Conquer Club

I don't know how I missed this site, but it is a "forum for understanding issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. They just recently released the results of a religious landscape survey for the US. I haven't checked up on the methodology but the various aspects of the visualizations of the survey results kept me busy for longer than I probably should have been.

Here's a link if anyone is interested.

Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

comic boy wrote:Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

Yeah... and if you look at the unaffiliated map, there is a band where the number is lower than the national average... but I'd say 16% overall isn't too shabby considering...

Interesting how the catholic church is the only single church which has a larger amount of followers than the "nothing in particular" group. Almost 1/8th of the population seems not to give a rats ass about religion. One point of criticism I've got is that in the portraits section they need to present the distributions of their criteria in the whole population in order to be telling. Still, an interesting site.

You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

EDIT: It would also be nice if they understood that the Community of Christ is not in any way related to the "Mormons" nowadays, it is a completely different belief system now.

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

Interesting note: check out the Jewish and Hindu income portraits. Kinda caught me off guard.

Neoteny wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I think that is the issue with most places that use Mormon instead of LDS. Although, I suppose I could argue that LDS Tradition takes up less space than Mormon Tradition.

I do think the comparison charts are kind of interesting on there though. I took a few minutes to compare income levels and such between religions and found some intriguing things that caught my interest.

Optimus Prime wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I think that is the issue with most places that use Mormon instead of LDS. Although, I suppose I could argue that LDS Tradition takes up less space than Mormon Tradition.

I do think the comparison charts are kind of interesting on there though. I took a few minutes to compare income levels and such between religions and found some intriguing things that caught my interest.

But then everyone would think you were some new sect of teenagers on drugs who like electronic music.

Optimus Prime wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I think that is the issue with most places that use Mormon instead of LDS. Although, I suppose I could argue that LDS Tradition takes up less space than Mormon Tradition.

I do think the comparison charts are kind of interesting on there though. I took a few minutes to compare income levels and such between religions and found some intriguing things that caught my interest.

Yeah, but LDS doesn't really ring clear to me as Mormon or the unabbreviated form. Most of us would be like "what the hell is LDS?" I suspect that it has more to do with name recognition than anything else. Non-LDS affiliated individuals recognize Mormon more than they do LDS.

MeDeFe wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I think that is the issue with most places that use Mormon instead of LDS. Although, I suppose I could argue that LDS Tradition takes up less space than Mormon Tradition.

I do think the comparison charts are kind of interesting on there though. I took a few minutes to compare income levels and such between religions and found some intriguing things that caught my interest.

But then everyone would think you were some new sect of teenagers on drugs who like electronic music.

And they're all dyslexic?

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:You know what would be nice? If sites like that actually used the proper name for "Mormons" and called us by our actual name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should read LDS Tradition not Mormon Tradition in the drop down menu in the maps section.

Interesting site though, I spent a good 15-20 minutes browsing around seeing what they had to offer.

Heh, fair enough. Perhaps it's a space thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I think that is the issue with most places that use Mormon instead of LDS. Although, I suppose I could argue that LDS Tradition takes up less space than Mormon Tradition.

I do think the comparison charts are kind of interesting on there though. I took a few minutes to compare income levels and such between religions and found some intriguing things that caught my interest.

But then everyone would think you were some new sect of teenagers on drugs who like electronic music.

And they're all dyslexic?

They might be, but it's really enough to confuse one acronym with an other.

Neoteny wrote:Yeah, but LDS doesn't really ring clear to me as Mormon or the unabbreviated form. Most of us would be like "what the hell is LDS?" I suspect that it has more to do with name recognition than anything else. Non-LDS affiliated individuals recognize Mormon more than they do LDS.

I can completely understand that avenue of thought. I just noticed something interesting myself. If you look at the Number of Children comparison chart, you see that us Mormons have a slight lead in the 4 or more category at 9% over the rest of the listed traditions. I thought that a little odd, and then noticed the sample size for the Mormon listing. It's only 577, which is incredibly small not only in comparison to some of the others listed, but to Mormons on their own. I can almost guarantee if that sample size was as big as the Catholic sample size that 9% would be skewed much more in our favor.

We have a lot of kids.

Optimus Prime wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Yeah, but LDS doesn't really ring clear to me as Mormon or the unabbreviated form. Most of us would be like "what the hell is LDS?" I suspect that it has more to do with name recognition than anything else. Non-LDS affiliated individuals recognize Mormon more than they do LDS.

I can completely understand that avenue of thought. I just noticed something interesting myself. If you look at the Number of Children comparison chart, you see that us Mormons have a slight lead in the 4 or more category at 9% over the rest of the listed traditions. I thought that a little odd, and then noticed the sample size for the Mormon listing. It's only 577, which is incredibly small not only in comparison to some of the others listed, but to Mormons on their own. I can almost guarantee if that sample size was as big as the Catholic sample size that 9% would be skewed much more in our favor.

We have a lot of kids.

I wonder if that has to do with the skewed concentrations of Mor... er... LDS (LDSers?) in various areas in the country. Getting an overwhelming amount in one state might not be enough to make up for a relatively lower population everywhere else. That's assuming everything was done state-by-state... again I don't know the methodology so I'm just talking out of my ass...

Anyhow, 577 isn't really a number to scoff at. It's not as good as 1000 but they were still the seventh highest sample size.

Also note that three children families were higher overall as well... This might be a bit telling.

Here's something for you, Op. When other Mormons were removed, the LDS 4-children ratio jumped up a percentage point.

Neotony wrote:LDSers?

Perhaps we should just stick with Mormons for now.

Hmmm... I hadn't noticed that about the 3 children families, but that is quite interesting. Mostly my previous comment was due to the fact that while growing up in Oklahoma and having a relatively small LDS population there, most of the families in our congregation had well over 4 children, but perhaps we were just exceptional baby-making machines over there in the plains.

Neoteny wrote:

comic boy wrote:Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

Yeah... and if you look at the unaffiliated map, there is a band where the number is lower than the national average... but I'd say 16% overall isn't too shabby considering...

More than twice that percentage in Britain

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Some interesting statistics ie Israel

comic boy wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

comic boy wrote:Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

Yeah... and if you look at the unaffiliated map, there is a band where the number is lower than the national average... but I'd say 16% overall isn't too shabby considering...

More than twice that percentage in Britain

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Some interesting statistics ie Israel

Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

Neoteny wrote: "what the hell is LDS?"

hallucinogens for the dyslexic.

mr. incrediball wrote:

Neoteny wrote: "what the hell is LDS?"

hallucinogens for the dyslexic.

You're a little late on that one.

comic boy wrote:Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

Yes risible_rentboy...the scary evangelicals are coming to get you! However shall we cope without the atheist re-incarnation of Kant to guide us?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:Scary amount of Evangelicals in the Deep South, the Bible Belt indeed.

Yes risible_rentboy...the scary evangelicals are coming to get you! However shall we cope without the atheist re-incarnation of Kant to guide us?

Children should be seen and not heard