Lds Church Population By 2020 - Will It Even Be Close To The 35 Million Rodney Stark Predicted?

[Bikeemikey]

As a side note, looking at membership stats from year to year, and country to country puts all of this into perspective. I see all over that the LDS church is dying, the internet is hurting them etc etc, but the truth is that over the past 184 years there have been ebbs and flows. Many other denominations are shrinking, but the LDS church is not. The only place where the overall numbers have actually shrunk (with a minimum of 1000 members) is in Denmark, the land of many of my ancestors.

Everywhere else there are more now than there were in 2003. There were a couple of places where the number of stakes and wards fell, mainly Louisiana. California has fewer stakes, but more wards, and Chile has fewer stakes, because in the late 90's, 27 stakes were disbanded.

Outside of all of those, every place in the world has seen an increase, and though the church grew at a slower pace this past decade than it did in the 90's, there were several decades it grew more slowly.

I guess the second part of the question of total membership numbers is what does that mean in terms of membership activity and retention. As more missionaries are in the field it seems more missionaries are spending their time focusing on retention and re-activation... which looks positive.

Also, how do we match growth with a flatline in ward and stake units. Is it accurate that we are losing 50% of new baptisms numbers either in long time members leaving or failure to retain new converts?

What about the issues with the numbers highlighting that our death rate as mormons would have to be slightly less than 50% of the national average?

Again, these are concepts that come up frequently and I would be interested in more information of these statistics to really try and get a grasp on our shifting LDS demographic and church population.

[eddie]

I guess the second part of the question of total membership numbers is what does that mean in terms of membership activity and retention. As more missionaries are in the field it seems more missionaries are spending their time focusing on retention and re-activation... which looks positive.

Also, how do we match growth with a flatline in ward and stake units. Is it accurate that we are losing 50% of new baptisms numbers either in long time members leaving or failure to retain new converts?

What about the issues with the numbers highlighting that our death rate as mormons would have to be slightly less than 50% of the national average?

Again, these are concepts that come up frequently and I would be interested in more information of these statistics to really try and get a grasp on our shifting LDS demographic and church population.

 

 

Here is the deal about all of this.  People often make the claim that the Church inflates their numbers to make themselves look good, but anyone who has ever had any type of dealing inside know that isn't the case.  You can go online and find a list of all of the members of your ward, and all of the wards and stakes worldwide.  This exists so that people can find churches when they are traveling etc.

 

All of the branches, wards and stakes reported worldwide are completely legitimate, and can be found at the official website.  It would take quite some time to count all of them up, but they are there.

 

Now as this pertains to the overall growth of the church.  It takes very real qualifications to form a stake.  There has to be at least 5 wards (and up to around 12.)  Branches can fall under the jurisdiction of a stake, but they don't count for the 5 actual wards.  In order for a stake to function, they have a certain number of people called that won't attend their home wards, so the numbers are very important.

 

My former mission president who works for the church told me these were the MINIMUM guidelines to create a stake off the top of my head.  (When I was on a mission there was no stake in the mission, but we were getting close to having a district move to a stake.)

• 2000 or more members
• 150 members in each ward (5 total)
• 15 Melchizedek Priesthood in sacrament each week
• At least 50 members in church
• He didn't specify, but he also said there had to be a certain number of tithe payers and level of home/visiting teaching done.

So looking at all of those criteria, it is clear that in order for a new stake to be created, there had to be a certain level of activity.   Well with my spreadsheet yesterday, I was able to track that.

 

New stakes and wards are being created each year, so more are coming in than leaving/dying.

[Avatar4321]

No Idea. I don't know the future. But the Lord can do anything He pleases.

[Scott Lloyd]

No Idea. I don't know the future. But the Lord can do anything He pleases.

Agreed. But for reasons' I've expressed here, I won't worry too much about it if we don't get there by then.

[eddie]

I guess the second part of the question of total membership numbers is what does that mean in terms of membership activity and retention. As more missionaries are in the field it seems more missionaries are spending their time focusing on retention and re-activation... which looks positive.

Also, how do we match growth with a flatline in ward and stake units. Is it accurate that we are losing 50% of new baptisms numbers either in long time members leaving or failure to retain new converts?

What about the issues with the numbers highlighting that our death rate as mormons would have to be slightly less than 50% of the national average?

Again, these are concepts that come up frequently and I would be interested in more information of these statistics to really try and get a grasp on our shifting LDS demographic and church population.

 

Well, I am going to do a quick comparison here.  As I say I am (hopefully) moving into a new job soon, so I have practiced using excel.   I entered all of the statistics I could into the spreadsheet to compare the membership numbers to the numbers of new wards/stakes.   A decade long approach was a good one, so here were the results by continent using the end of year 2013 numbers, and 2003 numbers.   (I have a separate one for the US, and I will include it at the end.)

 

So here is the total membership growth vs the number of new stakes formed.  (Much of the growth of stakes in Africa is districts developing more than splitting stakes.)   You can see a pattern, and when the percentage of members grows at a much higher rate than the stakes, that indicates there are issues with retention.

 

As you will see all of this would not happen if numbers of deaths/defections were larger than converts/children of record.  (And children of record aren't going to split stakes with their baptisms.)

 

2003-2013 Africa

Members 203,429 421,892 Increase 52%

Stakes 39;79 50% increase 50%

 

2003-2013 Asia (Including Oceania)

Members 837,299;1,097,049 Increase 24%

Stakes 142;155 Increase 9%

 

2003-2013 Australia/NZ and South Pacific

Members 389073;485979 Increase 20%

Stakes 104;155 Increase 22%

 

2003-2013 Europe (Including Russia)

Members 433,564;494853 Increase 12%

Stakes 104/124 Increase 16%

 

2003-2013 North America

Members 7,293,651;8,813,168 Increase 17%

Stakes 1,701;1,903  Increase 11%

 

2003-2013 South America

Members 2,818,099;3,750,800 Increase 25%

Stakes 527:649 Increase 19%

 

The biggest area where there were huge baptisms, but small growth in stakes was in Asia, which makes up 37% of the total number of Asian members.  However, the rest saw increases in units along with membership.

 

Now I will also show the US.  Since I had to learn some new functions of excel, I broke the US into 4 regions.  NE, SE, North Central, and West  Everything North and East of Pennsylvania, WV, NJ, and DC constitutes the NE.  All of the Old Confederacy plus Oklahoma is SE.   The Midwest, Great Plains and Rust Belt in North Central.  Colorado and everything West is the West.  Here is the same breakdown for the last 10 years.

 

2003-2013 North East

Members 258,328;303,145 Increase 15%

Stakes 54:58 Increase 7%

 

2003-2013 South East

Members 758,101;979,402 Increase 23%

Stakes 155:183 Increase 15%

 

2003-2013 North Central

Members 392,122;471,241 Increase 17%

Stakes 94:102 Increase 8%

 

2003-2013 West

Members 4094641;4,645,101 Increase 12%

Stakes 1,050;1170 Increase 10%

 

So from this it shows the membership increase are followed by increases in stakes, the one with the most parallel growth in the West.  (Not surprising.)

 

Worldwide 2003-2013

Stakes 2,624;3,050 Increase 14%

Membership 11,985,254;15,082,028 Increase 20%

 

Now this method is admittedly not without faults, but it is a good gauge of seeing where units are following baptisms, and where retention is the lowest.

[Sleeper Cell]

This is a very relavent point.

There would have to be major changes to cope with these numbers. Such a church could not be run by 15 people at the top in my opinion.

I could see the formation of "national" churches to cope with this.

Perhaps we could start with your country.  The British National LDS Church could be structured so that all tithing and other donations would stay in Britain -- on condition that it would agree to be financially self sustaining.  Among other advantages, this might provide some relief from the angst over the possibility that British tithing might be used to support  an American “war museum.,”  or -- heaven forbid -- used to commemorate the Utah Mormon pioneers.   As an added bonus, you would be assured of complete financial transparency for all your church finances (per British law) and would never have to worry about any of your donations being used to build a shopping mall.  The British National LDS Church could choose where to invest its funds, or even, whether it should do so. And as a self sustaining financial entity, live with the consequences of its financial decisions.      

[Avatar4321]

I recall Elder Earl Tingey of the 70 coming here and saying they expected that drop, someone said I don't know if it's true but Pres. Hinckley gave a BYU devotional 20 or so years earlier and mentioned using birth control and so couples apparently heeded the message, but who knows

 

I think the drop came largely from Raising the Bar. They did that shortly after I was home.

[Bikeemikey]

Well, I am going to do a quick comparison here. As I say I am (hopefully) moving into a new job soon, so I have practiced using excel. I entered all of the statistics I could into the spreadsheet to compare the membership numbers to the numbers of new wards/stakes. A decade long approach was a good one, so here were the results by continent using the end of year 2013 numbers, and 2003 numbers. (I have a separate one for the US, and I will include it at the end.)

So here is the total membership growth vs the number of new stakes formed. (Much of the growth of stakes in Africa is districts developing more than splitting stakes.) You can see a pattern, and when the percentage of members grows at a much higher rate than the stakes, that indicates there are issues with retention.

As you will see all of this would not happen if numbers of deaths/defections were larger than converts/children of record. (And children of record aren't going to split stakes with their baptisms.)

2003-2013 Africa

Members 203,429 421,892 Increase 52%

Stakes 39;79 50% increase 50%

2003-2013 Asia (Including Oceania)

Members 837,299;1,097,049 Increase 24%

Stakes 142;155 Increase 9%

2003-2013 Australia/NZ and South Pacific

Members 389073;485979 Increase 20%

Stakes 104;155 Increase 22%

2003-2013 Europe (Including Russia)

Members 433,564;494853 Increase 12%

Stakes 104/124 Increase 16%

2003-2013 North America

Members 7,293,651;8,813,168 Increase 17%

Stakes 1,701;1,903 Increase 11%

2003-2013 South America

Members 2,818,099;3,750,800 Increase 25%

Stakes 527:649 Increase 19%

The biggest area where there were huge baptisms, but small growth in stakes was in Asia, which makes up 37% of the total number of Asian members. However, the rest saw increases in units along with membership.

Now I will also show the US. Since I had to learn some new functions of excel, I broke the US into 4 regions. NE, SE, North Central, and West Everything North and East of Pennsylvania, WV, NJ, and DC constitutes the NE. All of the Old Confederacy plus Oklahoma is SE. The Midwest, Great Plains and Rust Belt in North Central. Colorado and everything West is the West. Here is the same breakdown for the last 10 years.

2003-2013 North East

Members 258,328;303,145 Increase 15%

Stakes 54:58 Increase 7%

2003-2013 South East

Members 758,101;979,402 Increase 23%

Stakes 155:183 Increase 15%

2003-2013 North Central

Members 392,122;471,241 Increase 17%

Stakes 94:102 Increase 8%

2003-2013 West

Members 4094641;4,645,101 Increase 12%

Stakes 1,050;1170 Increase 10%

So from this it shows the membership increase are followed by increases in stakes, the one with the most parallel growth in the West. (Not surprising.)

Worldwide 2003-2013

Stakes 2,624;3,050 Increase 14%

Membership 11,985,254;15,082,028 Increase 20%

Now this method is admittedly not without faults, but it is a good gauge of seeing where units are following baptisms, and where retention is the lowest.

Thanks for the numbers.

Do you have any insight on the idea that for the church numbers to be accurate the church would have to have a death rate under 50% of the national average?

Thanks.

[cdowis]

Perhaps we could start with your country.  The British National LDS Church could be structured so that all tithing and other donations would stay in Britain -- on condition that it would agree to be financially self sustaining.  

 

Interesting idea, but I have a few questions:

 

Would this include fast offering and humanitarian funds?!  

 

Does this assume that the church's growth and financial needs would be the same in Europe, for example, as it is in Africa?

 

Or are you suggesting that this policy would be unique to the UK?

 

I don't think this "pay as you go" would work in an expanding church.

Edited May 4, 2014 by cdowis

[Sleeper Cell]

Interesting idea, but I have a few questions:

 

Would this include fast offering and humanitarian funds?!  

 

Does this assume that the church's growth and financial needs would be the same in Europe, for example, as it is in Africa?

 

Or are you suggesting that this policy would be unique to the UK?

 

I don't think this "pay as you go" would work in an expanding church.

 

Probably not.  But if it would make our British/Commonwealth posters happy, why not try it in the UK?    I would include fast offering, but allow donors to the humanitarian fund to designate (or exclude) the country of their choice. 

 

If we believe that tithing is a lesser law to help prepare us to live the law of consecration, why not consider a “lesser” form of tithing to help those who -- rightly or wrongly -- resent the way that a bunch of Americans administer church funds?  As I pointed out, this would protect them from having to worry about whether their tithing goes to fund an “American war museum” or a SLC shopping mall. 

 

I usually enjoy the bantering between our British cousins and us colonial types, even though the British generally get the best of it.  .(Just as I, as a California Mormon convert, enjoy tweaking our Utah cousins re. the “Blessed, Honored Pioneers,” etc)  But as illustrated in recent threads, for some, it has moved beyond good natured bantering.  Some of our posters seem to increasingly  resent what they see as  American “corporate” domination of the Church in general, and Church finances, in particular.  

 

Admittedly, my previous post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but if our present “American Way” of doing things is causing so much resentment, perhaps we ought to allow the UK church to go it alone financially for the next 30 years  -- as an experiment. Allow the “British National LDS Church” to reap the consequences of their financial decisions, instead of backbiting and bemoaning the "corporate America" influence in church affairs.  Perhaps, they will learn something.  Perhaps we Americans will.

[Bikeemikey]

Probably not. But if it would make our British/Commonwealth posters happy, why not try it in the UK? I would include fast offering, but allow donors to the humanitarian fund to designate (or exclude) the country of their choice.

If we believe that tithing is a lesser law to help prepare us to live the law of consecration, why not consider a “lesser” form of tithing to help those who -- rightly or wrongly -- resent the way that a bunch of Americans administer church funds? As I pointed out, this would protect them from having to worry about whether their tithing goes to fund an “American war museum” or a SLC shopping mall.

I usually enjoy the bantering between our British cousins and us colonial types, even though the British generally get the best of it. .(Just as I, as a California Mormon convert, enjoy tweaking our Utah cousins re. the “Blessed, Honored Pioneers,” etc) But as illustrated in recent threads, for some, it has moved beyond good natured bantering. Some of our posters seem to increasingly resent what they see as American “corporate” domination of the Church in general, and Church finances, in particular.

Admittedly, my previous post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but if our present “American Way” of doing things is causing so much resentment, perhaps we ought to allow the UK church to go it alone financially for the next 30 years -- as an experiment. Allow the “British National LDS Church” to reap the consequences of their financial decisions, instead of backbiting and bemoaning the "corporate America" influence in church affairs. Perhaps, they will learn something. Perhaps we Americans will.

As long as the uk saints are allowed to levy a surcharge on all tithes paid by descendants of UK converts that moved to USA during the gathering.

Otherwise it would be a little unfair

[Disciple?]

Maybe 2 million more members.

If we use the growth rate of the young lad from age 13 to 16 and extrapolate to age 50 we get a 15 foot tall human.

Of course , if China were to suddenly open up, all bets are off.

 

The report is that the Government of China tore down a Christian church. It is allegedly because the Government of China is persecuting the Christians. I do not anticipate China opening up anytime soon.

[Sleeper Cell]

As long as the uk saints are allowed to levy a surcharge on all tithes paid by descendants of UK converts that moved to USA during the gathering.

Otherwise it would be a little unfair

 

 I usually enjoy the bantering between our British cousins and us colonial types, even though the British generally get the best of it.  

 

I should have said: “our British and Commonwealth cousins.”    

Edited May 4, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[eddie]

Thanks for the numbers.

Do you have any insight on the idea that for the church numbers to be accurate the church would have to have a death rate under 50% of the national average?

Thanks.

 

Sorry, don't know.

 

 I do know that most members are not "lost" just looking at my own ward directory and the directory where I was on a mission.  The notion that the church tries to pad its stats is simply an internet myth put up by opponents of the church.  With social media etc., people can usually be found pretty easily.

[cdowis]

The report is that the Government of China tore down a Christian church. It is allegedly because the Government of China is persecuting the Christians. I do not anticipate China opening up anytime soon.

 Or, such a dramatic event can cause exactly the opposite effect.  Christianity is becoming more popular and this event could precipitate stiff opposition, especially among the bureaucratic elite.  They had permits to build the church, this church is officially recognized by the government, and the reason given for tearing it down was rather flimsy -- something about building codes.

 

This certainly could have unintended consequences for the government.  It certainly had international attention and an embarrassment for the government.

Edited May 6, 2014 by cdowis

[Avatar4321]

The report is that the Government of China tore down a Christian church. It is allegedly because the Government of China is persecuting the Christians. I do not anticipate China opening up anytime soon.

 

Did anyone in 1987 anticipate that we would be preaching to Russia and the Eastern bloc within a few years?

[eddie]

Thanks for the numbers.

Do you have any insight on the idea that for the church numbers to be accurate the church would have to have a death rate under 50% of the national average?

Thanks.

 

Well, I did a little online research today, and while I am sure this has been discussed (I haven't been a board member long) it answers your question.

 

This research was not done by the LDS church, it was done by the Census of American Religious Congregations.  While not specific to your question, it shines light on the accuracy of the reported numbers.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138365/The-changing-face-religious-America-Number-Muslims-U-S-doubles-9-11-Mormonism-spreads-East-Coast.html

 

A few points here.  People are wondering why the LDS church did not grow at as fast of a rate in 2000-2009 as in did in the 90's, 80's, 70's or 60's.   I don't have the answer, I don't think anyone does for sure.  There are theories, my biggest theory is the drop in missionaries.   The attitudes of society towards religion did not play a huge role in this I don't think, right after 9/11 the US saw the biggest jump in people believing in God.  However, none of that can be said for certain.

 

In any event I just wanted to point out a few concepts from the article/study.

 

Islam grew at the fastest rate of any group during the past decade in the US, but they are smaller than Latter-day Saints.  Mormons claimed the most new adherents, and had around 2 million new members during that time.   Part is the birthrate, but as the article points out, many come from areas not settled by pioneers.    Most other religions lost members.

 

Second thing is these paragraphs. It is quite clear the strategy in the US of assigning missionaries to wards/stakes, working to grow them and the split is effective rather than simply open up new areas with just a few members.  There is strength in numbers, and they are reaching areas they weren't 10 years ago.  The percentage of LDS people in US society is around 2%, in the 1970's it was around 1%/ 

 

 

The religion, whose Utah-based church's formal name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is also spreading into more parts of the country than any other religious group.

 

There are now congregations in 295 counties where they did not exist a decade ago.

Mormonism is now the largest religious body in 115 U.S. counties - 34 more than 10 years ago - and is the fastest growing across 16 states.

 

[Bikeemikey]

Well, I did a little online research today, and while I am sure this has been discussed (I haven't been a board member long) it answers your question.

This research was not done by the LDS church, it was done by the Census of American Religious Congregations. While not specific to your question, it shines light on the accuracy of the reported numbers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138365/The-changing-face-religious-America-Number-Muslims-U-S-doubles-9-11-Mormonism-spreads-East-Coast.html

A few points here. People are wondering why the LDS church did not grow at as fast of a rate in 2000-2009 as in did in the 90's, 80's, 70's or 60's. I don't have the answer, I don't think anyone does for sure. There are theories, my biggest theory is the drop in missionaries. The attitudes of society towards religion did not play a huge role in this I don't think, right after 9/11 the US saw the biggest jump in people believing in God. However, none of that can be said for certain.

In any event I just wanted to point out a few concepts from the article/study.

Islam grew at the fastest rate of any group during the past decade in the US, but they are smaller than Latter-day Saints. Mormons claimed the most new adherents, and had around 2 million new members during that time. Part is the birthrate, but as the article points out, many come from areas not settled by pioneers. Most other religions lost members.

Second thing is these paragraphs. It is quite clear the strategy in the US of assigning missionaries to wards/stakes, working to grow them and the split is effective rather than simply open up new areas with just a few members. There is strength in numbers, and they are reaching areas they weren't 10 years ago. The percentage of LDS people in US society is around 2%, in the 1970's it was around 1%/

Thanks so much for this.

[JAHS]

Here's a visual of Church membership growth projected to 2020 which would total a little over 17 million members assuming the rate of growth is the same as the past ten years.

 

Edited May 7, 2014 by JAHS

[Bikeemikey]

Here's a visual of Church membership growth projected to 2020 which would total a little over 17 million members assuming the rate of growth is the same as the past ten years.

Thanks.