15 Million - Growing?

[Stone holm]

This is the part where it gets ridiculous. You propose that we measure what kind of a member exists. This one believes everything; this one believes almost everything, but not these things; how do we measure someone that believes the first vision but not in the WofW, or polygamy, or take your pick of all doctrinal positions of the Church; how do we evaluate each of those areas. Then we have to define between those who believe and those who attend. Why do they attend, when do they attend, how often they attend. Do they practice their religion on Mondays?  Do they fail to practice it on Friday's? How about do they assist those in need when asked? How about when no one asks? What yard stick shall we measure each of these things? Who gets to measure? Why?

 

All that is being said is 15 million members; or just one. Why does it matter so much? Oh, because the old man is lying; so what? You lie every day of your life along with every other human alive. So the real deal is not that they count members of record (God forbid), but they don't also include this very vital, all-important information.

 

It always surprises me at how often the Catholic Church declares themselves the largest Christian Church in the world and no one says a thing. Not one complaint; not one demand for more precise information on what they mean by member; how many attend church; of often; what they believe and what they don't.  What this tells me is that people are not really interested in organizations spending millions of dollars to collect this vital information, but what is really going on is this group of malcontents squealing about their axe to grind; an unconscious reaction to any time when they hear LDS and membership their mind shuts down and out comes their memorized litany of complaints. 

 

It is futile to demand of the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, or any other organization to provide precise evaluations on every member of record. None of these organizations has any form of mechanism or has the money to dedicate to collecting such information in order to placate the demands of this small group of malcontents.

 

Regardless, the only member you or anyone else needs to contend themselves with is Jesus Christ. Focus on that.

 

I suspect in part that the Catholics actually have no clue.  As to us, anyone who has served as a Clerk for any length of time knows we are pretty certain when we first create a membership record -- after that it is pretty much all downhill.  I remember in some instances racing to get the certificate, etc. created before the baptizing missionary got transferred because of the probability that the newly created member would go inactive shortly thereafter.   I don't think Pres. Uchtdorf intended in anyway to mislead and it is certainly appropriate to say we have 15 Million people who we could claim as being members.  I think, however, we are a bit cynical about that number, however, given the fact that people are on the membership roles who were involved in some Church activity for a few months, have very little knowledge of what the Church stands for or its doctrines, probably do not self-identify as Mormons, and we have no clue where they live or even if they are living.  So that cynicism does tend to break out from time to time by Priesthood leaders who are struggling to find people who are on their membership rolls, and with people who want nothing to do with the Church but don't ask for their names to be removed, etc.  Its because we actually care about the number of people who are Mormons.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Stone holm

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for the reply, Storm Rider.

 

I readily admit that many of the numbers that would be helpful are unobtainable.  How do you measure people's level of belief or disbelief?  I agree that it is ridiculous to do that.  THe problem I have is in the boasting of the sheer size and growth of the Church.  If we were more fair saying sure we have 15 million people on record, which is about .2% of the world's population, but it is worth noting that there are many of the 15 million, an undisclosed, immeasurable amount that would not self-identify as LDS.  If we reported how many converts there were, but that of those converts we have terrible retention rates.  Then we'd have a better picture of reality than what we currently do.  Many an LDS think all is well in zion, largely because we tend to boast about growth and size.  We rarely mention activity rates in connection with size.  Estimates float around, but what do they mean, exactly?  If we have 30% activity rates world-wide, which is a number I've heard recently, then we may very well cut that 15 million size down to below 5 million.  Its probably not fair to do that, because some of those inactive still consider themselves believers.  Then again some active don't consider themselves believers too. 

 

I'm not saying its easy or possible on all of this.  Just that we're doing our selves a disservice if we continue to boast about size and growth.  Its a false picture, in effect.  All is well in zion, I guess. 

 

I have no complaints with anyone that would prefer that there should be no boasting or even that the membership numbers should be found only in the index in small letters. Reality is far too ephemeral for me to want to grasp at times.  Regardless, I think membership numbers should be taken with a grain of salt for any organization other than their desire to report something. If anyone were to ask for my counsel I would tell them to avoid discussing them because they are irrelevant to what is of most value to each of us; what is the quality of our relationship with the Savior.  

[Avatar4321]

I know one person that got baptized in my sisters ward hasn't gotten the Holy Ghost, apparently he walks around the place thinking he is the RCMP...and he isn't. The elders here are working with a guy that is a PH.D. is engineering or working on it and he sees demons so we'll see if he joins the Church

 

RCMP?

[Avatar4321]

Crazy people need the gospel too.

 

As a crazy person I completely agree.

[ERayR]

RCMP?

 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police I assume.

[Spammer]

According to the church website (updated on 10/7), there are

14,782,473 members worldwide 29,014 wards and branches

That gives an average of 509 members on the rolls per unit.  On average, how many of those are active?  This is anecdotal, but I've never attended a ward with more than around 200 or so members who are there on any given Sunday.  That was a very large ward in Utah, soon to be split.  Usually there are no more than 100 or so in my experience.  Let's stick with 200.  Multiplied by 29,014 units, that gives around 5.8 million active members worldwide.  Of course, that also assumes branches with an average of 200 members. 

Edited October 8, 2013 by Spammer

[ERayR]

According to the church website (updated on 10/7), there are

14,782,473 members worldwide 29,014 wards and branches

That gives an average of 509 members on the rolls per unit.  On average, how many of those are active?  This is anecdotal, but I've never attended a ward with more than around 200 or so members who are there on any given Sunday.  That was a very large ward in Utah, soon to be split.  Usually there are no more than 100 or so in my experience.  Let's stick with 200.  Multiplied by 29,014 units, that gives around 5.8 million active members worldwide.  Of course, that also assumes branches with an average of 200 members. 

 

And its still a wild guess.  As has been pointed out sacrament meeting attendance may or may not reflect actual activity.

[Calm]

Royal Canadian Mounted Police I assume.

[USU78]

President Uchdorf said (and I'm paraphrasing):  "At a time when other churches are declining in numbers we are growing" and then touted the 15 million number.

 

I am not saying he is being misleading, but if the activity rate is declining faster than that total number of members stat is growing, then I would say there is some "declining" going on.

 

Average Sacrament Meeting attendance would be a great number to look at year after year.  We have that stat, do we not?  I always see the clerk walking up and down the aisle taking the number.  I'm assuming those numbers aren't public since I never heard about them, but if they are reported all the way up to SLC then that would be the stat to watch.

 

Do we have any indication of that stat?

 

My 88-year-old parents are very hit-and-miss in their attendance.  Yet they did a couples mission years ago, sent 4 of 4 sons on missions, and all 5 children who survived into adulthood were married in the temple.

 

Just how is their attendance/non-attendance relevant?

 

The only reason to gripe about the numbers is to slap the Church upside the head.

 

Stop it.

 

It's nonsensical.

[cursor]

Just how is their attendance/non-attendance relevant?

 

The only reason to gripe about the numbers is to slap the Church upside the head.

 

Stop it.

 

It's nonsensical.

 

Actually, attendance/non-attendance is relevant. 

I  gave you kudos because I agree that it's not totally about numbers. God bless your parents, USU78.

[cinepro]

My 88-year-old parents are very hit-and-miss in their attendance.  Yet they did a couples mission years ago, sent 4 of 4 sons on missions, and all 5 children who survived into adulthood were married in the temple.

 

Just how is their attendance/non-attendance relevant?

 

The only reason to gripe about the numbers is to slap the Church upside the head.

 

Stop it.

 

It's nonsensical.

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Church needs to produce a number that is accurate down to every single member, including the octogenarian faithful who may not attend like they used to.

 

The point seems to be that since a church is made up of its members, and talking about the number of members seems to be a way in which some churches attempt to define themselves, it is perhaps a worthwhile endeavor to ask what is meant by those numbers.

 

If the LDS Church came out and said "We have 14,782,473 names on our records of people who at one time in their life were either blessed or baptized into our Church, and are presumably still alive and under the age of 110", that would be fine. 

 

But it seems that the number "14,782,473" is meant to mean something else.  "Members" implies some degree of belief and interest, or at least an awareness and approval of the Church and their membership in it.

 

It's possible that the Church could be overzealous in the pruning of the records (unlikely, but possible), but "pruning" wouldn't even be necessary.  It's not a matter of defining what kind of a member a person is.  It's just a matter of taking the data that the Church already has and sharing it.  Such as "Number of Missionaries".  Just add lines for "Average Sacrament Meeting Attendance", "Tithing Receipts", and other such data that they already have.  It wouldn't be hard, but it might be illuminating.

[Brian 2.0]

My 88-year-old parents are very hit-and-miss in their attendance.  Yet they did a couples mission years ago, sent 4 of 4 sons on missions, and all 5 children who survived into adulthood were married in the temple.

 

Just how is their attendance/non-attendance relevant?

 

The only reason to gripe about the numbers is to slap the Church upside the head.

 

Stop it.

 

It's nonsensical.

 

 

It is neither nonsensical, irrelevant, or an attempt to slap the church upside the head.

 

My question revolved around trying to determine church "growth" and using ONE statistic alone of "total members on the rolls" is not a very effective way to do it, IMO.

 

Average sacrament attendance isn't the only stat to worry about either, it has it's limits, but multiple stats together can help determine "growth".

 

If TOTAL MEMBERS kept growing but AVG SACRAMENT ATTENDANCE decreased 1/3 over a 3 year period, would that be irrelevant?

If TOTAL MEMBERS kept growing but CURRENT TEMPLE RECOMMEND holders declined by 25% in one year, would that be irrelevant?

 

Total membership is only one piece of the puzzle, and it seems hard to justify a position of "growth" based on that one stat alone.   And those other stats are available to the leadership and I guarantee they find them relevant.

 

If someone was looking at purchasing McDonald's Corp and just looked at the "One Billion Served And Growing" sign on the marquee then that'd be a pretty bad business decision to determine the "growth" of McDonald's Corp.

[Stone holm]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Church needs to produce a number that is accurate down to every single member, including the octogenarian faithful who may not attend like they used to.

 

The point seems to be that since a church is made up of its members, and talking about the number of members seems to be a way in which some churches attempt to define themselves, it is perhaps a worthwhile endeavor to ask what is meant by those numbers.

 

If the LDS Church came out and said "We have 14,782,473 names on our records of people who at one time in their life were either blessed or baptized into our Church, and are presumably still alive and under the age of 110", that would be fine. 

 

But it seems that the number "14,782,473" is meant to mean something else.  "Members" implies some degree of belief and interest, or at least an awareness and approval of the Church and their membership in it.

 

It's possible that the Church could be overzealous in the pruning of the records (unlikely, but possible), but "pruning" wouldn't even be necessary.  It's not a matter of defining what kind of a member a person is.  It's just a matter of taking the data that the Church already has and sharing it.  Such as "Number of Missionaries".  Just add lines for "Average Sacrament Meeting Attendance", "Tithing Receipts", and other such data that they already have.  It wouldn't be hard, but it might be illuminating.

Gave you a bump on this, I am getting tired of whenever anybody dares to question something a GA said it is immediately assumed that you are out to get the Church, have we all become hyper defensive or something?

[Duncan]

RCMP?

 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police!!! they always get their man!

[stemelbow]

It is neither nonsensical, irrelevant, or an attempt to slap the church upside the head.

 

My question revolved around trying to determine church "growth" and using ONE statistic alone of "total members on the rolls" is not a very effective way to do it, IMO.

 

Average sacrament attendance isn't the only stat to worry about either, it has it's limits, but multiple stats together can help determine "growth".

 

If TOTAL MEMBERS kept growing but AVG SACRAMENT ATTENDANCE decreased 1/3 over a 3 year period, would that be irrelevant?

If TOTAL MEMBERS kept growing but CURRENT TEMPLE RECOMMEND holders declined by 25% in one year, would that be irrelevant?

 

Total membership is only one piece of the puzzle, and it seems hard to justify a position of "growth" based on that one stat alone.   And those other stats are available to the leadership and I guarantee they find them relevant.

 

If someone was looking at purchasing McDonald's Corp and just looked at the "One Billion Served And Growing" sign on the marquee then that'd be a pretty bad business decision to determine the "growth" of McDonald's Corp.

 

I agree with what you've said, Brian.  I'm not sure why there is such an effort to paint someone who wants to discuss this stuff as trying to slap the Church or something.  I have no such desire to slap the Church upside the head either.  indeed, it seems unreasonable to accuse us of having that motivation based on this conversation. 

[rongo]

 

 

It's possible that the Church could be overzealous in the pruning of the records (unlikely, but possible), but "pruning" wouldn't even be necessary. 

Hardly. Have you seen the new requirements that must be met before records are sent to the "Address Unknown" file? Salt Lake doesn't want them, and is making it harder to send them to the "black hole" (what we called it when I was bishop).

 

One of the counselors in the bishopric told us in priesthood that Salt Lake is sending tons of records of people they can't find back to the wards, and we will focus on them in our visits. By tons, I mean from over the last ten years, and many are people who clearly aren't there. But, you aren't supposed to send them back "with prejudice," even if you get a letter returned as undeliverable, until you have physically spoken to like three different neighbors.

[Duncan]

Hardly. Have you seen the new requirements that must be met before records are sent to the "Address Unknown" file? Salt Lake doesn't want them, and is making it harder to send them to the "black hole" (what we called it when I was bishop).

 

One of the counselors in the bishopric told us in priesthood that Salt Lake is sending tons of records of people they can't find back to the wards, and we will focus on them in our visits. By tons, I mean from over the last ten years, and many are people who clearly aren't there. But, you aren't supposed to send them back "with prejudice," even if you get a letter returned as undeliverable, until you have physically spoken to like three different neighbors.

 

 

that's what the missionaries are doing in our ward. We have almost exhausted our list of members and they are trying to find these folks. Problem turns out to getting this information off the records. The membership clerking is the bottleneck...so hopefully this next year's stake directory will be better!

[Stone holm]

Hardly. Have you seen the new requirements that must be met before records are sent to the "Address Unknown" file? Salt Lake doesn't want them, and is making it harder to send them to the "black hole" (what we called it when I was bishop).

 

One of the counselors in the bishopric told us in priesthood that Salt Lake is sending tons of records of people they can't find back to the wards, and we will focus on them in our visits. By tons, I mean from over the last ten years, and many are people who clearly aren't there. But, you aren't supposed to send them back "with prejudice," even if you get a letter returned as undeliverable, until you have physically spoken to like three different neighbors.

What starts happening is inactive ping pong, you dream up what some relative believes might be their current location and boing off go the records go...

[theplains]

President Uchdorf said (and I'm paraphrasing):  "At a time when other churches are declining in numbers we are growing" and then touted the 15 million number.

 

Is anyone privy to the statistics of these 'other' churches that President Uchtdorf was referring

to or was he just cheerleading?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Stone holm]

Is anyone privy to the statistics of these 'other' churches that President Uchtdorf was referring

to or was he just cheerleading?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Are you trying to CFR Pres Uchtdorf? It is pretty obvious mainline Christian denominations are dwindling, I recommend the PEW Report

[theplains]

It is pretty obvious mainline Christian denominations are dwindling, I recommend the PEW Report

 

I looked at the Pew Forum website but couldn't find any type of statistical information

that would correlate with your recommendation.  Can you be more specific?

 

Did President Uchtdorf use the term 'mainline' Christian denominations or was he just

lumping them all in a 'general' category and ignoring the growth in JW, SDA, and

Evangelical denominations?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Stone holm]

I looked at the Pew Forum website but couldn't find any type of statistical information

that would correlate with your recommendation.  Can you be more specific?

 

Did President Uchtdorf use the term 'mainline' Christian denominations or was he just

lumping them all in a 'general' category and ignoring the growth in JW, SDA, and

Evangelical denominations?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Given the number of "nones" is increasing in America, I would think that would be proof.

[Calm]

Did President Uchtdorf use the term 'mainline' Christian denominations or was he just

lumping them all in a 'general' category and ignoring the growth in JW, SDA, and

Evangelical denominations?

At a time when many churches throughout the world are experiencing significant decreases in numbers,

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[rodheadlee]

Have you received authorization to bless and administer the sacrament while at sea?

 

 

I did from my Bishop in my last ward, I need to have a meeting with my new Bishop.

Edited October 12, 2013 by rodheadlee

[rockpond]

Hardly. Have you seen the new requirements that must be met before records are sent to the "Address Unknown" file? Salt Lake doesn't want them, and is making it harder to send them to the "black hole" (what we called it when I was bishop).

 

One of the counselors in the bishopric told us in priesthood that Salt Lake is sending tons of records of people they can't find back to the wards, and we will focus on them in our visits. By tons, I mean from over the last ten years, and many are people who clearly aren't there. But, you aren't supposed to send them back "with prejudice," even if you get a letter returned as undeliverable, until you have physically spoken to like three different neighbors.

 

It's like a 9 or 10 step process that even includes trying to locate them via social media.    I think it's good to encourage a bit more work at finding these lost sheep (even though many of them WANT to be lost).  Our full-time missionaries are helping us as well.  Our stake even has a full time pair of "YSA Rescue" missionaries.  Some cool things happening.

Edited October 12, 2013 by rockpond