flameburns623 Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0929/New-temple-highlights-Mormon-church-growth-bucking-national-trend Despite concerns expressed here recently about the slowed growth of the Church, others are taking note that at least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not declining as are many other denominations. 3
SteveO Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 29 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0929/New-temple-highlights-Mormon-church-growth-bucking-national-trend Despite concerns expressed here recently about the slowed growth of the Church, others are taking note that at least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not declining as are many other denominations. Thanks for the article. Listening to some of the posters here, you'd think the church was on the brink of collapse. Im just getting back from the morning session of conference, it looks like the church is as strong and vibrant as ever.
boblloyd91 Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 The fact that new stakes are created on a weekly basis, several temples are being built per year, and other developments cause me to think that the supposed fall of the church is more wishful thinking by those who hate it than actual reality.... 2
Okrahomer Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 48 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0929/New-temple-highlights-Mormon-church-growth-bucking-national-trend Despite concerns expressed here recently about the slowed growth of the Church, others are taking note that at least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not declining as are many other denominations. Matt Martinich's blog about LDS Church growth is also quite interesting. From the "Stakes and Districts Organized" lists, one notes a definite upward trend--especially noticeable this year. His New Temple predictions are also quite interesting. 1
sunstoned Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 5 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: The fact that new stakes are created on a weekly basis, several temples are being built per year, and other developments cause me to think that the supposed fall of the church is more wishful thinking by those who hate it than actual reality.... According to Pres. Holland we are adding 10 states a week. That is amazing growth. I can hardly wait for the official figures to come out for this year. With 10 states a week, we should see quite a spike in the growth charts.
Freedom Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 58 minutes ago, sunstoned said: According to Pres. Holland we are adding 10 states a week. That is amazing growth. I can hardly wait for the official figures to come out for this year. With 10 states a week, we should see quite a spike in the growth charts. The actual statistics suggest otherwise. We are growing, but not that much. 1
rongo Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 The plan in North America is for much smaller wards and smaller stakes. So, in the coming years, we should see rapid growth in stakes and wards, with mostly unchanged total membership numbers. Optimal wards are now viewed as 250-300 members, so many wards/stakes can be created without any raw membership growth. 1
CV75 Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 7 hours ago, rongo said: The plan in North America is for much smaller wards and smaller stakes. So, in the coming years, we should see rapid growth in stakes and wards, with mostly unchanged total membership numbers. Optimal wards are now viewed as 250-300 members, so many wards/stakes can be created without any raw membership growth. I think that is an interesting way to look at Church growth: not so much as the number of individual members, but as the number of individuals holding the keys to grant members and non-members alike access to the ordinances of salvation (membership) and exaltation (temple). After all, since we are here to serve the world at large, it might be good to also measure growth in terms of availability and access to those with the keys.to the spiritual blessings. 1
flameburns623 Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 8 hours ago, rongo said: The plan in North America is for much smaller wards and smaller stakes. So, in the coming years, we should see rapid growth in stakes and wards, with mostly unchanged total membership numbers. Optimal wards are now viewed as 250-300 members, so many wards/stakes can be created without any raw membership growth. Except, per my OP article, the Church IS growing, if not at the fastest rate it has in years past. Which would imply even greater numbers of new wards and stakes, assuming the Church can address it's problems with retention and inactivity.
rongo Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Yes, it is actually growing, too. I think that's why it was a big deal in the article. Most churches are actually shrinking and contracting.
sunstoned Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 22 hours ago, Freedom said: The actual statistics suggest otherwise. We are growing, but not that much. I am not ready to question President Holland's statement. I think the end of the year stats will validate it, or not. Anyway, some growth is better than nothing.
Freedom Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) On 10/2/2016 at 7:14 PM, sunstoned said: I am not ready to question President Holland's statement. I think the end of the year stats will validate it, or not. Anyway, some growth is better than nothing. His comments were made off the cuff and the information was second hand so he was not making an official statement. The church has been growing by about 50 stakes/year. An increase of 10/week would represent a 16% increase in church membership which is quite a jump from the average of 1.9%/year. Edited October 5, 2016 by Freedom 1
sunstoned Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 51 minutes ago, Freedom said: His comments were made off the cuff and the information was second hand so he was not making an official statement. The church has been growing by about 50 stakes/year. An increase of 10/week would represent a 16% increase in church membership which is quite a jump from the average of 1.9%/year. I then to agree with you that he probably gives a dozen talks a month, and with a schedule like that, a small small slip is understandable.
canard78 Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Freedom said: His comments were made off the cuff and the information was second hand so he was not making an official statement. The church has been growing by about 50 stakes/year. An increase of 10/week would represent a 16% increase in church membership which is quite a jump from the average of 1.9%/year. So if world population growth is around 1.2% then the church's actual net growth above the base is +0.7% So that means the church's "share" of global population is growing, but at a fairly slow rate. On rough estimates, 180,000 would be expected from normal growth rates, so the church has gained an additional ~100,000 above expectation. That's a gain of 0.0015% of global population.
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 8:50 PM, sunstoned said: According to Pres. Holland we are adding 10 states a week. That is amazing growth. I can hardly wait for the official figures to come out for this year. With 10 states a week, we should see quite a spike in the growth charts. There have been 104 new stakes and districts organized in 2016, but 14 that have been discontinued. THat's an addition of 90. We simply have had more than 9 weeks this year. I don't think Elder Holland's off-the-cuff figure is to be taken literally.
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 10:22 PM, rongo said: The plan in North America is for much smaller wards and smaller stakes. So, in the coming years, we should see rapid growth in stakes and wards, with mostly unchanged total membership numbers. Optimal wards are now viewed as 250-300 members, so many wards/stakes can be created without any raw membership growth. I think we're seeing this world wide now.
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 8 hours ago, canard78 said: So if world population growth is around 1.2% then the church's actual net growth above the base is +0.7% So that means the church's "share" of global population is growing, but at a fairly slow rate. On rough estimates, 180,000 would be expected from normal growth rates, so the church has gained an additional ~100,000 above expectation. That's a gain of 0.0015% of global population. This past year was the first time we've seen the Church's growth in relation to the world's population not increase from previous year's. Actual membership growth rate has slowed to 1.7%. The year before we were at 1.92% growth. Both of which were historic lows. In other words it's trending downward. Year Growth Rate 1997 3.73% 1998 2.82% 1999 3.85% 2000 2.94% 2001 2.94% 2002 2.87% 2003 2.25% 2004 2.42% 2005 2.32% 2006 2.45% 2007 2.53% 2008 2.38% 2009 2.34% 2010 2.22% 2011 2.19% 2012 2.36% 2013 2.03% 2014 1.92% 2015 1.70% Year Church's pop as percentage of world 1997 0.171911% 1998 0.174454% 1999 0.178856% 2000 0.181797% 2001 0.184819% 2002 0.187785% 2003 0.189682% 2004 0.191939% 2005 0.194049% 2006 0.196429% 2007 0.199007% 2008 0.201348% 2009 0.203660% 2010 0.205808% 2011 0.207967% 2012 0.210506% 2013 0.212392% 2014 0.214137% 2015 0.212739%
hope_for_things Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 2:25 PM, flameburns623 said: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0929/New-temple-highlights-Mormon-church-growth-bucking-national-trend Despite concerns expressed here recently about the slowed growth of the Church, others are taking note that at least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not declining as are many other denominations. Until the church gets transparent on its membership numbers, its hard to tell exactly what is happening. They should report active attending members, that's the number that really matters when judging growth statistics. I work for a communications company, and we report the number of subscribers that are paying subscribers of our product. It would make no sense for us to report the total number of subscribers that were once paying subscribers but have since left our company for another provider. The church in essence counts everyone who was ever an active member in its membership statistics (unless they remove their name from the roles). Its a meaningless statistic. 1
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Until the church gets transparent on its membership numbers, its hard to tell exactly what is happening. They should report active attending members, that's the number that really matters when judging growth statistics. I work for a communications company, and we report the number of subscribers that are paying subscribers of our product. It would make no sense for us to report the total number of subscribers that were once paying subscribers but have since left our company for another provider. The church in essence counts everyone who was ever an active member in its membership statistics (unless they remove their name from the roles). Its a meaningless statistic. Activity rates would present other questions though. If say a particular ward is said to have an activity rate of 32.2 percent. What does that mean? Well all the members on record in the ward boundaries are considered. What if members are on the rolls but have moved or are not really int he ward (which happens in pretty much every ward)? they're counted. What if members attend but aren't on the rolls for that ward? Well they're counted. What if people attend who aren't members? Well they're counted and included as part of the activity rate as well. The best figure to represent growth in my mind is members on record. But surely that number needs more context than what we're given.
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 2:58 PM, SteveO said: Thanks for the article. Listening to some of the posters here, you'd think the church was on the brink of collapse. Im just getting back from the morning session of conference, it looks like the church is as strong and vibrant as ever. All is well in Zion!
SteveO Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: All is well in Zion! The church is on the brink of collapse. The members are horrible people who follow old, white relics of the distant past. Conference was a desperate attempt to get people to come back since record numbers are resigning their membership to embrace more loving, tolerant positions on social issues. Tithing revenue is down, temple building is stalling, missionaries are less successful than they've ever been, and Satan in general, reigns supreme all throughout the church. Is that what you wanted to hear? Are you going to go on about your day in a better mood now? Edited October 5, 2016 by SteveO
SteveO Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Double post Edited October 5, 2016 by SteveO
rongo Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Activity rates would present other questions though. If say a particular ward is said to have an activity rate of 32.2 percent. What does that mean? Well all the members on record in the ward boundaries are considered. What if members are on the rolls but have moved or are not really int he ward (which happens in pretty much every ward)? they're counted. What if members attend but aren't on the rolls for that ward? Well they're counted. What if people attend who aren't members? Well they're counted and included as part of the activity rate as well. The best figure to represent growth in my mind is members on record. But surely that number needs more context than what we're given. I wonder how many members from the 15 million can't be located (i.e., the Church has no idea where any of these members are)? It seems to me from my experience that this number would be at least 2-3 million. They are on the records in every ward, and the Church made it more difficult to send them to Address Unknown several years ago --- and Salt Lake punts them back to the wards after a few months if they can't locate them unless the clerk/bishopric adds a note telling them to stop sending them back because they have been verified to not be in the ward. Elder Jay E. Jensen called this "the Great Swamp," and I have found that siccing the missionaries and quorums on "the Great Swamp" is possibly the most fruitful work that can be done --- both in terms of record-keeping and also bearing secondary fruit. We have had activations and baptisms result from working on "the Great Swamp" (visiting records nobody knows, sending them to Salt Lake "with prejudice" if they are confirmed not there, working with people we find or people who are there but not who we're looking for). It is a little frustrating that Salt Lake obviously doesn't want the "Address Unknown" records and tries to send them back to the last known unit if they can't find them. Salt Lake does a good job of trying to locate them through family and other means. My wife was called by Salt Lake about her sister's whereabouts, and she happily "ratted her out" (she was inactive and hiding from the Church --- darn U of U! ). She is now sealed in the temple and fully-active, but it took Salt Lake hunting for her. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What if members are on the rolls but have moved or are not really int he ward (which happens in pretty much every ward)? they're counted. What if members attend but aren't on the rolls for that ward? Well they're counted. What if people attend who aren't members? Well they're counted and included as part of the activity rate as well. The real important statistics are at higher levels than the ward level. Total members in a state or country or church as a whole. This is why active membership is the best indicator of growth or decline. I don't care what people chose 10 or 20 years ago. I don't care how many babies are blessed and added to the roles. I care how many people are actively attending and contributing. Nothing else matters. Whether these people have been baptized or not, doesn't really even matter. I would count a participating, actively attending person who hasn't been baptized in the stats.
stemelbow Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, SteveO said: The church is on the brink of collapse. The members are horrible people who follow old, white relics of the distant past. Conference was a desperate attempt to get people to come back since record numbers are resigning their membership to embrace more loving, tolerant positions on social issues. Tithing revenue is down, temple building is stalling, missionaries are less successful than they've ever been, and Satan in general, reigns supreme all throughout the church. Is that what you wanted to hear? Are you going to go on about your day in a better mood now? it is funny, I get a chuckle when I talk to friends who say the church is dying. of course it's not. But the fact that the growth rate is slower than it's been in 100 years, that conversions per missionary is so strikingly low, we wouldn't have imagined such a change 20 years ago (when I was on a mission), tells me not all is well. I think there is plenty we can change in the Church and in our approach to the question of Church growth. So I'm somewhere in between your pie in the sky world and the utter destruction world that others give.
Recommended Posts