Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 9 hours ago, sdc999 said: Are you kidding? Sure they do. The LDS church is always evolving in the matter of consolidation or closing or even opening a new ward. If a ward is not self sustaining, per tithing, I'm betting they will be absorbed into another ward over time. One thing the LDS church is not ignorant in, and that is business. Yes, you need to have enough members to fill the callings but I've never witnessed a ward in a predominately welfare area. When a member, I have sat in meetings where discussions were about concern of too much assistance going out (ie, cash outflow vs cash inflow) for members. Those discussions were driven from the top down according to the bishop. This is not tithing, but fast offerings (and the like) which that bishop was discussing, and the bishop often lets people know that his fast offering funds are low, because he needs them for immediate aid to ward members in need. Those are not top down discussions. Tithing funds, on the other hand, are sent directly to the LDS HQ and parceled out according to budgeted needs. In poor areas of the Church (and there are many), wards, branches, and stakes are subsidized with tithing funds. Indeed, that is the way CES is funded. The Church can consolidate wards and branches and even close a stake or two, but that is unusual and dependent on demographic shifts -- not fewer members overall. 9 hours ago, sdc999 said: A great thing the church did in its infancy was to diversify into other businesses. Legally and wisely, they keep these separate. Most are very successful. With the help of a very good lawyer, my businesses are set up the same way. There is no cross accountability which is bullet proof in litigation. Yet, these businesses may transfer funds as needed amongst one another. So, a lack of "cadre of the faithful" will lead to downsizing. Else, I would say that a ward would never be closed once opened. The LDS church is going nowhere. Growth has slowed as it has with nearly all faiths within the US. The exception being the Cowboy Church which is popping up nearly everywhere. We have discussed the specific figures several times on this board and they do not justify your negative statements here. Indeed, omni's statement about high LDS birthrate and the vast missionary force, above, tells us exactly the opposite from what you are claiming. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Oliblish said: The problem in South Korea is much more than a low birth rate. It has some of the worst statistics as far as active membership numbers in the world (maybe Chile would beat them out). I think the best metric we have to track changes in the number of active members is to follow the number of wards and branches (units). In spite of having 4 missions in South Korea, they have shut down 53 units (from 175 to 122) since 1999. That is a 30% loss in 15 years. During the same period the population of the country has increased 10%. These statistics and the graph below are found at cumorah.com cumorah.com South Korea Stats --------------------------------------------- The article has some excellent graphs, but you are attempting to hornswoggle a consolidation of Church units into loss of members, even though that was not included in the data. What we can see from the data presented in that article is that membership growth is low in S. Korea, but positive. As you suggest, the real question should be about inactivity levels in South Korea. But have you really measured that? Edited January 4, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1
rockpond Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We have discussed the specific figures several times on this board and they do not justify your negative statements here. Indeed, omni's statement about high LDS birthrate and the vast missionary force, above, tells us exactly the opposite from what you are claiming. Our high birth rate seems steady over the past couple decades. Convert growth rate, however, has been declining for several decades now. (The increase in our missionary force has not reversed this trend, if anything, it seems to have accelerated it.) Our 2015 membership growth rate fell to 1.7%. Global population growth was 1.13% for 2016. So... If our current trend continues, the LDS Church will be shrinking as percentage of the population by the mid-2020's.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Our high birth rate seems steady over the past couple decades. Convert growth rate, however, has been declining for several decades now. (The increase in our missionary force has not reversed this trend, if anything, it seems to have accelerated it.) Our 2015 membership growth rate fell to 1.7%. Global population growth was 1.13% for 2016. So... If our current trend continues, the LDS Church will be shrinking as percentage of the population by the mid-2020's. It is utterly silly to suggest that increased numbers of missionaries are a cause of declining conversion rates. Actual LDS growth rates vary across the globe, low here and high there. Over time, LDS birthrates have not been steady, but have been declining more slowly that among non-Mormons. There are too many variables to predict what the LDS Church growth will look like in a decade. For one thing, there is a powerful shift to technology and to online proselyting. That together with demographic analysis may allow the LDS missionary effort to regain some power. Real history is never linear, but is oscillatory and unpredictable. 1
Oliblish Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The article has some excellent graphs, but you are attempting to hornswoggle a consolidation of Church units into loss of members, even though that was not included in the data. What we can see from the data presented in that article is that membership growth is low in S. Korea, but positive. As you suggest, the real question should be about inactivity levels in South Korea. But have you really measured that? I wasn't trying to hornswoggle anything, I promise! I agree there is not a loss of members. But membership numbers don't mean much when activity rates are so low. What good is membership growth if fewer people show up to meetings than the previous year? I think it is much more important to know how many people actually attend meetings and participate. Someone who was baptized 30 years ago and came for 2 months but hasn't been back since probably doesn't even self identify as a member. I do believe that declining units correlates with declining numbers of active members. Why else would they shut down 53 wards and branches? A blog related to cumorah.com (from the OP) made a list of countries and estimated activity rates for a number of countries around the world. The data is old (2011) and I am not exactly sure how they came up with the numbers, but Chile, South Korea and Portugal are at the very bottom of the list at an estimated 12% activity rate: Estimated activity rates I believe part of the way they come up with these stats is to look at the number of members per unit. (total membership divided by the number of units in the country.) For South Korea it is 716 members per unit. So if 12% show up on any given Sunday, there would be an average attendance of 86 people per unit. Wards would be higher than that and branches lower. These numbers seem reasonable for South Korea.
Shadrak Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: This is not tithing, but fast offerings (and the like) which that bishop was discussing, and the bishop often lets people know that his fast offering funds are low, because he needs them for immediate aid to ward members in need. Those are not top down discussions. Tithing funds, on the other hand, are sent directly to the LDS HQ and parceled out according to budgeted needs. In poor areas of the Church (and there are many), wards, branches, and stakes are subsidized with tithing funds. Indeed, that is the way CES is funded. All funds, fast offering included, go to SLC, nothing is kept local (at least in USA) and hasn't been many years. The stake president will definitely talk to a bishop if he's spending more on F.O. than taking in. The stake pres gets his instructions from higher up as well to make sure expenses don't exceed income which is what he meant a "top down" driven discussion. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Oliblish said: I wasn't trying to hornswoggle anything, I promise! I agree there is not a loss of members. But membership numbers don't mean much when activity rates are so low. What good is membership growth if fewer people show up to meetings than the previous year? I think it is much more important to know how many people actually attend meetings and participate. Someone who was baptized 30 years ago and came for 2 months but hasn't been back since probably doesn't even self identify as a member. I do believe that declining units correlates with declining numbers of active members. Why else would they shut down 53 wards and branches? A blog related to cumorah.com (from the OP) made a list of countries and estimated activity rates for a number of countries around the world. The data is old (2011) and I am not exactly sure how they came up with the numbers, but Chile, South Korea and Portugal are at the very bottom of the list at an estimated 12% activity rate: Estimated activity rates I believe part of the way they come up with these stats is to look at the number of members per unit. (total membership divided by the number of units in the country.) For South Korea it is 716 members per unit. So if 12% show up on any given Sunday, there would be an average attendance of 86 people per unit. Wards would be higher than that and branches lower. These numbers seem reasonable for South Korea. Seems reasonable to me. I'd just like to see confirming data.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 58 minutes ago, Shadrak said: All funds, fast offering included, go to SLC, nothing is kept local (at least in USA) and hasn't been many years. The stake president will definitely talk to a bishop if he's spending more on F.O. than taking in. The stake pres gets his instructions from higher up as well to make sure expenses don't exceed income which is what he meant a "top down" driven discussion. You are suggesting that tithing and fast offering funds are fungible, and they are not. Budgets taken from tithing funds are strictly controlled, while the bishop can immediately spend his fast offering funds without any O.K. from higher up. Budgetary control prevents overspending of tithing funds before the fact, not afterward. Spending on a ward party or on youth activities is not confidential, whereas the use of fast offerings is highly confidential. Stake presidents do not monitor fast offering expenditures. The only time that might take place is during the semi-annual audit by a stake auditor (not the stake pres). 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: The increase in our missionary force has not reversed this trend, if anything, it seems to have accelerated it. Not sure the logic behind that. I think the real reason is that there are only so many "fish" in the sea and adding more fishermen does not increase the number of fish. As the world progressively gets worse, the yields will go down until the world is fully ready to experience the joys of the judgements of God upon it.
carbon dioxide Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said: Not sure the logic behind that. I think the real reason is that there are only so many "fish" in the sea and adding more fishermen does not increase the number of fish. As the world progressively gets worse, the yields will go down until the world is fully ready to experience the joys of the judgements of God upon it. I think if we increased the number of missionaries to 100,000 we would not see much of an increase nor if we went down to 50000 there would not be much of a decrease.
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is utterly silly to suggest that increased numbers of missionaries are a cause of declining conversion rates. Actual LDS growth rates vary across the globe, low here and high there. Over time, LDS birthrates have not been steady, but have been declining more slowly that among non-Mormons. There are too many variables to predict what the LDS Church growth will look like in a decade. For one thing, there is a powerful shift to technology and to online proselyting. That together with demographic analysis may allow the LDS missionary effort to regain some power. Real history is never linear, but is oscillatory and unpredictable. That's true which is why I qualified it with "if this current trend continues". Also, I didn't mean to imply causation with the increase in missionaries v the decline in convert growth rate... just correlation. LDS birth rates have declined over many decades but, as I stated, they have been steady over the past couple decades (within normal variation). Do you have data to suggest the LDS birth rates have declined more slowly than other populations? Or is that just an assumption?
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are suggesting that tithing and fast offering funds are fungible, and they are not. Budgets taken from tithing funds are strictly controlled, while the bishop can immediately spend his fast offering funds without any O.K. from higher up. Budgetary control prevents overspending of tithing funds before the fact, not afterward. Spending on a ward party or on youth activities is not confidential, whereas the use of fast offerings is highly confidential. Stake presidents do not monitor fast offering expenditures. The only time that might take place is during the semi-annual audit by a stake auditor (not the stake pres). My understanding is that all the funds we deposited each week (tithes, FO, missionary, etc) went to SLC. Is that not the case? From my bishopric days, I don't recall keeping fast offering funds local (but I haven't been a finance clerk since college).
JAHS Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: My understanding is that all the funds we deposited each week (tithes, FO, missionary, etc) went to SLC. Is that not the case? From my bishopric days, I don't recall keeping fast offering funds local (but I haven't been a finance clerk since college). I am a finance clerk now. You are right; initially it all electronically goes to Salt Lake; it doesn't just stay in a local bank. But we do keep track of it locally on the ward computer and make sure we don't spend more than we take in. When our account starts getting low the Bishop will encourage us to try and help a little more so we can stay ahead of it. If we get into the red the Bishop can still write checks for those who need it and that money comes from surplus that is donated from others in the stake or if needed the worldwide church. 1
Shadrak Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are suggesting that tithing and fast offering funds are fungible, and they are not. Budgets taken from tithing funds are strictly controlled, while the bishop can immediately spend his fast offering funds without any O.K. from higher up. Budgetary control prevents overspending of tithing funds before the fact, not afterward. Spending on a ward party or on youth activities is not confidential, whereas the use of fast offerings is highly confidential. Stake presidents do not monitor fast offering expenditures. The only time that might take place is during the semi-annual audit by a stake auditor (not the stake pres). I did not suggest they are fungible, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Simply there is a misconception that fast offering donations are kept locally and spent locally, this is not correct. All money goes to SLC and bishops are free to spend what they feel is needed for F.O. Stake presidents certainly do monitor F.O. expenditures, not each check individually, but whether each ward in his stake is generally spending less than it takes in, especially if it's a middle-class or more wealthy ward. Poorer wards often do spend more than they take in and are free to do so. If expenditures are more, the bishop does hear about it and is counseled to bring expenses in line with donations. A stake auditor has no concern how much is spent, only that all the records match in accordance to church policy. The auditor does not question (with a couple exceptions) the bishop on what is spent or why. Bishops do have a lot of freedom on what qualifies as F.O. expense.
Shadrak Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, JAHS said: I am a finance clerk now. You are right; initially it all electronically goes to Salt Lake; it doesn't just stay in a local bank. But we do keep track of it locally on the ward computer and make sure we don't spend more than we take in. When our account starts getting low the Bishop will encourage us to try and help a little more so we can stay ahead of it. If we get into the red the Bishop can still write checks for those who need it and that money comes from surplus that is donated from others in the stake or if needed the worldwide church. I'd like to add that all checks are drawn from a church-wide account, or at least backed by SLC, and are not dependent on the state of local ward or stake finances. Thus every check written can clear and not bounce. All accounting of where the money comes from is done electronically from SLC. When you say, "try and help a little more," do you mean increase ward donations to offset expenses?
JAHS Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 24 minutes ago, Shadrak said: When you say, "try and help a little more," do you mean increase ward donations to offset expenses? Yes. Of course it depends on the economic make-up of a given ward.
cdowis Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 When I was at BYU back in 1980, I remember a professor who was directly involved in church finance telling us that the church contribution in the US was in deficit, and had to be made up by contributions from some of the poorer countries.
sdc999 Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: This is not tithing, but fast offerings (and the like) which that bishop was discussing, and the bishop often lets people know that his fast offering funds are low, because he needs them for immediate aid to ward members in need. Those are not top down discussions. Tithing funds, on the other hand, are sent directly to the LDS HQ and parceled out according to budgeted needs. In poor areas of the Church (and there are many), wards, branches, and stakes are subsidized with tithing funds. Indeed, that is the way CES is funded. The Church can consolidate wards and branches and even close a stake or two, but that is unusual and dependent on demographic shifts -- not fewer members overall. We have discussed the specific figures several times on this board and they do not justify your negative statements here. Indeed, omni's statement about high LDS birthrate and the vast missionary force, above, tells us exactly the opposite from what you are claiming. Okay, I will be more clear. Not self sustaining as in tithing received does not equate to the cost of the building, utilities, etc. The church definitely looks at potential income from tithing as to whether a building will even be built. My 'church is going nowhere' is not nor was meant to be a negative statement. The church is going nowhere as in, it is not nor ever going aways as some anti mormons put it. Growth is slowing tremendously and may even show negative growth at some point. But, it will not disappear. Outside financial interests of the church can sustain the bottom line far longer than the tithing probably ever could. So, even if tithing were to diminish some, the church would be okay financially. But don't think for a minute that the church wouldn't act prudently in closing or consolidating a ward that isn't bringing in sufficient income via tithing. Yes and No. I would doubt ever that individual FO's handouts would be discussed from the top down but overall FO budgets are discussed. Bishops are counseled about low funds and more outflow than inflow. And they, in turn, will address it to the ward. Yes, to the fact that a bishop was pulled aside in my ward once because a family that was being assisted in a ward was able to put a substantial down payment on a new house. Very close friends of the bishop. And yes, I was the one that reported it because I didn't believe the bishop was acting in the best interest of the Lord's money at the time. This family was on my HT route. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, rockpond said: That's true which is why I qualified it with "if this current trend continues". Also, I didn't mean to imply causation with the increase in missionaries v the decline in convert growth rate... just correlation. LDS birth rates have declined over many decades but, as I stated, they have been steady over the past couple decades (within normal variation). Do you have data to suggest the LDS birth rates have declined more slowly than other populations? Or is that just an assumption? It is a fact based on direct observation and historical fact: 19th century birth rates among Americans in the rural West were all pretty much the same, varying only on the basis of the socio-economic status of families, be they Methodist or Mormon. Once birth-control came to the fore, and due to the industrial revolution and the consequent formation of an upwardly mobile middle class, family size began to fall rapidly. Farm life needed many hands, but urban life did not. Genealogists all notice the rapid diminution in size of families over time (I have been doing genealogy for over half a century and have observed that phenomenon consistently). Currently the average birthrate in America is 1.8, which is not even replacement of the mother and father in each family. All groups have had declining birthrates, but some more than others. Mormons and Orthodox Jews, for example, maintain higher than replacement rates (which I have provided already). It is no mystery that a more traditional lifestyle is more likely to continue larger families. It is a difference in traditional values and mores. Does that make any sense to you?
rongo Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 8 hours ago, JAHS said: I am a finance clerk now. You are right; initially it all electronically goes to Salt Lake; it doesn't just stay in a local bank. But we do keep track of it locally on the ward computer and make sure we don't spend more than we take in. When our account starts getting low the Bishop will encourage us to try and help a little more so we can stay ahead of it. If we get into the red the Bishop can still write checks for those who need it and that money comes from surplus that is donated from others in the stake or if needed the worldwide church. It actually comes from tithing, per Bishop Burton at a meeting with bishops in our stake a few years ago. He said that North America had been in the negative overall in fast offering receipts for some time now, and with there really being one checking account in the church, FO overages come out of tithing. Before the "non-fungibility" people's brains start exploding, I (and Bishop Burton) understand all that. Despite internal record classifications such as "tithing" and "fast offering," the fact remains that all Church money goes into one big pot. As Bishop Burton said, the Church only has one checking account, and isn't constantly transferring money back and forth between accounts. So, the chestnut "if a ward overspends FO, it comes out of the stake surplus" isn't a practical reality. The reality is that most stakes are also in the red in fast offerings. Bishop Burton also said that Ghana and many other African nations are net FO providers, but North America is a consistent net FO consumer. Think about that.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, rockpond said: My understanding is that all the funds we deposited each week (tithes, FO, missionary, etc) went to SLC. Is that not the case? From my bishopric days, I don't recall keeping fast offering funds local (but I haven't been a finance clerk since college). The two categories of money are held by SLC, but are not mixed or fungible in nature. One category (fast offerings) can be spent immediately by the bishop without authorization from anyone else, the other (tithing, etc.) requires tight budgetary control. A bishop will sometimes put out the word that he needs more fast offerings because that fund is too small, and the response is always gratifying. When I was financial clerk, my bishop could ask for a check at any time, and I would prepare it for him (often being the delivery boy as well), he and I being the only ones knowing about the charitable expenditure. Bishops have similar and unquestioned power to grant a food order to the needy, even if they are not LDS members.
JAHS Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, rongo said: Despite internal record classifications such as "tithing" and "fast offering," the fact remains that all Church money goes into one big pot. As Bishop Burton said, the Church only has one checking account, and isn't constantly transferring money back and forth between accounts. This idea seems to be reflected in the recent addition to tithing slips which says: "Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."
sdc999 Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: When I was financial clerk, my bishop could ask for a check at any time, and I would prepare it for him (often being the delivery boy as well), he and I being the only ones knowing about the charitable expenditure. I applaud you and your bishop if that was the case. I knew when those that I HT were assisted by my bishop as well as those in the PEC meeting knowing. And according to some conversations that slipped out, the bishop's wife knew as well.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 22 minutes ago, sdc999 said: I applaud you and your bishop if that was the case. I knew when those that I HT were assisted by my bishop as well as those in the PEC meeting knowing. And according to some conversations that slipped out, the bishop's wife knew as well. Yes, some matters come to the bishop's attention in PEC and Ward Council mtgs, or via home teachers, and that is as it should be. Naturally they are going to know something about some charitable efforts and expenditures. Also, the Compassionate Service people must communicate needs and coordinate responses. Mormons are really good at that. However, when a family or individual is in serious therapy, the bishop must keep that from his wife and others. The rumor mill can do great damage. The psychologist/psychiatrist gets paid (and heavy drugs get purchased) and he and I remain entirely mum about it. I have seen some real successes, by the way. 1
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, JAHS said: I am a finance clerk now. You are right; initially it all electronically goes to Salt Lake; it doesn't just stay in a local bank. But we do keep track of it locally on the ward computer and make sure we don't spend more than we take in. When our account starts getting low the Bishop will encourage us to try and help a little more so we can stay ahead of it. If we get into the red the Bishop can still write checks for those who need it and that money comes from surplus that is donated from others in the stake or if needed the worldwide church. Thanks! And... Sounds like tithing and fast offering funds are fungible.
Recommended Posts