MarginOfError

Members
  • Content Count

    5955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

MarginOfError last won the day on September 20

MarginOfError had the most liked content!

About MarginOfError

  • Rank
    Lord of the Gummi Snacks

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Religion
    So Mormon...You Don't Even Know.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's an interpretation of Open Carry I've never considered.
  2. MarginOfError

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    I'm not sure how changes in the wording in the endowment constitute the death of the Patriarchal Order. Especially when, on its face, the changes seem to align better with what is being taught by current and past leadership. I mean, the actual wording in the temple before was pretty hard to square up with "equal partners." Will I concede that societal pressures may have been the premise on which an inquiry about changing the language changed? Absolutely! But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Societies morph and change, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. The temple ceremonies have been adjusted to reflect some of those changes several times already. Yet I don't hear a lot of complaints that privacy concerns altering how we do initiatories is a sign of apostasy. Another way of looking at it is that these are implementations of principles. Implementations can change without altering the principles. Saying the Patriarchal Order is dead because we changed a few words in the endowment is kind of like saying the Law of Consecration is dead because we did away with the United Order. With respect to Ordain Women, it's hard to make a case that Ordain Women is killing the Patriarchal Order when most of the leaders of that movement have been excommunicated, disciplined, or driven underground. Sure seems to me like the Patriarchal Order survived that ordeal. Regardless, according to the talk you linked to, "the patriarchal order will have no enduring relevance for those who do not qualify for an eternal marriage relationship." It's hard to kill something that exists only under certain covenants. To stamp it out dead, you'd have to kill the authority to make those covenants. The greater threat is individuals either refusing to make those covenants, or failing to live up to them. But now we're not really talking about killing the Patriarchal Order. Now we're talking about getting people to live it. I'd argue that is fundamentally a different concern.
  3. My recollection of the training was that those in the bishopric (bishop and counselors only) are to call the Church's abuse hotline. The hotline connects bishopric with social workers and lawyers who consult on the legal issues specific to the jurisdiction of the local ward. The lawyers will discuss whether the bishopric has clergy-penitent privilege and ask if the bishopric can or wants to waive it in this case. It is the clergy-penitent privilege that is at the heart of the difference. The only leaders who have that privilege are the bishop and his counselors. My understanding is that it isn't so much that a Catholic priest can't report a crime that is confessed to him, but that he doesn't have to. Depending on local law, of course. And there could be legal implications of waiving that privilege.
  4. MarginOfError

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    Forgive me for being picky (well, I'm not actually feeling apologetic about that), but this editorial doesn't actually answer the question.
  5. MarginOfError

    Is the Patriarchal Order Dead?

    What part of the Patriarchal Order do you think is dead? For what its worth, feminism helped teach me the skill of viewing my marriage as a partnership in which decision were made by discussion and consensus--which is exactly what the article you link to describes. It was through the lens of feminism that I began to understand the principles that were taught by Elder Larsen; it was through feminism that I learned to better implement the Patriarchal Order, as described by Elder Larsen, into my life. So help me out here. If you want to investigate this question further, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that the meaning of "feminism killed the Patriarchal Order" is self explanatory. Because it isn't (unless you're intending to preach to your own little choir).
  6. MarginOfError

    Figurative vs Literal

    Hmmm....not so sure. The 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon stated "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." That has since been scaled back to "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." If I had said, "I don't believe the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" in 1982, would you say I had been sowing the seeds of apostasy in my own life? I get where you're coming from with the slippery slope argument here. But realistically speaking, the Church has published and propagated theories and teachings that haven't held up to scrutiny. Having established that such mistakes and misinterpretations are possible, the door is already open to questioning what other mistakes and misinterpretations are waiting to be discovered. Some people don't want to explore those questions, and that's fine. Still, there are people that do want and/or feel compelled to explore those questions. For those people, telling them they shouldn't is counterproductive. It's a lot better to teach them how to explore those questions in a way that can still build faith in Christ, even if the evidence leads them to conclusions you disagree with.
  7. MarginOfError

    Future Developments in New Emphasis in Church's Name

    Nonsense. Sports definitely unite us. But if my daughters marry yankees* fans, I will disown them. * deliberately not capitalized.
  8. MarginOfError

    Figurative vs Literal

    I personally don't believe that Adam and Eve existed as described in the scriptures. I'm more inclined to believe that "Adam and Eve" were the humans chosen at the time that the species had evolved sufficiently both biologically and cognitively that the Lord chose to reveal himself to them and start the clock on human accountability. For me, it follow then that there was no Tree of Life nor a Tree of Knowledge, and that those are constructs used to teach principles. I'm on the fence about the Book of Mormon as a literal history. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to make a conclusion either way. I doubt the Book of Mormon was what some early Church leaders understood it to be (a record of the principal ancestors of the Americas), preferring the narrative that the American continents were populated by other peoples than just the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites. If it is a literal history, I still assume it has some heavy biases. That doesn't mean it wasn't inspired, but much like Biblical authors had biases and viewpoints that leaked into their writing, Nephi, Mormon, Alma, and others likely had biases and opinions that leak through into their writing. Does it matter? Not really. If you believe in God and Jesus Christ, Adam and Eve being the first humans or Adam and Eve being the first human to whom God revealed himself is kind of irrelevant. The principles that follow are the same. Similarly for the Book of Mormon--if you believe it is a message from God, whether it is allegory, history, or something in between is irrelevant.
  9. All I know is that at least our stake president has been giving direction to inform all of our members. We don't normally receive instruction like this from our stake president unless he's been directed to do it from Area leaders. We opted not to read the policy in Sacrament meeting, but instead, will be printing it in the bulletin for several weeks and following up with an e-mail.
  10. I'll clarify here that outright disarmament is not something I support, even if the parameters of the two debates are similar. It would be academically dishonest not to recognize a difference between a sociological mechanism (gun ownership) and a biological mechanism (disease) I just thought it was an interesting comparison. But the more research I do, the more convinced I become that widespread carrying is not the gateway to a crime free utopia.
  11. MarginOfError

    So sick of the peeping stone story

    I'll try to put into perspective why this is troubling for some people. I personally know people who would argue vehemently that anything anti Mormons said that sounded the least bit weird was an outright lie or gross distortion of truth. They were conditioned to reject these things by seminary teachers, youth leaders, etc. I have personally known people that have mocked the peeping stone story as false. And they were pretty shocked when the church released photos of it. The issue that is troubling is that some feel the church was either lying about its history, or at best, withholding truthful information. Whether or not that's true, it's how they feel. They were blindsided to find that some of the crazy things anti Mormons were saying had more truth to them than they were introduced to. They interpret that as a breach of trust. And I think it's widely accepted that trust is easier lost than it is regained.
  12. Not at all obvious to me. Previous discussions revolved around how the church would defend itself against claims that it was responsible having implemented this policy. We've not discussed how it would defend itself if it permitted weapons. Also, it isn't a matter of which case is easier to win. It's a matter of how much is expected to be paid. Why would the church think it will incur less expense under this policy than it would under a more permissive policy?
  13. As I got into those lower estimates, I came across some flaws that would suggest underestimates. Which is why I conclude above that the incidence is more than 100,000, but probably far less than a million. The most damning argument against the high estimates is that, if assumed to be true, it would seem defensive gun users kill more people in self defense than are currently reported to be killed by firearms from all causes. And since more than half of firearms deaths are suicides.....I hope the conclusion is obvious. This is where things get really interesting. Because carrying a weapon might make you safer in very rare circumstances, but it isn't clear that widespread carrying makes society safer. Which means this whole issue has just boiled down to a vaccination debate.
  14. I'll revise my previous statements. It seems probable to me that DGU exceeds 100,000 incidents per year. But given tabulations of reported crimes, it almost certainly does not come anywhere near a million. RAND put together a really good review: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html Perhaps the most interesting finding is that DGU is associated with less loss of property, but the DGU benefit is not larger than the benefit of simply running or hiding.
  15. This review of the study that produced the higher estimates does a pretty good job of describing methodological flaws in those estimates. It shows that the impact of 1% of respondents being misclassified would overestimate actual DGU by about 4 times. Misclassification of just 1.3% would bring the estimates down to the level reported at the low estimates. It also describes the pitfalls of rare events (or low probability events. In statistics, this means events with probability less than 5%, as the numerical properties of probability distributions tend to unravel at that point) Of particular interest Section IX of this article is a pretty interesting read, too. Next, I'll look into the study that produced the 55,000 to 80,000 incidents estimate to see what it tells us, as it seems to be the more realistic estimate.