why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) As far as the OP is concerned, I don't that the OP could have foreseen the effect of the Internet on people searching for information about the lds church. If the internet was not there or if the lds church had a better defense mechanism, the numbers of members would be much higher. Edited April 2, 2012 by why me
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 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?And did one see how the internet would effect church growth? Here is what I know: listening to conference I had a distinct feeling that the lds churchs stands for much that is good in this world and much that is good in human nature. And many people in this world would love to be a part of it because it is basic for human wellbeing. But with the internet making the mormons idiots and fools and interpreting history in such a way that would cast doubt in people's minds, it is not surprising that people would turn away. But...whoever was listening to GC with an open heart had their humanness speak to them in volumes.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 This thread is a bit perplexing.Clearly some one had a better forecast. So what of it.There is some history here. When this forecast was first made, a few board participants considered it prosperous that somebody would contradict the superlatively qualified and objective professor Stark. Stark made his original forecast in 1980, and in 2000, published a paper gleefully claiming that 20 years later, the Church was actually ahead-of-schedule to reach the magic 280 million by 2080. How dare somebody who wasn't an expert at Sociology have a differing opinion?If following-up on this isn't of interest to you, that's fine.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.JMSIf somebody were to make a detailed analysis and predict that in January of 2014 shares of Apple would be trading at $300 a share, it wouldn't be disdainful to check in on that date and see how well he predicted the future. Besides, the Mormon Church hasn't suffered a heavy decline in its population with congregations getting evicted and foreclosed on. As Wade said, "hundreds of thousands of people are still coming to Christ each year and converting to his restored gospel of love!"
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I see you might be confused a bit.Mormonism/LDS Church is a religious institution who's members allow it to influence their lives and is sacred to them.Apple is a for-profit corporation with its worse issue right now being how to spend $970 Million.Declining Apple stock benefits those who want to buy it. Declining LDS Culture benefits no one other than those who wring their hands desperate for the LDS Church's ultimate demise.Hope that clarifies things.JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 As far as the OP is concerned, I don't that the OP could have foreseen the effect of the Internet on people searching for information about the lds church. If the internet was not there or if the lds church had a better defense mechanism, the numbers of members would be much higher.The actual paper notes that the with the exception of a couple of anomalous years, the church’s growth rate went down steadily from 1980 to 2001. The Internet came roaring onto the scene over the time period of 1996 to 2000, and there was no statistical evidence that this caused the growth rate to accelerate. Of course pro, anti, and ostensibly objective sites (e.g. wikipedia) have become more sophisticated since then, so the entire effect of the Internet wasn't in the dataset.Based upon the trends of 1980 through 2001, Loomis predicted 14.8 million members would be on the rolls by now. There are only 14.4 million. Is the church 400,000 members smaller than it otherwise would have been due to information now being more easily available? Sounds plausible. But with regards to the end of exponential growth, other forces are in play.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 If following-up on this isn't of interest to you, that's fine.Lol,I am sure I will follow this some what. But I guess I see what the hub bub is. I always thought his predictions were a bit high.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 I see you might be confused a bit.Mormonism/LDS Church is a religious institution who's members allow it to influence their lives and is sacred to them.Apple is a for-profit corporation with its worse issue right now being how to spend $970 Million.Declining Apple stock benefits those who want to buy it. Declining LDS Culture benefits no one other than those who wring their hands desperate for the LDS Church's ultimate demise.Hope that clarifies things.JMSJust to make sure we're clear, you appear to think it's okay for a scholar such as Rodney Stark to make rosey forecasts of LDS Church growth because Mormonism is a good religion, but it is evil for somebody to critque that forecast, because again, Mormon is a good religion. Likewise, it is evil for somebody to evaulate the forecasts after some data has rolled out. Is that right?
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I think growth predictions are all annoying. But especially when people get excited about them like Kevin, who seem to gloat that "ha ha, you guys ain't growing anymore".I never thought Stark was right.JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 I think growth predictions are all annoying. But especially when people get excited about them like Kevin, who seem to gloat that "ha ha, you guys ain't growing anymore".I never thought Stark was right.JMSI think long-term forecasts are fascinating. If you find it annoying, I can recommend some things you can spend your time on other than belittling forecasters.
Stargazer Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Not having ever even heard of Rodney Stark, and having no previous knowledge of the debate on church membership, i don't have a dog in this hunt. However, i had to say good job on getting the stats almost perfect. That shows a level of skill that is very impressive. Either that or he was particularly lucky, but still, good work Analytics coming so close to the real numbers!
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) 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...."OK, I know the ones you mean now. You confused me by calling them the pastel discussions, as there is nothing pastel about them. The ones that have been nicknamed the pastel discussions actually were printed on pastel-colored paper and bound in a looseleaf binder with a different color for each discussion.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.I see some inconsistency here. Earlier, you gave a renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon as one of the factors that contributed to a decline in growth rate. There is nothing more "uniquely Mormon" than the Book of Mormon.Why do you think the growth-rate of the church has been going down for the past thirty years?I have not gathered any data or collected any documentation, so I could only give my best guess, as you have done. Is that what you want? Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I think long-term forecasts are fascinating. If you find it annoying, I can recommend some things you can spend your time on other than belittling forecasters.Of a Church you don't agree with? Why? Seems like an unhealthy obsession. I don't like Scientology much, but I certainly don't spend my time writing predictions on its activity rates. That usually gets quirked eyes and questions of sanity.JMS
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Based upon the trends of 1980 through 2001, Loomis predicted 14.8 million members would be on the rolls by now. There are only 14.4 million. Is the church 400,000 members smaller than it otherwise would have been due to information now being more easily available? Sounds plausible. But with regards to the end of exponential growth, other forces are in play.Let me try this again: the 400,000 smaller would have been made up without the internet interference and that was my point. The last decade has been quite a challenge to the lds church. The internet and the quick surfing of information has had its toll. And it still does.
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Of a Church you don't agree with? Why? Seems like an unhealthy obsession. I don't like Scientology much, but I certainly don't spend my time writing predictions on its activity rates. That usually gets quirked eyes and questions of sanity.JMSI think that this is another aspect of the psyche of former members. Some just can't leave it alone...so much so, that every general conference they are biting their finger nails waiting for church growth stats. For the last ten years I have been hearing hardened critics predict the end of the lds church and how members are leaving in droves. And yet, the church still grows. Edited April 2, 2012 by why me
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I think that this is another aspect of the psyche of former members. Some just can't leave it alone...so much so, that every general conference they are biting their finger nails waiting for church growth stats. For the last ten years I have hearing hardened critics predict the end of the lds church and how members are leaving in droves. And yet, the church still grows.It's frankly creepy. Does any other religion have this many people who obsess about it to the point of generating graphs and making growth predictions? Or are we the only lucky ones who get all the special cases?JMS
Stargazer Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 No, I'm talking about the little booklets called, if I remember correctly, "Unified System for Teaching the Gospel," published in 1986. Oh, yes, I remember those. Initially I thought they were a good idea, but they didn't last long. The Preach My Gospel guide is far superior.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) It's frankly creepy. Does any other religion have this many people who obsess about it to the point of generating graphs and making growth predictions? Or are we the only lucky ones who get all the special cases?JMSIn fairness to Roger, I have to say there are non-Mormon scholars who specialize in the study of Mormonism or aspects thereof who are not unfriendly. Jan Shipps is one who comes to mind. Bill McKinnon is another. And Dan Peterson, a Mormon, specializes in the study of Islam.It's not necessarily a bad thing. It depends a lot on underlying motivation, I suppose. Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Grundelwalken Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 There is some history here. When this forecast was first made, a few board participants considered it prosperous that somebody would contradict the superlatively qualified and objective professor Stark. Stark made his original forecast in 1980, and in 2000, published a paper gleefully claiming that 20 years later, the Church was actually ahead-of-schedule to reach the magic 280 million by 2080. How dare somebody who wasn't an expert at Sociology have a differing opinion?Not to quibble too much but my calendar says it is only 2012. I realize that we all like to take intermediate temperatures of these predictions but it seems we ought to wait until 2080 to really see who was correct. Congrats to Loomis for his outstanding prediction but let's wait a while before we declare a winner in the Stark prediction contest. Who knows, maybe there will be a major increase in membership when..... Oh, maybe when the Savior comes again!!! MW
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 It's frankly creepy. Does any other religion have this many people who obsess about it to the point of generating graphs and making growth predictions? Or are we the only lucky ones who get all the special cases?JMSLots of religions have lots of critics. Mormonism isn't special in this regard.Do you think it's creepy that Rodney Stark said scholars need to study the rise of Mormonism carefully because it is the first new world-religion to rise since Islam? If it was legitimate for Stark to make forecasts of Mormon Church growth, why is it "creepy" for others to respond to his scholarship?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Not to quibble too much but my calendar says it is only 2012. I realize that we all like to take intermediate temperatures of these predictions but it seems we ought to wait until 2080 to really see who was correct. Congrats to Loomis for his outstanding prediction but let's wait a while before we declare a winner in the Stark prediction contest. Who knows, maybe there will be a major increase in membership when..... Oh, maybe when the Savior comes again!!! MWPersonally, I think it will be after that that the astounding growth will occur, when Daniel's prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream will have its real fulfillment. Meanwhile, those who twit us about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands are being premature in their derision.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 Oh, yes, I remember those. Initially I thought they were a good idea, but they didn't last long. The Preach My Gospel guide is far superior.I totally agree.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Lots of religions have lots of critics. Mormonism isn't special in this regard.Do you think it's creepy that Rodney Stark said scholars need to study the rise of Mormonism carefully because it is the first new world-religion to rise since Islam? If it was legitimate for Stark to make forecasts of Mormon Church growth, why is it "creepy" for others to respond to his scholarship?Because Rodney Stark is not an obsessed ex-Mormon. He does religious studies for a living, and his motives are not to hope for the decline of a particular religious group.It's creepy. The obsession would be a concern for any unbiased mental health professional.JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 Not to quibble too much but my calendar says it is only 2012. I realize that we all like to take intermediate temperatures of these predictions but it seems we ought to wait until 2080 to really see who was correct. Congrats to Loomis for his outstanding prediction but let's wait a while before we declare a winner in the Stark prediction contest. Who knows, maybe there will be a major increase in membership when..... Oh, maybe when the Savior comes again!!! MWFair point. Stark's predictions were great for the first 10 years, too.In fairness to Roger, I have to say there are non-Mormon scholars who specialize in the study of Mormonism or aspects thereof who are not unfriendly. Jan Shipps is one who comes to mind. Bill McKinnon is another. And Dan Peterson, a Mormon, specializes in the study of Islam.It's not necessarily a bad thing. It depends a lot on underlying motivation, I suppose.I appreciate that Scott.
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 It's frankly creepy. Does any other religion have this many people who obsess about it to the point of generating graphs and making growth predictions? Or are we the only lucky ones who get all the special cases?JMSIt is creepy. At times it feels like the church is being stalked. I don't know of any other religion that has such a club of ill wishers.
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 In fairness to Roger, I have to say there are non-Mormon scholars who specialize in the study of Mormonism or aspects thereof who are not unfriendly. Jan Shipps is one who comes to mind. Bill McKinnon is another. And Dan Peterson, a Mormon, specializes in the study of Islam.It's not necessarily a bad thing. It depends a lot on underlying motivation, I suppose.This is a small minority. One just needs to hang out on critic boards to see the hatred and ill wishes and the gigantic hope that the lds church is soon disappearing as they wait for the figures to come out. And then when the figures are announced, all sorts of speculation is offered as to why there is still growth. And none are complimentary.
Recommended Posts