Gray Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 "Children of record added" are those who have been blessed (ie. are on the records of the church) and are then baptised at 8 etc. It isn't the birth rate. https://tech.lds.org/wiki/Child_of_record "A child of record is a child (born to members or converts to the Church) who has not yet reached the age of 9. While the blessing of infants is not a saving ordinance and is not recorded on the Church's records, it is often used as the trigger for recording a birth and creating the new membership record for the child." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/official-numbers-attract-media-interest "The Church creates a membership record when an individual is baptized into the faith. For example, in 2006 there were more than 272,800 convert baptisms. The Church also creates a membership record for a child with the parents’ consent. However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized. The net increase for “children of record” for 2006 was more than 94,000." If I'm reading these statements correctly it looks like children of record are unbaptized children under the age of 9.
rockpond Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 It appears as though 97-99 there was some overlap in the reported numbers. Something went goofy, making it appear many deaths reported in '98 were really from '97 and '99. Our best guess on those years is to add up the three and divide by three. Doing so puts the number in the low 30,000s for each year. Lower, but close to surrounding years. I'm sure part of the problem we're seeing with the last two years would be changes in calculations, or some sort of policy change--like moving away from holding onto records until someone is 110. But the figures are staggering. If we saw these alone and didn't have Elder Cook telling us the number of name removals is much lower than it used to be, we might have to attribute that enormous increase to name removals. But, that theory might be out the window. Yes... good point on averaging out '97-'99... though it is still incredibly low. There is so little that makes sense about the deaths/removals number that I, personally, would have a tough time attributing this year's jump to a big increase in name removals (even in the absence of Elder Cook's comment).
stemelbow Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 https://tech.lds.org/wiki/Child_of_record "A child of record is a child (born to members or converts to the Church) who has not yet reached the age of 9. While the blessing of infants is not a saving ordinance and is not recorded on the Church's records, it is often used as the trigger for recording a birth and creating the new membership record for the child." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/official-numbers-attract-media-interest "The Church creates a membership record when an individual is baptized into the faith. For example, in 2006 there were more than 272,800 convert baptisms. The Church also creates a membership record for a child with the parents’ consent. However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized. The net increase for “children of record” for 2006 was more than 94,000." If I'm reading these statements correctly it looks like children of record are unbaptized children under the age of 9. A little confusing. But I do believe all my children are on record before they turn 8. If they turn 9 and are not baptized, it seems like, the Church drops them. I think, for the most part, the children on record are added, initially, when they are blessed and a record of that is created. So with all my figuring what I did not mention as part of the loss, each year, it seems to me, are those children who were on record, but turned 9 and were not baptized. That would be another interesting stat that I'd love to see.
stemelbow Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Yes... good point on averaging out '97-'99... though it is still incredibly low. There is so little that makes sense about the deaths/removals number that I, personally, would have a tough time attributing this year's jump to a big increase in name removals (even in the absence of Elder Cook's comment). Sure. But there's plenty of noise coming from many people leaving. Their voices, at least for me, stand out and perhaps give me the false impression that there are more leaving than there actually are. Given my perspective, without Elder Cook's address, I might have thought it logical to attribute the increase, at least in part, to name removals.
rockpond Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Sure. But there's plenty of noise coming from many people leaving. Their voices, at least for me, stand out and perhaps give me the false impression that there are more leaving than there actually are. Given my perspective, without Elder Cook's address, I might have thought it logical to attribute the increase, at least in part, to name removals. There is a lot of noise coming from many people leaving. But are they actually resigning their membership formally? I mentioned earlier that we have 27 (of out of 97) families in my ward boundaries who are "do not contacts". They are, for all intents and purposes, not members of the church. But none of them have gone to the effort of removing their names from the church records. Also of note, I know that at least one of those families has had four children during the time that they have been out of the church. None of those children appear on the records. (Just including that as we think about our decreasing birth rate.)
Gray Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 A little confusing. But I do believe all my children are on record before they turn 8. If they turn 9 and are not baptized, it seems like, the Church drops them. I think, for the most part, the children on record are added, initially, when they are blessed and a record of that is created.So with all my figuring what I did not mention as part of the loss, each year, it seems to me, are those children who were on record, but turned 9 and were not baptized. That would be another interesting stat that I'd love to see. Yes, I think that stat is buried somewhere along with deaths/other attrition. Every ward has a list of children (of members) 9 and over who are still not baptized.
stemelbow Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Yes, I think that stat is buried somewhere along with deaths/other attrition. Every ward has a list of children (of members) 9 and over who are still not baptized. Yeah...makes ya wonder what was meant when you read this, "However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized." They're not counted as children of record, or are stricken from the membership rolls?
Gray Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Yeah...makes ya wonder what was meant when you read this, "However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized."They're not counted as children of record, or are stricken from the membership rolls? Good question - I have no idea.
rongo Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Yeah...makes ya wonder what was meant when you read this, "However, children are not counted as members if they turn age 9 and are not baptized."They're not counted as children of record, or are stricken from the membership rolls?Just this week, a student of mine (8th grade) was asking questions about Mormons at the end of a class period. She happens to be on our ward roster (unbaptized, must have been blessed as a baby), but I haven't been able to get our clerks to transfer her records (she doesn't actually live in our ward boundaries any more). Another girl in the class told her she was a Mormon, and she said, "No I'm not!" The girl said, "Your middle name is Mason, isn't it?" and the girl wanted to know how she knew that. She is the Mia Maid class president, and told her that she has her on her attendance roster. I explained to her that she must have been blessed when she was a baby, and she insisted that that was impossible --- that no one in her family or extended family is LDS. She then said, after thinking about it, that she was born someplace called "Orem, Utah," and I told her that *someone* in her family was close enough to the Church to have her blessed as a baby. She was bothered about being Mormon, and I explained to her after class the difference between being blessed and being baptized. The other LDS girl and I both invited her to come to church with us, and she declined. I did give her a "For the Strength of Youth" booklet, though (her questions were about tattooes, Word of Wisdom, dating, etc.) I actually have several out of my 220 students who have LDS connections in their background, but don't know it.
stemelbow Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Just this week, a student of mine (8th grade) was asking questions about Mormons at the end of a class period. She happens to be on our ward roster (unbaptized, must have been blessed as a baby), but I haven't been able to get our clerks to transfer her records (she doesn't actually live in our ward boundaries any more). Another girl in the class told her she was a Mormon, and she said, "No I'm not!" The girl said, "Your middle name is Mason, isn't it?" and the girl wanted to know how she knew that. She is the Mia Maid class president, and told her that she has her on her attendance roster. I explained to her that she must have been blessed when she was a baby, and she insisted that that was impossible --- that no one in her family or extended family is LDS. She then said, after thinking about it, that she was born someplace called "Orem, Utah," and I told her that *someone* in her family was close enough to the Church to have her blessed as a baby. She was bothered about being Mormon, and I explained to her after class the difference between being blessed and being baptized. The other LDS girl and I both invited her to come to church with us, and she declined. I did give her a "For the Strength of Youth" booklet, though (her questions were about tattooes, Word of Wisdom, dating, etc.) I actually have several out of my 220 students who have LDS connections in their background, but don't know it. Cool story, thanks for sharing. I've often wondered how many people out there are Mormon in the Church's eyes, but have no idea.
carbon dioxide Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I mentioned earlier that we have 27 (of out of 97) families in my ward boundaries who are "do not contacts". They are, for all intents and purposes, not members of the church. But none of them have gone to the effort of removing their names from the church records. I wonder how many of them would have their names removed if you went to them with the form and asked them to have their names removed.
rongo Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I wonder how many of them would have their names removed if you went to them with the form and asked them to have their names removed. Hardly any. Seriously. I've tried to force the issue with people who are hostile, threaten legal action, and insist that they never want contact again. I emphasize that I'm not trying to drive them out and don't recommend taking the step, but there is only one way to ensure no further contact, ever. Callings change, people move, and new people will always try to get to know unknown people on the lists, no matter how many post-it notes we leave saying "no contact." Only removing one's name gets the name off of the list, and you have to write a letter. I've explained how to write the simple letter, and assured expedited follow-up up the chain of command. I've only had one person ever do it when this is explained (she was grateful for the help, and had tried to remove her name years before). Another sister requested name removal directly through Salt Lake (we didn't have her records, and Salt Lake sent them, along with a letter to the stake president), and another brother came to church to talk to me about getting his name removed. He wrote the letter then and there, and I signed it as a witness. Everyone else (in my experience) has refused to take the plunge, even while insisting as vociferously as ever not to ever visit them again. I've been a bishop, a counselor twice, an EQP twice, and a WML twice. I am very skeptical about there being high numbers of formal resignations from the Church. There are admittedly a large number of people who do not consider themselves Mormon or who are hostile to the Church but remain on the records. 3
rockpond Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I wonder how many of them would have their names removed if you went to them with the form and asked them to have their names removed. Hardly any. Seriously. I've tried to force the issue with people who are hostile, threaten legal action, and insist that they never want contact again. I emphasize that I'm not trying to drive them out and don't recommend taking the step, but there is only one way to ensure no further contact, ever. Callings change, people move, and new people will always try to get to know unknown people on the lists, no matter how many post-it notes we leave saying "no contact." Only removing one's name gets the name off of the list, and you have to write a letter. I've explained how to write the simple letter, and assured expedited follow-up up the chain of command. I've only had one person ever do it when this is explained (she was grateful for the help, and had tried to remove her name years before). Another sister requested name removal directly through Salt Lake (we didn't have her records, and Salt Lake sent them, along with a letter to the stake president), and another brother came to church to talk to me about getting his name removed. He wrote the letter then and there, and I signed it as a witness. Everyone else (in my experience) has refused to take the plunge, even while insisting as vociferously as ever not to ever visit them again. I've been a bishop, a counselor twice, an EQP twice, and a WML twice. I am very skeptical about there being high numbers of formal resignations from the Church. There are admittedly a large number of people who do not consider themselves Mormon or who are hostile to the Church but remain on the records. We are hesitant (as a bishopric) to make the suggestion to people because of how difficult it is to reverse. I guess I always hold out hope. But those few times when we have gone to these "DNC" members and explained to them how to remove their names... our experiences have been similar to what Rongo described.
Gray Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Shower thought - counting children of record as members for purposes of reporting total membership numbers is like buying something on credit. You don't have the cash to pay for it now, but you hope to be able to do so in the future. I wonder how many unbaptized children under 9 are counted? As many as a million? But none of them are technically members of the church.
Recommended Posts