Are we really in a new era of doubt as Stack claims?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Anecdotal evidence isn't really helpful because each ward/family will likely differ drastically. For example, my own family....

I have 22 aunts and uncles on my mom's side, who are also multi-gen and pioneer stock (this number is including in-laws). So including mom and step that's 24. Out of those, 1 has left the church, another is mormon but probably on the doubting/bitter end of things, the rest are in some degree of activity and would consider themselves LDS.  Of my generation, there's only a few of us that are adults. Of those, two lines come from the one that left the church and the bitter one. They're mostly inactive or do not consider themselves mormon in the first place. The rest are a mixed bag. 1 I know for sure doesn't consider herself LDS (she would fit the survey pretty well too), another not sure about (technically a teen though). Another is inactive, though again not for doubt....he's just kinda lost in life in general. most are still active though (I've got 60+ cousins on that side...trying to count just the adults is a pain).

In my immediate family, 2 are inactive and 2 are active (me and my bro) who are adults. Neither of the inactive adults are really about doubt. One it's about priorities in general (money is his god). The other...it's complicated, but the initial pull would have been the reasons most find stereotyped for inactive members (ie. Sin...doubt crept in well after he was inactive, but he's also not completely opposed to coming back). The active brother comes from non-lds parents and a LDS step-mom. My parents were not FHE, family prayer/scripture study people.   

So for me and my peoples, saying it's an era of doubt would be a stretch. Though doubt are among the reasons for leaving/inactivity, it certainly isn't the only one or the most prominent. 

 

With luv,

BD

You've explained well the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence.

And it is a logical fallacy, as defined here.

It's also known as the "person who" fallacy (as in "I know a person who ...").

The problem with it is that it is one of the weakest methods of argumentation in that it only takes one counter-anecdote to neutralize an anecdote.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Take what you might from these numbers but the average ward has grown from an average membership of 386 in 1980 to an average size of 520 in 2014.  Now there may be many reasons for this increase in members per ward numbers but one of them is certainly fewer active members per ward thus requiring larger ward numbers. 

You're still beating this drum? This is nothing but pure supposition on your part, and there is nothing "certain" about it. It could just as easily be a function of membership growth outpacing physical facilities. I know from personal experience that having more than three units in a meetinghouse becomes very unwieldy (it makes it almost impossible to schedule a time and place for choir practice). So, making larger wards obviates the need to create new units, and the same number of members can more efficiently be accommodated with fewer units in a single meetinghouse.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still beating this drum? This is nothing but pure supposition on your part, and there is nothing "certain" about it.

Scott...The number of members per ward is increasing throughout the world...this is a fact.  What would account for this phenomenon? More active Wards?  Wouldn't they then just divide them into more wards?  But the numbers don't suggest that this is what is happening...instead wards are merely getting bigger and bigger without dividing.  What would you suggest accounts for this?

Along the Wasatch front active member have perhaps 2 at most 3 families to home teach...while in Australia...active home teachers are given lists of 10-30 families...why would this be?

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Scott...The number of members per ward is increasing throughout the world...this is a fact.  What would account for this phenomenon? More active Wards?  Wouldn't they then just divide them into more wards?  But the numbers don't suggest that this is what is happening...instead wards are merely getting bigger and bigger without dividing.  What would you suggest accounts for this?

Along the Wasatch front active member have perhaps 2 at most 3 families to home teach...while in Australia...active home teachers are given lists of 10-30 families...why would this be?

Apparently you missed my add-on to my post, so I will copy and paste it here:

It could just as easily be a function of membership growth outpacing physical facilities. I know from personal experience that having more than three units in a meetinghouse becomes very unwieldy (it makes it almost impossible to schedule a time and place for choir practice). So, making larger wards obviates the need to create new units, and the same number of members can more efficiently be accommodated with fewer units in a single meetinghouse.

Edited to add:

Also, if the problem is that there are more  less-active members per ward, wouldn't the solution be to create more units -- not less -- so that the leadership is not overwhelmed by the number of less-active who need nurturing?

Since active members do not require as much time and attention from local leaders as do less active, it might even be surmised that larger numbers indicate just the opposite of what you say they do. That is, with fewer less-active members, larger numbers of members over all can be accommodated within a single ward or branch.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. You don't have to go on strictly anecdotal information. You are an agent unto yourself and not compelled to base your worldview on anecdotes, when a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has declared publicly, in general conference, the widest forum available to the Church, that the Church of Jesus Christ has never been stronger and that it is "simply not true" that there is more doubt and resulting apostasy than ever before.

I'm inclined to believe him. I see no reason for him to lie and I consider them to be men of integrity. Having said that, I'd love to know what they consider to be the measure of "strength." 

In brand research terms a brand could be described as "never been stronger" based on dozens of different measures. It could be:

- it has more users than ever before

- the existing users have a higher loyalty or usage frequency than ever before 

- the spend per buyer is higher than ever 

- the numeric distribution or geographic coverage is broader than ever

Like I said, if he has reviewed the data and has concluded, based on that data that the church has never been stronger then I'm willing to accept that the data has been presented in a way that convinces him that this is the case. From a personal research perspective I'd simply be interested in the approach and KPIs. 

I remember a few years back, when I was a branch president, that we had to track key performance indicators and feeder indicators. I can't remember whether it was an area initiative or from a member of the 12. I think probably area.  Either way, it gave an indication of what the leaders considered the key indicators of strength and what the other metrics were that were feeders of strength. 

I think (and it was a while ago so memory is being stretched) that measures like % activity rate, % active paying a full tithe, % of endowed who were current recommend holders etc. Perhaps, one day, we'll get those numbers shared publicly. I'd imagine these are the sorts of numbers and % are part of his conclusion. 

Also, I'm interested to know how he was able to say that 'it is "simply not true" that there is more doubt and resulting apostasy than ever before.'? I can see how they would measure the volume of apostasy through activity rates, resignations and excommunications.  How would he measure the absence of doubt? That seems like an intangible.  Just as Fletcher-Stack is being challenged in this thread for not having quantified the volume of doubt, I wonder how the church leadership have measured it to be able to say the opposite. The volume of doubt and the volume of activity/apostasy are not necessarily directly related or interchangeable measures. 

 

Edit:

I've just re read the talk and he hints at the data he has reviewed that indicates strength:

Some have asserted that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past.24The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”25 We reach out to everyone.

Edited February 16, 2016 by canard78

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Also, if the problem is that there are more  less-active members per ward, wouldn't the solution be to create more units -- not less -- so that the leadership is not overwhelmed by the number of less-active?

 

 

 

No, because less-actives really don't use up any resources in a ward beyond the energy spent occasionally trying to track them down.  They don't require heating and air conditioning or the lights to be on.  They don't require a seat in the classrooms.  They don't eat the sacrament bread or the chili at the Halloween Party.  It's not much harder to run a ward that has 1000 inactive families than it is to run a ward with 100 inactive families. 

But conversely, it is very much harder to run a ward if it has fewer active families (I'm sure as a choir director you've seen that).  So splitting a ward based on inactive membership (and disregarding active membership) would be a terrible idea.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'm inclined to believe him. I see no reason for him to lie and I consider them to be men of integrity. Having said that, I'd love to know what they consider to be the measure of "strength." 

In brand research terms a brand could be described as "never been stronger" based on dozens of different measures. It could be:

- it has more users than ever before

- the existing users have a higher loyalty or usage frequency than ever before 

- the spend per buyer is higher than ever 

- the numeric distribution or geographic coverage is broader than ever

Like I said, if he has reviewed the data and has concluded, based on that data that the church has never been stronger then I'm willing to accept that the data has been presented in a way that convinces him that this is the case. From a personal research perspective I'd simply be interested in the approach and KPIs. 

I remember a few years back, when I was a branch president, that we had to track key performance indicators and feeder indicators. I can't remember whether it was an area initiative or from a member of the 12. I think probably area.  Either way, it gave an indication of what the leaders considered the key indicators of strength and what the other metrics were that were feeders of strength. 

I think (and it was a while ago so memory is being stretched) that measures like % activity rate, % active paying a full tithe, % of endowed who were current recommend holders etc. Perhaps, one day, we'll get those numbers shared publicly. I'd imagine these are the sorts of numbers and % are part of his conclusion. 

Also, I'm interested to know how he was able to say that 'it is "simply not true" that there is more doubt and resulting apostasy than ever before.'? I can see how they would measure the volume of apostasy through activity rates, resignations and excommunications.  How would he measure the absence of doubt? That seems like an intangible.  Just as Fletcher-Stack is being challenged in this thread for not having quantified the volume of doubt, I wonder how the church leadership have measured it to be able to say the opposite. The volume of doubt and the volume of activity/apostasy are not necessarily directly related or interchangeable measures. 

In recent times, the Church leaders have begun to focus on the concept of "real growth" in the Church.

Rather than try to define it myself, I'll let Elder Oaks do it in this article and video:

 

Quote

 

“The temple is the great final measure of real growth,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said. “Not just the temple experience, but the making of covenants in the temple and then keeping those covenants.”

In the accompanying video, prophets and apostles teach that real growth in the Church is not about the number of baptisms and meetinghouses or the number of wards and stakes. Instead, real growth is manifest in how individuals live their lives after baptism.

“When we speak of real growth, we speak of what follows a person’s baptism into the Church,” Elder Oaks said. “Sometimes we tend just to count the growth of the Church in terms of the number of convert baptisms. But this a very premature and incomplete view of the matter.”

“Conversion has to happen within the heart and soul of every individual,” Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said. “We can’t convert a person; all we can do is invite them to come and enjoy the fruits of the gospel.”

“We have more good people in the Church now than ever [before]. … They know more about the gospel; they can move through all that’s ahead of us with power and all end up with happiness,” President Boyd K. Packer said.

 

The concept of real growth is why I have been emphasizing the proliferation of temple construction (100 within the last two decades alone), for I very much agree with Elder Oaks that "the temple is the great final measure of real growth."

I know that it is very difficult to show oneself worthy of a temple recommend without being a faithful and dedicated Latter-day Saints, and I know that the Church will not build a temple in an area unless there is a critical mass of temple-worthy members to support it.

Another measure of real growth is the number of missionaries. As I pointed out in a thread I started the other day, the missionary force has shown a net increase of 29 percent since early October 2012.

I don't  believe people volunteer for missions, by and large, unless they are faithful Latter-day Saints. Our son entered missionary service on Sept. 15. The spiritual growth and maturity we've seen in him has been immediate and immense, as reflected in the letters he writes home to us. I have been astounded by it.

So, while you make valid points regarding the desirability of supporting statistics, I do believe some of the evidence is right there on the surface with the proliferation of missionaries and temples.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No, because less-actives really don't use up any resources in a ward beyond the energy spent occasionally trying to track them down.  They don't require heating and air conditioning or the lights to be on.  They don't require a seat in the classrooms.  They don't eat the sacrament bread or the chili at the Halloween Party.  It's not much harder to run a ward that has 1000 inactive families than it is to run a ward with 100 inactive families. 

But conversely, it is very much harder to run a ward if it has fewer active families (I'm sure as a choir director you've seen that).  So splitting a ward based on inactive membership (and disregarding active membership) would be a terrible idea.

I don't know about your ward, but in our area they definitely eat the chilli at Halloween parties.  It is a sweet irony that Halloween (given its associations... in England at least) is often the best tool for bringing less actives back into the building.  

Heck... I think the last time I stepped foot in a chapel was Halloween... and I definitely ate the chilli. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by canard78
Spelling

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you missed my add-on to my post, so I will copy and paste it here:

It could just as easily be a function of membership growth outpacing physical facilities. I know from personal experience that having more than three units in a meetinghouse becomes very unwieldy (it makes it almost impossible to schedule a time and place for choir practice). So, making larger wards obviates the need to create new units, and the same number of members can more efficiently be accommodated with fewer units in a single meetinghouse.

Edited to add:

Also, if the problem is that there are more  less-active members per ward, wouldn't the solution be to create more units -- not less -- so that the leadership is not overwhelmed by the number of less-active?

 

 

 

Yeah my supposition vs your supposition.  Your explanation is that wards are getting bigger throughout the world due to growth and the inability for building needs to meet demand, while my explanation is that inactivity is pushing the ward memberships up while the number of active members remain relatively level.  The church is clearly growing, I don't deny that, but it is also losing a large portion of those who join.  There are more non-attending members in the world then a there are attending members...you do agree with this don't you? You are aware of church activity rates world wide right?

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I don't know about your ward, but in our area they definitely eat the chilli at Halloween parties.  It is a sweet irony that Halloween (given its associations... in England at least) is often the best tool for bringing less actives back into the building.  

Heck... I think the last time I stepped foot in a chapel was Halloween... and I definitely ate the chilli. 

Well I hope you dropped a few coins in the donation plate, moocher.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No, because less-actives really don't use up any resources in a ward beyond the energy spent occasionally trying to track them down.  They don't require heating and air conditioning or the lights to be on.  They don't require a seat in the classrooms.  They don't eat the sacrament bread or the chili at the Halloween Party.  It's not much harder to run a ward that has 1000 inactive families than it is to run a ward with 100 inactive families. 

But conversely, it is very much harder to run a ward if it has fewer active families (I'm sure as a choir director you've seen that).  So splitting a ward based on inactive membership (and disregarding active membership) would be a terrible idea.

Local-unit leaders are not to neglect the less-active. They are to reach out to and nurture them. They cannot do this effectively if they are spread too thin. So the solution would be to create more units to give attention to them, not lump more of them into fewer units.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I don't know about your ward, but in our area they definitely eat the chilli at Halloween parties.  It is a sweet irony that Halloween (given its associations... in England at least) is often the best tool for bringing less actives back into the building.  

Heck... I think the last time I stepped foot in a chapel was Halloween... and I definitely ate the chilli. 

I've observed a phenomenon in the large turnouts at ward Christmas parties, with many people showing up who I never see in the building at other times. It's like they crave some neighborhood function as an outlet for their celebrating, and the ward party meets that need for them.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yeah my supposition vs your supposition. 

So you now admit it is your supposition? A moment ago, you were characterizing it as a certainty.

We are making progress.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you missed my add-on to my post, so I will copy and paste it here:

It could just as easily be a function of membership growth outpacing physical facilities. I know from personal experience that having more than three units in a meetinghouse becomes very unwieldy (it makes it almost impossible to schedule a time and place for choir practice). So, making larger wards obviates the need to create new units, and the same number of members can more efficiently be accommodated with fewer units in a single meetinghouse.

 

I know of several wards in the Utah Valley area that were allowed to grow until they filled two thirds of the cultural hall area or more as well as the chapel and overflow.  My son's ward got split and was pretty much immediately two normal sized wards.  5 minutes from our house but in an city that allows for new growth (ours doesn't have the infrastructure and doesn't want it at this point).

We have been told we won't get a new building until we get 4 (3?) more wards in our stake and instead will be going to four wards per building.  We also just got combined with another ward that got split between two wards which added about about another third to our ward.  The rest of the split ward made its own ward.  We are in an area where no new homes are going up and so high density of active LDS and long time inactive or nonMormons with plenty of exposure to the Church already that converts are rare so were stable in size and probably the smallest ward around while around us wards were continually growing.  Two new churches have gone up in our stake in the last 12 years iirc and given the limitations on building the town has imposed, it is not a big growth area compared to the rest of Utah Valley.

In Canada our ward was in a no growth area because it was high cost/student housing so they ended up spliting the ward among other wards I understand.    OTOH the outside of the city was just adding new wards every five years or so going off of memory.  The  other wards were filling the cultural halls at times from what I heard.

I think a lot of growth occurs in some areas while stagnation or decrease occurs in others, mostly because of economics but on occasion disaffection can spread among members in the area if they are related or were popular in the ward.  We had a number of members move out of both our current ward and our old one so they could get larger and/or new houses for their large families at lower costs.  I haven't heard of any major leavetakings in our area, but a province over a decade and a halfish back a popular family took a number of other families from the ward/stake with them and three families left together in my sister-in-law's old ward so it does happen.

[canard78]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In recent times, the Church leaders have begun to focus on the concept of "real growth" in the Church.

Rather than try to define it myself, I'll let Elder Oaks do it in this article and video:

 

The concept of real growth is why I have been emphasizing the proliferation of temple construction (100 within the last two decades alone), for I very much agree with Elder Oaks that "the temple is great final measure of real growth."

I know that it is very difficult to show oneself worthy of a temple recommend without being a faithful and dedicated Latter-day Saints, and I know that the Church will not build a temple in an area unless there is a critical mass of temple-worthy members to support it.

Another measure of real growth is the number of missionaries. As I pointed out in a thread I started the other day, the missionary force has shown a net increase of 29 percent since early October 2012.

I don't  believe people volunteer for missions, by and large, unless they are faithful Latter-day Saints. Our son entered missionary service on Sept. 15. The spiritual growth and maturity we've seen in him has been immediate and immense, as reflected in the letters he writes home to us. I have been astounded by it.

So, while you make valid points regarding the desirability of supporting statistics, I do believe some of the evidence is right there on the surface with the proliferation of temples missionaries and temples.

 

All very fair points. 

Despite my disaffection with the church, I'm moving towards making peace with the separation and, in doing so, have set a personal aim to move on peacefully. That doesn't mean there aren't still things I see differently to the LDS leadership and membership and I might, at times, criticise the church for certain priorities and practices.

I say all that as context for the fact that I have no desire to see the church decline or fall.  I am not its enemy and it is not mine. I celebrate the good it does in the lives of my friends and family.

Those who cannot forgive the hurt or injustice they feel the church has done them seem (hah! there's that word again*) desperate for the day the church falls. That's why articles like PFS's gets a wave of welcome in those quarters because it gives them hope that the church is weakening. 

Until they can produce some hard data to counter that which is available (member numbers = growing, missionary numbers = growing, temple/chapel building = growing) then there is little that can be said to support the growth of doubt other than speculation and anecdotes. As a researcher, I'd have to follow the data and say that PFS has no evidence for her front page story. 

*In the spirit of balance I would say that the majority of people who leave, leave peacefully. Most who are not active "leave the church AND leave it alone." Most of the less-actives on the membership list have moved on and are not vocal critics of the church. The church's critics are a minority of the less actives. They are not an army, they are a drop in the ocean, a niche.

For example, there are somewhere between 5 and 10million less/in-active members depending on which activity stats you accept that get estimated and derived. If we go at the low end and then count the number of active, vocal critics, it's minuscule. For example, r/exmormon has 20,000 members. That's less than 0.5% of inactive members. There were headlines that over 1,500 resignations happened after the recent handbook flare up. If we assume that most of those resignations were from people who were already at a lower level of activity (and being a 'lurker' on some of those other forums, many of them were already inactive), then that means that 99.97% of currently less active members didn't resign over it. Perhaps because around 90% of them probably didn't even realise the policy had happened because they have moved on and don't swim in the very small pool of the bloggernacle.

Edited February 16, 2016 by canard78
Formatting

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you now admit it is your supposition? A moment ago, you were characterizing it as a certainty.

We are making progress.

Supposition was your word, I'm trying to be more egalitarian in my approach by using your word...the word I would have used would have been conjecture or speculation...since that is all any of us are really doing in these threads

[Johnnie Cake]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've observed a phenomenon in the large turnouts at ward Christmas parties, with many people showing up who I never see in the building at other times. It's like they crave some neighborhood function as an outlet for their celebrating, and the ward party meets that need for them.

You've explained well the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence.

And it is a logical fallacy, as defined here.

It's also known as the "person who" fallacy (as in "I know a person who ...").

The problem with it is that it is one of the weakest methods of argumentation in that it only takes one counter-anecdote to neutralize an anecdote.

 

Sorry couldn't help myself

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. You don't have to go on strictly anecdotal information. You are an agent unto yourself and not compelled to base your worldview on anecdotes, when a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has declared publicly, in general conference, the widest forum available to the Church, that the Church of Jesus Christ has never been stronger and that it is "simply not true" that there is more doubt and resulting apostasy than ever before.

There was already a thread regarding Elder Cook's quote and how the word "strong" could mean numerous different things.   It's also been discussed that resignations don't equal the numbers of members who have left the church, gone inactive or are currently experiencing doubts but still attending.

But, until the numbers are released from the church leaders, we have speculations, opinions and hints from the leaders regarding what those numbers may be.  You can believe that Elder Cook meant one thing while someone else will believe he meant something else....on and on.  

However, I do know the numbers in my ward (and the Stake President has shared some about the numbers in our stake right now too).  Sunday meeting attendance is down in our ward, tithing is down and temple attendance is down.  I also know the great concern my Bishop has over the number of members coming in to talk to him out their questions and doubts.   We spend a lot of time discussing this and trying to help the members of our ward who are going through this.  

That's what I know.  The rest is just impressions, speculations, opinions or interpretations of the words used until the actual stats or numbers are released.  

I also believe that other wards and stakes may not be experiencing what we are here locally.  That's why the numbers would give an accurate portrayal rather than just what we each see within our own wards and families.

.

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You've explained well the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence.

And it is a logical fallacy, as defined here.

It's also known as the "person who" fallacy (as in "I know a person who ...").

The problem with it is that it is one of the weakest methods of argumentation in that it only takes one counter-anecdote to neutralize an anecdote.

 

Sorry couldn't help myself

I think you misunderstood my intent. I only posted that as an interesting (to me) aside. I wasn't trying to prove anything with it, any more than Canard was trying to prove anything by saying he ate chili at the last ward Halloween party. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There was already a thread regarding Elder Cook's quote and how the word "strong" could mean numerous different things.   It's also been discussed that resignations don't equal the numbers of members who have left the church, gone inactive or are currently experiencing doubts but still attending.

But, until the numbers are released from the church leaders, we have speculations, opinions and hints from the leaders regarding what those numbers may be.  You can believe that Elder Cook meant one thing while someone else will believe he meant something else....on and on.  

However, I do know the numbers in my ward (and the Stake President has shared some about the numbers in our stake right now too).  Sunday meeting attendance is down in our ward, tithing is down and temple attendance is down.  I also know he concern my Bishop has over the number of members coming in to talk to him out their questions and doubts.   We spend a lot of time discussing this and trying to help the members of our ward who are going through this.  

 

More anecdotes. 

I repeat that much of the evidence for Elder Cook's declaration is right there on the surface with the proliferation of temples and missionaries, probably the two best measures for "real growth" in the Church. (I wonder if you read my post on "real growth.")

[canard78]

48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well I hope you dropped a few coins in the donation plate, moocher.

I tithed on gross for most of my life. I figure I've got at least 3 or 4 more years of Halloween chilli in credit  Once I hit that limit I'll remember to bring a bag of tortilla chips to contribute to the pot luck or something. Maybe I'll even bring a slow cooker a chilli of my own. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You are aware of church activity rates world wide right?

No, I'm not aware, and neither are you if we can trust your post below:

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church released actual attendance numbers...which they do keep...

I am aware of people's estimates of activity rates, but the only attendance numbers I'm actually reasonably confident about come from my own ward. For what it may be worth -- one ward can only be a single data point -- I've made a chart of average sacrament meeting attendance for my ward from 2000 to 2015, inclusive, using the quarterly reports:

I hope this chart, and specifically its trend line,* help people understand why I state that I simply don't see people falling away from the Church in these parts. During the entire time period presented here, our ward boundaries have remained unchanged and only a very small amount of new housing has been added to one suburb on the fringes of the ward, so this is a pretty good example of the actual growth in activity that we've experienced over the past 16 years.

Does this mean that other congregations aren't really in the midst of an unprecedented wave of apostasy? No. They may well be. But I'm just not seeing it here.

And by the way, the curious side of me would love to see a chart like this for the entire Church, but I completely understand why such charts are not made available. To narrow things down to my own ward, imagine the critics' hooting and hollering that easily could have occurred during 2002 and again beginning near the end of 2014. I personally know what happened/is happening in our ward during both of those periods and so can put the data into context, but I see no reason to make un-tethered data available to those who care nothing about context but rather are just looking for one more thing they can shout from the windows of the great and spacious building at those who they know are susceptible to such commotion.

-----

* For what it may be worth, sacrament meeting attendance in our ward over the past three weeks (which is as far back as I can remember) has been 207, 197 and 165, which means that I suspect that Q1 2016 won't alter this trend line too much.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

More anecdotes. 

I only shared with you what I know regarding the stats and numbers in my own ward (I'm in a position to see them).  I am not offended that you don't take my word regarding what those numbers are.  I'm fine with that.

.

Edited February 17, 2016 by ALarson

[canard78]

Just to put a stake in the ground for consistency:

The Salt Lake Tribune survey is also a combination of poor sampling and weak survey technique. 

This isn't just a SLT issue. The entire news publishing industry seems to be competing with each other to get "user/reader generated data" which is published with reckless abandon with little regard for research rigour. Most papers will publish at least one "survey for PR" and one "reader poll" on a daily basis.

I'm fully expecting them to publish the results anyway.

Whatever people say in answer to the dumbest question in the survey will probably be the one that ends up with the most attention:

What was the "trigger" for your doubts?

http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/upin/3500753-155/tell-the-tribune-have-you-experienced

Seriously?! I predict the answers to be littered with "cesletter" and "gay handbook change" or "LDS essays." If/when those come through as the common answers, that will be wrong. The trigger is deeper and earlier than that. I'm not talking about the influence of Mr Sneaky Beaky either. I'm trying to stick to proven research theory about consumer and faith switching drivers. Doubt triggers start subconsciously and are more multi-faceted than the over-simplified answers the Trib is hoping to use to pad put their next "Church of cards" story. 

[Nevo]

If doubters are really just a negligible percentage of the Church's population and their numbers are actually shrinking, then someone should notify Salt Lake. Apparently they haven't all received Elder Cook's memo. It seems that Palmer, Dehlin, Runnells, MormonThink, Google, reddit, Facebook, etc., haven't had any appreciable impact at all. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief. FairMormon can close up shop. North American tithing revenues are safe. The millennials aren't going anywhere. All is well in Zion.