Survey To Evaluate False Doctrine Among Membership

[Calm]

"While we speak of her being made from a rib we acknowledge that this was symbolic  and figurative"

 

I'd add "but we do not know the physical mechanics" or something else that acknowledges the process of creation has not been defined.

 

Your tithing question...no way is that going to work as a survey question.  It is obvious that the last is the correct answer with all that detail given.

 

I think your "soda pop" should be "caffeinated soda" as that is what most people identify as the issue (as demonstrated by no caffeinated soda being sold on BYU campus, but plenty of regular stuff).

 

 

BoA is another obvious correct answer.  You need to either add detail to the other answers or be more concise with "C".  You need to rewrite C to be more understandable also.

 

I am not sure if "modest income" should be that or if "income" should be "stipend"...not sure what the Church uses, but my memory says "stipend" and people may balk if it is different than how the Church phrases it.  Also I think that "for their adminstrative work as opposed to preaching" or something to make the distinction as I suspect many members make that distinction as well and it is probably a correct one, imo, in the sense that this is how the Church teaches it.  Reimbursments probably should be "stipend" as I don't think it is a 'expenses paid' but rather a set amount...at least that is how the mission president in Russia explained it to us.

 

Would shorten this "while all parties were alive and included some of these women already being married at the time to other men" to "including some women believed to be married to other men".

 

If you are going to have the 'correct' answers being longer for nuance, you need to throw some incorrect answers with greater nuance in as well to make sure that it isn't obvious that the most nuanced position is the correct one.

[strappinglad]

How about a question on the stance on homosexuality. This topic does not ever get enough clarification, especially around here.

Also, the doctrine of Grace, and the doctrine of the Godhead, and the doctrine of eternal progression. There are at least a million members who have been in the Church for less than 10 years, so it would be interesting to learn just how much of their previous beliefs have hung on despite current teachings.

[Calm]

 

Also The question is meant to move beyond "gift and power" and see what members know about specifics. and to test if they are even aware of seer stones as such.

However, some members (like me) will only be comfortable with using the language the Church uses in something like this survey which gives the impression that it is attempting to find out what is taught by the Church more than what is the full and complete actual history (especially if such is not fully established and is open to various positions such as question 1 is, imo, though the probability is high that at least what we have published now was done a certain way...some may include that translation of the 116 pages in the process as well) due to the way the other questions are written.

[Calm]

Membership records of blacks used to be stamped " blood of Cain " .

 

Now that is a new one for me.  Do you have a cfr on that?

[Calm]

Many of your questions have had multiple doctrine's taught about the same question.  Answers that would have been given even 40 years ago are quite different than answers currently given.  

It should be stated "as currently taught" where necessary.

[Calm]

I like that one. Would love to know what people think.

Surely the Charlemagne principle makes it if Laman was a real person and had any current descendants at all, than given the time period involved B would be correct (I say B because of possible isolated groups not intermarrying with others)?

[canard78]

Surely the Charlemagne principle makes it if Laman was a real person and had any current descendants at all, than given the time period involved B would be correct (I say B because of possible isolated groups not intermarrying with others)?

I agree. Which is why I've never been remotely bothered by the DNA issue. The Charlemagne principle covers it (unless people believe in an empty continent populated by the Lehites).

Regarding the survey objectives. Is it to identify what each member believes on a topic or whether they know what the church teaches?

E.g. Some could argue that the church teaches a global flood in most instances. I believe in a local flood, while accepting that the church tends to teach a global flood.

Which information is being gathered? Why I believe or what I think has been taught?

But I really agree with the need to make any multiple choice options equal. And every one would need a "Don't know/other" option... Preferably with a comments box by it.

[Calm]

However, some members (like me) will only be comfortable with using the language the Church uses in something like this survey which gives the impression that it is attempting to find out what is taught by the Church more than what is the full and complete actual history (especially if such is not fully established and is open to various positions such as question 1 is, imo, though the probability is high that at least what we have published now was done a certain way...some may include that translation of the 116 pages in the process as well) due to the way the other questions are written.

 

 

A good survey, imo though I have only dealt with psychological/sociological so perhaps the process is different) would have multiple questions to pull out the nuanced positions...which means a ton more questions and a lot more lunch breaks (no complaints for the time you've taken so far, just giving advice on if you want to make a really useful survey or not).  I would suggest if you are serious about this, you divide the survey into "historical", "doctrinal", "policy", "your own personal beliefs" and any other relevant sections and then though different instructions for different sections, you can make clear whether or not you want someone to answer on how they believe something or what the Church's official position is...I included the "personal beliefs" section because it would be interesting to see if they see themselves as believing something different than what the Church teaches.

 

add-on:  don't know why it quoted me...I was responding to either another post or just generically, I know I didn't 'reply' to myself.  Oh well, chalk it up to the sensitivity with the quote function for the latest upgrade.

Edited November 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Regarding the survey objectives. Is it to identify what each member believes on a topic or whether they know what the church teaches?

 

Which is why I think adding a section "personal beliefs" and identifying specific questions as "what the Church teaches" would be important to avoid confusion.

[canard78]

Which is why I think adding a section "personal beliefs" and identifying specific questions as "what the Church teaches" would be important to avoid confusion.

That would make for some interesting cross tabbing. "I believe... but I think the church teaches..."

[Calm]

That would make for some interesting cross tabbing...

Wouldn't it.  

[DBMormon]

Questionaire Brainstorm Session

[california boy]

Well I will need to correct the Indian descendant question as it can be misleading in it's present form.  I will add to my survey and repost but in a corrected form

 

I would love other questions I need to add.  Let's see where this goes.

Yeah.  I am sure you can phrase it better than I did.  I thought you would get the point of the question at least.

[california boy]

It should be stated "as currently taught" where necessary.

Except I would like to know whether members still believe what they were taught 20 years ago, or if they accept any new church positions.  Maybe that is asking too much out of one survey.

[AndyDnom]

you said "The Church tries very hard not to be pharisaic in it teachings."

 

What do you mean by this? Where are you getting that opinion from?

[omni]

Well I will need to correct the Indian descendant question as it can be misleading in it's present form. I will add to my survey and repost but in a corrected form

I would love other questions I need to add. Let's see where this goes.

I would love to hear the member's thoughts on why polygamy was reinstated and a seperate question on when it ended. It would also be interesting to know where they believe the location of Hill Cumorrah is and if they believe the BoM translation was tight, loose, or a combination of both. The last two aren't necessarily doctrinally important, but I'd be interested to know none the less. Edited November 17, 2013 by omni

[strappinglad]

Now that is a new one for me.  Do you have a cfr on that?

Personal observation 40+ years ago. I don't know if this was Church policy but it happened in my mission.

Edited November 17, 2013 by strappinglad

[Rob Osborn]

This one is a little incorrect and one can tell its skewed heavily towards an evolution bias-

"2.) What is LDS Doctrine on Evolution? a - Evolution is false and it is not allowed to be taught at BYU b - Evolution is true and is stated so as Doctrine and is taught as truth at BYU c - The church has no official stance on Evolution and teaches the theory at BYU"

Where is the answer that states- "Evolution of man from a lower order of animals is false even though this false teaching is taught at BYU."

[DBMormon]

Yeah.  I am sure you can phrase it better than I did.  I thought you would get the point of the question at least.

agreed, it needs to be on there.  It is just that even if Lamanites were a small group among a larger population all current native Americans may be in some way descendants of them along with a million other human sub groups

[DBMormon]

I would love to hear member's thoughts on why polygamy was reinstated and a seperate question on when it ended. It would also be interesting to know where they believe the location of Hill Cumorrah and if they believe the BoM translation was more tight, loose, or a.combination of both. The last two aren't necessarily doctrinally important, but imo interesting none the less.

 

Good ones I will add.  

[DBMormon]

This one is a little incorrect and one can tell its skewed heavily towards an evolution bias-

"2.) What is LDS Doctrine on Evolution? a - Evolution is false and it is not allowed to be taught at BYU b - Evolution is true and is stated so as Doctrine and is taught as truth at BYU c - The church has no official stance on Evolution and teaches the theory at BYU"

Where is the answer that states- "Evolution of man from a lower order of animals is false even though this false teaching is taught at BYU."

Where does Church doctrine declare this  ------>  "Evolution of man from a lower order of animals is false even though this false teaching is taught at BYU."

[DBMormon]

If people want to help tackle making question's false answers to be more wordy and therefore more likely to be chosen without a survey bias would be helpful

[Calm]

Personal observation 40+ years ago. I don't know if this was Church policy but it happened in my mission.

Where was your mission? (not debating as I've found another reference to this happening in Central America, just curious).

Edited November 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Where does Church doctrine declare this  ------>  "Evolution of man from a lower order of animals is false even though this false teaching is taught at BYU."

You should use it as an answer even if you disagree with it as this survey is not teach correct doctrine but find out how members understand it.

[webbles]

Where does Church doctrine declare this  ------>  "Evolution of man from a lower order of animals is false even though this false teaching is taught at BYU."

The Origin of Man states that man did not evolve.  But the rest of evolution (anything not related to man) is unknown.  The Fair wiki has a quote from President Hinkley (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance):

What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest