mfbukowski Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 So, we can still report it as: 75% of self-identifying Mormons attend worship services almost weekly?Yes, except on Sunday.
canard78 Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 So, we can still report it as: 75% of self-identifying Mormons attend worship services almost weekly?More accurately:75% of self-identifying Mormons self-identify as usually attending worship services almost weekly?Over claim is very natural in survey data especially when recalling past or normal behaviour. We have done surveys on "behaviour" panels (people who scan all their shopping basket). When you ask them to recall what they buy/use they will talk about what they usually do or even what they would like to usually do. When you then look at their shopping receipts there's often a significant mismatch. Certainly a commonality and a relationship, but not a match to what they think they do. It's still fair to say that self-identifying Mormons attend more frequently (or at least claim to) because you've got a norm (religious average) to benchmark against. Having said that, because it's self-identifying the bigger religions might be skewing towards more cultural members. 3
KevinG Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 Canard you are getting me all excited! Social statistics and Mormonism... Its like being a kid in a candy store. My own apocryphal evidence supports the idea that US Protestants often identify as adherents of a religion without the emphasis on attendance in meetings that Mormons have.
mnn727 Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) How do you gauge activity? I know someone who due to his job has not been to church in almost 2 years.He H.T.'s 100% every month and, as his Home teacher, he has stated to us that he reads each lesson and does all the usual's (reads his scripture, prays, hold FHE and is a full tithe payer who holds a Temple Recommend and goes to the temple at least once a month) He is also one of our Wards top indexers.By any statistics of Church attendance he is inactive, yet he is one of the most faithful active members I know. So I ask again, how do you gauge activity? how much can you miss before you're considered inactive? What about the people in nursing homes, are they inactive just because they can not get out to come to Church? we take them the Sacrament weekly and they are also visited by the RS weekly - do you count them or not. Sorry, but activity is not merely filling a seat. There are people I know that fill a seat without ever learning anything at Church, at school and at home.. Edited July 15, 2015 by mnn727
omni Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 I would suspect that the LDS church, due to its missionary efforts, has a higher percentage of adherents that are converts. I would also suspect that these converts are much less likely to self-identify as LDS once they stop attending as opposed to a someone who was raised Catholic and all of their family is Catholic, and likewise no longer attend services. This survey would in theory naturally skew towards lifelong members of a church. Anecdotally, it's quite obvious that BIC members have a higher activity rate than converts which could account for the high rate reported in the survey.That being said, due to the church's emphasis on weekly attendance I would still venture to guess guess we'd be near the top, but no where near 75% if all members on the rolls were included in the survey.
aurelio Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 In probably 20 years of being privy to statistical reports I have never seen anything that high. Maybe I live in the wrong area. 50% more or less is more accurate hereabouts. (So Cal)I read a number of sites quoting the Encyclopedia of Mormonism saying: "Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent. " Attendance in Sacrament meeting must be an indicator of "activity" then. I suspect the activity rate will continue to decline. Plenty of reasons for that. There are hot spots, such as "Utah East"(DC suburbs and Raleigh, NC areas) that likely do as well as Utah County, with regard to activity.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 The farther from Utah the better. That makes sense It's all those Fifth Generation Mormons that bring down the averages. So fifth-generation Mormons only live in Utah then?My intuitive sense is that the opposite would be the case: The further out you are on the descendency chart you are, the greater the likelihood of living away from the heartland.
mfbukowski Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) So fifth-generation Mormons only live in Utah then?My intuitive sense is that the opposite would be the case: The further out you are on the descendency chart you are, the greater the likelihood of living away from the heartland.Well I have to admit you are probably right, and of course I was joking anway. Some of my best friends are lifers who come from long lines of Mormon ancestors.My wife is actually 6th generation, and I kind of like her just fine. Edited July 17, 2015 by mfbukowski
canard78 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 My wife is actually 6th generation, and I kind of like her just fine. My daughter is 6th too which is very rare for the UK.
mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 My daughter is 6th too which is very rare for the UK.Yeah, but you don't count, which knocks her back to 5. Just kidding- you know I love ya
mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) I just verified this with my wife and she gave me the perfect Mormon answer. "Well it depends- I have 36 ancestors total on both sides that joined at different times so I am fifth generation AND sixth" But who's counting She also has ancestors who came on the Mayflower. But I am a newbie, so does that make my kids second generation or 7th generation? And my grandkids 8th? Come on now we have to get this royalty stuff straight- my place in heaven is at stake here. Edit: Uh, sarcasm. I can just imagine seeing this on an anti site where someone takes this seriously Edited July 18, 2015 by mfbukowski
canard78 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Yeah, but you don't count, which knocks her back to 5. Just kidding- you know I love ya LOL. Love it Don't worry, from her mother's side.
Teancum Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Yeah, but you don't count, which knocks her back to 5. Just kidding- you know I love ya . I am 5th but I no longer live in Utah though I grew up there.....I likely don't count either.
Jean-Luc Picard Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 This is good news, if accurate. Of course, it is self-reported. When doing a story year ago, I ran across the interesting fact that a lot of our less-active Church members (according to frequency of attendance) don't really regard themselves as less-active. Some responding to the survey may have overestimated their frequency of attendance.I think this is probably the reason for the high number. My grandmother hadn't attended church regularly for twenty years but had VT and watched conference. She was active according to her standards. Keep in mind, in the Church there is a stigma with being less active that is not felt in other religions. MAny don't even have a word to represent "less actives."
canard78 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I think this is probably the reason for the high number. My grandmother hadn't attended church regularly for twenty years but had VT and watched conference. She was active according to her standards. Keep in mind, in the Church there is a stigma with being less active that is not felt in other religions. MAny don't even have a word to represent "less actives.""Catholique, non-pratiquant" was a phrase I'd hear every other doorstep in France. A "non-practising" catholic/Anglican/Methodist Etc is the phrase many use in UK. Maybe it hasn't reached your side of the pond (assuming you're American)?
williamsmith Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I think the survey question, as reported here, was pretty clear in specifying frequency of attendance, not self-identification. Yes and no....It was specifying the "frequency of attendence", but it seems the #'s come from those who "identify" as LDS.It's not from everyone who are "baptized" LDS. Looks about right to me.
Stargazer Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 And then there are those who, for health reasons, cannot attend church, and perhaps receive the sacrament a couple times per month via the priests sent out for the purpose on Sundays.
canard78 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I have heard it quite a few times.I wonder if there's a difference in how people identify once they are no longer a "practicing/active" catholic/Protestant/Mormon?On that basis, is it possible that there's a large number of people in the survey who identity as "non-practising catholic" who bring down the catholic attendance averages while for Mormons it's only the practicing (active/semi active or active in spirit if not in body) Mormons who self identify?Whatever it is, I'd still expect that even if all the skews that come from self-identification were corrected that we'd still find that Mormons have a higher frequency of attendance than mainstream Christianity.
Calm Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 The Catholic teaching about baptism and what is does is somewhat different, so that might play a bit into it.I also think general social acceptance would leave people feeling more comfortable being a nonpracticing Catholic, people already understand the dynamics there given the exposure of that lifestyle in media as well as just more encounters in everyday life. LDS are still seen as quirky by many ime and thus more discomfort about being associated with them. And Catholics have a much better come back if they are attacked as nonChristians ("you use our Creeds to proclaim your Christianity and then say we are not Christians? What does that make you then? NonChristian or hypocrite or just spiritually lazy?).
Recommended Posts