L D S Membership Numbers

[Calm]

Do we not care about how many people are there with us on Sunday?

I think it is the sense that the importance of this number is being inflated (at least that is my concern) and what that implies for members who do not attend on Sunday...of which I am currently one, so it is an implication I would like made as limited as possible.

[Calm]

 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).

 

Unless one makes the assumption that the other variables, including ones not able to be measured, involved in determining whether or not a specific individual is "active" are significantly stable (which may be so, but not sure how one can determine that especially since there are likely in a practical sense unmeasurable variables) and the only variable that is varying is attendance, I am not sure how one can draw conclusions based solely on attendance.

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

Unless one makes the assumption that the other variables, including ones not able to be measured, involved in determining whether or not a specific individual is "active" are significantly stable (which may be so, but not sure how one can determine that especially since there are likely in a practical sense unmeasurable variables) and the only variable that is varying is attendance, I am not sure how one can draw conclusions based solely on attendance.

 

No one is saying "solely on attendance."  

 

The point is that of all the "bad" numbers that could be reported, the 14,782,473 number is possibly the worst when it comes to actually telling us anything about the Church.  The only reason it is used is because it's easy, and makes some people think that the Church actually has 14,782,473 that believe the Church's message and support it to some degree.  It's more about marketing than anything.

 

The most accurate number ever reported was on April 6, 1830 when the church started with six members.  There hasn't been a totally accurate membership number ever since then.  So the point isn't to define "active members", or focus on one factor (attendance) to the exclusion of others (much like we focus on the one big number to the exclusion of others).  

 

The point is to acknowledge that there are many different factors that indicate a person's level of belief and participation in the Church, and if we are concerned about the "strength" of the Church, then these other factors should be taken into consideration.  Some easily measured factors would be tithing (both gross numbers and tithing/member), average Sacrament meeting attendance, number of resignations, etc.  

 

But as long as the Church doesn't want us to know these numbers, it's all just theoretical anyway.  

[Stone holm]

Given that most of America thinks of being an active Christian as a person who attends Church regularly, wouldn't that be the simple approach

[rockpond]

I gather from the conversation here that there is some concern that publishing additional church data (particularly attendance data) will give critics "ammo" to use against us.

 

I haven't really done much reading about what the critics are or are not saying about our membership figures -- never been much of a concern for me.  But, I'll point out the following that comes from my own analysis of the data that is published by the Church each April.  If the critics were going to hit on something, it seems like they would likely point out that our membership stats show an extraordinarily low mortality rate...

 

Since 2001 we show an average membership loss of just 0.49%.  That is loss through excommunications, resignations, and deaths.  But since we don't have excommunication and resignation data, let's pretend that the loss comes entirely from deaths.

 

But then we have this problem:  the global mortality rate is about 0.83%.  North American mortality rate is just under 0.80%.

 

How is that our mortality rate is more than 40% less than the rest of the world?

[ERayR]

I gather from the conversation here that there is some concern that publishing additional church data (particularly attendance data) will give critics "ammo" to use against us.

 

I haven't really done much reading about what the critics are or are not saying about our membership figures -- never been much of a concern for me.  But, I'll point out the following that comes from my own analysis of the data that is published by the Church each April.  If the critics were going to hit on something, it seems like they would likely point out that our membership stats show an extraordinarily low mortality rate...

 

Since 2001 we show an average membership loss of just 0.49%.  That is loss through excommunications, resignations, and deaths.  But since we don't have excommunication and resignation data, let's pretend that the loss comes entirely from deaths.

 

But then we have this problem:  the global mortality rate is about 0.83%.  North American mortality rate is just under 0.80%.

 

How is that our mortality rate is more than 40% less than the rest of the world?

 

Call on me! Can I?  Live healthier lives?  Was I right?

[rockpond]

Call on me! Can I?  Live healthier lives?  Was I right?

 

I am aware of studies having shown that LDS life expectancy is longer.  Is it long enough to cut our mortality rate in half compared to the rest of the world?  I dunno... I'm trying to think through what that calculation would be... any help?

 

Also, what percentage of our membership would you suspect resigns or is excommunicated per year, on average?

[Stone holm]

I am aware of studies having shown that LDS life expectancy is longer.  Is it long enough to cut our mortality rate in half compared to the rest of the world?  I dunno... I'm trying to think through what that calculation would be... any help?

 

Also, what percentage of our membership would you suspect resigns or is excommunicated per year, on average?

I would say a very small percentage resigns or gets excommunicated, goes inactive is a whole other story.

[rockpond]

I would say a very small percentage resigns or gets excommunicated, goes inactive is a whole other story.

 

I'd just be looking for the percentage that actually have their names removed from the records of the church... it would help triangulate the LDS mortality rate.

[Storm Rider]

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.

Boy, you have a good memory; I completely forgot about that.  It means something, but is not held in that high of regard. We use it for figuring a ward budget, but there is no drive to attract participation at a specific time to increase the budget; there are no announcements from the pulpit "Come to Church April 13th everyone or we won't demonstrate to SLC how big a ward we are and how much more money we need". It is an administrative tool and that is all. As far as the outside world, it holds little value.

[ERayR]

Also, what percentage of our membership would you suspect resigns or is excommunicated per year, on average?

 

Judging from my ward it is approaching zero but I know its not.  However, overall I don't think its that high.

[omni]

I am aware of studies having shown that LDS life expectancy is longer.  Is it long enough to cut our mortality rate in half compared to the rest of the world?  I dunno... I'm trying to think through what that calculation would be... any help?

 

Also, what percentage of our membership would you suspect resigns or is excommunicated per year, on average?

It's been long said that the church keeps members on their rolls until they are notified of death or reach the age of 110. I think this along with our healthy living will result in the low mortality rate. I don't know if the church has ever come out and officially confirmed the "110 rule" so I guess you can choose wether or not to believe it.

[rockpond]

It's been long said that the church keeps members on their rolls until they are notified of death or reach the age of 110. I think this along with our healthy living will result in the low mortality rate. I don't know if the church has ever come out and officially confirmed the "110 rule" so I guess you can choose wether or not to believe it.

 

Yeah, now I do remember hearing that.  I should have thought of that... it could account for the extremely low mortality rate.  Along with healthy living.  Although I still wonder if there was a formula for making that conversion.

 

In any case, if the "110 rule" is a policy, I'm gonna guess that it was implemented in 1999.  In that year we show an increase in membership that is greater than the number of children-of-record births + convert baptisms.

[canard78]

Call on me! Can I?  Live healthier lives?  Was I right?

 

Probably more likely it's because all many of the 'on record only members' who die go unreported.

 

The death rate in Utah is also twice that of the church (when last reported) so there's some funny reporting going on.

[Tacenda]

Probably more likely it's because all many of the 'on record only members' who die go unreported.

The death rate in Utah is also twice that of the church (when last reported) so there's some funny reporting going on.

Wow Canard you are full of information, where is more info on this? I hope that high rate isn't linked with a high rate of suicide.

[Stone holm]

Probably more likely it's because all many of the 'on record only members' who die go unreported.

 

The death rate in Utah is also twice that of the church (when last reported) so there's some funny reporting going on.

You think their continuing amongst the living is greatly exaggerated ?

[canard78]

Wow Canard you are full of information, where is more info on this? I hope that high rate isn't linked with a high rate of suicide.

 

Utah has one of the lowest 'death rates' in USA (number of people who die per 1000) - 7.03

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/utah-all-races-death-rate

 

The last reported death rate was much lower - about 4/1000 (fewer per 1000 died than anywhere in USA). Given over half of all members live outside of USA and many in emerging markets this figure is highly improbable. In other words, it's likely that twice as many members die as are actually reported and removed from the list.

 

This means there are many less-active members who have died but are still on the records.

 

But no, there's nothing to do with suicide rates to worry about Tacenda.

[Stone holm]

Utah has one of the lowest 'death rates' in USA (number of people who die per 1000) - 7.03

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/utah-all-races-death-rate

 

The last reported death rate was much lower - about 4/1000 (fewer per 1000 died than anywhere in USA). Given over half of all members live outside of USA and many in emerging markets this figure is highly improbable. In other words, it's likely that twice as many members die as are actually reported and removed from the list.

 

This means there are many less-active members who have died but are still on the records.

 

But no, there's nothing to do with suicide rates to worry about Tacenda.

But since life continues after death why should we take them off the membership rolls isn't that a denial of faith or something?

[canard78]

But since life continues after death why should we take them off the membership rolls isn't that a denial of faith or something?

Lol, if our 15million is actually cumulative (since the first 6 in 1830) then that would be very creative membership figures.

We take them off the list of living members because they are no longer living members. I don't think a visit to the graveside counts as a home teaching visit.

[Danzo]

Utah has one of the lowest 'death rates' in USA (number of people who die per 1000) - 7.03

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/utah-all-races-death-rate

 

The last reported death rate was much lower - about 4/1000 (fewer per 1000 died than anywhere in USA). Given over half of all members live outside of USA and many in emerging markets this figure is highly improbable. In other words, it's likely that twice as many members die as are actually reported and removed from the list.

 

This means there are many less-active members who have died but are still on the records.

 

But no, there's nothing to do with suicide rates to worry about Tacenda.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that dead people remain on the roles for too much time in our ward. We may  not visit everyone on the list every month, but we generally know where people live and whether they are living or not!

 

Edited October 12, 2013 by Danzo

[Stone holm]

Lol, if our 15million is actually cumulative (since the first 6 in 1830) then that would be very creative membership figures.

We take them off the list of living members because they are no longer living members. I don't think a visit to the graveside counts as a home teaching visit.

Just doesn't seem right kind of like an until death do you part kind of thing, and just think of all that Temple work and I suppose we don't consider any of those we are proxy for members either, that seems sort of hypocritical doesn't it to baptise and confirm them and then say well sorry you don't count.

[canard78]

 

I don't think that dead people remain on the roles for too much time in our ward. We may  not visit everyone on the list every month, but we generally know where people live and whether they are living or not!

 

 

What about the 1000s of "lost sheep" that aren't on any ward list? How do you explain the global mortality rate half that of the global average?

[ERayR]

What about the 1000s of "lost sheep" that aren't on any ward list? How do you explain the global mortality rate half that of the global average?

 

Why is an explanation necessary.  The Church has denoted an arbitrary age to consider people dead with out documents.

[Stone holm]

Why is an explanation necessary.  The Church has denoted an arbitrary age to consider people dead with out documents.

I just hope the government doesn't go that route.

[ERayR]

I just hope the government doesn't go that route.

 

It is government privacy regulations that require such action.  If you release information for a living person you are in violation of govt privacy regs.