Explainer

Re: incognito....

Clyde Turbo — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:25:30 GMT

So whats next? Are we going to see a whole new "fashion trend" in FLDS clothing styles. To me it looks like the FLDS "fashionistas" ripped off the "Amish Look" and threw in the poly lifestyle to make things more interesting. The old farts that have been getting away with this crap for years have no fear of the law in places like Colorado City, AZ which btw is "McCain" land all the way. Be careful who you vote for unless you're into having a few dozen wives!

Re: incognito....

Schroeder Baker — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:30:08 GMT

well said

incognito....

deduction — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:46:34 GMT

you obviously have a chip on your shoulder about this issue. why be so emotional about it? what purpose does it serve? if you are upset that people are so 'misinformed' about the FLDS lifestyle, why not use this forum to educate and enlighten instead of bad mouth and bemoan? also, most posts i've read are not criticising the entire religion. just the practices of what you say is a minority of folks. calling people stupid will not teach them anything except to hold onto the preconceived notions they already have...

Re: More Children? The math doesn't add up.

kaiso — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:35:03 GMT

That's not exactly true. In the monogamous (ha!) West, replacement rates are measured per *couple*.

If each couple has 2.1 children, that will replace the 2 parents as well as make up for the non-reproducing members of their generation (due to pre-reproduction death or other reasons).

The math gets weird in polygamous society. The replacement rate per family with N wives is N+1+C, where C is the number of children who are eventually kicked out, leave, die, or are infertile.

So take Jeff and his 40 wives: they need 41 children + some unknown number (probably higher than .1) to reach replacement.

Most men in polygamous couples don't have quite that many wives, but assuming at least one wife has 2 kids, and the others have at least one, that's replacement.

Don't expect them to breed themselves out of existence any time soon.

Re: More Children? The math doesn't add up.

DeeDee40 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:21:14 GMT

Incognito444, I am just curious as to what does happen to the women who cannot have children. I think that is a really good question.

Re: More Children? The math doesn't add up.

Incognito444 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:57:50 GMT

There, another assumtion/suggestion that will soon turn into a full blown story which is of course a lie. Just watch, you might have started something Demortaine

Re: More Children? The math doesn't add up.

Demortaine — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:47:28 GMT

Wonder what happens to the woman who is infertile? Does she get excommunicated because she can't "fullfill prophecy" of bearing children for the men?

More Children? The math doesn't add up.

Adamatari — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:32:42 GMT

Wait, Jeff's had 40 wives and 50 children, for a per-woman ratio of 1.25 children. His father failed even worse, at 65 children to 75 wives = 0.86~ children per wife. I know plenty of women in normal marriages that have had many more children. Now, the ratio of men to children is high, but that doesn't mean much - replacement rates are measured per woman. In the west, it's around 2.1 per woman. If the average is this bad, these cults just might (not) breed themselves out of existence. Here's hoping.