I have to admit that I’ve never heard of this (positive correlation between education and Mormon religiosity) before tonight. I accept the finding, though it frankly surprises me. I should point out that your study was conducted by two BYU professors and occurred in 1984. However, I also accept that the only sociologists interested in studying Mormons are probably Mormons themselves, so I don’t think that casts any doubt on the study (one of the authors is now President of Utah State University). I would be VERY interested to know if this correlation has changed with the advent of the internet and easily accessible info about the church.
I was thinking along those lines while reading dangermom’s post, but you beat me to it.
I’ve hear this fact before, and it doesn’t impress me. I was in Tokyo when the Aum cultunleashed the sarin gas attacks on the subways here. One of their sales points was the they attracted highly intelligent people
Also, as I pointed out above, even highly intelligent people are not above fooling themselves. If you aren’t going to seriously exam something, it doesn’t matter your power of reasoning.
(“you” being the general “you,” not specially calling out dangermom)
Just wanted to add…
The final destination of a missionary also depends on their general health. If there is a health issue (asthma comes to mind) the missionary has a very good chance of staying in the US (or whatever home country), at least if I heard correctly! I have quite a few Mormon friends (including one on a mission), so I’ve heard a few things about that.
It also seems to be up to the luck of the draw 
Wow, the Orson Pratt thing just made me think of a completely sideways Mormon-ish question: What about…Orson Scott Card? He is (was?) Mormon and I love the deeply compassionate, humanistic flavor of his books, which I always assumed was at least partly informed by his religious upbringing.
My favorite OSC book, “Lovelock,” was co-authored with Kathryn Kidd in 1994, and was supposed to be book #1 in a trilogy. Since then I have eagerly awaited the remaining books, yet AFAIK they have yet to appear.
Because I am an evil, cynical person, I have theorized that the, um, “co-authorship” thing became too hot and heavy, and therefore both OSC and KK backed off, due to either their own sense of propriety, unhappy spouses, or a heavy-handed church hierarchy. Note: I have exactly ZERO evidence to support any version of this theory. It’s only the product of my corrupt mind and is probably laughably wrong.
Do Mormons know more about this than the rest of us? Because I WANT MY SEQUELS TO LOVELOCK.
Orson Scott Card is indeed still a hardcore Mormon and runs his own Mormon-themed website and forum called Nauvoo.com. The general consensus about OSC is that he has gradually lost his damn mind and now just prints increasingly offensive anti-gay screeds. He still writes his SF books too, but as I’ve only read Ender’s Game, I can’t comment if the quality of his fiction has suffered a similar decrease in quality.
Unrelated to Mormonism, but I also hate it when the subsequent books in a series aren’t released, especially when it’s obvious that the other books have been written, but are just sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere.
Thank you Erdosain. I’m so depressed to hear that, but at least my ignorance is fought. (And I haven’t read anything of his in a long time, so I wouldn’t have noticed if his writing ability is disintegrating.)
It doesn’t look like any Lovelock sequels are happening. Kathryn Kidd was a mod on an LDS MB I frequented several years ago–she’s a great, fun person and I love her–and I sort of gather that it just never got off the ground. Don’t know why, but knowing KK I think your theory is, indeed, laughably wrong. She and her husband have written a series of LDS books in the vein of the Dummies series–I have the food storage one and it’s my favorite book about food storage.
Sorry, but everyone is out of luck regarding Lovelock. OSC hasn’t produced much in a few years, I don’t think, a few Ender short stories is all that I know of.
I was wondering about the becoming God and creating a planet. Husband and wife get a planet and populate it with their children. What does that mean for the children, do they not get their own planet? What is the goal, to be a child on your parent’s planet or to get your own planet with your own children?
If our world follows that same ideal, where our God was originally a guy who lived a good life on another world (and we are his planet and his spirit children) than where’s his wife? I thought in order to get a planet, it was husband + wife + children?
Sigh. He’s written one or two essays on same-sex marriage. The screeds I’ve seen have been deranged gay-activist fans angered by finding out his stance against same-sex marriage.
Sigh yourself. The essays and editorials Card has written are deranged, but of course, they fully reflect the proper LDS Worldview, so devout LDS members will probably find them reasonable.
Here he advocates that everybody who hates gays go on strike–retire from the military and government, stop working at newspapers, bring the country to its knees to show the gays who’s boss. The entire essay absolutely drips with disdain. Card is a talented writer–it’s not a mistake or a coincidence that you can practically feel his disgust for gays, civil rights activists, judges, liberals, Californians…
Oh, my favorite thing about that essay is this
Then there’s an essay entitled Hypocrites of Homosexuality. Read it here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most LDS members didn’t understand why that is so offensive, disgusting and hurtful, since like I said already, Card is doing nothing more than reflecting how the church and the majority of its members feel about their Brethren. That’s the part that kills me the most. Of course, Card, and the rest of the Mormons, are absolutely invested in the notion that homosexuality is a choice. They have to be. If they aren’t, then they have to deal with the fact that either God made a mistake (creating children in His Image who apparently cannot reach the highest kingdoms of Heaven) or God knew exactly what he was doing, and the people who discriminate against gays and lesbians are, in fact, hateful bigots who sin against God by their inability to love and respect all His children.
Sex exists in Heaven, and people who earn a planet are going to be having a lot of it. I was always told that a Heavenly Mother exists, but God didn’t want her to be part of the whole revelation/religion thing because he didn’t want her to be disrespected or something. You know, gotta keep the little woman at home, where she belongs!
It’s unbelievably ironic to me to read his essays on the sanctity of marriage. Card is a descendant of Brigham Young through a polygamous wife and two of his direct ancestresses (including Young’s wife, Zina) were married to Joseph Smith as well. Both were married to other men when Smith ‘proposed’. Another of his ancestresses was a plural wife of Heber Kimball (though he’s a descendant of an earlier husband).
Ancestry is a trivial matter in most cases- I’m a descendant of several Confederate soldiers but it doesn’t mean I think slavery, feudalism or attacking an incomparably better armed much larger foe were good ideas- but because he still holds their teachings as sacred and uses his religion to argue against such a change as gay marriage, I find it relevant.
I think these are VERY relevant points. The game has completely changed in the last ten years.
Also: I hate it when people change the question, but I’m going to do it anyway. 
This may be true of people who are already Mormon, but I seriously doubt that it is the rule for those who join the church. My own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence from having close family members on missions in the US and Canada over the last decade suggests that most of the new converts are poorly educated immigrants with only a passable grip on the English language (even if the go to the Internet, most of the non-Mormon information is in English, so…). And this isn’t in East LA; we’re talking about places like Cincinnati and Toronto. Of course there will be exceptions to this, but there you go. If there were droves of fully-grown academics coming into the church, you may have something here, but it just doesn’t seem to be the case.
In fairness, I don’t think this was ever official doctrine in the same way as, say, baptism or priesthood authority or polygamy. It was (and remains) a widely-held belief among Mormons - after all, Joseph Smith asserted that it was the case - but that doesn’t necessarily constitute a doctrine. It’s kind of like the “Mary Magdalene was a prostitute” belief that so many people buy into.
Card is a nut, and not a harmless one. But I don’t think you can paint all Mormons with the same brushstroke. There are many, many Mormons who would approve of Card’s characterization of homosexuality and the gay marriage debate, but how is this unique to Mormonism? From my experience, the Evangelicals I know are far more venomous toward gay people than the Mormons I know.
Mormons, even devout ones, exist across the entire spectrum of thought on this issue.
Sure there are some Mormons who don’t treat homosexuals like second-class citizens, who don’t dedicate time and man-hours to violating their civil rights, who don’t excommunicate young men and women for being gay, who don’t abandon their children and friends when they come out of the closet–I’d guess the number is relatively small though, when it comes to the devout. Yeah, it sets me off. I’m surrounded by lying liars and the lies they tell, and for the most part, I don’t mind. But on this issue? I mind. I mind a lot. I’m really, really, really getting tired of the disingenuous arguments presented by LDS members. For example, arguing that the Church is in favor of domestic partnerships when it demonstratively is not. Or that Card had a few essays against gay marriage, but not “anti-gay” screeds, when the essays are demonstratively anti-gay screeds. I’m tired of people coming back with arguments of “We’re not all this way!” Talk is very, very cheap, especially coming from people who still fully support the leadership with their faith and their tithes. The leadership of the Church has made it very, very clear how they feel about homosexuality–it’s a sin, it’s a choice. Yes, “love the sinner, hate the sin” sounds good in theory, but being gay isn’t a choice, and it’s not a sin, and the part that sticks is the hate.
And this thread is not about all Evangelicals. It’s about Mormons. So it’s reasonable to ask about and discuss a long-term strategy to stop gay marriage in states across the union. And not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of dollars being poured into Hawaii and California to interfere with state laws and constitutions. I don’t have ties to Evangelicals or Catholics. I can’t speak about what they are or aren’t doing. I can, however, do something when I see something that is either a right-out lie, or a very clever half-truth.
When you believe that the head of the church is a Prophet of God, when you believe in on-going revelation from God the Father, then you are pretty much bound to follow the Prophet’s lead. Gordon B. Hinkley signed off on the strategy to oppress homosexuals, and Thomas S. Monson is continuing his work, and Orson Scott Card is not some crackpot on the fringes of the Church. He is a very important thinker and writer, and his beliefs about gays are reflective of the Church as a whole. If LDS members don’t want to be called homophobes and be painted with the brush of bigotry, then they should do something about it. In the meantime, I feel comfortable calling a spade a spade.
Those were essays I’m familiar with, and I disagree with your analysis. Here’s the first essay of his on the topic I’m familiar with, The Marriage of True Minds.
The deranged article about Card I remember best is here (on Salon of course).
I know you disagree with my analysis. I said as much in my response to you. The Marriage of True Minds article is nothing but a slippery-slope argument. It’s not impressive or persuasive. It’s ridiculous. And it is offensive. Gays can’t have a real marriage. It’s a choice to be gay. If gays dare to stand up for themselves, they are calling heterosexual names and taking away their rights.
I wish there was a “blinking with confusion” smilie. Are you being ironic? Are you using a definition of the word deranged that I don’t know? The most damning thing from that article comes from Card himself.
The man is a homophobe. He can protest all he wants. You can protest all you want. You can try to justify it, try to explain it, try to dismiss it, but there’s no getting away from the man’s own words. He is a bigot. He reflects the bigoted beliefs and homophobia of the Church. Why not just embrace it? I’d have more respect for the Church and the members if they gave up the charade and just said, “Yes, we hate and loathe fags.”
But maybe I’m being unreasonable. I’m not objective on this issue. I feel very deeply about it. So let me extend these questions to Mormons in this thread and ex-Mormons, as well.
Do you agree that homosexuals are a result of “disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse”, and they long to leave the homosexual lifestyle for “normal lives”? Do you further agree that homosexuals are trapped in an adolescent sexuality? And finally, can you think of anything more ridiculous than gay rights?
The word homophobe is political, and of no particular value IMO. I reject your definition of it, and I find your analysis of his writing silly, quite frankly. If you want to go off on that topic, I’m not going to address it further in this thread. My point that a few essays and (yes) deranged interviewers doesn’t a consensus make (as Erdosain asserted).
I wish I could say that I’m surprised by your refusal to answer a simple question (Do you agree or disagree with Card’s assertion of what a homosexual is?). Hell, I wish I could say that I’m surprised you refuse to use a word with a common, well-known meaning. Of course, “homophobe” is a politicized word. Thanks, in part, to the LDS Church, entrenched, institutional homophobia is a politicized issue.
But thank you for providing an object lesson for people who don’t have to deal with Mormons on a daily basis. Now people who are curious about what it’s like to live with Mormons, day in and day out, don’t have to wonder any more! Arguments are dismissed as “silly” without the least bit effort to engage in a discussion. Words are meaningless and don’t deserve to be addressed if they’re political (that is, “worldly”. And we’ve always been at war with Oceania). And an important thinker and writer in the LDS Church, a man who wrote a book that’s probably in every devout, Mormon home, can write some genuinely ugly and offensive things about homosexuals, and it’s presented as something reasonable and right thinking.
You want to know how intelligent members of the church can believe ridiculous things? The same way emarkp can apparently post with a straight face that Card wrote some essays where he happens to disagree with gay marriage.