Statistics And Church Growth

[Stargazer]

Yes.  And thus we see why we have over 15 million on our records but are closer to 4 million or 5 million who regularly attend, even after we report hundreds of thousands of converts each year.

Although I would like to point out that I baptized exactly one man on my mission, back in 1973. He's still active -- he's a bishop at the moment, in fact -- so MY retention rate is 100%!

[Stargazer]

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.

The data is not purged for those who have their names removed. I cannot say exactly how they handle it, but they maintain full records of all former members. They might come back eventually, after all. I've seen this a few times in our ward alone.

If you were to attempt to come back as if you were a new convert, unless you gave false information (name, dob, parents name, etc), they would catch it. I was the clerk in our ward when we had a new bishopric, and a former member decided to come back. She thought she had resigned her membership several years before, and the bishop didn't know exactly how to do this process, so he simply had her baptized, and sent in the baptism record to the membership department. They contacted him immediately to let him know that she had been excommunicated, not name-removed, and they were concerned that some kind of scam was going on. Ooopsie! The bishop was very embarrassed (the sister actually believed she had resigned her membership, and somehow missed the excommunication part). SLC was very understanding about it, and fixed up the record properly (with original baptismal date restored). We never told the sister about the kerfuffle.

So, as I say, SLC does retain a record of your having once been a member. But it's only just-in-case.

[Stargazer]

I have a friend who had his name removed years ago. he came back and wasn't rebaptized, he had to have an interview with the Stake President though and it seems they re activated his account so to speak. He is now serving as a Bishop and he is my dentist, not a good dentist but a dentist nonetheless

That isn't right. Both excommunicated and name-removed former members must be rebaptized. Once they are, however, their baptism date reverts to their original one. If they were endowed or held the priesthood, that does not reactivate automatically, but there is a ordinance called "Restoration of Blessings" which must be performed, and either by a General Authority or the Stake President as authorized by a GA. That would seem like a "reactivated account", perhaps. But rebaptism is a must.

[why me]

Well according to Elder Jensen, the church is in a period of apostasy like that one in Kirkland but I think that most people who leave the church for good don't get their names removed either because they want to keep peace with a family member or that just don't care about it. For my wife and I it was important to have our names remove. We did not want some new Bishop thinking it was his duty/right to reactivate us. We did not want anyone in the church to think that they had any authority over us.

 

I think it makes sense for the church to maintain records of people who are excommunicated. I think for the most part people who are excommunicated want to come back to the church at some point.

I think that members of the church are between a rock and a hard place. I don't think that many bishops would keep bothering members who are not active in the church or who never show up etc. Usually, once they are told that the person does not want to be bothered, they let it be. People decide to come back for many reasons. But mainly because life outside the church was not for them or it didn't promise what they thought that it promised. This happens with the people who had their names removed and also with those who were excommunicated. The door is always open for a return.

 

Also, I don't think that the church is experiencing an apostasy like what happened in kirkland. In kirkland, the apostacy was quite huge in number and the saints were pretty much decimated. But the church continued to grow regardless. Members joined and members left. It has always been this way from the very beginning. But I don't see empty churches because of an apostasy these days.

 

Personally, I have been inactive for years and years and no one bothers about it. I can attend church and the bishop says hi and has a little chat with me and then leaves me alone. And I think that this is quite normal these days.

[why me]

I wasn't excommunicated, I had my name removed. I was keeping the commandments and covenants to the best of my abilities all the way up until I decided to leave. I was not looking for a reason to leave. I sacrificed a lot when I joined the church (my family for one). I wanted it to be true with all my heart.

The church hasn't been proven false. It is still a matter of faith. But I haven't seen any smoking gun that it is false. What we have is still what we have: a book called the book of mormon and 11 witnesses who never denied their testimony, witnesses who certainly had a chance to do so. And Oliver came back to the fold and bore his testimony and was ready to serve a mission before he was taken ill. And on his deathbed in front of wife and child and friends, bore his testimony again. Pretty strong stuff for a guy who was off to meet his maker.

Edited April 16, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

I think that members of the church are between a rock and a hard place. I don't think that many bishops would keep bothering members who are not active in the church or who never show up etc. Usually, once they are told that the person does not want to be bothered, they let it be. People decide to come back for many reasons. But mainly because life outside the church was not for them or it didn't promise what they thought that it promised. This happens with the people who had their names removed and also with those who were excommunicated. The door is always open for a return.

Also, I don't think that the church is experiencing an apostasy like what happened in kirkland. In kirkland, the apostacy was quite huge in number and the saints were pretty much decimated. But the church continued to grow regardless. Members joined and members left. It has always been this way from the very beginning. But I don't see empty churches because of an apostasy these days.

Personally, I have been inactive for years and years and no one bothers about it. I can attend church and the bishop says hi and has a little chat with me and then leaves me alone. And I think that this is quite normal these days.

Isn't it ironic that I'm at church nearly every Sunday and not quite a believer, and you are a believer and inactive? I'm not judging you, but maybe one day you'll explain it to me.

And being in my situation, I've seen where I'm not alone, I can say with confidence that atleast a thousand or more are just like me...they haven't left because of family situations. Though in many of their situations and probably mine, they haven't left because Mormons are their tribe, so to speak. And they love most of what Mormonism can do for theirs and others lives.

[Duncan]

That isn't right. Both excommunicated and name-removed former members must be rebaptized. Once they are, however, their baptism date reverts to their original one. If they were endowed or held the priesthood, that does not reactivate automatically, but there is a ordinance called "Restoration of Blessings" which must be performed, and either by a General Authority or the Stake President as authorized by a GA. That would seem like a "reactivated account", perhaps. But rebaptism is a must.

 

 

oh man! around here we call things like this "Pulling a (insert name of place of my residence)" so...! I don't think...he had the MP but I could be wrong. Funnily enough he read that 7 habits of highly effective people and that is what tripped him up, I still remember him phoning me and saying he had his name removed

Edited April 16, 2014 by Duncan

[rockpond]

I think that members of the church are between a rock and a hard place. I don't think that many bishops would keep bothering members who are not active in the church or who never show up etc. Usually, once they are told that the person does not want to be bothered, they let it be. People decide to come back for many reasons. But mainly because life outside the church was not for them or it didn't promise what they thought that it promised. This happens with the people who had their names removed and also with those who were excommunicated. The door is always open for a return.

 

Also, I don't think that the church is experiencing an apostasy like what happened in kirkland. In kirkland, the apostacy was quite huge in number and the saints were pretty much decimated. But the church continued to grow regardless. Members joined and members left. It has always been this way from the very beginning. But I don't see empty churches because of an apostasy these days.

 

Personally, I have been inactive for years and years and no one bothers about it. I can attend church and the bishop says hi and has a little chat with me and then leaves me alone. And I think that this is quite normal these days.

 

So, just to be clear, you have been inactive for "years and years" but you are claiming that Elder Jensen was wrong when he said that the church was experiencing and apostasy unlike any we've seen since Kirtland?

[Anteojito]

The data is not purged for those who have their names removed. I cannot say exactly how they handle it, but they maintain full records of all former members. They might come back eventually, after all. I've seen this a few times in our ward alone.

If you were to attempt to come back as if you were a new convert, unless you gave false information (name, dob, parents name, etc), they would catch it. I was the clerk in our ward when we had a new bishopric, and a former member decided to come back. She thought she had resigned her membership several years before, and the bishop didn't know exactly how to do this process, so he simply had her baptized, and sent in the baptism record to the membership department. They contacted him immediately to let him know that she had been excommunicated, not name-removed, and they were concerned that some kind of scam was going on. Ooopsie! The bishop was very embarrassed (the sister actually believed she had resigned her membership, and somehow missed the excommunication part). SLC was very understanding about it, and fixed up the record properly (with original baptismal date restored). We never told the sister about the kerfuffle.

So, as I say, SLC does retain a record of your having once been a member. But it's only just-in-case.

I can understand that. I can see that from a legal standpoint that they need to maintain some kind of record and do not really have a problem with that. 

What I do wonder is am I subtracted from the 15+ million Mormons on record? There is no way to really know that.

[Bikeemikey]

So, just to be clear, you have been inactive for "years and years" but you are claiming that Elder Jensen was wrong when he said that the church was experiencing and apostasy unlike any we've seen since Kirtland?

I've been following Why Me on this forum with a growing incredulity.

Hoping to figure it out one day to!

[eddie]

Back to the original discussion.  Since I don't have 25 posts, and I am not going to simply flood the board, I will just revive this old topic.

 

I have worked on a spreadsheet over the past week as practice for a job, but that is besides the point.  I have entered in membership numbers, stakes, and wards to get a better representation of the growth and activity of the church.  I used numbers from 1997, 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2013. (I had the almanac for all those years, except 2013 and I found those online.)  While this may not be as thorough as Matt Martinich, it was interesting.

 

So what were the results.  Well, this is still a North American, specifically US dominated church, though not what it was 10 years ago.

 

In 2003 the membership of the church was the following percentage from each continent.

 

  Member % 2003 Member % 2013 Africa 1% 2% Asia 7% 7% Europe 4% 3% North America 61% 58% South America 24% 25% Pacific & Australia 3% 3%

 

In addition every continent has shown growth, some admittedly faster than others.  The following is the % of growth from each continent from 1997-2013.  (I used this because the membership statistics in the 1998 stats is simply rounded, but the stakes are correct.)

 

  Stakes 97-13 Ward 97-13 Africa 70% 67% Asia 28% 32% Europe 20% 26% North America 18% 23% South America 17% 18% Pacific & Australia 19% 18%

 

And lastly, this is the membership percentage  and stake growth from each continent from 2003-13.  (The huge percentage in Africa is a combination of districts maturing into stakes, and growth of members.)

 

  Member 03-13 Stake 03-13 Africa 31% 49% Asia 24% 8% Europe 12% 16% North America 17% 11% South America 25% 19% Pacific & Australia 20% 16%

 

Every country that had over 1000 members has seen growth of membership, with the exception of Denmark, which has lost a net of 121 members in 10 years.   Every country has also seen either an increase of maintenance of the status quo with the stakes since 2003 except Chile.  (They have 1 fewer and 37 fewer than in 1997 when the Q of 12 combined several reverted many to district status.

 

In the US every state has seen an increase in membership, but two have fewer stakes.  Louisiana has seen a decrease in both wards and stakes, and California in stakes (but wards has increased since 1997.)

 

While problems certainly need to be dealt with and processes improved to become more effective in today's age, the allegations of negative growth worldwide and regionally is not the case. 

[eddie]

Oops looks like the paste from the spreadsheet wasn't perfect, but the sets of numbers correspond with the first.

 

In any event in terms of percentage of members, this is how each continent rates in increase from 2003-13.

 

Africa  31%

South America 25%

Asia and Oceania 24%

Pacific and Australia 20% 

North America 17%

Europe 12%