Slowest Church Growth Rate Since the Great Depression

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While we may not be able to pinpoint a precise number of individual members in a given area who have become active (or joined the Church) we can with reasonable confidence assume that there have been enough to drive the creation of one or more additional units of the Church, if that has indeed transpired. While it may not be as precise a metric as you want it to be, neither can it be dismissively marginalized as (in your words) as "a cute and interesting distraction."

The distraction comment was not meant to talk about the growth of units.  It was about whether Guernsey should have been listed as a country.

I commented on this because the blog post, quoted earlier, suggested the growth of units in the Church suggests that membership is becoming more engaged and active.  Which may not be so, at all. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The distraction comment was not meant to talk about the growth of units.  It was about whether Guernsey should have been listed as a country.

I commented on this because the blog post, quoted earlier, suggested the growth of units in the Church suggests that membership is becoming more engaged and active.  Which may not be so, at all. 

It's likelier than not.

Why create additional Church units if there is not the core strength of active Church membership to sustain them?

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

duplicate

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's likelier than not.

Why create additional Church units if there are is not the core strength of active Church membership to sustain them?

 

I guess for a number of reasons.  There are reasons why there are tiny units in some areas and large units in others.  Sometimes it's as simple as geography, other times it may be ethnic or cultural variations (there are many units in various parts of the US accommodating different races and cultures). 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I guess for a number of reasons.  There are reasons why there are tiny units in some areas and large units in others.  Sometimes it's as simple as geography, other times it may be ethnic or cultural variations (there are many units in various parts of the US accommodating different races and cultures). 

But they don't add new units where they would not be sustainable. Ergo, the addition of one or more new units in an area is most likely to be an indicator of real growth.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But they don't add new units where they would not be sustainable. Ergo, the addition of one or more new units in an area is most likely to be an indicator of real growth.

Real growth would be hard to quantify on such grounds.  For instance, we were discussing earlier the Salt Lake Valley, having discontinued a few stakes over the past two years.  That is probably mostly because people move.  And new stakes were formed in the south and southwest areas of the valleys.  People moving is perhaps the biggest factor for that but also because of what you term real growth.  Overall this past year the rate of new members to new stakes is interesting in that it is the lowest rate we've seen--that means more new stakes are added per population than ever before.  That may mean a few things--the growth over the past few years hit a peak in which a little more put many areas over the top. 

[Tacenda]

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/lds-church-membership-growth-is-lowest-in-80-years  I guess this is in the news now.

[Okrahomer]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/lds-church-membership-growth-is-lowest-in-80-years  I guess this is in the news now.

Thanks for the link, Tacenda!  Matt Martinich's comments are very interesting.  I had heard about the move toward centers of strength", but had filed it away until now.  I had never considered what sort of consequences the shift might have.  It seems we know now:  numerical growth has slowed while activity rates have increased.  Quite encouraging news from my perspective.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Okrahomer
Cleanup

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/3/2016 at 7:00 PM, JLHPROF said:

Why not?  There are prophecies to that effect.
 

What are you gonna do about it? 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Thanks for the link, Tacenda!  Matt Martinich's comments are very interesting.  I had heard about the move toward centers of strength", but had filed it away until now.  I had never considered what sort of consequences the shift might have.  It seems we know now:  numerical growth has slowed while activity rates have increased.  Quite encouraging news from my perspective.

To be clear, though, at least from what I"ve seen, we don't know that activity rates have increased.  It doesn't seem like that's the case as congregations per member remains fairly constant.  It seems his point was to suggest since we've had, like this past year, units added at a faster pace than in the years past that might mean our activity rates have improved.  But since the number of members per congregation varies significantly around the world, since new units pop up in locations with small numbers of members per unit, that conclusion doesn't work very well.  I'll grant that his conclusion is possible, but it's also possible he's not correct. 

 

From his blog:

Although these findings for membership growth appear concerning, some significant positive LDS growth developments occurred during 2015. First, the Church reported the largest net increase in the number of congregations, and the highest percentage increase in congregations, since 2005.

Second, the Church reported the most commensurate membership and congregational growth since 1998. In other words, the rates of membership and congregational growth were the most similar since 1998. As a result, the average number of members per congregation in the worldwide church barely increased from 519 to 521. Third, the Church has sustained steady increases in the number of stakes within the past five years (approximately 50-60), whereas the Church reported smaller net increases in the number of stakes in the 2000s (approximately 30-40).

In conclusion, the results of the 2015 Annual Statistical Report suggests that the Church has achieved good improvements in convert retention and local leadership development at the expense of fewer converts baptized. Greater "real growth" has appeared to occur that emphasizes quality instead of quantity - otherwise we would expect to see similar declines in LDS statistical measurements that reflect member activity rates (e.g. stakes and congregations). Rapid LDS growth in several African nations, where higher convert retention and member activity rates occur, have also likely affected LDS growth trends in the worldwide Church and may explain some of these improvements.

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2016-04-04T20:26:00-06:00&max-results=10

Edited April 28, 2016 by stemelbow

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

To be clear, though, at least from what I"ve seen, we don't know that activity rates have increased.  It doesn't seem like that's the case as congregations per member remains fairly constant.  It seems his point was to suggest since we've had, like this past year, units added at a faster pace than in the years past that might mean our activity rates have improved.  But since the number of members per congregation varies significantly around the world, since new units pop up in locations with small numbers of members per unit, that conclusion doesn't work very well.  I'll grant that his conclusion is possible, but it's also possible he's not correct. 

 

From his blog:

 

 

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2016-04-04T20:26:00-06:00&max-results=10

I agree, we do not know.  The data only "suggest"--very preliminarily--that activity rates have increased.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/27/2016 at 7:34 AM, stemelbow said:

Real growth would be hard to quantify on such grounds.  For instance, we were discussing earlier the Salt Lake Valley, having discontinued a few stakes over the past two years.  That is probably mostly because people move.  And new stakes were formed in the south and southwest areas of the valleys.  People moving is perhaps the biggest factor for that but also because of what you term real growth.  Overall this past year the rate of new members to new stakes is interesting in that it is the lowest rate we've seen--that means more new stakes are added per population than ever before.  That may mean a few things--the growth over the past few years hit a peak in which a little more put many areas over the top. 

How do you measure "the rate of new members to new stakes"? Where can we find that figure?

Are you talking there about new conversions and baptism? By "real growth," I mean not just new conversions but also members who have been reactivated to the point they can be a strength to a unit of the Church.

In that sense, the proliferation of temples is another measure of real growth, as the Church does not build temples where they won't be utilized, and members do not receive temple recommends without declaring their devotion and activity in the Church.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

I agree, we do not know.  The data only "suggest"--very preliminarily--that activity rates have increased.

I don't see that suggestion from the data.  I'm saying we can't make that suggestion based on the data.  The data could suggest many things but activity rate conclusions don't seem to be one of them, unless of course we get more data, or can get a view to more things.  The sad part is activity rates are kept.  they just aren't shared. 

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How do you measure "the rate of new members to new stakes"? Where can we find that figure?

Are you talking there about new conversions and baptism? By "real growth," I mean not just new conversions but also members who have been reactivated to the point they can be a strength to a unit of the Church.

In that sense, the proliferation of temples is another measure of real growth, as the Church does not build temples where they won't be utilized, and members do not receive temple recommends without declaring their devotion and activity in the Church.

 

Hi Scott,

It might have been in another thread where I posted it.  I collected it from reviewing the Church's statistical report each year.  You will see that in the past 10 years the number of new stakes added per new member added is lower than it has been.  if you go back in time that number doesn't drop below 4300:

Year	Stakes	Wards and Branches	Members	Members per stake	Stakes added	MemChange	NewMembers/Stake added
2007	2,745	27,475	12,868,606	4,688.02
2008	2,790	27,827	13,193,999	4,729.03	45.00	325,393.00	7,230.96
2009	2,818	28,109	13,508,509	4,793.65	28.00	314,510.00	11,232.50
2010	2,865	28,424	13,824,854	4,825.43	47.00	316,345.00	6,730.74
2011	2,896	28,660	14,131,467	4,879.65	31.00	306,613.00	9,890.74
2012	2,946	28,784	14,441,346	4,902.02	50.00	309,879.00	6,197.58
2013	3,005	29,014	14,782,473	4,919.29	59.00	341,127.00	5,781.81
2014	3,050	29,253	15,082,028	4,944.93	45.00	299,555.00	6,656.78
2015	3,114	29,621	15,372,337	4,936.52	64.00	290,309.00	4,536.08
2016	3,174	30,016	15,634,199	4,925.71	60.00	261,862.00	4,364.37

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see that suggestion from the data.  I'm saying we can't make that suggestion based on the data.  The data could suggest many things but activity rate conclusions don't seem to be one of them, unless of course we get more data, or can get a view to more things.  The sad part is activity rates are kept.  they just aren't shared. 

Yes, that's true.  We don't know. 

What we do know is that Matt Martinich (who spends a lot of time studying the little data we do have) has said:  the data "suggests" a higher retention and activity rate.