View PDF

Introduction

During the spring of 1984, the editors of DIALOGUE sent a short questionnaire to all of its then-2,300 subscribers plus 600 who had let their subscriptions lapse in the previous year. At that point, the journal had been edited in Salt Lake City for exactly two years.[1] A systematic follow-up effort on the survey lasting the rest of the year produced more than 1,800 responses (about 60 percent) with 1,779 of them usable. (See the questionnaire in the appendix.) 

There is no reason to believe that nonresponse introduced any appreciable biases into the results. For example, if we can judge sex from subscriber name, no ^respondents showed exactly the same distribution between males and females as did the respondents (73/27). Geographical distribution, determined from mailing addresses, showed Utahns as somewhat underrepresented in the data (26 percent of respondents but 32 percent of nonrespondents), while those living outside the Pacific or Mountain states, including foreign countries, were overrepresented (45 percent of respondents but 33 percent of nonrespondents). Other possible biases from nonresponse could not readily be determined. 

There was no reason to believe that any appreciable number of the respondents lacked candor, were unwilling to trust guarantees of confidentiality, or did not take their responses seriously. (The few questionnaires with frivolous and/or sarcastic answers were eliminated.) There were, in fact, at least two clear indications of our respondents’ general trust and candor: (1) half voluntarily wrote in their names at the end of the questionnaire, and (2) 37 percent of all respondents including one-third of the LDS respondents gave an “un orthodox” response to a question on Book of Mormon authenticity. In short, for all practical purposes, the responses on these questionnaires can be considered accurate reflections of the opinions and characteristics of the entire DIALOGUE subscribership in 1984. Since that time, approximately 2,000 have newly subscribed, and renewal rates have held constant at 75-80 percent. 

About the Subscribers

Personal Characteristics 

The majority of DIALOGUE subscribers were between thirty and sixty years of age, but on the youthful side of that range. The survey was administered in DIALOGUE’S eighteenth year of publication, and 41 percent of the respondents were younger than forty. Nearly three-fourths were men—although this finding may simply reflect the patrilineal convention that many couple subscriptions are in the man’s name. Two-thirds of the respondents said that at least one other person normally reads his or her issue. Presumably this other person is often a spouse. Eighty-two percent were currently married and home-owners, and most had professional occupations with incomes over $35,000. Thirty eight percent had incomes over $50,000, and 19 percent had more than $70,000. All but 12 percent were college graduates, and 64 percent had graduate degrees. As might have been expected, most subscribers were residents of the Pacific or Mountain States, but not by a large margin. Forty-five percent of the respondents lived outside the Pacific or Mountain states, and only 26 percent were Utahns. 

In religious preference, 94 percent of the respondents were LDS and 1 percent RLDS. Four percent identified another religion or had no affiliation. Their activity rate was impressive. While general LDS church attendance figures in the United States average around 50 percent, 88 percent of DIALOGUE subscribers reported attending “most” Sundays, including 75 percent reporting “every” Sunday (Stan L. Albrecht and Tim B. Heaton, “Secularization, Higher Education, and Religiosity,” Review of Religious Research 26 [Sept. 1984]: 43-58). Seventy-seven percent subscribed to the official Church magazine, The Ensign. 

With regard to organizational compliance, respondents reported considerable variety. The questionnaire asked “What do you think an LDS Church member should do when faced with a Church policy or program with which he or she does not fully agree?” Only 10 percent of the subscribers felt one should “accept it on faith and do your best to carry it out.” Another 37 per cent felt one should go along with the policy after frankly expressing disagreement. The rest selected less conforming responses. In one matter of doctrine, nearly two-thirds of the subscribers (including at least two-thirds of the Latter-day Saints) accepted the Book of Mormon as “an actual historical record of ancient inhabitants of the American continent, . . . translated by the gift and power of God.” The remainder had various doubts about the literal historicity of the book. 

In their reading habits (or at least their acquisition of literature), most DIALOGUE subscribers could be called “avid.” Sixty-two percent buy more than ten books a year, and most subscribe to other scholarly journals. About 20 percent also subscribe to the Journal of Mormon History and Utah Historical Quarterly, while 60 percent also subscribe to Sunstone. Twenty-six percent were charter subscribers to DIALOGUE while 24 percent had subscribed for more than ten years . More than 80 percent of them normally read at least half of every issue. 

In short, a composite portrait of the DIALOGUE subscriber shows a man on the younger side of middle-aged, married, a home-owner, highly educated, professional, rather affluent, and living in the western United States but not necessarily in Utah. He is thoroughly active in the LDS Church and committed to doctrinal basics, though somewhat independent in that he may demur when faced with Church policies with which he does not fully agree. He buys a lot of books and subscribes to a lot of scholarly journals, plus the Ensign. Since first having learned about DIALOGUE through a friend, he has been a long-term sub scriber, reads at least half of each issue, and shares his copy with one to three other people. 

Tastes and Preferences about DIALOGUE 

Subscriber preferences are difficult to generalize on a number of issues since responses were quite varied. However, there was strong consensus, more than three-fourths, that the articles are about the right length and footnoted adequately, neither too lightly nor too heavily. The same is true of the amount of graphics and of the price—about right for most. Subscribers prefer variety in each issue rather than theme issues (66 percent), though many (77 percent) would like to see DIALOGUE put out book-length, themed collections of past articles. If given the editorial chair, a few subscribers volunteered that they would keep the journal’s honesty, independence, integrity, scholarship, diversity of perspective, and editorial quality. 

As to content, subscribers most enjoyed articles about theology/doctrine, history, and contemporary issues. Personal essays were also favored. Least enjoyed were poetry, fiction, and articles about arts and culture. When asked to recall DIALOGUE articles they had found especially memorable over the years, respondents cited articles on blacks and the priesthood, on women and women’s issues, controversies on the nature of God (Adam-God theory, Young-Pratt disagreements, etc.), the Liahona/Iron Rod essays of Richard Poll, the First Vision controversy, evolution, sexuality, and Davis Bitton’s “Camelot” look at the Church History Division. (See supplement to the questionnaire in the appendix.) Certain authors were mentioned with special appreciation (Lester Bush, Eugene England, and Hugh Nibley) as were certain interviews (Fawn Brodie, Sonia Johnson, Sterling McMurrin).

The Impact of DIALOGUE 

Subscribers share a strong consensus about the impact DIALOGUE has on them. More than three-fourths find the tone of the journal appropriately objective and independent, neither too tame nor too critical. Almost 90 per cent felt that DIALOGUE has enriched their personal religious experience, mainly through intellectual stimulation, the sense of belonging it has provided, and exposure to diverse views of truth. 

They are not unduly sanguine about DIALOGUE’S wider influence, how ever. Only about a fourth believe that the journal has had an appreciable influence on either Church leadership or membership. They attribute this belief to DIALOGUE’S limited circulation and controversial image. 

Subscriber Suggestions 

Ninety-four percent of the subscribers said they would have no objection to “a small amount” of advertising for books and similar items in DIALOGUE. When asked to list the kinds of articles they would especially like to see more of, many of the subscribers did not answer at all. Among those who did, the most commonly expressed preferences were (1) doctrinal or theological, and (2) sociological/psychological topics. Within the two large categories there was little consensus on specific topics. 

When asked for “the one thing” they would especially like to change if they were to assume editorship, respondents (just over half) tended to mention two categories: business/editorial practices and content. Again, within these two categories, there was little agreement on specifics. The most common content changes would be “more humility,” a wider variety of authors, and more attention to contemporary or controversial issues. Some subscribers wanted to change or improve the publication schedule, format or layout, the quality of editing, or increase circulation. Some of these problems have, we feel, been solved. 

Large minorities of subscribers expressed a desire to see DIALOGUE sponsor related enterprises, assuming that these “could be made financially self-supporting.” Half of those who responded to this question selected a lecture series from a list of options. In numbers ranging from a fourth to a third of all respondents, subscribers indicated that they would like to see DIALOGUE sponsor symposia, debates, writing contests, and/or DIALOGUE chapters or study groups. However, only miniscule numbers volunteered to help organize such events, except in the case of study groups, where 20 percent of those in favor actually offered to help. 

Eighty-three percent of the 77 percent responding encouraged issuing theme books made up of previously printed DIALOGUE articles. The most heavily favored themes for such books were Church history, theology, women’s issues, science, social issues, and the Book of Mormon. Many, more specific, themes were suggested as well. (See questionnaire supplement in appendix.) 

Finally, in evidence of their good will and best wishes for the future, a few hundred subscribers volunteered either financial contributions and/or gift subscriptions, subscription referrals, book reviews, editing, or proofreading tasks.

Hand-Written Comments 

The questionnaire ended with an invitation for respondents to write comments they cared to make about DIALOGUE or anything else. Altogether, about 10 percent of the respondents (178) included additional comments. The majority of these volunteered their names as well. Some of the comments were quite lengthy, but most were not. Most of them carried themes and focuses sufficiently specific to be classified into a limited number of categories, some belonging to more than one category. Many comments, however, were quite idiosyncratic and could not be placed readily into a category. A selection of those that express general feelings about DIALOGUE, both positive and negative, follow in a separate article. 

The single most common kind of comment—more than a third—was a general expression of appreciation. More specific comments praised DIALOGUE for helping subscribers with intellectual interests and doubts feel part of a sympathetic community. Others felt DIALOGUE had enhanced their testimonies, spirituality, and/or Church activity. Appreciation for the openness, independence, balance, and candor of DIALOGUE was a frequent theme. Other sub scribers offered constructive criticism. 

On the other hand, a dozen or so felt DIALOGUE had become the preserve of an intellectual elite. About a dozen more protested what they called a “critical” tone. 

Another category consisted of personal expressions: testimonies of the gospel and the Book of Mormon, etc., suspicion about an intellectual approach to Mormon studies, or—more commonly—personal anguish (which DIA LOGUE seemed to be helping them deal with) : the anguish of transition from naivete to skepticism; of closet doubt; of coping with ambiguity; of wanting to be obedient but yet feeling offended by authoritarianism, etc. 

Variations Among Subscribers

General Observations 

As subscriber responses were examined across categories of age, sex, geo graphical region, education, occupation, and income, the most remarkable discovery was how little they varied. What emerged was a consensus among DIA LOGUE subscribers that transcended demographic differences. These differences, however, may not have been as great in any case as we would have found in a more general cross-section of Mormons. The region in which subscribers lived, for example, made virtually no difference in their responses to any of the items in the questionnaire, except that Utahns were least likely to evidence strict organizational compliance (question 41). Neither did occupation/profession, income, or marital status account for appreciable differences. The most marked variations in responses occurred by age, sex, and education level. Since the education levels of respondents were very similar to begin with, these variations were less marked. 

The responses varying most often were those to the questions on length of subscription (question 4) and on DIALOGUE content (question 10). Older respondents were, of course, more likely to be long-term subscribers. But men were considerably more likely to be long-term subscribers than women and those with graduate degrees than those with less formal education. 

Preferences for DIALOGUE content were also distinct by level of education, but preferences seem ambiguous. More respondents in both the highest and lowest education categories (but not those in between) preferred having more science articles. More personal essays were preferred more by those in the middle education category (college graduates) than by those without degrees or with advanced degrees. And the higher the education, the less likely respondents were to prefer more poetry or letters to the editor. All these relationships, ambiguous or otherwise, were statistically significant. 

Responses by Sex 

Questionnaire responses varied little by sex except to the question on preference for DIALOGUE features. Table 1 shows that while both sexes express strong preferences for articles on history and doctrine, these preferences are much stronger among the men. Women, on the other hand, constitute much stronger majorities than men in favoring personal essays, letters to the editor, and articles on contemporary issues. The widest gaps between the sexes, though, occur in the case of science, where the male preference is double that of the female, and in the preferences for fiction, poetry, and articles on arts and culture, in all of which cases the female frequencies are two or three times those for males. 

[Editor’s Note: For Table 1, see PDF below, p. 32]

Responses by Age 

Age too has some impact on content preference, as we can see from Table 2, though not as much as sex does. Preference levels for history, book reviews, letters to the editor, arts and culture, and poetry all increase with age (quite strongly so for reviews, letters, and poetry). Interest in fiction, on the other hand, declines strongly with age. 

More interesting than age in explaining content preferences in its influence upon certain attitudes toward Church matters. Question 41, for example, asked subscribers what they thought a Church member should do on occasions of disagreement with a Church policy or program. Table 3 shows the sub scribers’ responses by categories of age. If the first two choices are classified as “obedient” ones, then the proclivity for obedience appears to increase with age. The most equivocal response, at the very bottom of the table, shows a corresponding decline by age from 31 percent to 17 percent. 

A comparative perspective is provided from a Mauss survey of Mormons nearly twenty years ago, which asked a similar question about obedience. At that time, 42 percent of Salt Lake City Mormons and 17 percent San Francisco Mormons chose “accept it on faith.” Another 40 percent and 37 percent, respectively, chose “express feelings but go along.” These figures total 82 per cent and 64 percent “obedient” responses for the respective groups. By com parison, even the older DIALOGUE subscribers seem less “obedient”! 

[Editor’s Note: For Tables 2 and 3, see PDF below, pp. 33–34]

Age seemed to also account for some differences in responses to the question about the Book of Mormon. Question 42 asked respondents whether they regarded the Book of Mormon as authentic and, if so, in what sense. Sixty three percent of all respondents, including two-thirds of the LDS respondents, concurred with the official Church view of the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired and translated actual record of an ancient people. The rest of the choices reflected various declining beliefs in the literalness of the Book of Mor mon. Given that so many of the subscribers held to the official Church position, little variation in responses would be expected by age, or even, probably, by other factors. However, Table 4 illustrates some decline across the age categories, from youngest to oldest, of 10 percentage points (67 percent to 57 per cent) in the level of agreement with the official church teaching. 

Although a similar pattern does not prevail for any other single choice in the table, the collapsed percentages for the remaining choices reflect an oppo site trend, with percentages increasing from 23 percent to 31 percent from the youngest to the oldest. Considering Tables 3 and 4 together, we have evidence that DIALOGUE subscribers, while perhaps inclined to grow more mellow with age in dealing with institutional or organizational conflicts (Table 3), grow more independent intellectually in their understanding of the doctrines of their religion.

[Editor’s Note: For Table 4, see PDF below, p. 35]

Responses by Type of Church Commitment 

In general, DIALOGUE subscribers are active Latter-day Saints. The over whelming majority attends church regularly, subscribes to The Ensign (or Saints’ Herald if RLDS), and believes in the divine origin and historicity of the Book of Mormon. Indeed the general portrait that emerges of the “DIA LOGUE Mormon” is that of an active Church member who believes in the basics but maintains an independent cast of mind where organizational and program matters are concerned. Within the context of this general characterization, though, there are differences in the nature of respondents’ “Church commitment.” These differences are represented by the different combinations of subscribers’ responses to survey question numbers 40, 41, and 42—those ask ing about Church attendance, Church policy/program compliance, and Book of Mormon authenticity. 

We use orthodox[2] to describe the subscriber who not only goes to church regularly but also accepts the official position on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and is inclined to obey Church policies even when he/she disagrees. This group comprised 31 percent of the total respondents. By contrast, one who either attends church irregularly, or does not accept the official position on the Book of Mormon, or chooses not to comply with Church policies where there is disagreement, comprised 61 percent of the respondents. This group is identified as “selective.” (Eight percent could not be classified due to nonresponse on one or more of the three questions.) 

A third orientation toward the Church can be seen if we leave aside the compliance issue (question 41) and look only at those who attend church regularly despite misgivings or rejection about the literal historicity and/or divine origin of the Book of Mormon. This group approximates D. Jeff Burton’s definition of “closet doubters” (“The Phenomenon of the Closet Doubter,” Sunstone 7 [Sept.-Oct. 1982] 35-38). They amounted to 27 percent of the total subscribers. Note that the “closet doubters” are not simply an inter mediate category between orthodox and selective. Those latter two are mutually exclusive subsamples, whereas the doubters come from a different “cut of the pie,” a special subsample created (without reference to the compliance issue) from among regular church attenders of either the orthodox or selective variety. 

At the outset it should be noted that there were not many differences among respondents in these three categories in the way they answered the majority of questions in the survey. It is important to recognize also that none of these three categories comprises subscribers who are inactive in the Church. Those “orthodox” in Church commitment are, by definition, all regular attenders (95 percent of them every Sunday). The “doubters” are, by definition, also active Church members (75 percent of them attend Church every Sunday). Even among the “selective” group, 81 percent are regular attenders (65 per cent attending every Sunday)—scarcely suggestive of inactivity. 

Demographics, however, account for some differences among respondents in these categories. The doubters and selective categories are a little younger, on the average, and are somewhat more likely to be Utahns than are the ortho dox respondents. The intellectual contrasts among the three groups (though they are not great) will be apparent from Table 5. 

This table highlights acceptance of the official Church position on the Book of Mormon as a criterion for inclusion in the orthodox commitment category and rejection of the same as a basis for inclusion in the doubter category. However, responses from the selective group in Church commitment are especially interesting. They may not attend church regularly, and/or they may not be as organizationally compliant as those who are orthodox; but among this group, 39 percent still accept the Church stand on the Book of Mormon, and another 22 percent believe, at least, that its teachings have a divine origin. As for the closet doubters, though they do not share the official Church position on the Book of Mormon, nearly half of them (44 percent) are willing to ascribe its teachings to divine origin. 

Table 6 shows how divided the three different groups are with regard to compliance with Church policies. Again, by definition, all of those orthodox in commitment are included within the two most compliant responses. Among respondents in the other two groups, there appears but little disposition to accept Church policies on faith, though a large minority of the closet doubters (26 percent) would at least go along after expressing disagreement. Since no one was excluded by definition from any of the three categories on the basis of “obedient” responses to question 41, Table 6 really emphasizes the im-portance of this issue in distinguishing the “orthodox” from the other two groups. 

[Editor’s Note: For Tables 5–9, see PDF below, pp. 37–39]

The remaining tables give a little more information about these three groups and how they compare. Table 7 shows how these respondents compare in their reading preferences beyond DIALOGUE. Note that every single one of those orthodox in Church commitment expresses that commitment by sub scribing also to the official Church magazine. (They were also three times as likely as selective or closet doubters to urge upon DIALOGUE less iconoclasm and more humility as they responded to question 13.) Other differences in journal subscriptions among the three categories are not startling in Table 7, but it is interesting to note that the closet doubters subscribe with greatest frequency to such unsponsored publications as Sunstone and Exponent II. This may suggest a “seeker” quality to their outlook. It may be that same sort of outlook that affects the perceptions of the doubters about the tone of DIALOGUE (Table 8). They are marginally the most likely to see it as “objective and independent,” and the least likely to find it too critical. Similarly, the doubters are the most likely to respond that DIALOGUE enriches their personal religious experience, and to feel strongly so (Table 9). In follow-up verbatim responses, they also emerged as the most likely to give, as a major reason for this feeling, that DIALOGUE helped provide a “sense of belonging.” Even more so than other DIALOGUE subscribers, then, this minority may reflect an intellectual and spiritual yearning. 

Consistent with this last observation, compared with the other two groups, closet doubters were the most likely to read DIALOGUE from cover to cover, to share it with other readers, and to like it just the way it is in price, in graphics, and in general. Closet doubters were the most likely also to want to see DIA LOGUE produce books based on collections of previous articles. They were most likely to have appreciated articles already published on such topics as theological controversies, the black issue, women’s issues, sex, evolution, and by authors like Brodie (interview), England, Nibley, and Poll. 

In responding to question 18, “DIALOGUE contributes to the enrichment of my personal religious experience,” the three groups again demonstrated little difference, but the greatest difference came in the “strongly agree” category. Thirty-seven percent of the orthodox agreed, trailed by 45 percent of the selective, and 50 percent of the closet doubter group. This spread of thirteen per centage points was the widest out of the four levels of agreement (see Table 9). 

Implications of the Survey Results

The survey data reveal an image of DIALOGUE subscribers as “the unfettered faithful,” clearly committed to the difficult but rewarding process of engaging faith and intellect—spirit and mind—in a daily dialogue on religious issues and practices. They are not an eddy or backwater in the Mormon mainstream but an important current—committed, contributing, and curious. Independence, expected among a highly educated body, is evident among respondents. This independence expressed itself more with respect to the practical institutional affairs of the Church (“policies and programs”) than in matters of basic belief or activity. Education is clearly compatible with faith. Two-thirds of the LDS respondents hold to the historicity and divinity of the Book of Mor mon. Three-fourths attend Church virtually every Sunday. 

Forty-one percent of the survey respondents are under forty years of age, indicating that DIALOGUE is extending beyond its founding generation to engage issues of interest to a younger audience as well. 

Survey results do not indicate a readership desire for significant change in philosophy, style, tone, content, or other aspects of DIALOGUE. With some small exceptions, respondents like the journal the way it is. Further, they are intensely loyal to DIALOGUE, being mainly long-term subscribers—one-fourth are charter subscribers—who feel part of a community of seekers after certain kinds of religious and intellectual experiences that are otherwise missing in their lives. The fact that 61 percent learned about it from a friend underscores the importance of the DIALOGUE network. 

In short, DIALOGUE subscribers represent a healthy and viable segment of the Mormon religion. Their existence suggests that being simultaneously curious and committed, intellectually alert and actively serving, is a much more common occurrence than the stereotyped divisions into mindless conformers and liberal dissidents. The light shed on “DIALOGUE Mormons” by this survey should quiet the fears of those who see apostasy in curiosity and should hearten those who believe that both the individual and the Church can be strengthened by a serious journal devoted to free and open discussion of the issues that lie at the heart of our religion. 

[Editor’s Note: For the Appendix: The Questionnaire, see PDF below, pp. 40–52]

---

[1] It arrived from Mary L. Bradford and Lester E. Bush in Washington, D.C., in splendid editorial shape and sound financial health, but a bit behind schedule: the winter 1981 issue had appeared in May 1982. The new editorial staff, with a strenuous effort, put out five issues within twelve months and has been on schedule ever since.

[2] We emphasize that this term is merely an operational one, based upon the measures that happen to be available in this particular survey. There is no intention here to pass judgment on a respondent’s spiritual condition or religious devoutness in a larger sense. We are talking only about a kind of commitment to the institutional Church, as estimated by responses to these three items in the questionnaire. The same understanding applies to the other terms in this section, “selective” and “closet doubter.”