Missionary Numbers Still Dropping?

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I meant 1990's search result (your earlier reference), not the actual year 1990. 

I disagree with your assessment of social media only supporting previously held opinions.  I think that social media is driving exposure to these issues and even helping people leave the church by providing support communities.  

I'm confused at what your position is at this point in the lengthy dialogue we've had.  Do you not think that the troubling doctrinal and historical issues of the church are impacting both current membership and conversion rates?

Social media doesn't only support ones already held positions but it strongly incentivizes that. It's true that it will help socialize with the chosen peer group whereas before in the heavy Mormon areas there was less diversity. So that definitely is an effect. But I'd lay good odds there was more of that before the rise of Facebook than after. This problem of Facebook tending to just show views you already hold is a pretty prominent one and heavily discussed. Although I'll fully confess the extent of the echo chamber effect is still debated. Also the focus is typically on politics and obviously religion may not work at quite the same rates.

For my own view I think doctrine has an effect, especially LGBT issues, but I'm far from convinced it's the major factor. I think a substantial amount of the shift in religion to Nones over the past 20 years is primarily a nominalistic shift. That is a change primarily in name not behavior. However there are significant social changes that is strongly incentivizing away from organized religion as well. Whether this rise of the Nones will continue until we reach parity with Europe or will reach a new level of stability isn't clear. There are some indications the shift to the Nones is slowing. I eagerly await the next ARIS study on the subject. 

To the question of doctrine I think the question becomes how much of this is just a societal shift of values so religion in general just isn't important versus particular problems with particular doctrines for historical, logical or political reasons. I do think there's an indication of a political shift on LGBT issues that's affecting conservative religious groups like Evangelicals and Mormons. So it's definitely there. But I think the bigger shift is more this vague societal shift. As others have said, the real question is why mainline protestants have lost such huge numbers, why Evangelicals and Mormons have lost so few, and why Catholics are in the middle. (Honestly given the scandals in Catholicism its numbers are perhaps easiest to explain) The usual explanation for Evangelicals is that they have a fairly robust subculture so that people don't feel the need to join in the societal shift. I'd assume that applies to Mormonism as well.

Edited April 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, I'm just not seeing it from my end. The internet has certainly increased accessibility, but I've seen no change in exposure whatsoever. I've been ward mission leader in my ward for the past 3.5 years, and I can't think of a single convert during that time (21 of them)*, who wasn't conversant with 'troubling issues' before baptism, and for some of them long before they even started investigating the Church. I met our current ward clerk at a 'market day' event on campus six years before his baptism and gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon. He took it despite being an evangelical atheist at the time ... and in return castigated me for believing demonstrable untruths such as <insert laundry list of 'troubling issues' here>. When I saw him walk into the chapel with the Elders six years later, my first thought was that he was pranking them.

As I said every investigator I baptized has thorough exposure to these things. Typically if we could make it to the third discussion and have a spiritual experience with them they'd get baptized. If the information appears after the 1st or 2cd it was much more iffy. On the other hand we also had some investigators that wanted to be baptized, bore their testimony of the gospel, but their family literally told them they'd throw them out on the street if they joined the Church. For the people in question that kept them from being baptized. In general though most people in the mission field are pretty familiar with all these sorts of things. Much more so than in the Mormon Corridor where it's much, much easier to get by on "borrowed light."

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, I'm just not seeing it from my end. The internet has certainly increased accessibility, but I've seen no change in exposure whatsoever. I've been ward mission leader in my ward for the past 3.5 years, and I can't think of a single convert during that time (21 of them)*, who wasn't conversant with 'troubling issues' before baptism, and for some of them long before they even started investigating the Church. I met our current ward clerk at a 'market day' event on campus six years before his baptism and gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon. He took it despite being an evangelical atheist at the time ... and in return castigated me for believing demonstrable untruths such as <insert laundry list of 'troubling issues' here>. When I saw him walk into the chapel with the Elders six years later, my first thought was that he was pranking them.

-----

* Two of these 21 were primary-school-age children, so I should probably not include them, except that in both cases, I worked with their convert parents, and those parents were certainly conversant.

Those who convert, aren't the problem. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Those who convert, aren't the problem. 

I think you have just spoken more truth than you may have realised.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, without exaggeration, though I'm not certain in one instance. One of our investigators was a 17-year-old high school student who, intrigued by the three member kids in his school, had read literally every anti-Mormon book in the local library before talking to us. Those who hadn't read anti-Mormon books beforehand certainly headed that way, usually after the first serious lesson, often spurred on by concerned family, friends and neighbours.

Did you not teach many people?  I taught hundreds, probably approaching thousands in Argentina and I can't recall what all of them were or were not exposed to.  But I don't recall ever having to deal with anti-Mormon literature during my mission.  And I didn't know of most of the issues until well into my 30's. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

On the other hand we also had some investigators that wanted to be baptized, bore their testimony of the gospel, but their family literally told them they'd throw them out on the street if they joined the Church.

The 17-year-old whom I referenced earlier was in this very situation. We told him he was required to have parental permission for baptism. He said he'd never get it. I encouraged him to just wait. He was nearing the end of year 12 and had already been accepted into the US Air Force. It would be easy, I suggested, to wait till June (or whenever he was due to enter training) to get baptised.

But he couldn't wait. So he asked his dad and then told us he had permission. It wasn't quite that simple, though. The father had said that, regardless of when he might be baptised, then or later, he would be dead to the family and cut off from his mum and sister. So why not go ahead, he asked.

So on Easter Sunday, the WML picked up him and his few personal belongings. His baptismal service was held after church that day, and then he went 'home' with the WML and his family, where he stayed till he left for the air force in a few months. He later served a mission, but the last time I talked to him, he still hadn't been allowed any contact with his family. Tough stuff.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did you not teach many people?  I taught hundreds, probably approaching thousands in Argentina and I can't recall what all of them were or were not exposed to.  But I don't recall ever having to deal with anti-Mormon literature during my mission.  And I didn't know of most of the issues until well into my 30's. 

Just to be clear most of my arguments apply to English speakers in the west. I make no claims about Latin America which I don't have experience with and for which numbers are much harder to get. I can easily see that Spanish or Portuguese versions of the arguments by critics have only recently appeared. Not being a Spanish speaker (I know  rudimentary French and Russian and that's it) I can't speak to how internet resources have changed there nor to cultural changes in their societies regarding religion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Did you not teach many people?  I taught hundreds, probably approaching thousands in Argentina and I can't recall what all of them were or were not exposed to.  But I don't recall ever having to deal with anti-Mormon literature during my mission.  And I didn't know of most of the issues until well into my 30's. 

I taught fewer than 30 people during my entire mission, about 75% of whom were baptised. Only one was under 18. Most had university degrees and were keen researchers.

We've certainly had very different experiences.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

I can't keep up with all the individual responses.  Like I said, it's all speculative since none of us have solid data.  I am surprised at the pushback given the attention that the Brethren have put on trying to address the troubling doctrinal and historical issues.  

Since we have the true restored gospel, a living prophet, priesthood authority, sealing power, etc. it seems like we ought to be doing far better than the other churches that lack those things. 

Instead, many of you here seem content to look at decades of declining growth and conversion rates and say: well, at least we're not as bad as most other churches.  That's interesting to me  

Current trends look to put our conversion rate near zero around 2030 and our growth rate approaching zero 5-10 years later.  Speculative, I know, but at some point maybe we need to dig deep and wonder why.  Or not. 

All is well in Zion.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Since we have the true restored gospel, a living prophet, priesthood authority, sealing power, etc. it seems like we ought to be doing far better than the other churches that lack those things. 

Have you paid attention to how complex the growth patterns for the Book of Mormon church were, not to mention all of the factors that seem to have fed into those patterns?

Quote

Instead, many of you here seem content to look at decades of declining growth and conversion rates and say: well, at least we're not as bad as most other churches.  That's interesting to me  

I think you may be misreading some -- though possibly not all -- of the responses here.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I taught under 30 people during my entire mission, about 75% of whom were baptised. Only one was under 18. Most had university degrees and were keen researchers.

We've certainly had very different experiences.

You must live in an exceptional area, or I must have been living in differently exceptional areas my entire life. Almost every convert baptism I've personally seen has been someone who is low income and less educated, and that's most especially the case in the US baptisms I've seen.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can't keep up with all the individual responses.  Like I said, it's all speculative since none of us have solid data.  I am surprised at the pushback given the attention that the Brethren have put on trying to address the troubling doctrinal and historical issues.  

Since we have the true restored gospel, a living prophet, priesthood authority, sealing power, etc. it seems like we ought to be doing far better than the other churches that lack those things. 

Instead, many of you here seem content to look at decades of declining growth and conversion rates and say: well, at least we're not as bad as most other churches.  That's interesting to me  

Current trends look to put our conversion rate near zero around 2030 and our growth rate approaching zero 5-10 years later.  Speculative, I know, but at some point maybe we need to dig deep and wonder why.  Or not. 

All is well in Zion.  

Being realistic about trends says nothing about whether or not one is content with them.

I think you are unintentionally misrepresenting many posters here.

[Hamba Tuhan]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

You must live in an exceptional area, or I must have been living in differently exceptional areas my entire life. Almost every convert baptism I've personally seen has been someone who is low income and less educated, and that's most especially the case in the US baptisms I've seen.

The most recent data are a bit old (2009), but it looks like 52% of LDS converts in the US have some university education, and 61% of them earn over US$30,000 per annum individually. Both figures are lower than for 'lifelong' members, but they certainly do not suggest that the typical American convert is either 'low income'* or significantly 'less educated'**.

I did serve in an area that certainly had a highly educated population, with incomes to match, so naturally converts in our mission reflected that reality.

-----

* By definition, a 'low-income' person can earn only between the poverty level and 199% of the poverty level. For a single person, that is currently between $11,490 and $22,865.10 (link).

** According to the latest data from the US Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans adults who have some university education is 59% (table available from link), putting converts slightly less than average. I'm not aware of any legal definition of 'less educated' and so have relied on this average.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You must live in an exceptional area, or I must have been living in differently exceptional areas my entire life. Almost every convert baptism I've personally seen has been someone who is low income and less educated, and that's most especially the case in the US baptisms I've seen.

It would be interesting to see the decline convert baptism numbers over time by geography. That would be data from which solid conclusions could be drawn. That is information to which Church Leaders have acces but about which I don't expect any public enlightenment. The General Authorities of the Church now have a track record of portraying the afore mentioned "All Is Well In Zion" mantra even though we now know it's not. That leaked memo shows that globally declining convert baptisms has been discussed since 2015. And now children of record are likewise reducing. The Church isn't growing by any real measure, you could argue it's shrinking - especially as activity globally runs at less than 40%. So the mantra we hear from the pulpit about "15 million members strong" etc is...well...let's just say it's misleading. 

What would be so wrong with informing the membership of the real situation, rather than letting Mormon leaks pass that information on? Who's it better to hear it from?

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you paid attention to how complex the growth patterns for the Book of Mormon church were, not to mention all of the factors that seem to have fed into those patterns?

I think you may be misreading some -- though possibly not all -- of the responses here.

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Being realistic about trends says nothing about whether or not one is content with them.

I think you are unintentionally misrepresenting many posters here.

 

Then I apologize for those I have misrepresented. 

Regarding Hamba's point about BoM growth complexities:  that's true but we do not see that in current data.  We just see a linear trend downward for the past 40+ years.  I suppose that's a short timeframe compared to a 600 year account. But it's all we've got to look at. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by rockpond

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

You must live in an exceptional area, or I must have been living in differently exceptional areas my entire life. Almost every convert baptism I've personally seen has been someone who is low income and less educated, and that's most especially the case in the US baptisms I've seen.

College campuses often are pretty good places to find people. I taught extensively at LSU for instance. While the majority of my conversion were lower class, most went on to college and became solidly middle class. But I'd say even in Louisiana it was a mix of poor and middle class. Maybe 60/40. My experience, and I don't want to extrapolate too far from it because Lousiana is hardly a typical state, was that while you had more success among the lower class it was much harder keeping them active due to peer effects, difficulty getting them to meetings, and often a few more social problems they were working on. It didn't mean that their testimonies weren't strong at baptism, just that they needed much more help from ward members to remain strong. However those who did often saw major changes in their life.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Regarding Hamba's point about BoM growth complexities:  that's true but we do not see that in current data.  We just see a linear trend downward for the past 40+ years.  I suppose that's a short timeframe compared to a 600 year account. But it's all we've got to look at. 

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but certainly from around 1990 onwards that's been the case. I'd say the period of the 70's and 80's actually went the other direction although I also think there were huge retention issues during that period. Also note that's looking at conversions relative to the total population. In absolute terms it's been roughly flat since around 1992 after a long period of rapid growth from around 1974 onward.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but certainly from around 1990 onwards that's been the case. I'd say the period of the 70's and 80's actually went the other direction although I also think there were huge retention issues during that period. Also note that's looking at conversions relative to the total population. In absolute terms it's been roughly flat since around 1992 after a long period of rapid growth from around 1974 onward.

 

Yes.  I was looking at the percentages, not absolute numbers.

I see a fairly linear trend there beginning in the late 70's aside from the odd dip in the mid-80's where there is some questionable data accuracy anyway.

Overall church membership growth rate shows a similar linear trend though not quite as steep.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I was looking at the percentages, not absolute numbers.

I see a fairly linear trend there beginning in the late 70's aside from the odd dip in the mid-80's where there is some questionable data accuracy anyway.

Overall church membership growth rate shows a similar linear trend though not quite as steep.

I'm not sure we should expect to see geometric growth unless the Church figures out how to deal with Asia better than they are. Maybe Africa, although there are big impediments there as well. So linear growth is still growth however when viewed in terms of geometric growth it'll appear like a decrease. 

There are big headwinds the Church needs to navigate that frankly they've not done a good job with. We still primarily think in terms of an American church and then just export that around the world. That's difficult at the best of times but at times where the US isn't well liked it makes it even harder. I really think we have to drop the "one size fits all" mentality. I think that was important during the initial growth into a world church to keep things from getting out of hand. But at this stage I think we need more customization, more GAs from these localities, and most importantly a rethink of the missionary program. At a minimum I think even if the Church keeps the 18 age as an option it should encourage people to only go when they're mature or at 19. But then thankfully I'm not in charge of all this, because those might not be the right answers. I just think though that while there are problems outside of our control as the west secularizes even more, there's a lot within our control.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure we should expect to see geometric growth unless the Church figures out how to deal with Asia better than they are. Maybe Africa, although there are big impediments there as well. So linear growth is still growth however when viewed in terms of geometric growth it'll appear like a decrease. 

I consider it growth until we start decreasing as a proportion of the global population (which isn't far off).

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There are big headwinds the Church needs to navigate that frankly they've not done a good job with. We still primarily think in terms of an American church and then just export that around the world. That's difficult at the best of times but at times where the US isn't well liked it makes it even harder. I really think we have to drop the "one size fits all" mentality. I think that was important during the initial growth into a world church to keep things from getting out of hand. But at this stage I think we need more customization, more GAs from these localities, and most importantly a rethink of the missionary program. At a minimum I think even if the Church keeps the 18 age as an option it should encourage people to only go when they're mature or at 19. But then thankfully I'm not in charge of all this, because those might not be the right answers. I just think though that while there are problems outside of our control as the west secularizes even more, there's a lot within our control.

I completely agree.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I consider it growth until we start decreasing as a proportion of the global population (which isn't far off).

I'm not sure that a fair standard given how much of the world is cut off from us even proselytizing. China and India alone constitute a big % of the world population. While we can do more in Asia the reality is that most of Asia is out of reach due to government restrictions.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that a fair standard given how much of the world is cut off from us even proselytizing. China and India alone constitute a big % of the world population. While we can do more in Asia the reality is that most of Asia is out of reach due to government restrictions.

I admit it is a subjective standard.  Access restrictions aside, I think that if we start shrinking as percentage of the global population it becomes increasingly difficult to fulfill our mission.  Personal opinion, of course.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We'll see what the next ARIS study has, but thus far we've been consistently keeping up with the growth of the US for members within the US. ARIS has us consistently at 1.4%, Pew 1.6% and Gallup at 2%. Our retention rate is somewhere between 64-70% which is quite good. I don't think we'd be shrinking with those numbers and the large Mormon family size. While Mormon families have shrunk the average number of children to people between 40-59 is 3.4. That's well above replenishment rate. With even a retention of 60% ignoring missionary work we'd be have a stable population. Throw in missionary work and we're well above replacement. Now of course the US growth rate has slowed, so our growth rate is slowing correspondingly. But that's still quite good. 

We're keeping up in terms of raw numbers, but the increasing number of members per ward suggest that we inactivity has been increasing. Hard to say if Mormons who self-identify as Mormons are keeping pace with population growth or not. 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you are more right than you possibly even intended. It's not just about the addition of new converts. Our recently reassigned area president repeatedly told us that a visible division is happening in this part of the world. Saints who are actively engaged in the work of salvation (which includes 'our aggressive missionary program' but also extends far beyond it) are enjoying the fruit of the Restored Gospel in their lives, including all the promised blessings and attendant miracles, and therefore they remain strong in their faith. Saints who are not anxiously engaged in the work end up just going through repetitive motions but not seeing the promised blessings and therefore are susceptible to concluding that what they have is not true after all ... especially when someone offers them what appears to be an intellectual out in the form of 'troubling issues'. Elder Bednar, when he came for leadership training in 2015, told us basically the same thing.

And I've certainly seen it in my own congregation. If one were to ask ward members, for example, what was the last piece of personal revelation that they have received, a certain segment of them would answer immediately and animatedly, and it would always be in the context of their having received help in their personal attempts to minister to others. The rest just have blank looks. To a person, they're the ones that we know are disengaged from the work.

Hmm, I'm not sure if being actively engaged is a protection or not (we can all think of counter-examples), but there are no available numbers either way. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The most recent data are a bit old (2009), but it looks like 52% of LDS converts in the US have some university education, and 61% of them earn over US$30,000 per annum individually. Both figures are lower than for 'lifelong' members, but they certainly do not suggest that the typical American convert is either 'low income'* or significantly 'less educated'**.

I did serve in an area that certainly had a highly educated population, with incomes to match, so naturally converts in our mission reflected that reality.

-----

* By definition, a 'low-income' person can earn only between the poverty level and 199% of the poverty level. For a single person, that is currently between $11,490 and $22,865.10 (link).

** According to the latest data from the US Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans adults who have some university education is 59% (table available from link), putting converts slightly less than average. I'm not aware of any legal definition of 'less educated' and so have relied on this average.

It looks like 34% of Americans have a college degree, but only 24% of American LDS converts have a college degree.