Revisit Of Loomis'S Growth Predictions 10-Years Later

[LDSToronto]

A really good indicator of what these days is being called "real growth" (the number of people who are making and keeping covenants) is the proliferation of temples in the Church. The number of temples has increased many times over just in my lifetime.

The increase in the number of temples is an indicator of the the number of temples the Church has built. That is all. Usage statistics of those temples would be a better indicator of what you are claiming.

H.

[Xander]

A really good indicator of what these days is being called "real growth" (the number of people who are making and keeping covenants) is the proliferation of temples in the Church. The number of temples has increased many times over just in my lifetime.

That is absolute nonsense. Temples can be built left and right and they serve more the purpose of advertisement for the Church. That's why they have to be so "eye-catching" so other people will talk about them. The rate of temple marriages in places like South America is abysmal (despite claims of tremendous Church growth) as is temple attendance in general. But they still build them, even if there are only a dozen people going through them every day.

[Scott Lloyd]

The increase in the number of temples is an indicator of the the number of temples the Church has built. That is all. Usage statistics of those temples would be a better indicator of what you are claiming.

H.

The Church won't build a temple in an area unless there is a critical mass of temple-eligible individuals to sustain it. And only the most faithful, observant members have access to a temple. That is what I meant by "real growth."

That the Church builds temples to accommodate need is indicated by a comment by President Gordon B. Hinckley at the groundbreaking for the Draper Utah Temple:

"This is a really remarkable time," the Church president exclaimed "as we break ground for the 12th temple to be built in Utah, the third in this valley. We are frequently asked, 'Why so many temples in Utah?' It is because we need them. The Jordan River Temple is extremely busy, and the Salt Lake Temple is likewise busy. It is a great tribute to our people that they are so faithful in temple attendance."

President Hinckley added, "If people continue to move here, it may become necessary to build another, or two; but this will not be for some time — don't count on it tomorrow!"

Edited April 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Xander]

This is from LDS researcher David Stewart who runs the website cumorah.com:

Latter-day Saint media have also lauded rapid church growth. The LDS Church News has described international LDS growth with a litany of superlatives, including "astronomic," "dynamic," "miraculous," and "spectacular." The claim that the LDS Church is the "fastest growing church in the United States" has been repeated in the Ensign and LDS Church News.

Yet annual LDS growth rates have progressively declined from over 5 percent in the late 1980s to less than 3 percent from 2000 to 2005. During this same period, other international missionary-oriented faiths have reported accelerating growth, including the Seventh-Day Adventists, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, and Evangelical (5.6 percent annual growth) and Pentecostal churches (7.3 percent annual growth). Since 1990, LDS missionaries have been challenged to double the number of baptisms, but instead the number of baptisms per missionary has halved. The average LDS missionary in 1989 brought 8 people into the church, while the mean number of annual baptisms per missionary averaged between 6.0 and 6.5 between 1985 and 1999. From 2000 to 2004, the average missionary experienced 4.5 convert baptisms. When one accounts for actual activity and retention rates, approximately 1.2 of the 4.5 converts baptized annually by the typical missionary will remain active. The sharp decline in LDS growth rates occurred even at times with record numbers of missionaries serving. This declining growth comes in spite of the LDS Church entering fifty-nine new nations for proselyting between 1990 and 2000.

For 2004, 241,239 LDS convert baptisms were reported, the lowest number of converts since 1987. The number of convert baptisms increased to 272,845 in 2006, but both missionary productivity and the total number of baptisms remained well below the levels of the early 1990s. Even more concerning is that only a fraction of baptized members remain active. Sociologist Armand Mauss stated that "75 percent of foreign [LDS] converts are not attending church within a year of conversion. In the United States, 50 percent of the converts fail to attend after a year". As 80 percent of LDS convert baptisms occur outside of the United States, this means that only 30% of LDS converts worldwide become active or participating members of the Church. Natural LDS growth has also fallen as the LDS birth rate has progressively declined. LDS church membership has continued to increase, but the rate of growth has slowed considerably.

http://www.cumorah.c...cles&story_id=8

Edited April 1, 2012 by Xander

[Skylla]

(Sniffle)

How touching. And how much more impressive are other faiths like the SDA which have been far more successful.

Oh, and you forgot to say you say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen!

Xander: Take a break for a week.

Skylla

[Xander]

The Church won't build a temple in an area unless there is a critical mass of temple-eligible individuals to sustain it. And only the most faithful, observant members have access to a temple. That is what I meant by "real growth."

So what does it say about real growth in a given area when Elderly missionaries from the USA are asked to serve in Temples abroad?

[Scott Lloyd]

So what does it say about real growth in a given area when Elderly missionaries from the USA are asked to serve in Temples abroad?

That perhaps the area lacks enough local members who have the time and means to be full-time ordinance workers and sealers.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Oh brother... Xander - the scholar of all things Mormonism has conveniently forgotten the raising of the bar for missionaries and the effort to improve the quality over quantity of teaching.

My son experienced this first hand as he worked hard to prepare himself to be worthy of a mission. He was well received by the Filipino people and convert baptisms and member reactivation was in full swing. I'm sure this experience is repeated world wide as people either join the LDS church or at least learn more about the Gospel as missionaries teach and serve.

Now that my son is completing his Army training he sees his mission as a foundation of his faith experience that is now being built upon.

Mr. Graham and his family will not experience this great blessing as he has made the choice to leave the Church and take his descendants with him. All he is left with is mocking and straining to find the least little flaw or imperfection and expand upon it as though it is the ultimate fate of all Mormons.

Edited April 1, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

The increase in the number of temples is an indicator of the the number of temples the Church has built. That is all. Usage statistics of those temples would be a better indicator of what you are claiming.

H.

Use predicts where Temples will be located. The Saints of South Carolina were faithful in attending the Atlanta temple for years - even more so than the Saints from Georgia in terms of percentages of membership. One of the first smaller local temples was built in Columbia South Carolina. I was there and witnessed the faith of the Saints and their desire and work. I was not surprised by the announcement.

[KevinG]

That perhaps the area lacks enough local members who have the time and means to be full-time ordinance workers and sealers.

I suspect there is a little cross-pollination of church membership like with the younger Elders and Sisters. It is a good experience for Saints from other countries to come here and ours to go elsewhere.

[RadioFreeDeath]

On the OP. Nice predictions. I too would be interested in your expectations for the next ten years or even a hundred. I would also be curious as to what you think the reasons are that there isn't exponential growth.

Do you blame it on the age of information?

Does it have more to do with having saturated a good share of the world by the 80s and so without expansion of areas we have hit a peak in growth so to speak?

All in all, the numbers are still impressive, the church is growing, 280,000 new converts is a very respectable number and 14 and a half million members is still impressive.

If you wanted to see church growth be bigger what would you change?

Also no one has noted but we are not seeing a huge increase in the number of missionaries going into the field. Is this because of the raising the bar standard?

Overall, I don't think there is anything to worry about in church growth and numbers. My testimony was built on Christ not on popularity however it is interesting to see growth trends in the church. Honestly I would not be surprised to see a time where the world has fallen so far that we will again be a people apart, the world and its sins has never been super close to the church. On the other hand maybe a time of exploding growth may happen.

I can't remember where i read this, but I read somewhere that christian churches becoming middle class tends to lead to stagnation in growth. As the church demographically shifts closer each year to being middle class and appealing less to the rich or poor could this be a factor? Is it even the case? I have a lot of random thoughts on this issue.

[Analytics]

Some of us apologetically inclined Saints have always understood that the church growth and growth rates (notice the distinction) would wax and wane on the way to spreading the gospel throughout the earth.

Nice job on the predictions. What is your estimate for the next decade?

Thanks. My best guess is that it will continue to grow by about 350k members per year, reaching about 18,600,000 at the end of 2021.

[Pahoran]

So this Roger Loomis fellow still retains this statistical stuff ten years later, does he?

Clearly he's good at doing sums. But perhaps he's a little bit analytically retentive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

On the OP. Nice predictions. I too would be interested in your expectations for the next ten years or even a hundred. I would also be curious as to what you think the reasons are that there isn't exponential growth. Do you blame it on the age of information? Does it have more to do with having saturated a good share of the world by the 80s and so without expansion of areas we have hit a peak in growth so to speak? All in all, the numbers are still impressive, the church is growing, 280,000 new converts is a very respectable number and 14 and a half million members is still impressive. If you wanted to see church growth be bigger what would you change? Also no one has noted but we are not seeing a huge increase in the number of missionaries going into the field. Is this because of the raising the bar standard? Overall, I don't think there is anything to worry about in church growth and numbers. My testimony was built on Christ not on popularity however it is interesting to see growth trends in the church. Honestly I would not be surprised to see a time where the world has fallen so far that we will again be a people apart, the world and its sins has never been super close to the church. On the other hand maybe a time of exploding growth may happen. I can't remember where i read this, but I read somewhere that christian churches becoming middle class tends to lead to stagnation in growth. As the church demographically shifts closer each year to being middle class and appealing less to the rich or poor could this be a factor? Is it even the case? I have a lot of random thoughts on this issue.

The most interesting thing about this is that the growth rate peaked out around 1980, and has been slowly going down ever since. The growth of the internet--at least within the U.S., was like a bomb--as I recall, usage went from 6% in 1996 to 55% in 2000, and has remained almost flat ever since. That huge impact over the course of 4 years didn't make any impact on the slowing of the growth rate that started before and continued after.

I'd suggest the following issues:

1- "Pioneer stock" Mormons are having fewer kids. 30 years ago, it seamed that 5-10 kids per family was the norm; now it's in the 3-5 range.

2- Because of past missionary success, a greater percentage of Mormons are no longer "pioneer stock" Mormons, and have 2-4 kids based upon their non-Mormon culture.

3- Missionaries are a lot less successful on a per-missionary basis than they used to be.

4- I suspect there are greater inactivity rates. A greater percentage of Mormons are so inactive, although they are counted on the membership roles, they don't get their kids baptized.

Missionary productivity really started taking a big slide in the late 80's, when "The Missionary Guide" and those simplified pastel discussions came out. It was also the same general time period when the church took a "back to the basics" approach of correlated manuals and meetings, a renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and interesting doctrine (e.g. "as man now is, God once was") was deemphasized. Frankly, I think the gospel message and church participation has become kind of boring because of those things, and I think that has a bigger effect on the strength of the church than the information age.

I do think it has to be harder to get new converts and retain members when they have so much information about church history available from easy-to-search-and-verify information that the Internet makes available in their homes. But there are bigger trends in play here.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Analytics

[Analytics]

So this Roger Loomis fellow still retains this statistical stuff ten years later, does he? Clearly he's good at doing sums. But perhaps he's a little bit analytically retentive. Regards, Pahoran

Good pun! Anybody who actually knows me would laugh at the irony of your post. As I often say, there are three types of actuaries: those who can count, and those who can't.

[wenglund]

Rodney Stark is irrelevant to the point of this thread. Roger's predictions were dead on, and they clearly upset some apologists at the time. And there is no evidence that "Satan" has done anything to prevent the Church from converting more people. All evidence points to the fact that the more people know about the Church, the less likely they are to join it. You can blame that on Satan if that is what you need to do, but today people are more skeptical than they were twenty or fifty years ago. From buying a car, a house or even dog food, people have access to consumer reports and easily accessed testimonies from unsatisfied customers, which is going to provide the pros and cons of whatever it is you're thinking of buying. Choosing a religion is a much more serious decision for most people, and so they're going to take time out to investigate it beyond what the Church says. The Church would have people hear only its missionary presentation, which carefully ignores tons of controversial issues that would otherwise dissuade people from ever joining.

Even though the Church is still growing, leave it to the Kevin Graham's of the world to assume their side is winning. LOL

In other words, even though hundreds of thousands of people are still coming to Christ each year and converting to his restored gospel of love, senor Graham couldn't pass up the opportunity to preach his gospel of disdain, strut and preen as though his message is more profoundly resonant, and hack and cough away at the apologetics stuck in his craw. What a proud moment for him!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Missionary productivity really started taking a big slide in the late 80's, when "The Missionary Guide" and those simplified pastel discussions came out. It was also the same general time period when the church took a "back to the basics" approach of correlated manuals and meetings, a renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and interesting doctrine (e.g. "as man now is, God once was") was deemphasized.

The pastel discussions were being used when I served my mission, from 1974 to 1976 (I assume you mean the ones involving use of the flip charts in teaching). Priesthood correlation has been in full swing since the 1960s. The Book of Mormon has been emphasized for at least as long as I've been alive, and the concept of God having been a man has never really been developed beyond that simple statement.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

Rodney Stark is not a prophet. In fact, he's not even a Church member.

Oh, I'm quite aware of both of those facts, but neither of them has much, if anything, to do with why I don't have a testimony of him.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I'm quite aware of both of those facts, but neither of them has much, if anything, to do with why I don't have a testimony of him.

I got your point, and I agree with it. I just thought it worth noting that Stark is not a Church member lest the Church itself be accused of making inflated projections.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

I am not a statistician, and my information is based on a very small sample size, but over the several years I have lived in three stakes in three areas of the US-one in Utah-the activity rates as measured by sacrament meeting attendance increased in all cases. Not dramatically, but enough that the claim of critics that active LDS are leaving the church in droves due to finding out that JS was a polygamist-or something along those lines-on the internet would not seem to hold water. And of course, that information has been available for a long time to anyone who cared to read. I was aware of most of the "interesting" historical issues as a teenager in the 1970's.

[Analytics]

The pastel discussions were being used when I served my mission, from 1974 to 1976 (I assume you mean the ones involving use of the flip charts in teaching). Priesthood correlation has been in full swing since the 1960s. The Book of Mormon has been emphasized for at least as long as I've been alive, and the concept of God having been a man has never really been developed beyond that simple statement.

No, I'm talking about the little booklets called, if I remember correctly, "Unified System for Teaching the Gospel," published in 1986. As an example of how mainstreamed and boring these discussions were, consider the beginning of the first discussion: "Most people believe in a Supreme Being, even though they may call him by different names. We know that God lives. We want to share with you our feelings about him. God is perfect, all-wise, and all-powerful. He is also merciful, kind, and just. We know that we can have faith in him. We can love him with all our hearts...."

Except in round-about ways, the discussions never made any bold, uniquely Mormon claims about God. For example, they never mentioned that God has a physical body.

Why do you think the growth-rate of the church has been going down for the past thirty years?

[Analytics]

Even though the Church is still growing, leave it to the Kevin Graham's of the world to assume their side is winning. LOL

In other words, even though hundreds of thousands of people are still coming to Christ each year and converting to his restored gospel of love, senor Graham couldn't pass up the opportunity to preach his gospel of disdain, strut and preen as though his message is more profoundly resonant, and hack and cough away at the apologetics stuck in his craw. What a proud moment for him!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are the one that's being disdainful. The two sides of the debate in question are Rodney Stark's forecast of Church's growth and Roger Loomis's. Which of those two do you think made a better forecast of Church growth?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This thread is a bit perplexing.

Clearly some one had a better forecast. So what of it.

[jskains]

You are the one that's being disdainful. The two sides of the debate in question are Rodney Stark's forecast of Church's growth and Roger Loomis's. Which of those two do you think made a better forecast of Church growth?

Sorry, but I disagree. I think some of you are too busy gloating. Do you gloat when any other Christian church has a heavy decline in their population and congregations get evicted and foreclosed on? It's like kids laughing at someone who tripped and scrammed their knee.

JMS

[why me]

If these weren't documented predictions from the past, I'd say this was an April Fools joke.

I'm not surprised that you had more insight into this than the average apologist, but your figures approximate so closely to the actual numbers that this is nothing short of amazing.

Nice going Roger.

It pretty much corresponds to much of what I've been saying too. The Church's growth rate is dropping substantially. It is becoming more and more difficult to obtain the level of success it once enjoyed in the past. The biggest enemy of the Church is information, and in our age of information, it is just an uphill battle for them.

The number of missions is actually dropping, and the number of converts per missionary has dropped substantially since the early 90's. The number of missionaries in the mission field has dropped since the mid-90's and has since leveled off (despite claimed increases in overall membership) because of the increasing levels of inactivity among Mormon teens. The only area where the Church is really growing is in the "children of record" department. These numbers are included in the overall membership count, and in 2002 I think the Church added something like 69,000 children of record, whereas the past two years that number has nearly doubled. I think it was 120,000 last year.

I think that the internet has much to do with it. We live in a surfer's paradise these days and most people who may be investigating the church head straight to the internet and read all sorts of fun stuff from the critics about the lds church. It sounds great and it sounds convincing and it does have an effect on the numbers of baptisms. Now much that is on the internet have always been out there but with the internet and critic interpretations, the lds church is facing a problem. And this is reflected in the numbers.

I don't know of a single church that has always had an army of enemies seeking to destroy it. It was like this during JS's time and it is like this now. But the lds church soldiers on...more slow now but still...it is growing.