Is "slowing growth" really a concern, as opposed to membership loss?

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think it represents a shift of the narrative that has been dominant in my lifetime.  Often I've heard people use the growth of the church as evidence of the truth of this work.  

I wonder what will happen when those growth numbers are clearly leveling off.  Will members start to look at this as a sign that the second coming is even closer?  That could be a scary turn for the worse.  

They are leveled off, effectively, if you ask me.  When the growth rate of the Church was outpaced by the rest of the world's growth rate, that signified a leveling off.  The growth we've experienced for the past couple of years is slower than it would be if we took no more converts at all but kept people in.  Sure, we're seeing 100,000 some odd people dropped from the records each year and are seeing 240,000 added each year, but as it turns out that puts us at a slower rate of growth than we've seen in a century. 

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This article (http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2017/05/lds-congregational-growth-significantly.html) says that the creation of new congregations (wards etc) is down.
I'm going to assume that this is accurate.  My question is, does this really have any significance or mean anything important?

Is growth and creation of more wards actually necessary to the continuation of the Church?  If membership held steady with new births/converts matching deaths/apostasies does the lack of growth actually make any difference to the Church?
What say you?

I don't see how there's any doubt that the information about significant deceleration of congregations is a bad sign.  If this decline in congregations continues, well, the Church would disappear from the US in 100 years. 

A growing Church carries with it an enlivened spirit.  The Church is losing that which has been a significant part of it for the past 4 or 5 decades in that sense.  That's a shame.  I'd say the Church needs to learn to adapt to the world around it, rather than dig in heals and stubbornly pretend old narratives work. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They are leveled off, effectively, if you ask me.  When the growth rate of the Church was outpaced by the rest of the world's growth rate, that signified a leveling off.  The growth we've experienced for the past couple of years is slower than it would be if we took no more converts at all but kept people in.  Sure, we're seeing 100,000 some odd people dropped from the records each year and are seeing 240,000 added each year, but as it turns out that puts us at a slower rate of growth than we've seen in a century. 

I agree, from everything I've read on growth trends, it looks to be leveling off.  Activity #s are the only meaningful numbers really and unfortunately the church won't make those public.  My hunch is the activity situation is even more leveled off and perhaps declining in the USA.  It seems apparent that its been declining in Europe for a while now.  

Edited May 18, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how there's any doubt that the information about significant deceleration of congregations is a bad sign.  If this decline in congregations continues, well, the Church would disappear from the US in 100 years. 

A growing Church carries with it an enlivened spirit.  The Church is losing that which has been a significant part of it for the past 4 or 5 decades in that sense.  That's a shame.  I'd say the Church needs to learn to adapt to the world around it, rather than dig in heals and stubbornly pretend old narratives work. 

I think this presents a challenging situation in that the church wants to claim divine intervention.  Openly adapting to the world around it while at the same time proclaiming that the world is evil is a difficult dance.  

Its a modernized professional religious public relations game.  How can you maximize membership in the church is the question they are asking.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this presents a challenging situation in that the church wants to claim divine intervention.  Openly adapting to the world around it while at the same time proclaiming that the world is evil is a difficult dance.  

Once the Church entered the world of business to build itself and benefit it's designs, I think they agreed to learn that dance.  To go back now would be to make it all crash and start over, it feels like. 
It is a pretty difficult spot, though.  They've painted it as religion and business are separate and distinct outwardly but operate as though the two are one and the same.  That kind of duplicity simply won't work in our world though. 

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a modernized professional religious public relations game.  How can you maximize membership in the church is the question they are asking.  

Yes.  It becomes a modern day business challenge. They need to learn how to get more customers while retaining old ones.  That's been the question for a long time.  I think they are learning the answer is something they don't like more and more. 

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, from everything I've read on growth trends, it looks be leveling off.  Activity #s are the only meaningful numbers really and unfortunately the church won't make those public.  My hunch is the activity situation is even more leveled off and perhaps declining in the USA.  It seems apparent that its been declining in Europe for a while now.  

We'll see when the next ARIS or Pew studies come out. I suspect what we'll find is a light dropoff from the last studies but not significant difference.

Part of the reason for thinking that is that Gallup numbers, while not oriented to getting an accurate active LDS count, don't show much change. Their last numbers from about a year ago have us still at 2%. That's been consistent with Gallup for the last couple of decades.

Edited May 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how there's any doubt that the information about significant deceleration of congregations is a bad sign.  If this decline in congregations continues, well, the Church would disappear from the US in 100 years.

A growing Church carries with it an enlivened spirit.  The Church is losing that which has been a significant part of it for the past 4 or 5 decades in that sense.  That's a shame.  I'd say the Church needs to learn to adapt to the world around it, rather than dig in heals and stubbornly pretend old narratives work.

But it isn't showing a decline in congregations.  It is showing a decline in the establishment of NEW congregations.
This is being used to say the Church is shrinking, but all it really says is that the Church is no longer growing exponentially as it once was.

Is slowing growth a concern as much as an actual declination of membership would be?

[clarkgoble]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

But it isn't showing a decline in congregations.  It is showing a decline in the establishment of NEW congregations.
This is being used to say the Church is shrinking, but all it really says is that the Church is no longer growing exponentially as it once was.

Is slowing growth a concern as much as an actual declination of membership would be?

Or that the Church, for unknown reasons, is increasing the size of units. Which shouldn't be a surprise since there have been reports of unifying wards and even stakes all year.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But it isn't showing a decline in congregations.  It is showing a decline in the establishment of NEW congregations.
This is being used to say the Church is shrinking, but all it really says is that the Church is no longer growing exponentially as it once was.

Is slowing growth a concern as much as an actual declination of membership would be?

I gotcha.  Thanks for helping me.  No.  I don't think the concern is the same.  It'd be much more a concern if there was a decrease, rather than a decline in the growth rate.  But a decline in the growth rate has to be a concern, still.  I do feel like declining in growth, overall, in other measureables (like the rate of congregation growth in the US) should be a concern and are signs that we are losing that spirit of dynamic living Church that we've fed off of for the past 50 or so years. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Or that the Church, for unknown reasons, is increasing the size of units. Which shouldn't be a surprise since there have been reports of unifying wards and even stakes all year.

That's true.  it looks like after last year's great increase in the number of stakes that some got pretty excited about, this year hasn't seen quite the same type of growth, as of at this point we have only 17 stakes organized (with about 30, though, waiting to be confirmed), according to Martinich's site. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Once the Church entered the world of business to build itself and benefit it's designs, I think they agreed to learn that dance.  To go back now would be to make it all crash and start over, it feels like. 
It is a pretty difficult spot, though.  They've painted it as religion and business are separate and distinct outwardly but operate as though the two are one and the same.  That kind of duplicity simply won't work in our world though. 

Yes.  It becomes a modern day business challenge. They need to learn how to get more customers while retaining old ones.  That's been the question for a long time.  I think they are learning the answer is something they don't like more and more. 

I think they have made it work remarkably well using this business model for quite a while.  I think what isn't working now is the changes in society, especially with the younger generations, they aren't adapting to these changes quickly enough.  The church isn't attracting and retaining members in those younger generations at the same rate that they did previously.  I just don't think they've found a persuasive and compelling message that appeals to these younger groups. 

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We'll see when the next ARIS or Pew studies come out. I suspect what we'll find is a light dropoff from the last studies but not significant difference.

Part of the reason for thinking that is that Gallup numbers, while not oriented to getting an accurate active LDS count, don't show much change. Their last numbers from about a year ago have us still at 2%. That's been consistent with Gallup for the last couple of decades.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 2% saying that Mormons are 2% of those who identify as Christians.  And didn't the study also say that the % of people identifying as Christians is going down.  So maintaining steady at 2% of a shrinking group means that Mormons #s are also shrinking?  

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 2% saying that Mormons are 2% of those who identify as Christians.  And didn't the study also say that the % of people identifying as Christians is going down.  So maintaining steady at 2% of a shrinking group means that Mormons #s are also shrinking?  

Nope. Gallup has historically had us at 2% of the US population. So higher than ARIS (1.4%) and slightly higher than Pew (1.6%). Quoting from the linked page, "Roughly 2% of Americans are Mormon, and they reside overwhelmingly in the West. Two in three Utah residents are Mormon." They also have a nice spreadsheet of our population over time.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Nope. Gallup has historically had us at 2% of the US population. So higher than ARIS (1.4%) and slightly higher than Pew (1.6%). Quoting from the linked page, "Roughly 2% of Americans are Mormon, and they reside overwhelmingly in the West. Two in three Utah residents are Mormon." They also have a nice spreadsheet of our population over time.

 

 

Thanks this is helpful.  I wish we could see the % to one decimal place, vacillating between 1% & 2% makes it hard to identify trends. 

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks this is helpful.  I wish we could see the % to one decimal place, vacillating between 1% & 2% makes it hard to identify trends. 

The Gallup data just comes from their general surveys and what percentage self-identify as Mormon. I think because the poll isn't really randomized around a representative way of getting religious people let alone Mormons that they think one significant figure is all they can justifiably provide. I actually wish Pew did that because their methodology is to find all Mormons who answered their religious survey and then call them back to ask further questions. I suspect that's partially why some of Pew's numbers seem so odd. Aris, in my opinion, the the best survey and I imagine their figures are closest to the truth.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Somehow I can't see the evangelical fundamentalist churches mutating into progressive humanist organizations. But if I had to guess which side Satan might back, I'd have to guess it was the fundies, not the secular humanists. 

Evil does not take sides, it has the potential to exist anywhere (as is obvious in pretty much any country where corruption will be found in any political party).  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Or that the Church, for unknown reasons, is increasing the size of units. 

We have been told in our area no new buildings will be going up until all have at least 4 congregations a piece.  Increasing the size here would further delay the need to build.  It is a high growth area; my son, who lives three miles from us in another stake, has been in three new wards in as many years due to the building.  And is currently attending in the venerable building we attended two years ago rather than the one of the two new ones built in his stake or the new one built in ours three? four? years ago as those are already full up, I believe.

It is possible, imo, part of the increase in size is to cut building costs as well as the need to create new wards every year in high growth areas.  It is quite disruptive to forming lasting friendships and commitment to the full ward as one's community (instead they have started looking on just their street as 'safe') when one anticipates frequent ward changes (this is likely to last at least five more years and more likely minimum ten as there is still a ton of farm land open to development in their immediate area which could add probably ten or more wards given the typical geographic size of a Utah ward).  If one includes all of the south of Utah Valley, we are talking decades before it slows down.  I assume north Utah valley is in the same situation.  I don't know if there is the same issue elsewhere in Utah, Salt Lake Valley looks rather stuffed to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

We have been told in our area no new buildings will be going up until all have at least 4 congregations a piece.  Increasing the size here would further delay the need to build.  It is a high growth area; my son, who lives three miles from us in another stake, has been in three new wards in as many years due to the building.  And is currently attending in the venerable building we attended two years ago rather than the one of the two new ones built in his stake or the new one built in ours three? four? years ago as those are already full up, I believe.

It is possible, imo, part of the increase in size is to cut building costs as well as the need to create new wards every year in high growth areas.  It is quite disruptive to forming lasting friendships and commitment to the full ward as one's community (instead they have started looking on just their street as 'safe') when one anticipates frequent ward changes (this is likely to last at least five more years and more likely minimum ten as there is still a ton of farm land open to development in their immediate area which could add probably ten or more wards given the typical geographic size of a Utah ward).  If one includes all of the south of Utah Valley, we are talking decades before it slows down.  I assume north Utah valley is in the same situation.  I don't know if there is the same issue elsewhere in Utah, Salt Lake Valley looks rather stuffed to me.

I think you're right on. Reduction in building costs has got to be a major factor. As you note, there is significant disruption within the community when frequent changes occur. That's one of the things I've struggled with over the past few years. It's hard to invest time and effort in building a community that may only last a year before it's changed again.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're right on. Reduction in building costs has got to be a major factor. As you note, there is significant disruption within the community when frequent changes occur. That's one of the things I've struggled with over the past few years. It's hard to invest time and effort in building a community that may only last a year before it's changed again.

The weird thing is that a year ago, we were told that there would be a massive ratcheting up of ward and stake division in North America to reach "optimal unit size" (300-350; 3000). We were specifically told that the Southwest Area (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada) were the primary targets because of demographics. As I've mentioned, by that definition, our stake and all wards in the stake are ready to split. But it appears that the divisions have nearly stopped. 

We used to have a Facilities Management high-up in our ward, and the Church kept decreasing his staff and increasing how many buildings he was over (he and his 2-3 guys are currently over like 50 buildings). This has led to a big drop in service, due to shear manpower deficiency. 

I do think a big reason for the slowdown is financial. And, it is disruptive to split frequently. Queen Creek (very high LDS growth over the last 15 years) went to 1.5-2 hour blocks and often had 10 units in a building while buildings were being built. After the buildings were adequate, the FP ordered the stake presidents to go back to 3 hour blocks, and it even took sometimes 2 years before they complied. Shorter church was an acquired habit that they didn't want to quit!

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

The weird thing is that a year ago, we were told that there would be a massive ratcheting up of ward and stake division in North America to reach "optimal unit size" (300-350; 3000). We were specifically told that the Southwest Area (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada) were the primary targets because of demographics. As I've mentioned, by that definition, our stake and all wards in the stake are ready to split. But it appears that the divisions have nearly stopped. 

We used to have a Facilities Management high-up in our ward, and the Church kept decreasing his staff and increasing how many buildings he was over (he and his 2-3 guys are currently over like 50 buildings). This has led to a big drop in service, due to shear manpower deficiency. 

I do think a big reason for the slowdown is financial. And, it is disruptive to split frequently. Queen Creek (very high LDS growth over the last 15 years) went to 1.5-2 hour blocks and often had 10 units in a building while buildings were being built. After the buildings were adequate, the FP ordered the stake presidents to go back to 3 hour blocks, and it even took sometimes 2 years before they complied. Shorter church was an acquired habit that they didn't want to quit!

10 units in a building?  That's the silliest thing I've heard.  They might as well have one or two meet out in the desert in a tent instead of stuffing 10 units in one building.  That's gotta break some sort of fire code, unless of the course the buildings are oversized with 2 chapels or something. On the other hand, 1.5-2 hour blocks makes it almost worth it.

Edited May 18, 2017 by stemelbow

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

10 units in a building?  That's the silliest thing I've heard.  They might as well have one or two meet out in the desert in a tent instead of stuffing 10 units in one building.  That's gotta break some sort of fire code, unless of the course the buildings are oversized with 2 chapels or something. On the other hand, 1.5-2 hour blocks makes it almost worth it.

The growth (due to moving and building) was so explosive, they really had no choice. I think that church started at 7:00 AM and ended at 7:00 PM. My town also went from 3,000 to 50,000 people during the same period, and from one ward to a stake. We had thousands crammed into one building until the other two were built.

I think a lot of people would go through that to go to an hour and a half block . . .   

[JLHPROF]

Just as a follow up - http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/05/consolidation-of-church-units-some-reflections/

• Last month more than half of the Church units in Flanders were closed (Flanders is the Dutch-speaking, northern part of Belgium, with a population of 6.5 million). We shrank from 9 wards and branches to just 4. Historic cities like Bruges and Louvain lost their Mormon meeting place. It’s part of the major “contraction” of the Church in Europe, rumored to dismantle 800 of the some 1200 units.

 

No mention of a membership decline, but a clear statement of a reduction of wards.  One very interesting statement:

•  church growth comes less from converts in scattered places, but through “the multigenerational model” in Mormon bastions. Statements by Church leaders seem to confirm that shift. Retention is very low among converts. They lack the Mormon formative childhood and mission experience. Higher retention (or somewhat higher retention) is achieved among children who grew up in dedicated Mormon families and went on missions.

If this were the 1800s we'd probably be speculating about end times prophecies or a re-establishing of the more literal gathering.  No longer can a few members meet as a branch but must instead gather to a consolidated ward (stakes of Zion etc).   Are the missionaries going to be called home from Europe too?  Fewer wards may mean fewer missionaries assigned correct?

Edited May 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is hard to take the "road less traveled, that makes all the difference". Here in the Sunny South, many face hard times where the Church is in no way the majority. There is pressure from parents, extended family and friends, I faced it for quite a while, but they all came around. 

The good thing about that is there doesn't seem to be any fence sitters. The members are all in 100% or they aren't there. That assures people around you have strong testimonies, and gives them every reason to be your friend as well, since often their relationships are somewhat restricted outside of Church. I loved my first ward in Tampa - it was in an old termite-eaten building, but the people were gold.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Somehow I can't see the evangelical fundamentalist churches mutating into progressive humanist organizations. But if I had to guess which side Satan might back, I'd have to guess it was the fundies, not the secular humanists. 

You could very well be correct. Since the secular humanists are clearly already on the adversary's side (e.g. no God, no Christ, no such thing as prophets of God, no true Church, no inspired scripture, no Second Coming, no resurrection, no heaven and eternal life, no eternal families, no belief in the devil [one of the adversary's biggest goals]) why waste time with the secular humanists when the Evangelicals need to be conquered? But the most likely scenario is when the players and issues of the closing drama are out in the open and all things become perfectly clear, many Evangelicalz will become Latter-Day Saints. Stranger things have happened.

[boblloyd91]

As someone else mentioned, 2016 was a good year for units formed. I'm thinking it would be a matter of growth being somewhat cyclical where one sees a cycle of growth resulting in the building of stakes and eventually temples. Maybe we are seeing the fulfillment of certain growth cycles in various areas and have to wait a few years for more growth on a larger level to happen again. I think it's a bit shortsighted to think things are already declining when last year was a very successful year growth wise