L D S Membership Numbers

[CASteinman]

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

Oh... if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

There are three problems with this idea.

1. He does not present it as an inference to the best explanation.

2. Even if he did do some "guesswork" (which is what that inferencing is), his guestimation does not eliminate the Truth Table that lies behind the logical fallacy he engages in. The truth table is pretty hard to get around.

3. Inference to the best explanation should rightly have an emphasis on BEST. It should be parsimonious. It should be efficient. In short it should be very clear that no other explanation can reasonably fit the data. But in this case, there are multiple other explanations and zero evidence that this is the "Best" one.

Edited May 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh... if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

There are three problems with this idea.

1. He does not present it as an inference to the best explanation.

2. Even if he did do some "guesswork" (which is what that inferencing is), his guestimation does not eliminate the Truth Table that lies behind the logical fallacy he engages in. The truth table is pretty hard to get around.

3. Inference to the best explanation should rightly have an emphasis on BEST. It should be parsimonious. It should be efficient. In short it should be very clear that no other explanation can reasonably fit the data. But in this case, there are multiple other explanations and zero evidence that this is the "Best" one.

Since you have killed and buried this idea, what do you make of the following? I don't understand the data change or the implications:

Joshua Bolding, “LDS Church reports 18 percent growth in 2000s,” Deseret News, May 3, 2012, online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555185/LDS-Church-reports-18-percent-growth-in-2000s.html

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the fastest-growing Christian church in America from 2000-10, but it didn't grow as fast as reported Tuesday.

The church said Thursday that its American membership grew 18 percent during the first decade of the 21st century, not 45.5 percent as reported Tuesday in the 2010 decennial U.S. Religion Census released by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.

The census showed the church's membership to have jumped from 4,224,026 in 2000 to 6,144,582 in 2010, or 45.5 percent. However, the church's full membership in 2000 was 5,208,827.

LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the church previously used an understated number when reporting to the census, but decided this year to report full membership numbers. The 6.1 million figure in 2010 better reflects the church's total membership.

“Total church membership numbers are derived from those individuals who have been baptized or born into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," Trotter said Wednesday. They are neither projections nor estimates. "In past years, numbers reported to the (census) were understated. They left out numbers of members who, although baptized, were not currently associated with a specific congregation. This year we included total membership numbers to more accurately reflect all of those found on church records.”

Dale Jones, a researcher on the religion census, said the discrepancy just wasn't caught in time before they compiled the numbers.

"Those of us who collected the data and put it out this week simply didn't catch the fact the (LDS Church) methodology for calculating adherents had been changed since the last analysis," Jones said. "I would point out that the new methodology is really more consistent with the way other groups like Catholics and Protestants are already reporting the data. So I think it's a good move; I just wish we had realized it earlier."

Despite the reporting discrepancy, 18 percent growth was still the highest among Christian sects in America. The Assemblies of God grew 14.9 percent. Catholic adherents have dropped 5 percent in the past decade, while Mainline Protestants have seen a decline of 12.8 percent. Evangelical Protestants have seen a small 1.7 percent growth among adherents.

"It's roughly half the gains we expected early, but the gains are still very dramatic for the Latter-day Saints," Jones said.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Remaing in name only does not negate membership. These people are still members until they ask to have their names removed. In the meantime, active members will continue to seek them out (home and visiting teachers), look out for their welfare, and hope and pray for their return. Just last Sunday, a couple attended our ward that had not been to church in 15 years. I have a close friend who has periodic seasons of inactivity. My home teacher was inactive for over 35 years. He joined the church while in Vietnam and never attended again until later in his life. When one is baptized and confirmed, one is a member for life. The membership numbers are as accurate as they can be.

Bernard

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

The parable of the sower comes to mind.

Bernard

[CASteinman]

Since you have killed and buried this idea, what do you make of the following? I don't understand the data change or the implications:

I don't exactly know why they made this change -- you would have to ask them. I prefer the old way of doing the numbers. But I suspect that, after many years of having these numbers scrutinized by enemies of the Church and compared with other Churches, they decided to make the numbers comparable directly to those of other Churches.

I have a book on my shelf called "How to lie with statistics". Its an amusing and useful little book. One of the things it teaches is the distorting effect of percentages. If I have 6 people in the Church and I baptize 30, the Church grows 500%. If I have 6 million in the Church and I baptized 300,000 (10,000 X 30) the Church grows by 5%. That is why, when comparing growth rates it may be unfair to compare the LDS Church with, say, the Anglican Communion by only looking at percentages. You should also look at absolute numbers. Both numbers give information and both can be distorting depending upon context but together they help complete the picture.

Even then though, if you are comparing Churches you should compare Apples to Apples numbers, and this is pretty hard to do -- Churches count members in different ways. This change makes LDS numbers more comparable to other Churches, but comparisons should always be done with some humility and caution, even now, as you do not know what goes into the numbers on both sides.

[CV75]

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.

I really don’t think the Church does know. The cohorts you listed, and others, are not all mutually inclusive and overlap each other in Venn-diagram fashion only the Lord would comprehend, as it is based on the hearts of those involved.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't exactly know why they made this change -- you would have to ask them. I prefer the old way of doing the numbers. But I suspect that, after many years of having these numbers scrutinized by enemies of the Church and compared with other Churches, they decided to make the numbers comparable directly to those of other Churches.

I have a book on my shelf called "How to lie with statistics". Its an amusing and useful little book. One of the things it teaches is the distorting effect of percentages. If I have 6 people in the Church and I baptize 30, the Church grows 500%. If I have 6 million in the Church and I baptized 300,000 (10,000 X 30) the Church grows by 5%. That is why, when comparing growth rates it may be unfair to compare the LDS Church with, say, the Anglican Communion by only looking at percentages. You should also look at absolute numbers. Both numbers give information and both can be distorting depending upon context but together they help complete the picture.

Even then though, if you are comparing Churches you should compare Apples to Apples numbers, and this is pretty hard to do -- Churches count members in different ways. This change makes LDS numbers more comparable to other Churches, but comparisons should always be done with some humility and caution, even now, as you do not know what goes into the numbers on both sides.

How about comparison of percentage of total membership in the most common religions in the USA? Is that a meaningful approach? As in the attached pdf

RELIGIONS OF THE USA PERCENTAGES.pdf

[CV75]

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.

Rather than key statistics measuring success, I see these counts as part of a “dashboard.” The stats are a starting point for prayerful observation and thinking things through. The leaders balance this with inspiration and the result is that the Church keeps forging ahead against all sorts of opposition. In ward, stake and general conference we hear both about how well we are doing and about where we need and/or can improve.

[Jaybear]

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.

Therein lies the root of the disagreement, he never made the claim that the data proved his theory.

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.

I don't think you understand the concept of "odds."

[CASteinman]

How about comparison of percentage of total membership in the most common religions in the USA? Is that a meaningful approach? As in the attached pdf

Yes, I think statistics that show composition are meaningful and I like the concept of "share of market".

[CASteinman]

Therein lies the root of the disagreement, he never made the claim that the data proved his theory.

No. That is not the heart of the disagreement. The heart of the disagreement is that he is engaging in logical fallacy with information that has no reported statistical significance.

I don't think you understand the concept of "odds."

I don't mind that you are wrong about this. Its a bit funny though that you would choose what I said to make this claim -- it almost makes it look like you don't understand odds.

Perhaps you wanted the odds expressed as a betting line? But that is not the only way to express them.

[Analytics]

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.

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?

If most of them were active and a sufficient number were priesthood holders, why wouldn't it persist? The strength of a ward is in the active members, and examples have been offered on this thread of wards with fewer than 80 active members.

Existing church units can absorb new members up to a point, so I wouldn't put much stock into this type of analysis over a very short period. But if there is a long-term trend of units growing at a slower rate than the membership growth, that tells us something about activity rates.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Mine was dissolved....now I am in an rich Ward where few know who I am, and few care to know. I miss my Ward where their were different races. Now it is all white and most are very well off. "Boring"!

[CASteinman]

If most of them were active and a sufficient number were priesthood holders, why wouldn't it persist? The strength of a ward is in the active members, and examples have been offered on this thread of wards with fewer than 80 active members.

Existing church units can absorb new members up to a point, so I wouldn't put much stock into this type of analysis over a very short period. But if there is a long-term trend of units growing at a slower rate than the membership growth, that tells us something about activity rates.

You know? It wasn't my call. I thought the ward should be split to give more people an opportunity to serve. I think large wards encourage complacency. But it wasn't my call. I do remember going to Sacrament meeting and the cultural hall would be half full and thinking "This is a BIG Ward".

Your conclusion that trends of units tells us something about activity rates is simply unsupported -- as I have already pointed out. It is your belief -- a belief you take on faith. You have no reasonable evidence for it. In particular, policy decisions and geographic parameters can make a large difference in your conclusion -- yet you consistently ignore this.

[Analytics]

Your conclusion that trends of units tells us something about activity rates is simply unsupported -- as I have already pointed out. It is your belief -- a belief you take on faith. You have no reasonable evidence for it. In particular, policy decisions and geographic parameters can make a large difference in your conclusion -- yet you consistently ignore this.

You don't know what evidence I have and don't have. You assume that my beliefs on this topic are based on faith. But you have no evidence of that.

[T-Shirt]

And yet you will argue anyway.

I am not arguing that retention is not a matter of concern. I am simply pointing out that your statistics are meaningless in trying to make your point.

Did I assume that?

Well, I may have misunderstood, but you did say:

That’s 4,998 members for each added congregation.

That indicates that you simply divided the new members into the 23 new units. Did I miss something?

What are typical activity rates?

They vary form place to place, but, with very few exceptions, no ward or branch is going to have 100% activity, and all wards can handle some degree of growth.

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

The point is simple. All wards can absorb a certain amount of new members without being divided. 51 is not a particularly high number to absorb unless the unit is operating at full capacity to begin with. I have been in my current ward for twenty years - ten years ago, we had an average Sacrament Meeting attendance of about 250. Even though we were a large ward, we could have handled more. Today, the same ward has an average attendance of 180. We could easily accommodate an additional 50 members. I believe most wards could. In other words, using your statistics, even if there had been a 100% retention rate, there may not have been a need to create any more than 23 new units. I am certain that retention was much lower, but your statistics do not really help your case.

Edited May 15, 2012 by T-Shirt

[CASteinman]

You don't know what evidence I have and don't have. You assume that my beliefs on this topic are based on faith. But you have no evidence of that.

Uh huh. Well, if you have evidence you do not want to share, that's fine with me. Is it OK with you if I don't consider it relevant on a public discussion board?

[Analytics]

Uh huh. Well, if you have evidence you do not want to share, that's fine with me. Is it OK with you if I don't consider it relevant on a public discussion board?

The evidence is relevant regardless of whether or not I want to share it. I don't mind your ignorance on the matter; what bugs me is your attempts at mind-reading.

[Log]

The evidence is relevant regardless of whether or not I want to share it. I don't mind your ignorance on the matter; what bugs me is your attempts at mind-reading.

But does it bug you enough to share the evidence?

[CASteinman]

The evidence is relevant regardless of whether or not I want to share it. I don't mind your ignorance on the matter; what bugs me is your attempts at mind-reading.

Well, you will have to get over that, but at least you don't have to vote "up" on my comments! Maybe that will give you satisfaction!

I confess, its a bit weird that you claim I am attempting to read your mind. It was not an attempt at mind reading but rather an assumption on my part that you were being cooperative in presenting all the facts at your disposal -- a not entirely unreasonable assumption.

Is the reason you do not disclose this extra, vindicating information, because you have been sworn to secrecy? I think its honorable of you to keep such confidences, but it might not be exactly in the spirit of the Board Guidelines which say "Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements" is a bad thing.

It does not bug me that you want to keep this a secret, but please have a bit of charity toward others who are making the reasonable assumptions that attend to ordinary discourse on a message board and that help facilitate the conversation.

Although I plead innocent of the mind-reading charge, I will cop to a different sin and ask for forgiveness. I confused you (and your name) with "Thinking" and answered you as though you were also the original poster. Of course, not being aware that you are a different person could (and probably did) create a layer of difficulty that would not have been there. I apologize for that -- it was, entirely, my fault.

Edited May 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Mine was dissolved....now I am in an rich Ward where few know who I am, and few care to know. I miss my Ward where their were different races. Now it is all white and most are very well off. "Boring"!

If you can get to know some of them, you might find some interesting people with fascinating experiences. I know that has been my experience. One guy I know, for example, knew Col Sanders of Chicken Fame at a very early date and was behind the invention of these little sealed packages of honey that used to be used on the rolls. His story of inventing those was fascinating, as were his stories of the Colonel.

Another fellow I know was, at the time he became a Bishop, one of the 2 or 3 youngest Bishops in the Church -- one of the youngest Bishops ever. Despite his strength of testimony, I never realized the depth of his knowledge about Church History and other matters. I can recall once when I brought up some of the Adam God things from Brigham Young with him. His response was wonderful. He said, with a laugh: "Oh brother Brigham... sometimes I have worried about him!"

The most interesting thing that I have found in dealing with what you might think of as boring, white rich folk who are also humble, is that they tend to be somewhat boring because they seem to go out of their way to not make much of themselves at Church or to make much in the way of waves. They seem almost quiet and even secretive. But its great to get to know them!

Well, that's my experience.

[Thinking]

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.

Do you understand that suggest does not mean prove?

For those who don’t understand what CASteinman is talking about, he is referencing cause and effect.

A = lower activity rate

B = increased congregation size

I could also add

C = moratorium on new building construction

A --> B

C --> B

There are at least two different things which may cause increased congregation size. If B is true, how do we know if A, C or even something else caused it? We don’t know anything for sure. CASteinman talks about confidence intervals. What are they?

Suppose I claimed a 95% confidence interval that the average attendance rate for sacrament meeting throughout the church was from 45% to 55%. This means that I am 95% confident that the actual average attendance rate is in the interval from 45% to 55%. It does not mean that 95% of congregations have an attendance rate in that interval. 95% confident means I could be wrong. So even if I had the data to construct a confidence interval or conduct a hypothesis test, I still wouldn’t know with 100% certainty whatever conclusion happened to be.

What CASteinman does not tell you is that although there may be different premises which may cause the same conclusion, they don’t all have the same chance of being the cause when the conclusion does occur.

For example, the most common cause of a postponement of a baseball game is rain. Is it the only thing that can cause a postponement? No. An earthquake postponed 2 World Series games in San Francisco in 1989. However, if I told you that 15 Giants home games were postponed this year, it would be a reasonable suggestion that most of those were caused by rain.

I can’t calculate a confidence interval or do a hypothesis test because the LDS Church does not release the necessary data. However, using the natural inverse relationship between activity/attendance rates and congregation size and the Law of Large numbers (thousands of congregations and millions of members), I can reasonably suggest that attendance rates are probably dropping.

You see, I too do this for a living.

I now ask the following question. What things do you think have a better chance than lower activity rates of being the main cause of increased congregation size?

[CV75]

What things do you think have a better chance than lower activity rates of being the main cause of increased congregation size?

Can you somehow factor in the economy? Or are you just going by congregation and membership roll figures?

Growth of the Church worldwide brings it into an array of economies that each in their own way impacts tithe-paying, work on Sundays and other LDS religious practices that place a temporal demand (or ease) upon the member, each potentially (depending on which way you roll) discouraging to religious activity. The economies also simultaneously affect the organization of new congregations through factors other than their impact on activity rates (e.g. the local cost of organizing and maintaining congregations, even without having to build or rent facilities; local rules and regulations; bribes (reliance on a black market), etc.).

[CASteinman]

I now ask the following question. What things do you think have a better chance than lower activity rates of being the main cause of increased congregation size?

I think policy regarding congregation size has a better chance of being a factor.

I believe geographic concentration and "newness" of membership may also be factors, but I really can't do anything but wonder if those are larger or smaller factors than activity rates. However, I do think that they would drive policy, so that factor covers a great deal.

But, we just do not have the data to know the answers.

Incidentally, the statistical confidence argument was only one of two issues I had. I think you are saying that already, but I wanted to make it clearer. My problem was with the basic argument (cause and effect as you said) and then, on top of it, even though your approach was "backward" -- if we ignore that problem of cause and effect, we still ALSO have the problem of significance in the statistics.

I would accept 95%.

[Thinking]

I think policy regarding congregation size has a better chance of being a factor.

I disagree but of course it's a possibility.

Incidentally, the statistical confidence argument was only one of two issues I had. I think you are saying that already, but I wanted to make it clearer. My problem was with the basic argument (cause and effect as you said) and then, on top of it, even though your approach was "backward" -- if we ignore that problem of cause and effect, we still ALSO have the problem of significance in the statistics.

I would accept 95%.

Sometimes we use the data we have and make what we believe to be a good guess.