Moms Holding Baby During Blessing

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Unfortunately, per the linked blog, you violated Apostolic instruction.

Why do you find that unfortunate?  I'm not sure why you would even care?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Babies are put on the records as church members, which means a significant portion of the membership of the church is unbaptized. 

They are put on as children of record though, and not counted as full members until they are baptized.  That's been my understanding in the past anyway. (and how it worked when i was on my mission.  The ward lists we had made clear distinctions between children of record and baptized members).

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

We have no record of anyone claiming that God gave any directions on the matter at all, other than the laying on of hands part.,

Right.  But I still think we should be careful when contemplating change.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are put on as children of record though, and not counted as full members until they are baptized.  That's been my understanding in the past anyway. (and how it worked when i was on my mission.  The ward lists we had made clear distinctions between children of record and baptized members).

that's so missionaries can scour the ward lists for children who are 9 and 10 and not baptized, to up their numbers. 

I'm still quite curious how many convert baptisms are due to situations of kids growing past 8 and not getting baptized until later.  Those were the gimmes.  Get the parents to show up with the kids a few times, and ta da...a whole new story to hear about come testimony week. 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are put on as children of record though, and not counted as full members until they are baptized.  That's been my understanding in the past anyway. (and how it worked when i was on my mission.  The ward lists we had made clear distinctions between children of record and baptized members).

It would be interesting to know how the church counts this. I don't think we have enough information to know whether or not children of record are part of the 15,000,000 church members.

And Stemelbow is exactly right about the children of record over 8 being a staple for missionary baptism. It makes me wonder if children of record over 8 are dropped from membership numbers. I don't know. It would be interesting to find out though.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be interesting to know how the church counts this. I don't think we have enough information to know whether or not children of record are part of the 15,000,000 church members.

And Stemelbow is exactly right about the children of record over 8 being a staple for missionary baptism. It makes me wonder if children of record over 8 are dropped from membership numbers. I don't know. It would be interesting to find out though.

The Church statistical report given in General Conference each April cites the number of "New Children of Record" and number of "Converts Baptized".  I would assume that those two numbers added to the previous year's membership total, less deaths and excommunications, should be the number they are reporting as total members.  If they were counting new 8 year old baptisms, I would think THAT number would be cited instead of the New COR number.

[thesometimesaint]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure that's the case... when I look in the Leader & Clerk Resources data it counts all children of record in our membership numbers.

SEE http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Child_of_record

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No! it just means they are a child of record. They are not considered members until after their baptism.

I believe in terms of church statistics they are counted as full members, even if it's understood internally that they're not full members. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Child_of_record

I'm not sure that link clears anything up:  it says that they aren't considered "an official member" until baptized but it also states that a membership record is created for the child when they are blessed.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

that's so missionaries can scour the ward lists for children who are 9 and 10 and not baptized, to up their numbers. 

I'm still quite curious how many convert baptisms are due to situations of kids growing past 8 and not getting baptized until later.  Those were the gimmes.  Get the parents to show up with the kids a few times, and ta da...a whole new story to hear about come testimony week. 

Our ward lists were the same all auxiliaries got, but it was quite handy!

As for my mission, I had no child of record baptisms. Can't speak for other missionaries of course. 

[thesometimesaint]

A babies blessing is not voluntary for the baby, a baptism is. It is a essentially a prayer that the child will continue on the course towards true discipleship. Confirmation after baptism is what makes you a member of the Church.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our ward lists were the same all auxiliaries got, but it was quite handy!

As for my mission, I had no child of record baptisms. Can't speak for other missionaries of course. 

We got a few, as in me and my companions.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

We got a few, as in me and my companions.

Zero on my mission. 

[Ginger Snaps]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No! it just means they are a child of record. They are not considered members until after their baptism.

Having just finished a long run as RS secretary, I can say that there are several unbaptized "children of record", now adults, on the RS rolls of my ward. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Having just finished a long run as RS secretary, I can say that there are several unbaptized "children of record", now adults, on the RS rolls of my ward. 

Yes, we have the same in my ward:  unbaptized adult "children of record" still on our records.  Every now and then when we make contact with them, if they clearly state that they are not a member of the Church, we follow the process to remove their names/records. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Zero on my mission. 

Man,  You guys made it hard on yourselves.  Seriously that was like the first thing we did in areas--look at the ward lists to see if there were any part member families and children that were not baptized.  Stake them out and go full throttle on their cabooses.  Low hanging fruit for us. 

[thesometimesaint]

Anyone, member or nonmember, can attend RS. Just like anyone can attend Priesthood Meetings. Membership isn't a requirement for attendance.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Man,  You guys made it hard on yourselves.  Seriously that was like the first thing we did in areas--look at the ward lists to see if there were any part member families and children that were not baptized.  Stake them out and go full throttle on their cabooses.  Low hanging fruit for us. 

That's just not playing fair, now is it.

Inactive families seemed to be few and far between in Sweden.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's just not playing fair, now is it.

Inactive families seemed to be few and far between in Sweden.

members were few and far between.  As of now there are less than 10,000 members in Sweden.  1 temple.  35 Family History centers.  40 congregations (units), and according to Familsearch.org 12,605,185 indexed records (which is pretty good for a country with so few members).

Too support your message, though.  There are 238 members per unit.  Which is low.  Countries with really high members per unit, like Chile, have pretty high inactivity rates, or so it's been said.  Chile has 959 members per unit for comparison. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by stemelbow

[salgare]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why do you find that unfortunate?  I'm not sure why you would even care?

1. If you or others of like mind have other children you are put in a position of being rebellious or obedient.

2. it affects my daughter and daughter-in-law; and I like you.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

members were few and far between.  As of now there are less than 10,000 members in Sweden.  1 temple.  35 Family History centers.  40 congregations (units), and according to Familsearch.org 12,605,185 indexed records (which is pretty good for a country with so few members).

Too support your message, though.  There are 238 members per unit.  Which is low.  Countries with really high members per unit, like Chile, have pretty high inactivity rates, or so it's been said.  Chile has 959 members per unit for comparison. 

I did just do a quick count of convert baptisms in my stake between 2010 and early 2015. (I don't have the same responsibilities now so don't know about since then). 

179 convert baptisms

30 children age 9-12 that were from inactive or part member families

So 17% of the baptisms fall into this category.

I don't know what meaning to attach to this or how it compares to elsewhere, but there it is.

[stemelbow]

For all interested (COR=Children of Record; Converts= convert baptisms; DENr=the number lost from year to year or the dead, excommunicated or names removed) :

Year	COR	Converts	DENr
1997	75,241	317,798	17064
1998	76,829	299,134	92246
1999	84,118	306,171	-8456
2000	81,450	273,973	39548
2001	69,522	292,612	36473
2002	81,132	283,138	37244
2003	99,457	242,923	78674
2004	98,870	241,239	49541
2005	93,150	243,108	51211
2006	94,006	272,845	59114
2007	93,698	279,218	47523
2008	123,502	265,593	74585
2009	119,722	280,106	83483
2010	120,528	272,814	86729
2011	119,917	281,312	91350
2012	122,273	272,330	53476
2013	115,486	282,945	98876
2014	116,409	296,803	122903
2015	114,550	257,402	110,090

[stemelbow]

Note the COR is ranging close to the DENr as of the past couple years (with less children getting added and more people getting tossed out, through death or however).  Might be a good explanation for why growth rate is slowing so much. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I did just do a quick count of convert baptisms in my stake between 2010 and early 2015. (I don't have the same responsibilities now so don't know about since then). 

179 convert baptisms

30 children age 9-12 that were from inactive or part member families

So 17% of the baptisms fall into this category.

I don't know what meaning to attach to this or how it compares to elsewhere, but there it is.

Wow...awesome.  And wow to the number of convert baptisms you have had.  Good show.  We've been no where near that.  Over the course of the past 5 years we're probably not even equal to how many you're stake has averaged in one year, over that span. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Wow...awesome.  And wow to the number of convert baptisms you have had.  Good show.  We've been no where near that.  Over the course of the past 5 years we're probably not even equal to how many you're stake has averaged in one year, over that span. 

It would be awesome if they were still active and living in the stake.  Convert retention is a problem everywhere, but it always seemed like those who did stay strong and active after baptism would move away. 

I don't have a feel for the other wards in the stake, but in my own, which had 26 baptisms over that period, only 2 are still contributing to the ward.  Those 2, coincidentally,  were both children of record baptized after they turned 9.