L D S Membership Numbers

[rockpond]

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?

 

I read you previous post.  I still think it has value as an indicator.  Clearly church headquarters agrees since budget figures are based on that number.

 

I understand that you feel 60% in your ward are "active" but then we get back into various definitions of that term.

 

Average sacrament meeting attendance is the correct indicator to tell us how many people (on average) are sitting in the pews each Sunday.  Obviously, it's not the same people every week and obviously it doesn't represent all the "active members" but it is a relevant statistic and would be an interesting counterpoint to the "members of record" number that we currently update each year.

[ERayR]

I read you previous post.  I still think it has value as an indicator.  Clearly church headquarters agrees since budget figures are based on that number.

 

 

It is simply the easiest to measure. 

[rpn]

Presence or absence at sacrament meeting isn't necessarily any measure of faithfulness or belief.   (And using it for budget just reflects the needs of the church programs, since those who cannot make it to sacrament regularly are unlikely to be able to make it to weekly activities either). 

[rockpond]

Presence or absence at sacrament meeting isn't necessarily any measure of faithfulness or belief.   (And using it for budget just reflects the needs of the church programs, since those who cannot make it to sacrament regularly are unlikely to be able to make it to weekly activities either). 

 

I wasn't suggesting that it measured faithfulness or belief.  But it is a reasonable indicator of "activity" where such is defined as church attendance.

[USU78]

Presence or absence at sacrament meeting isn't necessarily any measure of faithfulness or belief.   (And using it for budget just reflects the needs of the church programs, since those who cannot make it to sacrament regularly are unlikely to be able to make it to weekly activities either). 

 

My 88-year-old parents rarely go . . . how in the world is their non-attendance remotely relevant in determining their membership?

[WmLaw]

My 88-year-old parents rarely go . . . how in the world is their non-attendance remotely relevant in determining their membership?

It's just one piece of the whole picture. Including stats like this could help the focus of missionary efforts, home teaching, etc.

[rockpond]

My 88-year-old parents rarely go . . . how in the world is their non-attendance remotely relevant in determining their membership?

It's not. Did someone suggest that it was?

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

And it is a wholly meaningless number if we are trying to determine who is a and who is not a committed member of the Church. How many old people don't attend, but remain committed?  How many have work schedules that conflict? How many vacation during those months when counting is done?  The only thing this number means is how many members are in church on those specific Sundays; it does not record commitment level or any degree of the activity of the membership. However, it is a nice number for malcontents to bandy about, no?

[rockpond]

And it is a wholly meaningless number if we are trying to determine who is a and who is not a committed member of the Church. How many old people don't attend, but remain committed?  How many have work schedules that conflict? How many vacation during those months when counting is done?  The only thing this number means is how many members are in church on those specific Sundays; it does not record commitment level or any degree of the activity of the membership. However, it is a nice number for malcontents to bandy about, no?

 

I'm not a malcontent and I agree it would not be an indicator of members who are committed to the church.  Ultimately, "commitment" would likely be some theoretical triangulation between church attendance, tithe paying status, temple recommend status, temple attendance, home teaching stats, and visiting teaching stats... if we were to try to numerically gauge "commitment".  Though I doubt anyone is actually trying to do that.

 

However, you said it does not record "any degree of the activity of the membership".  On that, I disagree.  Sacrament meeting attendance is actually a good indicator for activity levels.  Even though my top priority each Sunday is to know the names of those who are missing from our ward family, looking at the attendance number that our clerk counted is useful. 

[cinepro]

And it is a wholly meaningless number if we are trying to determine who is a and who is not a committed member of the Church. How many old people don't attend, but remain committed?  How many have work schedules that conflict? How many vacation during those months when counting is done?  The only thing this number means is how many members are in church on those specific Sundays; it does not record commitment level or any degree of the activity of the membership. However, it is a nice number for malcontents to bandy about, no?

 

If I recall, the Church itself uses attendance figures to set Ward and Stake Budgets.  So that number must mean something.

 

I suspect that the Church considers attendance numbers a good enough indicator of a Ward's strength, with the committed-but-unable-to-attend balanced out by visitors and other non-Ward-member attendees when the attendance count is taken.

Edited October 9, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

And it is a wholly meaningless number if we are trying to determine who is a and who is not a committed member of the Church. How many old people don't attend, but remain committed?  How many have work schedules that conflict? How many vacation during those months when counting is done?  The only thing this number means is how many members are in church on those specific Sundays; it does not record commitment level or any degree of the activity of the membership. However, it is a nice number for malcontents to bandy about, no?

 

All of those things have always been an issue. Whether it's 60% attending once/quarter and 35% weekly the members/unit is still increasing. So even factoring in the fact that people are busy/sick/distracted/away... these are not new things so would explain the increasing m/u ratio.

[toon]

I wasn't suggesting that it measured faithfulness or belief.  But it is a reasonable indicator of "activity" where such is defined as church attendance.

 

Obviously if you define "activity" as church attendance, then church attendance figures would be an accurate measure of church attendance.

 

But notwithstanding the common use of active and inactive both in and out of the Church, there's is to my knowledge no formal or official definition.  Active means different things to different people.  But I don't believe it is or should be defined as church attendance.

[rockpond]

Obviously if you define "activity" as church attendance, then church attendance figures would be an accurate measure of church attendance.

 

But notwithstanding the common use of active and inactive both in and out of the Church, there's is to my knowledge no formal or official definition.  Active means different things to different people.  But I don't believe it is or should be defined as church attendance.

 

Correct, there is no easily circumscribed definition for "active".  But if we, as a church, want to understand how we are progressing beyond just members of record... in other words, how we are progressing with respect to activity/inactivity... church attendance would be one very easy figure to look watch.  Should it be the ONLY number?  No.  But it's one that we are already collecting, recording, and sending to headquarters.

[ERayR]

Correct, there is no easily circumscribed definition for "active".  But if we, as a church, want to understand how we are progressing beyond just members of record... in other words, how we are progressing with respect to activity/inactivity... church attendance would be one very easy figure to look watch.  Should it be the ONLY number?  No.  But it's one that we are already collecting, recording, and sending to headquarters.

 

Attendance does not equal activity rate.  Attendance is a convenient way of deriving and distributing operating funds.  Cost per member participating X number participating = Amount allotted.

[canard78]

Attendance does not equal activity rate.  Attendance is a convenient way of deriving and distributing operating funds.  Cost per member participating X number participating = Amount allotted.

 

 

I like this quote from Elder Uchtdorf. He talks about real growth being active members. So it is a relevant statistic. I also like the way he talks about the most important growth being the things the Ward Clerk can't measure.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

[ERayR]

 

I like this quote from Elder Uchtdorf. He talks about real growth being active members.

 

Ahh, now we are right back to what constitutes an active member.  Is an active member measured in attendance or . . . ?

[rockpond]

Attendance does not equal activity rate.  Attendance is a convenient way of deriving and distributing operating funds.  Cost per member participating X number participating = Amount allotted.

 

I've never said that attendance = activity rate.  It is just one in a series of indicators (as President Uchtdorf's quote attests).  While there will certainly be some new members who are not able to attend (aged, infirm, etc) that won't be the case for the vast majority.  So, if your sacrament meeting attendance is not increasing at at least the same rate as your member of record growth -- then you know you're not experiencing the kind of growth that you want.

[toon]

Correct, there is no easily circumscribed definition for "active".  But if we, as a church, want to understand how we are progressing beyond just members of record... in other words, how we are progressing with respect to activity/inactivity... church attendance would be one very easy figure to look watch.  Should it be the ONLY number?  No.  But it's one that we are already collecting, recording, and sending to headquarters.

 

As I think I may have posted earlier, I can see how the number can be helpful on the ward or stake level.  And I suspect that many wards and stakes use the data, and how  numbers change over time, to evaluate what works and perhaps what needs to be done.  But that is precisely because they have information in addition to simple attendance figures to help complete the picture.  The info can also be helpful to HQ, because they have it broken down into individual units.  But I'm just not sure how it's helpful or informative outside that context.

 

Now, the number I'd like to see published is the activity rates among Mormon celebrities.  Is Ricky Shroder still active?

Edited October 9, 2013 by toon

[rockpond]

As I think I may have posted earlier, I can see how the number can be helpful on the ward or stake level.  And I suspect that many wards and stakes use the data, and how  numbers change over time, to evaluate what works and perhaps what needs to be done.  But that is precisely because they have information in addition to simple attendance figures to help complete the picture.  The info can also be helpful to HQ, because they have it broken down into individual units.  But I'm just not sure how it's helpful or informative outside that context.

 

Now, the number I'd like to see published is the activity rates among Mormon celebrities.  Is Ricky Shroder still active?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying then... do you agree that it's likely important to the Brethren (meaning 1st Pres & Q12) to know what percentage of members actually attend church?  Or does that not seem to be of interest in your view?

 

I'm pretty sure that Ricky Schroeder is totally active but never attends church.  

[cinepro]

Ahh, now we are right back to what constitutes an active member.  Is an active member measured in attendance or . . . ?

To the degree that we must apply labels like "active" or "inactive", I'm pretty sure Church attendance is a big factor in the determination.

It's not a matter of finding the perfect number. The idea is to figure out what it is that you want to know, and then figuring out what the numbers are that will tell you what you want to know.

But if you just want to know how many people there are on the planet who have at one time in their life been blessed or baptized, and are not known to be dead or over the age of 110 or asked to have their names removed from Church records, then go with 14,782,473, since that's the number that's telling you what you want to know.

Edited October 9, 2013 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm not sure what you're saying then... do you agree that it's likely important to the Brethren (meaning 1st Pres & Q12) to know what percentage of members actually attend church?

 

The 'Brethren' have no access to 'what percentage of members actually attend church'. What they have access to is an average of sacrament meeting attendance taken across the four Sundays in March, June, September, and December, respectively. They can certainly use this information to track things like long-term trends, but these numbers simply don't reveal the percentage of members who attend church. The only people who have a remotely accurate idea of who 'actually attends church' are local leaders, for their individual congregations, and then only if they actually attempt to track this information themselves. The enormous discrepancy in my ward between average sacrament meeting attendance (38% in Q2 of this year) and my firsthand knowledge of who actually attends church (currently about 60%) leads me to be skeptical of attempts to conflate these two pieces of raw data.

 

By the way, our September quarterly report hasn't been finalised yet, but I'm confident that our average sacrament meeting attendance for Q3 has taken a huge hit. We had a significant flu outbreak hit our local area toward the end of August, with impacts lasting for most of September. Most weeks our average attendance was down about 40 people. (One young family of six in the ward didn't make it to church once during the entire month due to flu cycling first through the kids and then the parents, followed by a family outbreak of gastro.) Consequently, I expect our most recent average SM attendance figure to be in the 28%-32% range. Does this in any way reflect the actual activity of our ward members? Not in the least. If anything, our real activity rate over the past three months has increased, with a number of long-term inactives coming back to church -- some just a few times here and there and others more regularly, with some in the first category currently making the transition to the second category. Once again, average SM attendance does not equal (or even approximate) 'what percentage of members actually attend church'.

[rockpond]

The 'Brethren' have no access to 'what percentage of members actually attend church'. What they have access to is an average of sacrament meeting attendance taken across the four Sundays in March, June, September, and December, respectively. They can certainly use this information to track things like long-term trends, but these numbers simply don't reveal the percentage of members who attend church. The only people who have a remotely accurate idea of who 'actually attends church' are local leaders, for their individual congregations, and then only if they actually attempt to track this information themselves. The enormous discrepancy in my ward between average sacrament meeting attendance (38% in Q2 of this year) and my firsthand knowledge of who actually attends church (currently about 60%) leads me to be skeptical of attempts to conflate these two pieces of raw data.

By the way, our September quarterly report hasn't been finalised yet, but I'm confident that our average sacrament meeting attendance for Q3 has taken a huge hit. We had a significant flu outbreak hit our local area toward the end of August, with impacts lasting for most of September. Most weeks our average attendance was down about 40 people. (One young family of six in the ward didn't make it to church once during the entire month due to flu cycling first through the kids and then the parents, followed by a family outbreak of gastro.) Consequently, I expect our most recent average SM attendance figure to be in the 28%-32% range. Does this in any way reflect the actual activity of our ward members? Not in the least. If anything, our real activity rate over the past three months has increased, with a number of long-term inactives coming back to church -- some just a few times here and there and others more regularly, with some in the first category currently making the transition to the second category. Once again, average SM attendance does not equal (or even approximate) 'what percentage of members actually attend church'.

You are correct, the Brethren do not have access to the actual number of members that attend church. But they do have access to a valid statistic that gives them an approximation of sacrament meeting attendance. Especially when you consider that the statistical sampling is taken over nearly 30,000 wards and branches.

If we avoid conflating the undefined term "active" with "attendance", the quarterly-reported sacrament meeting figures are a worthwhile indicator even if they don't give us the full picture.

I'm honestly a little taken aback at why there is all this push back against the sacrament meeting attendance numbers. Do we not care about how many people are there with us on Sunday?

[Hamba Tuhan]

If we avoid conflating the undefined term "active" with "attendance", the quarterly-reported sacrament meeting figures are a worthwhile indicator even if they don't give us the full picture.

 

They can indeed be useful, especially when viewed as trends over time and most especially with the local understanding that helps complete the 'full picture'.

 

Below I've copied a chart I created of my ward's avearage quarterly sacrament meeting attendance from Q1 2000 through to last quarter. The trend over time is obvious (and encouraging, especially since, if you pay much attention to the posturing of local apostates who post in online forums, the Church in these parts stopped experiencing any real growth years ago and is now teetering on the very brink of complete collapse) but not really useful. What is most useful, in my opinion, is that I can identify specifically what happened in Q2 2002 that resutled in a sharp decline in attendance and also what happened nine months later that reversed this decline and led to a sustained period of slow growth. I can also tie various peaks and troughs to events and personalities, and I understand well roughly which fraction of our growth has been due to conversions, which to reactivation, which to move-ins, and so forth -- all in different proportions over time.

 

 

 

I'm honestly a little taken aback at why there is all this push back against the sacrament meeting attendance numbers.

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to collecting or reporting average sacrament meeting attendance stats, nor is anyone opposed to putting them to use within their rather narrow range of utility. But unless you've been living under a rock, I suspect you must be aware that a favourite conceit of both apostates and cynics is that sacrament meeting attendance numbers are the one and only reliable measure of true activity in the Church, everyone else on the Church rolls inevitably being de facto ex-Mormons who just haven't got around to resigning yet, dead people under the age of 110, etc., and the sole motivation of Church leaders in not promulgating these stats is a desire to hide how few active members there really are and/or supposedly dramatically declining rates of attendance. Which is overwhelmingly demonstrable nonsense.

[rockpond]

They can indeed be useful, especially when viewed as trends over time and most especially with the local understanding that helps complete the 'full picture'.

 

Below I've copied a chart I created of my ward's avearage quarterly sacrament meeting attendance from Q1 2000 through to last quarter. The trend over time is obvious (and encouraging, especially since, if you pay much attention to the posturing of local apostates who post in online forums, the Church in these parts stopped experiencing any real growth years ago and is now teetering on the very brink of complete collapse) but not really useful. What is most useful, in my opinion, is that I can identify specifically what happened in Q2 2002 that resutled in a sharp decline in attendance and also what happened nine months later that reversed this decline and led to a sustained period of slow growth. I can also tie various peaks and troughs to events and personalities, and I understand well roughly which fraction of our growth has been due to conversions, which to reactivation, which to move-ins, and so forth -- all in different proportions over time.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to collecting or reporting average sacrament meeting attendance stats, nor is anyone opposed to putting them to use within their rather narrow range of utility. But unless you've been living under a rock, I suspect you must be aware that a favourite conceit of both apostates and cynics is that sacrament meeting attendance numbers are the one and only reliable measure of true activity in the Church, everyone else on the Church rolls inevitably being de facto ex-Mormons who just haven't got around to resigning yet, dead people under the age of 110, etc., and the sole motivation of Church leaders in not promulgating these stats is a desire to hide how few active members there really are and/or supposedly dramatically declining rates of attendance. Which is overwhelmingly demonstrable nonsense.

 

That's a great trend for your ward.

 

I wasn't aware that "apostates and cynics" are suggesting attendance to be the one and only reliable measure of true activity in the church.  But I don't pay of lot of attention to apostates and cynics so I admit I could have missed it.

 

But, I don't think it is "overwhelmingly demonstrable nonsense" that we might have declining rates of attendance.  Your ward has obviously done well over the past ten years.  Likewise, my ward enjoys higher than average activity rates.  But as a global church we've got a decade long trend of increasing members per unit.  There are a couple possible explanations but we don't know which fits without additional data.  Attendance is the data that would allow us to clarify rather that trend is the result of 1) a decision to let wards grow bigger before splitting, or 2) lower activity rates (where activity does not imply faithfulness/commitment).

 

If the Brethren don't see fit to release that data or otherwise clarify the trend, that's fine.  Their decision, I'm confident that THEY look at it.  For me it's just a matter of curiosity as a church member.  I don't fear the data and I know that critics outside the church have always been there and will always be there -- they don't worry me.

 

But for now, I'll just keep focusing on what the data tell me about my own ward.

[Calm]

Ahh, now we are right back to what constitutes an active member.  Is an active member measured in attendance or . . . ?

According to Elder Uchtdorf, just some of the measures includes things that are not attendance related:

 

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.

add-on:  I see this was already picked up on...

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah