The Baron of Deseret

New Group Blog: Waters of Mormon

After a brief blogging hiatus, I've organized a group of like-minded LDS writers and we've now officially launched a new group blog, "The Waters of Mormon" 

If it hasn't been obvious, this site has not been updated and probably won't be any time in the future.  Any further LDS-blogging, including new LDS movie analysis articles, will be posted over at the "Waters..." site instead.  This site will remain active for the time being as an archive of my past writing, but no further articles or links will be posted here.  We hope that any interested parties will join us over at "Waters..." for more intellectually stimulating and enlightening discussion of LDS issues.

My thanks to everyone who has participated in this rewarding and worthwhile solo blog experience over the past 3+ years!

M*--April

Ethics and Exceptions

Professional Isolationism

More M* Updates--March...

As in all things, it depends on your point of view...

(If you need a 'disclaimer', see comment #16...)

"From Whence Do These Seeds Come..."

Millennial Star Update--March

Charity and Utility Functions

A Thought Experiment

"I need to get...to a LIBRARY!"

Catching up on movie releases:

The Da Vinci Code (C+)  (Comments)

Superman Returns (B+)  (Comments)

Improving Gospel Teaching: A New Series

Part 1: Series Introduction

Part 2: How To Be Adequate

Part 3: How To Be Good

Part 4: How To Be Good, Continued...

Part 5: How to Be Great

Part 6: Philosophies in Lesson Preparation

Part 7: The Art of Asking Questions

Part 8: Conclusion

Questions to Ask Before Marriage:

From the NY Times: Questions that couples should ask before they get married.

Is it just me, or does one of these questions seem...different than the other 14?  Or maybe this is something that couples commonly fight about that I'm unaware.  (I'm assuming you'll be able to tell which question I'm talking about...)

What would an LDS Questions that couples should ask before they get married list look like?  (Hmmm...future article idea)

States of...

Grace
&
Law

Out of the Country Again...

...if anyone actually misses me (probably not...)

Here's an explanation why, from M*:  Sailing Into The Unknown

Quick Monday Quiz

Quick Quiz:  Find the sentence that doesn't belong in the following announcement made in sacrament meeting on Sunday:

We like everyone to know that the --- family in our branch was involved in a car accident last Sunday.  There were some injuries but all the family members are now out of the hospital and recovering at home.  They were traveling to a concert at the time and it is clear that their choosing not to keep the Sabbath Day holy was a primary cause of their accident.  We encourage all ward members to visit and fellowship this family in their time of trial, and keep them in your prayers.

Catching up on LDS Cinema...

New in Movie Analysis:

States of Grace (B+)  (Comments)
Church Ball (C) (Comments)

Thought Experiment #2: Poverty

Suppose you have N poor people (however you define the term) living in society.  Suppose also that it has been decided that direct handouts are not good policy and the key to ending poverty is creating opportunities for the poor to raise themselves out of poverty through education and work programs.

Given the existence of free will--and, oftentimes, the preexisting habits or circumstances that led to being in poverty in the first place--equal opportunity will not create equal results.  Some of the poor will take advantage of the opportunities given (call them group X), and others will not (group Y).

After some time T after implementing said social programs, let's suppose Group X has successfully used those given opportunities and are no longer impoverished.  Group Y, by definition, has not, and remain poor even after the anti-poverty programs have been implemented. 

This would seem to indicate that as long as Group Y (and free will) exists, poverty can NEVER be completely abolished.  Even the most optimal social policy to end poverty will at most reduce N by X, since Y will remain in poverty regardless of the opportunities presented.

Here's the problem: how do we know this has not already happened?  What if the quantity of people in poverty today are already just the Group Y people who remained after the Group X people left.  I'm not suggesting this is the case, but if it was, how would we know?  What if current policies were already the most optimal anti-poverty measures one could create?  Could we prove otherwise?

Some people seem to say the existence of people in poverty shows that current social anti-poverty policies are inadequate.  The inadequacy part is no doubt true, but the mere existence of poor people is not evidence of it.  Since we can't tell by looking at someone whether they are Group X or Group Y (and people can change from one to the other through time as well...) how would we know if we already had the most optimal anti-poverty measures in place possible?  How would we know if we had already done all we could?

How do you judge the success or failure of an anti-poverty measure, anyway?  Raw numbers?  Percentages?  Either measure fails to take into account the difference between groups X and Y--if Group Y happens to be increasing for whatever reason, the ranks of the poor will increase percentage-wise even if you had the best anti-poverty program in the world in place already...

Important factors to consider in the debate about poverty and 'income inequality': what defines success or failure?  How do you help Group Y people get out of poverty?  (Or can you?)  What metric can you use to determine if existing programs are already as successful as possible, or if change is needed?  Without going through individuals case-by-case, how can you tell whether someone has already been given ample opportunity to escape poverty and thus current policies are adequate?

Thought Experiment #1: Minimum Wage

With a Democratic congress, there's a large possibility that the minimum wage could be raised (see T&S thread here)

What would a likely new minimum wage be?  Over $6.00 certainly, perhaps $7.00.  Why would we raise the minimum wage?  To 'help the poor', of course.

But...if raising the minimum wage from $5 to $7 'helps the poor', wouldn't it help them even more to raise it to $10, or $20, or $40?  Why stop at $7?  Who wouldn't benefit from getting $20 an hour instead of $5?

Let's suppose a $20 minimum wage goes into effect tomorrow.  What would happen?  The most obvious effect is that companies with minimum wage employees will suddenly discover their payroll has quadrupled...but, unfortunately, their gross income has not magically quadrupled to go along with it.  Thus, a $20 minimum wage would lead to a huge amount of layoffs, as companies are forced to find a equilibrium between productivity and expense.   This seems inarguable...

Here's the point: how can anyone argue that raising the minimum wage to $7 will have no impact on unemployment, if it's blinding obvious that raising it to $20 would?  Obviously, the layoff effect itself will be exponentially greater at $20 than at $7, but if it's clear that (higher minimum wage == layoffs) in large cases, wouldn't it be proportionally just as true in small cases as well? 

There's undoubtedly still a policy argument in favor of a higher minimum wage even accepting a result of higher unemployment, but using an 'extreme case' thought experiment should make it clear that if large changes have certain consequences, then small changes will also have (proportionally smaller, yet undeniably present) consequences as well...

More Political Musings: Judgment and Accountability

"It's funny that those hypocritical Republicans oppose abortion, yet support the death penalty..."

One of the more common, yet nonsensical comments heard from the left.  I mean, I can think of at least a couple of differences between innocent children and convicted criminals, can't you?

Continue reading "More Political Musings: Judgment and Accountability"

Who *Should* Mormons Vote For?

So, who *should* Mormons vote for?

Everyone should know that, as Nephi phrases it:

"There are save two political parties only; the one is the party of the Lamb of God, and the other is the party of the devil; wherefore, whoso voteth not for the party of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great political party, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

And which political party is the party of the Lamb of God, and which is the party of the devil?  Um...well, there's a little disagreement on that matter.

Continue reading "Who *Should* Mormons Vote For?"