The Church Hemorrhaging Members? Not In Missoula!

[rockpond]

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.

 

Yes, it is possible that smaller wards have room to grow.  But your ward, at 489, is now 14% larger than the average unit size over the past four decades.

 

My parents live in a geographically isolated ward.  It has also grown substantially over the years.  But, it likely won't be split unless it grows large enough to create two wards.  But their ward and your ward are anecdotal evidence in the ten year, 29,000 unit trend that we are seeing.

 

In the case of your 489 member ward, if activity rates in the stake (not just your ward) have remained steady or increased then we are likely seeing a policy change allowing wards to become larger or you will see some boundary changes soon.  In my ward, our last boundary change didn't occur until we had broken the 500 member mark (and we fairly high activity rates as well).

[Kenngo1969]

Ugh! It's so damn beautiful and has more history that I should take the time to learn!

 

Val,

 

I've already told you ... Quit saying damn on my computer, or I'll have the mods change your screen name to "J. Golden Kimball"!

 

Sincerely yours,

 

-Ken, a Damn Utah Mormon

Edited October 2, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

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.

 

Good response.

 

Much better put then how I did, but it is very much the same as what I think on this matter.  Hemorrhaging isn't the word, but something is going on. 

[ERayR]

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.

 

 

Many are called but few are chosen.

[jkwilliams]

Many are called but few are chosen.

 

It's probably a good thing that the Brethren aren't quite so willing to casually shrug off the loss of members.

[stemelbow]

Many are called but few are chosen.

 

There is something wonderful about the idea that we, as a Church, can be somewhat willing to look in the mirror if you will.  People may leave for various reasons, but sadly some may be leaving because of other members or teachings that are wrong or a lack of good policy.  Its encouraging it's being seen by some as a problem we should recognize and not just cast off the lost as those who aren't chosen. 

[omni]

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?

The steady increase indicates to me that it isn't a policy change. Look at the stats and you should see that each year (more or less) the number of members per unit slightly increases. If it were a result of policy change you would expect to see one or two large increases.

[rockpond]

The steady increase indicates to me that it isn't a policy change. Look at the stats and you should see that each year (more or less) the number of members per unit slightly increases. If it were a result of policy change you would expect to see one or two large increases.

 

Remember, you're looking at statistics of nearly 30,000 units.  You definitely would not expect to see one or two large increases unless the Brethren went out and, in a single year, modified ward/stake boundaries around the globe.  But we know that's not how the process works.

 

If there was a deliberate policy change to allow for larger wards, we would see that implemented over time as stake presidencies submitted requests to modify boundaries and those requests were approved or denied based on the new policy.  It would happen over time.

 

Or, alternatively, what we could be seeing is ward boundary changes being decided based on activity rates.  If that were the case, the increase in ward size would be reflective of a decrease in activity rates.

[jkwilliams]

The steady increase indicates to me that it isn't a policy change. Look at the stats and you should see that each year (more or less) the number of members per unit slightly increases. If it were a result of policy change you would expect to see one or two large increases.

 

Most likely, the policy change, if there is one, is to raise the number of members a unit can have before it is split. If, say, the number had previously been 300 (I'm just throwing this out, as I have no idea what the numbers are) and now it has been raised to 500, you'd see that slow increase in the number of members per unit, as you say, but the difference would be that you wouldn't see new units being formed until the higher number is reached.

[omni]

Most likely, the policy change, if there is one, is to raise the number of members a unit can have before it is split. If, say, the number had previously been 300 (I'm just throwing this out, as I have no idea what the numbers are) and now it has been raised to 500, you'd see that slow increase in the number of members per unit, as you say, but the difference would be that you wouldn't see new units being formed until the higher number is reached.

 

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.  As I'm sure you're aware, church units are based on active members/priesthood holders.  So if the policy is that a ward must have 250 active members before it splits you would see a gradual increase in members/unit if the inactivity rates are increasing.   If the church one year decided to arbitrarily increase the unit size to 300, but the activity rates remained the same--you would see a large increase in members/unit that particular year, but it would remain steady the remaining years.

 

JKWilliams-I just checked out your profile, is that an old picture or do you just have good genes--you look half your age!

[ERayR]

It's probably a good thing that the Brethren aren't quite so willing to casually shrug off the loss of members.

 

There is something wonderful about the idea that we, as a Church, can be somewhat willing to look in the mirror if you will.  People may leave for various reasons, but sadly some may be leaving because of other members or teachings that are wrong or a lack of good policy.  Its encouraging it's being seen by some as a problem we should recognize and not just cast off the lost as those who aren't chosen. 

 

You seem ready to misinterpret what I posted.  Go back and look you will see nothing about casually casting off anyone.  I said nothing about abandoning any and all efforts to bring all who will to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the saving ordinances it offers.  However, I am not quite as ready to proclaim the Churches demise.  There are those that, despite the best efforts of any and all concerned, will leave.  Of those it was none other than the Savior himself who said "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14.

 

If you have any argument with the words, take it up with him.

[stemelbow]

You seem ready to misinterpret what I posted.  Go back and look you will see nothing about casually casting off anyone.  I said nothing about abandoning any and all efforts to bring all who will to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the saving ordinances it offers.  However, I am not quite as ready to proclaim the Churches demise.  There are those that, despite the best efforts of any and all concerned, will leave.  Of those it was none other than the Savior himself who said "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14.

 

If you have any argument with the words, take it up with him.

 

I have no particular argument with those words.  I'm certainly not sure how to apply them, though. 

 

Anyway, good to know I misinterpreted you.  I hate when I do that.  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.  As I'm sure you're aware, church units are based on active members/priesthood holders.  So if the policy is that a ward must have 250 active members before it splits you would see a gradual increase in members/unit if the inactivity rates are increasing.   If the church one year decided to arbitrarily increase the unit size to 300, but the activity rates remained the same--you would see a large increase in members/unit that particular year, but it would remain steady the remaining years.

 

JKWilliams-I just checked out your profile, is that an old picture or do you just have good genes--you look half your age!

 

I think under your scenario there would still be a gradual increase.  That is if the policy was implemented to increase the allowable number of members per unit, that would not mean units would have to ratchet up to reach that allowance.  They would be just as before but over time would be allowed to grow. 

[rockpond]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.  As I'm sure you're aware, church units are based on active members/priesthood holders.  So if the policy is that a ward must have 250 active members before it splits you would see a gradual increase in members/unit if the inactivity rates are increasing.   If the church one year decided to arbitrarily increase the unit size to 300, but the activity rates remained the same--you would see a large increase in members/unit that particular year, but it would remain steady the remaining years.

 

JKWilliams-I just checked out your profile, is that an old picture or do you just have good genes--you look half your age!

 

If wards were previously split when they hit 250 and then the policy was changed to split them when you hit 300, you'd still have to wait until each unit grew.  So the increase would still be gradual.

 

Also, we know the process isn't even that simple.  Not only do you need a single ward to grow but you need surrounding wards to grow as well so that you can shift boundaries and have enough members/priesthood holders to create a new ward while not making the remaining wards too small.

 

Further still, the process of realigning boundaries takes months and requires SLC approval.  It's not just the flip of a switch when you hit the magic number.

 

I'm not trying to be critical of you... you are thinking through it which is a good thing.  I'm just trying to emphasize that when you are talking about 29,000 wards/branches, you really would expect to see gradual trends, not sudden shifts in the data.

[jkwilliams]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.  As I'm sure you're aware, church units are based on active members/priesthood holders.  So if the policy is that a ward must have 250 active members before it splits you would see a gradual increase in members/unit if the inactivity rates are increasing.   If the church one year decided to arbitrarily increase the unit size to 300, but the activity rates remained the same--you would see a large increase in members/unit that particular year, but it would remain steady the remaining years.

 

JKWilliams-I just checked out your profile, is that an old picture or do you just have good genes--you look half your age!

 

I'm not sure I understand myself today. My parents' plane was delayed last night, so they didn't land until 1 am, and I had to get up and go to work. My brain is on half-speed today (I know, it's difficult to tell the difference).

 

And thanks for the compliment. That photo is a year old and was from a newspaper interview I did about my book. Maybe it's time to update it, but I pretty much look the same.

[jkwilliams]

You seem ready to misinterpret what I posted.  Go back and look you will see nothing about casually casting off anyone.  I said nothing about abandoning any and all efforts to bring all who will to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the saving ordinances it offers.  However, I am not quite as ready to proclaim the Churches demise.  There are those that, despite the best efforts of any and all concerned, will leave.  Of those it was none other than the Savior himself who said "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14.

 

If you have any argument with the words, take it up with him.

 

I'm sorry if I misread you, but if I did, stem did the same thing, and I don't think anyone ever accused him of proclaiming the church's demise. I certainly don't think the church is going anywhere, but it's clear to me that there are some problems at the moment that the brethren are rightly addressing. Your response seemed a bit glib to me, which is why I responded the way I did.

[ERayR]

I'm sorry if I misread you, but if I did, stem did the same thing, and I don't think anyone ever accused him of proclaiming the church's demise. I certainly don't think the church is going anywhere, but it's clear to me that there are some problems at the moment that the brethren are rightly addressing. Your response seemed a bit glib to me, which is why I responded the way I did.

 

Cold and calculating, maybe, but glib, never.  I am too old for glib.

[jkwilliams]

Cold and calculating, maybe, but glib, never.  I am too old for glib.

 

You know, it's kind of fun coming back here after, what, 4 years or so. I recognize some screen names but don't remember who's behind them. It will be fun getting to know people all over again.

[omni]

I think under your scenario there would still be a gradual increase.  That is if the policy was implemented to increase the allowable number of members per unit, that would not mean units would have to ratchet up to reach that allowance.  They would be just as before but over time would be allowed to grow. 

If wards were previously split when they hit 250 and then the policy was changed to split them when you hit 300, you'd still have to wait until each unit grew.  So the increase would still be gradual.

 

Also, we know the process isn't even that simple.  Not only do you need a single ward to grow but you need surrounding wards to grow as well so that you can shift boundaries and have enough members/priesthood holders to create a new ward while not making the remaining wards too small.

 

Further still, the process of realigning boundaries takes months and requires SLC approval.  It's not just the flip of a switch when you hit the magic number.

 

I'm not trying to be critical of you... you are thinking through it which is a good thing.  I'm just trying to emphasize that when you are talking about 29,000 wards/branches, you really would expect to see gradual trends, not sudden shifts in the data.

 

 

Okay, three against one, I will humbly admit my defeat   Looks look I need to clear away the cobwebs in my head and find where I stored that stats info..

[rockpond]

Okay, three against one, I will humbly admit my defeat   Looks look I need to clear away the cobwebs in my head and find where I stored that stats info..

 

I wasn't trying to get you to admit defeat  just wanted to clarify what we're seeing in the data.  I think your questions were beneficial and they had me thinking through it to make sure I wasn't using false assumptions.

[ERayR]

Okay, three against one, I will humbly admit my defeat   Looks look I need to clear away the cobwebs in my head and find where I stored that stats info..

 

Unless your a sadist you have expunged it completely.

[omni]

Unless your a sadist you have expunged it completely.

 

I think I did subconsciously...you know like one of those self-preservation things.

[Calm]

Just as a tidbit of info...

 

In reading the article on Pres. Monson's 50 years anniversary yesterday as an apostle, it mentions the size of his ward when he was called to be a bishop:

 

He spoke of being called as a bishop at age 22 to serve in a ward of 1,080, more than 80 of whom were widows. 

 

http://www.lds.org/church/news/oct-4-is-president-monsons-50-year-anniversary-as-apostle?lang=eng&cid=HPTH100313104

 

So were buildings that much larger back then or was the activity rate much lower?

[sdc999]

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. 

You're putting words in my mouth.  I would not actively seek to  shoot anyone unless I was absolutely defending my life or my families.  But if someone was to be so bold as to try to get around my security system in place, my first thought would be to be on the defensive.   So, from your comments, I sense that you believe it is okay for someone to disregard boundaries that you have put in place for one's own security.     

[rockpond]

Just as a tidbit of info...

 

In reading the article on Pres. Monson's 50 years anniversary yesterday as an apostle, it mentions the size of his ward when he was called to be a bishop:

 

http://www.lds.org/church/news/oct-4-is-president-monsons-50-year-anniversary-as-apostle?lang=eng&cid=HPTH100313104

 

So were buildings that much larger back then or was the activity rate much lower?

 

I have no data going back that far so I couldn't say if it was an anomaly or not.

 

Buildings were obviously different back then.  There was no 3 hour block.  Primary met during the week.  Different demands being placed on a meetinghouse likely driving a different design.  Anyone know if it was common back then for a building to be shared by three wards as it is today?

 

But, I like to think that by the time Bishop Monson was done with his "term" the ward must have been split at least once or twice.