- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Came across this article below and wondered what everyone thought. The article cites a survey in which active and less active people were surveyed about the extent to which the excommunications of people like Bill Reel and others recently hurt church membership in the long run. A significant number of people said they were concerned about it….which the article extrapolates to mean this single issue could contribute to less activity among existing members. https://religionnews.com/2018/11/30/high-profile-excommunications-may-harm-mormon-retention-rates-in-the-long-run/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://religionnews.com/2018/11/30/high-profile-excommunications-may-harm-mormon-retention-rates-in-the-long-run/ Thoughts?
I couldn’t find the definition of “troubled” to know for sure what they mean. If they are asking people if they are troubled by high profile individuals being excommunicated…is that related to long run membership, or just troubling to see difficult situations being handled? It is also important to note they are not talking about all excommunications. There are justifiable reasons for boundary maintenance. It’s the issues around “activists, intellectuals, and feminists” that is being asked about.
I wonder how many of these excommunications are relative to all of them…how impactful is this population of discipline actions?
I think it would depend how close people feel to the person being excommunicated, as well as their cause. Sam Young’s excommunication was harder for me, because of all the child sex-abuse cases, and because of my personal disagreement with Church policy. He made a difference, and I really appreciate him for it. Bill Reel’s wasn’t so hard, mostly because many of his gripes with the Church, while I feel much the same way, I am tired of. While I can never be all in because of them, I’ve had to accept that the Church will probably never change in those ways, and have grown to accept it. I can disagree; Church services will often still make me squirm. But I can co-exist. Unfortunately, I don’t think Bill could. Membership activity has taken a huge hit, make no mistake. But I think these “high-profile” excommunications really aren’t contributing to it much at all. If you’re living outside of Utah, you probably have no idea who any of these people are, or what they stood for.
I heard the ruling on Gina Colvin’s disciplinary council was “no action required.” Here’s the part where I point out a loophole. Disciplinary councils are a local matter, right? There’s been some insinuation that top leaders lean on local leaders to hold disciplinary councils and there are cases where the church handbook of instructions says that a disciplinary council is
requiredbut in both cases the outcome of the council is not dictated. If top leaders really do lean on local leadership, there’s probably pressure to issue a specific ruling but the point is that if you don’t like a policy that requires a council be held you hold council to fulfill the obligation, then rule no action. It’s hard for me to say. I agree with dande48, it depends on how well people identify with the person being excommunicated. I think excommunication specifically over apostasy is the issue we’re talking about. On one hand I feel excommunication over apostasy shrinks the tent, makes people feel like there is and only ever will be one approved mold to fit into at church. On the other hand… I could disagree with people all I wanted to and not believe whatever aspect of Mormonism I don’t want to believe and I doubt it would land me in a disciplinary council.
I think the difference is how far you go in promoting a position that’s against the church’s position. I think you start getting in trouble once you become obstinate in your approach. Like once you cross that threshold where you’re 25% as obstinate as the church culture itself, then you’re in trouble.
No one likes a mirror.
:angel: :angel: nibbler wrote:
Here’s the part where I point out a loophole. Disciplinary councils are a local matter, right? There’s been some insinuation that top leaders lean on local leaders to hold disciplinary councils and there are cases where the church handbook of instructions says that a disciplinary council isrequiredbut in both cases the outcome of the council is not dictated. If top leaders really do lean on local leadership, there’s probably pressure to issue a specific ruling but the point is that if you don’t like a policy that requires a council be held you hold council to fulfill the obligation, then rule no action.
I think this definitely is a “loophole”. I think, like we were talking about with Bill Reel in the other thread, this is one of the ways the top Church leadership can get away with “well, technically…”. I have no doubt with the more prominent and vocal “apostates” there is some pretty strong pressure. And while a specific ruling isn’t a foregone conclusion, I’m sure there is some pretty strong pressure. If a man you believe is called of God, tells you that you are also called of God and puts you in a place of stewardship, and then later tells you to “get your house in order”, you wouldn’t want to disappoint him, would you? The accused would have to be pretty innocent for you to openly disagree with your superiors.
In my neck of the woods no one knows about the excommunications. We are far enough away for it to not hit the radar screen. I believe it will have done to some extent but most members have never heard of Bill Reel etc. I wouldn’t know of him except from this board. mom3 wrote:
In my neck of the woods no one knows about the excommunications. We are far enough away for it to not hit the radar screen.
No one’s talking about it here either. The gay announcement was the last major upset that way.
You can be troubled by excommunications in a number of ways. For example, troubled because of the impact on the person’s salvation, troubled that the punishment had to occur, even if you agree with it. The latter meaning is much like how parents feel when they have to discipline their children. They don’t like withholding privileges, but sometimes, it’s necessary. But you feel troubled that you had to impose such discipline. There are excomms and excomms. You have the Bill Reel variety which is a conscience thing, Hamula ones which are high profile and then you have people who unquestionably deserve to be kicked out for doing criminal acts. One issue that I see with our modern culture is that although we are very analytics driven, the sources for our analytics are usually taken as fully accurate without questioning (I read that on the internet). Specifically with surveys and results, I see stuff like this all the time where when you read the analysis, but then look closely at the way the survey was presented, it can seem like there was a lot of artistic license in interpreting how people might have responded. Worse, yet, there can be a clear bias in the questions themselves. Both are true (IMO) in this case.
For starters, let’s understand that this survey is the brainchild of two individuals, both of whom are likely a lot closer to us in thought than they are to RMN. They have a world-view and it seems to me that their survey questions and analysis seem to bolster their own world-view (surprising?)
Here is the section of the survey asking how troubled respondents are on a series of topics. Respondents are supposed to answer one of the following:
1 Very troubling
2 A little troubling
3 Not at all troubling
Quote:
Below is a list of things that some Mormons (or those who were Mormon at one point in theirlives) feel are troubling to some extent. Please indicate whether each of these issues is very
troubling, a little troubling, or not at all troubling to you.
– Joseph Smith’s polygamy (sealing himself to more than one woman)
-Joseph Smith’s polyandry (sealing himself to women who were already married)
-The use of seer stones in translating the Book of Mormon
-DNA evidence that Native Americans do not have Middle Eastern ancestry
-Multiple and somewhat conflicting accounts of the First Vision
– Denial of priesthood and temple access to members of African descent before
1978
– The Church’s positions on LGBT issues
-The priesthood being reserved only for men in the Church
-The Church’s emphasis on conformity and obedience
-The Church’s strong culture of political conservatism
-Lack of financial transparency with tithing, donations, and spending
-The Church’s teachings about deification (becoming like God)
-Excommunications of feminists, intellectuals, and activists
-Church teachings and practices changing over time away from how they were
originally organized under Joseph Smith
OK, so now the issues:This section starts with an assertion that others are troubled by these things. This is pretty leading, IMO.
The wording of these questions utilizes the vernacular of the disaffected. For example, let’s look at the question on Church funds. How many times have you heard a fully-faithful, all-in member of the Church talk about the Church’s “lack of financial transparency”? That’s an accusation pretending to be a question. The question should, instead, have been written as something like: “How the Church communicates its use of tithing, donations, and spending”.
The question regarding “LGBT issues” could have been broken into smaller parts. One issue is no SSM in Church. Another is the Church’s opposition to SSM outside of the Church. Another is the November Policy. Another is the attitude within the Church culture toward the LGBT community. The question is so vague that it wouldn’t be hard to find something troubling for just about anyone.
And to the point of the specific question that started this thread. “Feminists, intellectuals, and activists”. Again, these are terms we might use, but are not used in the Church. I dispute that the Church (today) excommunicates feminists or intellectuals. The Church excommunicates activists who are specifically engaged in activism against the Church (or its policies). Some of them are also feminists, some are also intellectuals, some are both. Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean that vegetarians are bad people. KK is a feminist and an activist who was ex’ed over her activism, but that doesn’t mean the Church excommunicates feminists. I know more than one feminist who has served as RS Pres, I bet most of us do.
Now to the analysis. Respondents got to chose from three choices. Two of them are extremes: “Very troubling” or “Not at all troubling”. That leaves a vast middle area called “Somewhat troubling”. It would be very easy to be at least “somewhat troubled” by any of these if your only more positive response is “not at all”. In fact, if I were to draw a line graph of these three, honestly, I would probably put “somewhat troubling” much closer to “not at all troubling” than I would to the other extreme.
Then, in reporting the data, tricks are used. The most important trick is to refer to anyone who did not respond “not at all troubled” as being in the “troubled” bucket. For example, “Among those who are active and attend church at least weekly, 50% are troubled.” In other words, we asked three levels, and and we get to count two of them in our favor.
Another trick lies in how the data is presented. “Nearly three in five Mormons (57%) say that they are very troubled (26%) or somewhat troubled (31%) by these excommunications.” Interesting that the very troubled are listed first, even though they are in the minority. The surveyors do not seem to have made the raw data available… you have to read their interpretation. Without the raw data, we have to guess a little. If we assume that roughly 10% didn’t answer this question, then the breakdown would be 33% said not at all troubled, 31% said somewhat troubled, and 26% said very troubled. But the analysis makes a big deal of the “nearly three in five Mormons (57%) say that [and insert the very troubled component first].”
I’m not saying there aren’t people who are troubled. Heck, I’m one who is. I just find it so frustrating the way our thoughts are constantly manipulated by people masquerading as impartial and objective.
OON beat me to what I was going to say analytically. I am a former teacher. I also have written analytical studies and conducted surveys. The underlying bias of the creators of this one oozes out of the entire thing.
There are some good analyses that could be done, but the actual analysis isn’t one of them.
Also, just to say it, who here thinks there wasn’t a sample / selection bias right from the beginning? Just saying.
Just like with most things, we find evidence to support what we already believe, rather than change what we believe to support the evidence. Yep. I’m with OON on this. For me, the first red flag was that the authors interpreted “troubled” as meaning “bad for retention.” I’m not sure they were intentionally manipulating anyone, though. It’s very easy to write leading questions simply by writing from your own point of view.
As I read the survey questions, I can’t accept the data. “Troubled” is too vague. Questions need to be to the extent two people agree with the excommunication/disciplinary council policy, the extent to which the policy prompts them to lessen their activity or involvement in the church, etcetera. And of course, the nature of the excommunication would have an impact. Would as many people disagree with the excommunication of someone who murdered an innocent ward member in cold blood, compared to the excommunication of someone who simply disagreed with policy or sought social change within the church?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.