“I Know That Goes Against My Religion”: Explaining Intrafaith Religious Dissent in Latter-Day Saint Views on Abortion with Religious Reflexivity

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 0 RELIGION Review of Religious Research Pub Date : 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1177/0034673x241248462
Bethany Gull, Ryan T. Cragun
{"title":"“I Know That Goes Against My Religion”: Explaining Intrafaith Religious Dissent in Latter-Day Saint Views on Abortion with Religious Reflexivity","authors":"Bethany Gull, Ryan T. Cragun","doi":"10.1177/0034673x241248462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While there are a number of studies that note religious individuals do not adhere precisely to the formal doctrines and policies of their faith, few prior studies have attempted to explain why religious individuals dissent from their religion’s official positions. We draw on a religious reflexivity framework with a mixed-methods approach to data collection. The quantitative data is from a survey of Utah residents ( n = 1,909) and provides a rough estimate of the percentage of Mormons who do not hew perfectly to the official position of the religion. The qualitative interviews ( n = 20) illustrate that the members who hold more permissive attitudes toward abortion are aware of their dissent and articulate clear reasons for it. Members who hold more restrictive attitudes appear to be unaware that their views are more extreme than their religion’s teachings. Yet, both more and less restrictive groups tend to use their religion’s teachings—interpreted through varied moral systems—to justify their dissent.","PeriodicalId":47205,"journal":{"name":"Review of Religious Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Religious Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0034673x241248462","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While there are a number of studies that note religious individuals do not adhere precisely to the formal doctrines and policies of their faith, few prior studies have attempted to explain why religious individuals dissent from their religion’s official positions. We draw on a religious reflexivity framework with a mixed-methods approach to data collection. The quantitative data is from a survey of Utah residents ( n = 1,909) and provides a rough estimate of the percentage of Mormons who do not hew perfectly to the official position of the religion. The qualitative interviews ( n = 20) illustrate that the members who hold more permissive attitudes toward abortion are aware of their dissent and articulate clear reasons for it. Members who hold more restrictive attitudes appear to be unaware that their views are more extreme than their religion’s teachings. Yet, both more and less restrictive groups tend to use their religion’s teachings—interpreted through varied moral systems—to justify their dissent.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"我知道这违背了我的宗教":用宗教反身性解释后期圣徒对堕胎看法中的信仰内宗教分歧
虽然有许多研究指出宗教人士并不完全遵守其信仰的正式教义和政策,但很少有研究试图解释宗教人士为何对其宗教的官方立场持不同意见。我们借鉴了宗教反身性框架,采用混合方法收集数据。定量数据来自对犹他州居民的一项调查(n = 1,909),该调查粗略估计了不完全遵从宗教官方立场的摩门教徒的比例。定性访谈(n = 20)表明,对堕胎持较为宽容态度的成员意识到了他们的不同意见,并清楚地阐明了理由。对堕胎持限制态度的成员似乎没有意识到他们的观点比宗教教义更为极端。然而,无论是限制性较强的群体还是限制性较弱的群体,都倾向于利用他们的宗教教义--通过不同的道德体系来解释--来为他们的异议辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Review of Religious Research (RRR) publishes empirical social science research on religion, primarily in sociology and social psychology and related fields of psychology, and scholarly literature reviews of research in these fields.  RRR provides a forum for research across multiple disciplines and approaches, including research on the following topical areas: Clergy; Church programs; Comparative analyses of religious denominations and institutions; Denominational and congregational growth, decline, and vitality; Denominational and congregational conflict, competition, and cooperation; Ethnicity/race and religion; Generational and personal religious change; New religious movements; Personal spiritual and religious beliefs and practices; Religion and attitudes; Religion and family; Religion and gender, Religion and social behavior; Religion and well-being; and Research methodology.  Among the characteristics that distinguish RRR from other academic journals on the study of religion are its applied focus and the opportunities it offers for academics and denomination-based researchers to share their findings with each other. RRR aims to facilitate the sharing and comparing of applied studies between denominational and academic researchers. RRR is the official quarterly journal of the Religious Research Association, Inc.  RRR regularly publishes Original Articles, Research Notes, Review Articles, Applied Research Abstracts, and Book Reviews, and occasionally publishes articles on the Context of Religious Research. Applied Research Abstracts: This type of publication (previously called Denominational Research Reports) consists of a 350-550 word summary (without any references) of an applied research study in the form of a structured abstract, with the following section headings: Background, Purpose, Methods, Results, and Conclusions and Implications, followed by 3-4 keywords. The author may included a footnote that states: (a) whether a complete report exists and how it can be obtained; (b) whether the raw data are available in electronic form and how they can be obtained if the authors wish to make them available to other researchers; and (c) whether the authors would like to collaborate with other researchers to further analyze the data and write a full report for possible journal publication as a peer-reviewed manuscript. Such abstracts should be submitted to the journal editor for consideration for publication. Book Reviews: Unsolicited book reviews are not accepted for publication in RRR. If you would like to review a book for the journal, contact the Book Review Editor, David Eagle, Ph.D. – david.eagle@duke.edu Context of Religious Research: This journal heading covers items about awards and announcements, memoriams, and articles about the research process (e.g., articles on research methods and statistics, and profiles of denominational research organizations), as well as invited addresses to the Religious Research Association. Unsolicited articles should be submitted to the journal editor for consideration for publication. Original Articles: These are scholarly and methodologically sophisticated research studies: see Information for Authors on this website and the Submission Guidelines on the Springer RRR website for details (https://www.springer.com/13644) Reseach Notes: These are scholarly and methodologically sophisticated research studies: see Information for Authors on this website and the Submission Guidelines on the Springer RRR website for details (https://www.springer.com/13644) Review Articles: Authors should send an email to the journal’s editor describing the nature and scope of a proposed literature review to see if it is suitable for publication in RRR. See Information for Authors on this website and the Submission Guidelines on the Springer RRR website for details (https://www.springer.com/13644)   The journal’s editor is Kevin J. Flannelly, Ph.D. – kjflannelly@gmail.com
期刊最新文献
What Is Religious Fundamentalism? Asking Scientists Who Study the Construct Dominion, Stewardship, and Perceptions of the Problem of Climate Change Increased Bible Reading, Religious Beliefs, and Prosociality During College Effects of Religious Tourism Policies on Religious Development Occupational Stressors and Flourishing among Roman Catholic Priests: The Eucharist as the “Source and Summit”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1