L D S Membership Numbers

[Thinking]

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.

Again you are proving that you have not studied the pdf because in it I compare Mexico to Mexico, Utah to Utah, etc.

[CV75]

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

This is very interesting in light of 1 Nephi 14:12 about the latter-day Church of the Lamb, where its "dominions (congregations?)" were small and its "numbers (active members)" were few.

[Log]

I'm curious - this is what, the 2nd or 3rd thread on stats and the church in recent weeks. Is there an implicit argument somewhere in them concerning the church and either its leadership, practices, or the doctrines, or are these threads simply wranglings similar to the philosopher's arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

IOW "Why does anyone care about this stuff?"

Edited May 14, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

IOW "Why does anyone care about this stuff?"

I find it interesting in light of the concern leadership has over retention, reactivation and other elements of "The Rescue", and while the Church's growth is a reflection of the power in the light that shines forth, activity rates reflect how human nature can still cave in upon itself instead (not that it has to).

Edited May 14, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

...and I think the activity rates are a reflection of the parable of the Sower and not to be unexpected.

[mnn727]

Just curious about the O.P. - What dog do you have in this race?

ie, what difference does it make to you, and why do you care?

Edited May 14, 2012 by mnn727

[cinepro]

I'm curious - this is what, the 2nd or 3rd thread on stats and the church in recent weeks. Is there an implicit argument somewhere in them concerning the church and either its leadership, practices, or the doctrines, or are these threads simply wranglings similar to the philosopher's arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

IOW "Why does anyone care about this stuff?"

Among other things, it's like a puzzle. The Church publishes a membership number, but we all know that doesn't represent the number of active, believing, tithe-paying Mormons in the world. So how many members are actually going to Church on Sundays? And how many have long since abandoned the Church and remain in name only?

The Church obviously knows, but they're not telling. So we can look at what we do know and try and figure it out. I think it's pretty dang interesting.

[KevinG]

On the world level it is members of record. This is what is published without getting into the who is active or not analysis.

On the Stake and Ward level activity is counted by attendance at least once a month. This is for use by Stake officials and to gauge Missionary efforts.

On the unit level attendance is counted for budget purposes by the number who attend Sacrament meeting each week.

Different accounting methods for different purposes.

As far as I'm concerned the only person who's attendance I need to worry about is mine, my family and those who I am called to teach and visit. If I'm ever a Bishop i'll worry about the Ward, ditto for Stake, region and callings with a larger scope.

[KevinG]

I've got a few words for those who think the LDS Church publishes the members of record numbers for nefarious or political purposes. (Cue spooky music)

Paranoid

Naysayer

Retentive

Busybody

[Jaybear]

I've got a few words for those who think the LDS Church publishes the members of record numbers for nefarious or political purposes. (Cue spooky music)

Who said that?

[Analytics]

Among other things, it's like a puzzle. The Church publishes a membership number, but we all know that doesn't represent the number of active, believing, tithe-paying Mormons in the world. So how many members are actually going to Church on Sundays? And how many have long since abandoned the Church and remain in name only?

The Church obviously knows, but they're not telling. So we can look at what we do know and try and figure it out. I think it's pretty dang interesting.

That's why my mind is engaged with it. The other point, though, is that membership is a key statistic for the success of the church. The church's mission entails not only "bringing others to Christ through the waters of baptism," but also "perfecting the Saints." Mormons becoming perfected entails a high-level of dedication and activity, so I'm sure the general leadership measures its success in this regard by looking at number of full tithe payers, number of recommend holders, number of active members, etc. It's interesting to speculate on how well it's doing with its goals.

[T-Shirt]

The Church publishes a membership number, but we all know that doesn't represent the number of active, believing, tithe-paying Mormons in the world.

Of course, the Church has never claimed that it does.

So how many members are actually going to Church on Sundays?

While the Church, certainly , knows this number, outside of local stakes and wards, I am not sure why it matters, other than to satisfy the curiosity of a few busybodies.

And how many have long since abandoned the Church and remain in name only?

How would the Church know this number?

Edited May 14, 2012 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

The numbers suggest that the LDS Church is having trouble retaining converts.

I don't think anyone would argue that new member retention is, and has been, a matter of concern and attention for more than a decade.

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.

There is a problem with your logic. You can't assume that all of those additional 114,963 members were assigned to one of the 23 new units. Most wards, based on typical activity rates, could handle an additional 50- 100 additional active members without being divided. If you assume about 600 members in each of the new 23 units, that accounts for 13,800 members. If you divide the remaining number into the 1977 units of 2008, you get an additional 51 members per unit, which would be manageable. Therefore, while, interesting, your statistics don't really indicate anything regarding retention. It is certainly possible that retention rates in Mexico are abysmal, on the other hand, using your statistics, it would be possible for Mexico to have had 100% retention since 2008.

Edited May 14, 2012 by T-Shirt

[CASteinman]

You think it’s possible that a ward could exist with 800 active members and not be divided?

Not only possible... I have seen it and lived in such a Ward for at least half a decade or longer. When the Ward finally was "divided" (it was really changing of boundaries between 3 wards) it had nothing to do with overall population but rather with concentrations of youth and adults and leadership between the 3 wards.

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?

Of course not. I don't even think a ward of 80 people would persist. I sort of mentioned this limitation in the example, if you had bothered to pay attention. It was just an example and hand nothing to do with actual real-world wards. How can this escape you?

[Thinking]

I don't think anyone would argue that new member retention is, and has been, a matter of concern and attention for more than a decade.

And yet you will argue anyway.

There is a problem with your logic. You can't assume that all of those additional 114,963 members were assigned to one of the 23 new units.

Did I assume that?

Most wards, based on typical activity rates, could handle an additional 50- 100 additional active members without being divided.

What are typical activity rates?

If you assume about 600 members in each of the new 23 units, that accounts for 13,800 members. If you divide the remaining number into the 1977 units of 2008, you get an additional 51 members per unit, which would be manageable. Therefore, while, interesting, your statistics don't really indicate anything regarding retention. It is certainly possible that retention rates in Mexico are abysmal, on the other hand, using your statistics, it would be possible for Mexico to have had 100% retention since 2008.

What would be the odds that 1977 units could each add 51 members and none need to be divided?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Thinking

[CASteinman]

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.

The analysis is bogus. I do this sort of thing for a living and I am telling you this is bogus. It is circular logic. I have a theory and then I use that theory to prove my theory. Bogus.

[CASteinman]

Again you are proving that you have not studied the pdf because in it I compare Mexico to Mexico, Utah to Utah, etc.

I was answering a different question. The answer I gave to the 800 member ward vs the 80 member ward was not an answer to your pdf, which I did look at.

[CASteinman]

What would be the odds that 1977 units could each add 51 members and none need to be divided?

Odds could be as high as 100% that none need to be divided. It might desirable in some cases, but it would never be mandatory with that small a percentage increase.

[Thinking]

The analysis is bogus. I do this sort of thing for a living and I am telling you this is bogus. It is circular logic. I have a theory and then I use that theory to prove my theory. Bogus.

If you really do this for a living, then you understand that there are things that naturally have inverse relationships.

A simple example would be speed and time. The faster you drive, the less time it takes to arrive at your destination. The slower you drive, the more time it takes to arrive at your destination.

An area with a low activity rate needs more members per unit for a unit to function properly. For example, let's suppose that there is a magic number of 200 active members required for a ward to function properly. If the activity rate in the area is 40%, the ward needs 200/0.4 = 500 total members. If the activity rate is 32%, the ward needs 200/0.32 = 625 total members. The trend of increasing congregation sizes suggests that attendance rates are decreasing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You think it’s possible that a ward could exist with 800 active members and not be divided?

FWIW, we had a branch on my mission which had 500 active members. It was, however, something of an anomaly since it was a language unit almost entirely comprised of members (all of them refugees from one more Leftwing attempt at genocide) under the age of 18.

And you think a ward could exist with only 16 active members and not be relegated to a branch or combined with another unit?

FWIW again, when I moved into my current ward 8.5 years ago, it wasn't far off this. I counted up the total in sacrament meeting my first Sunday near the end of the service and got 37 people, including babies.

The Church publishes a membership number, but we all know that doesn't represent the number of active, believing, tithe-paying Mormons in the world. So how many members are actually going to Church on Sundays? And how many have long since abandoned the Church and remain in name only?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting only two statuses here: 'active, believing, tithe-paying' vs members 'in name only' who have 'long since abandoned the Church'. There are no doubt people who fall into this latter category, but it's not been my personal experience that they would comprise anything close to a majority of those who are currently not active, paying tithing, or even believing. I spent last evening teaching a temple-prep class to a young man who leaves on his mission in three months. Baptised at age 8, he'd never been active or believing til a little more than two years ago. His parents still aren't active, but I've come to know both of them very well, and they're absolutely both 'believing'. The dad pays tithing, but the mum doesn't. She however bore her testimony to me in a temple-recommend interview which I had with her a few weeks ago. I could be wrong, but, though they've both been inactive for about a decade, I fully expect them to be active by the time their son returns from his mission. They have absolutely not abandoned the Church.

In this I'm reminded of an elderly bloke I met on my mission who hadn't been to church in over 20 years when we finally tracked him down. We asked him if he wanted to come back to church. No. Would he like home teachers? No. Visits from us? No. A visit from the bishop? No. Untrained and perplexed, I asked him if he really wanted to maintain affiliation with the Church. He paused and then motioned us into his small, cluttered home. In the room was a well-worn chair where obviously he spent much of his days (and possibly nights), and next to it was a small table with a reading lamp and a tattered copy of the Book of Mormon. He picked the book up, clutched it to his chest, and said, 'This is the most valuable thing I own. Why would you want to take it away from me?' I didn't get it then, and I still don't get it now, but I've had enough parallel experiences since to conclude that being even a hard-core inactive doesn't equate to lack of belief.

About two years ago, we were asked by our area president to do a membership audit of our ward by visiting every single name on the list and by trying to track down those who no longer lived at the indicated addresses. I personally visited a few dozen of these members, and only one of them no longer identified as a member.

The Church obviously knows, but they're not telling.

The Church has a rough idea of activity rates and the number of members who tithe (dependent, of course, on the accuracy of local reporting), but how on earth would you propose we determine which of all the currently inactive members still actually believe...and which of those who don't will at some point recover their belief???

You can't assume that all of those additional 114,963 members were assigned to one of the 23 new units. Most wards, based on typical activity rates, could handle an additional 50- 100 additional active members without being divided.

I was thinking something similar. Since I moved into my ward 8.5 years ago, we have grown steadily until now we are averaging more than 170 in sacrament meeting. This past Sunday, we had only 165, but that's still an increase of 128 people over those attending on my first Sunday. And we still have plenty of room to absorb many dozens more members before dividing would even become an issue.

What would be the odds that 1977 units could each add 51 members and none need to be divided?

We only have a few hundred wards/branches in the country where I live, but I'm certain that all but a handful of them could easily add 51 members without strain. Without question, every ward and branch in our stake could easily absorb twice that number. Again, FWIW.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[CASteinman]

If you really do this for a living, then you understand that there are things that naturally have inverse relationships.

A simple example would be speed and time. The faster you drive, the less time it takes to arrive at your destination. The slower you drive, the more time it takes to arrive at your destination.

An area with a low activity rate needs more members per unit for a unit to function properly. For example, let's suppose that there is a magic number of 200 active members required for a ward to function properly. If the activity rate in the area is 40%, the ward needs 200/0.4 = 500 total members. If the activity rate is 32%, the ward needs 200/0.32 = 625 total members. The trend of increasing congregation sizes suggests that attendance rates are decreasing.

Apparently you think I do not understand your premise.

I do. I did. I continue to understand it.

Your analysis is still bogus and it starts with your premise. The fact that low activity rate needs more members per unit does not mean that more members per unit means lower activity rate. This is a fundamental logical error and it has a name: "Affirmation of the consequent". It goes like this: A implies B. I observe B. Therefore A must be true.

Now lets substitute your premise and conclusion

A: Lower Activity Rates

B: Greater Population per Ecclesiastical Unit

Lower Activity Rates imply Greater Population per Ecclesiastical Unit.

Now... lets generate statistics and show that there is Greater Population per Ecclesiastical Unit. Let's do it in detail for multiple countries and over various time horizons.

Hooray! We observe increased Population per Ecclesiastical Unit!!!

That must mean that there are Lower Activity Rates.

A implies B. We observed B. So we conclude A is valid.

Logical error: Affirming the Consequent.

You cannot "save" this by saying "Well.. the existence of B implies A". It is STILL a fallacy.

From there, all your analysis fails.

You are engaging in logical fallacy. Plus without confidence intervals and hypothesis testing you cannot even make the logical fallacy with any degree of "precision". You MIGHT be able to generate some sort of statistical significance indicators -- and that would at least be something. (You would still have the logical error though). But you don't even have the significance tests.

The analysis is bad from start to end. From premise to conclusion.

I have tried to be as clear and as detailed as I could be to explain this. I feel like maybe its too much wording, but you didn't seem to understand before, so I hope this will make my objection more clear.

[Log]

The fact that low activity rate needs more members per unit does not mean that more members per unit means lower activity rate. This is a fundamental logical error and it has a name: "Affirmation of the consequent". It goes like this: A implies B. I observe B. Therefore A must be true.

What if he's really making an inference to the best explanation? In that case, there is no fallacy here.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Log

[Brian 2.0]

So how many members are actually going to Church on Sundays? And how many have long since abandoned the Church and remain in name only?

The Church obviously knows, but they're not telling. So we can look at what we do know and try and figure it out. I think it's pretty dang interesting.

The church released some numbers with the infographic. Here's two stats from the graphic.

77% of members attend church at least weekly.

14 million members.

So we have our answer.

And in a completely unrelated quote:

"Honesty is more than not lying. It's truth telling". James E. Faust

[TAO]

Thinking, the difficulty is that not all wards need the same amount of membership to function. There are some that have the barebone amount, and others, that have way more than they need.

In addition, increase in membership doesn't divide evenly over wards, so even a model like that wouldn't work. So while I don't doubt that there isn't perfect activity, I think it's premature to assume activity is going down. After all, we don't know what the max and min size of a ward is, nor how many wards reach that amount.

[TAO]

It could be inference to the best explanation, but the other possibilities are too likely to make any good claims with it yet, I think.

You can make a guess from a model, but considering there are decent alternatives, it's really too soon to say much.

Like this kitty, for example:

That is one possibility - or there could be other reasons the car moves (at least in the kitten's innocent eyes =^..^=).

Edited May 15, 2012 by TAO