Poll Re: November 2015 Policy Changes

[smac97]

Here (Trib article by Jana Riess):

Quote

How do Mormons and former Mormons feel about the LDS Church's exclusion policy that branded same-sex Mormon couples as "apostates" and banned their children from baby blessings and baptisms until they are 18?

As we mark the policy's one-year anniversary, I wanted to release some of the preliminary data from "The Next Mormons" survey, which I have been running, as it relates to how Mormons of different generations in the U.S. feel about the policy in particular and homosexuality in general.

I am curious about her methodology.  If this is a self-selected survey, it's not worth much.  And given the large sample size (1,254 "Mormon" respondents and 611 "former Mormon"), I am not sure the methodology will be sound (it's hard to get that many Mormons polled unless they are self-selected).

I also confess I am suspicious of the poll because it is being run by Jana Riess, whom I am not inclined to believe is dispassionate/impartial about the topics covered in the poll.

Quote

Here are three main takeaways:

• In the sample of current Mormons, most either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" with the policy, but younger people are considerably less likely to strongly agree, especially women.

Interesting.

Quote

• Also, the second part of the policy — the part that bars children of same-sex marriage from baby blessings and baptisms — is noticeably less popular than the first, which defines LDS adults who are in a same-sex marriage as being in apostasy.

That's not surprising.  It's not a pleasant policy, it's not a pleasant thing.  But it is, I think, a necessary and appropriate one.

I don't think many members of the Church would characterize policies about other yucky things, like excommunication and whatnot, as "popular."  Frankly, it would be a bit weird to expect otherwise. 

Quote

• Among the former Mormon sample, both halves of the policy are wildly unpopular, with the majority saying they strongly disagree.

Not a surprise.

Quote

Overall, 72 percent of current Mormons either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" with the first part of the policy (labeling same-sex Mormon couples as apostates), with only 28 percent saying they disagree.

That seems like a rather large number.

Quote

However, the nuances are worth exploring. When compared with people born before 1965, millennial Mormons (young adults born from 1980 to 1998) show a drop of 20 points in the number who "strongly agree" that same-sex marriage should trigger a disciplinary council and possible excommunication. Members of Generation X are also considerably less enthusiastic about the "strongly agree" option than their parents.

I wonder if the passage of time, having the opportunity to grow intellectually and spiritually, and life experiences generally, may result in some (many?) "millennial" and "Generation X" Mormons ending up with a changed viewpoint on this issue.  I know my perspective has changed quite a bit in the last ten years or so.

Quote

Overall, then, with the first part of the policy, the data show that Mormons predominantly express support, but that backing gets weaker from one generation to the next. The boomer/silent generation respondents sound certain and confident in their agreement; the younger generations less so.

Hmm.  Sounds like Jana is spinning the data a bit.

Quote

This generational divide becomes even sharper when we look at a different question: the percentage who agree that "homosexuality should be accepted by society." This is a question that Pew Research asked in 2007 and 2014, so we have some data to which we can compare these answers.

Well, not if the current poll was A) conducted by someone with an agenda / ax to grind (as Jana Riess so plainly does), and B) consists of responses from self-selected respondents.  The Pew poll is going to be a lot more reliable, I think.  

Quote

Though Mormons as a whole have shown another double-digit jump since Pew last asked the question in 2014, millennials are still the only generation of Latter-day Saints to crack 50 percent support: More than half say homosexuality should be accepted.

I'm not sure what "should be accepted" means.  Nuance matters, I guess.

Quote

Among all current Mormon respondents, support for the policy is substantially less enthusiastic when we look at whether the church should bar children of same-sex marriage from baby blessings and baptisms.

Overall, there's a 12-point drop among the entire active Mormon sample in the percentage of people who "strongly agree" (from 50 percent to 38 percent) and a 9-point rise in the percentage who either strongly or somewhat disagree (from 28 percent to 37 percent).

I think I can understand why these numbers end up here.  The policy is a tough one.  It does not come across well when there is only a passing or superficial familiarity with it and with the explanations for it.  And it's also a hard policy to accept even when it is understood.

Quote

Much of this falls along predictable fault lines. Mormons who hold a current temple recommend are significantly more likely (57 percent) than others to say they strongly agree with barring children raised in same-sex families from blessings and baptisms.

A very nice bit of spin, Jana!  She ignores policy altogether and creates a one-to-one link between observant Mormons "strongly agree{ing} with barring children raised in same-sex families from blessings and baptisms."

Quote

Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to strongly agree.

How is this a predictable fault line?

Quote

One surprise in the data was a sharp gender divide. Seventy percent of men either strongly (42 percent) or somewhat (28 percent) agree with the policy; 58 percent of Mormon women do.

In fact, 28 percent of active Mormon women "strongly disagree" with the policy about children — a 12-point jump from the men who say they strongly disagree. Another 14 percent of women "somewhat disagree."

Interesting.  I wonder what accounts for the disparity here between gendered opinions.

Quote

Considering that this is a policy that Mormon apostle Russell M. Nelson, next in line to lead The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spoke of as "revelation from the Lord" earlier this year, it's significant that 42 percent of active Mormon women — women we know from other data points are very orthodox in indices of religious belief — say they disagree.

More spin.  Less reason to trust the poll overall. 

Quote

Here's something I wish we had asked in the survey but didn't: How many people in the former Mormon sample became former Mormons because of this policy.

Wow.  She's not even trying to give a pretext of being impartial on this issue.  

Quote

A few caveats: This is still a live survey, meaning we haven't finished collecting all of the data. The final results may be slightly different, but we are close enough to the planned sample size for currently identified Mormons (collected to be representative of Mormon demographics for gender, age and geographic location) that we can speak authoritatively, if not perfectly, about the results.

Again, this appears to be a self-selected pool of respondents to a poll by a biased and partisan individual.  I'm not going to put much stock in this poll, not until we have a lot more information about the methodology.

Quote

Second, there are two sets of data: one from self-identified current Mormons (currently at 1,254 respondents) and one from former Mormons (currently at 611 respondents and 535 for the policy question). We treat the data separately.

And third, these findings are one part of a much larger project that compares four generations of Mormons and former Mormons in many areas of religious belief, social attitudes and religious practice.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And it's also a hard policy to accept even when it is understood.

Thoughts?

-Smac

My first thought is that Jana Riess has her own agenda (as does everyone when it comes down to it) and I don't take what she has to say as being in any way indicative of the mind and will of the Lord.  She does, as a media personality, have the ability to shape others opinions.

Second thought is about your statement that I've quoted above.  Are you saying that you find it personally hard to accept even though you understand it?  Or are you talking about the members of the church in general?

Edited November 1, 2016 by ksfisher

[Gray]

I'm not totally surprised by the numbers, but I confess I'm a little disappointed. But there does appear to be hope for the chosen generation

 It would be nice to know if this is actually a scientific survey, though. 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not totally surprised by the numbers, but I confess I'm a little disappointed. But there does appear to be hope for the chosen generation

 It would be nice to know if this is actually a scientific survey, though. 

There were a couple podcasts on Mormon Matters and Rational Faiths I believe when they were in the money raising mode a few months back.  I believe they used a Utah company to do the survey and make it a statistically relevant and scientific study.  

I too was disappointed with the results.  It shows the continued power of loyalty to the institution working on active members in spite of cultural upheaval on this issue, and common sense.  

[sheilauk]

I want to know the geographic sampling.  The LDS is greater than Utah.

[rongo]

So much for the groundswell of sweeping change, huh?

I've been emphasizing that what matters is what the active, committed members think. Liberal/progressive "let's change it from the grassroots!" LDS tend to get a vastly over-inflated sense of sweeping social change from their isolated, self-reinforcing connections, but these don't reflect how most attending and tithing-paying members think.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here (Trib article by Jana Riess):

I am curious about her methodology.  If this is a self-selected survey, it's not worth much.  

 

But not curious enough to do a Google search and click on the first link...?

 

With the invaluable assistance of Benjamin Knoll, an assistant professor of political science at Centre College, I have designed a major survey of LDS life that has also been vetted by numerous social scientists, historians, and writers. The survey has already been IRB-approved. It has questions about everything from how different generations observe the Word of Wisdom (the Mormon dietary code) and keep the Sabbath to their feelings about attending church. It also tracks their feelings about some of the major social issues of our time.

The survey will be fielded by Qualtrics, a leading research firm, with the initial results available this fall. I will then analyze and discuss the survey results at length in the forthcoming book The Next Mormons, which will be sent free to all Kickstarter supporters above the $60 level.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/863062971/the-next-mormons

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

I want to know the geographic sampling.  The LDS is greater than Utah.

"The Next Mormons" is a representative national survey of four generations of Latter-day Saints, focusing especially on Millennials.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/863062971/the-next-mormons

[canard78]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here (Trib article by Jana Riess):

I am curious about her methodology.  If this is a self-selected survey, it's not worth much.  And given the large sample size (1,254 "Mormon" respondents and 611 "former Mormon"), I am not sure the methodology will be sound (it's hard to get that many Mormons polled unless they are self-selected).

I also confess I am suspicious of the poll because it is being run by Jana Riess, whom I am not inclined to believe is dispassionate/impartial about the topics covered in the poll.

Interesting.

That's not surprising.  It's not a pleasant policy, it's not a pleasant thing.  But it is, I think, a necessary and appropriate one.

I don't think many members of the Church would characterize policies about other yucky things, like excommunication and whatnot, as "popular."  Frankly, it would be a bit weird to expect otherwise. 

Not a surprise.

That seems like a rather large number.

I wonder if the passage of time, having the opportunity to grow intellectually and spiritually, and life experiences generally, may result in some (many?) "millennial" and "Generation X" Mormons ending up with a changed viewpoint on this issue.  I know my perspective has changed quite a bit in the last ten years or so.

Hmm.  Sounds like Jana is spinning the data a bit.

Well, not if the current poll was A) conducted by someone with an agenda / ax to grind (as Jana Riess so plainly does), and B) consists of responses from self-selected respondents.  The Pew poll is going to be a lot more reliable, I think.  

I'm not sure what "should be accepted" means.  Nuance matters, I guess.

I think I can understand why these numbers end up here.  The policy is a tough one.  It does not come across well when there is only a passing or superficial familiarity with it and with the explanations for it.  And it's also a hard policy to accept even when it is understood.

A very nice bit of spin, Jana!  She ignores policy altogether and creates a one-to-one link between observant Mormons "strongly agree{ing} with barring children raised in same-sex families from blessings and baptisms."

How is this a predictable fault line?

Interesting.  I wonder what accounts for the disparity here between gendered opinions.

More spin.  Less reason to trust the poll overall. 

Wow.  She's not even trying to give a pretext of being impartial on this issue.  

Again, this appears to be a self-selected pool of respondents to a poll by a biased and partisan individual.  I'm not going to put much stock in this poll, not until we have a lot more information about the methodology.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Thoughts: Firstly, that newspapers and PR agencies frequently generate consumer data to give them contrived news stories. 

Occasionally a genuine social study is commissioned and usually outsourced to a certified agency or academic. 

Having reviewed a few sources, this survey by Reiss appears to be the latter. I've got 13-year of market research experience and often take time to review some of the social research approaches on Mormonism. 

Please don't assume my "post Mormon bias" is influencing me too much. For example, I have consistently said that Dehlin's 2012 study is junk data. 

This, on the other hand, seems to have been approached far more professionally and credibly, from what I can glean. 

For example, she's not using snowball sampling (Dehlin did) and seems to have a strong sample size of both current and former Mormons (Dehlin didn't). Qualtrics, her survey platform, is credible and will have quality control options built into the sampling solution (I don't know if Dehlin's did).

I'd love to get a bit more detail about the sampling methods and survey design.

[James Tunney]

Im not surprised by the results. The younger generations havent bought in as much to the LGBTQ boogey man as the boomers.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Im not surprised by the results. The younger generations havent bought in as much to the LGBTQ boogey man as the boomers.

They will one day.  They will discover the Lord does not make decisions on opinion polls and cultural shifts.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/1/2016 at 10:14 PM, carbon dioxide said:

They will one day.  They will discover the Lord does not make decisions on opinion polls and cultural shifts.

Humility and teachableness typically accompany the experience and wisdom that come with age.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, sheilauk said:

I want to know the geographic sampling.  The LDS is greater than Utah.

 

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

Thoughts: Firstly, that newspapers and PR agencies frequently generate consumer data to give them contrived news stories. 

Occasionally a genuine social study is commissioned and usually outsourced to a certified agency or academic. 

Having reviewed a few sources, this survey by Reiss appears to be the latter. I've got 13-year of market research experience and often take time to review some of the social research approaches on Mormonism. 

Please don't assume my "post Mormon bias" is influencing me too much. For example, I have consistently said that Dehlin's 2012 study is junk data. 

This, on the other hand, seems to have been approached far more professionally and credibly, from what I can glean. 

For example, she's not using snowball sampling (Dehlin did) and seems to have a strong sample size of both current and former Mormons (Dehlin didn't). Qualtrics, her survey platform, is credible and will have quality control options built into the sampling solution (I don't know if Dehlin's did).

I'd love to get a bit more detail about the sampling methods and survey design.

sheilauk raises a good question about the geographic scope of this "survey." More than half of all Mormons now live outside the United States. Of the remainder, only a portion live in Utah. So if this is a poll done mainly in Utah, its applicability to the entire population of Mormons would be questionable.

Yet I don't see how it could be otherwise. In Utah, most of the people you contact for poll taking would be Mormons or ex-Mormons, just because of the high concentration of Utah residents who are Mormons. But contact information for Mormons who live outside of Utah would be difficult to come by. Contact information for one's own stake or ward members is available on lds.org, but it's password-protected. And I can't see the Church making that information available to opinion pollsters. To get a wide geographic sampling, Riess would have to find a lot of Mormons outside of Utah who were unethical or disloyal enough to supply her with information for members of their own wards or stakes, information that is not intended for non-Church use.

Or, it could be a self-selected sample, as smac suspects.

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

But not curious enough to do a Google search and click on the first link...?

I did a google search  on Jana Riess survey, clicked on the first link, no joy.

Clicked on all the links on the kickstarter link, no joy.  Same result on the Trib article.

Can you please have the courtesy to give us the link.  I am particularly interested in
1. The specific survey questions  == for those who are unaware, how the question is worded can have a dramatic effect on the results.

2. The geographic distribution of the sample.

Thanks.

Edited November 2, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

They will one day.  They will discover the Lord does not make decisions on opinion polls and cultural shifts.

No, that's not how it works. We never saw a resurgence in a younger generation rejecting mixed race marriage, or segregation, or votes for women. These things have a trajectory, and that trajectory is always toward greater inclusiveness. As the older generations die off no one will quite remember what the big fuss was over gay people getting married, just like we can't understand today why grown men would make a big deal out of black kids attending school along with the white kids.

[stemelbow]

It makes me curious.  I could take a sampling of my ward and I'd guess most would not know much about the policy change at all.  I would ask, "What are your thoughts on the policy change to the handbook last year?"  Most would say, I'm guessing, "Which policy change?"  And when explained, most would say, "I agree with the Church" without much thought, I'd guess, annoyed by family members or friends who have said something about it.  I'd likely get a few stories from those in my ward complaining about their siblings or nieces and nephews who have complained about it and how their family members are problems to them.  That almost always happens when I discuss social, doctrinal, or historic issues that are raised these days. 

I know of one couple that would likely disagree with the policy, outside of my wife and I.  I'd be curious if anyone else would.  I'm curious if the survey queried if people knew about the policy and were familiar with what it said.  I'd be curious because the amount of disagreement seems high to my assumption and would likely be among those who actually know about the policy in the first place.  I agree with Smac too in that the policy as worded might make even some of the most ardent defenders of the faith a little uncomfortable anyway.  It's hard to get all defensive or upset when it hurts people we love. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

So much for the groundswell of sweeping change, huh?

I've been emphasizing that what matters is what the active, committed members think. Liberal/progressive "let's change it from the grassroots!" LDS tend to get a vastly over-inflated sense of sweeping social change from their isolated, self-reinforcing connections, but these don't reflect how most attending and tithing-paying members think.

I think this poll does reflect a growing swell of inclusiveness and antipathy toward exclusionary policies. It may not be a majority but the number of current Mormons willing to buck the leadership claim that this policy is "revelation" is significant.

Are you implying that the "only" thing that matters is what the active, committed members think? If so, that seems like a rather narrow view of the church. The church is not a monolith and there seems to be growing diversity of thought within the membership. Again, that doesn't mean the progressive members are a majority or the most powerful segment of the membership, but I don't think anyone claims they are. But that doesn't mean they don't have a place. It doesn't mean their opinions are unimportant. I think alienating this group is shortsighted. The church is continually changing by degree. It's happened throughout history so I see no reason to think the church will suddenly become static. That's not the way organizations or cultures exist in this world.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It makes me curious.  I could take a sampling of my ward and I'd guess most would not know much about the policy change at all.  I would ask, "What are your thoughts on the policy change to the handbook last year?"  Most would say, I'm guessing, "Which policy change?"  And when explained, most would say, "I agree with the Church" without much thought, I'd guess, annoyed by family members or friends who have said something about it.  I'd likely get a few stories from those in my ward complaining about their siblings or nieces and nephews who have complained about it and how their family members are problems to them.  That almost always happens when I discuss social, doctrinal, or historic issues that are raised these days. 

I know of one couple that would likely disagree with the policy, outside of my wife and I.  I'd be curious if anyone else would.  I'm curious if the survey queried if people knew about the policy and were familiar with what it said.  I'd be curious because the amount of disagreement seems high to my assumption and would likely be among those who actually know about the policy in the first place.  I agree with Smac too in that the policy as worded might make even some of the most ardent defenders of the faith a little uncomfortable anyway.  It's hard to get all defensive or upset when it hurts people we love. 

Speaking of my personal experience in a typical ward in Ohio. I remember vividly having a sort of group discussion with most of the ward council members on the Sunday following the news release. For some reason the bishopric meeting was going long and as we waited in the foyer the conversation quickly turned to the policy. I'd estimate that about 1/2 the ward council members expressed disapproval of the policy and the other 1/2 simply didn't want to talk about it. No one defended it. Of course, this was before the FP's clarification letter and President Nelson statement that the policy was a revelation. 

[Buckeye]

For those looking for insight into the poll, Dan Witherspoon did a nice podcast interview with Jana and her colleagues about the project.

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/07/22/337-the-next-mormons/

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

No, that's not how it works. We never saw a resurgence in a younger generation rejecting mixed race marriage, or segregation, or votes for women. These things have a trajectory, and that trajectory is always toward greater inclusiveness. As the older generations die off no one will quite remember what the big fuss was over gay people getting married, just like we can't understand today why grown men would make a big deal out of black kids attending school along with the white kids.

You are confused about the issues.  The issue is not social acceptability, which does change, but doctrines  and practices of the church which come from God and not the media.

In this case, policy regarding SSM seems to fall into line with another forbidden form of marriage, polygamy.

Edited November 2, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are confused about the issues.  The issue is not social acceptability, which does change, but doctrines  and practices of the church which come from God and not the media.

In this case, policy regarding SSM seems to fall into line with another forbidden form of marriage, polygamy.

1- Doctrines change. There is evidence of changes to church doctrines.

2- Policy is not doctrine. It may be based on current doctrine, but that's not the same thing.

I find it hilarious that the justification for forbidding SSM based on doctrine is based on the other forbidden form of marriage--polygamy. It illustrates my point #1 and #2 perfectly.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here (Trib article by Jana Riess):

I am curious about her methodology.  If this is a self-selected survey, it's not worth much.  And given the large sample size (1,254 "Mormon" respondents and 611 "former Mormon"), I am not sure the methodology will be sound (it's hard to get that many Mormons polled unless they are self-selected).

I also confess I am suspicious of the poll because it is being run by Jana Riess, whom I am not inclined to believe is dispassionate/impartial about the topics covered in the poll.

Interesting.

That's not surprising.  It's not a pleasant policy, it's not a pleasant thing.  But it is, I think, a necessary and appropriate one.

I don't think many members of the Church would characterize policies about other yucky things, like excommunication and whatnot, as "popular."  Frankly, it would be a bit weird to expect otherwise. 

Not a surprise.

That seems like a rather large number.

I wonder if the passage of time, having the opportunity to grow intellectually and spiritually, and life experiences generally, may result in some (many?) "millennial" and "Generation X" Mormons ending up with a changed viewpoint on this issue.  I know my perspective has changed quite a bit in the last ten years or so.

Hmm.  Sounds like Jana is spinning the data a bit.

Well, not if the current poll was A) conducted by someone with an agenda / ax to grind (as Jana Riess so plainly does), and B) consists of responses from self-selected respondents.  The Pew poll is going to be a lot more reliable, I think.  

I'm not sure what "should be accepted" means.  Nuance matters, I guess.

I think I can understand why these numbers end up here.  The policy is a tough one.  It does not come across well when there is only a passing or superficial familiarity with it and with the explanations for it.  And it's also a hard policy to accept even when it is understood.

A very nice bit of spin, Jana!  She ignores policy altogether and creates a one-to-one link between observant Mormons "strongly agree{ing} with barring children raised in same-sex families from blessings and baptisms."

How is this a predictable fault line?

Interesting.  I wonder what accounts for the disparity here between gendered opinions.

More spin.  Less reason to trust the poll overall. 

Wow.  She's not even trying to give a pretext of being impartial on this issue.  

Again, this appears to be a self-selected pool of respondents to a poll by a biased and partisan individual.  I'm not going to put much stock in this poll, not until we have a lot more information about the methodology.

Thoughts?

-Smac

My thoughts are you spin as much or more as you accuse Jana Reiss of.  Nobody is without bias you included and me as well.  

So here is my bias.  The policy is AWFUL. I predict the LDS church will rue the day they established it.  It is mideival in its approach.  It is instituted by those who think God speaks to them but rarely these days say he does.  Of course in this case The President of the 12 said God revealed this awful policy.  Some day I predict this will come back and bite the church in the butt. 

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are confused about the issues.  The issue is not social acceptability, which does change, but doctrines  and practices of the church which come from God and not the media.

In this case, policy regarding SSM seems to fall into line with another forbidden form of marriage, polygamy.

It's all part of the same arc of social change, cdowis. The ban on black people having the priesthood was all wrapped up in larger social issues as well. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

They will one day.  They will discover the Lord does not make decisions on opinion polls and cultural shifts.

Or they my discover that those who say what God wants were wrong and it was actually not what The Lord wants. 

[ALarson]

That was interesting to read through.  I thought the divide between the 2 parts of the new policy (those in a SSM; children of those in a SSM) was good.  From those I've discussed the policy with, this mirrors their feelings and why many really disagree with it (the exclusion of the children).

I also found the results for the younger generation to be what we've seen in our ward when I've heard the youth discuss SSM or any gay friends they have, etc.  This is very encouraging and this is why I believe the policy will be gone in the years ahead.  These youth are the future church leaders and IMO, so many of them would not to appear to support it as a leader (whether serving in a ward, a stake or GA).  

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson