"Infected With Doubt" - Jana Reiss Poll (part 2)

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Again, not to continue this whining, but at least you get told what you did wrong.  Although the few times I do get told I get some pretty odd descriptions, similar to what you type here.  

At long last, could it be that you and I have found a shared experience on which to bond?

Who would have thought it?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

At long last, could it be that you and I have found a shared experience on which to bond?

Who would have thought it?

I've been trying to bond on this since I first seen you comment on it.  

[clarkgoble]

Just to raise some issues, a Daily Universe story said this about here methodology: 

Quote

Her team surveyed 1,155 current Mormons and 541 people who left the Church. They’ve weighted the survey to account for any unintentional oversampling, and now the data is “cleaned up” and representative of the LDS population in the U.S., she said.

This is to try and solve the problem Pew was criticized for where respondents in Utah Valley were oversampled and thus biased results.

My impression is that "believers" are in that 1155 and former Mormons are in that 541 figure. I assume believers is based upon self-identification of whether they believe (rather than whether they call themselves Mormon as in Pew or ARIS) 

I could have sworn at one time she had a page up discussing her methodology but either I'm misremembering or she took it down now that she's publishing articles more rigorously on the data. I seem to remember having some issues back in the summer on the survey. But I can't recall what they are. There's of course some inherent limits as to what a survey like this can tell us.

It's also worth noting the differences from other surveys like this. For instance Jana has nearly 25% of believers once having held a recommend but not presently holding a recommend. That seems a bit high honestly. Pew had 65% of all Mormons with a temple recommend. (They didn't ask about formerly held) Pew had 79% of Mormons paying tithing. Jana had 75.9%. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but both seem a little high. Admittedly the Pew survey was including anyone self-designating as Mormon including Church of Christ or the polygamist offshoots. How much that biased results isn't clear. As I mentioned there were accusations that Pew oversampled Utah County leading to some of the odd results it reported. 

I'd love to know the details of the polls sampling and the methodology of correcting for Utah County or other parts of Utah. My guess is that there are some reasons to question whether this is representative even though Jana clearly attempted to deal with this as best as possible.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's also worth noting the differences from other surveys like this. For instance Jana has nearly 25% of believers once having held a recommend but not presently holding a recommend. That seems a bit high honestly. possible.

My initial thoughts are that the percentage without a recommend should actually be higher.  Admittedly I'm only familiar with my local area.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 Pew had 79% of Mormons paying tithing. Jana had 75.9%. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but both seem a little high. Admittedly the Pew survey was including anyone self-designating as Mormon including Church of Christ or the polygamist offshoots. How much that biased results isn't clear. As I mentioned there were accusations that Pew oversampled Utah County leading to some of the odd results it reported. 

 

Seems way high to me.  Did the survey leave it up to the respondent to determine what paying tithing meant?  Obviously it's not meaning full tithe payers, but if work full time and paid $10 in tithing would the survey count that as paying tithing?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Also, since when did changing out of church clothes after church become taboo? Everyone I know does that unless they're going home teaching or have a meeting.

This made me laugh too.  Out of all my church friends, I only know three members who don't change out of their church clothes after church.  It's definitely more common to change than not. 

[pogi]

One of the speakers at my ward on Sunday was talking about how she is not perfect, as an example she explained that she does not wear church clothes all day on Sunday but respects those who do.  I thought that a strange comment...maybe she read this article?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I go farther back into the past than you, and I don't remember this taboo -- not even in the pre-block meeting days.

 

Well maybe it was where you lived, because I remember a time that we were advised to stay in our church clothes all day. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not to totally derail the thread, but I think this is something that can vary quite a bit by locality and tradition.  Growing up, we would always wear suits and ties when going to any meeting or activity on Sundays, including open houses, firesides, and home teaching.  In the ward I lived in in Los Angeles from 2000 - 2007, it was the same thing. 

Then we moved to the suburbs and it's almost the opposite.  I show up to Sunday-afternoon open houses in a tie, and everyone else is wearing shorts and flip-flops (even in February).  We haven't had home teachers in years so I don't know what anyone else is doing, but I still wear a suit out of habit.  But I might have to change that...

Not to derail...but you didn't have home teachers for years, was that your choice or they just didn't show up?

[cinepro]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail...but you didn't have home teachers for years, was that your choice or they just didn't show up?

They just haven't showed up.  Before that we had some pretty good ones, but they shuffled the roster and I've never seen the new ones.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

They just haven't showed up.  Before that we had some pretty good ones, but they shuffled the roster and I've never seen the new ones.

MIne have been pretty much no shows too. I actually enjoy home teachers too. I even like lessons, I'm weird I guess.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I humbly beg your pardon and hasten to retract my comment lest Hair-trigger Hestia impose yet another capricious thread-banning for alleged "insulting language," "statements meant to provoke others," and "net nannying."

 

Sounds like "discussion" to me

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

I have to admit I included that tidbit about all-day Church clothes because I did a double-take when I read it too.

But if you recall, even Elder Perry felt it warranted a mention in General Conference a few years ago:

 

Our stake is highly diverse and represents many different cultures.

I have never even heard of anyone teaching these principles in our stake. Because we are in LA many people have passes to Disneyland, Universal Studios etc. And I see Facebook posts on a regular basis from even stake auxiliary leaders showing that they attend such facilities on Sundays without even thinking about it.

I hear regularly things like" I can't go to the Fireside because we're going out for dinner with the family" all the time even from people who are in stake leadership positions, who are obviously full tithe payers and attend the temple regularly. 

If the principles are not taught no one knows them and then the leaders don't know them and then the leaders cannot teach what they do not know or practice.

I keep harping on how the church is different in the "mission field" that it is in Utah but it seems no one ever quite gets that. How do you teach a Relief Society president that it is not cool to go out to eat on Sunday when she and the ward Mission leader, for example have never heard that principal in their lives?

And yet now we here that we are not to have lists of do's and don'ts. How are we supposed to teach those principles if they are not on a list of do's and don'ts?

If we are doing something with a family and dedicating it to the Lord should it not be okay according to recent talks? People who work 5 days a week or longer do not have family time to spend except on Sundays. Saturday's they are preparing talks and attending meetings and doing church activities.

Are they there for not supposed to do anything like this in their entire lives?

Just as a disclaimer my wife was raised in the church and we totally follow all the usual rules, which I learned from her and no one else.

But what does one do now with someone who has been in the church say 10 years and has no clue about these principles?

Such standards obviously have nothing to do with faithfulness at least where I live.

Edited December 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I humbly beg your pardon and hasten to retract my comment lest Hair-trigger Hestia impose yet another capricious thread-banning for alleged "insulting language," "statements meant to provoke others," and "net nannying."

 

It’s the “Minority Report” thread bannings I’ve seem here that get to me 😀. In the movie, futuristic law enforcement officers use high technology to determine when a particular individual is about to commit a crime. So they go around arresting and incarcerating people before they’ve actually broken any laws..The plot thickens when it’s learned the “precog” technology they’re relying on turnes out to be faulty.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Our stake is highly diverse and represents many different cultures.

I have never even heard of anyone teaching these principles in our stake. Because we are in LA many people have passes to Disneyland, Universal Studios etc. And I see Facebook posts on a regular basis from even stake auxiliary leaders showing that they attend such facilities on Sundays without even thinking about it.

I hear regularly things like" I can't go to the Fireside because we're going out for dinner with the family" all the time even from people who are in stake leadership positions, who are obviously full tithe payers and attend the temple regularly. 

If the principles are not taught no one knows them and then the leaders don't know them and then the leaders cannot teach what they do not know or practice.

I keep harping on how the church is different in the "mission field" that it is in Utah but it seems no one ever quite gets that. How do you teach a Relief Society president that it is not cool to go out to eat on Sunday when she and the ward Mission leader, for example have never heard that principal in their lives?

The same way you teach an investigator.  That hardly seems difficult to understand.

I've never lived in a stake in my entire life where members openly going to restaurants/entertainment venues, etc. on Sundays would be considered acceptable.  That includes stakes in the Phoenix, AZ area, Tucson, AZ area, Orem, UT area, and various areas throughout Tennessee and Kentucky.  Do your stake leadership members not watch General Conference?  This isn't some unique Utah thing.

[Tacenda]

Question for the faithful LDS out there. Do you know why or have you ever done this...not explored with the doubter what they doubt and if they can help them with some answers?

I read over and over on sites, that members won't ask about what the doubter doubts or reasons for their doubt. It's almost like deep down they're afraid to know because they themselves might catch the disease of doubt. 

Of course on this board, I doubt it would be any of you that have done this because you're aware of it all. But do you know anyone that has avoided doubters' questions like the plague?

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

If the principles are not taught no one knows them and then the leaders don't know them and then the leaders cannot teach what they do not know or practice.

 

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet now we here that we are not to have lists of do's and don'ts. How are we supposed to teach those principles if they are not on a list of do's and don'ts?

 

A place to start

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2015/04?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2015/10?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2017/04?lang=eng

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Question for the faithful LDS out there. Do you know why or have you ever done this...not explored with the doubter what they doubt and if they can help them with some answers?

I have done this.  Several times.  It seems that those who do best are they who are willing to submit to a "Wax On, Wax Off" approach.  For those of you who are not familiar with this pop culture reference (both of you), in the movie Karate Kid, a young man, Daniel, wanted to learn karate from an elderly Japanese man, Mr. Miyagi.  Mr. Miyagi immediately puts Daniel to work doing medial labor tasks around his (Mr. Miyagi's) home, such as sanding and painting a fence, washing and waxing cars, etc.  Daniel becomes frustrated with Mr. Miyagi, thinking he (Mr. Miyagi) is playing games with him.  One night he blows up at Mr. Miyagi (warning, a bit of language in the first 25 seconds of this clip):

"Sand the Floor" = Patiently and Systematically Study the Scriptures and the "Best Books"

"Paint the Fence" = Pray, Fast, Attend Church, Participate in Sacred Ordinances

"Wax On, Wax Off" = Serve and Love Others

These efforts necessarily precede addressing and understanding complex and challenging issues cobbled together in pell-mell, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts fashion by enemies of the Church, who do so with the calculated intention of tearing down faith and injuring and destroying the relationship between the LDS Church and its individual members.

Quote

I read over and over on sites, that members won't ask about what the doubter doubts or reasons for their doubt.

I have done that.  Several times.  I have one email thread with a friend that is 24 messages long (12 from him to me, and 12 from me to him).  If printed on paper, the exchange would be 220 pages long.  We covered a lot of ground, but ultimately he was not persuaded.  My friend is presently attending church meetings for the sake of family, but in an unbelieving capacity.

Quote

It's almost like deep down they're afraid to know because they themselves might catch the disease of doubt. 

Well, perhaps.  I think most Latter-day Saints are not equipped to respond to deliberate efforts to tear down their faith.  It's not a pleasant prospect, after all.

Imagine that you are married to a wonderful person for many years.  And then a family member or friend comes along and says "You know, I have compiled an extensive and exhaustive list of horrible accusations against your spouse.  These concern me.  I would like you to listen to me expound on them at length, since I am presently predisposed to accept them over your contrary opinions.  I would then like you to falsify them to my satisfaction.  If not, I will accept these accusations against your spouse as true."  Would you be eager to dive into such an endeavor?

Quote

Of course on this board, I doubt it would be any of you that have done this because you're aware of it all. But do you know anyone that has avoided doubters' questions like the plague?

A fair question.  That door swings both ways, though.  I have have several experiences of people who, having read Runnell's CES letter or some similar laundry list of grievances against the Church, are on their way out the door.  And when invited to examine those accusations with some real detail and effort and scrutiny, they get a bit uneasy.  It's like they have stumbled upon unbelief, a doppelgänger of the faith they previously had, and they now cherish that unbelief.  They don't want to let it go.  They don't want it challenged, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I just realized that the foregoing comments appear to have me casting myself in the Mr. Miyagi role.  Honestly, that was not my intent.  I was thinking more of the Church in that role.

Edited December 12, 2017 by smac97

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I have have several experiences of people who, having read Runnell's CES letter or some similar laundry list of grievances against the Church, are on their way out the door.  And when invited to examine those accusations with some real detail and effort and scrutiny, they get a bit uneasy.  It's like they have stumbled upon unbelief, a doppelgänger of the faith they previously had, and they now cherish that unbelief.  They don't want to let it go.  They don't want it challenged, either.

For some who learn for the first time that Joseph married teenagers (as young as 14) or that he married women married to other men, no reason, justification, or explanation will ever make that right. 

And then they start researching and learn all the other information about other touchy historical topics.

I know that many here believe the apologetic responses or feel they are answers to their questions.  But for a great many who read these letters and learn upsetting truths, no answer makes it ok or right.  Their feelings about Joseph Smith (and others) are changed and former teachings and beliefs are shattered.

Edited December 12, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

For some who learn for the first time that Joseph married teenagers (as young as 14) or that he married women married to other men, no reason, justification, or explanation will ever make that right. 

And then they start researching and learn all the other information about other touchy historical topics.

I know that many here believe the apologetic responses or feel they are answers to their questions.  But for a great many who read these letters and learn upsetting truths, no answer makes it ok or right.  Their feelings about Joseph Smith (and others) are changed and former teachings and beliefs are shattered.

Thanks JulieM, you're right...once the cat is out of the bag, there is no going back. Especially if you put JS up on a pedestal of sorts. Like me, who read The Work and the Glory throughout the night once and never doubted my religion even during a couple of inactive years in my young adulthood. When all that time, it's Jesus who deserved that pedestal.

[mfbukowski]

d

Edited December 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

A place to start

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2015/04?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2015/10?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/general-conference-leadership-training/2017/04?lang=eng

Thanks

Which of these say specifically that going out for dinner on Sunday is prohibited?

We have used all of them if I recall correctly.

Quote

It’s not about whether we eat at a restaurant on Sunday or not, whether we have to work on the Sabbath or not, or whether we show up to Church in flip flops (because I’ve done all of those things). It’s about what we can and choose to offer to the Lord on His day.

https://www.lds.org/blog/how-to-make-the-sabbath-day-hisday-wherever-you-go-this-summer?lang=eng

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 I remember four wheeling in mud on a back road from Hobble Creek to Stawberry Reservoir while wearing a nice Versace suit.

I tried that once - well not the on Sunday part - and not the Versace suit part....

And finally not the 4 wheeler part - which is probably why I didn't make it. The map showed a road connecting to Strawberry, but dang if I would call it a road - more like a torture course. Pretty country tho.

[TOmNossor]

I have a simple concern.

How could one become a respondent?  How was the sample selected?  How will this impact the results?

Did the church randomize all folks who were ever baptized and then give a list of 10000 folks to our survey folks?   I doubt this.

Did every 50th visitor to lds.org get a pop up that said, "How would you like to take a survey?  I doubt this.

Did Jana Reiss invite folks from her blog audience?  And folks from John Delhin's audience?  And folks from MADB's audience?  What percent of each?

I have put about 5 minutes into thinking how I would find a sampling that I THOUGHT was worthy of being viewed as a solid statistical sample of all believing and formerly believing LDS; and I cannot think of a good method absent significant help from the church.

In fact, in those 5 minutes I thought it likely that most Jana Reiss methods would OVERSAMPLE doubters and the doubting, but perhaps it is my "persecution complex" speaking.

I advocate that LDS both church authorities / church employees AND internet pontificators take the data seriously, but that does not mean there is not a significant sample bias present.

Charity, TOm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The same way you teach an investigator.  That hardly seems difficult to understand.

I've never lived in a stake in my entire life where members openly going to restaurants/entertainment venues, etc. on Sundays would be considered acceptable.  That includes stakes in the Phoenix, AZ area, Tucson, AZ area, Orem, UT area, and various areas throughout Tennessee and Kentucky.  Do your stake leadership members not watch General Conference?  This isn't some unique Utah thing.

Yes they even watched this one and actually TAUGHT this principle.

Quote

 

“How do we hallow the Sabbath day? In my much younger years, I studied the work of others who had compiled lists of things to do and things not to do on the Sabbath. It wasn’t until later that I learned from the scriptures that my conduct and my attitude on the Sabbath constituted a signbetween me and my Heavenly Father. With that understanding, I no longer needed lists of dos and don’ts. When I had to make a decision whether or not an activity was appropriate for the Sabbath, I simply asked myself, ‘What sign do I want to give to God?’ That question made my choices about the Sabbath day crystal clear. …

“Faith in God engenders a love for the Sabbath; faith in the Sabbath engenders a love for God. A sacred Sabbath truly is a delight.”

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “The Sabbath Is a Delight,” Ensign, May 2015, 130, 132.

 

And this

Quote

Having decided that the true purpose of the Sabbath is for worship and spiritual development, Sandy and I began to list activities we felt would contribute to those goals. (Our list is tailored to our family and is not meant to be exhaustive; each family will benefit by conducting such an analysis on their own.) And we discovered something exciting: rather than being narrow and restrictive, our list was so full of activities that there is never enough time to embrace them all! Consider the opportunities:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/01/turning-sunday-into-a-sabbath-one-familys-experience?lang=eng

And of course there are other opinions others have stated.

WHAT???   General Authorities disagree or give ambiguous answers on things like this?

 

UN HEARD OF!!

Nothing I can find even says we should HAVE a firm and inflexible list of do's and don'ts-  all says that we should remain flexible.  Except I guess in..... some places.

I actually enjoy riding my bike in nature on a Sunday!!  I guess I am an apostate since some say "riding a bike outside" is unacceptable.   Napping is ok but exercise is not.

Go figure.  Only a certain number of steps are permitted I guess.

Edited December 12, 2017 by mfbukowski