Women in committed relationships ditch their slutty friends..
An interesting point–counterpoint on whether Mormons count as Christian. I tend to agree more with Goldberg on the issue (I mean that in no way as an insult), though I thought the Economist made some good points. Good enough that – in combination of the BoM itself – it sits as a matter of perspective to me.
Speaking of Mormons, it seems a bit ironic that two of the more moderate candidates in the GOP primary are Mormons, coming from a religion that votes 90% Republican. Timothy Stanley makes the case that Mormonism actually moderates their politics. I’m not sure I agree, though it is fair to say that Mormons are not particularly conservative from an economic standpoint and it is those issues at the forefront right now.
Should people be able to take smart drugs if they choose to? I lean towards yes, but am open to being convinced otherwise.
Why movies are in the TV business. The studio revenue chart is interesting. And a little depressing, seeing as how it actually does make sense for American movies to de-Americanize their products (“GI Joe… International Heroes!”) for foreign sales. It’s sort of like finding out that “cooling off a kicker” in football actually works.
I think Jobs has been dead long enough that we can speak ill of him, now.
Austin is exploring photo parking ticket snitchery. Take a picture, send it in, get somebody a ticket. As long as people aren’t being paid to do it, I don’t mind all that much. Houston, meanwhile, is going to be launching unmanned drones that might have weapons. What could go wrong?
If this isn’t prole drift, I don’t know what is. So what? The notion that “tattoos are not really the taboo they used to be” is part of the problem.
How northern transplants are ruining southern manners.
About the Author
9 Responses to Linkluster Sedamdeset Sedam
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
Goldberg: “Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me that in his view, most Mormons are “socially and culturally Christian,” but theologically they are a thing apart.”
“Socially and culturally Christian” sounds about right to me. It allows us to ally with Mormons without compromising on the doctrinal issues.
Stanley: ” For many who are raised Mormon but who “live in the world,” Mormonism is less a religion than it is an ethnicity. They might still avoid drugs or attend temple once in a while, but they don’t necessarily subscribe to their faith in the strict way their parents did.”
Kinda like Catholicism. I wonder how it will work out?
Does anybody have stats on how Mormon rates of youth retention stack up against those of other denominations?
That paragraph jumped out at me, mostly because it did not correspond with my observations much at all. There are certainly some similarities between the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, but they’re pretty far apart in their approach to C&E types.
Regarding the drones: this is the second technology developed for the SWA theater that for better or (more likely) worse will be deployed against American citizens. The other was the ISR balloon.
Dreher: “For the kid to stop saying “sir” to his professor would require him to pretty much violate his conscience. It would at least be an emotionally difficult thing for him to do.”
For my entire adult life, I have been urged by no end of cultural northerns to drop the “sir”. (Not so much about “ma’am”.) It was impossible. Although I have made progress, since turning forty, in addressing people by their first names.
It looks like my observations may be off-base. According to the SLT:
And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday, researchers say.
I think at least part of that might be explained by looking at it worldwide. I’ve heard that it’s often the case that foreign converts lapse pretty quickly when the missionaries leave. Even so, considering how much of their membership is in the US, I find that tidbit surprising. The LDS’s approach is a lot more… demanding… than the Catholic Church’s. And I got the impression that no-showing would be a lot more likely to be noticed.
“Manners” mean different things to different people.
Stanley’s article has to be one of the worst researched pieces of Mormonism I’ve ever read. (And that’s saying something!) Not only does he fail to grasp the complexity of LDS politics and beliefs, he doesn’t have a clue when it comes to life in Utah.
Example 1: “Salt Lake City now offers people a place to escape the rigors of LDS life. Women can get a job, men can get a drink.” LMAO. This coming from the author who chides readers from “lazily categorizing” Mormons as radical conservatives in the second paragraph of his article.
Example 2: “Overtime, the LDS Church realized the profitability of Mollywood and took over censorship and distribution.” Stanely had no clue what he’s talking about here. 1) Mollywood isn’t very profitable. 2) They never took over the censorship and distribution. The only say they have is what is or is not sold in Deseret Book stores. They aren’t in the Mollywood business.
Example 3: “They might still avoid drugs or attend temple once in a while, but they don’t necessarily subscribe to their faith in the strict way their parents did.” This shows the writer’s absolute ignorance of what it actually means to be Mormon. Temple worship is the apex of what it means to be Mormon. It’s very hard to attend the temple even on a semi-regular basis and not take the faith seriously. It takes too much work just to get in there.
Me thinks the author could benefit from a month in Utah (outside of SLC, of course 🙂 ) and really learn what it takes to be Mormon.
And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday, researchers say.
The article is correct that the activity or retention rate varies from place to place but the categories he uses are too broad. Activity rates can vary dramatically from city to city–even within Utah. My own personal experience says the number is higher than 1/3–but I’m looking at it more than simply having butts in the seats. Probably around 50% activity for a world-wide would be more accurate. Activity rates also tend to be higher where there’s more members and building and lower where the church doesn’t have much of a presence.
Until recenlty I held a calling in the church where part of my duties was to count the number of people in attendance at the opening meeting. Without fail the activity rate every week was between 60-70%. However, some weeks families were on vacation, attending another LDS ward for the week, or at home sick. The actually “activity rate” (read: people who come to church as often as possible) was probably 80-85%. It was just that no everyone showed up at the same time week after week.
When I lived in Bulgaria, the activity rate week after week was probably 15-20%. Yes, lots of members would stop going once their favorite missionary went home or they simply lost interest or decided they couldn’t live with all the rules of the chruch. However, meetinghouses were few and far between outside of Sofia. Getting to church was time consuming and/or expensive even within the city, many people only attended once a month or so. (One area of Sofia I lived in required an hour of travel or more just to get to the meetinghouse.) Other members lived in remote villages making weekly church service next to impossible. (The only contact they had with the church were monthly visits from the missionaries.) The actual activity rate was probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40% if you looked at people who were living the faith and tried to make it to church as often as possible.
So, if you’re just looking at seats filled weekly the number could very well be in the neighborhood of 1/3 world-wide. However, that doesn’t take into account that there are lot of what I’d consider “active” members who simply don’t show up for the week for various reasons.