1 Million Members Have Left Over Gay Marriage????

[bluebell]

The figure that is read in conference reflects what's on the records of the Church. Everyone knows that -- or they should -- so it's not dishonest to give it.

To the Church's credit, we do not write people off just because they have stopped coming to meetings.

I realize that. Stem and I are talking about those members who less active.

[stemelbow]

I would be very surprised if it didn't.

 

Again, it reflects the number who are on the records of the Church.

It has to include them. I once figured how many had died, had their names removed or were ex'd based on the reported numbers. The percentage of total membership for that figure has increased over the past 10 years. And this past year was by far the largest.

2005 0.41%

2006 0.46%

2007 0.36%

2008 0.55%

2009 0.60%

2010 0.61%

2011 0.63%

2012 0.36%

2013 0.66%

2014 0.80%

I've been trying to determine what that means. Looking forward to 2015s report.

Edited October 21, 2015 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

It has to include them. I once figured how many had died, had their names removed or were ex'd based on the reported numbers. The percentage of total membership for that figure has increased over the past 10 years. And this past year was by far the largest.

2005 0.41%

2006 0.46%

2007 0.36%

2008 0.55%

2009 0.60%

2010 0.61%

2011 0.63%

2012 0.36%

2013 0.66%

2014 0.80%

I've been trying to determine what that means. Looking forward to 2015s report.

 

It could reflect the aging of baby boomers. Anecdotally, I do think there are more resignations these days than there were in the past, but it's still probably just a very small percentage. 

[JAHS]

I would be very surprised if it didn't.

 

Again, it reflects the number who are on the records of the Church.

At Conference they usually report increase of children of record. Even though they are not baptised members Is that number included in total membership number? Sometimes those children never get baptised. 

[stemelbow]

It could reflect the aging of baby boomers. Anecdotally, I do think there are more resignations these days than there were in the past, but it's still probably just a very small percentage.

Sure. And it may just be an anomaly. 2007 and 2012 were .36% which seem like low outliers. .8% could be a high outlier. I think the Church still has the policy of keeping members on record if no other notice, until they are 110 years old. It's possible there was some purging in 2014.

[jkwilliams]

Sure. And it may just be an anomaly. 2007 and 2012 were .36% which seem like low outliers. .8% could be a high outlier. I think the Church still has the policy of keeping members on record if no other notice, until they are 110 years old. It's possible there was some purging in 2014.

 

Hard to say. I'm convinced that, as long as the teaching process leading to baptism continues to be very brief (especially in some countries), retention is going to be a big problem in the church. 

[stemelbow]

At Conference they usually report increase of children of record. Even though they are not baptised members Is that number included in total membership number? Sometimes those children never get baptised.

here's how I determined the percentage, I mentioned:

I took the Children on Record (COR) plus the number of convert baptisms (CB). Then I subtract the difference from current year membership (CY) and the previous year membership(PY).

This gave me the resulting number in change in membership from year to year. I figured that difference was a combination of those who died, were excommunicated, and had their names removed (DENr).

So: (COR-CB)-(CY-PY)=DENr

DENr/CY gave me the percentage of that number (DENr) for that year's membership.

[stemelbow]

Hard to say. I'm convinced that, as long as the teaching process leading to baptism continues to be very brief (especially in some countries), retention is going to be a big problem in the church.

Fair point. I tend to think as long as we expect new members to conform to the LDS culture and paradigm we'll continue to see increasing retention problems. We need to be better at letting people bring themselves to the fold. Less Pharisaic and more spirited.

[Thinking]

To the Church's credit, we do not write people off just because they have stopped coming to meetings.

 

I agree with this.

 

I have no problem with the church keeping track of its members or giving the statistical report in GC. It's the news reports that are released by the LDS Newsroom that say things like "the 15-million member CoJCoLDS." It's as if the large number validates the truth claims.

[Meadowchik]

Great point. Mormons have a very unique situation when it comes to defining marriage as a religion and dealing with civil law. It seems people outside the church see it easier than people inside the church. I remember a person holding up a sign protesting the church's involvement in passing Prop 8. It said "Brigham Young had 56 marriages. We only want one" Most people got it. Mormons thought it was a "totally different issue". Now the church is the champion of "one man one woman marriage" Ironic? I think yes.

I am glad this issue has finally been settled. Perhaps now the country can focus on other serious issues that also need our attention.

I always thought the experience of the state restricting the definition of marriage, affecting the early Utah Mormons, then Utah going along with it as having the opposite implication. "The state defined marriage for us and we changed, thus why does the state get to change it now?"

[california boy]

I always thought the experience of the state restricting the definition of marriage, affecting the early Utah Mormons, then Utah going along with it as having the opposite implication. "The state defined marriage for us and we changed, thus why does the state get to change it now?"

 

It looks like in both cases, the state defined marriage. Under todays laws, if you want your marriage legalized and acknowledged by the state, you have to meet their requirements.  If you don't want your marriage recognized by the government, and want it to only be a religious rite, then you can do whatever you want and you can exclude whoever you want.

 

Gay couples were under the same situation.  They could always be married in a religious ceremony.  It was the recognition of the state that they were fighting for.  If you want state recognition, you have to play by their rules.  They did by going through the legal process.. it is now legal.

 

While gay marriage is now legal from a civil prespective, it is still not legal in a religious perspective.  The church does not, nor does it have to recognize gay marriage.  The wall or curtain is as solid as ever.  Nothing has changed.

[JAHS]

here's how I determined the percentage, I mentioned:

I took the Children on Record (COR) plus the number of convert baptisms (CB). Then I subtract the difference from current year membership (CY) and the previous year membership(PY).

This gave me the resulting number in change in membership from year to year. I figured that difference was a combination of those who died, were excommunicated, and had their names removed (DENr).

So: (COR-CB)-(CY-PY)=DENr

DENr/CY gave me the percentage of that number (DENr) for that year's membership.

 

Makes sense.    Correction?  (COR+CB)-(CY-PY)=DENr

[Meadowchik]

It looks like in both cases, the state defined marriage. Under todays laws, if you want your marriage legalized and acknowledged by the state, you have to meet their requirements. If you don't want your marriage recognized by the government, and want it to only be a religious rite, then you can do whatever you want and you can exclude whoever you want.

Gay couples were under the same situation. They could always be married in a religious ceremony. It was the recognition of the state that they were fighting for. If you want state recognition, you have to play by their rules. They did by going through the legal process.. it is now legal.

While gay marriage is now legal from a civil prespective, it is still not legal in a religious perspective. The church does not, nor does it have to recognize gay marriage. The wall or curtain is as solid as ever. Nothing has changed.

The irony cuts both ways.

[Thinking]

Hard to say. I'm convinced that, as long as the teaching process leading to baptism continues to be very brief (especially in some countries), retention is going to be a big problem in the church. 

 

True. It was more common than not for a person in Peru in the early 80's where I served my mission to be baptized in less than a month from first contact.

[jkwilliams]

True. It was more common than not for a person in Peru in the early 80's where I served my mission to be baptized in less than a month from first contact.

In Bolivia it was most common to get from first discussion to baptism in two weeks or less.

[filovirus]

Am I the only one who thinks it is the change of heart that matters and not necessarily a set time frame? Some are ready in two weeks and others in two or more years. I've seen long term members from both.

Edited October 22, 2015 by filovirus

[jkwilliams]

Am I the only one who thinks it is the change of heart that matters and not necessarily a set time frame? Some are ready in two weeks and others in two or more years. I've seen long term members from both.

In my mission it was about numbers, not a change of heart. Activity rate is about 10%.

[stemelbow]

Makes sense.    Correction?  (COR+CB)-(CY-PY)=DENr

Yes. thanks.

[rockpond]

I am wondering if in the figure we hear at conference has resigned and excommunicated members subtracted from it?

 

I don't think it does.  Even if you attribute all of our annual membership losses to death (no resignations/excommunications) our calculated death rate sits somewhere around half of the global average.  If the Word of Wisdom really gave us that kind of power over death, I think we'd be making some headlines with it.

[Gray]

I don't think it does.  Even if you attribute all of our annual membership losses to death (no resignations/excommunications) our calculated death rate sits somewhere around half of the global average.  If the Word of Wisdom really gave us that kind of power over death, I think we'd be making some headlines with it.

 

I think that means there are a lot of dead members on the roles that the church has lost track of.

[rockpond]

I think that means there are a lot of dead members on the roles that the church has lost track of.

 

I think that's the best available explanation.  And I think that resignations/excommunications are still included in the reported numbers.  Somewhere... in some row... of some database... those resigned and excommunicated names have to still be noted.

[stemelbow]

I don't think it does.  Even if you attribute all of our annual membership losses to death (no resignations/excommunications) our calculated death rate sits somewhere around half of the global average.  If the Word of Wisdom really gave us that kind of power over death, I think we'd be making some headlines with it.

Excommunicated makes some sense because many of them are still wanting to be members. But to keep those who have asked to be taken off the list on it, would be a mistake, I'd say. they shold not be counted at all.

[rockpond]

Excommunicated makes some sense because many of them are still wanting to be members. But to keep those who have asked to be taken off the list on it, would be a mistake, I'd say. they shold not be counted at all.

 

I agree.  Maybe resigned aren't on that list.  But their names need to be somewhere because the re-baptism process is different for resigned members vs excommunicated vs never-mo's.

[jkwilliams]

I agree. Maybe resigned aren't on that list. But their names need to be somewhere because the re-baptism process is different for resigned members vs excommunicated vs never-mo's.

Did not know that. I thought the process was the same for resigned and excommunicated folks. How are they different?

[rockpond]

Did not know that. I thought the process was the same for resigned and excommunicated folks. How are they different?

 

My understanding is that if you resign, it takes FP approval to be re-baptized.

 

Excommunicated members are brought back in (under most circumstances) through a disciplinary council held at the ward or stake level (depending on priesthood status).