No Lds Bankruptcy Link?

[Analytics]

Hi Scott,

A few points.

1- The article repeatedly said things like, â??Our data reveal that in Utah non-Mormons are 4.6% more likely than their Mormon counterparts to find themselves in bankruptcy court.â? Statistically, that is a blatant falsehood that needs to be exposed. I mentioned it because it was clear, easy point that needed to be made.

2- The post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy means relying believing in causality for no other reason than the order of events. If somebody noticed that Utah has a low rate of lung cancer, knew that smoking causes lung cancer, knew that Utah had a low rate of people who smoke, knew that Utah had many Mormons, and knew that Mormons are unlikely to smoke, it wouldnâ??t be the post hoc fallacy to infer that Mormonism has something to do with the low cancer rate.

Likewise, when somebody notices a high bankruptcy rate in Utah and knows that financial stress causes bankruptcy, and further knows that marrying younger, having more kids, having kids sooner, and having more single-income families can all lead to financial stress, and knows that Utahns tend to live that way and that the Mormon Church encourages it, it isnâ??t the post hoc fallacy to connect the dots. Now maybe you are right and the financial stress associated with the Utah lifestyle doesnâ??t contribute to the bankruptcy rate. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable inference.

3- I find the concept of â??tithing causes bankruptcyâ? to be simplistically silly. Ultimately, the cause of most bankruptcy is people living too close to the edge: they are too exposed to large medical bills because they have too many family members and too little insurance. They take on too many financial obligations and arenâ??t left in a position where they can save for emergencies or setbacks in employment. They don't have savings. They don't have second incomes.

4- Utah has enough money and enough decent jobs to compete with average states with regards to bankruptcy filings; maybe there is untold wealth locked up in the federal lands in Utah; but that doesnâ??t force Utahns to live beyond their means.

5- As you know personally, it is possible to have a normal Utah income and live within your means. Assuming you donâ??t get married until you have a little bit of money saved and a job with health insurance (i.e. until you can afford it), it simple to live in a way that will practically immunize yourself from bankruptcy. But you canâ??t be materialistic if you are going to live that way. You have to be patient. You have to make wise, painful decisions with your head and then have the self-discipline to stick to the plan. If you chose not to live that way, you are putting yourself at risk.

6- The way I see it, bankruptcy is a result of living too close to the edge and then having some bad luck that pushes you over the edge. Either Utahns live closer to the edge than the rest of America, or they have more bad luck (e.g. they get lung cancer more, they lose their jobs more) than the rest of America.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some additional thoughts on this article:

Margin of Error

A glaring weakness of this article that is apparent to anybody who's taken statistics is the fact that they ]Family Size

never mention the margin of error in their studies. The authors approached 495 debtors, collecting a total of 281 useable surveys (p.614-15). That's a pretty small sample size and they end up slicing this data a lot of different directions. Never mentioning their margin of error in a statistical survey creates serious doubts about how reliable their conclusions really are. As the statistician quoted in the Deseret News article notes, the difference between the rate of Mormon and non-Mormon filers was statistically insignificant (i.e., within the survey's margin of error); nevertheless, the authors hammer home the idea that Mormons file at a lower rate than non-Mormons, by my cursory count, 10 times (p. 609, 617, 619, 620, 621, 623, 624, 626, 628, 633). Exploiting a statistic that falls within the survey's margin of error so frequently (and without ever

mentioning as much) either indicates sloppiness, a failure to understand principles of statistics or bias.

See my response to Analytics above. The important contribution of this study to the public discourse is not the idea that Mormons are roughly equivalent to non-Mormons in bankruptcy filings in Utah, but rather, the state's Mormons are no more likely than its non-Mormons to file for bankruptcy. This contradicts what the critics have been saying for a long time about Church doctrines and practices causing the state's high bankruptcy rate.

[

b]Sampling

I find their explanations of how they determined that they were receiving a representative sample size less than convincing.

They note that under-response among Mormons would skew their statisctics and lessen the effect that the Mormon religion had on bankruptcy rates. Nevertheless, they they completely left out the St. George area (1 of Utah's 4 banktupcy districts) in compiling their statistics, as this area accounted for less than 5% of total state filings (FN 56). Nevertheless, 5% is a statistically significant number and the St. George area is presumably heavily Mormon. At no point did their statistics attempt to account for this in their calculations.

Are you assuming – unrealistically – that all or nearly all the filers in St. George would be Mormons? And even if they were, would that be enough to change the numbers to indicate that Mormons and Mormonism were causing the state to lead the nation in bankruptcy? Remember, Wright was told the Deseret Morning News that the Mormons would have to account for 70 to 80 percent of the filings for that to be the case.

Additionally, they used the fact that there were similar response rates in SLC (the less Mormon area) and the Ogden and Provo areas as their proof that Mormons and non-Mormons responded at similar rates (p. 615). There are many reasons, however, that Mormons could have been under-responding while the overall response rates for these districts remained similar. For instance, I would venture that the SLC area has a high proportion of the number of individuals who were not able to complete the survey because of "insurmountable language barriers" (p. 614, FN 63). If this were the case, it would lower the response rate in the comparatively less heavily Mormon SLC area, skewing the response rate and meaning that non-Mormons who did understand English did in fact respond at a higher rate than Mormons.

You are assuming that all or nearly all Mormons in Utah are native-born English speakers. That is hardly the case. The Church in recent years has sponsored a couple of huge Spanish-language gatherings in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City in an effort to accommodate the Hispanic portion of its membership in the area.

Finally, they mention that they contacted 87% of debtors (a total of 452), collecting 281 useable surveys (p. 612-13). They do not explain whether this 13% non-contact rate was the same across regions or whether it was much higher in some areas. They only provide the response rates for people they did contact. Nevertheless, this 13% could have a very significant skewing effect if there higher non-response rate in Provo than SLC, it would mean Mormons were under-represented. This 13% black box could also significantly skew the results if it was unique from the portion that did respond (i.e., much higher or lower percent active Mormons).

“Could have” is hardly a sound basis for criticism. Why should I favor your conjecture over what the authors reported?

Tithing

There are several holes in their explanations that tithing does not contribute to bankruptcy rates.

Yet you only find two worthy of mention.

For instance, in FN 97, they write "we assume that (Mormons) who did not respond to the tithing question tithhed in the same proportions as those who did." I think that this is a faulty assumption, as a Mormon who did tithe may be much more likely to respond to this question than one who did not, who may feel guilty about not having tithed.

The assumption is that those who did not respond tithed “in the same proportions.” In other words, an equal percentage of tithe-paying and non-tithe paying individuals among the non-responders. There was no way to know, so the authors simply excluded the non-responders from the percentages.

Furthermore, they completely brush off the possibility that persons now in bankruptcy had paid tithes at a higher rate prior to facing financial difficulties and that their contributions decreased because of such difficulties (and therefore the corresponding conclusion that tithing may have contributed, in the long term, to the financial difficulties leading to bankruptcy). They only ask about tithes immediately preceding declaration of bankruptcy. See p. 624-25.

Your notion that tithe paying contributed in the long term to the bankruptcy is pure conjecture on your part. One could just as easily speculate that it did not. This would especially be the case where medical problems or occupational hardship occasioned the bankruptcy.

[

b]Family size

They completely fudge the argument about large Mormon households not contributing to bankrutpcy.

How large are Mormon households, typically? Census figures cited in the article indicate not a great deal larger than average. I think you are assuming a stereotype here without adequate support.

They note that families with children are much more likely to file for bankrutpcy, but then focus only on the fact that the gap between filers with children and without children is smaller in Utah than it is in other states (p. 626). This odd focus completely ignores the fact that having fewer households with children would still lower the overall bankruptcy rate in Utah, as there is still a large gap between percentage of filers with children compared to those without children.

But its not enough of a factor to conclude that Mormons are driving up the bankruptcy rates. Where are the numbers to support your supposition? Again, what, other than ignorant stereotyping, makes you think Mormons in Utah typically have huge families?

Age

They brush away arguments that marrying, starting families and purchasing a home at comparatively young ages could lead to elevated bankruptcy rates by comparing average age of filers, which are only slightly lower in Utah. This seems to me to be a non-sequitur. The "early" factor could very well lead to higher rates of filing down the road because a person would have less insurance or savings while not affecting the average age of the filer, as the immediate causes of bankrutpcy (job or health problems) may typically come at a similar average age. In other words, the "early" factor could very well affect rates of filing while not significantly affecting average filers' ages.

The study found that the median age in Utah for a bankruptcy petitioner having lost a home is 41, nearly identical to the national figure. If a person in Utah gets married at, say, 21, are you saying it takes 20 years for him to go bankrupt as a result? A bit of a stretch, don't you think.

And what makes you presume that it is only Mormons in Utah who are marrying at a young age? What documentation do you have?

[

b]Potential bias

The authors are both members and presumably did not want to create a study that reflected poorly on the church (otherwise they would be called antis ). I am NOT accusing them of deliberately skewing their survey or falsifying anything. They did, however, conduct all of the surveys themselves and there are many potential ways that they could have unconsciously biased the survey. It would have been far more reliable to have had this survey conducted by professional statisticians or even uninterested third parties. Additionally, the desire of certain respondents to make the church look good may have influenced their filling out the survey (this could cut both ways, of course, if there were a lot of antis filing for bankruptcy).

This is the same nonsense that gave Jaybear the basis for calling this an “agenda-driven” study. One of the authors, Ezekial Johnson, was quoted in the Tribune story as saying, “"Frankly, we were stunned when we first ran the data and saw the results.To be honest, those results went against all our initial thoughts."

In other words, if they had any preconceived notions, they would have been the opposite of what the data actually bore out.

[b

]Overall Writing

The writing, despite these guys being recent Harvard law grads, is amatuerish. They simply cannot stop themselves from backsliding into church speak. I know that this is, to a degree, nit-picking, but it bugs me nonetheless as a former editor of a law journal.

It is nitpicking in the extreme. Did you run out of substantive comments and feel the need to fill out your post with trivia?

Examples: "The leaders of the Church emphasize teachings regarding members' responsibility to repay financial obligatrions and warn against debt" (p. 608). This is, quite frankly, the language of priesthood meeting not of an academic journal--there is way too much in here that is undefined to a lay reader.

I think you'll have to connect the dots for us on this one. What here would be incomprehensible to a reader of average intelligence? But you say it is not the language of an academic journal. Would you infuse it with jargon to make it even less comprehensible to a “lay reader”?

They are inconsistent with their definitions, misspelling the the church's name and missing some very basic definitional inconsistencies (i.e., alternately calling the the church "The Church" and the "LDS Church".

<sigh> If there was a misspelling, I didn't notice it. And what was inconsistently defined? Obviously, “the Church” and “LDS Church” mean the same thing in this context.

It is common journalistic practice (and I have some professional expertise on this point), when giving multiple references to an organization in an article, to give the full, formal title of the group on first reference, then, on subsequent references, to shorten it to a generic term (i.e. “the association,” “the foundation,” etc.), trusting that the average reader is intelligent enough to make the connection. (See Associated Press Stylebook, “second reference” entry.)

Frankly, I'm amazed that as a former law review editor, you don't know this. If you were to submit an article to me with half-a-dozen or more references to the same organization, and, in each every instance, spelled out the name of the organization, I would mark it up as being wordy and maybe pass it back to you to fix.

Another example is FN 87, which makes assumes with no corresponding support that "when Mormon filers indicated that they turned to a religious or charitable institution for help they were referring to the Church."

It's a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't make much difference in the long run, since few of the respondents so indicated.

Additionally, these guys relied very heavily on their sponsoring professor, Elizabeth Warren, in their footnotes and presumably in their research.

With good reason. She is a nationally recognized expert in bankruptcy. Did you note her publications?

When I was an editor, I frequently rejected articles for publication for relying on a similarly narrow base of research.

Bully for you. I saw several other sources cited in the footnotes in addtion to Warren.

[b

]Conclusion

The article is plagued with problems and while the conclusions may be pleasing to some, I think that a more in-depth examination of this study casts serious doubt on many of these conclusions.

The study is not perfect, and I welcome future inquiries and studies, but it is, to date, the most solid contribution to the public discourse on this subject, far better than the careless, post hoc presumptions of critics that Mormons and Mormonism are driving up Utah's bankruptcy rate.

I would have much more faith in this article's conclusions if the authors were more willing to acknowledge the weaknesses in their research, if the research had been conducted and / or reviewed by professional statisticians rather than aspiring lawyers, and if the authors did not, in every case, seem so eager to announce that their somewhat tenuous findings conclusively exonerated the Mormon church.

Actually, the “Mormon church” needs no exoneration, as nobody to date has proven or even persuasively argued that the bankruptcy rates can be blamed on the Church and its teachings. On the contrary, this study bears out what I have felt all along: that such a supposition is logically fallacious.

For a supposed statistical study (which should deal in probabilities) they seem overly keen to announce each of their findings as conclusive proof to prove that there is NO link between Utah's bankruptcy rate and the practices of Mormon church members.

As I said, such a notion that there IS a link is logically flawed, and this study served quite handily to discredit it. If the critics still think there is a connection, let them bolster their opinion, but with hard data this time, not merely logically flawed assumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

A few points.

1- The article repeatedly said things like, â??Our data reveal that in Utah non-Mormons are 4.6% more likely than their Mormon counterparts to find themselves in bankruptcy court.â? Statistically, that is a blatant falsehood that needs to be exposed. I mentioned it because it was clear, easy point that needed to be made.

Fair enough. I still say it's a minor point, though, compared to the finding that Mormons in Utah are no more apt to go bankrupt that non-Mormons, contrary to widespread but fallacious assumption.

2- The post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy means relying believing in causality for no other reason than the order of events. If somebody noticed that Utah has a low rate of lung cancer, knew that smoking causes lung cancer, knew that Utah had a low rate of people who smoke, knew that Utah had many Mormons, and knew that Mormons are unlikely to smoke, it wouldnâ??t be the post hoc fallacy to infer that Mormonism has something to do with the low cancer rate.

It would if there were other factors to consider. And by "has something to do with," do you mean affects it or causes it? There is a distinction.

Likewise, when somebody notices a high bankruptcy rate in Utah and knows that financial stress causes bankruptcy, and further knows that marrying younger, having more kids, having kids sooner, and having more single-income families can all lead to financial stress, and knows that Utahns tend to live that way and that the Mormon Church encourages it, it isnâ??t the post hoc fallacy to connect the dots.

It is if you ignore other factors; namely, that the Church teaches its people to avoid debt and to practice principles of personal and family preparedness, that if tithe paying is an indicator of faithfulness, tithe payers might be faithful in observing other teachings as well, such as those I have mentioned, making them better-than-average money managers and thus able to cope with any rigors and sacrifices that go along with being Mormon. Conversely, if one does not pay tithing, one might be less apt to abide by Church teachings in other areas, such as serving as and supporting missionaries and living on one income so the mother can remain home and care for children. And, contrary to stereotype, I don't accept that having large families and marrying at inordinately young ages are attributable to instruction received from the Church.

Now maybe you are right and the financial stress associated with the Utah lifestyle doesnâ??t contribute to the bankruptcy rate. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable inference.

By "the Utah lifestyle," do you mean Mormonism? Please be precise in your terms. Mormonism includes provident living, personal and family preparedness, etc. And there are many people here who are not members of the Church and, it would seem, are at least as responsible for the bankruptcy rates as are Mormons.

3- I find the concept of â??tithing causes bankruptcyâ? to be simplistically silly.

Good. I'm afraid not all commentators are so level-headed.

Ultimately, the cause of most bankruptcy is people living too close to the edge: they are too exposed to large medical bills because they have too many family members and too little insurance. They take on too many financial obligations and arenâ??t left in a position where they can save for emergencies or setbacks in employment. They don't have savings. They don't have second incomes.

Which is why the Church teaches and encourages personal and family preparedness and provident living. See above. (There's even a Church-sponsored Web site called "Provident Living," if I remember correctly.

4- Utah has enough money and enough decent jobs to compete with average states with regards to bankruptcy filings; maybe there is untold wealth locked up in the federal lands in Utah; but that doesnâ??t force Utahns to live beyond their means.

Living within one's means is something I (and the Church) fully support.

5- As you know personally, it is possible to have a normal Utah income and live within your means. Assuming you donâ??t get married until you have a little bit of money saved and a job with health insurance (i.e. until you can afford it), it simple to live in a way that will practically immunize yourself from bankruptcy. But you canâ??t be materialistic if you are going to live that way. You have to be patient. You have to make wise, painful decisions with your head and then have the self-discipline to stick to the plan. If you chose not to live that way, you are putting yourself at risk.

Agreed. Living within one's means is constantly taught in the Church.

6- The way I see it, bankruptcy is a result of living too close to the edge and then having some bad luck that pushes you over the edge. Either Utahns live closer to the edge than the rest of America, or they have more bad luck (e.g. they get lung cancer more, they lose their jobs more) than the rest of America.

So far, the cause of Utah's high bankruptcy has defied simple and clear explanation. If you can come up with a definitive answer, you will have advanced the discourse a great deal, I'm sure.

[Analytics]

Scott: Fair enough. I still say it's a minor point, though, compared to the finding that Mormons in Utah are no more apt to go bankrupt that non-Mormons, contrary to widespread but fallacious assumption.

A: I agree that it is a relatively minor point.

Scott: The Church teaches its people to avoid debt and to practice principles of personal and family preparedness, that if tithe paying is an indicator of faithfulness, tithe payers might be faithful in observing other teachings as well, such as those I have mentioned, making them better-than-average money managers and thus able to cope with the rigors and sacrifices that go along with being Mormon.

A: I donâ??t disagree with this. If somebody is really dedicated to diligently doing the whole program, then they will avoid debt like the plague and will do fine.

But empirically, this study also shows that Utah Mormons are no better than Utah non-Mormons, who are a lot worse than Americans in general, who arenâ??t that great as a group either. If Utah Mormons as a group were really serious about living providently, then one would think that Utah Mormons would be much better than Utah non-Mormons, and even better than average Americans.

Scott: By "the Utah lifestyle," do you mean Mormonism? Please be precise in your terms. There are many people here who are not members of the Church. And, it would seem, are just as responsible for the bankruptcy rates as are Mormons.

A: By Utah lifestyle I mean the way that people in Utah actually live. Thatâ??s why I called it the Utah lifestyle and not the Mormon lifestyle. I would guess that there are a lot of cultural things that began with Utah Mormons and have rubbed off onto the non-Mormons. Specifically, I find Utah to be a pretty materialistic place; everybody seems to be trying to keep up with the Joneses, and maybe the non-Mormons feel entitled to take the lifestyle of their Mormon neighbors and raise it by 10% to account for not having to pay tithing. Perhaps it is this materialism that is at the root of it, which might go back to the Utah inferiority complex. Perhaps the provident living that the church teaches is just enough to counteract the added financial stress that comes with Mormonism, leaving the Utah Mormons in Utah non-Mormons in a tie for last place in America.

My main theory here is that bankruptcy is almost always preceded by lifestyle decisions that court it. Whether its because of church teachings or in spite of them, the Utah bankruptcy rate is an indicator of the lifestyle decisions that Utahns make.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott: Fair enough. I still say it's a minor point, though, compared to the finding that Mormons in Utah are no more apt to go bankrupt that non-Mormons, contrary to widespread but fallacious assumption.

A: I agree that it is a relatively minor point.

Scott: The Church teaches its people to avoid debt and to practice principles of personal and family preparedness, that if tithe paying is an indicator of faithfulness, tithe payers might be faithful in observing other teachings as well, such as those I have mentioned, making them better-than-average money managers and thus able to cope with the rigors and sacrifices that go along with being Mormon.

A: I donâ??t disagree with this. If somebody is really dedicated to diligently doing the whole program, then they will avoid debt like the plague and will do fine.

But empirically, this study also shows that Utah Mormons are no better than Utah non-Mormons, who are a lot worse than Americans in general, who arenâ??t that great as a group either. If Utah Mormons as a group were really serious about living providently, then one would think that Utah Mormons would be much better than Utah non-Mormons, and even better than average Americans.

Scott: By "the Utah lifestyle," do you mean Mormonism? Please be precise in your terms. There are many people here who are not members of the Church. And, it would seem, are just as responsible for the bankruptcy rates as are Mormons.

A: By Utah lifestyle I mean the way that people in Utah actually live. Thatâ??s why I called it the Utah lifestyle and not the Mormon lifestyle. I would guess that there are a lot of cultural things that began with Utah Mormons and have rubbed off onto the non-Mormons. Specifically, I find Utah to be a pretty materialistic place; everybody seems to be trying to keep up with the Joneses, and maybe the non-Mormons feel entitled to take the lifestyle of their Mormon neighbors and raise it by 10% to account for not having to pay tithing. Perhaps it is this materialism that is at the root of it, which might go back to the Utah inferiority complex. Perhaps the provident living that the church teaches is just enough to counteract the added financial stress that comes with Mormonism, leaving the Utah Mormons in Utah non-Mormons in a tie for last place in America.

My main theory here is that bankruptcy is almost always preceded by lifestyle decisions that court it. Whether its because of church teachings or in spite of them, the Utah bankruptcy rate is an indicator of the lifestyle decisions that Utahns make.

The Wright and Johnson study found that Mormon bankruptcy filers in Utah disproportionately cite job- and health-related reasons for their bankruptcy. This doesn't indicate a lot of keeping up with the Jonses going on. I will grant your point that adequate insurance and savings can help insulate against such events, but there is a limit to how much one can prepare against unforeseen catastrophes.

It's a vexing riddle.

[spinner]

See my response to Analytics above. The important contribution of this study to the public discourse is not the idea that Mormons are roughly equivalent to non-Mormons in bankruptcy filings in Utah, but rather, the state's Mormons are no more likely than its non-Mormons to file for bankruptcy. This contradicts what the critics have been saying for a long time about Church doctrines and practices causing the state's high bankruptcy rate.

You've missed my point. The fact that they are so willing to jump onto this statistically insignificant difference and proclaim it as fact repeatedly and without qualification is indefensible. Either they didn't understand basic statistical principles, were sloppy, or they chose to ignore them to create a more compelling paper. Any of these conclusions is troubling.

Are you assuming â?? unrealistically â?? that all or nearly all the filers in St. George would be Mormons? And even if they were, would that be enough to change the numbers to indicate that Mormons and Mormonism were causing the state to lead the nation in bankruptcy? Remember, Wright was told the Deseret Morning News that the Mormons would have to account for 70 to 80 percent of the filings for that to be the case.

I am not assuming that to be the case. I am pointing out a gap in their research which they do not account for. Each such gap chips away at the findings which they proclaim with such conclusiveness. And, by the way, where did Mr. Wright come up with the 70-80% figure? They are saying (at least 10 times in their paper) that a difference of 1% o 2% between Mormons and non-Mormons in filing for bankruptcy proves that Mormons are less likely to file, but that they would need to have seen between 70-80% of all filers being active Mormons to prove that there was some link the other direction? Good grief.

You are assuming that all or nearly all Mormons in Utah are native-born English speakers. That is hardly the case. The Church in recent years has sponsored a couple of huge Spanish-language gatherings in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City in an effort to accommodate the Hispanic portion of its membership in the area.

No, I am not, I am merely, once again, pointing to an unexplained gap in their research for which they do not account. Such gaps cut to the very heart of a statistical study and, if significant, potentially invalidate the conclusions.

â??Could haveâ? is hardly a sound basis for criticism. Why should I favor your conjecture over what the authors reported?

Wrong entirely. I am not suggesting any of the things you think that I am. I am pointing out weaknesses in their study that damage the validity of their conclusion. And by the way, 'could have'is absolutely a sound basis for criticism. They are presenting their study and making a number of conclusions based on their study. Stating that their research could be interpreted a different way goes directly to the core of their findings.

Tithing

There are several holes in their explanations that tithing does not contribute to bankruptcy rates.

Yet you only find two worthy of mention.

The assumption is that those who did not respond tithed â??in the same proportions.â? In other words, an equal percentage of tithe-paying and non-tithe paying individuals among the non-responders. There was no way to know, so the authors simply excluded the non-responders from the percentages.

Your notion that tithe paying contributed in the long term to the bankruptcy is pure conjecture on your part. One could just as easily speculate that it did not. This would especially be the case where medical problems or occupational hardship occasioned the bankruptcy.

First of all, I am not saying that tithing did conclusively contribute. Instead, I am pointing out conclusions that the authors are making that are not supported by their research. If I were saying it did contribute, that would be conjecture.

How large are Mormon households, typically? Census figures cited in the article indicate not a great deal larger than average. I think you are assuming a stereotype here without adequate support.

But its not enough of a factor to conclude that Mormons are driving up the bankruptcy rates. Where are the numbers to support your supposition? Again, what, other than ignorant stereotyping, makes you think Mormons in Utah typically have huge families?

The study found that the median age in Utah for a bankruptcy petitioner having lost a home is 41, nearly identical to the national figure. If a person in Utah gets married at, say, 21, are you saying it takes 20 years for him to go bankrupt as a result? A bit of a stretch, don't you think.

And what makes you presume that it is only Mormons in Utah who are marrying at a young age? What documentation do you have?

I am pointing to potential flaws in their research that weaken the conclusions they present. This is a perfectly legitimate exercise. When did I say that only Mormons in Utah marry at a young age? I did not. Pointing out logical gaps, unwarranted conclusions and alternate explanations in an academic study is not "ignorant stereotyping", so please cool your jets and defend their research rather than throwing out incendiary comments.

This is the same nonsense that gave Jaybear the basis for calling this an â??agenda-drivenâ? study. One of the authors, Ezekial Johnson, was quoted in the Tribune story as saying, â??"Frankly, we were stunned when we first ran the data and saw the results.To be honest, those results went against all our initial thoughts."

In other words, if they had any preconceived notions, they would have been the opposite of what the data actually bore out.

How does being surprised at a result prove the absence of bias? If I am a Cubs fan, I may be surprised if they win the World Series, but this does not make me biased against the Cubs, does it? Similarly, these guys may have been legitimately surprised at the conclusions they found but it doesn't mean that it was not the conclusions they had (subconsciously) hoped for.

It is nitpicking in the extreme. Did you run out of substantive comments and feel the need to fill out your post with trivia?

I think you'll have to connect the dots for us on this one. What here would be incomprehensible to a reader of average intelligence? But you say it is not the language of an academic journal. Would you infuse it with jargon to make it even less comprehensible to a â??lay readerâ??

<sigh> If there was a misspelling, I didn't notice it. And what was inconsistently defined? Obviously, â??the Churchâ? and â??LDS Churchâ? mean the same thing in this context.

I agree that it is nitpicking and I said as much. I was an editor of a law journal and that was my job. I evaluated this article much as I would have any article that had been submitted to my journal for publication. The larger point was to say that I thought that the article, overall, not impressive (and certainly not a topic for a legal journal.)

It is common journalistic practice (and I have some professional expertise on this point), when giving multiple references to an organization in an article, to give the full, formal title of the group on first reference, then, on subsequent references, to shorten it to a generic term (i.e. â??the association,â? â??the foundation,â? etc.), trusting that the average reader is intelligent enough to make the connection. (See Associated Press Stylebook, â??second referenceâ? entry.)

Frankly, I'm amazed that as a former law review editor, you don't know this. If you were to submit an article to me with half-a-dozen or more references to the same organization, and, in each every instance, spelled out the name of the organization, I would mark it up as being wordy and maybe pass it back to you to fix.

I know this perfectly well. My point is that it was done incorrectly (see: The Blue Book: a Uniform System of Citation)

Actually, the â??Mormon churchâ? needs no exoneration, as nobody to date has proven or even persuasively argued that the bankruptcy rates can be blamed on the Church and its teachings. On the contrary, this study bears out what I have felt all along: that such a supposition is logically fallacious.

I actually think that the study is useful as well. But I think that it is also flawed in many ways, and as I've tried to point out and many of the conclusions the authors make are unwarranted or overstated. Frankly, they try to prove too much with too little, and it makes them look amatuerish and over-eager.

[Pahoran]

You've missed my point. The fact that they are so willing to jump onto this statistically insignificant difference and proclaim it as fact repeatedly and without qualification is indefensible. Either they didn't understand basic statistical principles, were sloppy, or they chose to ignore them to create a more compelling paper. Any of these conclusions is troubling.

That you are so happy to throw out this false dilemma as though it exhausts the possiblities is at least as troubling.

I actually think that the study is useful as well. But I think that it is also flawed in many ways, and as I've tried to point out and many of the conclusions the authors make are unwarranted or overstated. Frankly, they try to prove too much with too little, and it makes them look amatuerish and over-eager.

Any more amatuerish and over-eager than the sneering, triumphal proclaimers of the "obvious" link between Utah's LDS population and its bankruptcy stats?

As has already been observed, it is fascinating to note that whenever a "statistic" appears to make the Church look bad, the so-called "critics" lap it up, but as soon as anything appears to challenge the negative stereotype they have imagined into existence, they immediately turn into close and careful scrutinisers (if not gnat-straining nit-pickers) of the data.

"Critical thinking," it appears, only works in one direction.

In the meantime, the most important finding of this study goes unchallenged: there is no link between LDS Church membership and bankruptcy. Given the desperate eagerness to parlay every tiny flaw into "a blatant falsehood that needs to be exposed," it is apparent that the hate clique would challenge this if they could. They haven't, therefore they can't. Game, set and match. Thank you linemen, thank you ball boys.

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

I was in Salt Lake City for the first time about three weeks ago. I was really surprised at how many check cashing (pre-dated check loans, etc.) that there were in the city. At one point I joked that there were more check cashing stores in Salt Lake City then there are Starbucks locations in Seattle. This indicates to me that quite a few people are having economic problems. It doesn't tell me who's going in there; it could be LDS or Non- LDS.

Any thoughts on who's using these places?

My understanding of the situation is this: A few years ago (5-8 years ago, I believe), the Utah legislature repealed the state's usury statute, which made exorbitant interest rates illegal. With that statute gone, companies are free to loan money at any rate they wish. I read an article in the Deseret News a few years ago that gave the various interest rates of these check-cashing stores. IIRC, the higher end rates topped out at 913% (the lower end rates were about 313%)

This isn't quite as appalling as it sounds. The loan amounts are often quite small (a few hundred dollars) and the loan terms quite short (a few weeks). So let's say Sarah needs $500 to tide her over until her next paycheck, which she will get in ten days. She goes to check city and gets the loan at the worst possible rate (913%). At the end of the ten days, the accrued interest would be about $125. IOW, the check cashing store charges $125 to make a high-risk, low-dollar, short-term loan. And poor folks (or folks with bad credit) have access to emergency cash that they could not obtain through normal means (getting a loan at a bank). So it's not all bad.

Nevertheless, I am concerned about these kinds of businesses.

-Smac

[spinner]

QUOTE(spinner @ Jul 2 2007, 06:45 PM)

You've missed my point. The fact that they are so willing to jump onto this statistically insignificant difference and proclaim it as fact repeatedly and without qualification is indefensible. Either they didn't understand basic statistical principles, were sloppy, or they chose to ignore them to create a more compelling paper. Any of these conclusions is troubling.

That you are so happy to throw out this false dilemma as though it exhausts the possiblities is at least as troubling.

If you say what I've provided is a false dilemma, I welcome an alternative explanation. Please note that 10 examples I provided in my previous post where the authors misused this statistic when you provide a response; I've given the page numbers.

Any more amatuerish and over-eager than the sneering, triumphal proclaimers of the "obvious" link between Utah's LDS population and its bankruptcy stats?...They haven't, therefore they can't. Game, set and match. Thank you linemen, thank you ball boys.

Regards,

Pahoran

At least the anti-Mormons can't be accused of being the only ones being triumphal in their proclamations here.

I provided a detailed post listing what I saw as some of the weaknesses in the report. I spent several hours examining and critiquing the report. If you are willing to engage me in a discussion of the points I've raised, I welcome you in doing so. If you think the specific issues I've raise are incorrect, please provide specific examples we can discuss. If, instead, you wish to merely accuse me of unfairness, inconsistency and hypocrisy without responding to the substance of my post, I do not intend to engage in further discussion with you on this matter.

[Pahoran]

If you say what I've provided is a false dilemma, I welcome an alternative explanation. Please note that 10 examples I provided in my previous post where the authors misused this statistic when you provide a response; I've given the page numbers.

You know you were nit-picking. I know you were nit-picking. Give me a reason to care about your nit-picks.

At least the anti-Mormons can't be accused of being the only ones being triumphal in their proclamations here.

So tell me I'm wrong. From the study:

"Our findings do not suggest that Mormons are the cause of Utahâ??s high

bankruptcy rate. Instead, our data suggest that, if anything, Mormons are

slightly underrepresented in bankruptcy and that religiously associated actions

like donating funds, having larger families, and taking on financial burdens at

an early age are not driving Utahâ??s high bankruptcy rate."

Do you have any data that shows otherwise?

I provided a detailed post listing what I saw as some of the weaknesses in the report. I spent several hours examining and critiquing the report. If you are willing to engage me in a discussion of the points I've raised, I welcome you in doing so. If you think the specific issues I've raise are incorrect, please provide specific examples we can discuss. If, instead, you wish to merely accuse me of unfairness, inconsistency and hypocrisy without responding to the substance of my post, I do not intend to engage in further discussion with you on this matter.

Undoubtedly you think your spin is important, Spinner. I don't. As I said:

As has already been observed, it is fascinating to note that whenever a "statistic" appears to make the Church look bad, the so-called "critics" lap it up, but as soon as anything appears to challenge the negative stereotype they have imagined into existence, they immediately turn into close and careful scrutinisers (if not gnat-straining nit-pickers) of the data.

"Critical thinking," it appears, only works in one direction.

And you continue to prove me right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[spinner]

You know you were nit-picking. I know you were nit-picking. Give me a reason to care about your nit-picks.

So tell me I'm wrong. From the study:

"Our findings do not suggest that Mormons are the cause of Utahâ??s high

bankruptcy rate. Instead, our data suggest that, if anything, Mormons are

slightly underrepresented in bankruptcy and that religiously associated actions

like donating funds, having larger families, and taking on financial burdens at

an early age are not driving Utahâ??s high bankruptcy rate."

Read my post again. I was nit-picking when I was talking about their style, which I found below the level that should be found in a law review. Missing the fact that this difference is statistically insignificant and then bringing it up at least 10 times, without mentioning this fact, is a serious flaw. Have you read the report? Did you look at the 10 examples of this error that I cited? If so, let me again ask: what is your explanation for this repeated error?

The remainder of your post does not merit response.

[cjcampbell]

You are aware, are you not, that royalties from oil and mineral leases on state lands, along with taxes on oil and mineral products produced on federal land, are so significant that Alaska can actually subsidize its citizens with cash payments after payment for operation of state government?

Who goes bankrupt if the state pays you just for living?

No such luck in Utah.

That money is from the highest per capita taxes for any state. Maybe you think big oil pays those taxes, but they raise the cost of hiring, transportation, and everything else. People in Alaska work for those companies. They would probably rather have a raise rather than the state government taking a bucket of money away from their employers and handing it some of it back to residents. Alaska has an extremely high cost of living.

[Analytics]

The study suggests that both Mormons and non-Mormons are filing their share of the highest bankruptcy rate in the nation; most of the bankruptcies are filed by Mormons. That does not exonerates Mormons or the Mormon influence on the Utah economic, political, and cultural landscape.

[Analytics]

Here are some thoughts I have from reading the entire article.

1- The article pointed out some advantages to the Mormon lifestyle and Mormon resources: Mormons have better health, making it less likely theyâ??ll have big medical expenses. Mormons are more at likely to have stay-at-home mothers, making them less likely to be dependent on two incomes. Mormons can go to the church as a resource when they have financial difficulties. Mormons are steeped in a culture that teaches industry, frugality, and preparedness.

Under the reasonable assumption that those are real advantages that Mormons have over their non-Mormon counterparts, one would expect that Mormons would have significantly fewer bankruptcies than non-Mormons. The fact that they donâ??t indicates that there are offsetting challenges that Mormons face more than non-Mormons.

2- A big weakness of the study is that it focuses on the proximate cause of bankruptcies and not the string of decisions that lead to it. Say, for example, a couple gets married at BYU. They graduate with two kids and student loan debt. He gets a job, they have another few kids, they stretch to get the biggest house possible for their growing family. They take out a car loan for a used mini-van. They pay a full tithing. These obligations barely fit in their budget, but every time the water heater goes out or there is another minor emergency, they whip out the credit card. The years go by, they work hard to keep their noses above water, but the debt continues to gradually increase. They quit paying tithing, and a few years later quit the church. A year later they still canâ??t get control of the debt, a big medical bill hits, and they file Chapter 7 at the age of 40.

If something like that were to happen, the study would categorize them as a non-Mormon who filed at the age of 40 because of a medical bill, and would use it as evidence to exonerate marrying young, having kids young, tithing, and every other cultural decision related to Mormonism, excpet perhaps the 4 kids. The reality is that a series of decisions over 20 years lead them to the position where they susceptible to losing their house at 40 because of a medical bill. â??Mormonismâ? shouldnâ??t be blamed for thisâ??the specific decisions that they made coupled with a little bad luck should be blamed.

As the article quoted someone as saying, â??â??It is difficult to examine bankruptcy without examining behavior, and behavior is nothing if not influenced by culture. And here in Utah, the culture is nothing if not influenced by the [Church] . . . . This cannot be ignored.â? Despite the best effort of the authors, the article doesnâ??t repudiate this.

[Scott Lloyd]

The study suggests that both Mormons and non-Mormons are filing their share of the highest bankruptcy rate in the nation; most of the bankruptcies are filed by Mormons. That does not exonerates Mormons or the Mormon influence on the Utah economic, political, and cultural landscape.

It nullifies the notion that Mormonism is responsible for the extremely high bankruptcy rates in the state. For that to be true, Mormons would have to make up a far higher percentage of the bankruptcy filers.

And it would have to be the case across the board, in other states as well as Utah.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here are some thoughts I have from reading the entire article.

1- The article pointed out some advantages to the Mormon lifestyle and Mormon resources: Mormons have better health, making it less likely they’ll have big medical expenses. Mormons are more at likely to have stay-at-home mothers, making them less likely to be dependent on two incomes. Mormons can go to the church as a resource when they have financial difficulties. Mormons are steeped in a culture that teaches industry, frugality, and preparedness.

Under the reasonable assumption that those are real advantages that Mormons have over their non-Mormon counterparts, one would expect that Mormons would have significantly fewer bankruptcies than non-Mormons. The fact that they don’t indicates that there are offsetting challenges that Mormons face more than non-Mormons.

I too have pointed out economic advantages to Mormonism, namely that the Church not only teaches tithe paying and sacrifice but provident living, debt avoidance and thrift.

One could just as easily theorize that whatever it is that is causing rampant bankruptcy in Utah is not impacting Mormons as heavily for the very reason of these advantages to the Mormon lifestyle. After all, others presumably aren't staggering under the burden of tithing or the other things that go along with being Mormon.

2- A big weakness of the study is that it focuses on the proximate cause of bankruptcies and not the string of decisions that lead to it. Say, for example, a couple gets married at BYU. They graduate with two kids and student loan debt. He gets a job, they have another few kids, they stretch to get the biggest house possible for their growing family. They take out a car loan for a used mini-van. They pay a full tithing. These obligations barely fit in their budget, but every time the water heater goes out or there is another minor emergency, they whip out the credit card. The years go by, they work hard to keep their noses above water, but the debt continues to gradually increase. They quit paying tithing, and a few years later quit the church. A year later they still can’t get control of the debt, a big medical bill hits, and they file Chapter 7 at the age of 40.

If something like that were to happen, the study would categorize them as a non-Mormon who filed at the age of 40 because of a medical bill, and would use it as evidence to exonerate marrying young, having kids young, tithing, and every other cultural decision related to Mormonism, excpet perhaps the 4 kids. The reality is that a series of decisions over 20 years lead them to the position where they susceptible to losing their house at 40 because of a medical bill. “Mormonism” shouldn’t be blamed for this—the specific decisions that they made coupled with a little bad luck should be blamed.

As the article quoted someone as saying, ““It is difficult to examine bankruptcy without examining behavior, and behavior is nothing if not influenced by culture. And here in Utah, the culture is nothing if not influenced by the [Church] . . . . This cannot be ignored.” Despite the best effort of the authors, the article doesn’t repudiate this.

It is a plausible scenario, but it goes back to undocumented conjecture, the very thing I have been decrying in this thread. It comes across as a fanciful and desperate attempt to pin Utah's bankruptcy woes on the Church, even among those who don't even belong to it. It is suggesting that everyone or nearly everyone who lives in the state is either active Mormon, inactive Mormon or ex-Mormon. And that every poor choice by an ex-Mormon, even after his departure from the faith, is to be blamed on the Church. Give me a break!

Suppose tomorrow I run into financial hardship, say a disabling accident or illness, that quickly depletes my resources and maxes out my health insurance. Am I then to be blamed for every frivolous purchase I have made throughout my working life? Every time I went out to dinner or went to the movies or bought a music CD or took a vacation trip?

And if we discourage tithe paying by Mormons on the theory that they should be saving the money against unforeseen circumstances, what does that say about other forms of charity: donations to the Red Cross or the Cancer Society or AIDS research or the arts or academic scholarships? If we insist that Mormon wives have to work in today's economy, do we tell other stay-at-home moms that they as well have to leave their young children at home and go out and rustle jobs?

How long are newlywed couples to put off starting their families, waiting to see what the future holds? five years? 10? Fertility tends to decrease with age, and health risks associated with pregnancy go up.

Do we become like the utilitarians of Charles ****ens' era and tell people they have no right to bear children unless they are wealthy? And do we relegate the task of caring for the needy to government social programs?

[Scott Lloyd]

How does being surprised at a result prove the absence of bias? If I am a Cubs fan, I may be surprised if they win the World Series, but this does not make me biased against the Cubs, does it? Similarly, these guys may have been legitimately surprised at the conclusions they found but it doesn't mean that it was not the conclusions they had (subconsciously) hoped for.

If their work was "agenda-driven" (Jaybear's phrase), their expectation of findings implicating Mormonism in Utah's bankruptcy rate would have precluded them from undertaking the study in the first place.

If they indeed expected different results than what they got, that is indication of a willingness to go wherever the research might have taken them. The notion that the authors of this study must necessarily be biased simply because they are Mormons is, on its own, an indication of prejudice.

[Scott Lloyd]

And, by the way, where did Mr. Wright come up with the 70-80% figure? They are saying (at least 10 times in their paper) that a difference of 1% o 2% between Mormons and non-Mormons in filing for bankruptcy proves that Mormons are less likely to file, but that they would need to have seen between 70-80% of all filers being active Mormons to prove that there was some link the other direction? Good grief.

I take it to mean that for Utah's extremely high bankruptcy rate to be directly attributable to Mormons and Mormonism, then out of the whole, the percentage of filers who are LDS would have to be far higher than it is. That is to say, if the rate among non-Mormons in Utah were, say, close to the national average, then there would have to be many more bankrupt Mormons in Utah for the state to lead the nation in bankruptcies.

Is he wrong?

[Analytics]

It nullifies the notion that Mormonism is responsible for the extremely high bankruptcy rates in the state. For that to be true, Mormons would have to make up a far higher percentage of the bankruptcy filers.

And it would have to be the case across the board, in other states as well as Utah.

One could also say that it nullifies the notion that Mormonism helps protect people from bankruptcy; all of the provident living doesn't help the Mormons do any better than the non-Mormons!

What the study really indicates is that Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah file bankruptcy at the same rate. Good information, but concluding anything more than that is simplistic.

[Analytics]

Scott: One could just as easily theorize that whatever it is that is causing rampant bankruptcy in Utah is not impacting Mormons as heavily for the very reason of these advantages to the Mormon lifestyle.

A: I disagree. The data indicate that Mormons and non-Mormons have the same bankruptcy rate. If the teachings of Mormonism have a net effect of helping Mormons avoid financial failure, then Mormons would have a better rate than the non-Mormons.

To be consistent with the data, either the advantages of the Mormon lifestyle offset the disadvantages of the Mormon lifestyle, or there are no advantages to the Mormon lifestyle.

Scott: It is a plausible scenario, but it goes back to undocumented conjecture, the very thing I have been decrying in this thread.

A: That was not conjecture. The point of that scenario was to illustrate a shortcoming in the studyâ??s methodology; the study was simplistic in how it characterized people and the events that lead to bankruptcy. If there was an individual with that story, the studyâ??s methodology would diametrically misrepresent what happened. That is a serious weakness in the study. That is the point.

Scott: Suppose tomorrow I run into financial hardship, say a disabling accident or illness, that quickly depletes my resources and maxes out my health insurance. Am I then to be blamed for every frivolous purchase I have made throughout my working life? Every time I went out to dinner or went to the movies or bought a music CD or took a vacation trip?

A: It depends upon how much debt, savings, and insurance you have. Itâ??s fine to buy a CD as long as your insurance premium is paid. Itâ??s fine to go on a vacation if your credit card is paid off.

Scott: And if we discourage tithe paying by Mormons on the theory that they should be saving the money against unforeseen circumstances, what does that say about other forms of charity: donations to the Red Cross or the Cancer Society or AIDS research or the arts or academic scholarships?

A: Excellent question. To be clear, Iâ??m trying to focus on the positive (as opposed to normative) side of this. I just want to accurately understand and describe what is going on.

I would describe doing the following things as â??living providentlyâ?

1- Staying out of debt.

2- Keeping your obligatory expenses significantly lower than your income.

3- Have 6 months of living expenses saved up.

4- Having health insurance.

5- Having disability insurance.

6- Saving 10% of your income.

My hypothesis is that the more you do those things, the less susceptible you are to the bad luck that triggers bankruptcy. Maybe somebody literally doesnâ??t make enough money to do all of that and put beans on the table. Or maybe there are other things that are a better use of time and money.

And maybe when it comes down to tithing, the United Way, and young families are more important than having a margin in the budget and health insurance. That doesnâ??t change the fact that margins in the budget and health insurance prevent bankruptcy while generous donations do not.

[Scott Lloyd]

One could also say that it nullifies the notion that Mormonism helps protect people from bankruptcy; all of the provident living doesn't help the Mormons do any better than the non-Mormons!

What the study really indicates is that Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah file bankruptcy at the same rate. Good information, but concluding anything more than that is simplistic.

The issue, up to now, has been the unwarranted conclusion that Mormons in Utah are abnormally prone to bankruptcy by reason of their religious faith. If we can lay that notion to rest, we have come a long way.

In other words, why is it that in Utah, non-Mormons are doing no better than Mormons if they don't have tithing obligations, mission expenses, etc., to deal with (assuming that the critics are right, and these things tend to bring on bankrutpcy)?

[Scott Lloyd]

And maybe when it comes down to [it] tithing, the United Way, and young families are more important than having a margin in the budget and health insurance. That doesnâ??t change the fact that margins in the budget and health insurance prevent bankruptcy while generous donations do not.

But this recent study suggests that in the case of Mormons, tithe paying and having young families doesn't make them any more susceptible to bankruptcy than non-Mormons.

[USU78]

That money is from the highest per capita taxes for any state. Maybe you think big oil pays those taxes, but they raise the cost of hiring, transportation, and everything else. People in Alaska work for those companies. They would probably rather have a raise rather than the state government taking a bucket of money away from their employers and handing it some of it back to residents. Alaska has an extremely high cost of living.

So . . . you would agree that comparing Alaska and Utah is a fruitless exercise of the apple/orange variety?

[Analytics]

Scott: The issue, up to now, has been the unwarranted conclusion that Mormons in Utah are abnormally prone to bankruptcy by reason of their religious faith. If we can lay that notion to rest, we have come a long way.

A: I think the issue now is that Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah are both abnormally prone to bankruptcy, and it isnâ??t clear why. Itâ??s simplistic to say that the religious faith of the Mormons is to blame, and it is premature to exonerate it from being a factor in a complicated problem.

It seems to me that bankruptcy is closely related to choices made about financial obligations, which goes back to values, including values relating to marriage, family size, family roles, and tithing. Saying these values donâ??t impact the financial obligations one makes and the ability to meet those obligations is a very strong assertion that I just canâ??t swallow without some hardcore evidence to back it up.

If cultural values drive financial decisions and if Utah non-Mormons and Mormons have different values, then it follows that they have different causes of their respective bankruptcy issues.

Scott: But this recent study suggests that in the case of Mormons, tithe paying and having young families doesn't make them any more susceptible to bankruptcy than non-Mormons.

A: I donâ??t believe this conclusion of the study is valid. The data indicate that both Utah Mormons and non-Mormons have high bankruptcy rates. If provident living helps prevent bankruptcy and Mormons endeavor to live more providently than non-Mormons, then something is causing Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott: The issue, up to now, has been the unwarranted conclusion that Mormons in Utah are abnormally prone to bankruptcy by reason of their religious faith. If we can lay that notion to rest, we have come a long way.

A: I think the issue now is that Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah are both abnormally prone to bankruptcy, and it isnâ??t clear why. Itâ??s simplistic to say that the religious faith of the Mormons is to blame, and it is premature to exonerate it from being a factor in a complicated problem.

It seems to me that bankruptcy is closely related to choices made about financial obligations, which goes back to values, including values relating to marriage, family size, family roles, and tithing. Saying these values donâ??t impact the financial obligations one makes and the ability to meet those obligations is a very strong assertion that I just canâ??t swallow without some hardcore evidence to back it up.

I haven't made that claim. What I've done is to suggest that Church teachings apart from the obligation to pay tithing (namely, provident living, debt avoidance, etc.) mitigate the financial impact of the sacrifices Mormons are called upon to make.

If cultural values drive financial decisions and if Utah non-Mormons and Mormons have different values, then it follows that they have different causes of their respective bankruptcy issues.

Possibly. But this does not say Mormonism is to be blamed for a person's bankruptcy. If a Mormon is indulging in excessive consumer debt or buying a more expensive home than he can afford, contrary to the counsel he hears at Church, one cannot fairly attribute his problems to the Church.

Scott: But this recent study suggests that in the case of Mormons, tithe paying and having young families doesn't make them any more susceptible to bankruptcy than non-Mormons.

A: I donâ??t believe this conclusion of the study is valid. The data indicate that both Utah Mormons and non-Mormons have high bankruptcy rates. If provident living helps prevent bankruptcy and Mormons endeavor to live more providently than non-Mormons, then something is causing Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons.

Correction: Something is causing some Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons. I just don't buy it that the "something" is necessarily the Mormon faith. The recent study, at the very least, has shed considerable doubt on the ill-considered presumption that Mormonism is driving the bankruptcy rates.