Skip to comments.LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article
Posted on 05/06/2008 10:18:16 AM PDT by Utah Girl
click here to read article
As I said, I don’t care if people don’t answer my questions. I care when they respond to my questions with answers to questions I didn’t ask, or worse, accusations about what I believe based on a misreading of my questions. Or just blatant character attacks in place of answers or even discussion of the question or other questions.
For example, if I ask “what should a parent have available to prove their kid is theirs”, I don’t mind people ignoring me, or saying that my question is stupid.
It’s responses like “why are you defending child rapists”, or “you must be a Mormon”, or “How many wives to do have”, or “know any child molesters personally”.
I can respond to them — and people have a right to say what they want. But I criticize those responses because they are not helpful, nor to they encourage discussion and learning.
Some of them do, and I imagine some of them don’t because why set yourself up for unnecessary ridicule.
In fact, I’ve noticed what appears to be a concerted attempt to fight fire with water here, meaning a lot of posts in the religion forums about LDS teachings that are uncontroversal and generally supported by conservatives.
But my comment regards the common occurance on these threads of freepers responding to comments by saying “are you a mormon”, or “you must be a mormon”, or “are you wearing your magic underwear”.
My response is to chide people for ad hominen arguments rather than dealing with the issues with facts.
Hmm. Using your analogy, the claims about historical documents were dropped here, so I should be looking here to see if people have links to them.
I use google, but sometimes you have to get just the right words on a search to find something.
I have found lots of references to the age people married. I even found a chart that shows perfectly what I was discussing about statistics. In the chart, the average age for women to be married was 22, but a MAJORITY of the women got married before they were 20.
But the graph was on a blog which didn’t have citations to unbiased sources. The only other stuff I found were competing numbers from pro-LDS and anti-LDS web sites. I didn’t have time to poke through each one to find if someone had a good unbiased source reference.
The purpose of my disclaimer is not to provoke argument, but to clearly state that my post contains speculation, and that I have no evidence to refute the claims of the post I’m responding to. I think that is rare enough that some people don’t recognise it as such, and think it’s some sort of attack.
In the absense of verified facts, if you want to have an opinion, it must be based on whatever evidence you can find. Some people just state opinions as facts with no references. I am trying to be more informative.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I try very hard not to discuss other people religion in a political forum.
It could be they simply don’t want to get into a discussion of comparative religion. Ask me what makes my religion different from another, and I’ll be more comfortable describing my religion, and letting you figure out what’s different about it.
being a political forum, I try to avoid discussing the details of my religious beliefs.
I saw a chart that showed that in 1850, a MAJORITY of girls were married before they turned 20, even though the AVERAGE age was 22. I don’t know that the chart was backed by unbiased evidence, so I still cannot claim truth, but it was a data point — one easily refuted if I can find an actual link to the 1850 census.
However, even that chart didn’t claim “early teenage years”. although it showed a fair number younger than 18. If I read someone post a claim that women “regularly married in their early teenage years”, I would ask for a reference source to prove it, just as I am looking for references the other way.
As to post 54, I’ve already noted that the average marriage age is meaningless if you are debating how many married at a certain age — and is in fact biased high because there is a hard limit on the younger side, and virtually no limit on the high side.
Let me explain more. A lot of people are used to “average” when talking about distributions which follow a bell curve, meaning equal weighting on either side.
But the marriage age curve is not a bell curve, it is heavily skewed to the left.
For example, in post 54, they mention that in one area, the AVERAGE age of marriage was 21.4 for women. Now, the YOUNGEST a woman is going to get married is 12. The OLDEST they could get married is whatever age they die, but you could say most will have married by the time they are, say 50.
The distance from 12 to 21.4 is 11.4 years. The distance from 21.4 to 50 is 28.6 years. The curve is skewed. For every woman who waits until 30 to get married, in order for the average to be 21.4, you’ll need almost 3 women who got married at 18, or 2 women married at 17.
This is an excellent thing to remember when discussing economic statistics. The least a person can make is zero dollars, but most of the time people who are NOT WORKING aren’t counted in wage statistics.
So when people talk about average wages, they are almost always skewed upward, because a few people who make lots of money make up for hundreds who make little money.
For example, if the average salary is $50,000, and you include one CEO who made $100,000,000, how many people with ZERO income do you need to get $50,000 average? You take the distance from the high number to the average, and divide it by the distance from the low number to the average: 99,950,000/50,000 = 1999 people making nothing. Or, 20,000 making $10,000 a year.
I again do not get into the details of the religious discussion. Based on what others have posted here, the FLDS at the compound was actually a much more radical sect than what the FLDS was in the past. First, I have no independent proof of that, just what I read here. Second, being less of a cult is not a defense of the cult. But if the FLDS under it’s current leader is distinguishable from the FLDS of 30 years ago, it seems logical it would be distinguishable from the LDS church of the late 1800s.
To all: I’m trying to stop posting to the FLDS threads, so if I don’t respond it’s not because I am ignoring you personally, it’s because I’m ignoring you as a group :-)
Yeah, coming into this discussion late, but it is obvious from the many first-hand testimonies of those who were forced into marriages who tried to leave with their families, only some of whom survived (the rest being killed), that what happened in 1860’s and 70’s Utah among the LDS are extremely similar to what is happening now in Texas. In fact, it was worse considering the LDS removed themselves from the US so that they could practice their unconstitutional marriages and there was no one to turn to for relief when someone did want to escape the situation.