Christian Science Monitor article on the continued growth of the LDS Church

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Excellent points.  I'm not sure what the Church should do if they can't locate someone.  Going back to their last known address seems reasonable.  Most people tell someone in the area where they are going when they move. 

[rongo]

Just now, stemelbow said:

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. 

We also have to keep in mind prophecies about the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled and the Church being prepared for the 2nd Coming. I think that members, including leaders, who got caught up in the Rodney Stark projections lost sight of that. I don't think it was ever realistic or rational to think that the Church would have 1.21 jigawatts of members by 2060 . . .  

[rodheadlee]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

argggghhh. How do you get rid of a quote box you don't want?

Edited October 5, 2016 by rodheadlee

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Excellent points.  I'm not sure what the Church should do if they can't locate someone.  Going back to their last known address seems reasonable. 

Not if they aren't there, and everybody knows they aren't there. That clutters up the rolls. I think Salt Lake should keep those in "the black hole" (my term for the solid Address Unknown file).

Most people tell someone in the area where they are going when they move.

Many people do. And many people don't. There are a lot of people who don't want the Church to know where they are, and are annoyed when they are found.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour 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.  

What constitutes an active member? We could appear inactive because we are gone a lot. In reality we are out doing Christian things for non members of our families or getting medical procedures out of town.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Good thoughts.  Years ago it was revealed that it's like most members in some places, like Brazil, Chile, and Mexico don't consider themselves members.  In 2010 Brazil there were counted 225,695 people who self-identified as Latter-day Saints (as per the Brazilian census).  But the Church had well over a million members on record(1,138,740).  As of last year Brazil showed we had 646 members per church unit.  Which is a real high number, suggesting that activity rates in that country are lower than in other places.  Chile has the highest number of members per unit (959) than any country in the world.  in 2002 103,735 self identified as LDS in Chile compared to at that time 520,202 members on record.  The self-identified rates in the two countries are pretty similar (nearly 20% in Brazil and nearly 20% in Argentina).  It could be that more members in Brazil that self identify attend.  or more members in Chile still consider themselves members but dont' attend.  However you slice it it brings up a lot of questions.  Why?  what's going on in these two countries?  It'd be nice to have sure figures on activity rates, though. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

What constitutes an active member? We could appear inactive because we are gone a lot. In reality we are out doing Christian things for non members of our families or getting medical procedures out of town.

As I understand it to be active one attends a meeting a month.  That's not a high standard.  The problem is we count numbers and compare that number to overall membership to determine activity rates.  meaning whether one particular person attends a meeting or nto doesn't really factor in. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

argggghhh. How do you get rid of a quote box you don't want?

You mean when responding?  Click the box in the respond window (upper portion like where the name and date of the post is found) before you submit and click delete.  That's what I do.  Works every time. 

[rongo]

There are actually two separate statistics: one for the overall church (which takes into account the millions of inactive/missing people), and one at the local level (with the rolls cleaned up so that they reflect only people who are actually there). Sending records to Address Unknown to stay until found is a drag on the worldwide Church's statistics, but attendance rates, home/visiting teaching, morale, activity, etc. are higher at the local level --- where the actual church is (where the rubber hits the road). 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are actually two separate statistics: one for the overall church (which takes into account the millions of inactive/missing people), and one at the local level (with the rolls cleaned up so that they reflect only people who are actually there). Sending records to Address Unknown to stay until found is a drag on the worldwide Church's statistics, but attendance rates, home/visiting teaching, morale, activity, etc. are higher at the local level --- where the actual church is (where the rubber hits the road). 

Awesome.  That helps.  the "unknowns" do add a factor in this that complicates things. 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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.

Here's that data vs world growth rates and estimated for next 9 or 10 years.

Currently the church is growing slightly faster than natural population growth, but in a few years (based on current trajectory) would be in net decline (relative to average growth rates). I.e. still increasing membership, but slower than normal population growth expectations.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

What constitutes an active member? We could appear inactive because we are gone a lot. In reality we are out doing Christian things for non members of our families or getting medical procedures out of town.

You could debate about what to call as active.  I think the church uses 1 time a month sacrament attendance, and that could be a starting point.  But there are people who attend every week, but don't pay any tithing, so that's another measurement that would be interesting to see.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You could debate about what to call as active.  I think the church uses 1 time a month sacrament attendance, and that could be a starting point.  But there are people who attend every week, but don't pay any tithing, so that's another measurement that would be interesting to see.  

yep.  And people who attend not at all and pay tithing in some measure.  I know because as a deacon I was assigned to go and get their moneys.  and then as a young men's leader I helped take the boys around to do the same. 

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Good thoughts.  Years ago it was revealed that it's like most members in some places, like Brazil, Chile, and Mexico don't consider themselves members.  In 2010 Brazil there were counted 225,695 people who self-identified as Latter-day Saints (as per the Brazilian census).  But the Church had well over a million members on record(1,138,740).  As of last year Brazil showed we had 646 members per church unit.  Which is a real high number, suggesting that activity rates in that country are lower than in other places.  Chile has the highest number of members per unit (959) than any country in the world.  in 2002 103,735 self identified as LDS in Chile compared to at that time 520,202 members on record.  The self-identified rates in the two countries are pretty similar (nearly 20% in Brazil and nearly 20% in Argentina).  It could be that more members in Brazil that self identify attend.  or more members in Chile still consider themselves members but dont' attend.  However you slice it it brings up a lot of questions.  Why?  what's going on in these two countries?  It'd be nice to have sure figures on activity rates, though. 

Good points.  I think the self identified numbers are interesting and are probably much closer to an activity rate. Personally I self identify as Mormon, but I'm not actively attending today.  So I wonder if even the self identified Mormons is a higher number than the actively attending ones.  

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You could debate about what to call as active.  I think the church uses 1 time a month sacrament attendance, and that could be a starting point.  But there are people who attend every week, but don't pay any tithing, so that's another measurement that would be interesting to see . . . I think the self identified numbers are interesting and are probably much closer to an activity rate. Personally I self identify as Mormon, but I'm not actively attending today.  So I wonder if even the self identified Mormons is a higher number than the actively attending ones.  

 

•  

Quote

 

stemelbow: 

yep.  And people who attend not at all and pay tithing in some measure.

Attending sacrament meeting at least once a month to be considered active (the Church's standard) is probably as good an indicator as any for a starting baseline measure of activity. I would personally up it to at least two, myself, if it were up to me. I don't think people who come only once a month are really active.

People are interesting. I have members who never come and will never come, but who pay a full tithing. Then, there are people who attend regularly and who are active in any service sense of the word, but who don't pay tithing because they lack the faith to. I consider them active, even though they aren't temple-worthy. It really is complicated!

The self-identifying Mormons outnumber actively-attending ones. There are also those who, for various reasons, are very inactive, but they adamantly consider themselves to be Mormon.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by rongo

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Attending sacrament meeting at least once a month to be considered active (the Church's standard) is probably as good an indicator as any for a starting baseline measure of activity. I would personally up it to at least two, myself, if it were up to me. I don't think people who come only once a month are really active.

People are interesting. I have members who never come and will never come, but who pay a full tithing. Then, there are people who attend regularly and who are active in any service sense of the word, but who don't pay tithing because they lack the faith to. I consider them active, even though they aren't temple-worthy. It really is complicated!

The self-identifying Mormons outnumber actively-attending ones. There are also those who, for various reasons, are very inactive, but they adamantly consider themselves to be Mormon.

 

Help me out.  In terms of measuring activity.

If say a ward has 500 names on it's rolls.  In a given month there may be 4 sundays.  So do we take the average of the four Sundays and then count that has activity?  or how do we figure activity rates? 

if in this hypothetical month the ward had:

1st Sunday: 257

2nd: 298

3rd: 228

4th:  251

is the activity rate the average of those (258.5) divided by the total names 500? 

Because that would be the activity rate for a given month, not necessarily the activity rate as defined as one sacrament meeting per month.  The problem with measuring the definition is no one names each person who attends sacrament.  They just do a count.  The numbers wouldn't tell us how the 257 one week relates to the 298 the next.  Maybe there was a baby blessing or a missionary leaving and many of those in the increase are simply missing from their own ward? 

 

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

argggghhh. How do you get rid of a quote box you don't want?

Do what I do...I fill it with my own..quote..the last time..I quoted Shakespear...but usually just say..Have a great day..hey..it works!

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Help me out.  In terms of measuring activity.

If say a ward has 500 names on it's rolls.  In a given month there may be 4 sundays.  So do we take the average of the four Sundays and then count that has activity?  or how do we figure activity rates? 

if in this hypothetical month the ward had:

1st Sunday: 257

2nd: 298

3rd: 228

4th:  251

is the activity rate the average of those (258.5) divided by the total names 500? 

Because that would be the activity rate for a given month, not necessarily the activity rate as defined as one sacrament meeting per month.  The problem with measuring the definition is no one names each person who attends sacrament.  They just do a count.  The numbers wouldn't tell us how the 257 one week relates to the 298 the next.  Maybe there was a baby blessing or a missionary leaving and many of those in the increase are simply missing from their own ward? 

 

 

It's also only measuring the quarterly report months (March, June, September, December). It's a sampling of only those months. If your hypothetical month were a counting month, then the activity rate would be 52% (which is outstanding, by the way!). The organizations are asked to submit names of individuals who did not attend any meetings that month.

You're absolutely correct about outside factors affecting attendance. My ward has a lot of children and teenagers, and can become a ghost town in the summer with vacations (some families are gone for the entire summer). So, that plays a role.

The biggest impact is on the ward budget. The quarterly budget allotment for the ward is based on the average sacrament meeting attendance during the counting months. Our lower-than-usual June attendance impacts our 3rd quarter budget because we have a lot of families out of town in June, and that drops the attendance for that month. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because that would be the activity rate for a given month, not necessarily the activity rate as defined as one sacrament meeting per month.  

The Church has defined activity as attending only one sacrament meeting per month, but there isn't a master report where people who didn't attend in a month are listed. That's more of an internal, mental list kept by leaders. 

Temple-worthy adds the standard of attending "sacrament and priesthood meetings," which I think most people would also apply to Relief Society meetings. I had a stake president who was specifically told not to alter the wording to include Relief Society --- we only ask what is in the questions. 

[Kenngo1969]

Just spit-balling here, but in a way, smaller wards and stakes might actually help address activity and retention.  For one thing, the more wards there are, the more people are needed to serve.  President Hinckley said members of the Church of Jesus Christ need three things: (1) a friend, (2) a responsibility, and (3) to be nurtured by the good word of God.  Smaller wards and stakes make it easier to provide all of these things, and harder for people to "slip through the cracks" or to "skate" without responsibility.  For another thing, it's certainly easier to keep track of people in smaller wards and stakes, Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching are probably easier, Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have as heavy a burden, and so on.

Just a couple of my thoughts.  Your mileage may vary.  

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

Not if they aren't there, and everybody knows they aren't there. That clutters up the rolls. I think Salt Lake should keep those in "the black hole" (my term for the solid Address Unknown file).

 

 

Many people do. And many people don't. There are a lot of people who don't want the Church to know where they are, and are annoyed when they are found.

When I was a Membership Clerk, we were instructed to not send information regarding a member we couldn't locate to the "Whereabouts Unknown" arm of Membership Processing without making rather extensive efforts to find them ourselves, and preferably providing some clue as to where they may be found (e.g., scouring social media to see if any accounts possibly belonging to them could be located, talking to relatives or friends in the area to see if anyone knew where they went, and so on). Membership Processing is tough enough as it is. 

[sunstoned]

12 hours 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.  

The church has these numbers.  I was a ward clerk, and we reported Sacrament meeting attendance.  They pass the roll around in SS and Priesthood meeting.  They have accurate information, but no pressure to release it.  They lead and make decisions completely without any input or pressure from the membership.  One of the few organizations can do that (at lease in the free world anyway).  If the real membership numbers could be seen a positive and faith promoting, they would be released in a New York minute.

Edited October 6, 2016 by sunstoned

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The church has these numbers.  I was a ward clerk, and we reported Sacrament meeting attendance.  They pass the roll around in SS and Priesthood meeting.  They have accurate information, but no pressure to release it.  They lead and make decisions completely without any input or pressure from the membership.  One of the few organizations can do that (at lease in the free world anyway).  If the real membership numbers could be seen a positive and faith promoting, they would be released in a New York minute.

Transparency is becoming an expectation within modern society.  The longer that the church tries to push against this trend, the more out of step they will appear to be with the wider culture.  Ironically the church was even more transparent about finances and membership numbers even 75 years ago.  Secrecy about things that are commonly not secret, causes people to question the motives of the organization.  

I think we all have a right to this information, and its only a matter of time before laws are passed that force transparency on the church, many other countries already require financial disclosures by charitable institutions.  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Transparency is becoming an expectation within modern society.  The longer that the church tries to push against this trend, the more out of step they will appear to be with the wider culture.  Ironically the church was even more transparent about finances and membership numbers even 75 years ago.  Secrecy about things that are commonly not secret, causes people to question the motives of the organization.  

I think we all have a right to this information, and its only a matter of time before laws are passed that force transparency on the church, many other countries already require financial disclosures by charitable institutions.  

With that said the latest accounting was finished for the Church in Great Britain.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00699764/filing-history

Awesome stuff:

Church membership in GB:  187,097     186,878 (2014)

Donations:  30,690,000    (30,199,000)

Fast Offerings:  1,670,000  (1,528,000)

Wards:  286 (290)

Convert Baptisms:  1,586  (1,812)

Buildings 273  (272)

This suggest that in GB each member donates about 164.  But of course, we know not all donate.  If say activity rates were around 30 percent it'd be more like 549.8 per person.  or maybe close to 2000 per family given an average of about 4 person's per active family.  or 117 per family for fast offerings if average active family has 4 in it. 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

With that said the latest accounting was finished for the Church in Great Britain.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00699764/filing-history

Awesome stuff:

Church membership in GB:  187,097     186,878 (2014)

Donations:  30,690,000    (30,199,000)

Fast Offerings:  1,670,000  (1,528,000)

Wards:  286 (290)

Convert Baptisms:  1,586  (1,812)

Buildings 273  (272)

This suggest that in GB each member donates about 164.  But of course, we know not all donate.  If say activity rates were around 30 percent it'd be more like 549.8 per person.  or maybe close to 2000 per family given an average of about 4 person's per active family.  or 117 per family for fast offerings if average active family has 4 in it. 

Very interesting numbers.  According to wikipedia their median household income in USD was $29,805.  So if thats the case then $2,000 per household might be a little low if active families are paying on their gross.  Maybe activity rates are in the 25% range.