Article on Self-Identification as Religious Adherence

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

It isn’t hard to find Baptists and other Protestants who believe Mormons are not Christians. But about half of all Americans and nearly every Mormon believe they are, the Pew Research Center has found.

So who is right? Well, what Pew also has found is that it depends on who is asked. But for the researchers themselves, the safest and most accurate bet is to let Mormons decide for themselves, said Gregory A. Smith, associate director of research and head of the domestic religion survey team.

“We don’t see it as our place to cast judgment about who does or doesn’t count as a member of any religious group,” Smith told Baptist News Global.

I appreciate his impartiality.  Still, he's got a tough row to hoe.

Quote

Pew published an article online Thursday explaining how it measures the nation’s religious composition in studies that have become must-reads in churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organizations trying to survive in an increasingly secular age and culture.

Pew said it is regularly questioned by readers about its work, whether it’s tracking the rise of the so-called “nones,” the decline in denominational identity or other issues.

“We get push back,” Smith said.

That’s often true when tracking potentially controversial attitudes and behaviors within faith groups.

Smith used Catholics as an example because they are the focus of his own research. A survey about political beliefs and practices was met with skepticism by some because it included the views of Catholics who do not regularly attend Mass, he said.

“We will often get assertions that, well, they aren’t really Catholics, that the only real Catholics are those who attend Mass once a week or meet some other criteria,” Smith said. “They say Catholics should really be a narrower group in the survey.”

But it doesn’t stop there.

“Others take the opposite position,” he said. “They say anyone baptized Catholic is Catholic, even if that person says they aren’t Catholic.”

All such views are valid, Smith said, but Pew and most other research groups stay out of it by relying on respondents to know what faith tradition they do, or don’t, belong to.

“In many of our reports we rely a great deal on self-identification,” he said. “We take them at their word.”

This is a reasonable approach.  The LDS Church doesn't seem to use it, though, when calculating its membership figures.  As I understand it, the Church relies on baptisms and, barring other information of death, relies on estimated deaths (names are removed from the rolls of the Church 110 years after the baptized person's date of birth).

Both approaches have benefits, and both have drawbacks.  Religious affiliation is at once an objective thing (in the LDS context, baptism makes one a member until the person dies or resigns or is excommunicated), and a subjective thing (self-identification).

Quote

From there, researchers can drill into beliefs and practices.

But the process is further complicated in a society in which many don’t agree with, or know about, the religious categories they might fit into, the Pew article said.

“A key question we ask in many surveys is: ‘What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?’”

Pew said many will answer “something else” to that question. But in follow-on questions they identify as Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal or another tradition. At that point, Pew said, they “are subsequently categorized as Protestants.”

Smith said Pew researchers face the same challenges when surveying those who say they have no faith.

“A large, growing group says they have no religion and self-identify as atheist or agnostic,” he said. “But some of them also say religion is fairly important in their lives, and some say they pray, believe in God or a higher power of some kind.”

Huh.  How does someone "self-identify as atheist" while also professing to "believe in God or a higher power of some kind?"

Quote

And there are those who identify as religious but have a weak attachment to the religious group they identify with, Smith said.

“There are lots of people who say they are Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim who are not particularly religious.”

Diversity of belief and practice and understanding of religion requires researchers to ask a lot of questions.

“It does complicate things,” he said.

Interesting stuff!

Here's a link to the July 5 article referenced above.  Some interesting bits:

Quote

Defining religious categories on the basis of self-identification has a number of benefits, chief among them that this kind of approach makes it possible to describe the diversity of belief and practice that exists within every religious tradition in the U.S. Some religious traditions are composed of people who overwhelmingly profess to believe in the unique teachings of their faith. For example, the Center’s 2011 survey of U.S. Mormons found that 94% of self-described Mormons believe that the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God, and 91% believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith. The same survey found that 82% of Mormons say religion is very important in their lives, and 77% say they attend religious services on at least a weekly basis.

The 91% figure ("91% believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith") seems significant to me.  IIRC, a few weeks ago someone on this board was suggesting that the "Inspired Fiction" theory was being increasingly influential in the Church.  91% seems like a big number, though (but it's based on a survey from 2011, so perhaps things have changed).

Thanks,

-SMac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I appreciate his impartiality.  Still, he's got a tough row to hoe.

This is a reasonable approach.  The LDS Church doesn't seem to use it, though, when calculating its membership figures.  As I understand it, the Church relies on baptisms and, barring other information of death, relies on estimated deaths (names are removed from the rolls of the Church 110 years after the baptized person's date of birth).

Both approaches have benefits, and both have drawbacks.  Religious affiliation is at once an objective thing (in the LDS context, baptism makes one a member until the person dies or resigns or is excommunicated), and a subjective thing (self-identification).

Huh.  How does someone "self-identify as atheist" while also professing to "believe in God or a higher power of some kind?"

Interesting stuff!

Here's a link to the July 5 article referenced above.  Some interesting bits:

The 91% figure ("91% believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith") seems significant to me.  IIRC, a few weeks ago someone on this board was suggesting that the "Inspired Fiction" theory was being increasingly influential in the Church.  91% seems like a big number, though (but it's based on a survey from 2011, so perhaps things have changed).

Thanks,

-SMac

I don't see the "inspired fiction" idea gaining ground at all among members. 91% seems about right. 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see the "inspired fiction" idea gaining ground at all among members. 91% seems about right. 

There are dominant paradigms and minority paradigms.

If you understand paradigms and the nature of religious truth, whichever you choose is pretty much irrelevant if it gives your life purpose and peace.

Neither hypothesis is falisifiable. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are dominant paradigms and minority paradigms.

If you understand paradigms and the nature of religious truth, whichever you choose is pretty much irrelevant if it gives your life purpose and peace.

Neither hypothesis is falisifiable. 

I'm not making a choice between the two, just noting that it sounds about right that an overwhelming majority of Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be a translation of ancient scripture. Smac said he's been hearing that increasing numbers of members are moving to an "inspired fiction" position. I don't see that happening at all, and the 91% figure sounds accurate to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The 91% figure ("91% believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith") seems significant to me.  IIRC, a few weeks ago someone on this board was suggesting that the "Inspired Fiction" theory was being increasingly influential in the Church.  91% seems like a big number, though (but it's based on a survey from 2011, so perhaps things have changed).

Thanks,

-SMac

I think things may have changed a little in the past 7 years, but nothing dramatic.

I think the 91% number is pretty interesting. Sure, it's a high percentage, but that's to be expected among self-identifying Mormons. Still, that leaves nearly 1 out of every 10 self-identifying Mormons who don't believe Joseph translated the BoM from the writings of ancient prophets. That 9% seems like a really high number as well.

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see the "inspired fiction" idea gaining ground at all among members. 91% seems about right. 

I think some sort of revelation would be needed to convince members that the pious fraud was approved by God. Inspired fiction means that the plates were made up and that JS invented other things that God supposedly approved.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Exiled

[mfbukowski]

Here is how Wittgenstein, a VERY religious man who did not know how to define "God" (who does?) saw the nature of religion:

Quote

 

It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it's a belief, it really is a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It's passionately seizing hold of this interpretation. Instruction in a religious faith, therefore would have to take the form of a portrayal, a description, of that system of reference, while at the same time being an appeal to conscience. And this combination would have to result in the pupil himself, of his own accord, passionately taking hold of the system of reference. It would be as though someone were first to let me see the hopelessness of my situation and then showed me the means of rescue until, of my own accord, or not at any rate led to it by my instructor, I ran to it and grasped it.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Value-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0226904350

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not making a choice between the two, just noting that it sounds about right that an overwhelming majority of Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be a translation of ancient scripture. Smac said he's been hearing that increasing numbers of members are moving to an "inspired fiction" position. I don't see that happening at all, and the 91% figure sounds accurate to me.

That's nice.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I think some sort of revelation would be needed to convince members that the pious fraud was approved by God. Inspired fiction means that the plates were made up and other invented things that God supposedly approved.

"pious fraud" is not equal to "inspired fiction"

I don't particularly advocate either position but there are vast differences here.  Starwars might be "inspired fiction" in speaking about "The Force" etc and yet it is clearly not a "pious fraud"

Plus a fraud does not include an "appeal to conscience" as Wittgenstein suggests even in the short quote above.

In secular parlance an "appeal to conscience" can be translated into "Mormon" as "an appeal to the Light of Christ" or "The Spirit".  From reading other sources, it becomes quite clear that he is speaking of what Mormons would call "The Spirit"- a feeling "in the heart"

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think things may have changed a little in the past 7 years, but nothing dramatic.

I think the 91% number is pretty interesting. Sure, it's a high percentage, but that's to be expected among self-identifying Mormons. Still, that leaves nearly 1 out of every 10 self-identifying Mormons who don't believe Joseph translated the BoM from the writings of ancient prophets. That 9% seems like a really high number as well.

Well, not really.  The same survey puts the percentage of Mormons who "believe in God" at 86%, who affirm the "importance of religion in one's life" at 84%, and who believe in "absolute standards for right and wrong" at 57%.

Put another way, there are 11% of Mormons who are only "fairly certain" that they believe in God, and 12% who feel that religion is only "somewhat important" in one's life.  So there seems to be a solid 10% of Mormons who are unsure about some fairly fundamental tenets of our faith.

Moreover, that 9% could consist of members "who don't believe Joseph translated the BoM from the writings of ancient prophets" and people who "don't know."  I couldn't find that question in the survey.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's nice.

Sure.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  The same survey puts the percentage of Mormons who "believe in God" at 86%, who affirm the "importance of religion in one's life" at 84%, and who believe in "absolute standards for right and wrong" at 57%.

These numbers make no sense!  Only 86% of self-described Mormons "believe in God", yet 94% of self-described Mormons believe that the president of the church is a prophet of God, and 91% believe the BoM was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith?  Hmmmm.....

More members believe in the prophet of God then believe in God? 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

These numbers make no sense!  Only 86% of self-described Mormons "believe in God", yet 94% of self-described Mormons believe that the president of the church is a prophet of God, and 91% believe the BoM was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith?  Hmmmm.....

More members believe in the prophet of God then believe in God? 

Maybe Mormons really are a peculiar people.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe Mormons really are a peculiar people.

Looking at the article, it makes more sense now: 

86% believe in God (absolutely certain), 11% believe in God (fairly certain), 2% believe in God (not too/not at all certain), and only < 1% do not believe in God.  

Edited July 6, 2018 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

Looking at the article, it makes more sense now: 

86% believe in God (absolutely certain), 11% believe in God (fairly certain), 2% believe in God (not too/not at all certain), and only < 1% do not believe in God.  

Yes, that makes more sense. 

[pogi]

Wow!  60% of self-described Mormons claim to meditate at least once/week?

That is awesome if it is true.  I find that very hard to believe however.  I think most Mormons are probably defining "meditation" as thinking hard about or mulling over a subject in ones head.

[Exiled]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"pious fraud" is not equal to "inspired fiction"

I don't particularly advocate either position but there are vast differences here.  Starwars might be "inspired fiction" in speaking about "The Force" etc and yet it is clearly not a "pious fraud"

Plus a fraud does not include an "appeal to conscience" as Wittgenstein suggests even in the short quote above.

In secular parlance an "appeal to conscience" can be translated into "Mormon" as "an appeal to the Light of Christ" or "The Spirit".  From reading other sources, it becomes quite clear that he is speaking of what Mormons would call "The Spirit"- a feeling "in the heart"

If "inspired fiction" becomes the accepted view, how does one deal with the plates issue? Joseph Smith claimed he had plates and the witnesses claimed they saw them. Perhaps a "second sight" revival would happen in SLC and material plates would slip back into vision? In any event, I think the plates and their supposed materiality pose a problem with "inspired fiction."

Even so, I think your view of putting spirituality ahead of historical accuracy will eventually win the day. It has to go there in my opinion.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If "inspired fiction" becomes the accepted view, how does one deal with the plates issue?

I think "pious fraud" is one of a few different theories which can collectively be characterized as "Inspired Fiction."  

The plates could be characterized under the "Inspired Fiction" umbrella as A) never existing (mass delusion, God not involved), B) never existing (mass delusion authored by God), C) fabricated as a conscious, deliberate fraud, or C) fabricated as a well-intentioned, "pious" fraud.

None of those seems very appealing.  At all, really.

28 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Joseph Smith claimed he had plates and the witnesses claimed they saw them. Perhaps a "second sight" revival would happen in SLC and material plates would slip back into vision? In any event, I think the plates and their supposed materiality pose a problem with "inspired fiction."

I agree, but not everyone does.  Some people can accommodate the idea of God inspiring Joseph Smith to fabricate a physical artifact (the Plates) and then pass it off as being of ancient derivation.

We discussed that quite a bit last year: "Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

28 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Even so, I think your view of putting spirituality ahead of historical accuracy will eventually win the day. It has to go there in my opinion.

I agree.  I think the two are compatible, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If "inspired fiction" becomes the accepted view, how does one deal with the plates issue? Joseph Smith claimed he had plates and the witnesses claimed they saw them. Perhaps a "second sight" revival would happen in SLC and material plates would slip back into vision? In any event, I think the plates and their supposed materiality pose a problem with "inspired fiction."

Even so, I think your view of putting spirituality ahead of historical accuracy will eventually win the day. It has to go there in my opinion.

Even if there were physical plates, couldn't they also be a catalyst for inspired fiction, similar to the scrolls and the Book of Abraham?

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if there were physical plates, couldn't they also be a catalyst for inspired fiction, similar to the scrolls and the Book of Abraham?

That is one way to look at it, but that would require the angel Moroni (a Book of Mormon prophet) whom Joseph claimed to have appear to him, to be a matter of fiction as well. 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  How does someone "self-identify as atheist" while also professing to "believe in God or a higher power of some kind?"

I think the study shows the key is to keep asking follow-up questions.  And with enough questions I'll bet I could get just about everyone to acknowledge they believe in God.

Lots of people start out with the premise that God is a loaded word and that word must agree with everyone's definition of what God is, for example.  But that's really not necessary.  Or if it is the ground floor is pretty basic so that most everyone would agree.

The most supreme kind of being in all of existence, basically.  How each person defines what makes that kind of being the best, and which kind of being that is, is pretty much all up to each one of us.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ahab

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Wow!  60% of self-described Mormons claim to meditate at least once/week?

That is awesome if it is true.  I find that very hard to believe however.  I think most Mormons are probably defining "meditation" as thinking hard about or mulling over a subject in ones head.

Oh so now we have to worry about agreeing with your definition of what it means to meditate before we can say we meditate, huh.  How typical.

Personally, I'm fine with each person self-identifying whether or not they think they are meditating without having to call the meditation police squad to make sure everyone agrees with that one definition that you like the very best.

Meditation to me is medication for my mind.  Take a deep breath.  Relax.  Feel the power of God.  Think about things while feeling at peace.  Rinse and repeat.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ahab

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not making a choice between the two, just noting that it sounds about right that an overwhelming majority of Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be a translation of ancient scripture. Smac said he's been hearing that increasing numbers of members are moving to an "inspired fiction" position. I don't see that happening at all, and the 91% figure sounds accurate to me.

I agree with you. I know some have moved that way, but I don't think that many. I'd estimate there'd have been far more in the 1960's than now. Recall that Armand Mauss's studies from that era in San Francisco (this was before the rise of counter-culture) that less than 65% of members believed Jesus was divine and less than 60% thought Joseph saw God. (Which makes one wonder why they bothered self-identifying but this was also common for liberal Christianity in general) His numbers for Salt Lake City were higher (85% and 78%) but still quite low by today's standards. Today even Jana Riess' Next Mormon Survey didn't find historicity questions as really that significant. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think the study shows the key is to keep asking follow-up questions.  And with enough questions I'll bet I could get just about everyone to acknowledge they believe in God.

Lots of people start out with the premise that God is a loaded word and that word must agree with everyone's definition of what God is, for example.  But that's really not necessary.  Or if it is the ground floor is pretty basic so that most everyone would agree.

The most supreme kind of being in all of existence, basically.  How each person defines what makes that kind of being the best, and which kind of being that is, is pretty much all up to each one of us.

I think a lot of atheists/scientists would be confused at the concept of a "supreme" being.  They would argue that each species is supreme in their own evolutionary way, and in their own environmental niche.  If by supreme, you mean the longest surviving organism on earth, then many would argue that Cyanobacteria is supreme.  But no scientist would identify Cyanobacteria as God, even with your attempt to force that definition of God on them.  They would just look at you weird.   

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Wow!  60% of self-described Mormons claim to meditate at least once/week?

That is awesome if it is true.  I find that very hard to believe however.  I think most Mormons are probably defining "meditation" as thinking hard about or mulling over a subject in ones head.

It's a pretty vague notion and an ambiguous term. The word was used well before the influx of Buddhist styled meditation practices or similar western ones like say Kabbalistic inspired ones. You'd have to get specific about whether people treat meditation as thought or the more Buddhist style of trying not to think, doing breathing exercises (also common in western meditation/mysticism) or mindfulness. I've done Zen styled meditation and there's a surprisingly number of members who have (although I don't anymore). That said I think a lot of people do try to quiet themselves to listen to God rather than just asking questions when praying. Whether that counts as meditation or not is tricky.