Revisit Of Loomis'S Growth Predictions 10-Years Later

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not indifferent for many reasons. In fact, overall, I am pretty unhappy with the influence of the Catholic church. I think they have historically had a negative influence on society with respect to many issues; from secrecy to science to contraception to sexuality to politics (support of the likes of Franco etc.) Run by a small group of totally unelected celebate old white men who use superstition and fear of hell as a method of maintaining power and influence especially over the poor and uneducated --and all this with the same divine authority as a walnut.

Oh and they get to do it all without paying taxes and while claiming persecution whenever someone questions this set up.

Did I mention the inquisition?

Your antipathy toward the Catholic Church is quite beside the point, which is the distinction between mere disbelief in something and opposition to it.

I can select another example, if you like: I am indifferent toward the London Flat Earth Society. I am indifferent toward reports of UFO sightings.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Eldwynn]

Nope.

But if you think you know better, feel free to enlighten me.

Regards,

Pahoran

7th Century C.E until at least the 10th century.

The middle easy was definitely ahead of Europe at the time. Most stars have Arabic names. Arabic numerals. etc. etc.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Eldwynn]

Your antipathy toward the Catholic Church is quite beside the point, which is the distinction between mere disbelief in something and opposition to it.

I can select another example, if you like: I am indifferent toward the London Flat Earth Society.

What if your family suddenly started selling their belongings to donate to the London Flat Earth Society? Or spent two years knocking on strangers doorsto explain to strangers that the earth was not round.

Would you still be indifferent?

[Scott Lloyd]

What if your family suddenly started selling their belongings to donate to the London Flat Earth Society? Or spent two years knocking on strangers doorsto explain to strangers that the earth was not round.

Would you still be indifferent?

The fact is, they don't. And in theory my point still stands: I can disbelieve in something without opposing it.

Do you really believe that you must be hostile to something merely because you don't believe in it? I pity anyone with such a binary worldview.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Eldwynn]

The fact is, they don't. And my point still stands: I can disbelieve in something without opposing it.

Lol? How does avoiding the question make your point still stand? It's more than "disbelieving" in something. Clearly, sometimes things that you may not believe are true have an immediate effect on your life. I was trying to give you an example of how this could be.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Scott Lloyd]

Lol? How does avoiding the question make your point still stand? It's more than "disbelieving" in something. Clearly, sometimes things that you may not believe are true have an immediate effect on your life. I was trying to give you an example of how this could be.

How does imagining up contrary-to-fact scenarios refute my point?

If the Catholic Church were to start slaughtering innocents, would I continue to be indifferent toward it? Of course not. But the fact is, it doesn't, and under present circumstances, I can be indifferent toward it while disbelieving in it.

[Eldwynn]

How does imagining up contrary-to-fact scenarios refute my point?

If the Catholic Church were to start slaughtering innocents, would I continue to be indifferent toward it? Of course not. But the fact is, it doesn't, and under present circumstances, I can be indifferent toward it while disbelieving in it.

What would you call an organization who uses its influence in Africa to discourage the use of condoms in areas where HIV is rampant and child mortality rates are incredibly high?

While the previous example may be contrary to fact to you, if you exercise a tiny bit of creativity, you would realize that if you replaced "Flat earth scoeity" with "Mormon Church" you are describing people who actually exist.

To clarify, we aren't talking about you personally, but your inability to understand why some people might hold contempt to the catholic/mormon church correct?

The amount of hand holding going on here is truly wonderful.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Pahoran]

7th Century C.E until at least the 10th century.

The middle easy was definitely ahead of Europe at the time. Most stars have Arabic names. Arabic numerals. etc. etc.

The middle easy? Is that somewhere in the middle of the big easy?

Apart from that: yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. Historically, however, this was not due to Arabian scientific research; it was primarily about Arab scholarship into classical Greek thought. Scholarship, while a very important intellectual enterprise in its own right -- one that, IMHO, is unjustly marginalised by the self-appointed priests of scientism -- is not science.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited April 5, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

To clarify, we aren't talking about you personally, but your inability to understand why some people might hold contempt to the catholic/mormon church correct?

The amount of hand holding going on here is truly wonderful.

Well Eldwynn, you started out with a little politeness in your posts, but you quickly exhausted your supply and lapsed back into your usual smug expressions of contempt and disdain towards everyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before your ineffable wonderfulness.

Actually "we" were talking about the difference between disbelieving something and opposing it. Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Well Eldwynn, you started out with a little politeness in your posts, but you quickly exhausted your supply and lapsed back into your usual smug expressions of contempt and disdain towards everyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before your ineffable wonderfulness.

Actually "we" were talking about the difference between disbelieving something and opposing it. Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you for that reminder Pahoran, and as Edwynn seems incapable of grasping/admitting it, I think my conversation with him/her is over.

[Tarski]

You know what? You're right.

Indeed.

And while historically ignorant people relying upon sound-bite summaries of a few events assume that the Catholic Church held back scientific progress, the reality remains that Christian Europe, in every century, led the world in scientific advances.

You would think that since they basically had control over how history was recorded, they would have been able to do a better job of making themselves appear blameless.

OTOH, your Tovarishchi were so "enlightened" that they used to lock religious believers up in mental institutions.

My Tovarishchi? Taking lessons from Droopy? LOL

I think you have me confused with someone else. There is nothing particularly Russian about my ideas or my social circle.

I can't help it if some historically famous jerk once gave lip service to science and then killed a bunch of people in the name of some quasi-religious ideology.

I wish you would stop trying to conjure up sinister associations by using Russian words.

It would be like me refering to your "torquemadista" asociados.

An atheist proselyting for scientism would do well not to start a game of "whose ideology did the most harm," because he will lose before he starts.

1) I think you mean "proselytizing".

2) I disagree with your most harm analysis but I can guess where you are getting it from.

3) I don't proselytize for atheism and I know few who do. When they (whoever they are) start sending representatives door to door or having full time missionaries then maybe you can use the word proselytize.

For the record, I do not identify myself as an atheist as much as a skeptic toward religion and a promoter of the priority of publicly available evidence and common sense rationality. I could even conceivably become some kind of theist without changing many of my most important skeptical values.

You seem to think the choice is between adherence to a dogmatic offical organized religion on the one hand or atheism on the other. I hate to be the one to break it to you but this doesn't come close to exhausting the options.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Tarski

[Pahoran]

Indeed.

You would think that since they basically had control over how history was recorded, they would have been able to do a better job of making themselves appear blameless.

I'm sorry, I missed the connection. How are the two things related?

I'm certainly not saying they were "blameless." I'm simply saying that whatever bad stuff you think the Catholic Church did to "science" (by which I seriously suspect you really mean scientism) somehow it didn't stop Christian Europe from outstripping the rest of the world.

My Tovarishchi? Taking lessons from Droopy? LOL

I think you have me confused with someone else. There is nothing particularly Russian about my ideas or my social circle.

I didn't say there was. But what is it that Tarski has in common with Trotsky, Dzerzhinski and a host of others? Well, there is this romantic idea that competing ideologies will just "wither away" -- with the somewhat less romantic corollary that if they don't, we can give them a helping hand.

Not to mention the notion that anyone who doesn't accept "our" ideology must be mentally deficient.

I can't help it if some historically famous jerk once gave lip service to science and then killed a bunch of people in the name of some quasi-religious ideology.

The official name of which was "scientific atheism." It is revisionism of orwellian proportions to pretend that state atheism was ever a "quasi-religious ideology." You've been talking to Tovarich Bulshinsky again.

I wish you would stop trying to conjure up sinister associations by using Russian words.

It would be like me refering to your "torquemadista" asociados.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inqvisition...! But there are those who like to routinely conjure by it.

1) I think you mean "proselytizing".

No, I meant "proselyting." It's a perfectly correct word, if a less common form. That's one of the beauties of English.

And a reminder that no matter how qualified a person may be in a given scientific discipline, they are not necessarily any better informed than anyone else on any other subject at all, especially one that's on the other side of the fence that defines their field.

2) I disagree with your most harm analysis but I can guess where you are getting it from.

It's a simple matter of raw numbers killed. The "harm" you atheist propagandists regularly recite is not caused by religion, but by state religion; and state atheism has been more oppressive, repressive and outright murderous in a single generation than state religion has been over millennia.

3) I don't proselytize for atheism and I know few who do. When they (whoever they are) start sending representatives door to door or having full time missionaries then maybe you can use the word proselytize.

So your denial relies upon a strictly religious -- virtually a Mormon -- definition of what proselyting (or proselytizing) entails.

If you check out http://www.thefreedi...com/proselytize you will find that while religious conversion is an important meaning, it's not the sole meaning. And missionaries going door to door in pairs and wearing name tags doesn't get mentioned at all.

Every single atheist who claims that religious faith is irrational and believers ought to give it up is ipso facto proselyting for atheism. Not only that, but every atheist who tries to distance contemporary atheists from the ideologically-driven misdeeds of former atheists is an apologist for atheism; and one who does it by trying to lumber religious believers with the baggage of communism, by dint of sly lexical tricks, is a singularly unscrupulous one, at that.

For the record, I do not identify myself as an atheist as much as a skeptic toward religion and a promoter of the priority of publicly available evidence and common sense rationality. I could even conceivably become some kind of theist without changing many of my most important skeptical values.

There are "skeptical values?" What might they be?

Could they reasonably be summed up as: "Be not believing, but faithless?" (Cf John 20:27.)

You seem to think the choice is between adherence to a dogmatic offical organized religion on the one hand or atheism on the other. I hate to be the one to break it to you but this doesn't come close to exhausting the options.

Nor did I say it did. I'm just applying the famous duck test.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

I'm sorry, I missed the connection. How are the two things related?

I'm certainly not saying they were "blameless." I'm simply saying that whatever bad stuff you think the Catholic Church did to "science" (by which I seriously suspect you really mean scientism) somehow it didn't stop Christian Europe from outstripping the rest of the world.

and the momentum of whatever that impulse was has led to an essentially atheistic modern Europe (or so Rush Limbaugh assures me).

I didn't say there was. But what is it that Tarski has in common with Trotsky, Dzerzhinski and a host of others? Well, there is this romantic idea that competing ideologies will just "wither away" -- with the somewhat less romantic corollary that if they don't, we can give them a helping hand.

How silly of me. Of course, all ideologies are permanent and eternal and to hope that any disappear by becoming outdated or irrelevant is just naive romanticism. (??)

Not to mention the notion that anyone who doesn't accept "our" ideology must be mentally deficient.

Oops again. All ideologies are equally intellectually respectable. To suggest that anything at all is silly is just bigotry. Right?

The official name of which was "scientific atheism."

Right. Because its all in the name. (are you getting the sarcasm?)

If you check out http://www.thefreedi...com/proselytize you will find that while religious conversion is an important meaning, it's not the sole meaning. And missionaries going door to door in pairs and wearing name tags doesn't get mentioned at all.

Is this one of those lexical conjuring tricks you mentioned?

Every single atheist who claims that religious faith is irrational and believers ought to give it up is ipso facto proselyting for atheism.

Oh sure, it is OK to say that an atheist who mentions his opinion that religious faith is irrational (even at the dinner table) is just as much literally proselytizing as the activities of door to door missionaries seeking official conversion, baptism and subsequent tithes. But to call Stalinism quasi-religious (as it clearly was) is a lexical conjuring trick? Got it. Special plead much?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Tarski

[Eldwynn]

The middle easy? Is that somewhere in the middle of the big easy?

Apart from that: yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. Historically, however, this was not due to Arabian scientific research; it was primarily about Arab scholarship into classical Greek thought. Scholarship, while a very important intellectual enterprise in its own right -- one that, IMHO, is unjustly marginalised by the self-appointed priests of scientism -- is not science.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh I am sorry. I meant to say the MIddle East. There, that must have alleviated a great deal of confusion... oh wait... you totally understood it. Good to see we have a mutual amount of respect for each other

Are the following considered areas of scientific research?

Mathematics

Medicine

Astronomy

Physics

Chemistry

Cosmology

Ophthalmology

Geography/cartography

Economics

Because according to :

Robinson, Francis (1996). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World edited by Francis Robinson. Cambridge University Press. pp. 228–229.

Shaikh M. Ghazanfar, Medieval Islamic economic thought: filling the "great gap" in European economics, Psychology Press, 2003 (p. 114-115)

A. I. Sabra (1996). "Greek Science in Medieval Islam". In Ragep, F. J.; Ragep, Sally P.; Livesey, Steven John. Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-modern Science held at the University of Oklahoma. Brill Publishers. pp. 20.

The middle east was ahead of Europe in all of those areas. If you want me to post PDF pages of the relevant parts of the source, since I can access them easily through my University library, please let me know. I am feeling nice.

[Eldwynn]

Well Eldwynn, you started out with a little politeness in your posts, but you quickly exhausted your supply and lapsed back into your usual smug expressions of contempt and disdain towards everyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before your ineffable wonderfulness.

Actually "we" were talking about the difference between disbelieving something and opposing it. Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh please. There was no confusions on my part on what the subject was.

He really couldn't see the relevance in my example? He stated that "How does imagining up contrary-to-fact scenarios refute my point?".

How did my example not illustrate why somebody would go beyond simple "disbelieving" something, and "opposing" it. Now, if he wanted to further the conversation he could have said something like:

"No Eldwynn, even if my personal family donated heavily to the London Flat Earth Society, donate two years of their lives to preaching the "obvious truth" that the earth is indeed flat, and maybe even insist that their daughters should become the leaders fourth wife I would realize that it was none of my business and still never oppose such a movement. Furthermore, I would think it wrong for anybody to oppose in such an institution" (a truly outlandish claim when you think about it. People are free to oppose anything they want. Just as people are free to support whatever they want. At least in America.)

Such a response would be engaging with the point I was making. Instead, he chose to say "I don't see how it's relevant" and I (correctly) pointed out that there is a lot of hand holding going on (as there is now).

This led me to believe the guy was being dense on purpose as a rhetorical tool. You really believe he couldn't see the obvious parallels to mormonism? I know what that's called. It starts with a T and ends with "rolling". If I am wrong, then I will be the first to trip over myself apologizing to the guy. However, seeing as how he has removed himself from the conversation on grounds of "respect", I have a burning in my bosom that I was right.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, this thread has certainly been entertaining to follow. In fact it seems to have been a while since I have come across a thread this entertaining.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, this thread has certainly been entertaining to follow. In fact it seems to have been a while since I have come across a thread this entertaining.

What do you see as the highlights?

[KevinG]

I don't think you are being completely fair here. You seem to have this perception of ex-mormons that only fits those who choose to engage in debates on message boards ran by believers. Obviously, this is a very skewed sample size of ex-mormons. Most ex-mormons I know spend no time engaging in debates online. Thus, you are gleefully ignorant that they even exist. Not your fault by any means, but it's at least something to think about/be aware of. <3

If you were to converse with THEM you mind find that the majority of those that leave the church are perfectly wonderful people as a group.

In fact, you might be surprised, but I have personally found that MANY of the "online critics" on this forum and that other one, actually still attend church regularly. When I first started posting here, I was truly inspired by some of the posts Cinepro wrote. It really convinced me that the church was not true, and that I had made the right choice in leaving. It took about two years for me to realize that he is still a member, who as far as I can tell still attends church regularly. My Mind=Blown.

I know a lot of ex-Mormons in real life. Many are dysfunctional. I blame their parents.

(that ought to kick-start the thread)

[KevinG]

...and don't forget the dripping arrogance that seems to accompany missionary minded atheists. I really enjoy when they talk down to me because of my participation in mass hallucinations and groupthink.

[CQUIRK]

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.

Xander, please lay off whatever you're on, and also see a shrink; I know you're wishing and salivating for this to all be true, but it isn't.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62198/2011-Statistical-report-presented-at-the-182nd-Annual-General-Conference-April-2012.html

[CQUIRK]

I predict the trend will continue downward and the Church will continue to shuffle the missions around in an attempt to compensate for this loss. Meaning, some areas of the world are easier to convert than others, however these are usually the same areas where activity rates are much lower. In reality, there are only around 4-6 million people on this planet who consider themselves LDS.

Sorry, your argument isn't doing it.

And from that latest stats, the number of missions are holding steady, the number of converts, wards, stakes, have increased- doesn't look like what you claim is happening is actually happening

Another problem is that there are plenty of members that are inactive for reasons that have nothing to do with believing in the church, and yet they still consider themselves LDS; I have been in that situation numerous times.

As I said, the church keeps growing despite your delusional rhetoric.

All evidence points to the fact that the more people know about the Church, the less likely they are to join it.

Nope, not even true; I'm proof of that. I'm a convert and researched heavily the church and its beliefs, and the more I found out, the more my testimony increased.

For one, I didn't just study the anti-Mormon side, I actually researched the arguments from both the anti & apologist perspectives, and found that the apologist side TKO'd the anti claims and research done about the church.

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.

Oh yes, and they certainly aren't going to come to the same conclusions you did. Guess you really need to stop being so hateful and ignorant and actually do some unbiased homework, for once.

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.

Sorry, but they do train missionaries to deal with the tough questions. Oh, and plenty of missionaries also do their homework on the 'controversial issues' and can address them quite well.

And again judging by the latest stats, the conversion rate is doing quite well and isn't decreasing. So I highly recommend you come to terms with reality and understand that you claims just don't hold up at all.

Plus you really need to stop being such a bigot, because your bigotry against the church is only going to get eaten, chewed up, and spit out here.

You are out of the thread for continued personal insults.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Minos

[Tepui]

The scriptures don't mention an exponential growth.

1 Nephi 14:12. "their dominions upon the face of the earth were small."

Math 24:14

And this

a

gospel

of the

b

kingdom

shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the

c

end

come."

So if you believe the entire world will be converted to Mormonism - or it should have outstanding growth, continually or exponentially - as evidence of its truthfulness - before the Second Coming, sorry.

But missionary work is progressing worldwide so all will have the chance to accept.

[KevinG]

The scriptures don't mention an exponential growth.

1 Nephi 14:12. "their dominions upon the face of the earth were small."

Math 24:14

And this

a

gospel

of the

b

kingdom

shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the

c

end

come."

So if you believe the entire world will be converted to Mormonism - or it should have outstanding growth, continually or exponentially - as evidence of its truthfulness - before the Second Coming, sorry.

But missionary work is progressing worldwide so all will have the chance to accept.

Leavening.

[Tepui]

Leavening.

Isaiah 24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

[Bruce Schaalje]

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.

Analytics,

Your overall membership prediction for 2011 was pretty close to the truth, but I wouldn’t be congratulating myself too much if I were you. It seems like a fluke to me. Some of what I’m saying here is a reaction to the uncritical reception your article got from the Tribune and some web sites several years ago.

First, it’s worth pointing out that your paper was simply a conference presentation, and had no peer review. You did not publish your paper in an academic venue. I don’t think any sociological journal would have accepted it for publication. It’s a stretch to call this an ‘academic response to Stark.’

Stark’s analysis was pretty simplistic, and I’m not too impressed with it either. Your model is only more sophisticated in that it uses a decaying growth rate instead of a constant growth rate. But your prediction for 2011 is about half-way between Stark’s low value and his high value. So his point estimate for 2011 would have been about the same as yours.

Your decaying growth rate analysis focused on a small (and apparently carefully selected) period of time in the growth of the church (1979-2001) during which growth rates displayed the downward trend you wanted. As you can see from the attached graph, church growth rates over the past century have fluctuated, with short- and long-term stochastic patterns up and down. You completely ignored these patterns by focusing on your favorite 22-year time-period.

Your model also completely ignored the dynamic age structure of the church – which is changing dramatically as (for example) baby boomers mature. You didn’t even consider age structure when you discussed ‘drivers of church growth’.

Your graph ‘growth of children in church’ is amusing, and not just because of the title. You act as if stochastic drift in birth rates somehow reflects badly on the church.

In your footnotes, you said that you adjusted your regressions for autocorrelation, but I don’t really think you did. At least not the 22-year series of growth rates. Hence there is much more uncertainty than you are willing to admit. A more sophisticated analysis is needed.

To see a more sophisticated and less agenda-driven church membership projection (carried out in 1957, before modern computers were available),see a discussion of Howard Nielson’s 1957 projection in the most recent issue of BYU Studies (see here).