Declining Interest In Mormonism

[Teancum]

Yes, and that's a very disturbing case of oversight. When the Pope uses Twitter more effectively... what's the world coming to?

 

Actually, I use the phrase "God invented [item]" as a general meme.  I wouldn't read too much into it, Teancum.

 

 

I know. I was having some fun with you back.

 

But honestly this Pope seems to be doing a lot that is more effective than the LDS leadership currently. We need President Hinckley back.

[Teancum]

I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. It could be the search for the sensational or a more simple attitude like: "I know all I'm ever going to want to know about that and am not going to "ask the Internet" again."

 

 

Or that most people find Mormonism rather unimportant, banal and boring as compared to what they are trying to do with their every day lives?

[cinepro]

Then there's this. Comparing Jehovah's Witnesses (Olive Green), Scientology (Royal Blue), Seventh-Day Adventist (Kelly Green), LDS (Purple) and "Mormon" (aqua-blue):

 

(July 2012 = Tom Cruise Divorce)







http://www.wikipediatrends.com/?query[]=Jehovah%27s%20Witnesses&query[]=Scientology&query[]=Seventh-day%20Adventist%20Church&query[]=The%20Church%20of%20Jesus%20Christ%20of%20Latter-day%20Saints

Edited September 18, 2015 by cinepro

[canard78]

You are the one making the short term, unverified assertions about the trends. I couldn't care less whether the interest in Mormonism is growing or waning. You have yet to deal with my primary points:

The problem with this sort of random thing is that history is oscillatory and unpredictable, and that most cycles are not so short that relatively few data points really mean anything. We need a better research design than canard has given us. We need to see whether other sets of data falsify or confirm what he thinks he is seeing. Especially over the long term.

You may happily go your way without further consideration, but I am thinking of climate trends, sunspot cycles, economic cycles, etc., none of which tell us anything over such short periods as you have displayed for us.

Here, for example, are serious studies of the sort I would like to see: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ .

For someone who couldn't care less about the fluctuations in interest levels in Mormonism you're sure getting worked up about it.

If you care so little why are you still on this thread?

I had a look at the website you looked at. Very interesting.

Your comparison to sunspots and climate trends is an odd one. Those are cycles of nature. Human interest and trends are much more independent and variable. In my industry a 12-24month declining trend after several years previous of increase is significant. You can grumble about it not being so, but like I keep saying, without any counter-evidence you're lacking credibility.

[Guest]

All faiths and denominations are in lead or lag...regardless of this the scriptures all warn that in the last days, "men's heart will fail this"...that they will become,"boastful, truce-breakers and the like". People loosing faith and loosing interest in faith is the one true measuring rod that God's coming again is soon at hand.

[Robert F. Smith]

For someone who couldn't care less about the fluctuations in interest levels in Mormonism you're sure getting worked up about it.

If you care so little why are you still on this thread?

I had a look at the website you looked at. Very interesting.

Your comparison to sunspots and climate trends is an odd one. Those are cycles of nature. Human interest and trends are much more independent and variable. In my industry a 12-24month declining trend after several years previous of increase is significant. You can grumble about it not being so, but like I keep saying, without any counter-evidence you're lacking credibility.

I'm not grumbling about anything other than your linear thinking, which is not dispositive of anything.  I spent several years in a Cycles Studies Group looking at everything from lake varves and glacial cores to war cycles, and we smoothed the data to eliminate spikes, but none of us ever thought that a 12 to 24 month trend was actually significant.  Indeed, one of the commonest reasons for political and industrial failure is such short-term thinking.

 

Humans are mammals (animals) and part of nature.  That you would think of them as outside of nature can only bring guffaws.

[Robert F. Smith]

Or that most people find Mormonism rather unimportant, banal and boring as compared to what they are trying to do with their every day lives?

I'd like to see the actual data on which that notion is predicated.  So far, canard has not provided us an adequate research design which tells us whether the data sets selected verify or falsify the conclusions.  We would be as well informed were we to consider Hannah Arendt's take on "the banality of evil."  Is evil banal in most persons' eyes, or in the eyes of some intellectual elite, or is it banal in fact?  And is all that glitters not gold?  What do careful, scientific sampling techniques show us when closely examining this or that lifestyle?  Canard gives us some Wikipedia and Google trends.  Might he be better advised to refer to Wolframalpha at http://www.wolframalpha.com/ in order to do his computations and present meaningful data sets?

[cinepro]

I know. I was having some fun with you back.

 

But honestly this Pope seems to be doing a lot that is more effective than the LDS leadership currently. We need President Hinckley back.

Heck, I'd settle for having President Monson back.

[canard78]

I'm not grumbling about anything other than your linear thinking, which is not dispositive of anything. I spent several years in a Cycles Studies Group looking at everything from lake varves and glacial cores to war cycles, and we smoothed the data to eliminate spikes, but none of us ever thought that a 12 to 24 month trend was actually significant. Indeed, one of the commonest reasons for political and industrial failure is such short-term thinking.

Humans are mammals (animals) and part of nature. That you would think of them as outside of nature can only bring guffaws.

So you think the levels of interest in and engagement with a single brand or organisation among humans is like the cycles of the sun and the weather? Utter nonsense. In case you missed it, humans and the rest of nature have a fundamental difference: a brain that works in ways that nothing else in nature does.

The data set provided is huge. Google and Wikipedia are the top two information/search websites in the world (excepting only Baidu, the Chinese search engine). Their data set dwarfs many others. In the world of big data, they offer some of the biggest.

The opening post and title is purely factual and, despite your reluctance to accept it, simply a reflection of reality.

Does that mean the trend will continue downwards? Not necessarily. I'm not saying that Mormomonism is crashing or doomed or on an unrecoverable downward spiral. I'm stating facts. Like I've already stated, search data is a surrogate. Its representative of the wider personal questions and wonderings people are having.

The data shows that fewer people are seeking information about Joseph Smith/Mormons/The Church of (etc). That's not up for debate. You might argue that the data set isn't big enough, but you can't argue that in the last 12 months there has not been a decrease in online interest/search in Mormonism.

Mormonism is a brand. It has a multi-million PR and advertising campaign. The New Testament video production project (just as one example) was specifically designed to reach out to the rest of the Christian world. It had a $multi-million budget. There are TV ads, search optimisation, social media campaigns, PR events etc etc... (and of course the 80,000+ full time promotional team out on the streets and doorsteps along with the encouraged advocacy of the 5million or so active members).

The data shows that the combined effect of that out reach was more effective a few years ago that it has been recently. It shows that fewer people are responding and seeking further information.

And of course it's entirely possible that the recent downward curve could be reversed and pushed towards an upward trend by any number of influences. I've never said anywhere in this thread that this downward trend represents the beginning of the end for Mormonism, but the data still stands and speaks for itself. Whether you think it's something to worry about is your choice and interpretation. Either way, the data still sits in front of you.

If you can provide a different data set that shows interest in the last couple of years has been going the other direction, please feel free to offer it for consideration.

[Teancum]

I'd like to see the actual data on which that notion is predicated. So far, canard has not provided us an adequate research design which tells us whether the data sets selected verify or falsify the conclusions. We would be as well informed were we to consider Hannah Arendt's take on "the banality of evil." Is evil banal in most persons' eyes, or in the eyes of some intellectual elite, or is it banal in fact? And is all that glitters not gold? What do careful, scientific sampling techniques show us when closely examining this or that lifestyle? Canard gives us some Wikipedia and Google trends. Might he be better advised to refer to Wolframalpha at http://www.wolframalpha.com/ in order to do his computations and present meaningful data sets?

I was simply speculating. I know where I live there are not many Mormons. Where I work I am the only one out of a few hundred persons and have been all of one or two Mormons in the work place my entire career. But almost always the only one. My experience is people really are not interesred in the LDS church. Even when I was a more missionary oriented member the only way a conversation came about Mormonism up is when I initiated it and it was usually short lived. That was somewhat different during the Romney presidential bid or if there was something else in the news about the church.

As for current missionary work the results where I live are dismal and have been for many years. Our mission baptized maybe 180 to 200 per year. 30 plus years ago it was at least 800 per year. Most the converts are poor,single and more on the lower socioeconomic scale. Most don't stick long. Rarely if ever do you see a family join. Our stake has had 0 net growth in 25 years. The same is true for all the stakes in our temple district. I live in the eastern part of the USA.

I know this anecdotal. But my guess is at least for much of the USA and Canada this is the case. This does not speak to a great interest in Mormonism. Most people just don't think much about it one way or the other.

Edited to add....there were a few times in my work and social life where I was approached by a few people. It was by various evangelical Christians who once they knew I was Mormon wanted to tell me how evil it was and to save me fro. It's clutches and from hell.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

I was simply speculating. I know where I live there are not many Mormons. Where I work I am the only one out of a few hundred persons and have been all of one or two Mormons in the work place my entire career. But almost always the only one. My experience is people really are not interesred in the LDS church. Even when I was a more missionary oriented member the only way a conversation came about Mormonism up is when I initiated it and it was usually short lived. That was somewhat different during the Romney presidential bid or if there was something else in the news about the church.

As for current missionary work the results where I live are dismal and have been for many years. Our mission baptized maybe 180 to 200 per year. 30 plus years ago it was at least 800 per year. Most the converts are poor,single and more on the lower socioeconomic scale. Most don't stick long. Rarely if ever do you see a family join. Our stake has had 0 net growth in 25 years. The same is true for all the stakes in our temple district. I live in the eastern part of the USA.

I know this anecdotal. But my guess is at least for much of the USA and Canada this is the case. This does not speak to a great interest in Mormonism. Most people just don't think much about it one way or the other.

Edited to add....there were a few times in my work and social life where I was approached by a few people. It was by various evangelical Christians who once they knew I was Mormon wanted to tell me how evil it was and to save me fro. It's clutches and from hell.

I agree that what you say is largely anecdotal, and we could include Germany, Denmark, and many other areas with similar recent impressions.  What those impressions lack is time depth and perspective.  When you recall past baptism rates, you provide depth, and some indication that the LDS Church may have seen huge growth rates in the past.  Was that always the case in the past?  Or did such growth come in spurts, followed by eras of consolidation?  Is that sort of oscillatory performance to be expected in some areas?

 

Being notorious and constantly in the news may be part of PR success.  You have surely heard that Hollywood stars don't care what you say about them, only that you spell their name right.  Along such lines, Ed Decker once came out with an infamous video on Mormonism ("The God Makers") which he and others sought to show widely in various areas.  For example, evangelicals blanketed the Phoenix, Arizona, area with his video attacking the Church.  Result:  Greatly increased LDS baptism rates in that area.  Why?  Probably due to the increased interest produced by the Decker video.  The work of Jerald & Sandra Tanner had a similar boomerang effect.

[Robert F. Smith]

So you think the levels of interest in and engagement with a single brand or organisation among humans is like the cycles of the sun and the weather? Utter nonsense. In case you missed it, humans and the rest of nature have a fundamental difference: a brain that works in ways that nothing else in nature does.

The data set provided is huge. Google and Wikipedia are the top two information/search websites in the world (excepting only Baidu, the Chinese search engine). Their data set dwarfs many others. In the world of big data, they offer some of the biggest.

The opening post and title is purely factual and, despite your reluctance to accept it, simply a reflection of reality.

........................................................................................

The data shows that the combined effect of that out reach was more effective a few years ago that it has been recently. It shows that fewer people are responding and seeking further information......................................

..............................................................

Because your raw data was presented without benefit of time depth or scientific sampling techniques, it does not compare past outreach and basically tells us nothing.  A more sophisticated presentation might actually come to grips with reality.  For example, in a recent personal message, TheSkepticChristian called to my attention the constant decline in world agricultural production since 1999, and even provided a graph showing it.  However, the raw data had no value in the absence of other considerations (world population growth, per capita consumption, etc.) and some real time depth.  What does one find when one takes a scientific look, in depth?

 

The USDA says that 

 

U.S. total farm production more than doubled between 1948 and 2011. Agricultural output growth was mainly driven by productivity growth, with little contribution from total agricultural inputs growth. The United States ranks first in world arable land area and third in world population. In 2012, the U.S. agricultural exports accounted for nearly 12 percent of world exports and its agricultural imports accounted for nearly 9 percent of the world's total imports. Because the United States is one of the world’s largest producers and consumers of agricultural commodities, sustained growth of U.S. agricultural productivity is critical to both domestic and global food security. If U.S. agricultural productivity growth fails to keep pace with increasing global food demand, this could lead to rising food prices and may put pressure on low-income households as they spend a greater share of their income on food.

 

Productivity can be measured based on a single factor, such as yield (total crop production per unit of land) or labor productivity (total production per unit of labor). However, single factor productivity measures are sensitive to changes in the use of other inputs and do not necessarily reflect overall technological advancement. For example, yield and labor productivity can both increase as more fertilizer and pesticides are used, even in the absence of improved production techniques. The USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) has monitored the farm sector’s productivity performance for decades and was the first federal agency to routinely publish statistics based on a broad agricultural productivity measure that reflects all inputs—total factor productivity (TFP). Annual TFP growth is the difference between growth of agricultural output and growth of all inputs taken together, thus isolating changes in productivity from changes in the overall use of inputs.

 

According to newly revised and updated productivity statistics, U.S. agricultural output grew at an average annual rate of nearly 1.5 percent from 1948 to 2011. With total input use growing an average of less than 0.1 percent per year, TFP growth, at an annual average rate of slightly more than 1.4 percent, accounted for most of the increase in U.S. agricultural output. While aggregate input growth has been relatively stable over this period, the composition of agricultural inputs has shifted. Between 1948 and 2011, labor use declined by 78 percent (at an average annual rate of -2.4 percent); land input dropped by 26 percent (at an average annual rate of -0.5 percent); while consumption of intermediate goods, such as energy, agricultural chemicals, purchased services, seed and feed, grew by 140 percent (1.3 percent per year); and capital (excluding land) increased by 65 percent (0.8 percent per year).*

 

And that is just a summary of Sun Ling Wang and Eldon Ball, “Agricultural Productivity Growth in the United States: 1948-2011,” USDA Economic Research Service, Feb 3, 2014, online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-januaryfebruary/agricultural-productivity-growth-in-the-united-states-1948-2011.aspx#.Vf2aRN9VhBc .

 

Yet, TheSkepticChristian suggested a decline since 1999.  Was he wrong?  Not at all, but his comments did lack depth.  Here is a summary from the world Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO):

 

In recent years the growth rates of world agricultural production and crop yields have slowed. This has raised fears that the world may not be able to grow enough food and other commodities to ensure that future populations are adequately fed.

 

However, the slowdown has occurred not because of shortages of land or water but rather because demand for agricultural products has also slowed. This is mainly because world population growth rates have been declining since the late 1960s, and fairly high levels of food consumption per person are now being reached in many countries, beyond which further rises will be limited. But it is also the case that a stubbornly high share of the world's population remains in absolute poverty and so lacks the necessary income to translate its needs into effective demand.

 

As a result, the growth in world demand for agricultural products is expected to fall from an average 2.2 percent a year over the past 30 years to 1.5 percent a year for the next 30. In developing countries the slowdown will be more dramatic, from 3.7 percent to 2 percent, partly as a result of China having passed the phase of rapid growth in its demand for food.

 

This study suggests that world agricultural production can grow in line with demand, provided that the necessary national and international policies to promote agriculture are put in place. Global shortages are unlikely, but serious problems already exist at national and local levels and may worsen unless focused efforts are made.

 

Massive strides have been made in improving food security. The proportion of people living in developing countries with average food intakes below 2 200 kcal per day fell from 57 percent in 1964-66 to just 10 percent in 1997-99. Yet 776 million people in developing countries remain undernourished -about one person in six.

 

FAO Executive Report on World Agriculture, online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e03.htm .

 

Note how carefully nuanced these scientific reports are made.  Surface impressions turn out to be far from accurate.

[TheSkepticChristian]

All faiths and denominations are in lead or lag...regardless of this the scriptures all warn that in the last days, "men's heart will fail this"...that they will become,"boastful, truce-breakers and the like". People loosing faith and loosing interest in faith is the one true measuring rod that God's coming again is soon at hand.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeh, but wherever did you get that graph?
 
Also, could we have other data presented simultaneously?  Say, for example, the actual number of convert baptisms, number of baptisms BIC (both on the vertical scale), and the number of missionaries deployed.
 
Edited to add 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

 

Because your raw data was presented without benefit of time depth or scientific sampling techniques, it does not compare past outreach and basically tells us nothing.  A more sophisticated presentation might actually come to grips with reality.  For example, in a recent personal message, TheSkepticChristian called to my attention the constant decline in world agricultural production since 1999, and even provided a graph showing it.  However, the raw data had no value in the absence of other considerations (world population growth, per capita consumption, etc.) and some real time depth.  What does one find when one takes a scientific look, in depth?

 

The USDA says that 

 

-.SNIP -

 

Note how carefully nuanced these scientific reports are made.  Surface impressions turn out to be far from accurate.

 

 

And yet, what you fail to understand is that Google and Wikipedia is scientific and reliable. That's the finding of my company's in depth, comprehensive multi-country analysis.

 

Your inability to provide counter data points and elaborate diversionary approach of irrelevant farming data makes it look like you're just blustering.

[Robert F. Smith]

And yet, what you fail to understand is that Google and Wikipedia is scientific and reliable. That's the finding of my company's in depth, comprehensive multi-country analysis.

 

Your inability to provide counter data points and elaborate diversionary approach of irrelevant farming data makes it look like you're just blustering.

There was nothing scientific about the raw Google and Wikipedia data, nor in its presentation.  You did nothing to present the data in a carefully nuanced context with adequate depth in time.  I provided you with excellent examples of scientific presentation of agricultural data from the world and the USA which demonstrated how claims of decline or growth depend very much on perspective.

 

At least TheSkepticChristian presented good time depth and real perspective, which makes your short-term claims look rather silly.  However, I want a source and further data before drawing meaningful conclusions.

[canard78]

There was nothing scientific about the raw Google and Wikipedia data, nor in its presentation.  You did nothing to present the data in a carefully nuanced context with adequate depth in time.  I provided you with excellent examples of scientific presentation of agricultural data from the world and the USA which demonstrated how claims of decline or growth depend very much on perspective.

 

At least TheSkepticChristian presented good time depth and real perspective, which makes your short-term claims look rather silly.  However, I want a source and further data before drawing meaningful conclusions.

 

In that case stop compaining and find another source.

 

I'm comfortable with the source and conclusions. Your continuous attempts at distraction from the actual topic by loading in irrelevant data and irrelevant topics shows you've nothing of actual substance to offer to the question of whether interest in Mormonism is declining or not. I've provided evidence that it is. You've provided nothing but attempts at distractions.

 

More depth in time? Our company uses data like this (amongst other sources) to evaluate brand/organisation interest and engagement over 6-12 months. 5+ years is more than enough time.

 

What are your credentials in this topic Robert? Why should I think you have any real idea what you're talking about? Do you have any experience in brand tracking? Media campaign evaluation? Communications response measurement? Anything at all? Being able to dig out studies about solar spots and agriculture suggests you don't actually know much about consumer response and brand engagement.

[Robert F. Smith]

In that case stop compaining and find another source.

 

I'm comfortable with the source and conclusions. Your continuous attempts at distraction from the actual topic by loading in irrelevant data and irrelevant topics shows you've nothing of actual substance to offer to the question of whether interest in Mormonism is declining or not. I've provided evidence that it is. You've provided nothing but attempts at distractions.

 

More depth in time? Our company uses data like this (amongst other sources) to evaluate brand/organisation interest and engagement over 6-12 months. 5+ years is more than enough time.

 

What are your credentials in this topic Robert? Why should I think you have any real idea what you're talking about? Do you have any experience in brand tracking? Media campaign evaluation? Communications response measurement? Anything at all? Being able to dig out studies about solar spots and agriculture suggests you don't actually know much about consumer response and brand engagement.

Well, if you are comfortable, canard, that says it all.  If your conscience is clear then you can surely sleep at nite, and that is what matters.  Still, I have this disquieting feeling that, if you are a hammer, then everything looks like a nail . . .  I hope that's not you, canard.

 

No, I am not a PR-man, and have not been in that business -- thankfully -- although my friend John Tvedtnes once did a stint in advertizing up in SLC.  Yeh, I am completely unqualified to discuss consumer response and brand engagement.

[canard78]

Well, if you are comfortable, canard, that says it all.  If your conscience is clear then you can surely sleep at nite, and that is what matters.  Still, I have this disquieting feeling that, if you are a hammer, then everything looks like a nail . . .  I hope that's not you, canard.

 

No, I am not a PR-man, and have not been in that business -- thankfully -- although my friend John Tvedtnes once did a stint in advertizing up in SLC.  Yeh, I am completely unqualified to discuss consumer response and brand engagement.

 

Well, to coin a phrase, that says it all Robert. You frequently chide others for commenting on Mesoamerican archaeology or Egyptology without knowing what they're really talking about.  You said as much to Hagoth and I on a recent Book of Mormon archaeology thread.

 

And yet despite the fact that I've been working with this sort of data for well over a decade you're still asking questions about clear consciences. No Robert, not everything I see is a nail. In fact, I've frequently critiqued survey/research data about Mormonism, even when its conclusions are negative. The Dehlin data, for example, about why Mormons leave is a data set I've consistently dismissed as relatively meaningless and low quality. There are others that have come up over the years that I've been willing to call foul on when needed.

 

I'm not even sure why you've made some a big deal out of this. What hammer have I used? Re-read the OP. I offered up the data set without hammering any nails or pushing any agenda. Why are you so offended by this data? Google and Wikipedia is an excellent source of data measuring consumer response and brand engagement. The meeting I had earlier this week was with a senior researcher at a multi-$billion blue-chip global company. This data set is one of their biggest priorities this year. I am well aware that in the academic world there is some scepticism about whether something as apparently trivial as internet search data can be meaningful. The pilots, studies and statistical models say otherwise.

 

Mormonism is a brand and measuring the masses' interest and engagement with it is a reasonable thing to do over both the long and short term. I'd readily agree with you that a 12-month decline in engagement with Mormonism is relatively short term. But it's still a decline. That could be soon reversed, I'm not saying it's only going to continue declining.

[bcuzbcuz]

I admit of the 15 million worldwide members, only about 5 million actually show up for sacrament meetings. Those numbers aren't good.

Just like many couples renew their vows and re-commit through a repeat marriage ceremony, I think the church should encourage re-baptism ceremonies to renew vows to the church.

[Stargazer]

Your comparison to sunspots and climate trends is an odd one. Those are cycles of nature. Human interest and trends are much more independent and variable. In my industry a 12-24month declining trend after several years previous of increase is significant. You can grumble about it not being so, but like I keep saying, without any counter-evidence you're lacking credibility.

Cycles of nature affect a lot of things. On a microcosmic scale, and I'm sorry to be indelicate, the natural cycle of women's fertility affect those who interact with them, and when it comes to the cycle of seasons, this affects trends over wide areas, and finally sunspots have a great deal to do with climate trends -- as indicators of solar activity changes. A period of exceptionally low annual sunspot count, the Maunder Minimum, for example, coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age from 1645 and 1715 (whether there was a causal relationship is unclear). This affected a lot of things, including crops, and would affect all kinds of other things in respect of human activity and attitudes.

I wonder if we should check out if there is a climatic relationship respecting Church growth?

[thesometimesaint]

Cycles of nature affect a lot of things. On a microcosmic scale, and I'm sorry to be indelicate, the natural cycle of women's fertility affect those who interact with them, and when it comes to the cycle of seasons, this affects trends over wide areas, and finally sunspots have a great deal to do with climate trends -- as indicators of solar activity changes. A period of exceptionally low annual sunspot count, the Maunder Minimum, for example, coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age from 1645 and 1715 (whether there was a causal relationship is unclear). This affected a lot of things, including crops, and would affect all kinds of other things in respect of human activity and attitudes.

I wonder if we should check out if there is a climatic relationship respecting Church growth?

 

While sunspot activities effect on earths climate is not well understood, it is a very small effect.

SEE http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

 

What we don't know for sure, but are increasingly certain of it that the so call little Ice Age was a regional and not world wide event.

SEE https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[canard78]

Cycles of nature affect a lot of things. On a microcosmic scale, and I'm sorry to be indelicate, the natural cycle of women's fertility affect those who interact with them, and when it comes to the cycle of seasons, this affects trends over wide areas, and finally sunspots have a great deal to do with climate trends -- as indicators of solar activity changes. A period of exceptionally low annual sunspot count, the Maunder Minimum, for example, coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age from 1645 and 1715 (whether there was a causal relationship is unclear). This affected a lot of things, including crops, and would affect all kinds of other things in respect of human activity and attitudes.

I wonder if we should check out if there is a climatic relationship respecting Church growth?

If you found then it could probably be added to this list of spurious correlations.

Correlation is not causality.

[Stargazer]

While sunspot activities effect on earths climate is not well understood, it is a very small effect.

SEE http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

 

What we don't know for sure, but are increasingly certain of it that the so call little Ice Age was a regional and not world wide event.

SEE https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Your first sentence could be used as an example of self-contradictory statements.

If the effect is not well understood, it cannot be concluded that the effect is very small. One of the classic blunders, like conducting a land war in Asia, or worse, going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

I wasn't trying to go beyond established science, tss.

If you found then it could probably be added to this list of spurious correlations.

Correlation is not causality.

I've stated this correlation/causality duality many times myself here on this forum, but I hasten to remind you that while it may be true about correlation and causality, correlation can be one of the evidences of causality.

[canard78]

I've stated this correlation/causality duality many times myself here on this forum, but I hasten to remind you that while it may be true about correlation and causality, correlation can be one of the evidences of causality.

Of course it can. We use correlation analysis at work all the time. But only when a causation is reasonably expected in the first place. Nicholas Cage films have nothing to do with pool deaths (see link above).

Climate change has nothing to do with levels of interest in Mormonism.

You weren't being serious though I'm guessing? There's no reasonable hypothesis why the climate would make a difference.