Church Growth Rate

[Bernard Gui]

Darn Catholic Church anyway

Not.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I doubt the Internet has done much to slow the growth of the church. Critics' claims that the Net is destroying the church are vastly, vastly overblown. There are doubtless more defections due to the ready availability of problems and critical arguments. But this would do little to explain slowed conversion rates, particularly in the early '90s and in non-Western countries, where most of the growth occurs.

What do conversion rates matter? It only takes a little leaven to leaven the loaf.

People come and go, the Lord moves on.

Bernard

[Hamba Tuhan]

What do conversion rates matter?

They matter to me because I know what life is like without the Restored Gospel, and I know what life is like with it, and I much, much prefer the latter. Being charitable, I'd like as many people as possible to enjoy the same blessings I do. I'm convinced that, if people knew what we have, we'd have to employ bouncers at the doors of our chapels on Sundays.

[Deborah]

I read 4th Nephi last night where it describes the church dying out after 200 years of peace and unity. Divisions kept rising up until soon the members were small in number. Remember there was a time in the early restored church where there was great apostasy and many who were leaders also left. The church was on the verge of collapse. That is when Joseph received the revelation to send the Twelve to Britain and it was from there that many of the great faithful members came and the church numbers grew.

I think we have reached a saturation point in reaching those who are truly seeking greater truth and knowledge. I don't mean that in the sense that everyone who is looking has been found, only that in some areas it's going to be more like finding the needle in the haystack and I think missionaries will have to depend on inspiration more than ever. On the other hand there are whole areas to be opened up and who knows what marvelous things we'll see (China?).

[Deborah]

I'm convinced that, if people knew what we have, we'd have to employ bouncers at the doors of our chapels on Sundays.

I think this applies to those who are already members as well. I really wonder sometimes if people realize what a marvelous thing they have. They only look at the superficial without appreciating the depth of understanding the gospel gives us about our potential.

As I read more about the history of the church I continue to be amazed at what authority God gives his disciples. The Qof12 was not unified before Joseph sent them to Britain. When they went they didn't have immediate communication so they couldn't depend on Joseph to tell them what to do. They were left to depend solely on the spirit and each other and as a result came back from Britain united and firm in the faith and knew what they were capable of doing.

[Binah]

But the seed sometimes falls on rocky ground. It's not up to us, after all.

Sometimes the rocky ground is on our side, and that is up to us. Sometimes the investigators come to us, not the other way around, and how we treat them makes all the difference in the world.

[Sleeper Cell]

I thought the answer would be the Internet. Is it not the Internet that is causing the slowing?

Yet, critics 0f the LDS church often point out that the Jehovah Witnesses are growing faster and seem to have better convert retention. Why is the internet not also causing a slowing of their growth and retention rates?

[Doug the Hutt]

Hi all,

We were treated, a few weeks ago, to an excellent analysis of the Conference statistical report. The church's growth rate has dropped from around 5% at the transition of the '80s to the '90s down to about 2.5% the past few years. The former corresponds to a doubling of membership every fifteen years, the latter to a doubling every thirty years.

What happened? And what's happening now?

I recall reading about a fairly recent survey showing that most members don't make much effort to share the church with others: there appears to have been a drop in member-missionary activity. This no doubt accounts for some of the slow down, but itself calls out for explanation.

One fact that seems salient to me is that LDS discourse over the 90s and early 2000s has tended to highlight what Latter-day Saints share with non-LDS Christians, downplay Mormon "weirdness" or peculiarity, and emphasize the role of grace in salvation more than it has historically been emphasized. If Latter-day Saints themselves see their faith as less unique and don't want to be thought strange, there may be less incentive to share the faith. If my neighbors have most of the Gospel anyway, and I'm trying not to seem religiously odd, why share it? It also may seem less needful, or even interesting to outsiders, who generally have their own faith. The more similar what is offered is perceived to be to what they already have, the less incentive to make a switch.

These ideas may turn out not to explain much, but they do seem relevant. In any case, I'm open to ideas on what has led to (and what maintains) the present low level of church growth, and what can be done to improve it.

Don

What's happened:

1. the post-9-11-Bush Doctrine really turned non-Americans "off". Missionaries are mostly American and might have to battle that guilt-by-association for a few years in foreign countries.

2. the internet has become the most important communication device since the Gutenberg press. Literally everyone with a connection has at their disposal more information than anyone has ever dreamed. Suddenly all those "anti-mormon lies" and "tired, worn out arguments" from "hateful, seething apostates" are available to all. It used to be that the Church didn't have to worry too much about the average member discovering all the inconsistencies and not-so-delightsome aspects of Church history since the Church Educational System controlled when and what was taught, and when it taught something that would otherwise be faith-challenging they only touched it enough to acknowledge some of it but always made it appear to be just another place where God interacted with His children and loved us....Now the average member who's never heard of Joseph's various wives or Brother Brigham's $1,000,000 revolving credit line at 0% APR can discover those details by simply walking into the computer room at home and ask the Google god anything -- ANYTHING -- they wish. The anonymity of the internet allows a person to explore a level of criticism of the Church without necessarily having it come back to haunt them, where before Mormon sociological expectations of obedience and non-criticism of the leadership weighted down all but the most serious in criticsim. With the internet Mr. Sock Puppetmeister can be a rapid, lie-spewing apostate with his online alter-ego but still stand in front of everyone on Sunday as the solid, faithful, obedient Bishop or High Counselor that everyone expects him to be.

4. There is an interesting and relevant pattern of education and information availability with lessening degrees of religiosity. I've seen a study (I think it was at cumorah.com but I could be mistaken) that described the way better-educated and more-informed people are less likely to join the LDS Church and less-educated, less-informed (ie, for lack of having the internet or computers in the home) were easier to convert. If I find time I'll try to locate the article.

Side note:

I find it interesting that for a straightforward and reasonable question that so much unneeded criticism and defensiveness was thrown into this thread.

Side note2: how much of that 2.5% growth is because of proselytizing or natural growth (including Utah's high overproduction of naked primates birth rate).

Don,

You said that the impact of the internet availability was overblown, but then went on to say that it was the ready availability of problems & critical arguments that have made more of an impact. From my vantage point they're one and the same (well sort of). I didn't know that Joseph Smith had more than 1-wife-Emma until I read that problem on the internet. I didn't know what a haplogroup was or why we should see Hebrew DNA in the Americas until the internet (which led me to Southerton's book). I didn't know anything about the history and empirical data concerning the Book of Abraham until I saw it first on the internet (and the story is almost completely different than what I was taught by the Church even after going through seminary, institute, sunday school, priesthood, etc). I didn't have a single person in the real world to talk to about my LDS doubts (today I have exactly 1 real world person to talk about it) until I found an internet forum or two. I didn't have at my disposal the Journal of Discourses or the Nauvoo Expositor or older versions of prophetically-remedied scriptures like the 1835 Book of Commandments until someone put it on the internet. Nor did I ever know the existence of the Church Handbook of Instructions until I read it on the net. I never even knew about the money-making corporate arm of the Church.. Nor did I ever know anything about the Kirtland "Anti-banking" Society including the facade-capitalization until I read it on the net. Nor did I ever know that Danites ever existed until I read it on the net. Nor did I have any place to read about the empirical evidence for New World peoples that don't really resemble what's found in the Book of Mormon, and never had a place to debate it with since any conversation I'd ever tried to have pre-internet got shot down efficiously by Defenders of Greyskull the Faith. Nor did I ever know what an apologist is/does until the internet explained it to me. Nor did I have anything at hand that described the Native Americans other than what John Sorenson told me to think (Jesus=Quetzalcoatl).....

I could go on & on & on in this vein, but I hope you can see, at least from my point of view, the internet opened so many flippin' cans of worms that I must respectfully disagree with your downplaying of the significance of the internet and take an opposing stance: the internet affects Mormon proselytizing because all those ugly details that they managed to keep out of the discussion suddenly is right there in everyone's face, members & nonmembers alike.

[Ariarates]

IMO, the whole growth rate discussion is a lot of hot air. Looking at annual stats is very arbitrary. Why not look at 5-year periods, or decades? Or at historcal periods? It's like those talking heads on financial TV "analyzing" why the Dow went up today whereas it went down yesterday. Short term developments are not as important as the 20-millionfold increase since 1830.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4. There is an interesting and relevant pattern of education and information availability with lessening degrees of religiosity. I've seen a study (I think it was at cumorah.com but I could be mistaken) that described the way better-educated and more-informed people are less likely to join the LDS Church and less-educated, less-informed (ie, for lack of having the internet or computers in the home) were easier to convert. If I find time I'll try to locate the article.

You're going to need to back this one up, Doug. The last study I read showed an inverse relationshop between education and religiosity in nearly every faith group but Latter-day Saints, where higher education levels and religious devotion are positively correlated. It's purely anecdotal, but that would absolutely be the case in my ward, where the actives tend to be well educated--and Internet savvy--whilst the inactives tend to be those who didn't complete school and lack a computer. In addition, the past four converts we had in our ward have been, in order, a law student (now junior in a private firm), a professional pianist/music teacher, a youth worker, and an employee of the central government--all familiar with the Internet.

ETA: Can anybody remember where to find a link for the abovementioned study?

ETA: Found it: Stan L. Albrecht, "The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity" Latter-Day Saint Social Life, Social Research on the LDS Church and its Members, (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1998), 286. The basic point: 'Studies of Mormons in the US show that Mormons with higher education attend church more regularly than uneducated Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend church regularly. By contrast, 76% of Mormon college graduates attend church regularly and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attend church regularly.'

Imagine what would happen to attendance rates if educational rates in the Church lifted considerably! One more reason to support the Perpetual Education Fund and to encourage our youth to get all the education they can.

[DonBradley]

Doug!

Say hello to Jabba for me?

You wrote:

What's happened:

1. the post-9-11-Bush Doctrine really turned non-Americans "off". Missionaries are mostly American and might have to battle that guilt-by-association for a few years in foreign countries.

This could well be a factor in perpetuating the slow down (though I believe it began before this).

4. There is an interesting and relevant pattern of education and information availability with lessening degrees of religiosity. I've seen a study (I think it was at cumorah.com but I could be mistaken) that described the way better-educated and more-informed people are less likely to join the LDS Church and less-educated, less-informed (ie, for lack of having the internet or computers in the home) were easier to convert. If I find time I'll try to locate the article.

I'd love for you to locate and post a link to this. However, I doubt that, even if it is correctly reported, it accounts for an LDS-growth slowdown.

To use this as an explanation for a slowdown in LDS growth (but not, significantly) in the growth of other, broadly "similar" groups assumes that better-educated persons are not less likely just to be nonreligious in general. But, as I understand it, the better educated in the US are less likely than the average person to be religious.

Also, like Hamba Tuhan, I have read the results of a study (which I believe is pretty old) showing that education correlates negatively with religiosity in general, but positively with Mormon religiosity.

Side note:

I find it interesting that for a straightforward and reasonable question that so much unneeded criticism and defensiveness was thrown into this thread.

You noticed too?!

My question, for whatever its worth, doesn't assume that the slowdown in LDS growth is a good thing, and I'm not getting my information from critics. The General Conference statistical reports of the last couple decades show the slowdown. The question isn't whether it's happening, but why?

Don,

You said that the impact of the internet availability was overblown, but then went on to say that it was the ready availability of problems & critical arguments that have made more of an impact. From my vantage point they're one and the same (well sort of).

There is no contradiction between saying that this is a factor and saying that its role has been overestimated by wishfully thinking critics. The slowdown began before widespread access to the Web (founded in 1994) and has been occurring even in regions where access to the Internet is quite rare.

I could go on & on & on in this vein, but I hope you can see, at least from my point of view, the internet opened so many flippin' cans of worms that I must respectfully disagree with your downplaying of the significance of the internet and take an opposing stance: the internet affects Mormon proselytizing because all those ugly details that they managed to keep out of the discussion suddenly is right there in everyone's face, members & nonmembers alike.

I can appreciate that this has been your experience, and that it is the experience of many thousands of others. But I must myself respectfully disagree that it is likely to be representative of those who, from the early 90s and around the globe, have been talking to LDS missionaries but then not joining the church.

In any case, I appreciate you chiming in so fully on my question! 8-)

Cheers,

Don

[juliann]

These ideas may turn out not to explain much, but they do seem relevant. In any case, I'm open to ideas on what has led to (and what maintains) the present low level of church growth, and what can be done to improve it.

If I recall, reputable polls...like Pew...show a declining interest in affliation even though belief isn't declining. I also think it is going to become increasingly more difficult to access people's houses which is a problem if that is what proseyting relies on.

[Nemesis]

Doug is out of the thread

[Duncan]

I hesitate to bring this up for fear of sounding uncharitable and judgmental, but it has been a real problem for us here. I've been in my current ward for nearly seven years, and I think we may have had 3-4 really competent missionaries that whole time. Many of them have been nice and committed, but they haven't been anyone I'd be willing to entrust my close friends to. We had a hardworking set of Americans a couple of years ago who really hit the streets and found dozens of people who agreed to listen to our message. Because I'm a student, I frequently went to these 'discussions' with them, and it was agonising. There was nothing discussive about the experience. They would tag-team monologue on and on without any interaction whatsoever from the other people. I'm not making this up: At one discussion, the investigator dozed off, and the Elders never noticed til near the end. I often found myself nodding off; it was that bad. And everyone remembers them as two of the best we've had recently because at least it seemed that they had tried.. After one discussion, I couldn't take it anymore, and I asked them if they didn't think it might help if they at least asked some questions of their investigators to find out what they thought of their teachings. At the next discussion, they monologued again and then, at the very end, asked, 'Do you have any questions about what we've taught you today?' That was it.

I'd feel even worse about speaking liking this, but a member of my last stake presidency talked to us after he'd had a meeting with some 70s in relation to the Aaronic Priesthood, and he said they had told him (and the others there) that, in the history of the Church, there has never been a more worthy cohort of missionaries...nor a less effective one. I've seen it. Even when we supply the missionaries with people to teach, nearly all of the Elders we get here are clueless about what to do next. I don't understand exactly why or how (one of the sleep-inducing Elders mentioned above had a father who was concurrently serving as a mission president in Europe), but, as I said above, this has been a huge problem for us.

So if I follow you right the missionaries are more worthy but still less effective as teachers?

[AKS]

Doug is out of the thread

Wow, hair trigger. What rule did he break? I thought his tone was fairly civil.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So if I follow you right the missionaries are more worthy but still less effective as teachers?

That's what the stake president member said he was told. Specifically, he was told that our Young Men--like far too many of their peers--are reaching adulthood without ever really having become good at anything beyond computer games and TXT-ing. He said they mean well but don't know how to organise their work, don't know how to communicate clearly, etc.

[DonBradley]

What rule did he break? I thought his tone was fairly civil.

I suppose it's tricky applying the new policy, and am certainly glad to be able to talk about the content without flame wars or ridicule. But, while I disagreed with most of what Doug argued, I, like AKS, found his tone civil.

Don

[daz2]

Don,

My sense is that the slow down is intentional--by a focus on retention rather than raw numbers of baptism.

When I served in Mexico over 35 years ago, a typical missionary baptized around 200 during his or her mission. I don't have precise statistics, but I think if 20 of those were still attending church by the time a missionary went home from my mission, the retention was pretty good.

I no longer hear stories of baptisms of large numbers of people who are woefully unprepared or converted.

I think what would matter most to me is what the real growth in committed long-term church membership. I am sure headquarters has that information. It is too bad that, for whatever reason, headquarters chooses only to disclose raw numbers of annual baptisms, but not information on annual increases (or decreases) in attendance. That means that the only way to assess Church growth is based on the raw numbers of baptisms, which have been slowing.

[DonBradley]

Hi Daz,

Thanks for the input. I think you may be right. "Preach My Gospel" seems aimed to teach more fully than the previous discussions.

But in that case there has nevertheless been a slowdown since a few decades ago. (The church used to double in size about every 15 years, at least from what I've read.) And it's surprising that retention still seems to be a very bad problem--or does it only seem that way because of outdated retention numbers? I wonder what the retention rates have been for the last few years.

Anyways, this puts a more optimistic, and probably correct, interpretation on the rate reduction since 1990.

Thanks,

Don

[Deborah]

My sense is that the slow down is intentional--by a focus on retention rather than raw numbers of baptism.

That makes sense to me as well, and goes along with the stricter requirements for missionaries. We've spread out into the world and now it's time to gather more closely the Stakes of Zion, and that means we need people more committed and unified than ever before.

[Deborah]

I also want to add a thought based on the growth of my area of the church. I think there is a natural gathering taking place in many areas. While many areas in the world are dwindling, others like where I live are growing so fast we can't keep up with the growth. I have lived in the same house for about 5 years. In that time I've been in about as many wards and 2 stakes. We just split one ward in my building and now one of those wards is growing out of it's space again.

Many people who have come here, and this includes a great number of non-LDS, have told how they felt compelled to move here. Some of us, like me, swore we'd never live in Utah again, yet here we are compelled by circumstances that were not planned. I have heard these same things from others in different areas of the church.

So while the total numbers may be dwindling, many of the stakes of the church are becoming stronger.

[S.Ferreira]

That's what the stake president member said he was told. Specifically, he was told that our Young Men--like far too many of their peers--are reaching adulthood without ever really having become good at anything beyond computer games and TXT-ing. He said they mean well but don't know how to organise their work, don't know how to communicate clearly, etc.

This concern has been strongly communicated to my stake and ward YM leaders. One message along those lines was Elder Bednar's CES fireside talk titled "Things As They Really Are," which coincidently found its way into this month's Ensign. Leaders are finding that too many YM simply can't effectively communicate face-to-face.

This may be a piece of the slow-down puzzle, but I can't place the blame totally in that direction.

I also get the sense that my area of the US, at least, is focusing more on retention now and that the ward's roles of missionary work and perfecting the saints are melding together. Reminds me of Brasil where I was missionary; we missionaries spent equal time in reactivation and finding/baptizing/retaining new converts.

[kantgomo]

FWIW, I haven't seen any LDS missionaries around our area in a very long time. Probably for a few years now.

[Stargazer]

Sometimes the rocky ground is on our side, and that is up to us. Sometimes the investigators come to us, not the other way around, and how we treat them makes all the difference in the world.

Oh, absolutely. I've seen some things along those lines, myself, and it can be heartbreaking. A baptism in a Georgia, USA ward of a black sister, who ran smack into the Southern white race prejudice first thing out of the starting block. Made to feel subtly unwelcome, an over the pulpit welcome that included the words "others of your kind" as if she were of some other species; not unexpectedly she didn't stay active, don't know if it was the soil or the heat of the day, but it was sad nevertheless.

I also spent a few months on my mission in a German ward that had more politics than most US states; growth there was glacial, and the backbiting was palpable. My companion and I baptized one sister, and the other sisters already in the ward drove her away within three months. There was one couple who were baptized during the same period and got fawned over by most of the ward because he was a fairly prominent person and a high officer in a national company in Germany. But he still had to weather some really odd stuff -- because there was a part of the ward that resented him because he was a prominent person and well-off financially, so instead of being ordained a priest (which is standard for adult male converts) he was ordained a deacon first. This apparently mollified the clique that presumed to resent the man's social standing, and was apparently approved by them as a way to keep him humble (although if he didn't know what the normal practice was, I don't see how this would help). Interestingly enough, in my observation of the guy he was one of the most humble and unprepossessing persons I had ever observed. Much later he became the bishop of the ward, and I hope he was able to straighten those people out.

[Stargazer]

I also want to add a thought based on the growth of my area of the church. I think there is a natural gathering taking place in many areas. While many areas in the world are dwindling, others like where I live are growing so fast we can't keep up with the growth. I have lived in the same house for about 5 years. In that time I've been in about as many wards and 2 stakes. We just split one ward in my building and now one of those wards is growing out of it's space again.

Many people who have come here, and this includes a great number of non-LDS, have told how they felt compelled to move here. Some of us, like me, swore we'd never live in Utah again, yet here we are compelled by circumstances that were not planned. I have heard these same things from others in different areas of the church.

So while the total numbers may be dwindling, many of the stakes of the church are becoming stronger.

This scares me. A long time ago I made a quiet determination that I will never ever move to Utah. Apparently that is some kind of trigger to being compelled to move there, so I best start doing the opposite.

On the other hand, I live in western Washington state, and we are possibly just about due for a coastal subduction earthquake (like, around level 9). Utah might be safer, at that.