an atheist says, "Christianity does not make men better, but worse", and points to statistics, then the Christians will respond that it is not a doctrine for perfect men, but for sinners. And yet here are any number of Christians proposing that men should only use their priesthood authority when acting in accord with their god's will. Just how perfect are these Saints? Are they truly so able to discern when they are acting out a will outside their own, that no trace of self-willedness can possibly come into their marriages? This is not a doctrine for men, but for angels. Assume for a moment that their god really exists; then if their men actually act in accordance with its will, there is no need for this authority, for their wives will surely see the same will and obey accordingly; and if they do the opposite, then authority can only do harm.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Christianity exalts men as well as damning them. One either rises to the ideals of the faith and becomes a help to mankind, or else shrinks into despair because they will not do what is required. Jesus himself said that far more fall short of the mark than make it.
What studies are you referring to that demonstrate that Christianity makes men worse?
Men and women have to learn both how to be subjects to God as well as good stewards to the things God places in their care. We're going to screw up, that is expected, but the lesson must be learned nonetheless. I am inclined to agree with you that with a perfect understanding of God's will there would not be any disagreements nor need for discussion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MrSquicky: I was not advocating "the man is always right," nor does Mormonism advocate any inherent ability within males to be right more often than women. Most scriptures dealing with this relationship are dated, and seem to fit the social norms of that time period. The church's "The Family: A Proclamation To the World" seems to be the most modern specific instructions as to how God wishes a household ought to be conducted.
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
That passage you quoted there is something I take to be as evidence of the Mormon Church slowly evolving out of "The man is the boss of the household" ideals. They are already starting to 'vague' their way out of it: in one paragraph alone we trip over some contradiction between 'preside over' vs 'equal partners'
They are transforming from the former to the latter while still trying to assure constancy. haha, neat Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: As soon as he starts using the priesthood for his own aggrandizement, his authority to use it ends. That authority to use it comes from outside him, from God. He doesn't take it on himself.
You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm. That is not so. ETA: Men can and do do much good of their own free wills, and can have the best interests of others in mind. They can call upon the authority they hold to do good. In that sense, there is plenty of self-willedness in it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, so Scott and advice for robots seem to be indicating that the special role for the father isn't about breaking ties or getting a deciding vote, but rather about being the spiritual leader of the household...does that sound like a remotely correct interpretation?
I think that's pretty close... It's hard to express the exact feeling in words.
But I think it's easier to relate to when you realize that the family is the basic unit of our church, and it goes up from there. Families, wards/branches, stakes/districts, areas/missions, countries/regions, First Presidency. Each has a definite order and structure that is a bigger version of the last, the only real divergence being in the family, where instead of one President with two counselors, we have the father, who is supported in function as a Bishop or Stake President is by his counselors in his work, by the mother. But in each we have a nominal leader whose real job is not as much to lead as to shepherd, and who does so with assistance by others who often serve the exact same functions when needed. The Bishop is often referred to as "the father of the ward" and I think that is one demonstration of how we kind of treat the whole church structure as an enlargement of the family structure.
And that probably made no sense when I tried to explain it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."
This quote doesn't help you. What it says is that men are supposed to help women carry out their womanly responsibilities, and the women are supposed to help the men carry out their manly responsibilities. It doesn't say that they are equally responsible for both.
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life"
quote:So no, women don't just stay home and make babies and men go to work, and anything else is not OK.
We can all read what you cited. It was quite explicit, it is the man's sacred responsibility to provide the necessitities of life. It is not the woman's. If she does it, and he doesn't, he is shirking his divinely designed responsibility.
Is shirking one's divinely bestowed, sacred responsibility really OK?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:KOM: As soon as he starts using the priesthood for his own aggrandizement, his authority to use it ends. That authority to use it comes from outside him, from God. He doesn't take it on himself.
His moral authority may have ended. Will you seriously argue that his actual authority, in the sense of being able to enforce his will in the actual physical world of human beings, one of whom he's married to, has also ended? Again: If the will of your god is clear, then how can there not be consensus? If the will is not clear, then why is the male's interpretation the one that shall hold? Loss of moral authority aside, how can you argue that this power will not in real life be used for unrighteous dominance? To say "It won't happen if the man does it right" is not a defense, it is a doctrine for angels. To hyperbolate for a minute: Suppose I had the legal right to force you to work on my farm for no wage. Would that be ok because I chose not to exercise my right, but instead allowed you to work at whatever you chose? What if my right were extended to a large class of people, and only a very few abused it; would you then argue that they had thereby lost their moral authority, and that it was therefore fine for them to have the legal right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).
Notice that the correlation is still there even if you exclude the outlier US.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Notice that the correlation is still there even if you exclude the outlier US.
No it is not. Did you even look at the figures? Even including the US, there isn't a strong correlation on most of those. From the graphs the only things in that list that are strongly correlated with religiosity are infant mortality and abortion. And once again, correlation does not demonstrate cause. It is much more likely that these things are the result of economic disparity which happens to be correlated with religiosity in the developed countries.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is the old knot of correlation v. causation as well; i.e., perhaps people in more chaotic circumstances (born into or chosen, whichever or both) may be more likely to turn to religion for answers. But if that were the chain of events, religion would not be the cause -- rather, part of the attempted solution to the problems for which there would be some other [preceding] cause. [which is? who knows. socioeconomic disparity, countless other possibilities, and if the case fits, most likely some huge roiling brew of many causes left to stew together]
BlackBlade, thanks for the honest attempt at answering the honest query. It's rather more than I can get my head around this morning, but I will keep trying. Looks like there is a lot more between here and there to read.
quote:In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).
This data does not relate to the question of whether religion makes people better. If you want to do that, you'd need to study individuals, and you'd need to look at what happens when they go from being unreligious to becoming religious. You'd want to compare that to a sample group of people who start out unreligious and remain unreligious.
Studies that look at individuals (instead of cultures) have found that religious individuals are generally happier and with fewer problems than the nonreligious. link
The study you linked to only relates to the question of whether a culture that has more religion is correlated to various problems. It doesn't explain why such a correlation would exist. A look at the actual criteria hints at why though.... Note that the criteria they use for "religious" are: an absolute belief in God, praying multiple times a week, church attendence multiple times a month, disbelief in evolution, taking the Bible literally, and atheism. Most of these criteria are less a measure of religion and more a measure of how conservative their approach to religion is. Many religious people do not pray multiple times a week, believe in evolution, don't take the Bible literally, and wouldn't term their belief in God as "absolute" (some even don't believe in a God). That doesn't mean they are not religious. Thus I think what you're really measuring is how liberal a nation's culture is, compared to what sort of problems it has.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No it is not. Did you even look at the figures?
I did, and I'll thank you not to make such accusations. That correlation is at least 20%, not counting the US.
As for correlation versus causation, yada yada. I know what statistics can show and what they cannot show. But it's gotten to the point where this is used as the all-purpose, fully-general response to any disliked statistic. An argument that can be used against anything is as useful as a theory that explans any data whatsoever: Utterly useless.
These figures are not proof that religion causes immorality. But they are evidence that such is the case. If anyone would like to produce evidence in the opposite direction, feel free. A statement that "causation is not correlation" is not evidence, it is a refusal to think about what the data mean.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm.
I generally assume that given the opportunity, people in general will use any authority given to them to do harm. And the longer they are given authority, the more likely it is they will begin to use it to do harm.
There are exceptions, but I believe these exceptions are vanishingly small and generally rely on the enlightened self-interest of the authority figure.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did, and I'll thank you not to make such accusations. That correlation is at least 20%, not counting the US.
On which graphs? Please be specific? Furthermore, a correlation of 20% in a data set of such limit size is certainly not statistically significant. They aren't evidence of anything what so ever.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
So do I, for what it's worth. My interpretation of D&C 121
quote:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
...maintains that the idea of being an inherent tie-breaker by virtue of the priesthood (or manhood) is antithetical to how the priesthood is supposed to be viewed.
I completely agree with this. I feel that Black Blade's interpretation about how the man is the tiebreaker is not in line with the scriptures, what the General Authorities say, or what the Lord wants.
quote:You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm.
D&C 121:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen. 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness...
Priesthood authority is maintained only by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. That means that if those don't exist, then the priesthood doesn't either. Force or unrighteous dominion are simply not available tools in the priesthood authority toolbox. If that's the only tools someone feels he has left, then "amen to the priesthood of that man". Who decides when that authority is gone in a family? That family. If that judgment is made for crappy or unrighteous reasons, that's a problem for them and the culpability for it is on their own heads.
Priesthood is all service and responsibility. The only authority is, at it were, leased to them by the Lord on the condition that he do as the Lord would, and it only needs to be accepted if those presided over agree that the authority is being used as the Lord would wish.
quote:Studies that look at individuals (instead of cultures) have found that religious individuals are generally happier and with fewer problems than the nonreligious.
Your study is (as far as I can tell from a crappy journalism link) measuring church-going rates, which you disliked when mine did it. Would you like to have a single standard? Further, it is using self-reported happiness, a notoriously unreliable number; and it has nothing to do with morality, which is the point I was making. Being a moral person does not automatically make you a happy person, or vice-versa.
Further, even within the US crime rates are higher in more religious states, and atheists are way under-represented in prison populations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A statement that "causation is not correlation" is not evidence, it is a refusal to think about what the data mean.
*amused
It is intellectual integrity.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's try some Bayes. Suppose you did not know about the study I just linked. Suppose further that you had some probability estimate of the proposition "Religious belief makes people more likely to murder" - say, 5%. Then I tell you about the study. Does your estimate increase, decrease, or stay the same? Notice that I do not ask about quantities, since I made up the 5% anyway, but about directions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Church-going rates are a reasonable measure of religion in the country. Biblical literalism or disbelief of evolution are not; they measure only a subset of the religious, and a subset that happens to differ in significant cultural ways from the rest.
And again, if you want to measure whether accepting religion makes a person more moral, you need to look at individuals - and you need to look at how they were before being religious vs. how they are afterwards. Comparing states or countries in that way involves way too many confounding variables that you are not controlling for. (For instance, I think you'll find that more religious states are significantly warmer than non-religious states in the U.S. - does that mean religion determines the weather?)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at the plots for this study, I'd say it makes no contribution to the argument. Even with the US included, half the graphs look like shotgun patterns. Even if you have prior reason to believe that religion has a 5% probability of making people more likely to murder, that wouldn't make these correlations significant at any reasonable standard of evidence.
The US is so far off scale on the STD graphs you can't even tell what the trend might be among the other countries.
I'm personally appalled that reviewers allowed conclusions that are so strikingly at odds with the data presented to be published. This paper isn't science, its rubish. I'm really appalled you'd even reference such a piece of trash.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to reiterate, this is possibly one of my all-time favorite scriptures:
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness...
I love the emphasized part - it explains how the Lord works. Simply, force and dismissal and disrespect in general isn't in the toolbox of righteous leaders. If that's the tools they are using, they are no longer righteous. It's very reassuring, because if they aren't righteous, I don't have to listen anymore.
I do wish I'd understood this sooner - there are a couple of guys I dated in my early twenties that caused me a great deal of distress by claiming final say because of the priesthood when I disagreed with them. I knew they were full of crap - the Lord I knew didn't disrespect me like that - but I couldn't pinpoint with the scriptures why.
I am very grateful for the comfort of the Spirit that told me not to give up the truth I knew because someone wanted to package some baloney along with it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
