Poll Re: November 2015 Policy Changes

[Teancum]

35 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.

Your claim that this comes from God is simply based on your faith with absolutely no evidence.  

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

The link was in the post (at the bottom of the quote). 

 

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

I don't think the questions are available yet. 

Regarding the "geographic distribution", it only says that it is a "national" survey.  In the Q&A, she notes that "I won't know any of the people taking the survey. It's not something they can volunteer for; they're already in certain panel databases that the research firm draws upon."

So definitely not self-selected.

While some LDS may not like the results of some parts of the survey, it would seem from the general overview that they've accounted for the most common flaws that can be used to easily dismiss the results. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

No. What I'm implying is that --- setting aside considerations of testimony and truth --- in a practical sense, the dominant Church culture will continue to dominate. I believe, of course, that there is more to it than a B.F. Skinner behaviorist effect where that is the only factor. So, setting aside considerations of divine influence, though, it is a fact that the dominant Church culture is driven by the members who actively "run" the Church at the local level, on up through the hierarchy. This is what makes the dominant Church culture dominant. By and large, members who are outspokenly liberal/progressive in their views are not in the prospective leadership pool because of the dominant culture, and I don't see that changing even if Church demographics begin to tilt liberal/progressive. It will still be the conservative types who continue to be called into leadership positions.

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.

There is (thankfully) a diversity of thought among and within the membership. But, again, I don't see that diversity of thought beginning to gain prominence in the leadership structure of the Church.

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.

Absolutely agree! We have an active brother in our ward who is outspokenly liberal. My father was his wife's YSA bishop when she got baptized, and they have two small children. He has upset some members in the ward by his outspoken support for Bernie Sanders (he's a #NeverHillary guy), and I have told them to chill out and respect his views --- and to appreciate his sincerity and needed diversity (it's amazing that it has to be done, but there are actually members who don't want him to be able to comment on his views at all in a church or activity setting. The annual neutrality letter actually means something, etc., etc.). 

He was concerned when renewing his temple recommend about question #6: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to, or oppose those accepted by the Church. We discussed what this means in light of his outspoken support for certain Democratic Party positions, including social media support. I reassured him that, in my view, he is not what that question is talking about, because he is allowed to have political views that depart from the Church's stance (and to share them) --- but more importantly, he defends the Church in a sometimes antagonistic atmosphere and doesn't attack the Church or tear it down. In fact (and I told him I was proud of him for this, and that it speaks well of his loyalties), he related that he donated to the Yes on 8 campaign in California in 2008, even though he supports gay marriage --- because he was asked to by the Church. Given how strongly he feels about this issue, I told him that that is remarkable. I don't know if I could have done that if the Church had asked me to donate time and means to a campaign in support of gay marriage, but he did it, anyway.

There are members who don't want people like him to have a place in the Church (some have asked me to call him on the carpet for sharing opinions on Facebook, and I have also had people request that he be released from his calling for social media opinions). That is sad. He is a faithful, active member, served a mission, solidly attends and fulfills his calling, etc. We want him to be part of the Church and to serve in the kingdom. And, he has as much right to share his views as I do, or those who complain about him do. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

While some LDS may not like the results of some parts of the survey, it would seem from the general overview that they've accounted for the most common flaws that can be used to easily dismiss the results. 

Other than "push poll" tactics (how questions are asked) --- which are crucial with something like this. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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. 

You sparked my memory.  I recall last year, must have been early December, we set aside the whole of EQ to discuss it.  Everyone justified the policy change, that spoke up, except me.  I had a rather healthy exchange with the bishop, who attended the meeting.  He and I had the most to say, by far, and were pretty much on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.   The EQP at the time also tried to justify it with a comment or two.  But, all in all, most stayed silent.  I'd guess most either had no opinion, or agreed with the Church's position.  But can't be sure. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is (thankfully) a diversity of thought among and within the membership. But, again, I don't see that diversity of thought beginning to gain prominence in the leadership structure of the Church.

I disagree. I think the entire church has been liberalized. Compare today's church with the church from 1950. Is it the same? Is the rhetoric about social issues the same: women in the workplace, racial issues, sxual orientation issues, social welfare, to name a few? Have the attitudes and language of top leadership liberalized over the past 66 years? Of course it has.

That's not to say that by 2016 standards the top leadership isn't still very conservative. I agree with your assessment there, BUT conservative in 2016 is very different than conservative in 1950. The entire culture shifts and the church will shift with it. Is it possible that "conservative" leaders in 2050 will be more liberal than 2016 leaders and 1950 leaders?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. I think the entire church has been liberalized. Compare today's church with the church from 1950. Is it the same? Is the rhetoric about social issues the same: women in the workplace, racial issues, sxual orientation issues, social welfare, to name a few? Have the attitudes and language of top leadership liberalized over the past 66 years? Of course it has.

That's not to say that by 2016 standards the top leadership isn't still very conservative. I agree with your assessment there, BUT conservative in 2016 is very different than conservative in 1950. The entire culture shifts and the church will shift with it. Is it possible that "conservative" leaders in 2050 will be more liberal than 2016 leaders and 1950 leaders?

I think there's a breaking point, a point beyond which "social shift and the Church" can't go. I don't think that the Church will drift endlessly along with social currents. This may be why this is such a divisive issue --- because we are at this "point of no return" where "something's gotta give" and the Church will be sifted. Not necessarily in November 2016, but soon as collision courses crop up. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think there's a breaking point, a point beyond which "social shift and the Church" can't go. I don't think that the Church will drift endlessly along with social currents. This may be why this is such a divisive issue --- because we are at this "point of no return" where "something's gotta give" and the Church will be sifted. Not necessarily in November 2016, but soon as collision courses crop up. 

You might be right, but how many shifts have occurred in the church that would have been unthinkable to an earlier generation?

Polygamy? HUGE shift.

Racial attitudes and doctrines? HUGE shift.

There may be a collision course. We may be experiencing that collision now and the effects of that collision could impact the future direction of the church. But one thing I'm confident of, is that the church is constantly changing. It would be impossible for it not to. We can't always predict accurately how or when changes will occur, but change is happening. It's the only natural course of things.

[rpn]

The questions matter. 

For instance I do not believe that our government should license gay marriage.   But if you were to ask me if I thought homosexuality should be accepted, I would understand that to mean that I acknowledged there is such a thing, that it is not apparently volition, at least for many if not most.   And yes, same sex attraction occurrence in nature should be accepted as a fact.

But if you mean the question to ask whether I accepted that a gay lifestyle should be accepted as a normative view of the choice of lifestyles in the world, I would say I disagreed.

If you meant whether I think those who are LBGTQ should be accepted as children of God, equal in their divine attributes and potential and generally trying their best to live the best they know how according to their knowledge and experiences, then I would say I  absolutely agree.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You might be right, but how many shifts have occurred in the church that would have been unthinkable to an earlier generation?

Polygamy? HUGE shift.

I still see an insurmountable difference in kind between a hypothetical change on doctrine on homosexuality and polygamy. We went from no polygamy, to polygamy, back to no polygamy. There's all kinds of past precedent with that. And, polygamous marriages were still considered to be individual couplings between the wives and the husband, which doesn't require nearly the stretch or "paradigm shift."

Quote

Racial attitudes and doctrines? HUGE shift.

Again, even the ban policy was messy and inconsistently applied, but it contained at heart both an inherent belief that priesthood is a *male* office and promises that it would one day be available to all. Which is where attempts to draw parallels with homosexuality break down.

Edited November 2, 2016 by rongo

[Gray]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You might be right, but how many shifts have occurred in the church that would have been unthinkable to an earlier generation?

Polygamy? HUGE shift.

Racial attitudes and doctrines? HUGE shift.

There may be a collision course. We may be experiencing that collision now and the effects of that collision could impact the future direction of the church. But one thing I'm confident of, is that the church is constantly changing. It would be impossible for it not to. We can't always predict accurately how or when changes will occur, but change is happening. It's the only natural course of things.

As soon as the church STOPS changing, we'll know that it's headed for extinction. All religions must evolve or die out (or at least slowly fade into irrelevance).

The LDS church is a survivor. It always adapts to changing circumstances. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

And THIS right here is why Cinepro should be YOUR write in candidate for President of the United States...America needs his quick witted sense of humor and ability to drill down to the very foundation of every argument and articulate it is a sharp pointed manner that comes off smelling like roses... You've got my vote

[canard78]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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.

 

Not necessarily. 

I'm currently working on a study where only about 2% of US population will qualify for the survey. We're using a variety of valid techniques to find them. 

I also ran a pro-bono study for a Mormon targeted retailer in U.K. about 5 years ago that acheived a moderate sample size (n=200) and a reliable sample. 

They have three broad options:

- Snowball. Bad idea and already ruled out.

- River. This is where an ad or pop up recruits you online. You can target the ad based on interests and internet behaviour.

- Panel. You run pre-screeners for low incidence samples usually among a panel of survey takers.

The fact that she's targeted raising $17,000 to do this study (and achieved nearly $20,000) would suggest they are taking a reasonable approach, based on what I know a low-incidence sample would cost. 

Having said all that, I will reserve judgement until I see some methodology details. If she doesn't release them then I will willingly make an open criticism even on that basis. A research project like this is hugely dependent on credible sampling. 

And, as a Brit, I agree that it would be a shame to exclude non-US LDS. It'll likely still be headlined as a study of Mormons but would only accurately be a study of American Mormons. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, canard78 said:

And, as a Brit, I agree that it would be a shame to exclude non-US LDS. It'll likely still be headlined as a study of Mormons but would only accurately be a study of American Mormons. 

More likely "a study of American Mormons living in Utah."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

Having said all that, I will reserve judgement until I see some methodology details. If she doesn't release them then I will willingly make an open criticism even on that basis. A research project like this is hugely dependent on credible sampling. 

So she appears from the linked article to have released some preliminary results publicly before all the surveying is done.  Wouldn't that taint the later surveys? 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

And tell us the specific reason it was "all wrapped up" in your view of the universe of Momonism  == social media, tax exemption, criticism, BYU football and Stanford.  Obviously it was not revelation, nicht wahr.

Exactly what prompted this change, since you pretend to know the reason.

Edited November 2, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

You are mistaken.  Please give us ONE example of a doctrinal change == baptism, faith in Christ, receive the Holy Ghost, endure to the end, polygamy, Tithes/offerings, charity for our fellow man, priesthood authority????

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

You are correct.  The primary difference is that doctrines do not change, but practices and policies can change.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by cdowis

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 

Wasn't Adam-God considered a doctrine?  It was from Brigham Young, the head of the church at the time.

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

And tell us the specific reason it was "all wrapped up" in your view of the universe of Momonism  == social media, tax exemption, criticism, BYU football and Stanford.  Obviously it was not revelation, nicht wahr.

Exactly what prompted this change, since you pretend to know the reason.

Please look at the following and tell me what you think.  To me it seems plain that the First Presidency thought the priesthood ban was from God and doctrine. https://archive.org/stream/MormonismAndTheNegro#page/n73/mode/2up   http://archive.org/stream/improvementera7302unse#page/n71/mode/2up

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

As soon as the church STOPS changing, we'll know that it's headed for extinction. All religions must evolve or die out (or at least slowly fade into irrelevance).

The LDS church is a survivor. It always adapts to changing circumstances. 

A captain of any ship will need to make certain course corrections every time he goes on a trip since issues arise that requires.  So the Church must navigate an ever changing minefield of stuff while keeping focus on keeping the Church the direction it needs to go.  Nobody should confuse minor course corrections to mean some big changes will come. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Please look at the following and tell me what you think.  To me it seems plain that the First Presidency thought the priesthood ban was from God and doctrine. https://archive.org/stream/MormonismAndTheNegro#page/n73/mode/2up   http://archive.org/stream/improvementera7302unse#page/n71/mode/2up

Let's get to the basics, two well-known examples,  so that we are not quibbling over semantics. 

1. Was the "United Order" a practice or a doctrine?  If the latter, did the "doctrine" change where we renounced  the United Order doctrine, and, by coincidence, adopt a new doctrine that we called tithing? Or are these two different practices of a single doctrine (whatever we may call it) and replaced one practice with another.

2. Did the church renounce the doctrine of polygamy?  Was it a doctrine or a practice.  Specifically, did we simply stopped the practice of living polygamy, but the doctrine remains.

3. I would say that each of these were practices of a specific doctrine.  Can God command us to use a specific practice of a doctrine.  Did we stop the practice of living polygamy ONLY after the Lord revealed His will.  IOW, if the Lord told us to continue to practice it, would/should we have done so?

I believe that the leaders were having difficulty in expressing these ideas that BOTH a doctrine and the practice of a doctrine can come though revelation.  

That is what I think.  I may be mistaken, but I don't think so.

Edited November 3, 2016 by cdowis

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So she appears from the linked article to have released some preliminary results publicly before all the surveying is done.  Wouldn't that taint the later surveys? 

If the person read the article very close to doing the survey, possibly. Usually though, people don't know much about what survey they're doing when the sampling technique is "panel" or "river."

I think she mentioned somewhere that it's a 25 min survey, so lots of other questions that she's not reported. 

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Wasn't Adam-God considered a doctrine?  It was from Brigham Young, the head of the church at the time.

It was a false doctrine.  It was indeed from BY, but not from God.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, canard78 said:

If the person read the article very close to doing the survey, possibly. Usually though, people don't know much about what survey they're doing when the sampling technique is "panel" or "river."

I think she mentioned somewhere that it's a 25 min survey, so lots of other questions that she's not reported. 

 

Thanks for the info, too dozy today to do my own work.

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Wasn't Adam-God considered a doctrine?  It was from Brigham Young, the head of the church at the time.

That was before correlation.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Rivers