LDS Women: 58% Admit Premarital Sex

[Guest]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

Good question.

[creekster]

1. You pretending that no Mormons would be bothered by this is one evidence.

Where did I say that? And what do you mean bothered by it? Bothered in the sense that the number is high? Sure, I can see that being true. Bothered by the fact that it somehow suggests that members of the churhc are inherently hypocritical or that the church is untrue? I dont see that at all. So what do you mean? You drop in and say 'LDS are bothered'" by this. What 'bother' are you talking about then?

2. There was a post on CB about this where many seemed to be upset. Was it deleted or am I not able to find it again?

Can't help you. I never read CB.

3. Some here are doing everything possible to dismiss the statistics or look for ways to explain it away.

Who si doing that? Pointing out the data is 20 years old and asking about definitions is being dismissive?

4. I haven't read the comments at the Trib site, but I bet you dollars to donuts, a lot of active LDS are up in arms over the article.

Up in arms? meaning what? I still cant even figure out why it was re-printed. you could be right, i suppose. Maybe you shoudl look and see.

5. I live and work in a community that is 95% LDS. I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on LDS culture, and I promise people would be upset by a study like this.

I go to a ward every week and I have a good handle on our culture and I promise htat no one would be too worked up about it except as to seeing if we could do better with our youth.

6. I've heard references to this same study before. The rumor I heard was that the brethren were very concerned about this study and attributed it to a heavy focus on missionary prep for YM without a similar focus for YW and that is the time they started putting major focus on YW Excellence program.

Is this what you mean by being upset about it? that seems like a perfectly rational reaction to me. If you believe chastity is a core value of the religion (and apparently you might not) then this study would cause you to examine what you could do to more effectiovely instill that value.

[creekster]

Oh brother! Do you think anyone is buying that?

I am not sure brother, what is it that you think I am trying to sell?

[Babs]

What I find more shocking and believable is that 47% of LDS women reported no sex after marriage.

How come nobody laughed at this?

[Indy Coug]

How come nobody laughed at this?

Because it strikes too close to home?

[RC Vikings]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

I think some of us are bothered we never found those 58%.

[Babs]

I'm curious if they repeated the survey today whether the number would go up or down. I'd bet money the number has decreased in spite of increased activity.

[byu71]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

Here, meaning here on this board, I doubt many are bothered. However, on a campus like BYU or in some very conservative wards, I think bothered is an appropriate word. For instance, BYU and those in the church culturally they represent are taken back by anything that doesn't indicate the body of the church has higher values than the rest of the world. Not only higher, but higher by a long shot.

I think it would be well if in the future studies referred to "active LDS". Those that get bothered wouldn't be so bothered and also it might help them not to point to others who aren't so active and say, "you are embarassing the church".

[jay santos]

Where did I say that? And what do you mean bothered by it? Bothered in the sense that the number is high? Sure, I can see that being true. Bothered by the fact that it somehow suggests that members of the churhc are inherently hypocritical or that the church is untrue? I dont see that at all. So what do you mean? You drop in and say 'LDS are bothered'" by this. What 'bother' are you talking about then?



Can't help you. I never read CB.




Who si doing that? Pointing out the data is 20 years old and asking about definitions is being dismissive?



Up in arms? meaning what? I still cant even figure out why it was re-printed. you could be right, i suppose. Maybe you shoudl look and see.



I go to a ward every week and I have a good handle on our culture and I promise htat no one would be too worked up about it except as to seeing if we could do better with our youth.



Is this what you mean by being upset about it? that seems like a perfectly rational reaction to me. If you believe chastity is a core value of the religion (and apparently you might not) then this study would cause you to examine what you could do to more effectiovely instill that value.

Peace, bro. I think you're betraying yourself with the energy level you have about the issue. The average LDS would definitely be bothered by this article. Bothered that our assumption that our behavior is much better than average might not be true, and the various ramifications if we have to tweak that assumption.

[Babs]

Peace, bro. I think you're betraying yourself with the energy level you have about the issue.

It does seem to belie the "nobody's bothered" line, doesn't it?

[creekster]

Peace, bro. I think you're betraying yourself with the energy level you have about the issue. The average LDS would definitely be bothered by this article. Bothered that our assumption that our behavior is much better than average might not be true, and the various ramifications if we have to tweak that assumption.

Betraying myself? I htink I have been pretty open about my thoughts here. I assure you, I have no belief or assumption that LDS behavior is better than anyone else's. I really dont see that as a nevessary or sufficient criteria for definign the truth.

At your suggestion I went and looked at the comments. Nothing too interesting, to be hoinest, but there was one from the SLTrib saying this:

This story is from 1991 and was republished to the site because it relates to an upcoming story that will run in the next few days. They will eventually be linked together.

so we that to look forward to.

[falafel]

Peace, bro. I think you're betraying yourself with the energy level you have about the issue. The average LDS would definitely be bothered by this article. Bothered that our assumption that our behavior is much better than average might not be true, and the various ramifications if we have to tweak that assumption.

I think Creekster is much more "bothered" by the delivery than the message itself. At least that's what bothered me initially.

[creekster]

It does seem to belie the "nobody's bothered" line, doesn't it?

who said THAT?

geez, you guys are very good at arguning wiht comments that no one makes.

[Indy Coug]

I think Creekster is much more "bothered" by the delivery than the message itself. At least that's what bothered me initially.

Yes, it's a messenger issue.

[creekster]

I think Creekster is much more "bothered" by the delivery than the message itself. At least that's what bothered me initially.

Indeed. I thought that was pretty clear too.