Missionary number has shown 29 percent net increase since latter 2012

ALarson · February 11, 2016

Just now, stemelbow said:

Scott you're using rounded figures to determine percent increase, which is silly. I'm using actual reported numbers.

That is funny since he is such a stickler for precision

But, I have asked if there actually was an announcement made at the beginning of the conference as Scott has stated (giving the number of 75,000 missionaries). Or was that number just stated by the author of the article in the Deseret News? That's the only place I've seen it, but I've asked for a quote from the announcement if there was one.

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

The date at the bottom of the site states 2016. But, I don't know if that's when it was updated.

Anything published or posted in 2016 is going to carry a 2016 copyright date, even if it's reporting year-end statistics for 2015.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

1 hour ago, ALarson said:
Was there an announcement made regarding the numbers? I'm not doubting you, but I haven't seen that quote. Can you copy and paste it here, if it was announced? Thanks.

I've only read this (stated by the author of the Deseret News article):
The meeting, which originated in the Conference Center Theater, was translated and broadcast to the Church's 75,000 full-time missionaries serving across the globe. 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865645872/Elder-Dallin-H-Oaks-speaks-at-Worldwide-Missionary-Broadcast-Our-message-for-missionaries.html?pg=all

.

The article is substantially how I remember it. The reference to 75,000 was by way of saying how many missionaries around the world either were viewing the proceedings at that moment or would be viewing them the next day in areas of the world where it was in the middle of the night.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

ALarson · February 11, 2016

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The article is substantially how I remember it. The reference to 75,000 was by way of saying how many missionaries around the world either were vowing the proceedings at that moment or would be viewing them the next day in areas of the world where it was in the middle of the night.

So, there was no announcement at the conference like you stated earlier in the thread. That's how I read it too (it came from the person writing the article).

The number on the Mormon newsroom website then is the most official and recent number we have (74,079).

And, we should probably stop quoting and using that 75,000 number like it's accurate and official then.

And this is true:

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Also Scott, you might want to correct the title. The difference between 2012 58,990 and today 74,079 is 15,089 which is a 25.58 percent increase.

.

Edited February 11, 2016 by ALarson

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Scott you're using rounded figures to determine percent increase, which is silly. I'm using actual reported numbers. But if that doesn't work for you, then fine. I just find it a silly way to message things.

Anywho, it's interesting that the increase was about 15,000 from 2012 to the reported number on Mormonnewsroom site--which could be updated monthly or years for all we know--but in that we see a 14,000 decrease from last year to this year.

1. Did the surge come to an end yet? I thought it had already subsided last January, though?

2. Is there another factor that we haven't considered/don't know about that has cuased the number to decrease recently?

You quoted what was on the Newsroom site -- that as anticipated, the number has been tapering downward from the peak of the surge but is currently on "a steady upward trend." I don't know how that could be expressed more clearly. And in essence it is what I have been saying.

And rounding is commonly used for convenience in making computations. What is silly is your fussing about my using round niumbers. Would the results be substantially different without rounding? Prove it.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, there was no announcement at the conference like you stated earlier in the thread. That's how I read it too (it came from the person writing the article). The number on the Mormon newsroom website then is the most official and recent number we have (74,079).

We should probably stop quoting and using that 75,000 number like it's accurate and official then.

And this is true:

We've been over this. The figure on the Newsroom site very likely reflects year end 2015, if it holds to the past pattern in which the First Presidency publishes stats for the end of the previous calendar year.

The figure given at the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast can be expected to be up to the minute for that point in time.

And it is consistent with what stemelbow quoted from Newsroom, that the number is on "a steady upward trend."

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, there was no announcement at the conference like you stated earlier in the thread. That's how I read it too (it came from the person writing the article). The number on the Mormon newsroom website then is the most official and recent number we have (74,079).

We should probably stop quoting and using that 75,000 number like it's accurate and official then.

And this is true:

Whoah Nellie!

It was indeed announced at the outset of the meeting that 75,000 missionaries would be seeing the broadcast. I didn't understand you at first, but my colleague at the Church News didn't just pull that out of thin air, if that's what you're driving at. Bear in mind that I was physically present for that meeting in the Conference Center Theater from which the broadcast emanated.

Did you really need to be told this?

Edited February 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

ALarson · February 11, 2016

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And rounding is commonly used for convenience in making computations. What is silly is your fussing about my using round niumbers.

What is silly is that you insist on using a number (75,000) to prove there has already been an increase of 1,000 missionaries since the number was published on the Mormon newsroom website of 74,079, when no announcement was made.

You've stated this:

Quote

The number is indeed increasing and, in fact, had already increased a thousand by the time the 75,000 was announced at the beginning of the Worldwide Missionary Training Broadcast.

But there was no number given or officially announced and updated, correct? Just an estimate of how many were watching the broadcast. If that estimate had been lower than the reported number on the newsroom website, I'm sure you'd be using the higher number from the website for your figures here and claiming they were the most accurate since they came from the newsroom.

.

Edited February 11, 2016 by ALarson

ALarson · February 11, 2016

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whoah Nellie!

It was indeed announced at the outset of the meeting that 75,000 missionaries would be seeing the broadcast. I didn't understand you at first, but my colleague at the Church News didn't just pull that out of thin air, if that's what you're driving at.

Did you really need to be told this?

It doesn't state in the article that an announcement was made. Who made the announcement? He may have gotten the number from the Mormon newsroom website.

Whoever wrote the article for the DN stated this (this is the only place I've seen the 75,000 number given, so that's why I asked you for a quote from the announcement, which I'm still interested in seeing):

Quote

"The meeting, which originated in the Conference Center Theater, was translated and broadcast to the Church's 75,000 full-time missionaries serving across the globe."

And, I have to add that if there was no official announcement made for the purpose of updating the actual number of missionaries serving, but someone was just stating a rounded number of how many would be viewing the broadcast, that number is certainly not a verified statistic that should be used here.

Also, you state that the 74,079 figure is most likely the 2015 year end number of missionaries serving. Do you really believe there would be an increase of 1,000 missionaries by January 20, 2016? It's more likely they just used the round figure of 75,000 when stating how many would be watching the broadcast.

.

Edited February 11, 2016 by ALarson

Scott Lloyd · February 11, 2016

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It doesn't state in the article that an announcement was made. Who made the announcement? He may have gotten the number from the Mormon newsroom website.

Whoever wrote the article for the DN stated this (this is the only place I've seen the 75,000 number given, so that's why I asked you for a quote from the announcement, which I'm still interested in seeing):

.

Go here to see a video recording of the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast. Click on the "watch" link at the top of the list.

You will see Elder Brent H. Neilson, General Authority Seventy and executive director of the Missionary Department, say the following:

Quote

Elders and sisters, we welcome you to this Worldwide Missionary Broadcast.

There are now approximately 75,000 of you serving in 418 missions around the world. In this hall today we have approximately one missionary for every mission in the world.

In preliminary remarks before the broadcast started, Elder Neilson said:

Quote

We are delighted to welcome you to this worldwide broadcast here in the Conference Center

Today you’ll be trained by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the Missionary Executive Council and Elder L. Whitney Clayton, senior president of the Seventy.

This is a rare experience. You represent all 75,000 missionaries currently serving around the world.

Quote

And, I have to add that if there was no official announcement made for the purpose of updating the actual number of missionaries serving, but someone was just stating a rounded number of how many would be viewing the broadcast, that number is certainly not a verified statistic that should be used here.

So you're saying that a General Authority of the Church would be so dishonest as to state in a worldwide broadcast that there are 75,000 missionaries around the world, when there are in reality only 74,000?

I scarcely know what to say to that. It is at best a weak argument.

It must be a burden for one professing to be a faithful and loyal member of the Church to hold its leadership in such low regard. You have my pity.

Quote

Also, you state that the 74,079 figure is most likely the 2015 year end number of missionaries serving. Do you really believe there would be an increase of 1,000 missionaries by January 20, 2016?

Yes, we have seen such wide swings in the number of missionaries since October 2012, with the surge building rapidly from 58,000 missionaries to a peak of 90,000 and then tapering and leveling off at 74,000 before making a general trend upward, I think it quite reasonable to believe there would be an influx of 1,000 missionaries within a month's time.

Quote

It's more likely they just used the round figure of 75,000 when stating how many would be watching the broadcast.

So you're saying that Elder Neilson lied about the number?

Again, I don't know what to say to that. If you're determined to believe he would be so dishonest, I guess there's not much I can say to change your mind.

ALarson · February 12, 2016

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're saying that Elder Neilson lied about the number?

Oh good grief :rolleyes:

Stating that an estimate was used or using the word "approximately", does not mean that someone is lying.

The estimates were that approximately 75,000 missionaries were viewing the broadcast. That is not a verified number or a statistic that should be used to figure percentages of increase.

The much more likely and accurate number is the one given for the 2015 year end figures that were officially released from the leaders of the church on the Mormon newsroom website (give or take a few, but certainly not 1,000 more serving in just 3 weeks time since the surge is over).

If you want to continue using an approximate number or an estimate for your figures, then I'm not sure who here will take you seriously (but I'm sure there are some of your followers who will). I know I won't.

(But even if you insist on using the estimate of approximately 75,000 serving, there has still been a "13,000 some odd drop from the end of 2014" as stated in the other thread. You can counter with your net increase since 2012 because of the surge, but that's still a decrease over the last year or so.)

.

Edited February 12, 2016 by ALarson

Scott Lloyd · February 12, 2016

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh good grief

Stating that an estimate was used or using the word "approximately", does not mean that someone is lying.

The estimates were that approximately 75,000 missionaries were viewing the broadcast. That are not a verified number or stat that should be used to figure percentages of increase.

The much more likely and accurate number is the one given for the 2015 year end figures that were officially released from the leaders of the church (give or take a few, but certainly not 1,000 more in 3 weeks time).

If you want to continue using an approximate number or an estimate, then I'm not sure who here will take you seriously (but I'm sure there are some of your followers who will). I know I won't.

.

If there had been no increase since year end, he would have said approximately 74,000, not approximately 75,000. This is the executive director of the Missionary Department.

I've been in the offices of the Missionary Department. They keep the total number of missionaries posted at any given moment. Elder Neilson would not have "looked it up on LDS Newsroom" and "rounded up" by a full thousand to inflate the figure. That is utterly ridiculous. He would have nothing to gain with such shenanigans. You're not being reasonable, ALarson.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

ALarson · February 12, 2016

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there had been no increase since year end, he would have said approximately 74,000, not approximately 75,000.

You have no idea what he would have said (only he knows that). It is completely reasonable to say "approximately 75,000" when there are more than 74,000 serving.

Again, you are being ridiculous here because either way, there has been a decrease in the number of missionaries serving over the last year from the numbers and statistics published by the church.

But you have every right to continue using approximate numbers and estimates. I'm done here, though.

Edited February 12, 2016 by ALarson

Peppermint Patty · February 12, 2016

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Women make up ~ half the population, so the result of the change should be very large and sustained (not merely a temporary "surge" attributable to 18 year-old men signing up). I'm not saying it should have exactly doubled, since there were some women serving already. But certainly more than 29%.

--Erik

Erik,

Actually women now make up over 60% of the church membership. If this trend continues, it won't be long until we make up 70%

Scott Lloyd · February 12, 2016

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have no idea what he would have said (only he knows that). It is completely reasonable to say "approximately 75,000" when there are more than 74,000 serving.

Again, you are being ridiculous here because either way, there has been a decrease in the number of missionaries serving over the last year from the numbers and statistics published by the church.

There has been a tapering and a leveling off as the surge subsided, and now, there is a steady upward trend, just as stemelbow quoted from the LDS Newsroom site.

Calm · February 12, 2016

Quote

I've been in the offices of the Missionary Department. They keep the total number of missionaries posted at any given moment.

So someone could call up and ask?

Russell C McGregor · February 12, 2016

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You seem to offended that stemelbow exposed the drop in missionary numbers and felt inclined to post numbers that are more flattering to your view...to what end?

"Exposed?"

Are you under the impression that it was somehow being covered up, or something?

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The fact remains that in truth there was a surge in missionary numbers...and now there is an expected drop in missionary numbers...in all honestly your point while technically true is less reflective of what is actually happening in missionary numbers and paints a distorted picture of current reality.

A "distorted picture?"

Is it your view that Stem's gleeful jig about the drop from the top of the surge (which was always expected) to the present is a more accurate view of the long term trend in missionary numbers?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Scott Lloyd · February 12, 2016

22 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

"Exposed?"

Are you under the impression that it was somehow being covered up, or something?

Heh.

Rascals!

They cover it up by posting it on LDS Newsroom. Then they compound the offense by announcing the updated total in a Worldwide Missionary Broadcast attended by all 7,500 missionaries around the world.

And to top it off, the dirty scoundrels post the recording of that broadcast on LDS.org for anyone to watch or download.

Sure glad we have stemelbow to "expose" the coverup.

stemelbow · February 12, 2016

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You quoted what was on the Newsroom site -- that as anticipated, the number has been tapering downward from the peak of the surge but is currently on "a steady upward trend." I don't know how that could be expressed more clearly. And in essence it is what I have been saying.

And rounding is commonly used for convenience in making computations. What is silly is your fussing about my using round niumbers. Would the results be substantially different without rounding? Prove it.

I offered some help to you. You are the one reporting a 29% increase. Not a big deal if the actual increase is closer to 25-6%, but if you aren't interested in that, no big deal.

I thought it was interesting that you announced the surge had subsided over a year ago and the subsequent conversation, as it were, was at least in part challenging your assertion--that it was over. it apparently was not over. Is that why we've seen a 16% (I decided to use rounded numbers for your convenience and your preference) decrease in the number of missionaries serving since the time you declared the surge had subsided? It hadn't really subsided?

Or is there another factor involved that we haven't considered?

stemelbow · February 12, 2016

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Is it your view that Stem's gleeful jig about the drop from the top of the surge (which was always expected) to the present is a more accurate view of the long term trend in missionary numbers?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

To be clear, I have expressed no gleeful jig about any drop. I'm concerned about a drop and wanted to discuss it, but any such discussion has been derailed, it seems.

The missionary force has declined 16% since last year. Hey, I'm happy as can be that the age increase was implemented. I know some are saying it may be a cause of more missionaries going home, but that's a problem we can address otherwise. I want to see more strength and more support. So, when it was declared last year that we'd see the number continue to increase from that point, I mean so much so, that we'd see 100,000 missionaries in 2019, I was sad to see a steep decrease over the course of the past year. I don't know where we'll be in a year. Last year every indication was that it was going to continue to grow, so any such message saying as much now is a bit suspect. I'm kind of hopeful for another well-thought out change--like the age change. It could really give us a spark.

stemelbow · February 12, 2016

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Go here to see a video recording of the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast. Click on the "watch" link at the top of the list.

You will see Elder Brent H. Neilson, General Authority Seventy and executive director of the Missionary Department, say the following:

In preliminary remarks before the broadcast started, Elder Neilson said:

So you're saying that a General Authority of the Church would be so dishonest as to state in a worldwide broadcast that there are 75,000 missionaries around the world, when there are in reality only 74,000?

I scarcely know what to say to that. It is at best a weak argument.

It must be a burden for one professing to be a faithful and loyal member of the Church to hold its leadership in such low regard. You have my pity.

Yes, we have seen such wide swings in the number of missionaries since October 2012, with the surge building rapidly from 58,000 missionaries to a peak of 90,000 and then tapering and leveling off at 74,000 before making a general trend upward, I think it quite reasonable to believe there would be an influx of 1,000 missionaries within a month's time.

So you're saying that Elder Neilson lied about the number?

Again, I don't know what to say to that. If you're determined to believe he would be so dishonest, I guess there's not much I can say to change your mind.

This is a really unfortunate course for you to take, Scott. no one's questioning the rounded number of 75,000, because any reasonable person can see, clearly, that 74,079 can be rounded to approximately 75,000. to say the number in 2012 was 58,000 is also just a rounded number, as it was much closer to 59,000. If that doesn't explain to you how your percent increase is inflated because you used rounded numbers, I'm not sure how to help you in this.

It's all a silly point to worry about, though. What we should be concerned about is that we've seen a near 16% decrease over the course of the past year, since the time you had reported to us that the surge had subsided.

Scott Lloyd · February 13, 2016

For stemelbow and ALarson:

Quizzes are a common form of learning exercise. Here is a quiz to help you each grasp the concept of rounding.

Take the figure 74,079. What number would you arrive at if you were to --

A. -- round to the nearest ten?

B. -- round to the nearest hundred?

C. -- round to the nearest thousand?

D. -- round to the nearest twenty-five thousand increment?

Here are the answers:

A. 74,080

B. 74,100

C. 74,000

D. 75,000

How did you do?

Now for the bonus question:

Given that rounding only works if common sense is used, which of the kinds of rounding listed above makes the least sense?

I hope your answer was D, "round to the nearest twenty-five thousand increment."

Why? The answer should be obvious. It has the potential to put us an immense distance away from the actual number, and it makes no sense when dealing with a number of this size. Only an idiot would do it, or one who was being deliberately deceptive, trying to inordinately inflate the actual number.

Which is why I find it problematic for a professedly faithful and loyal member of the Church to be ascribing behavior of this sort to our General Authorities, who are neither idiots nor dishonest.

I repeat, if the number were 74,079, Elder Neilson would have rounded it to "approximately" 74,000. Rounding it to 75,000 stretches the meaning of "approximate" beyond all reason.

But the fact is, he said 75,000. He said it twice -- once at the beginning of the recording, and once in preliminary remarks of which I made a personal recording (remember, I was physically present).

Which means the actual number is somewhere near 75,000. Which is consistent with what was said on LDS Newsroom: that the number of missionaries has tapered since the peak of 90,000 "as anticipated," and that it is now on "a steady upward trend" subject to seasonal fluctuations.

Which means we are not obliged to engage in the hand wringing you are trying to impose on us due to the "tapering" from the surge.

Scott Lloyd · February 13, 2016