34 replies to this topic

[Pa Pa]

Well this might be surprising to our critics…

http://www.sltrib.co...istian.html.csp

Any thoughts?

[Buzzard]

Works for me.  Of course the critic will go off on convert retention, self-identified vs. official rolls, keeping lost members on the rolls until 110, and if really desperate, will speculate as to how many of those are baptisms for the dead.  If you don't believe me, just check out the 500+ comments below the article. Of course, the Salt Lake Tribune has a dedicated cabel of LDS haters who pounce on any article written about the church, BYU, or Utah with comments that range from snarky to jaw-dropping.

[Pa Pa]

Buzzard, on 02 May 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Works for me.  Of course the critic will go off on convert retention, self-identified vs. official rolls, keeping lost members on the rolls until 110, and if really desperate, will speculate as to how many of those are baptisms for the dead.  If you don't believe me, just check out the 500+ comments below the article. Of course, the Salt Lake Tribune has a dedicated cabel of LDS haters who pounce on any article written about the church, BYU, or Utah with comments that range from snarky to jaw-dropping.

I posted this elsewhere to see if this is where the discussion leads.

[sjdawg]

Buzzard, on 02 May 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Works for me.  Of course the critic will go off on convert retention, self-identified vs. official rolls,

I would consider those to be important and valid concerns.

Congratulations to the LDS Church on its continued growth.  I was surprised the article made no mention of Seventh Day Adventists and/or Jehovah's Witnesses (unless I missed it).   I wonder what their growth rate was like?   I had heard (anecdotally) that Seventh Day Adventists were experiencing high growth rates.

[Nofear]

Statistics and more statistics:

U.S. Census link

One thing that caught my eye was the disparity between the self-identification numbers and the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches numbers (church reported).

[Buzzard]

sjdawg, on 02 May 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

I would consider those to be important and valid concerns.

Congratulations to the LDS Church on its continued growth.  I was surprised the article made no mention of Seventh Day Adventists and/or Jehovah's Witnesses (unless I missed it).   I wonder what their growth rate was like?   I had heard (anecdotally) that Seventh Day Adventists were experiencing high growth rates.

Well, that's because the article was about the LDS church. The 7th Day Adventists are also experiencing solid growth, don't know the numbers because I'm not an Adventist. The JW's on the other hand, have a lot of converts, but if you stop coming to their meetings and don't go out knocking on doors, they DO cut you off and remove you from their rolls. That puts a bit of a damper on growth rates. One could argue that it results in a "purer" membership number, but I'm sure we all know formerly inactive members who now attend and contribute to the kingdom. I'd hate to miss out on those opportunities just because we don't want them there less actives clutterin' up the rolls...

[sjdawg]

Buzzard, on 02 May 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Well, that's because the article was about the LDS church.

I get that but several other religions were mentioned in the article.   I'm not complaining, really just mentioning a point of curiosity to me personally

[Analytics]

The article states,

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported an increase from 4,224,026 U.S. members in 2000 to 6,144,582 members in 2010, a 45.5 percent jump.

Does anybody have a Church almanac from the year 2001 handy?  I'd like this confirmed, but according to cumorah.com, the church reported in the almanac that there were 5,113,409 members in the U.S. in 2000.  You have to go back to 1990 to get a membership number close to 4,224,026.

So if you believe the numbers in the Church almanac, from 2000 to 2010 the church grew from 5,113,409 to 6,144,582, which is a 20% jump, not a 45.5% jump.

It would appear the people who did this study screwed up badly.

http://www.cumorah.c...et=main&wid=231

[Scott Lloyd]

Analytics, on 02 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

The article states,


Does anybody have a Church almanac from the year 2001 handy?  I'd like this confirmed, but according to cumorah.com, the church reported in the almanac that there were 5,113,409 members in the U.S. in 2000.

That's correct. (Page 582)

[mapman]

Analytics, on 02 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

The article states,


Does anybody have a Church almanac from the year 2001 handy?  I'd like this confirmed, but according to cumorah.com, the church reported in the almanac that there were 5,113,409 members in the U.S. in 2000.  You have to go back to 1990 to get a membership number close to 4,224,026.

So if you believe the numbers in the Church almanac, from 2000 to 2010 the church grew from 5,113,409 to 6,144,582, which is a 20% jump, not a 45.5% jump.

It would appear the people who did this study screwed up badly.

http://www.cumorah.c...et=main&wid=231

This article explains the discrepancy.

[Analytics]

Scott Lloyd, on 02 May 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

That's correct. (Page 582)

Thanks Scott.

mapman, on 02 May 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

This article explains the discrepancy.

Thanks mapman.  Summarizing what that says, when the church reported 4,224,026 members 10 years ago, it was reporting only members with known addresses.  When it reported 6,144,582 this year, the total included people in the address-unknown file.  Thus, the majority of the reported 45.5% increase in membership were people who were on the rolls 10 years ago, but weren't reported then.

Certainly, the church can report any membership count it wants.  However, the 45.5% growth calculation was invalid because it was based on the measurements of two distinct things.  The church in the U.S. actually grew about 18% over those 10 years.

Edited by Analytics, 03 May 2012 - 06:31 AM.

[Storm Rider]

You say the Church grew at an 18% rate, but we know that is not true.  So many people are leaving the Church that they cannot fill the pews.  In fact, whole church buildings are sitting vacant on Sundays.  If you don't believe it just ask your favorite anti and he will be sure to enlighten you on how the flood gates are open and the church is hemmoraging members right and left.  In fact, I don't know how they can continue to build new buildings unless they are just doing that to give the appearance of growth.  Dang Mormons will do anything to look like a mainstream religion!

This is another one of those topics that goes on ad nauseum with our poor anti- crowd.  I have never heard anything even remotely similar when the Catholic Church quotes their numbers or Southern Baptists or anyone else.  But for the Mormons to claim any number is just too much to bear.  They become unhinged, start foaming at the mouth, and stomping about.  I think I will have to plant some articles elsewhere just to get them going.   Have a good weekend.

[sjdawg]

Storm Rider, on 03 May 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

You say the Church grew at an 18% rate, but we know that is not true.  So many people are leaving the Church that they cannot fill the pews.  In fact, whole church buildings are sitting vacant on Sundays. .

Slight exaggeration.   I have never heard anyone make a statement even close to that.   Anti's are often accused of twisting LDS Members doctrine and words to suit their purpose.   Looks like you do the same.

[Storm Rider]

sjdawg, on 03 May 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Slight exaggeration.   I have never heard anyone make a statement even close to that.   Anti's are often accused of twisting LDS Members doctrine and words to suit their purpose.   Looks like you do the same.

You have not had the pleasure of reading the same silliness that I have in the past.  Would you actually be surprised that this type of drivel is said?  Stop pulling my leg!

[Analytics]

Storm Rider, on 03 May 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

You say the Church grew at an 18% rate, but we know that is not true....

The Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies' recent experience with what the Mormon church's reports illustrates how misleading they can be.  The "total membership" number increased by nearly 18%.  But how many of those are active?  How many are full or partial tithe payers?  Temple recommend holders?  How many are in the "address unknown" file?  How many are active members of other churches?

We can state as a fact that the total membership of the Church in the U.S. grew by almost 18% over the last decade.  But that gives us little indication of how the number of actual adherents changed over that time period.

Edited by Analytics, 03 May 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Storm Rider]

Analytics, on 03 May 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

The Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies' recent experience with what the Mormon church's reports illustrates how misleading they can be.  The "total membership" number increased by nearly 18%.  But how many of those are active?  How many are full or partial tithe payers?  Temple recommend holders?  How many are in the "address unknown" file?  How many are active members of other churches?

We can state as a fact that the total membership of the Church in the U.S. grew by almost 18% over the last decade.  But that gives us little indication of how the number of actual adherents changed over that time period.

You also don't know what each member of the Church believes.  You don't know how many like bue.  You don't know if they know who the current prophet is. You don't know if they dislike sitting on the first pew. In fact, you don't know how many prefer the back pew. More importantly, you don't know if they are all sinners.

More important, now get this because I am writing slowly for your benefit, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYONE ELSE'S.  Isn't that a novel idea?

Edited by Storm Rider, 03 May 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Analytics]

Storm Rider, on 03 May 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

You also don't know what each member of the Church believes.  You don't know how many like bue.  You don't know if they know who the current prophet is. You don't know if they dislike sitting on the first pew. In fact, you don't know how many prefer the back pew. More importantly, you don't know if they are all sinners.

More important, now get this because I am writing slowly for your benefit, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYONE ELSE'S.  Isn't that a novel idea?

I would think that everybody except Jesus is a sinner, but I digress.

The church has the right to define what constitutes a member any way it wants.  Many people outside of the church are interested in its size and growth.  Perhaps you think we should apologize?

The church could say that it's nobody's business how many members there are, and keep its membership numbers as secret as it keeps its financial numbers.  However, the church does in fact release some numbers.  However, it does so in a way that is incomplete and sometimes misleading.  Oursiders have the right to analyze the numbers the church releases and talk about what they imply and what they don't.

If the church doesn't want people speculating about what's really going on, all it has to do is publish more detailed reports.  Until then, writing slowly isn't going to help.

[mapman]

The Church is reporting that they grew by 18% in the last decade:

http://www.deseretne...h-in-2000s.html

[Zakuska]

Storm Rider, on 03 May 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

You have not had the pleasure of reading the same silliness that I have in the past.  Would you actually be surprised that this type of drivel is said?  Stop pulling my leg!

One hour reading the CARM Message board threds should do the trick to dispell that myth.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.sltrib.co...growth.html.csp