Lds Membership Numbers

[TAO]

I'd suggest some are staying in because they have a testimony of Christ verses a testimony of the Church.

Some maybe. The majority that I ran into, no. Mind you though, I don't consider someone with doubts about the first vision, a 'NOM'. It takes doubts about many more things to make them such... I guess you could say I consider purely social mormons to be 'NOM's. Not those with just doubts, but those that don't believe but stay in anyways.

I'd suggest you are way out of touch on why they are trying to stay.

You could talk to the people on NOMboard about that. They tend to fit more in the social category, I'm afraid =/. I do wish more fit in the testimony of Christ category =(. I could help so much better those who want help.

What in the world does this have to do with apologetics? I'm talking about people, whom well may be sitting next to you next Sunday, who might be better served with a helping hand pulling them close, verses a shoving arm, from fear of their potentially contagious leprosy.

How do NOMs become NOM? By reading internet material, usually. I read some, got some answers (from the spirit), wanted to help some people, and got into apologetics (though sometimes the spirit wants something much more simple than apologetics). What I was saying, is that dealing with harsh criticisms of the church takes a testimony to survive. A strong one... one that is willing to throw off all the waves and mud of doubt the world throws at you.

It's weird actually. Sometimes, I can just feel that doubts trying to wash against me and knock me down. Sometimes I let it in my heart, and I have to push and throw it out. It is essential not to let it fester.

That's pretty clear.

I think my definition for NOM is different than yours is, my friend. People with some slight doubts don't deserve to be called NOMs, imo. It takes disbelief.

[Thinking]

And your point is?

Attendance rates are dropping.

[rockslider]

I guess you could say I consider purely social mormons to be 'NOM's. Not those with just doubts, but those that don't believe but stay in anyways.

Ok, using this definition as a line in the sand. Do you believe the Church should purge these members?

How do NOMs become NOM? By reading internet material, usually.

I'd suggest that in many instances, doubts arose which then led them to internet material. But never the less, let's assume a valiant member visits an internet site and subsequently becomes NOM. Same question: Do you believe the Church should purge these members?

I read some, got some answers (from the spirit), wanted to help some people, and got into apologetics (though sometimes the spirit wants something much more simple than apologetics). What I was saying, is that dealing with harsh criticisms of the church takes a testimony to survive. A strong one... one that is willing to throw off all the waves and mud of doubt the world throws at you.

I believe you are mixing up the concepts of bearing testimony, crying repentance to the world and apologetics.

TAO, apologetics is not about the heart and the spirit. You are not an apologist.

People with some slight doubts don't deserve to be called NOMs, imo. It takes disbelief.

Based on this statement, I assume your answer to; should the church purge members who doubt, would be no.

But that kind of brings us full circle to your original statement:

rockslider, the reason why the 'NOMish' lifestyle is problematic, is because it convinces others that it is acceptable to be in the Church and yet not believe it's truth claims.

Should the church purge those that do not believe its truth claims?

So, who is going to be the judge of where the line between doubt and disbelief lies? How is this determined?

[Thinking]

An interesting trend to watch is congregational growth. Over the past decade, the US has seen an increase of 2,039 congregations.

Congregational growth is a better indicator of what I would call real growth. So yes the Church is experiencing real growth, but it has to be concerned with the fact that congregational growth is much slower than membership growth.

Since 1999, membership grew from 10,752,986 to 14,131,467, an increase of 31.42%. During that same period, congregations increased from 25,793 to 28,660, an 11.12% increase.

[TAO]

Ok, using this definition as a line in the sand. Do you believe the Church should purge these members?

No, no purges. I don't like purges. I just view their stance as somewhat... contradictory.

I'd suggest that in many instances, doubts arose which then led them to internet material. But never the less, let's assume a valiant member visits an internet site and subsequently becomes NOM. Same question: Do you believe the Church should purge these members?

Correct, doubts arise (usually mentioned by someone else, not done by self), and then they go to internet material. But they shouldn't be doing this until their testimony is strong enough.

And again, no purges. I just don't like their contradictory position. And I don't want to encourage that.

I believe you are mixing up the concepts of bearing testimony, crying repentance to the world and apologetics.

I know the difference. But what I like doing is mixing the two together, making apologetics a more positive thing, I hope =).

TAO, apologetics is not about the heart and the spirit. You are not an apologist.

That's what DarthJ said. About two months in, he changed his mind. I don't know what he thinks now.

Based on this statement, I assume your answer to; should the church purge members who doubt, would be no.

Correct. The church should help them. And it does.

But that kind of brings us full circle to your original statement:

Should the church purge those that do not believe its truth claims?

So, who is going to be the judge of where the line between doubt and disbelief lies? How is this determined?

Who is going to judge will have to be bishops, stake presidents, and other leaders. Why is it important to use righteous judgement? Because it gives us a chance of bringing them back. I am very hesitant though on being complacent; we should be actively seeking out to help them, kind, and yet earnest.

My main point is we must do all we can to turn these 'NOMs', into members. Even if they leave the church because of our efforts, it is better to have a few repentant people with new and strong and good testimonies than it is to have people who don't believe, but stay in the church. We should also help people who have doubts handle information that is causing them to doubt, so that way, they have enough time to gain a testimony.

But yah, that's my opinon behind it, not exactly perfect, but yah, better than nothing.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Hamba Tuhan]

Since 1999, membership grew from 10,752,986 to 14,131,467, an increase of 31.42%. During that same period, congregations increased from 25,793 to 28,660, an 11.12% increase.

Much of this, no doubt, is due to poor retention of converts in some areas. Some of it, however, may be due to increasing congregational size, from very small units to more moderately sized ones. That's precisely what's happened in my stake in the eight years I've been here. Our very small wards have grown and grown--my own is averaging more than 100 additional members in sacrament meeting right now than it did nearly eight years ago--but we are still far away from having grown enough to consider creating new wards. Outside the US, the Church often creates almost ridiculously small wards, giving them heaps of space into which to absorb new members. As of stake PEC last week, my stake has seen 18 convert baptisms so far in 2011, all of whom are still active and progressing. We've had no trouble absoring them and in fact could absorb them many times over without it putting any 'population pressure' on our wards/branch.

I wish this were the sole explanation for the stats, but I'm sure it's not. From what I've read, there are some parts of the world where converts seem to have some kind of half life. It's a real shame.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Should the church purge those that do not believe its truth claims?

The Church is quite happy to have people attend and participate who are not and never have been believers. A problem arises only when those who don't believe seek to spread their unbelief. If that is happening, even if subtly, action has to be taken.

So, who is going to be the judge of where the line between doubt and disbelief lies? How is this determined?

See Mosiah 26. It's not easy for the men involved. At all.

[Monster]

Considering a church that throws everything including the kitchen sink at missionary work, a church that contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel, a church that has the holy ghost working on the world to get them to hear the message and convert, we are doing an extremely lousy job at growth. It is not about growth or lack thereof, but you have to look at the energy put out to maintain what we have. I dare say Mormons put out more energy for less results than most religions. Take 7th Day Adventists for example. They started some 30 or so years after Mormonism. They boast as many members worldwide (and that is real attending members), and are on a steeper growth curve yet I do not see Adventists roaming neighbor hoods trying to convert every household. My point is for a church that claims absolute truth and works that message hard we should be doing a little better than treading water. Our activity rates should be much higher and it should be more evident to the world we know what we are talking about. All this seems to point out at least to me we are just another religion trying to get elbow room in a crowded room.

[mfbukowski]

Attendance rates are dropping.

No proof of that if you have read my posts.

[rockslider]

No proof of that if you have read my posts.

Nothing to back it up, but would suggest that the world wide, percentage of once per month or better attendance rates in the 80's would have been 60%.

Do you believe that statement is way out in left field (i.e. no it was only 35% even then)

[ERayR]

Attendance rates are dropping.

Yes and this is proof that...?

[mrcuff]

I moved to Henderson, NV, 13 years ago. We have lived in five wards and three different stakes, and we have not moved. The Church is really growing here. Every Ward that we have lived in had to open up the overflow section and ended up splitting. I don't know what the activity rate is, but we are bursting at the seams.

[mfbukowski]

Nothing to back it up, but would suggest that the world wide, percentage of once per month or better attendance rates in the 80's would have been 60%.

Do you believe that statement is way out in left field (i.e. no it was only 35% even then)

I was an EQ Pres in the 80's and we were around the low 40's as I recall.

One ward, one quorum, as I recollect from almost 30 years ago.

That's about as good as any of the numbers I have seen here so far anyway.

[Lance in TX]

I don't know the actual numbers but I know that our wards are growing where we are (North Texas). Our Stake now has 12 wards and they are building a new Stake building about 10 miles from us. Our ward always has the overflow open. Our wards were re-organized about 3 years ago to even them out a little and we keep growing.

I cannot count how many people I know in this area (both members and not members) that are from California!