L D S Membership Numbers

[ERayR]

Having explained the difference between a deduction and a credit to countless (there's my hyperbole) people, and with many of them believing that a deduction acted like a credit, I would say that using hyperbole in this context is inappropriate.

I stand humbly before you and take my lashing. There still remains that 15% to 35% part that is paid by a deduction in taxes paid. Who would you consider paid that for Johnny Cake?

I find that each year I must explain that distinction to some. (note: no hyperbole this time)

[Johnnie Cake]

Perhaps the Church should disclose the membership status and tithing status (and even the amount of tithing paid) for each person who signs this petition. After all, what are the petition signers afraid of? When is light shown into a dark place a bad thing, unless there is something that needs to be hidden? I would think that we could all agree that making more information available to the public would be a good thing, unless there is something the petition signers are trying to hide from the membership.

Perhaps the next such petition should require each signer to append a copy of his canceled checks and other tithing documents. After all, a petition singed by a thousand full tithe payers would have far more credibility. (and potential influence) than one that could be signed by anybody, including non-members.

The only proper answer to the question/innuendo “What have you got to hide? is “none of your business.”

For starters, paying tithing is a voluntary act of faith. Paying taxes is not. Being subject to Church jurisdiction (Church membership) is voluntary. Being subject to governmental jurisdiction is not.

Strawman alert!!!

[Johnnie Cake]

I stand humbly before you and take my lashing. There still remains that 15% to 35% part that is paid by a deduction in taxes paid. Who would you consider paid that for Johnny Cake?

I find that each year I must explain that distinction to some. (note: no hyperbole this time)

I can only imagine that it must give you some satisfaction in knowing that as a non-tithe payer I subsidize your governmental costs...

[Thinking]

I stand humbly before you and take my lashing. There still remains that 15% to 35% part that is paid by a deduction in taxes paid. Who would you consider paid that for Johnny Cake?

You can say it one of two ways:

1. Johnny paid his tithing and received a discount on his taxes.

2. Johnny's taxes paid for part of his tithing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Are there any records that would show what the number of active LDS is compared to inactive?

No. See my previous post here.

[ERayR]

I can only imagine that it must give you some satisfaction in knowing that as a non-tithe payer I subsidize your governmental costs...

Not mine I don't itemize but thanks from the bottom of my heart in behalf of those who do. But don't forget all of the other 501 ('c) (3) 's your helping out too.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

You can say it one of two ways:

1. Johnny paid his tithing and received a discount on his taxes.

2. Johnny's taxes paid for part of his tithing.

It does get a bit difficult to keep score doesn't it.

[canard78]

Are there any records that would show what the number of active LDS is compared to inactive?

Most people would know at a local level. Some would also know at a stake level.

Some of my calculations earlier in the thread suggest about 25-33% activity rates globally.

Having said that, as hamba pointed out, if you have 150 average weekly attendance and 450 listed members, it's more than 33%. Some of the attendees will only attend 1,2 or 3 Sundays/month (for work/health or spiritual reasons). Some will also be permanently non-attending (health or other reasons) but still consider themselves engaged LDS.

So we net out at probably more like 20-25% weekly core, 30-40% who are irregular but somewhat engaged, and around 35-50% who are on the list 'in name only' (depending on the unit).

[canard78]

No. See my previous post here.

To add to your reasonable post, some wise words from a leadership training by Elder Uchtdorf:

"Another topic I would like to discuss is the difference between growth and real growth. We have heard some about this today. In Church terms, growth could be defined as new members. New members come through children baptized at age eight as well as convert baptisms. Real growth, however, is defined as growth in the number of active members.

In some areas of the Church we have dramatic growth in new members, yet active membership remains stagnant or grows only a little. We have some measurable ways to indicate activity in the Church, such as sacrament meeting attendance, ordination to the priesthood at the right age, missionary service, and possession of a current temple recommend. Perhaps the more accurate indicators of real growth in the gospel of Jesus Christ are those that we can’t measure as easily, such as daily prayer, scripture study, family home evening, love at home and for our neighbor, and personal experiences with Christ’s Atonement. These are recorded not by a clerk in Church records but in our hearts and in heaven.

Our missionary efforts are compromised if we baptize God’s children but do not maintain love and friendship with these precious new members who are excited to find fellowship with the Saints and a place of belonging in the household of God."

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2012/01/acting-on-the-truths-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

[ERayR]

Most people would know at a local level. Some would also know at a stake level.

Some of my calculations earlier in the thread suggest about 25-33% activity rates globally.

Having said that, as hamba pointed out, if you have 150 average weekly attendance and 450 listed members, it's more than 33%. Some of the attendees will only attend 1,2 or 3 Sundays/month (for work/health or spiritual reasons). Some will also be permanently non-attending (health or other reasons) but still consider themselves engaged LDS.

So we net out at probably more like 20-25% weekly core, 30-40% who are irregular but somewhat engaged, and around 35-50% who are on the list 'in name only' (depending on the unit).

Those participating at least once a month or oftener would be 40-50%. My ward is very similar in numbers to hamba's.

[Stone holm]

Those participating at least once a month or oftener would be 40-50%. My ward is very similar in numbers to hamba's.

I would guess that is about the average, plus there must be a huge cyber folder in Salt Lake with records of people whose records have been shipped because nobody knows where they are or who they are.

[canard78]

Those participating at least once a month or oftener would be 40-50%. My ward is very similar in numbers to hamba's.

Mine too. I'd agree with a probable estimate of approx 40-50% 1+/month.

But if we're seeing an increase in M/C then that still indicates some reduction in frequency of attendance (either at all or in visits/month).

[Stone holm]

Mine too. I'd agree with a probable estimate of approx 40-50% 1+/month.

But if we're seeing an increase in M/C then that still indicates some reduction in frequency of attendance (either at all or in visits/month).

Am not seeing that out here things have pretty much stabilised now after a loss of active members during the political activism dust up over SSM. I think we might now be slowly climbing again in attendance, but only marginally.

[ERayR]

Am not seeing that out here things have pretty much stabilised now after a loss of active members during the political activism dust up over SSM. I think we might now be slowly climbing again in attendance, but only marginally.

I have been WC for about four years now and we have climbed from the 155-165 range to the 190 + range.

[canard78]

I have been WC for about four years now and we have climbed from the 155-165 range to the 190 + range.

And that may very well be the best explanation for the increase in m/c... or it might not...

[Hamba Tuhan]

And that may very well be the best explanation for the increase in m/c... or it might not...

I understand that it's purely anecdotal, but this is absolutely the explanation for my ward, which during the past ten years has more than doubled its membership whilst experiencing no decrease in activity rates whatsoever, and it would be the same for every other ward in our stake. (As the former stake exec sec, I used to create graphs tracking these trends for the stake PEC and for the ward leadership.) In fact, to look at a number that to me is more telling than many others (though still problematic in its own right), the number of endowed members currently holding temple recommends in our ward has nearly tripled at the same time that membership has merely doubled.

And for what it's worth, this appears to be at least a regional trend. We've recently received word from our temple that they wish to add sessions because they are regularly having more patrons show up than they have seats available. Consequently, we've been asked to find members from our stake (300 km away) who might be able to serve in the temple once a month. When we had our ward temple trip in May, the last two sessions on Friday evening had to turn people away, and our dedicated session Saturday morning was completely filled, with dozens of patrons not from our ward having to do sealings or wait an hour for the 10:00 session.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stone holm]

I understand that it's purely anecdotal, but this is absolutely the explanation for my ward, which during the past ten years has more than doubled its membership whilst experiencing no decrease in activity rates whatsoever, and it would be the same for every other ward in our stake. (As the former stake exec sec, I used to create graphs tracking these trends for the stake PEC and for the ward leadership.) In fact, to look at a number that to me is more telling than many others (though still problematic in its own right), the number of endowed members currently holding temple recommends in our ward has nearly tripled at the same time that membership has merely doubled.

And for what it's worth, this appears to be at least a regional trend. We've recently received word from our temple that they wish to add sessions because they are regularly having more patrons show up than they have seats available. Consequently, we've been asked to find members from our stake (300 km away) who might be able to serve in the temple once a month. When we had our ward temple trip in May, the last two sessions on Friday evening had to turn people away, and our dedicated session Saturday morning was completely filled, with dozens of patrons not from our ward having to do sealings or wait an hour for the 10:00 session.

Wow. My wife goes to the Boston Temple about once a week and they periodically have to cancel sessions for lack of attendance.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wow. My wife goes to the Boston Temple about once a week and they periodically have to cancel sessions for lack of attendance.

That sometimes also happens here with weekday sessions. I suspect most Saints in the temple district are like me and only able to get to the temple on the weekends. When I was studying in America, I quickly learnt to avoid Saturdays at the temple. Once I waited two hours just to get into the chapel to wait for a session. Instead, I would go on a Thursday, and once the entire session consisted of my mate, me, and one sister.

The important difference here is that the inability to handle patronage on weekends is a relatively recent phenomenon for us.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stone holm]

That sometimes also happens here with weekday sessions. I suspect most Saints in the temple district are like me and only able to get to the temple on the weekends. When I was studying in America, I quickly learnt to avoid Saturdays at the temple. Once I waited two hours just to get into the chapel to wait for a session. Instead, I would go on a Thursday, and once the entire session consisted of my mate, me, and one sister.

The important difference here is that the inability to handle patronage on weekends is a relatively recent phenomenon for us.

You may be right she goes every Tuesday.

[Avatar4321]

I'm merely asking questions...so if not fear...why not just open the books? There may be other legitimate reasons for keeping this information among the top 15...that’s ok...why not share the reasons why?

I ask these questions knowing that in the long and short run it will make no difference...things will continue along in their merry way

I acknowledge that members of the church trust church authories...I too believe that they are worthy of that trust...but why doesn't the church trust its members in the same way...by respecting them enough to trust them with this information

 Probably because unlike those who have stewardship, you have no right to know who is active, less active, or attending services.

[toon]

Are there any records that would show what the number of active LDS is compared to inactive?

 

Define "active."  Having been a member my entire life, and having gone through varying degrees of activity, I've never known where that line is officially drawn, if it ever has been officially drawn (which I suspect it hasn't).

[rockpond]

Define "active."  Having been a member my entire life, and having gone through varying degrees of activity, I've never known where that line is officially drawn, if it ever has been officially drawn (which I suspect it hasn't).

 

I think that "active" in terms of a statistic, not an individual designation, could very easily be defined by the average attendance at sacrament meeting.  That's a number that is recorded by ward clerks and reported to SLC (they base budget amounts on it).

 

Is it a perfect statistic to represent activity rates?  No.  And maybe that's why they don't want to report it publicly.  But it would be a good indicator.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think that "active" in terms of a statistic, not an individual designation, could very easily be defined by the average attendance at sacrament meeting.  That's a number that is recorded by ward clerks and reported to SLC (they base budget amounts on it).

 

Is it a perfect statistic to represent activity rates?  No.  And maybe that's why they don't want to report it publicly.  But it would be a good indicator.

 

It's actually a terrible indicator. As I explained in a previous post, our average sacrament meeting attendance for Q2 this year was 38%, but fully 60% of our members currently living in the ward attended sacrament meeting sometime during the quarter -- a figure 58% greater than what average sacrament meeting attendance suggests. Which do you think is a more accurate claim, that 38% of the people in our ward are active or that 60% of the people in our ward are active?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[toon]

I think that "active" in terms of a statistic, not an individual designation, could very easily be defined by the average attendance at sacrament meeting.  That's a number that is recorded by ward clerks and reported to SLC (they base budget amounts on it).

 

Is it a perfect statistic to represent activity rates?  No.  And maybe that's why they don't want to report it publicly.  But it would be a good indicator.

 

I'm not sure what average attendance tells us, other than the average number of members attending sacrament meeting each week.  I don't think it say much about activity rates.  (It may help the you anticipate how much candy to buy to pass out on Mother's day.)

 

The information may be helpful to a particular congregation, in that they can monitor the rates over time to see any trends.  In addition, the individual congregation is much more likely to have additional information that adds meaning to the statistic.

 

That said, I wouldn't have any problem with the broader publication of the information, so long as the limitations of the information were understood.

[ERayR]

And that may very well be the best explanation for the increase in m/c... or it might not...

In my ward is is.