Some Interesting Numbers

[divinenature]

What about people who never had names? How are they going to get their temple ordinances done?

[robuchan]

When I joined the Church forty years ago, there were just over three million members, and 14 operating temples. If you had carried out your calculations then, what do you think the results would have shown? Given the exponential growth rate of the Church, what do you think the figures would show if you did your calculations in forty years from now? How about 100 years from now? How about 200 years from now? Do you think that the Second Coming will have taken place by then? It hasn't happened during the past 200 years; so what makes you so sure it will happen during the next 200 years?

The five year growth rate of the church is 2.4%, but this includes a large number of converts who go inactive immediately and are kept on the records until they are 110 years old. A better growth rate to use would be the total number of ward and branch units. Five year growth rate for units is 1.13% and three year growth rate is 0.988%. This is pretty close to the world growth rate which is about 1%. I don't think you can say the church is growing exponentially.

[rongo]

With angels help, during the Millenium.

[zerinus]

The five year growth rate of the church is 2.4%, but this includes a large number of converts who go inactive immediately and are kept on the records until they are 110 years old. A better growth rate to use would be the total number of ward and branch units. Five year growth rate for units is 1.13% and three year growth rate is 0.988%. This is pretty close to the world growth rate which is about 1%. I don't think you can say the church is growing exponentially.

That depends on who is doing the calculating. No church has 100% activity rate. The Catholic Church boasts the largest membership of any Christian church, but the vast majority of them have not put a foot inside a church for years. Many are born Catholics who are no more believers in Catholicism than in something else. If you were to exclude all inactive and unbelieving Catholics from Catholic membership, that would whittle down their numbers very considerably. No church calculates its membership the way you are proposing. According to my projections of the graph found in that website, the total membership of the Church in 200 years from now is close to 100,000,000.

That includes inactives and whatever. Those who are exed, or who have requested name removal, are not included in the membership count of the Church. I knocked this image together in Microsoft Paint by the way, nothing too clever I am afraid.

Edited March 8, 2012 by zerinus

[robuchan]

That depends on who is doing the calculating. No church has 100% activity rate. The Catholic Church boasts the largest membership of any Christian church, but the vast majority of them have not put a foot inside a church for years. Many are born Catholics who are no more believers in Catholicism than in something else. If you were to exclude all inactive and unbelieving Catholics from Catholic membership, that would whittle down their numbers very considerably. No church calculates its membership the way you are proposing. According to my projections of the graph found in that website, the total membership of the Church in 200 years from now is close to 100,000,000.

That includes inactive and whatever. Those who are exed, or who have requested name removal, are not included in the membership count of the Church. I knocked this image together in Microsoft Paint by the way, nothing too clever I am afraid.

What growth rate did you use?

[LeSellers]

What about people who never had names? How are they going to get their temple ordinances done?

Who knows? Maybe we'll assign them names the way the Padres did in California in the XVI. We once baptized about a hundred "Juans" in a single session at the baptistry. There were also a host of "Marias". They all had different birth dates.

Is it a big problem? I heard of a culture where a child does not receive a name until his first birthday, but I didn't believe it then and don't now. It's hard to imagine a place or time when mother doesn't want to call her baby something personal, more so than "baby".

Lehi

[Bond...James Bond]

That depends on who is doing the calculating. No church has 100% activity rate. The Catholic Church boasts the largest membership of any Christian church, but the vast majority of them have not put a foot inside a church for years. Many are born Catholics who are no more believers in Catholicism than in something else. If you were to exclude all inactive and unbelieving Catholics from Catholic membership, that would whittle down their numbers very considerably. No church calculates its membership the way you are proposing. According to my projections of the graph found in that website, the total membership of the Church in 200 years from now is close to 100,000,000.

That includes inactives and whatever. Those who are exed, or who have requested name removal, are not included in the membership count of the Church. I knocked this image together in Microsoft Paint by the way, nothing too clever I am afraid.

We'll wait on the actual numbers.

(And did you account for the zombie apocalypse? You know it's coming.)

[zerinus]

What growth rate did you use?

I didn't. I simply projected the graph line, which is a perfectly legitimate way of approximating a projection.

[zerinus]

We'll wait on the actual numbers.

Well, as I said, I joined the Church forty years ago, and after "waiting" forty years the Church membership has jumped (steadily) from three million to fourteen million. You are free to be sceptical if you wish, but you cannot deny that I have a good reason to be optimistic.

[zerinus]

You'd have reason to be more optimistic if a majority of your supposed "members" were actually, you know, members.

I don't really think I need to answer that. It was already answered.

[Ares]

Bond and Zeez are excused for contributing nothing of substance to this thread.

[LDSToronto]

I didn't. I simply projected the graph line, which is a perfectly legitimate way of approximating a projection.

If you have a linear growth model. Church growth is not a linear growth model.

H.

[Gillebre]

Perhaps only a third of those are actual TR holders (my anecdotal experience of every Stake and Ward I served in). And then most of those go once a month or less (anecdotal).

I can't help but wonder if such get baptism anyway when they grow up. Already being in the CK would seem to indicate not, yet, such is still a general requirement.

Christ was baptized, yet He had no sins to have washed away.

[zerinus]

If you have a linear growth model. Church growth is not a linear growth model.

H.

I think it is close enough for it to make a good approximation. That is all I wanted to do.

[LDSToronto]

I think it is close enough for it to make a good approximation. That is all I wanted to do.

Year-over-year growth rate is decreasing; a more accurate approximation would be a much flatter, horizontal line, almost parallel to the abscissa.

H.

[Duncan]

How many resurrected temple workers can dance on the head of a pin?

7, I was a dancing judge in my earlier years

[robuchan]

I think it is close enough for it to make a good approximation. That is all I wanted to do.

When you're projecting growth, small changes make a big difference.

For example, let's look at things 200 years out and assume world population grows at 1%.

Right now, LDS makes up about 0.2% of the world or 1 of every 400 people in the world are LDS.

If LDS grows at 2.4%, in 200 years 1 in every 27 people will be LDS.

If church grows at 1.5%, in 200 years 1 in every 160 people will be LDS.

If church grows at 1%, in 200 years the same 1 in every 400 people.

If church grows at 0.5%, in 200 years 1 in 1,156 people will be LDS.

[zerinus]

Year-over-year growth rate is decreasing; a more accurate approximation would be a much flatter, horizontal line, almost parallel to the abscissa.

H.

I don't think so. The growth rate is actually exponential. I erred on the side of caution. The true figure in 200 years time is more likely to be close to 200,000,000, if past trends continue.

[Gillebre]

isn't the church gaining around 350k a year?

[Mudcat]

isn't the church gaining around 350k a year?

Not since Marie Osmond got on Jenny Craig.

...but I digress

apologies...

Edited March 9, 2012 by Mudcat

[Avatar4321]

Im alittle confused about the numbers too.

You seem to be including children and inactives. Im not sure we have an accurate record of how many temple recommend holders there are in the Church.

What exactly is the number of ordinances per person stat? Are you trying to divide number of people who have lived by members because the number i got was similiar but significantly higher: 76,143

The calculations seemed more off as i went further. Can you provide more information on how you reached these numbers?

[cinepro]

I don't think so. The growth rate is actually exponential. I erred on the side of caution. The true figure in 200 years time is more likely to be close to 200,000,000, if past trends continue.

Rodney Stark? Is that you?

[Saints Alive]

Im alittle confused about the numbers too.

You seem to be including children and inactives. Im not sure we have an accurate record of how many temple recommend holders there are in the Church.

I am counting all members, children and inactive. Presumably, there will be no inactive members during the millennium and we will certainly have more members so that should negate counting children.

What exactly is the number of ordinances per person stat? Are you trying to divide number of people who have lived by members because the number i got was similiar but significantly higher: 76,143

I divided the estimated number of people who ever lived on earth by the current church membership (twice), and got 7416 ( both times)

The calculations seemed more off as i went further. Can you provide more information on how you reached these numbers?

What else specifically did you think was off? Remember this is just a ball park estimate.

[KevinG]

Not since Marie Osmond got on Jenny Craig.

...but I digress

apologies...

That there is funny... I don't care who you are! - Larry the Cable Guy

[Jeff K.]

The numbers are interesting. One wonders what the numbers were at the beginning, and what it meant then? Or just after the death of Joseph Smith and what they meant then?