quote:By a large margin, Utah produces more scientists per capita than any other state. 75% of scientists from Utah are Latter-day Saints (while only 70% of the general population are Latter-day Saints). Utah scientists are primarily physical scientists, mostly physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc. 83% of the Latter-day Saint scientists surveyed express strong belief in their church and in Christianity.
The statistics cited do not prove the first sentence; they prove that in Utah LDS members become scientists more often than non LDS members. I tried to check the source to see if the relevant statistics were just left off, but the source appears to be gone or there's a typo in the URL or such, I got a 404.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:The divorce rates for Latter-day Saints who marry in the temple are 5.4 percent for men and 6.5 percent for women
My stars.
quote:Salt Lake City has long been ranked number one among U.S. cities in Jell-O consumption (partially because of frequent use at church socials), but in 1999 Salt Lake fell to second place, behind Des Moines, Iowa. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune reported: "It was a finding so startling even the folks at Kraft scoffed at first. Then they re-ran the numbers, just to make sure. 'We were surprised because, historically, Salt Lake has always been the largest consumer of Jell-O and Jell-O brand products... Des Moines used to be in the last 10 markets.' Salt Lake is now No. 2 for Jell-O gelatin consumption per capita, with sales at 4.4 million boxes annually -- or 100,000 fewer boxes than in preceding years."
Hee.
[ January 26, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Yeah, fugu, I noticed that the statement and statistics were two different things too. To prove the statement, we need to find out how many scientists per 1000 people are produced in Utah as compared to other states.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Probably some ward in Des Moines came up with a cookbook devoted to Jello.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and typo here:
quote:Utah also has the lowest Utah has the lowest child poverty rate in the county.
The statistic about divorces is wrong. That's not the percentage that are divorced, that's the rate which are divorced religiously. The actual percentage is likely more like 13%, as suggested in the quote afterwards -- still good ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm ). Saying 6% is the divorce rate is incorrect, that is the percent which are later divorced in the temple, the divorce rate (which includes civil divorces) is higher.
Yes, there are many interesting statistics there, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The divorce rates for Latter-day Saints who marry in the temple are 5.4 percent for men and 6.5 percent for women
Shouldn't those numbers be closer together?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, they should be exactly the same, which should underscore how problematic the statistics are.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
fugu: Mormon Metaphysics has the best summary I have seen of the whole Mormon scientists thing. It includes links to the original study, a counter claim, and a rebuttal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I don't really doubt the statistic, or at least the possibility of it, I was just noting it wasn't shored up in the text in question as well as the others generally are.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is why, like fugu said, they probably refer to temple divorce as opposed to civil divorce.
In the case of temple divorce, it must be requested and the request goes through higher lines of authority than the stake or ward, if I understand correctly. It must occur before one can be married in the temple again, and the spouse must give permission in order for it to occur, unless the spouse is being purposefully contentious or is unworthy. People generally do not request a temple divorce unless they marry someone else in the temple.
From what I understand, anyway. Those statistics may be refering only to the individuals who requested the temple divorce and not those who actually recieved it.
There is also the possibility that men who were divorced in the temple do not recognize said divorce and consider themselves still sealed to the woman. These men would likely be highly authoritarian and probably abusive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nod* I just think it would be good were it made clearer in the text that this was temple divorces . . . something along the lines of "Of LDS members sealed in the temple, ____ were later divorced in the temple. While this does not include civil divorces, that statistic is also quite low, as seen in . . . [lead into 13% study]".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The divorce rates for Latter-day Saints who marry in the temple are 5.4 percent for men and 6.5 percent for women
If it's possible to remarry in the temple, then this is possible.
The statistic is not the percentage of temple marriages that end in divorce, but the percentage of people who have had both a temple marriage and a divorce.
If Man A marries Woman X in the temple, divorces her, and then marries Woman Y in the temple and divorves her, you can see how more women than men have had temple divorces in this mythical population. The principal will work in far larger populations as well.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There sure are a lot of Mormons who do similiar things to one another. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
*squints at Dag's post*
Wouldn't your example make the man have a higher divorce rate? I mean I get that probably more women than men request a Temple divorce, and get it, as Amka explained. It does seem misleading as written, though.
The Jell-O statistic is quite shocking. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Bobandana have been stocking up for the wedding dinner.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wouldn't your example make the man have a higher divorce rate? I mean I get that probably more women than men request a Temple divorce, and get it, as Amka explained. It does seem misleading as written, though.
Nope - because you're not measuring individual divorce rates. The variable being measured is whether this person has ever had a temple marriage and a divorce. He entered that category when he divorced Woman X. His divorce from Woman Y does not change his categorization.
Dagonee
[ January 26, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Couldn't the different divorce rate just mean that women who intermarry are more likely to get divorced than men who intermarry?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Also, I don't think a divorced man HAS to have a cancellation of sealing before marrying another woman.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
So, serial divorcers would not increase the divorce rate? It's not an accounting of how many temple marriages were granted Temple divorces, or which party asked for them?
I think that people can make statistics say whatever they want them to say, so I don't trust them. *ties sharpened rock to a long stick and looks around suspiciously*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Depends on what you mean by divorce rate. If you mean divorces per marriage, then yes, serial divorcers should increase the rate. If you mean number of people who ever get divorced, multiple divorces do not.
Think of it as the difference between loss of virginity and promiscuousness.
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
nfl
quote: There is also the possibility that men who were divorced in the temple do not recognize said divorce and consider themselves still sealed to the woman. These men would likely be highly authoritarian and probably abusive.
My mom still considers herself sealed to my dad. In that they had ten children together and we are sealed to both of them, it's not just a matter of them being married. If she got the sealing cancelled, it would be a bit problematic.
There are all kinds of hypotheticals that arise from the eternal nature of sealings. People widowed very young who go on to be married to someone else for 60 years and have lots of children with the second spouse. My understanding is it will be sorted out in the afterlife.
P.S. Not to mention people who were sealed to Joseph Smith and then married to someone else. By that strict interpretation, I am a descendant of Joseph Smith, but we don't typically consider it that. Because most of the church was converts in the beginning, the idea of geneological sealing didn't come about until Wilford Woodruff, I believe.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I'm not convinced that the divorce rate refers to temple divorces.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that people can make statistics say whatever they want them to say, so I don't trust them. *
Yeah. I have read that 42.3% of all statistics are just made up. (including this one)
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
LJ, I am pretty sure that temple marriages suffer divorce rates similar to the rest of the society. But I don't have linkage. I just seem to remember a speech where some leader was unhappy about that. If our divorce rates were as low as these, they'd be bragging up a storm.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I do know that it has become harder for a temple divorced person to recieve another temple sealing. I understand that now, such people need to be married 'for time' for at least a year before they can be sealed. The reason for this is because the leaders of the church fear that people have been taking for granted the importance and sacredness of the temple sealing. Temple sealings aren't just the LDS way of getting married. They carry a much heavier burden of responsibility to God and are part of a larger covenant.
[ January 26, 2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Apparently people have heard numbers that are all over the place. If statistics can be misleading, memories of statistics are probably worse.
I am, however, convinced of the Jell-O one. That's just too important to not have been checked very, very carefully.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:I do know that it has become harder for a temple divorced person to recieve another temple sealing. I understand that now, such people need to be married 'for time' for at least a year before they can be sealed.
This is incorrect. Once a temple sealing is cancelled (we don't really call them "temple divorces") there are no more restrictions on temple attendance or sealings than for any other worthy member.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BTW, I'm finding that so far, out of the links to sources I've tried to follow, the ones that have worked have just been glosses with further links that don't work themselves, and most haven't worked.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Okay, well someone I knew had to wait a loooong time before her sealing to husband #1 was cancelled. She did wind up having a temple marriage for time only first. But they didn't tell her any specific time. They just held the request for a long time. I don't remember how long. But she was calling them the day before her wedding to check. For not aware of it (non-members or members who just haven't had to worry about it) if a widow remarries she can't be sealed to a subsequent husband. They are married in the temple but not eternally. That is what is meant by "sealed for time".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)