rockpond Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Does anyone pay much attention to these reports? The reason that I ask is because the numbers argue very heavily AGAINST Elder Holland's prediction of 100,000 missionaries in the field by the end of the decade (or at least, they argue against the wisdom of increasing the number of missionaries). Over the last five years, we've increased the number of missionaries from 50,000 to 80,000 and yet haven't shown any increase in convert baptisms. So if I were trying to convince the members to pony up another 20,000 missionaries, I would NOT cite these numbers in GC. That is, unless I was pretty sure that no one but the 12 of us were really paying much attention to them anyway. In that case, I might throw us a bone because otherwise, we'd have nothing to argue about.Seriously, I don't imagine that many people are keeping track of the numbers year-over-year. I suspect that most saints just listen for the big number (total membership) to see if we've crossed another million milestone (that's what I do). And in fairness, that is the only thing that one can do while hearing an oral report filled with large numbers that are read with exact precision. So I'm not sure there is any real reason to find a new metric (that we will pay just as little attention to).So Scott's countdown clock might run out on you here (but I have your back on the Dehlin clock).I agree that there aren't many people paying significant attention to them but there are some. And there are websites devoted to analyzing LDS data. I pay attention but I'm a statistician and I love playing with data. The list of metrics reported has changed before so it's not hard to imagine it changing again. Additionally, growth rates in nearly all of the metrics have been on the decline. Unless the trend reverses, I think we'll soon reach a point where they'll no longer want all the particulars to be public knowledge. (Like other data that ceased to be reported.)
mormonnewb Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I agree that there aren't many people paying significant attention to them but there are some. And there are websites devoted to analyzing LDS data. I pay attention but I'm a statistician and I love playing with data. The list of metrics reported has changed before so it's not hard to imagine it changing again. Additionally, growth rates in nearly all of the metrics have been on the decline. Unless the trend reverses, I think we'll soon reach a point where they'll no longer want all the particulars to be public knowledge. (Like other data that ceased to be reported.)Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what did they used to report?
Kenngo1969 Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 .... Additionally, growth rates in nearly all of the metrics have been on the decline. Unless the trend reverses, I think we'll soon reach a point where they'll no longer want all the particulars to be public knowledge. (Like other data that ceased to be reported.)I don't doubt what you say (you da expoit, being a statistician, and all ) but I would be interested to know how what's reported in statistical reports has changed over the years. I wonder if there's a source for such information.
rockpond Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what did they used to report? I don't doubt what you say (you da expoit, being a statistician, and all ) but I would be interested to know how what's reported in statistical reports has changed over the years. I wonder if there's a source for such information. Sorry, I forgot to respond to that part of the question...In 2010-2012 they reported the number of church service missionaries (over 20,000 in each of those years).A few years back they ceased reporting the number of missionaries called and continued reporting the total number of missionaries serving. Back in the early 70's it was the opposite... new missionaries called was reported but not total missionary count.Arguably minor changes. I don't see them getting rid of the membership counts, ward counts, or stake counts anytime soon. A statistical report would be odd without those figures. So I think those major ones will stay (including missionaries). But they might depart from some of the breakdown of membership counts such as COR and converts. That additional info allows people to break down the data and realize that we're keeping people on the records for so long that our estimated death rate is roughly half that of the global population.
The Nehor Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Arguably minor changes. I don't see them getting rid of the membership counts, ward counts, or stake counts anytime soon. A statistical report would be odd without those figures. So I think those major ones will stay (including missionaries). But they might depart from some of the breakdown of membership counts such as COR and converts. That additional info allows people to break down the data and realize that we're keeping people on the records for so long that our estimated death rate is roughly half that of the global population. I blame the dead people. If they would just be more considerate and tell us they are dead we could clean up the records a bit. 2
cinepro Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I don't doubt what you say (you da expoit, being a statistician, and all ) but I would be interested to know how what's reported in statistical reports has changed over the years. I wonder if there's a source for such information. Page 7 of this report, for starters.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 My prediction is that in the wake of internet analysis, they'll begin scaling back which numbers are reported... Maybe not at this conference but within the next few years. A good definition of few is more than two, but not many. Would you care to put a definite number to that -- or at least a range? Will I get a countdown clock on your phone also? I'd say that by five reports from now the same metrics will no longer be reported (using April 2014 as baseline). I'll include this weekend as one of those five. So the deadline is the April 2019 report. Specifically, I think they'll remove some of the current metrics and possibly add new ones. If I were to place a bet on a new one that could be added, it might have something to do with temple work... perhaps names submitted or something along those lines. Would you like one? It would be an honor. And we can almost certainly count on you being alive for the final seconds of this one. (Though I'm still hoping you'll be alive when the Dehlin clock winds down.) OK. I'll start the clock tomorrow when the statistical report is read.Just so you know, I started the timer today.
rockpond Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Just so you know, I started the timer today. Awesome. Coincidentally, I just posted my analysis of this year's report.
Teancum Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Last I heard roughly half the members of the Church were active. When I was on my mission we would be in wards with a 15% activity rate as many missionaries before I came out baptized the unready. I remember in my first area we went out looking for some of the less active and had a discussion with the Ward Mission Leader. If I remember correctly he said: "About 4 years back missionaries came through and would baptize loads of people and, with all due respect, they were a load of nutters." I met a lot of them. The majority were, in fact, nutters. I felt bad for the home teachers. In other areas I have seen 75%+ activity rates. The number is not meaningless. I just think of it as those who have made covenants and assume about half of them are actively trying to keep them. That is what the leadership knows. It is not a bragging point. It is a number. I suspect that we are not much better or much worse then other dispensations in this regard.a friend is an MP in South America. He has wards with 1000 members on the roles with 30 attending. You do the math.
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 a friend is an MP in South America. He has wards with 1000 members on the roles with 30 attending. You do the math. Home teaching would not be fun in that area.
Avatar4321 Posted April 5, 2015 Author Posted April 5, 2015 Home teaching would not be fun in that area. Wouldn't be too bad. Just need to prioritize. Might take some time but reaching out to everyone should be doable.
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Wouldn't be too bad. Just need to prioritize. Might take some time but reaching out to everyone should be doable. Doubt it. I know in areas of my mission they had to adapt a tiered plan for Home Teaching to make it work. Everyone who feels the need for Home Teachers or is active got visited every month. Those who are receptive but not eager got visited every 3 months. Those who did not appear to want to be visited got contacted twice a year to check in. Only way to make it work when every Home Teaching companionship ended up with about two dozen families each.
Mike Reed Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Contrary to what Mike Reed has (ahem) "suspected," I don't anticipate it will fall back down to pre-surge levels. (In the interest of fairness, I'll point out that Mike would not define how far it would fall, though he did say he "suspects" the decrease would come in "the next two or three years.")Again... Lloyd, I am so flattered that you (a Deseret News columnist--you still work for them, right?) seem to think that my "suspicion" is such worthy news, that you regurgitate it ad nausium. But for clarity sake, and to be more precise (accurate reporting is of value to you, is it not? I would hope so.)... you actually recently insisted that I clarify to you whether my "prediction" (as you called it) pertained to pre or post surge levels, but then I wittingly declined to do so. That is, I declined to clarify, wittingly with witty wit (<--is that a Hebraism?), rather enjoying the irony that you had even made such a demand, while simultaneously claiming that I was making room for rationalization. The irony was too rich to pass the opportunity to underscore such... (ahem) drivel. Edited April 8, 2015 by Mike Reed
Pahoran Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 It would be an honor. And we can almost certainly count on you being alive for the final seconds of this one. (Though I'm still hoping you'll be alive when the Dehlin clock winds down.) If I thought Mister Dehlin actually cared about his prediction, I'd hope he'd be alive to see it fall flat, too. But I don't think he really cares about anything except seeing his name in print, so I'm sure he won't be at all fussed. But some of those who have hitched their wagon to his ill-considered populist ideology are going to be a bit disappointed. Sorry. Regards, Pahoran
rockpond Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 But I don't think he really cares about anything except seeing his name in print, so I'm sure he won't be at all fussed. This statement only serves to demonstrate your ignorance about Dehlin. Get to know the man before you make conclusions about him. 1
Pahoran Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) This statement only serves to demonstrate your ignorance about Dehlin. Get to know the man before you make conclusions about him. Hey, I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't know about Mister Dehlin. When it comes to that, there are undoubtedly things I don't know about his fellow apostates in this forum. Likewise, there are a great many things you don't know about LDS belief and practice. But that doesn't stop you from opining about them. Regards, Pahoran Edited April 8, 2015 by Pahoran
rockpond Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Hey, I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't know about Mister Dehlin.When it comes to that, there are undoubtedly things I don't know about his fellow apostates in this forum.Likewise, there are a great many things you don't know about LDS belief and practice.But that doesn't stop you from opining about them.Regards,Pahoran We all share our opinions on these threads (right, wrong, and in-between) but I refrain from libel of other individuals. 1
Recommended Posts