Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Statistical Report for 2018

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, why me said:

Of course the adage was multiplied throughout the church and not just in Utah. The lds are having less children. And this is reflected in the number of children baptized. And this will reflect growith figures. If the lds would have on average 6 children, the growth rate would surge. In Islamic societies, the number of children per family is quite huge. They have the same adage of mulitply and replenish the earth and they are complying.

This is true and in Jana Riess' survey is to be believed at least in the United States there's little interesting in having large families. Utah is barely above replenishment rates. The United States is well below replenishment - only immigration is keeping growth going. Some people still have large families. On my road everyone has at least four kids and I see lots of 4 or 5 kid families at the stores. However I wonder how many still plan on that?

7 hours ago, Oliblish said:

I agree with you that tracking unit numbers doesn't tell us everything, but I believe it is the best metric we have compared to the other official numbers that are publicly available.

Some of the recent changes (2 hour block and merging of HP quorums) may affect the minimum size of wards and branches in the future as well.  There are fewer lessons to be taught and fewer MP callings to fill.  This could lead to fewer units needing to be consolidated in the future as populations shift.

I think looking at the growth of the official total numbers is best. Much like ward size ebbs and flows, the number of people getting off the records does as well. So it too isn't perfect. But there are usually incentives to get people off the rolls. 

Your point about the benefits of the 2 hour block are well made. There's lots of other calling reductions that are possible as well. Although overall I'm not sure most wards really have fewer callings.

BTW - I put up my thoughts on the latest numbers at T&S. I think it clear that while birth rate has an effect, I think it's smaller than some suggest. I think the major effect is missionary effectiveness and the secondary effect is people leaving - perhaps over LGBT issues since the large numbers really start during the Prop-8 battles.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is true and in Jana Riess' survey is to be believed at least in the United States there's little interesting in having large families. Utah is barely above replenishment rates. The United States is well below replenishment - only immigration is keeping growth going. Some people still have large families. On my road everyone has at least four kids and I see lots of 4 or 5 kid families at the stores. However I wonder how many still plan on that?

I think looking at the growth of the official total numbers is best. Much like ward size ebbs and flows, the number of people getting off the records does as well. So it too isn't perfect. But there are usually incentives to get people off the rolls. 

Your point about the benefits of the 2 hour block are well made. There's lots of other calling reductions that are possible as well. Although overall I'm not sure most wards really have fewer callings.

BTW - I put up my thoughts on the latest numbers at T&S. I think it clear that while birth rate has an effect, I think it's smaller than some suggest. I think the major effect is missionary effectiveness and the secondary effect is people leaving - perhaps over LGBT issues since the large numbers really start during the Prop-8 battles.

 

I think you're right on the money with evaluating growth.  Focusing on units or stakes (as some have suggested in the past) can be a problem, or misleading, because at various times the Church changes what it deems as good for units and stakes.  A couple of years back the Church made a push to focus on making wards larger, some say to save space for building use, and at the same time create stakes with less units.  It caused a bit of a surge in stake creations (I believe which totaled a high in 2016) even though the number of units did not grow near as much, at the same rate.  And regionally units are composed completely differently.  In the US, Canada area, a unit is typically much larger than a unit in any other area of the world--in terms of total count on the rolls and typical sacrament meeting attendance.  But broken down I think it gets far more complicated than that, as well.  Meaning in some areas and regions you'll find very large variances between unit size (I still like to note on my state side mission, I was in a branch that had up near 1,000 on it's rolls with less than 60 attending).  

But I will say if you focus on membership numbers you also may not be considering the numbers, like Children of Record being added, convert baptisms, as well.  The other interesting thing is to pay attention, at least regionally.  While overall growth numbers continue in places like Mexico (to the membership number) we also have the problem of many leaving the Church, apparently, but not resigning.  Even though we likely have far more people who resign, in spite of Elder Cooks claim, it remains a small drop in the bucket of the overall total.  I think by and large most who leave don't resign.  This past year high, in terms of both percentage and total, of the lost between this year and last (with the added convert baptisms and Children of Record), I think largely shows that more people are making the statement of officially resigning.  But again a drop in the bucket of the number of people who leave but dont' make a statement about it.  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post

I think there are big incentives to get people who no longer identify as Mormon off the rolls. I don't know how well those incentives work in places like Mexico. But in the United States they're pretty effective. A few years ago I did a comparison of self-identification numbers in polls like Pew or ARIS with official US numbers and they actually were fairly close. Around 80%. Again it's somewhat dangerous to extrapolate to other countries from that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

That in part is dependent on the surrounding culture.  In the US, the average is 2.4 vs the 2.1 of the general population (40-59).  Saints beat both out with 3.4 children (stats from Pew research, if you need exact page let me know).

Muslims tend to have .5 more children than the average in their area:

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/

Yes but with the post-GenX groups that's not as true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're right on the money with evaluating growth.  Focusing on units or stakes (as some have suggested in the past) can be a problem, or misleading, because at various times the Church changes what it deems as good for units and stakes.  A couple of years back the Church made a push to focus on making wards larger, some say to save space for building use, and at the same time create stakes with less units.  It caused a bit of a surge in stake creations (I believe which totaled a high in 2016) even though the number of units did not grow near as much, at the same rate.  And regionally units are composed completely differently.  In the US, Canada area, a unit is typically much larger than a unit in any other area of the world--in terms of total count on the rolls and typical sacrament meeting attendance.  But broken down I think it gets far more complicated than that, as well.  Meaning in some areas and regions you'll find very large variances between unit size (I still like to note on my state side mission, I was in a branch that had up near 1,000 on it's rolls with less than 60 attending).  

But I will say if you focus on membership numbers you also may not be considering the numbers, like Children of Record being added, convert baptisms, as well.  The other interesting thing is to pay attention, at least regionally.  While overall growth numbers continue in places like Mexico (to the membership number) we also have the problem of many leaving the Church, apparently, but not resigning.  Even though we likely have far more people who resign, in spite of Elder Cooks claim, it remains a small drop in the bucket of the overall total.  I think by and large most who leave don't resign.  This past year high, in terms of both percentage and total, of the lost between this year and last (with the added convert baptisms and Children of Record), I think largely shows that more people are making the statement of officially resigning.  But again a drop in the bucket of the number of people who leave but dont' make a statement about it.  

I don't know every member of my new ward yet but I'm aware of 5-6 families who have "left" the church and want nothing to do with it but still have their names on the rolls.  And I am only aware of one family in the ward boundaries that actually resigned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there are big incentives to get people who no longer identify as Mormon off the rolls. I don't know how well those incentives work in places like Mexico. But in the United States they're pretty effective. A few years ago I did a comparison of self-identification numbers in polls like Pew or ARIS with official US numbers and they actually were fairly close. Around 80%. Again it's somewhat dangerous to extrapolate to other countries from that. 

What incentives?  I haven't seen them here and I've been serving in bishoprics for quite some time.  The attitude here is to keep them on the rolls and keep reaching out to them in ways that they are okay with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know every member of my new ward yet but I'm aware of 5-6 families who have "left" the church and want nothing to do with it but still have their names on the rolls.  And I am only aware of one family in the ward boundaries that actually resigned.

This has definitely been what I've seen within our ward as well.  I know of very few who have actually taken the time to resign (I can't really even think of anyone off the top of my head).  I think many who leave are sensitive to family members who are still active and don't want to cause more pain or issues by making it official.  At least I've had a few who have expressed things like their parents (or children) are still active and it was upset them if they heard they'd actually resigned.  Also, I believe that many just simply don't care if their names are still on the records.  Those who resign usually have a specific purpose (ie. the policy on SSM) or they very much want to be left alone and no longer contacted at all.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

This has definitely been what I've seen within our ward as well.  I know of very few who have actually taken the time to resign (I can't really even think of anyone off the top of my head).  I think many who leave are sensitive to family members who are still active and don't want to cause more pain or issues by making it official.  At least I've had a few who have expressed things like their parents (or children) are still active and it was upset them if they heard they'd actually resigned.  Also, I believe that many just simply don't care if their names are still on the records.  Those who resign usually have a specific purpose (ie. the policy on SSM) or they very much want to be left alone and no longer contacted at all.

Occasionally our ward would have a night where we would go out and talk to these members at their homes. The ones who tell us they no longer want contact we would explain to them that as long as they are still on the rolls the church may continue to make contact with them. Then we tell them how to write a letter to the Bishop asking to resign from the church. We even had some write out the letter while we were there, sign it and we took it to the Bishop. 

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What incentives?  I haven't seen them here and I've been serving in bishoprics for quite some time.  The attitude here is to keep them on the rolls and keep reaching out to them in ways that they are okay with.

My understanding, perhaps flawed, is that children of record not baptized by 20 are taken off the records automatically. There have been a few accounts discussing that. The Church also calls up those who aren't attending and asks if they consider themselves Mormon. I think I mentioned that I ward hopped a lot before I got married. I was still attending regularly but my records were in a bit of limbo. The Church called me and asked me if I considered myself a member. So this may vary somewhat with "permanent inactives" who still self-designate as members staying on the rolls in some places.

When I was younger budgets were partially determined by active members to total members so there were big incentives to get people off the rolls if they were baptisms who never really stayed. That was out in the mission field though where many baptized people just disappeared after a couple of months. So the incentives may be different there from the Mormon Corridor.

Again if you look at self-identification studies by ARIS or Pew then you find that at least for the United States the Church membership numbers track the self-identification. There's a gap, but not as big of a gap as one would expect if the rolls weren't regularly being purged. I calculated that around 65% of the Church numbers self-identify as members. Given the large number of converts who quickly fall away, that's a surprisingly high number. Note that's just for the US and we can't extrapolate to other countries except maybe Canada. Also that's from a few years ago and it's possible things have changed of late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Occasionally our ward would have a night where we would go out and talk to these members at their homes. The ones who tell us they no longer want contact we would explain to them that as long as they are still on the rolls the church may continue to make contact with them. Then we tell them how to write a letter to the Bishop asking to resign from the church. We even had some write out the letter while we were there, sign it and we took it to the Bishop. 

That's good to do (at least let them know it's an option if they did not know previously).

However, if a member as requested not to be contacted, we 100% honor that in our ward.  No contact for the "do not contacts".  

The only time this may happen is if a new family moves into our ward and we are not aware they've made that request....and then we correct it and make sure none of the auxiliary leaders contact them in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's good to do (at least let them know it's an option if they did not know previously).

However, if a member as requested not to be contacted, we 100% honor that in our ward.  No contact for the "do not contacts".  

The only time this may happen is if a new family moves into our ward and we are not aware they've made that request....and then we correct it and make sure none of the auxiliary leaders contact them in the future.

I have heard that wards should not have "do not contact" lists.  However a member's contact information in the directory can be set to "private-leadership only" to prevent other ward members from contacting them. Other than that the member should resign. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding, perhaps flawed, is that children of record not baptized by 20 are taken off the records automatically. There have been a few accounts discussing that. The Church also calls up those who aren't attending and asks if they consider themselves Mormon. I think I mentioned that I ward hopped a lot before I got married. I was still attending regularly but my records were in a bit of limbo. The Church called me and asked me if I considered myself a member. So this may vary somewhat with "permanent inactives" who still self-designate as members staying on the rolls in some places.

When I was younger budgets were partially determined by active members to total members so there were big incentives to get people off the rolls if they were baptisms who never really stayed. That was out in the mission field though where many baptized people just disappeared after a couple of months. So the incentives may be different there from the Mormon Corridor.

Again if you look at self-identification studies by ARIS or Pew then you find that at least for the United States the Church membership numbers track the self-identification. There's a gap, but not as big of a gap as one would expect if the rolls weren't regularly being purged. I calculated that around 65% of the Church numbers self-identify as members. Given the large number of converts who quickly fall away, that's a surprisingly high number. Note that's just for the US and we can't extrapolate to other countries except maybe Canada. Also that's from a few years ago and it's possible things have changed of late.

There do seem to be many members who for all intents and purposes are not believers but are still very tied to the church to the point of self-identifying as members.  There are plenty of us who might still call ourselves Mormon, at least in some sense, but aren't really believers or in their minds associated with the church.  

Self-identifying is interesting though.  Because as we know many members claimed by the Church don't consider themselves members in any sense.  If we consider your 65%, and assume the US has about a 40% activity rate, then it appears some 1 and a half million self-identified members in the US don't actually participate.  So either they are like me, and say, "Yeah I"m a Mormon" don't actually believe in orthodox Mormonism, or they are like those who believe but don't attend because they aren't comfortable attending or don't find it useful.  

And the US has to be high in both self-identifying and activity rate, so the issue only grows more complex elsewhere, I would think.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There do seem to be many members who for all intents and purposes are not believers but are still very tied to the church to the point of self-identifying as members.  There are plenty of us who might still call ourselves Mormon, at least in some sense, but aren't really believers or in their minds associated with the church.  

I think this would be very difficult to tease out. After all there are non-orthodox members who think they hold to the correct form Mormonism. (I think a lot of people at say BCC would fit into that category - they see elements of orthodoxy as "false traditions of the fathers") But of course most orthodox would disagree with them on those points. Then there are those that I think you are primarily referring to who aren't Mormon in any strong sense but who either see a social connection or else adopt something like a Mormon form of liberal protestantism. (i.e. no interventionist God in any strong sense, more of a commitment to social justice as religion). 

I'd add that most of the self-identification studies also ask basic doctrinal questions and commitment questions. Pew's self-identified figures have 67% saying they have high involvement in their congregation and additional 29% with medium. Only 4% say they have low involvement, suggesting few self-identifying Mormons consider themselves inactive. In addition 94% consider the President a prophet of God and 91% think the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets (i.e. historicity). 

So while what you suggest likely is true, but it seems to be a rather small percentage considering how high that historicity question is - and historicity tends to be what gets rejected by those well outside of orthodoxy. Also note that self-identification picks up non LDS such as RLDS/Community of Christ.

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And the US has to be high in both self-identifying and activity rate, so the issue only grows more complex elsewhere, I would think.  

Yes, I'd tend to agree. I just don't know if the same incentives to get people off the rolls are there. (I suspect not) There are also big social differences. For instance in the US there's a clear perception that to be Mormon is to be active and doing things. It's not clear that people in other regions with very different social backgrounds have the same perception. For instance I'd suspect that conversions in heavy Catholic areas without a long history of Mormonism tend to adopt the practices of Catholicism in terms of involvement.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this would be very difficult to tease out. After all there are non-orthodox members who think they hold to the correct form Mormonism. (I think a lot of people at say BCC would fit into that category - they see elements of orthodoxy as "false traditions of the fathers") But of course most orthodox would disagree with them on those points. Then there are those that I think you are primarily referring to who aren't Mormon in any strong sense but who either see a social connection or else adopt something like a Mormon form of liberal protestantism. (i.e. no interventionist God in any strong sense, more of a commitment to social justice as religion). 

I'd add that most of the self-identification studies also ask basic doctrinal questions and commitment questions. Pew's self-identified figures have 67% saying they have high involvement in their congregation and additional 29% with medium. Only 4% say they have low involvement, suggesting few self-identifying Mormons consider themselves inactive. In addition 94% consider the President a prophet of God and 91% think the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets (i.e. historicity). 

So while what you suggest likely is true, but it seems to be a rather small percentage considering how high that historicity question is - and historicity tends to be what gets rejected by those well outside of orthodoxy. Also note that self-identification picks up non LDS such as RLDS/Community of Christ.

Yes, I'd tend to agree. I just don't know if the same incentives to get people off the rolls are there. (I suspect not) There are also big social differences. For instance in the US there's a clear perception that to be Mormon is to be active and doing things. It's not clear that people in other regions with very different social backgrounds have the same perception. For instance I'd suspect that conversions in heavy Catholic areas without a long history of Mormonism tend to adopt the practices of Catholicism in terms of involvement.

Fair points.  Of course levels of involvement is quite subjective.  I might have to categorize myself as medium involvement, but it may be that some of my ward-mates my think me low or no involvement.  Some who might think themselves as highly involved might be seen as completely low, falling the category for the ward as needing special attention for some reason or other.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Calm said:

That in part is dependent on the surrounding culture.  In the US, the average is 2.4 vs the 2.1 of the general population (40-59).  Saints beat both out with 3.4 children (stats from Pew research, if you need exact page let me know).

Muslims tend to have .5 more children than the average in their area:

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/

This was my point. According to the a publication by the European People's Party in the EU, the party of Angela Merkel, Islam is an ideology that believes that islam will be the dominant religion in the world or the religion of all people. And of course, population growth is an important way of doing it.

https://martenscentre.eu/sites/default/files/publication-files/unity-adversity-immigration-minorities-religion-europe.pdf

See page 38. The book contains several articles written by experts. Here is where you can access the book. https://martenscentre.eu/publications/unity-adversity-immigration-minorities-and-religion-europe

The Wilfried Martens foundation is an umbrella for the conservatives in the European Union. The entire article is very interesting. I had this feeling in the 70s that the lds concentrated on multiply also for the church to grow and prosper and also to bring as many spirits from the spirit world to earth.

 

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding, perhaps flawed, is that children of record not baptized by 20 are taken off the records automatically. There have been a few accounts discussing that. The Church also calls up those who aren't attending and asks if they consider themselves Mormon. I think I mentioned that I ward hopped a lot before I got married. I was still attending regularly but my records were in a bit of limbo. The Church called me and asked me if I considered myself a member. So this may vary somewhat with "permanent inactives" who still self-designate as members staying on the rolls in some places.

When I was younger budgets were partially determined by active members to total members so there were big incentives to get people off the rolls if they were baptisms who never really stayed. That was out in the mission field though where many baptized people just disappeared after a couple of months. So the incentives may be different there from the Mormon Corridor.

Again if you look at self-identification studies by ARIS or Pew then you find that at least for the United States the Church membership numbers track the self-identification. There's a gap, but not as big of a gap as one would expect if the rolls weren't regularly being purged. I calculated that around 65% of the Church numbers self-identify as members. Given the large number of converts who quickly fall away, that's a surprisingly high number. Note that's just for the US and we can't extrapolate to other countries except maybe Canada. Also that's from a few years ago and it's possible things have changed of late.

Ward budgets are now just determined by total average attendance in certain months (no denominator).  So I don't think there is an incentive remove those who have "left" the church.  We've got about 5% of our ward who do not want anything to do with the church and are still on the records.  I don't see our Bishop pushing for their records to be removed because the ward still holds the hope that they'll return.

Whether or not COR that reach 20 are taking off the records probably depends on the ward clerk and/or bishop.  I've seen some left on for a many years but our current ward does not have any beyond 20 years old.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, why me said:

Islam is an ideology that believes that islam will be the dominant religion in the world or the religion of all people

And this is different from general Christianity how?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there are big incentives to get people who no longer identify as Mormon off the rolls. I don't know how well those incentives work in places like Mexico. But in the United States they're pretty effective. A few years ago I did a comparison of self-identification numbers in polls like Pew or ARIS with official US numbers and they actually were fairly close. Around 80%. Again it's somewhat dangerous to extrapolate to other countries from that. 

The next Mexican census will be next year. It will be the second printing of the census with the expanded religious categories for people to check. I am looking forward greatly to when the data come out from the census, to compare with the Church numbers. The historical data here are not reliable at all because prior to 2000 the religious choices were confining. The last census showed the percentage of Catholics at 83%, the lowest ever in the census. It will also be very interesting to see what that number will be. My purely anecdotal sense is that the charismatics, especially the Pentecostal groups that originated in the borderlands are booming.

Just a quick story - that is somewhat typical. One of our good friends here in town has a 15 year old daughter. The parents wanted to have a nice quinceanera for her, including a mass. Sometimes the family goes to the LDS ward, sometimes to the Catholic church, and sometimes to the Pentecostal church here in town. They decided on what they thought was a safe solution - they wanted to have a special service (mass) in all three churches. The extended families were not happy, the leaders of all three churches didn't agree to be one of three. So, after lots of discussion they decided to have the service in the Pentecostal Church. Why? The Pentecostal Church has been in town since at least 1920. In their recollection and that of the grandparents it is the only  church that has "always" had a native Mexican pastor. And the pastor is a woman who their daughter really likes. This has been our latest example of Mexican inter-faith dialogue at its finest!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Ward budgets are now just determined by total average attendance in certain months (no denominator).  So I don't think there is an incentive remove those who have "left" the church.  We've got about 5% of our ward who do not want anything to do with the church and are still on the records.  I don't see our Bishop pushing for their records to be removed because the ward still holds the hope that they'll return.

Whether or not COR that reach 20 are taking off the records probably depends on the ward clerk and/or bishop.  I've seen some left on for a many years but our current ward does not have any beyond 20 years old.

 

So how do we faithful non-members get counted? I know . . . we don't! Maybe we are counted in the average attendance figures! Wow, I don't count, I can't tithe, but I still vacuum! Really heavyweight top quality vacuums too I might add! 

Edited by Navidad

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So how do we faithful non-members get counted? I know . . . we don't! Maybe we are counted in the average attendance figures!

Sacrament meeting attendance is just a count regardless of membership.  Anyone who is there gets counted.

And, since wards have to report it every quarter, I'm guessing that the Brethren are at least being shown that data (at some level).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And this is different from general Christianity how?

In all my years in the "general Christian" world, I have never heard it taught nor have I ever taught that Christianity will ever be the dominant religion in the world or the religion of all the world. Quite the opposite, I would say. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding, perhaps flawed, is that children of record not baptized by 20 are taken off the records automatically. There have been a few accounts discussing that. The Church also calls up those who aren't attending and asks if they consider themselves Mormon. I think I mentioned that I ward hopped a lot before I got married. I was still attending regularly but my records were in a bit of limbo. The Church called me and asked me if I considered myself a member. So this may vary somewhat with "permanent inactives" who still self-designate as members staying on the rolls in some places.

When I was younger budgets were partially determined by active members to total members so there were big incentives to get people off the rolls if they were baptisms who never really stayed. That was out in the mission field though where many baptized people just disappeared after a couple of months. So the incentives may be different there from the Mormon Corridor.

Again if you look at self-identification studies by ARIS or Pew then you find that at least for the United States the Church membership numbers track the self-identification. There's a gap, but not as big of a gap as one would expect if the rolls weren't regularly being purged. I calculated that around 65% of the Church numbers self-identify as members. Given the large number of converts who quickly fall away, that's a surprisingly high number. Note that's just for the US and we can't extrapolate to other countries except maybe Canada. Also that's from a few years ago and it's possible things have changed of late.

From a spiritual perspective it might be more interesting to know of the 65% of those who self-identify as members, how many would self-identify as faithful; especially if the data is correct that only 57% of Mormons believe they belong to the only true and living church.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

In all my years in the "general Christian" world, I have never heard it taught nor have I ever taught that Christianity will ever be the dominant religion in the world or the religion of all the world. Quite the opposite, I would say. 

It is currently the largest religion in the world at over 30%, however.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Navidad said:

From a spiritual perspective it might be more interesting to know of the 65% of those who self-identify as members, how many would self-identify as faithful; especially if the data is correct that only 57% of Mormons believe they belong to the only true and living church.

I'd add that what "only true and living church" is itself open to question. Was the Church in Palestine or Bountiful the same church or a different church? I'm not sure what people mean in that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/10/2019 at 5:19 AM, Calm said:

And this is different from general Christianity how?

Christianity is in the decline in many parts of the world. And believers are becoming less and less. Certainly, the future is islam. If I were muslim I would be feeling quite pleased with my faith. It is strong and vibrant and growing quickly throughout the world. And it has a high success rate of people keeping their faith.

The first article about Europe says much from The Atlantic which in the beginning speaks about the literalists within Islam. But the interviewee sees much hope.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/akbar-ahmed-islam-europe/559391/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/02/397042004/muslim-population-will-surpass-christians-this-century-pew-says

 

This begs the question: if Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the lds are growing slowly, and if Christianity is in decline, the lds need to mimic islam and begin to have more children.

 

 

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...