Does Growth Numbers Of The Church Stack Up?

[juliann]

What SLC central does with the information is not known by a local clerk. A local clerk can remove an ex'd member from the local database, but doesn't control the central database.

So we are back to central making it up. Is central using the figures that are sent to them or not? If they are using them then the locals are creating the data. Who compiles it is irrelevant to the issue of how a decision is made as to who is a member and who makes it. The accusation question was how did a poster know anything about this. We are back to locals know because they are the ones creating the data or central is ignoring everything that clerks send to them. So make up your mind here...take an accusation position and stick with it.

[AndyOne]

"So we are back to central making it up."

Well, no we're not. All we can know, based on all of those who have worked as local clerks, is that local clerks control data at the local level, reconcile that data with hq, but don't have access to the data at hq.

[T-Shirt]

I know for a fact that I am not mistaken

Baloney!

otherwise we would get some numbers (even pseudo) about these clasifications.

What clarifications do you think you need?

Do you wonder why public is not informed about those numbers?

No.

(inacivity,

Inactivity is irrelevant, which , of course, you knew already.

death,resignation,

Records of the dead. excommunicated and the resigned are not counted in the membership numbers.

etc.,)

I don't know what, "etc." refers to.

T-Shirt

[Helmuth]

Some buildings I've attended or am aware of:

Units Population of Metro Located In

4 30,000

1 2000

1 1500

1 2000

3 20,000

1 5000

3 millions

1 500,000

1 500,000

2 500,000

2 7404

2 150,000

2 150,000

1 10,000

1 2,000

1 13,000

2 400,000

2 400,000

2 40,000

1 12,000

1 13,000

1 3500

1 1500

All the 3 or 4 unit buildings include a branch like a singles branch or a Chinese branch. All the buildings are in the USA, and none in Utah.

The average from those seems to be 1.6. My travels, while wide, are not necessarily representative of the USA LDS Church as a whole. Also, this list only represents the buildings that I remembered before deciding that "that's enough of that".

[krose]

Man with some good genes,

Are you wondering about only the number of people that hold positions/callings, or the number of people that are active (i.e. show up almost every week for church)? If the former; what would you consider to be a position/calling (i.e. being a home teacher, ward librarian, primary teacher, priest quorum teacher, etc.)?

I meant the regular attendees, which I assumed is the same thing as position holders (in the places I remember, everyone who showed up with fair regularity seemed to have at least one job, in which I include HT/VT). Basically, the number of rears in place on an average Sunday. My experience matches a previous comment... that the number is usually between 150 and 300. My thought was that you could get a rough estimate of activity levels by multiplying that number by the total number of wards.

What I think is an interesting question is, how many people (like my wife, for instance) consider themselves non-LDS even though they are members of record? In one of my areas as a missionary, I drew the assignment of locating and interviewing "members" who didn't show up anymore. I was amazed, first, at how much longer the list was than the active list, then at their responses. So many told me they had "quit" or didn't "do that anymore." It seemed to me at the time that they treated their membership as if it were a club that they could just quit by not showing up anymore. Self identification numbers were very low there, very close to the number of active attendees.

[Maidservant]

I did receive a call from "headquarters" (lol, I don't know what department they call themselves) looking for my brother, as apparently he was a "lost" membership . . . .sigh . . . . I turned him in

[solomarineris]

Baloney!

What clarifications do you think you need?

No.

Inactivity is irrelevant, which , of course, you knew already.

Records of the dead. excommunicated and the resigned are not counted in the membership numbers.

I don't know what, "etc." refers to.

T-Shirt

What clarifications I need?

to run a business? If somebody else owns this business, I don't need any numbers, all I would care is receiving my paycheck.

But if I run this business it is imperative that I have the numbers.

So, you decide, you run this business or you work for it....

[Lightbearer]

I know for a fact that I am not mistaken lightbearer, otherwise we would get some numbers (even pseudo) about these clasifications.

Do you wonder why public is not informed about those numbers? (inacivity,death,resignation, etc.,)

What proof do you have except your word only? All you are trying to do is slander the Church and it's leaders. You just throw out an unprovable claim just so you can score some kind of points against the Church. Pathetic...

[Doctor Steuss]

I meant the regular attendees, which I assumed is the same thing as position holders (in the places I remember, everyone who showed up with fair regularity seemed to have at least one job, in which I include HT/VT). Basically, the number of rears in place on an average Sunday. My experience matches a previous comment... that the number is usually between 150 and 300. My thought was that you could get a rough estimate of activity levels by multiplying that number by the total number of wards.

David Stewart keeps a lot of info on his site. I think the majority of it is slightly outdated, but here it is (up at the top you can click on the #'s to go through the countries). From my brief perusal, it appears that (average) activity is probably between 25-35% -- so figure that active LDS is probably around 3-4.5 million (which, if you think about what the church accomplishes via humanitarian, missionary, etc. efforts... it's pretty dang impressive that so few are doing so much).

What I think is an interesting question is, how many people (like my wife, for instance) consider themselves non-LDS even though they are members of record? In one of my areas as a missionary, I drew the assignment of locating and interviewing "members" who didn't show up anymore. I was amazed, first, at how much longer the list was than the active list, then at their responses. So many told me they had "quit" or didn't "do that anymore." It seemed to me at the time that they treated their membership as if it were a club that they could just quit by not showing up anymore. Self identification numbers were very low there, very close to the number of active attendees.

I know of a few people that don't attend church at all that self-identify as Mormon. But, you are correct that "membership" numbers most likely poorly reflect those who self-identify.

[oats]

The JWs count their membership by those who proselyte.

http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/statistics/worldwide_report.htm

Typically in their May or June Watchtower magazines they have detailed statistics from each country.

At the bottom they count 6.6 million peak Witnesses. The average through the year would be about 6.2 or 6.3 million active witnesses. Their baptism rates include their children raised JW, unlike LDS convert baptism statistics.

[T-Shirt]

What clarifications I need?

to run a business? If somebody else owns this business, I don't need any numbers, all I would care is receiving my paycheck.

But if I run this business it is imperative that I have the numbers.

So, you decide, you run this business or you work for it....

What on earth are you talking about?

T-Shirt

[Jaybear]

What proof do you have except your word only? All you are trying to do is slander the Church and it's leaders. You just throw out an unprovable claim just so you can score some kind of points against the Church. Pathetic...

In 1999, reported "membership" increased by 398,000, while only adding 390,000 by baptism and birth.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm

Unless I am mistaken, in that year, there is no room in the reported numbers for (1) deaths (2) resignations; (3) excommunications; and (4) 8 year olds that exercise their free agency and reject baptism.

While that is not "proof" of deliberate deception, it should shifts the burden to those who assert that the numbers reported by the brethren are reliable to explain the obvious discrepancy.

[Lightbearer]

In 1999, reported "membership" increased by 398,000, while only adding 390,000 by baptism and birth.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm

Unless I am mistaken, in that year, there is no room in the reported numbers for (1) deaths (2) resignations; (3) excommunications; and (4) 8 year olds that exercise their free agency and reject baptism.

While that is not "proof" of deliberate deception, it should shifts the burden to those who assert that the numbers reported by the brethren are reliable to explain the obvious discrepancy.

Of course we should believe everything posted on an Anti-Mormon site...BTW is that YOUR site? Just curious.

[bluebell]

In 1999, reported "membership" increased by 398,000, while only adding 390,000 by baptism and birth.

http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm

Unless I am mistaken, in that year, there is no room in the reported numbers for (1) deaths (2) resignations; (3) excommunications; and (4) 8 year olds that exercise their free agency and reject baptism.

While that is not "proof" of deliberate deception, it should shifts the burden to those who assert that the numbers reported by the brethren are reliable to explain the obvious discrepancy.

I don't understand how it's possible that they could gain-

but, the data still lends some questions.

Since there is only one year out of all those listed that 'ghost members' showed up-shouldn't that also mean something?

If the church 'cooked' the books that year, then why not any of the years before or any of the years after?

Why would a church lie about one year and tell the truth for all the other years?

Is there any logical reason?

I can't think of any.

Which leads me to favor the notion that 1999 there were mistakes made in the reporting of members via ward clerks etc that led to a faulty membership growth count-a kind or series of mistakes that had never happened before and never happened again...

which again, leads me to wonder if there was a change in the administrative way that membership was kept track of that year that somehow resulted in inaccurate reports. If tht is true and this was realized and corrected, it would account for the normal membership increases in the years before and the normal ones in the years after.

I have no way to know if that's what happened-but given that only one year is out of whack it seems a logical possibility.

[Hoops22]

I highly doubt that all the 16 million southern baptists are "active".

You should see us in the buffet line! Now that's active!

It seems to me that it is LDS who are playing the numbers game to this extent. Therefor, shouldn't the numbers be accurate?

[Jaybear]

Of course we should believe everything posted on an Anti-Mormon site...BTW is that YOUR site? Just curious.

No, its not mine. It belongs to Dr. Shades. (Am I allowed to say that name here?)

If the church 'cooked' the books that year, then why not any of the years before or any of the years after?

Why would a church lie about one year and tell the truth for all the other years?

Is there any logical reason?

Its possible that the source of data or methodology used by the LDS for all years is not reliable or complete, but that only in that one year did this unreliability become manifest on the face of the final report.

[Lightbearer]

I don't understand how it's possible that they could gain-

but, the data still lends some questions.

Since there is only one year out of all those listed that 'ghost members' showed up-shouldn't that also mean something?

If the church 'cooked' the books that year, then why not any of the years before or any of the years after?

Why would a church lie about one year and tell the truth for all the other years?

Is there any logical reason?

I can't think of any.

Which leads me to favor the notion that 1999 there were mistakes made in the reporting of members via ward clerks etc that led to a faulty membership growth count-a kind or series of mistakes that had never happened before and never happened again...

which again, leads me to wonder if there was a change in the administrative way that membership was kept track of that year that somehow resulted in inaccurate reports. If tht is true and this was realized and corrected, it would account for the normal membership increases in the years before and the normal ones in the years after.

I have no way to know if that's what happened-but given that only one year is out of whack it seems a logical possibility.

Hey maybe there was a Y2K bug after all?

[bluebell]

It seems to me that it is LDS who are playing the numbers game to this extent. Therefor, shouldn't the numbers be accurate?

but we keep track of numbers for ourselves, in an effort to be a 'house of order'-i know of no time when the church used these numbers to prove something-misguided members perhaps, but not the Church.

So-why do our numbers mean anything to people outside of the church? Why do they care if they are accurate or not?

[bluebell]

Its possible that the source of data or methodology used by the LDS for all years is not reliable or complete, but that only in that one year did this unreliability become manifest on the face of the final report.

that is possible as well-but it seems to me that some people are trying to suggest (or at least that the link you gave is plainly suggesting) that the church is intentially inflating it's number-which i don't think the evidence supports at all. Since out of all the years of data collected-only one year showed that 'ghost members' were added.

The whole thing could be inaccurate-but the data seems to suggest, if that was the case, that it was/is unintential.

ANd if that's the case then no non members should care.

[Jaybear]

that is possible as well-but it seems to me that you were trying to suggest (or at least that the link you gave is plain suggesting) that the church is intentially inflating it's number-which i don't think the evidence supports at all. Since out of all the years of data collected-only one year showed that ghost members were added.

The whole thing could be accurate-but the data seems to suggest, if that was the case, that it was/is unintential.

ANd if that's the case then no none members should care.

In the absence of fuller disclosure, there is no way for anyone to know if the reported numbers are accurate, and if not, why not.

[bluebell]

I made no such suggestion. While the link clearly shows that the reported numbers are questionable. I have offered no explanation or conclusion for the errors.

Franky, in the absence of fuller disclosure, there is no way for me or you to know if the reported numbers are accurate, and if not, why not.

I edited my post to be more accurate-read it again.

[Hoops22]

but we keep track of numbers for ourselves, in an effort to be a 'house of order'-i know of no time when the church used these numbers to prove something-misguided members perhaps, but not the Church.

So-why do our numbers mean anything to people outside of the church? Why do they care if they are accurate or not?

Means absolutely nothing to me. You can have accurate numbers or inflate your numbers, that's up to you. Just dont' come back with any kind of claim based on those numbers you may or may not play loosely with. You must admit, however, that the church does trot out these numbers to support it's growth/conversion claims. Others do as well, I know, and I've always found that a might unseemly, but that's the way it is.

[bluebell]

Means absolutely nothing to me. You can have accurate numbers or inflate your numbers, that's up to you. Just dont' come back with any kind of claim based on those numbers you may or may not play loosely with.

As i said before, i've never seen the church do that.

Do you have any examples of the church doing such?

You must admit, however, that the church does trot out these numbers to support it's growth/conversion claims. Others do as well, I know, and I've always found that a might unseemly, but that's the way it is.

Actually, i don't have to admit that at all since the ONLY time i have ever seen the church 'trot out these numbers' is in response to someone demanding to see them because they don't believe the conversion claims.

I don't consider the annual conference report about membership to qualify as 'trotting out the numbers' as no one should consider it 'unseemly' for the church to tell it's own members such stats.

for some reason though there are those people out there who do.

[juliann]

So-why do our numbers mean anything to people outside of the church? Why do they care if they are accurate or not?

There are some who cannot tolerate the fact that even one person does not support their view of Mormons...let alone a few million. Each and every number is stressful to them. They will sleep better knowing that there might be ten less people in the world who disagree with them.

I don't consider the annual conference report about membership to qualify as 'trotting out the numbers' as no one should consider it 'unseemly' for the church to tell it's own members such stats.

Well, when we do it, it is "trotting"...when they do it it is reporting. The only thing we are supposed to trot out is the content of our checkbooks.

[Hoops22]

You're right "trotting out" poor choice of words. I apologize.

I have heard, anecdotally, conversion/baptism rates used to proclaim the truth of the church. So, none here have heard that, that's fine, so my story doesn't mean a great deal.

When my church does this, I find it unseemly. That's all. Just a comment.