Revisit Of Loomis'S Growth Predictions 10-Years Later

[LDSToronto]

If you actually read what Pahoran said at the time, you might notice that Pahoran started out by agreeing that Stark could well have been wrong.

In fact, as I read Pahoran, he doesn't seem to merely have "accepted what the 'world-renowned expert' said." Rather, he seems to have suggested that the "world-renowned expert" was just as entitled to an opinion as you and Duwayne were.

Neither Pahoran nor anyone else on that thread seem to have held Stark's predictions as a position to be defended. So maybe your chip has something in common with the Amlicites' mark.

I believe Pahoran did make one unequivocal assertion: the word is "rolls," not "roles." Even after ten years, that has not changed. You might want to look at your post #39 in that regard.

Regards,

Pahoran

You're right - in 10 years, some things never change.

H.

Edited April 3, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Scott Lloyd]

As statistical tools get better and better, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between statisticians and prophets..

Heaven help us if we get so foolish and prideful that we fail to distinguish between a statistician and a prophet of God.

[Analytics]

If you actually read what Pahoran said at the time, you might notice that Pahoran started out by agreeing that Stark could well have been wrong.

In fact, as I read Pahoran, he doesn't seem to merely have "accepted what the 'world-renowned expert' said." Rather, he seems to have suggested that the "world-renowned expert" was just as entitled to an opinion as you and Duwayne were.

Neither Pahoran nor anyone else on that thread seem to have held Stark's predictions as a position to be defended.

What a bizzare strawman. Peterson said, "If you wish to take Professor Stark on, feel free to do so." With that invitation, I did so. I never suggested in any way that Stark was somehow less entitled to an opinion. So if you have never been defending Stark's numbers or analysis, why did you insert yourself in the middle of the debate that I have with him?

I believe Pahoran did make one unequivocal assertion: the word is "rolls," not "roles." Even after ten years, that has not changed. You might want to look at your post #39 in that regard.

Good eye.

[Jaybear]

Nice work. You earned the right to gloat.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's fair to say I got a chip on my shoulder as a result.

Rofl.

You won this one dude. You guessed right. I will look forward to your next 10 year prediction. BTW have you made it and if so were is it?

[Analytics]

Rofl.

You won this one dude. You guessed right. I will look forward to your next 10 year prediction. BTW have you made it and if so were is it?

I have at least some level of self-awareness, lol. On page 6 of this thread I guessed 18 million for 12/31/2021. That's from using the same gradually-declining growth rate I calibrated 10 years ago, starting from the current 14.4 million.

[Nofear]

If I were to bother formulating a model, I would base it much more closely on Geoffrey West's economy of scale (see Ted.com :The Surprising Math of Cities and Corporations).

[Scott Lloyd]

This was quoted from some guy's website earlier in this thread:

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.

I went to the linked website and found no footnotes to the Church News to support this observation.

I came to work for the Church News in 1985. In the nearly 27 years since then, I have no really clear memory of such a "litany of superlatives" raving about international growth. I can say with some certainty that I myself have not been the author of such a litany.

It's certainly possible that I'm missing something, and my memory is as subject to shortcoming as the next person's. But I have to say that the above strikes me as the type of standard complaint about "the media" saying this or "the media" doing that without there being any specific citation or quotation that can be evaluated within its context.

As for the LDS Church being the fastest growing in the United States, that's from non-Mormon sources, if I recall correctly.

[Analytics]

If I were to bother formulating a model, I would base it much more closely on Geoffrey West's economy of scale (see Ted.com :The Surprising Math of Cities and Corporations).

That was a cool video--thanks for sharing it.

I suspect there is something that dampens the economies of scale in the church. First, a lot of economies of scale happen at the ward level. For example, big, vibrant wards offer more benefits than small, struggling ones. So, as a ward grows and the benefits it offers its members grow in a sub-linear fashion, the benefits get short-circuited because the ward is split. What would happen in a more natural world where ward splits weren't imposed on the units is that individual wards would grow their economies of scale, and the church would be dominated by "mega wards."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have at least some level of self-awareness, lol. On page 6 of this thread I guessed 18 million for 12/31/2021. That's from using the same gradually-declining growth rate I calibrated 10 years ago, starting from the current 14.4 million.

Interesting. That actually seems more like what I would expect. I might even be willing to state that that might be too high.

I only say that because there seems to be a trend lately of anti-religion and more of a shift to secularism in the world.

[Pahoran]

What a bizzare strawman.

Is it? Didn't you say this?

The fact is, most people wouldn't even address my views, but rather accepted what the "world-renowned expert" said.

Only it turns out that that's not what we said at all, is it?

Peterson said, "If you wish to take Professor Stark on, feel free to do so." With that invitation, I did so. I never suggested in any way that Stark was somehow less entitled to an opinion. So if you have never been defending Stark's numbers or analysis, why did you insert yourself in the middle of the debate that I have with him?

As of course you know, I didn't "insert" myself "in the middle of" of anything. You chose to quote a comment I wrote ten years ago and misrepresent its import. By what stretch of the imagination did you suppose that my comment was "defending Stark's numbers or analysis?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You chose to quote a comment I wrote ten years ago and misrepresent its import. By what stretch of the imagination did you suppose that my comment was "defending Stark's numbers or analysis?"

Regards,

Pahoran

I doubt, very much so, that anyone was defending Stark's analysis, back then. I always thought those numbers were way out there.

[KevinG]

That is what strikes me odd about this thread. Taking the whole Kevin/Xander nonsense out of the equation... I don't remember many people strongly defending Starks predictions or arguing against more conservative numbers.

What I do remember is the same kind of discussion we have going on here. That the numbers are interesting but not the focus of the church's mission. That a plateau is not unusual for a large organizations growth. That the trend shows the LDS church growing faster in relation to many other major religions.

No one has questioned Rogers numbers and in fact many of us have congratulated him on how well his model worked over the last decade.

[Analytics]

As of course you know, I didn't "insert" myself "in the middle of" of anything....

Sure you did. Ten years ago, I decided to take Stark on, and posted a link to my paper for those who were interested. You made a few posts arguing with my analysis--not to defend Stark's right to give his opinion. As you know, I never said nor implied that he didn't have the right to an opinion.

[KevinG]

No matter what we do now it will be hard to match the 4566.67% increase in 1830 or the 13.53% loss in 1857. I don't expect a hockey stick. (for you global temperature statistics fans) On the other hand the limelight of an LDS Presidential candidate and attention from the popular media and arts may have a sorting effect in the near term. This could accelerate or decrease the growth rate. It could also have the effect of getting people "off the fence" about Mormonism, members or not.

[Analytics]

By what stretch of the imagination did you suppose that my comment was "defending Stark's numbers or analysis?"

You said:

The main problem with Duwayne's "scientific" model is that it places heavy reliance upon the downturn that has been happening over the last few years. He fails to understand--as do you--that this is an episodic feature of the Church's growth cycle, and has happened (at least) four times in the last century or so. As such, it is not a very good predictor of future trends, and does not give very satisfactory reasons for disdainfully rejecting the exponential growth "hypothesis."

Let's look at this for a moment. First, you put the word hypothesis in scare-quotes. The implication is that Stark's exponential growth forecast isn't just mere hypothesis. You also brought up the idea that the downturn in growth is "episodic." You didn't say maybe it was episodic--you presented this as an undeniable fact that only people who "disdainfully" reject the theory (or law of nature, perhaps?) that the church was continuing to grow exponentially.

You are really denying that you defended Stark on this one?

[Scott Lloyd]

No matter what we do now it will be hard to match the 4566.67% increase in 1830 or the 13.53% loss in 1857. I don't expect a hockey stick. (for you global temperature statistics fans) On the other hand the limelight of an LDS Presidential candidate and attention from the popular media and arts may have a sorting effect in the near term. This could accelerate or decrease the growth rate. It could also have the effect of getting people "off the fence" about Mormonism, members or not.

To put it in scriptural terminology, bringing it forth out of obscurity. I get the definite sense that most people who are negatively disposed toward Mormonism are that way due to ignorance, not enlightenment.

Will greater public exposure work to the Church's advantage? Time will tell. But it's interesting that there has bee far less overt anti-Mormonism manifest in Romney's campaign this time than last. It's as though anti-Mormonism, though it still may be widespread, is not as socially acceptable as it was four years ago.

[blackstrap]

No matter whose stats are right,we are still a drop in the world bucket. There are about as many Catholics in India as there are LDS in the world. From a logistics viewpoint the church would be hard pressed to absorb many more than 500,000 new members /year. This would be especially true if the extra 200,000 came from the poor of India or China.

[KevinG]

No matter whose stats are right,we are still a drop in the world bucket. There are about as many Catholics in India as there are LDS in the world. From a logistics viewpoint the church would be hard pressed to absorb many more than 500,000 new members /year. This would be especially true if the extra 200,000 came from the poor of India or China.

I learned from my Brazilian friends that we learned some hard lessons about explosive growth in the poorer areas of Brazil. While the work will proceed in areas like India it will proceed at a measured pace so we don't lose souls by overreaching our ability to nurture and grow our membership. Prior to his call to the 12 Elder Eyring was looking at some of these very issues.

[mfbukowski]

Ten years ago, a commonly held view amongst apologists was that Rodney Stark was correct in his view that the church would continue to grow exponentially for the next 100 years, and possibly reach 280,000,000 members by 2080. I commented on ZLMB that if you took a closer look at the growth rates, the church's growth rate was obviously slowing down and that Rodney Stark's assertion that it would grow exponentially for several decades was highly unlikely. An apologist balked at my views, with a logical argument that amounted to an appeal to Stark as a noted authority.

I ended up writing a paper about church growth that I later presented at a meeting for the Association for the Sociology of Religion.

One of the ZLMB threads on the topic is archived here:

http://pacumenispage...ng#.T3hriHiLH0c

You can read the paper itself here:

http://www.lds4u.com/growth2/Index.htm

I marked on my calendar to review the predictions after 10 years data have come in, and here we are.

10 years ago, I predicted that the Dec 2011 statistical report would say there were 14,826,382 members. This compares to the 14,441,346 that was actually reported.

However, what I was more interested in was the rate of growth. I predicted that the rate of growth for 2011 would be 0.02168. The actual rate of growth was 0.02169.*

So far, not too bad.

Got any stock tips?

[Pahoran]

You said:

By all means, let's relitigate a ten-year-old discussion.

I absolutely concede to you one point you made earlier: you certainly do have a chip on your shoulder.

Let's look at this for a moment. First, you put the word hypothesis in scare-quotes. The implication is that Stark's exponential growth forecast isn't just mere hypothesis.

Umm, Roger? I've read your paper. You know, the one you linked us to. On the website you so deceitfully mis-named "lds4u", remember?

In that, you admitted that the Church had experienced exponential growth. A good part of your paper was discussing what factors influence growth patterns, and how to predict when exponential growth ends.

Thus, your own paper clearly agrees that exponential growth in the Church is not a "hypothesis" but a simple observation.

You also brought up the idea that the downturn in growth is "episodic." You didn't say maybe it was episodic--you presented this as an undeniable fact that only people who "disdainfully" reject the theory (or law of nature, perhaps?) that the church was continuing to grow exponentially.

That's false.

As the words you quoted make clear, I attributed Anderson's ignoring of the episodic nature of those downturns to the fact that he didn't know about it. I described his attitude as "disdainful" because it almost always was.

I know I've said this before, and I realise it would deprive you of your one and only debate tactic, but I will say it again: kindly refrain from telling me what my position is or was. That's my job.

You are really denying that you defended Stark on this one?

Since you've provided no evidence to the contrary, I think the proper response here is, "Asked and answered."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

It is creepy. At times it feels like the church is being stalked. .

Is that what it feels like? lol

I don't know of any other religion that has such a club of ill wishers

I am pretty sure that push-back against major religions (such as the Catholic church) is far greater and has been going on for much longer.

If you remove from consideration evangelical antiMormons and other forms of ironic and distasteful religion on religion bigotry, what we have left is simply people who only hope for the unforced natural demise or mutation of Mormonism in so far as they consider it false and hold this opinion based on experience and evidence. Most people root against organized propagation of falsehhood.

In short, we think the church is not true--and in ways that matter. I hope for the demise of evangelicalism in its current form just as much or just as little.

[KevinG]

People who are simply not believing in something don't hope for its natural demise or mutilation. I have never felt compelled to call my former religion names or oppose its practices.

Observing that one unbelieved in group has faced more push-back than others is not helpful to either group. It just means bigots are equal opportunity.

But thank you for a clear view behind the mask of concerned anti-Mormonism. Ick.

[Scott Lloyd]

People who are simply not believing in something don't hope for its natural demise or mutilation. I have never felt compelled to call my former religion names or oppose its practices.

KevinG is quite right here. To state that to disbelieve in something is to hope for its demise is an eminently absurd false dichotomy. There are any number of things I disbelieve in but am indifferent toward their continued existence.

[Tarski]

But thank you for a clear view behind the mask of concerned anti-Mormonism. Ick.

Which part do you think is icky? The part about hoping that people will come to believe what is true? Or was it the part about my having an opinion on the truth or falsehood of Mormonism?

People who are simply not believing in something don't hope for its natural demise or mutilation.

??

I didn't say "mutilation". I said mutation as in "change". It has already changed. I just hope for a Mormonism with more truth added and superstition subtracted. Or it could just fade like many other old timey religions.

Notice that I also said "unforced" and "natural" which means I want people to make their own well informed free decisions based on a frank telling of the whole story and not on faith promoting rumors or missionary spin.

Why is that icky? I am also hoping for a demise of certain misguided political ideologies. How about you?