The Church Hemorrhaging Members? Not In Missoula!

[Stargazer]

I have no doubt!

My husband was born and raised in Billings and took flying lessons in high school...until he bounced a plane on the landing because of turbulence. After that, he decided flying wasn't for him.

 

I took a couple flying lessons.  It was wonderful!  But the wifee said we couldn't afford it (she was correct, too), so I stopped.  I still wish I had been able to do it.  No practical reason to do so, but nevertheless.  I'm too old and fat nowadays -- now that I can afford it.

[Stargazer]

The point is the church counts active members quite accurately in order to determine ward budget levels. An active member is a member the church provides a funding allocation for.

 

When I consider how the church counts members for the purpose of funding a ward budget, I wonder if the method is actually all that accurate.  The method is for the ward clerk to report the average of those attending during the months of March, June, October and December.  Upon that number is based the ward budget.  Upon reflection I think that that is probably the best practical way to determine it.

 

Of course, I think that the number of full tithepayers as reported at the end of the year probably is a factor, too.

[rockpond]

When I consider how the church counts members for the purpose of funding a ward budget, I wonder if the method is actually all that accurate.  The method is for the ward clerk to report the average of those attending during the months of March, June, October and December.  Upon that number is based the ward budget.  Upon reflection I think that that is probably the best practical way to determine it.

 

Of course, I think that the number of full tithepayers as reported at the end of the year probably is a factor, too.

 

I think it's interesting that we only use those four months since, as a matter of habit, our ward clerk takes a count in every single sacrament meeting.  Do other wards not take a weekly count?  But, I think the quarterly sampling is probably accurate enough for budget purposes.

 

Full tithepayers might feel like a "fair" way to provide funds to wards & branches.  But that would fail to give you an accurate count of primary children and youth who are less likely to make a tithe declaration at year end.  And the vast majority of our ward budget goes toward youth & primary programs.

[cinepro]

 

If we were just trying to look good why not claim over a billion members like the Catholics do? We do claim that we have over a billion names of those that we have done the Temple work for.

 

Considering the age of the Church and the probable worldwide activity rates, it's possible that claiming "14 million members" is the LDS equivalent of the Catholics claiming "over a billion" members.

 

Edited September 24, 2013 by cinepro

[rockpond]

 

Considering the age of the Church and the probable worldwide activity rates, it's possible that claiming "14 million members" is the LDS equivalent of the Catholics claiming "over a billion" members.

 

The data suggests some truth to this...  our stats (reported each April) show a death rate that is much lower than the global or even U.S. average.  And that assumes that nobody is being excommunicated or asking to have their records removed (a demonstrably false assumption).

 

The problem is likely that we don't know how to remove records of members who we have no contact with.  So even after they've died, they stay in our numbers for a while.

[Stargazer]

The data suggests some truth to this...  our stats (reported each April) show a death rate that is much lower than the global or even U.S. average.  And that assumes that nobody is being excommunicated or asking to have their records removed (a demonstrably false assumption).

 

The problem is likely that we don't know how to remove records of members who we have no contact with.  So even after they've died, they stay in our numbers for a while.

 

Periodically we try to contact our DNC's (Do Not Contact) to see if they are still living where they were living, and if perhaps their attitudes have changed and they'd like more participation in Church.  Keep in mind that these are the one's who have asked to be left alone and not be bothered by home teachers, etc.  Even when these folks are offered the information that they could sever their relationship with the Church by sending a letter to the Bishop  -- and thus be relieved of ever having to worry about being "hassled" by the church, ever again except by random visits by missionaries -- they very frequently react negatively to the suggestion.  So who can blame the Church for continuing to count those who don't show up for year?  After all, if they have a path out of the Church, yet actively refuse to use it, then they are clearly there of their own free will and choice.  And we have people come back into full activity who haven't been inside an LDS chapel for ten, twenty, thirty or even more years!  Our current ward clerk stopped coming to church after he graduated from BYU, and just got back into activity at age 65.  He wasn't a DNC (I was his home teacher for a few years many years back, so I know), but he was totally inactive.  Yet here he is again at last.

 

Please don't try to tell me that they would feel social pressure from their families if they left.  In our ward, very few if any of our DNCs are related to anyone else in the ward.  If suddenly their record didn't appear in the membership roll, who is going to notice?  The Church does not send out notifications to relatives that someone they are related to has left the Church.  I think one of my sons has had his name removed (because he joined his wife's church and she didn't like it that the Church was "following them around"). Short of checking with their bishop, I have no way of telling.  And I don't care to know, either.  If he did have his name removed, and wants back in, then he can wait the year that is required -- and then I'll rebaptize him, no problem.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[rockpond]

Periodically we try to contact our DNC's (Do Not Contact) to see if they are still living where they were living, and if perhaps their attitudes have changed and they'd like more participation in Church.  Keep in mind that these are the one's who have asked to be left alone and not be bothered by home teachers, etc.  Even when these folks are offered the information that they could sever their relationship with the Church by sending a letter to the Bishop  -- and thus be relieved of ever having to worry about being "hassled" by the church, ever again except by random visits by missionaries -- they very frequently react negatively to the suggestion.  So who can blame the Church for continuing to count those who don't show up for year?  After all, if they have a path out of the Church, yet actively refuse to use it, then they are clearly there of their own free will and choice.  And we have people come back into full activity who haven't been inside an LDS chapel for ten, twenty, thirty or even more years!  Our current ward clerk stopped coming to church after he graduated from BYU, and just got back into activity at age 65.  He wasn't a DNC (I was his home teacher for a few years many years back, so I know), but he was totally inactive.  Yet here he is again at last.

 

Please don't try to tell me that they would feel social pressure from their families if they left.  In our ward, very few if any of our DNCs are related to anyone else in the ward.  If suddenly their record didn't appear in the membership roll, who is going to notice?  The Church does not send out notifications to relatives that someone they are related to has left the Church.  I think one of my sons has had his name removed (because he joined his wife's church and she didn't like it that the Church was "following them around"). Short of checking with their bishop, I have no way of telling.  And I don't care to know, either.  If he did have his name removed, and wants back in, then he can wait the year that is required -- and then I'll rebaptize him, no problem.

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with that phenomenon as well...  We've had inactive members tells us, very adamantly, that they do not ever want to be contacted again.  Members who get upset with us just for sending them a monthly newsletter.  But then when we send the letter explaining the process to remove their names from the records of the church (and all that it entails) they quickly back off:  "well, we don't want that!"  And so we go back to putting them on the "DNC list".  Which, as you know, isn't really an official status by any means.  So leadership changes and we're back knocking on their door.  

[sdc999]

So if someone just told you, "go tell the bishop on my behalf to take me off the rolls," would that count? I'm on the roles because my wife says if staying on the rolls gives her mother some false peace of mind, then so be it. Plus, putting forth the effort is not worth my time. I know I'm home taught every month, or at least I get a check mark, because a good friend of mine is our "home teacher." I probably won't go to the trouble ever to write a letter because the church has zero authority over me. I didn't send a letter in to my episcopal church when I started going to the Methodist church nor did I give them a letter when I joined the Lds church. Plus, it has been relayed back to me that the understanding is that they can only make "Ben" my home teacher because if a stranger came to my door, knowing very few people know the code to get through my gate, he would be met with a glock greeting. I love the castle law.

[jkwilliams]

Of course the church isn't hemorrhaging members. Most of us probably know a few people who have left the church in the last several years, but it's not like you show up one Sunday and there's hardly anyone left. In our ward here in Virginia, our bishop mentioned that we've had a net loss of about 70 members this year, but that's all been from people moving out and not being replaced.

 

I do think the brethren consider the increased number of those leaving, small though it is, to be a cause for concern. Otherwise, they wouldn't be talking about it in conference and church publications, and they wouldn't bother sending Richard Turley and Marlin Jensen to Sweden or allow the Bushman/Givens tours.

 

But a hemorrhage? Not even close.

[stemelbow]

Of course the church isn't hemorrhaging members. Most of us probably know a few people who have left the church in the last several years, but it's not like you show up one Sunday and there's hardly anyone left. In our ward here in Virginia, our bishop mentioned that we've had a net loss of about 70 members this year, but that's all been from people moving out and not being replaced.

 

I do think the brethren consider the increased number of those leaving, small though it is, to be a cause for concern. Otherwise, they wouldn't be talking about it in conference and church publications, and they wouldn't bother sending Richard Turley and Marlin Jensen to Sweden or allow the Bushman/Givens tours.

 

But a hemorrhage? Not even close.

 

I sat with a friend last night and overheard a discussion at the table next to us.  The young man was explaining to his two lady friends why he has decided to leave.  He went back into the history and explained the troubling issues.  he explained how, as a missionary, not long before I assume, he didn't know that he was teaching people to join up with a Church that started with such problems.  He simply couldn't hang on. The kid/guy was actually pretty loud, dogmatic, angry sounding and it seemed to annoy his two friends who I felt bad for.   I of course only hear snippets here and there, but this seems to be more common a thing then it was 10 years ago. 

 

My friend who also feels the pull of leaving for various reasons talked a bit about quite a few other friends of ours who have left over similar explanations.  I don't know what is meant by hemorrhage, but I would say the occurrences of leaving is increasing.  Thus, rightfully, it is a problem worth discussing.

 

<wink>  nice to see you, bro.

Edited September 27, 2013 by stemelbow

[rockpond]

Of course the church isn't hemorrhaging members. Most of us probably know a few people who have left the church in the last several years, but it's not like you show up one Sunday and there's hardly anyone left. In our ward here in Virginia, our bishop mentioned that we've had a net loss of about 70 members this year, but that's all been from people moving out and not being replaced.

 

I do think the brethren consider the increased number of those leaving, small though it is, to be a cause for concern. Otherwise, they wouldn't be talking about it in conference and church publications, and they wouldn't bother sending Richard Turley and Marlin Jensen to Sweden or allow the Bushman/Givens tours.

 

But a hemorrhage? Not even close.

 

I guess it's all in how you define hemorrhage.  13.6% ...is that a hemorrhage?  That's the increase in average ward size over the past decade.  Or does it just represent a policy change with respect to unit size?  We just don't know and when presented with limited information... people are going to speculate.

[Tacenda]

I sat with a friend last night and overheard a discussion at the table next to us. The young man was explaining to his two lady friends why he has decided to leave. He went back into the history and explained the troubling issues. he explained how, as a missionary, not long before I assume, he didn't know that he was teaching people to join up with a Church that started with such problems. He simply couldn't hang on. The kid/guy was actually pretty loud, dogmatic, angry sounding and it seemed to annoy his two friends who I felt bad for. I of course only hear snippets here and there, but this seems to be more common a thing then it was 10 years ago.

My friend who also feels the pull of leaving for various reasons talked a bit about quite a few other friends of ours who have left over similar explanations. I don't know what is meant by hemorrhage, but I would say the occurrences of leaving is increasing. Thus, rightfully, it is a problem worth discussing.

<wink> nice to see you, bro.

Up until a year ago I hadn't known a died -in- the wool TBM that left the church. The couple I'm referring to use to be in my ward, I worked with her in a RS presidency, they would visit a different temple every year for their wedding anniversary. They haven't resigned that I know of but no longer fully believe. The last people I'd think this would happen to. The church knows the problem, and therefore the rescue attempts.

[jkwilliams]

My friend who also feels the pull of leaving for various reasons talked a bit about quite a few other friends of ours who have left over similar explanations.  I don't know what is meant by hemorrhage, but I would say the occurrences of leaving is increasing.  Thus, rightfully, it is a problem worth discussing.

 

<wink>  nice to see you, bro.

Thanks. In my experience, people who leave go through an angry period (I know I did), but it passes, thankfully. That's probably what you overheard.

I've been around enough other evil apostates like me to have heard some fantasize that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not, and it's silly to even imagine it is.

[jkwilliams]

I guess it's all in how you define hemorrhage.  13.6% ...is that a hemorrhage?  That's the increase in average ward size over the past decade.  Or does it just represent a policy change with respect to unit size?  We just don't know and when presented with limited information... people are going to speculate.

I'm just going by my anecdotal experience. I said a long time ago we'd know when the exits had reached a critical mass when the church started dealing with them through conference talks, magazine articles, and concrete programs. I didn't imagine it would happen so soon, but it has happened.

That said, although more have left, it's still not a run for the exits. Heck, I'm still in my seat in sacrament meeting, though I left spiritually a good 7 years ago.

[stemelbow]

Thanks. In my experience, people who leave go through an angry period (I know I did), but it passes, thankfully. That's probably what you overheard.

I've been around enough other evil apostates like me to have heard some fantasize that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not, and it's silly to even imagine it is.

 

I agree about the prophesied collapse.  I don't see it happening. 

[stemelbow]

I guess it's all in how you define hemorrhage.  13.6% ...is that a hemorrhage?  That's the increase in average ward size over the past decade.  Or does it just represent a policy change with respect to unit size?  We just don't know and when presented with limited information... people are going to speculate.

 

If people weren't leaving in such large numbers, then that 13.6% might be more--or the actually number of buildings and wards might have increased even faster. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying the Church is losing members, nor that the Church is close to being history.  Just that there are people leaving for various reasons.  It seems to me, just anecdotally, the number leaving has increased in recent years. 

[rockpond]

I'm just going by my anecdotal experience. I said a long time ago we'd know when the exits had reached a critical mass when the church started dealing with them through conference talks, magazine articles, and concrete programs. I didn't imagine it would happen so soon, but it has happened.

That said, although more have left, it's still not a run for the exits. Heck, I'm still in my seat in sacrament meeting, though I left spiritually a good 7 years ago.

 

True... it's not a "run for the exits" but how long can we hold things together if we lose 13% every decade?

 

And, it could be interesting to see what the landscape looks like over the next decade if we continue to have an increasing number of people like you ("left spiritually") and other members with non-orthodox views (gay marriage rights, Ordain Women movement) sitting in our pews.  I'm also not suggesting any kind of collapse, I'm just considering how things might feel different.

[rockpond]

If people weren't leaving in such large numbers, then that 13.6% might be more--or the actually number of buildings and wards might have increased even faster. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying the Church is losing members, nor that the Church is close to being history.  Just that there are people leaving for various reasons.  It seems to me, just anecdotally, the number leaving has increased in recent years. 

 

Yes, if people weren't leaving you would expect that number of wards to increase at a rate closer to membership growth.  Instead, we are seeing the church put more membership records into each ward/stake.  Again, it could be a policy change or it could be that we have a higher inactivity rate requiring more members of record to be in a ward/stake in order to fill it.

[stemelbow]

Yes, if people weren't leaving you would expect that number of wards to increase at a rate closer to membership growth.  Instead, we are seeing the church put more membership records into each ward/stake.  Again, it could be a policy change or it could be that we have a higher inactivity rate requiring more members of record to be in a ward/stake in order to fill it.

 

I see.  I misunderstood before.  yeah, I find figures about Church members interesting. 

[AndyDnom]

it seems like people here would brush off anecdotal evidence about people leaving. why is anectdotal evidence about member strength applauded?

[Storm Rider]

So if someone just told you, "go tell the bishop on my behalf to take me off the rolls," would that count? I'm on the roles because my wife says if staying on the rolls gives her mother some false peace of mind, then so be it. Plus, putting forth the effort is not worth my time. I know I'm home taught every month, or at least I get a check mark, because a good friend of mine is our "home teacher." I probably won't go to the trouble ever to write a letter because the church has zero authority over me. I didn't send a letter in to my episcopal church when I started going to the Methodist church nor did I give them a letter when I joined the Lds church. Plus, it has been relayed back to me that the understanding is that they can only make "Ben" my home teacher because if a stranger came to my door, knowing very few people know the code to get through my gate, he would be met with a glock greeting. I love the castle law.

 

Someone telling the bishop of a conversation that revealed a desire to have one's name removed has no impact on removing one's name. It may motivate a bishop or a home teacher to explain the actual process of having one's name officially removed from the records of the church, but that is all. 

 

I am not sure "having authority over" you is a realistic perception. The Church perceives itself as the Kingdom of God. When someone is baptized the Church believes that that forms an eternal bond between the individual and God; it is an ordinance with eternal consequences. If an individual seeks to break that bond, it is viewed as having eternal value...thus the need for requesting a member to send in a letter that directs the Church to remove their name. 

 

It is interesting that you contemplate shooting another individual for coming to your door. It might be an interesting test case. You shoot and kill an individual from the church who knocked on your door, they go to heaven as a martyr, and you spend the next several months and years being prosecuted and probably sent to prison for murder and all because someone knocked on your door. I love justice. 

[Storm Rider]

Yes, if people weren't leaving you would expect that number of wards to increase at a rate closer to membership growth.  Instead, we are seeing the church put more membership records into each ward/stake.  Again, it could be a policy change or it could be that we have a higher inactivity rate requiring more members of record to be in a ward/stake in order to fill it.

 

Please support that with evidence?

[rockpond]

Please support that with evidence?

Which statement do you want me to support?

Over the past decade, average unit size has increased by 13.6%. My source is the statistics reported in April conference each year and a calculator.

It seems the the increase in ward size has to be a result of either a policy change (with respect to unit size) or higher inactivity rates. Do you see another possibility?

[jkwilliams]

it seems like people here would brush off anecdotal evidence about people leaving. why is anectdotal evidence about member strength applauded?

 

I don't know who is applauding anecdotal evidence. In my view, the increase in members per unit is an excellent indicator that all is not well with the membership, and in some places, such as Europe, the raw membership numbers ought to be causing concern in Salt Lake.

 

In other places, such as Latin America and the Philippines, the numbers are illusory, so much so that the church sent apostles to Chile and the Philippines to clean up the mess. IIRC, the church eliminated 46 stakes in Chile alone, which tells you how bad the activity rates were.

 

As for anecdotal evidence of member strength, I'll just say that I know from firsthand experience how the baptism game goes in Latin America, and when I talk to kids coming home from missions there, I hear that things have not changed. People get baptized who don't know anything about the church, and they are never heard from again. I've been to church meetings in 3 Latin American countries, and in each place, the congregations (wards) were tiny, barely filling a few rows in an otherwise empty chapel. Cumorah.com estimates activity rates in Latin America as around 25%, which to me is a gross overestimate.

 

Compared to the rates of growth and retention, the rate of people consciously leaving is a tiny trickle. But what I have seen (again, I can't extrapolate my anecdotal experience) is that the numbers of "core" type members (tithe-paying, temple attending, calling holding) walking away is increasing, although not at the rapid rate some people wish. As I said, I figured we would know the numbers were reaching a critical mass, as it were, when the church started talking about it in conference talks, lesson manuals, and church magazines. All of these things have happened in the last couple of years, and we have even seen church leaders go to places like Sweden and the UK to deal with member concerns. This tells me that, whatever the numbers are, they are great enough that the brethren have taken notice and are trying to do something about it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Over the past decade, average unit size has increased by 13.6%. My source is the statistics reported in April conference each year and a calculator. It seems the the increase in ward size has to be a result of either a policy change (with respect to unit size) or higher inactivity rates. Do you see another possibility?

 

Another possibility is simply that many smaller units have plenty of room to grow. I've just pulled up the quarterly reports for my ward for Q2 2003 and Q2 2013. Ten years ago, we had 230 members on our ward list. Last quarter, we had 489. This means that our ward membership grew 113% over the past decade. At the same time, our activity rates have been generally increasing. To choose just a few, average sacrament meeting attendance as a percentange of total members has grown 9% over the same period, the average percentage of Melchizedek Priesthood holders attending priesthood meeting has grown 48%, and the average percentage of Aaronic Priesthood holders attending priesthood meeting has increased 611%. In addition, if you wish consider what I deem a greater measure of faithfulness than raw attendance, our average percentage of temple recommend holders has increased 20% during the past decade.

 

In short, our ward over the past ten years has obviously contributed to the overall trend toward more members per unit, but it has done so absent any kind of policy and definitely not as a consequence of greater inactivity amongst members.

 

ETA: I haven't read this entire thread, but just in case someone has trotted out the argument that the Church is intentionally masking the supposedly high number of those who no longer mentally affiliate, please consider my post from an earlier thread.

 

ETA further: Clearly the Church is not haemorrhaging members in my (non-American) corner of the vineyard either. Do we lose some? Certainly. I'm aware of six over the past ten years. Exactly half of those were longterm inactives (no one had ever seen them at church in this ward) who, when visited, stated clearly that they didn't wish to be Church members. Of the three who were active, one was a new convert (a concert pianist) who said that the persecution from his mother was too great to handle. The last time I visited him, he still had his image of the Saviour on the wall and his scriptures on the coffee table. The other two both left, tragically, over the issue of gay marriage, though I'd consider only one of them truly an apostate.

 

Far more common are those we lose temporarily. I spent this evening meeting with a member at his request. He was arrested and gaoled the first time when he was 13 and is 31 now, so he's been away from the Church for a very long time, but tonight he was telling my companion and me about the nights in solitary confinement when the only thing that gave him any peace was singing 'I Am a Child of God' over and over until he could fall asleep. This Sunday his infant son will be blessed in sacrament meeting, and this brother asked if he had to be 'worthy' to share his testimony. I told him we'd be thrilled to hear from him. I don't know yet how long it will take before he's really back (seldom is this path anything but fraught), and we may even lose him again for a time, but he's clearly still a Latter-day Saint in every reasonable definition, and I suspect he'll be serving alongside me as a faithful elder at some future point.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan