Statistics And Church Growth

[Anteojito]

Why be shy.

 

Go ahead and call 'em liars.

I believe the names are removed from the roles of the local ward, but I wonder if they are removed from records of the church. I state this because if I somehow decide to get re-baptized I'm guessing that they would know when I was baptized the first time, when I went to the temple where I served my mission and all of that. So I don't believe that my data is purged from the church records.

[USU78]

Yeah, the number I was getting at is really retention in terms of members of record.  Which may not be "retention" by some definitions.

 

Here's another approach:  In the past decade, we've had almost a 23% increase in membership.  During that same period, the total number of stakes/districts has only increased by just over 9%.

 

There are obviously a number of factors that play into that but one could estimate that have, therefore, had 14% of membership go inactive during the past decade.  (Be careful how you read that... I'm not saying it's an inactivity rate of 14%, but that 14% of total membership stopped attending during that timeframe.  And it's just an estimation.)

 

Can you imagine the problems a loosey-goosey outfit like the RCC would have keeping accurate records on membership?  They use baptisms (at best) and subtract out deaths/excommunications (at best) and have their number spit out at the end.  None of this "you aren't RC unless you attend Mass x times per year" limitation.  Such a question wouldn't occur to them.

 

It's only because the LDS are scrutinized in much greater detail on every assertion made by those seeking to make the LDS offenders for every jot and tittle of spoken and/or written word that this is even being discussed.

 

And just to feed the Hurlbut/Godbeite narrative:  "Mormons are liars and, until quite recently, murderers."

[USU78]

I believe the names are removed from the roles of the local ward, but I wonder if they are removed from records of the church. I state this because if I somehow decide to get re-baptized I'm guessing that they would know when I was baptized the first time, when I went to the temple where I served my mission and all of that. So I don't believe that my data is purged from the church records.

 

Are you under the impression that such data are your personal property?

[Calm]

Rain, you do have to hit 25 posts. You might want to post in the three word thread in Social to up post count without much effort.

[Duncan]

readstoomuch - I added you as a friend hoping it would give me a way to contact you, but it didn't that I can see. Maybe I have to have 25 posts like you do to edit?  DH and I have just been called as ward missionary and leader.  We would like to know more of what you are doing please.  We have much the same thoughts as you've stated about creating friendships.  

 

 That is one of our concerns.  Our ward here is about 2.5 times the geographical size of our ward in UT, so pretty small.  We have a set of missionaries in it.  The bishop is concerned because we are the only ward in our stake who that has it's own set of missionaries and they may end up covering more wards if they don't get busier.  I'm not concerned.  It's ok if we share for now - if it gets busier then we can change that.  It's not going to change how I and the ward works.  Putting pressure on ward member to keep the missionaries busy rarely works and never works for very long or very well.  

 

Duncan - would you send me the pictures as well? 

 

 

buckets of woe and gushers of sorrow, you need to have 25 posts so I can send you the pics!! keep posting!

[ksfisher]

I believe the names are removed from the roles of the local ward, but I wonder if they are removed from records of the church. I state this because if I somehow decide to get re-baptized I'm guessing that they would know when I was baptized the first time, when I went to the temple where I served my mission and all of that. So I don't believe that my data is purged from the church records.

 

All church records are kept centrally at church headquarters with the local unit having a copy of that record.  Keeping a record of former members allows the church to have the information that you've described above in the case of a rebaptism, as well as insuring that someone who has left the church doesn't get rebaptized without the proper priesthood authorization.

[readstoomuch]

Rain,

I don`t have everything figured out on this board myself. I think you can look at my old posts. I have a long post in the "In the News" section about internet missionaries that you might find interesting. I am not sure anyone has looked at it yet. I have tried to put most of my ideas about missionary work on the board already. We are certainly getting to know many nonmembers in our area and often this leads to a religious discussion. I see it as long term work and not the quick results that some are looking for.

[Grudunza]

Since I have JWs in the family, I'm familiar with their standards for joining their faith. The LDS might take a look at it. Before joining or getting baptized as a JW a person must study the bible for several months with a JW and they must be living the JW standards; no tobacco and no heavy drinking. If a current member is not attending meetings for a period of time and not going out in their missionary activities they are taken off the rolls unless handicapped or other legitimate reasons.

I don't think we need to make it harder to be baptized, but much easier. I don't recall any lengthy hoops to jump through for the thousands that John baptized, or in the Book of Mormon, or in the early Church, even. I believe repentance and a desire to be baptized are the only requirements for baptism. Of course, we include a bonus plan that involves connecting to our particular faith, but that's a different commitment. I think we should welcome any and all to be baptized through Priesthood authority if they so desire. If they want to also join our Church, great. I think they may even be more inclined to be baptized if they don't feel the further pressure of committing to our Church, and possibly more amenable to joining our Church if they can then do it more at their own speed and discretion. But since baptism is a necessary thing for salvation, and we will be baptizing everyone, regardless, why not make it easier to begin with?

[Avatar4321]

I have wondered how to contribute to the missionary effort, given that I tend to be very introverted.  Oddly enough, I love public speaking - and I make sure every bishopric is aware that I am available to give SM talks on a moment's notice.  But approaching people one-on-one?  Gives me the willies.

 

I thought of the idea of writing a book, which I would call "How to Become a Mormon".  Make it kind of like "Preach My Gospel" except directed towards those curious about what it would mean to become a member of the Church -- like sitting down for lessons with the FTM, without actually sitting down for lessons with them.  

 

I guess it wouldn't be a good idea, though.  Too many people would read it without feeling challenged to determine the truth of the Church, and might even reject the idea of meeting with the missionaries after reading it.  They would say: I know all I need to know already.  

 

Maybe you have the idea for the book for a reason. Ask the Lord about it and see what He says.

[readstoomuch]

I am totally about people knowing as much information as possible before baptism. Retention and true conversion are what is the best in my experience. Otherwise, we could be back to the baseball baptism era. Why not, we are going to have to baptize then eventually anyway. Right?

I think we end up adding people to the church who drop out and then they are on the home teaching/VT routes and we keep trying to see them or feel guilty for not seeing them. As it is, missionaries bypass the local congregation in baptizing converts and then leave to have the local members pick up the pieces of those who were baptized. One set of missionaries who is really good at selling people on the idea of getting baptized, but not converted can leave a ward in a bad way for years dealing with them. The opposite can happen if the missionaries are helping people to become truly converted.

Sorry, Grudunza. I can`t tell you how differently I see things than you are describing in your last post.

[ksfisher]

I don't think we need to make it harder to be baptized, but much easier. I don't recall any lengthy hoops to jump through for the thousands that John baptized, or in the Book of Mormon, or in the early Church, even. I believe repentance and a desire to be baptized are the only requirements for baptism. Of course, we include a bonus plan that involves connecting to our particular faith, but that's a different commitment. I think we should welcome any and all to be baptized through Priesthood authority if they so desire. If they want to also join our Church, great. I think they may even be more inclined to be baptized if they don't feel the further pressure of committing to our Church, and possibly more amenable to joining our Church if they can then do it more at their own speed and discretion. But since baptism is a necessary thing for salvation, and we will be baptizing everyone, regardless, why not make it easier to begin with?

Mosiah 18

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are ^adesirous to come into the ^bfold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

 9 Yea, and are ^awilling to mourn with those that ^bmourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as ^cwitnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the ^dfirst resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

 10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being ^abaptized in the ^bname of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a ^ccovenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

 

Alma's description of the covenant we make at baptism sounds much different that what you are describing.  Coming "into the fold of God."  Mouring "with those that mourn."  Standing as "witness of God at all times and in all things, and in all places...even until death."  This is  a covenant that we make with the creator of the universe to serve him, not just something we do one weekend and then forget about for the rest of our life.  It is a holy ordinace and should not be entered into lightly.

[Teancum]

I believe the names are removed from the roles of the local ward, but I wonder if they are removed from records of the church. I state this because if I somehow decide to get re-baptized I'm guessing that they would know when I was baptized the first time, when I went to the temple where I served my mission and all of that. So I don't believe that my data is purged from the church records.

 

You are correct.

[Teancum]

Are you under the impression that such data are your personal property?

 

 

Maybe some who leave want to have all their records purged from the book of life.   Maybe they want no association nor do they want to leave the Church a way to follow up on them.  For me, if I was to leave, I don't care if they still maintain a file on me. Others might.

[Grudunza]

From the POV of the "Church," yes, it might create some inconvenience. But from the POV of the *Gospel*, to serve and invite people desiring to repent and be baptized to have that opportunity, that should be the only requirement; their desire and willingness to repent. The inconvenience and difficulty of ward members trying to deal with semi or inactive people is not a good reason to lock the gates to begin with.

If more people come in the door, more may stay. And we should find and adapt ways to welcome them and retain them.

[Grudunza]

Re: Alma. Everything prior to verse 10 is what they already had a desire for, and he was convincing them to take the final plunge (literally). Verse 10 (and everything prior) can be adhered to without joining our specific Church. And merely joining our Church and being baptized does not guarantee that someone will have or maintain the true desires for mourning, standing as a witness, etc. But baptism is a requirement of salvation, regardless of what anyone does the second after they are baptized, or if it's something they only do for one weekend and then forget about. We perform that necessary ordinance via the authority of the Priesthood on millions of dead people for whom we have no knowledge of their lives or intent to honor a commitment to it. It's not for us to know the intention and desire of someone's heart. If they desire to repent of wrongdoings, they should be welcome to be baptized, or at least, we don't need to belabor that desire.

I'm not saying to abandon all preparation prior to baptism, but I also don't need everyone who joins the church to be a scriptural scholar or living perfect lives (especially considering that none of us *in* the Church can claim that... well, just one).

[rockpond]

Why be shy.

 

Go ahead and call 'em liars.

 

 

 

And just to feed the Hurlbut/Godbeite narrative:  "Mormons are liars and, until quite recently, murderers."

 

I think we've had a really respectful discussion with nobody calling anyone a liar.  I hope we can keep it that way... I'm not sure why you keep throwing it in there.

[Anteojito]

All church records are kept centrally at church headquarters with the local unit having a copy of that record.  Keeping a record of former members allows the church to have the information that you've described above in the case of a rebaptism, as well as insuring that someone who has left the church doesn't get rebaptized without the proper priesthood authorization.

I can see that even though I instructed them to remove my name from all church records. Because of that, I have no way of knowing whether or not I am counted as one of the 15+ million members of the church. As far as I know the church does not release the number of members who have their names removed. 

 

I am not losing any sleep on this, I am more curious than anything else.

[ksfisher]

I can see that even though I instructed them to remove my name from all church records. Because of that, I have no way of knowing whether or not I am counted as one of the 15+ million members of the church. As far as I know the church does not release the number of members who have their names removed. 

 

I am not losing any sleep on this, I am more curious than anything else.

I can understand why this would be a sensitive issue for someone who has has their name removed.

[ksfisher]

Re: Alma. Everything prior to verse 10 is what they already had a desire for, and he was convincing them to take the final plunge (literally). Verse 10 (and everything prior) can be adhered to without joining our specific Church. And merely joining our Church and being baptized does not guarantee that someone will have or maintain the true desires for mourning, standing as a witness, etc. But baptism is a requirement of salvation, regardless of what anyone does the second after they are baptized, or if it's something they only do for one weekend and then forget about. We perform that necessary ordinance via the authority of the Priesthood on millions of dead people for whom we have no knowledge of their lives or intent to honor a commitment to it. It's not for us to know the intention and desire of someone's heart. If they desire to repent of wrongdoings, they should be welcome to be baptized, or at least, we don't need to belabor that desire.

I'm not saying to abandon all preparation prior to baptism, but I also don't need everyone who joins the church to be a scriptural scholar or living perfect lives (especially considering that none of us *in* the Church can claim that... well, just one).

I don't think that you and I have the same understanding of the meaning or covenant nature of baptism.

[readstoomuch]

I am not sure anyone really knows whether requested records to be removed are removed or not at the general church level. I suppose someone could write the church and ask them. If they actually responded with the affirmative, in writing, then I would believe them. There is a level of accountability from a written answer.

[Sanpitch]

I am not sure anyone really knows whether requested records to be removed are removed or not at the general church level. I suppose someone could write the church and ask them. If they actually responded with the affirmative, in writing, then I would believe them. There is a level of accountability from a written answer.

I don't know what the church does now with name removal, I do know that wifey had her name removed several decades ago and then we moved to another area of the state. Over twenty years later LDS missionaries came to the door and asked for wifey by the name that she hadn't used since belonging to the church long ago. That tells me something about name removal.

[rockpond]

I can see that even though I instructed them to remove my name from all church records. Because of that, I have no way of knowing whether or not I am counted as one of the 15+ million members of the church. As far as I know the church does not release the number of members who have their names removed.

I am not losing any sleep on this, I am more curious than anything else.

What percentage of members do we think resign and/or are excommunicated each year? Half a percent? More? Less?

Looking at our stats, it seems a mathematical impossibility that the church is removing their numbers from the total membership count.

[Grudunza]

I don't think that you and I have the same understanding of the meaning or covenant nature of baptism.

From lds.org:

What covenants did I make at baptism?

When we were baptized, we entered into a covenant with God. We promised to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ, always remember Him, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end. We renew this covenant each time we partake of the sacrament.

In our ideal, that all includes active membership in our church, but other than the last sentence (if our specific sacrament is considered), it need not. And still, baptism as an ordinance is required of everyone, whether they actively commit to our specific Church or not (now or in the hereafter).

Again, keep in mind, my original response was specifically in reply to the person suggesting that LDS should consider stricter measures before baptism, as per the JW. I really don't think that is necessary at all, and would be more inhibiting to the growth of the Church (the overreaching subject of the thread).

[omni]

Again, keep in mind, my original response was specifically in reply to the person suggesting that LDS should consider stricter measures before baptism, as per the JW. I really don't think that is necessary at all, and would be more inhibiting to the growth of the Church (the overreaching subject of the thread).

If the church's goal is growth then it should continue to do what it's doing. If its goal is helping its members achieve exaltation, then changes need to be made in the missionary program.

[Thinking]

Critics wouldn't care about the claimed membership if the Church didn't constantly publish the membership count. I think the most important number is average weekly attendance at sacrament meeting. This critic would even be ok with the people in the foyer being counted. My $0.02.