L D S Membership Numbers

[Thinking]

On June 22, 2009 I started a topic titled LDS Membership Numbers.

I hypothesized that "in an area where there are many congregations, more members per congregation indicates a low attendance rate, while fewer members per congregation indicates a high attendance rate." Recognizing that others factors may contribute to the statistics I also stated that "it's best to compare each area with its stats from a different year." I decided to choose different areas from around the world and look at the changes in each area. Attached is a chart comparing 2008 to 2011.

C = congregations

M = members

LDS Membership Chart.pdf

The numbers suggest that the LDS Church is having trouble retaining converts. In Mexico, for example, the church claims an increase of 114,963 members and 23 congregations. That’s 4,998 members for each added congregation. Even in Utah the members per added congregation is 968 (78,407/81). From 2008 to 2011, the LDS Church claimed an increase of 932,837 members and 675 congregations or 1,382 members per added congregation. Take out Mexico and the increase is still 1,254 members per added congregation.

Here are the overall numbers since 1999.

1999: 417 M/C (10,752,986/25,793)

2000: 427 M/C (11,068,861/25,915)

2001: 437 M/C (11,394,522/26,084)

2002: 448 M/C (11,721,548/26,143)

2003: 457 M/C (11,985,254/26,237)

2004: 460 M/C (12,275,822/26,670)

2005: 464 M/C (12,560,869/27,087)

2006: 468 M/C (12,868,606/27,475)

2007: 474 M/C (13,193,999/27,827)

2008: 481 M/C (13,508,509/28,109)

2009: 486 M/C (13,824,854/28,424)

2010: 493 M/C (14,131,467/28,660)

2011: 502 M/C (14,441,346/28,784)

Since 1999 the increase in congregations is 11.6%, and the increase in members is 34.3%.

[TAO]

Thinking, I think that'd be a pre-mature conclusion, because it kind of assumes (or implies) that the church adds a congregation for X many more members. However, I am not sure that this is always the case. I think some years they prefer larger congregations, while others, they prefer smaller; it doesn't stay a standard number.

To be honest, I am thinking a public survey would be a better way to determine conversion-retention ratio.

Edited May 12, 2012 by TAO

[Thinking]

Thinking, I think that'd be a pre-mature conclusion, because it kind of assumes (or implies) that the church adds a congregation for X many more members.

Actually the assumption is that it adds a congregation for X many more active members. This is a reasonable assumption since a chapel has a finite size.

I think some years they prefer larger congregations, while others, they prefer smaller; it doesn't stay a standard number.

I don't think preference has anything to do with it.

To be honest, I am thinking a public survey would be a better way to determine conversion-retention ratio.

The best way would be for the Church to release its attendance numbers.

[Buzzard]

Actually the assumption is that it adds a congregation for X many more active members. This is a reasonable assumption since a chapel has a finite size.

I don't think preference has anything to do with it.

The best way would be for the Church to release its attendance numbers.

I know for a fact that back in the 80's, the church was much more aggressive about dividing wards, under the principle of "We multiply by dividing". I have not heard that saying in over a decade. My personal observation is that congregations are larger now than they were a couple of decades back. But of course, I can't see every ward or branch in the church.

And the church does release attendance numbers. I could tell you our wards, and our stakes attendance numbers, Home teaching numbers, missionary numbers, you name it. They just don't put them in the Salt Lake Tribune.

[Thinking]

I could tell you our wards, and our stakes attendance numbers, Home teaching numbers, missionary numbers, you name it. They just don't put them in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Will you?

[rpn]

Do you KNOW how hard it is to decide just how to carve out a new ward or a new stake? It is so fraught with human drama, that no priesthood leader in his right mind ---or one who has been through it once --- would seek to do it if it isn't necessary.

[Thinking]

Do you KNOW how hard it is to decide just how to carve out a new ward or a new stake? It is so fraught with human drama, that no priesthood leader in his right mind ---or one who has been through it once --- would seek to do it if it isn't necessary.

[BCSpace]

The best way would be for the Church to release its attendance numbers.

Even though it's anecdotal, I think you can count on a pretty steady 50% for UT, CA, TX, ID, and MT from the 80's till now. If it's a little higher, it's CA and UT. If it's a little lower, it's MT.

Do you KNOW how hard it is to decide just how to carve out a new ward or a new stake? It is so fraught with human drama, that no priesthood leader in his right mind ---or one who has been through it once --- would seek to do it if it isn't necessary.

Takes 15 active Melchizedek Priesthood holders per ward, minimum.

Edited May 13, 2012 by BCSpace

[TAO]

Actually the assumption is that it adds a congregation for X many more active members. This is a reasonable assumption since a chapel has a finite size.

Correct, but how do you know how many members a chapel can hold? Different buildings have different sized chapels and all.

I don't think preference has anything to do with it.

If you want to believe that, you may.

The best way would be for the Church to release its attendance numbers.

Definitely. But they don't do that for now, so we'd have to use a survey of sorts.

[rodheadlee]

On June 22, 2009 I started a topic titled LDS Membership Numbers.

I hypothesized that "in an area where there are many congregations, more members per congregation indicates a low attendance rate, while fewer members per congregation indicates a high attendance rate." Recognizing that others factors may contribute to the statistics I also stated that "it's best to compare each area with its stats from a different year." I decided to choose different areas from around the world and look at the changes in each area. Attached is a chart comparing 2008 to 2011.

C = congregations

M = members

LDS Membership Chart.pdf

The numbers suggest that the LDS Church is having trouble retaining converts. In Mexico, for example, the church claims an increase of 114,963 members and 23 congregations. That’s 4,998 members for each added congregation. Even in Utah the members per added congregation is 968 (78,407/81). From 2008 to 2011, the LDS Church claimed an increase of 932,837 members and 675 congregations or 1,382 members per added congregation. Take out Mexico and the increase is still 1,254 members per added congregation.

Here are the overall numbers since 1999.

1999: 417 M/C (10,752,986/25,793)

2000: 427 M/C (11,068,861/25,915)

2001: 437 M/C (11,394,522/26,084)

2002: 448 M/C (11,721,548/26,143)

2003: 457 M/C (11,985,254/26,237)

2004: 460 M/C (12,275,822/26,670)

2005: 464 M/C (12,560,869/27,087)

2006: 468 M/C (12,868,606/27,475)

2007: 474 M/C (13,193,999/27,827)

2008: 481 M/C (13,508,509/28,109)

2009: 486 M/C (13,824,854/28,424)

2010: 493 M/C (14,131,467/28,660)

2011: 502 M/C (14,441,346/28,784)

Since 1999 the increase in congregations is 11.6%, and the increase in members is 34.3%.

Does your study take in to account language and geography? For instance in Am Samoa there is an English speaking ward that is very small, or in Mexico where small populations live in large geographical areas such as the Sonora Desert?

Edited May 13, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Saints Alive]

I once lived in a ward where the chapel had been expanded... Twice... So to say chapel size is static is not nessisarily true. However the report mentions congregations, not chapel ( I believe). It would be possible that some buildings are growing at the same time new congregations are being added. I wonder how the death rate effects all this?

[DBMormon]

we could do a small study here. My ward has 421 members and 128 average attendence

Small ward in Ohio

Edited May 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[CASteinman]

On June 22, 2009 I started a topic titled LDS Membership Numbers.

I hypothesized that "in an area where there are many congregations, more members per congregation indicates a low attendance rate, while fewer members per congregation indicates a high attendance rate." .... The numbers suggest that the LDS Church is having trouble retaining converts. s 34.3%.

Sorry.. this analysis is bogus. You start with an untested theory and then draw a conclusion based upon that theory. In my traveling I often attend a small small branch in Texas. Small in actual attendance but large in population. While it is a sample of exactly 1, it is a direct contradiction to your untested theory.

A better approach would be to use time-series differences across sections, using statistical hypothesis testing and then you *might* have a clue as to whether your theory *might* be reasonable.

[Bernard Gui]

Our ward in western Washington has around 60% sacrament meeting attendance.

In the bishop's office we maintain the "big board" that has the names of all active and inactive members.

We have stewardship over their welfare, whether they attend or not. We try to keep

updated on health, employment, etc., and when a need is identified we offer what assistance we can.

Not coming to church on Sunday does not terminate their membership. My sister did not attend

church from ages 18 through 60, and then she became active again. Membership numbers are

helpful in some ways, but irrelevant in others.

Bernard

[Buzzard]

Will you?

Average weekly Sac. Mtg attendance last year, 55%. When you consider that some folks come some of the time, but can't make it every week, the percentage of members who are active is around 65+%. Stake average last year was just under 53%, Home teaching for the High Priests is over 80%, Elders is just over 30%, both of those are 2nd/3rd highest in the stake. One area of concern is that only about 25% of the young men are going on missions in the stake over the last five years, An adjoining stake has missionary numbers above 60%. Guess what our stake president talks about a lot.

Hopefully that statistical slice of life makes your day.

[Thinking]

Does your study take in to account language and geography? For instance in Am Samoa there is an English speaking ward that is very small, or in Mexico where small populations live in large geographical areas such as the Sonora Desert?

From the OP:

Recognizing that others factors may contribute to the statistics I also stated that "it's best to compare each area with its stats from a different year." I decided to choose different areas from around the world and look at the changes in each area.

[Thinking]

Sorry.. this analysis is bogus. You start with an untested theory and then draw a conclusion based upon that theory. In my traveling I often attend a small small branch in Texas. Small in actual attendance but large in population. While it is a sample of exactly 1, it is a direct contradiction to your untested theory.

A better approach would be to use time-series differences across sections, using statistical hypothesis testing and then you *might* have a clue as to whether your theory *might* be reasonable.

Did you even look at the attached chart? It has different areas with the changes per area.

I also noticed that you deleted the part of the OP which states:

Recognizing that others factors may contribute to the statistics I also stated that "it's best to compare each area with its stats from a different year." I decided to choose different areas from around the world and look at the changes in each area.

Since the Church doesn't release attendance rates, all I can do is compare membership to congregations.

[CASteinman]

Did you even look at the attached chart? It has different areas with the changes per area.

I also noticed that you deleted the part of the OP which states:

Since the Church doesn't release attendance rates, all I can do is compare membership to congregations.

No intention to misrepresent. Just deleted for more brevity and focus.

Your analysis is invalid. It is meaningless. You need to have a different study design to draw any conclusions other than time trends. And you do not have the data for that.

In short, you are drawing a conclusion based on a hypothesis you are unable to test.

How is it not obvious to you that this is a poor way to go?

[Thinking]

No intention to misrepresent. Just deleted for more brevity and focus.

Your analysis is invalid. It is meaningless. You need to have a different study design to draw any conclusions other than time trends. And you do not have the data for that.

In short, you are drawing a conclusion based on a hypothesis you are unable to test.

How is it not obvious to you that this is a poor way to go?

First of all, I know about hypothesis testing and I chose my words carefully. I said, "The numbers suggest..." Since the Church doesn't release attendance percentages (proportions) it's reasonable to guess that attendance rates are dropping since the number of members per congregation is increasing consistently and has been for at least the last 12 years. A one-year increase could be a timing issue with the completion of buildings, but the trend is consistent. What I can't do is guess the actual percentage (and I haven't tried). Please don't pretend that 4998 members per added congregation in Mexico is meaningless or that 1382 members per added congregation worldwide is meaningless. In fact I'll add some data that I didn't include in the OP.

From 2010 to 2011 the LDS Church claims an increase in members from 1,234,545 to 1,273,199 in Mexico. It also records a decrease in the number of congregations from 2,009 to 2,000. Let's do the math. There are 38,654 more members in 2011 than 2010, and 9 fewer congregations for them to attend.

Other areas whose number of congregations went down in 2011 while claimed membership went up:

Japan: down 3 congregations, up 637 members

United Kingdom: down 1 congregation, up 1,215 members

California: down 13 congregations, up 4,974 members

Michigan: down 2 congregations, up 377 members

By the way, there are 20 areas which I am tracking. Besides the five mentioned, another five (Alberta, Sweden, American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga) had no change in the number of congregations from 2010 to 2011. Yet all had an increase in membership.

[CASteinman]

it's reasonable to guess that attendance rates are dropping since the number of members per congregation is increasing consistently and has been for at least the last 12 years.

No, that is not reasonable.

Please don't pretend that 4998 members per added congregation in Mexico is meaningless

I don't have to. It is not a real number. Only real statistics are meaningful.

By the way, there are 20 areas which I am tracking. Besides the five mentioned, another five (Alberta, Sweden, American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga) had no change in the number of congregations from 2010 to 2011. Yet all had an increase in membership.

Doesn't matter. You either do not know how to do valid statistical analysis or you have an agenda and do not care about correct analysis of numbers.

Interestingly enough even *if* there were a statistically significant relationship it would not mean that your theory was validated, only that it was plausible. There are, in fact, other reasonable explanations. However, you have no statistical validation of your theory.

[Analytics]

On June 22, 2009 I started a topic titled LDS Membership Numbers. I hypothesized that "in an area where there are many congregations, more members per congregation indicates a low attendance rate, while fewer members per congregation indicates a high attendance rate."

It's funny that anybody would argue with this. If we knew that the Appleville ward had 80 members and that the Bananatown ward had 1,000 members, would anybody really argue that we don't know which ward has a higher activity rate?

[CASteinman]

It's funny that anybody would argue with this. If we knew that the Appleville ward had 80 members and that the Bananatown ward had 1,000 members, would anybody really argue that we don't know which ward has a higher activity rate?

Yes. The ward with 80 members might have 100% Activity Rate and the Bananatown Ward might have an 8% activity rate. Or it might be the reverse (assuming of course, wards exist with numbers as low as 80 members).

The number of members does not indicate what the activity rate is. In fact, that is the untested theory that there are two variables that can be used to predict activity rate: Geographic Unit Density and Membership Count Per Unit. (The two variables complicate things and may result in a non-monotonic response surface, if the theory is valid).

This is not altogether different from trying to predict female fertility rate by looking at absolute female population numbers in each country -- although in that example, there may be more data to look at and a theory in that regard might be more testable. Still, I think it would be hard to find a reputable statistical demographer who would not laugh at the idea that size difference between the female populations of Spain and China are the reasons for fertility rate differences between the two countries.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I would say that a more defensible position would be to say:

If X then Y

where

X : "Unit Size is Inversely Correlated with Activity Rate"

Y : "Activity Rates are declining"

In that case, there could be no argument with the statement and the conclusion would be entirely based upon the validity of the premise.

However, there are other explanations for Unit Size other than Activity Rate. In particular: geographic density, local leadership capacity and Apostolic direction and guidance in unit formation.

[Analytics]

Yes. The ward with 80 members might have 100% Activity Rate and the Bananatown Ward might have an 8% activity rate. Or it might be the reverse.

You think it’s possible that a ward could exist with 800 active members and not be divided? And you think a ward could exist with only 16 active members and not be relegated to a branch or combined with another unit? Really?

You are arguing against the reality of how the church operates.

[Jaybear]

You think it’s possible that a ward could exist with 800 active members and not be divided? And you think a ward could exist with only 16 active members and not be relegated to a branch or combined with another unit? Really?

You are arguing against the reality of how the church operates.

I am hoping to see a response, because I have absolutely no clue why CASteinman is making such an issue about something that seems so patently obvious.