Membership numbers and other stats not announced?

[eddie]

11 hours ago, jpv said:

Also slowest growth rate since 1937:

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2018/03/2017-statistical-report.html?m=1

Yet stakes are being created at the highest percentage growth levels since the early 90's.

This means more people are staying active than at any other time, and the growth of wards and stakes is really a better indicator of genuine growth than convert baptism numbers alone.

Since 2010 there are 1,986,702 more members, 445 more stakes, and 1846 more wards and branches worldwide.

I would say the conversation of the church's decline is very contrary to the actual events of what is happening.

They have made it clear they would rather not have people join only to go inactive.  I think we are seeing the fruits of those actions.

Edited April 1, 2018 by eddie

[bluebell]

I think I'm going to hold out judgement on why the church didn't do the statistical report during conference until next year.  Given that the solemn assembly had already taken up a good deal of time, and that the new callings took up a lo of time as well, it makes sense not to take up more time with announcements that people can easily read elsewhere.  

I know my bishop is very picky about what announcements he gives over the pulpit.  He does not believe that is the purpose of sacrament meeting.  He expects most (if not all) announcements to be printed in the program or given in RS/YW/Primary/Priesthood meetings.

It seems premature to be spouting nefarious reasons for the change.  

[cinepro]

39 minutes ago, eddie said:

Yet stakes are being created at the highest percentage growth levels since the early 90's.

This means more people are staying active than at any other time, and the growth of wards and stakes is really a better indicator of genuine growth than convert baptism numbers alone.

Since 2010 there are 1,986,702 more members, 445 more stakes, and 1846 more wards and branches worldwide.

I would say the conversation of the churches decline is very contrary to the actual events of what is happening.

They have made it clear they would rather not have people join only to go inactive.  I think we are seeing the fruits of those actions.

Sorry, but I think the most important "statistic" is that they are combining the EQ and HP groups in the wards.  This is an obvious indicator that there are serious problems with the "activity" among the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Church . Not in every ward, but generally enough.

In this Church, "splitting" means health, growth and activity.  Combining means the opposite, whether it's done at the ward, stake, class or quorum level.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think I'm going to hold out judgement on why the church didn't do the statistical report during conference until next year.  Given that the solemn assembly had already taken up a good deal of time, and that the new callings took up a lo of time as well, it makes sense not to take up more time with announcements that people can easily read elsewhere.  

I know my bishop is very picky about what announcements he gives over the pulpit.  He does not believe that is the purpose of sacrament meeting.  He expects most (if not all) announcements to be printed in the program or given in RS/YW/Primary/Priesthood meetings.

It seems premature to be spouting nefarious reasons for the change.  

(50 years from now)

Sam: I wish the Church would tell us how many members there actually are, and how many missionaries and stakes and baptisms.  It would be nice to know what's going on.

Eleanor: Frankly, it's none of our business how many members there are, or how many baptisms there are.  The Church has top people who keep the records, and everyone is accounted for.  The only people who care about that kind of thing are the critics and anti-Mormons who have no faith.  If they announced those numbers it would just give them one more thing to complain about.  The Church is obviously growing and strong; why would we need "numbers" to confirm this?  Just last week, an Apostle told us they were creating dozens of stakes a month, and that we will soon have 200,000 missionaries.  If the word of an Apostle isn't good enough for you, what could the numbers ever tell you?

Sam: I'm pretty sure they used to announce the numbers in General Conference and it was no big deal.  It's weird that they stopped.

Eleanor: Maybe we just have more faith now and so we don't need the numbers...?  Why don't you have faith?

Edited April 1, 2018 by cinepro

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but I think the most important "statistic" is that they are combining the EQ and HP groups in the wards.  This is an obvious indicator that there are serious problems with the "activity" among the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Church . Not in every ward, but generally enough.

In this Church, "splitting" means health, growth and activity.  Combining means the opposite, whether it's done at the ward, stake, class or quorum level.

Let's say one day I harvest 15 tomatoes from my garden that I have divided up into 3 groups of 5, to give away to others.

The next day I find that when I picked the tomatoes I missed one, so I harvest it also, and then divide them into four groups of four. I can now give one more neighbor some tomatoes.

Do I consider the increase from one day to the next as a 25% increase because I now have four groups or do I have a 9% increase because I now have 16 tomatoes?

Bottom line is that without any sort of activity metric, membership numbers is the best indicator of what is our actual growth.

A comparison between 2016 & 2017 statistics shows that stake size shrunk by 38 members per stake and ward & branch size grew by 4 members each. In 2016 there were 4863 members per stake (15,882,417/3266=4863) and in 2017 there was 4825 members per stake (16,118,159/3341=4824.3).

If we used the average stake size from 2016 (4863) and divided it into the overall membership numbers from 2017 we would have 3314.5 stakes now instead of the 3341 they posted. So 26.5 of the new stakes this year are purely the result of shrinking down the average size of each stake.

By the way, if you take the total membership increase from 2016 to 2017 & divide it by the average stake size it shows that we added enough new members to create about 49 stakes. Yet the increase in stake numbers from 2016 to 2017 is 75 so that is another metric that shows stake size must be shrinking.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by CA Steve

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but I think the most important "statistic" is that they are combining the EQ and HP groups in the wards.  This is an obvious indicator that there are serious problems with the "activity" among the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Church . Not in every ward, but generally enough.

In this Church, "splitting" means health, growth and activity.  Combining means the opposite, whether it's done at the ward, stake, class or quorum level.

True.  If the numbers were growing and the quorums in each ward were getting larger, I highly doubt they'd be combining the two.

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Let's say one day I harvest 15 tomatoes from my garden that I have divided up into 3 groups of 5, to give away to others.

The next day I find that when I picked the tomatoes I missed one, so I harvest it also, and then divide them into four groups of four. I can now give one more neighbor some tomatoes.

Do I consider the increase from one day to the next as a 25% increase because I now have four groups or do I have a 9% increase because I now have 16 tomatoes?

Bottom line is that without any sort of activity metric, membership numbers is the best indicator of what is our actual growth.

A comparison between 2016 & 2017 statistics shows that stake size shrunk by 38 members per stake and ward & branch size grew by 4 members each. In 2016 there were 4863 members per stake (15,882,417/3266=4863) and in 2017 there was 4825 members per stake (16,118,159/3341=4824.3).

If we used the average stake size from 2016 (4863) and divided it into the overall membership numbers from 2017 we would have 3314.5 stakes now instead of the 3341 they posted. So 26.5 of the new stakes this year are purely the result of shrinking down the average size of each stake.

 

We're not talking about tomatoes (an inanimate commodity).  We're talking about membership in a Church.  But if you're suggesting that this is a change that could (and should) have been made 10, 20 or 40 years ago for the same reasons and with the same benefits, then that's a valid argument to make.  Either the system with separate groups was inefficient and less effective, or something has changed to make a system that formerly worked need to be changed.

I suspect the latter.

If there's one thing LDS know, it's that we combine when things are weak, and split when things are strong. In the Sunday School presidency, we would combine youth classes when we didn't have enough attendance for two separate classes. In my junior year of High School, we combined seminary classes because we didn't have enough kids for two viable classes. When I lived in West LA, we overlapped our block schedule with the neighboring ward so our Primary and youth groups could combine since we had so few children and youth.

We combine wards or stakes when there isn't enough attendance or leadership for two separate wards or stakes.

I have never seen a situation where leadership said "Hey, we have two strong, vibrant groups here in the Church. Let's combine them!"

 

One thing that needs to be seen is what this will do for leadership.  The position of EQ President was a good training ground for young Melchizedek Priesthood holders to get leadership experience at the Quorum level.  If that changes, it could change how leadership is developed at the ward and stake level.

[CA Steve]

I realize we are not talking produce. My post was aimed at those pointing out the increase in the numbers of stakes as a sign of growth. I was just showing that 1/3 of that increase was from downsizing the number of members in a stake. We still should of had 50 new stakes based on membership increase. So if we are going to look at numbers of stakes as an indication of growth, we need to use the number 50 instead of 75.

Edited April 1, 2018 by CA Steve

[eddie]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but I think the most important "statistic" is that they are combining the EQ and HP groups in the wards.  This is an obvious indicator that there are serious problems with the "activity" among the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Church . Not in every ward, but generally enough.

In this Church, "splitting" means health, growth and activity.  Combining means the opposite, whether it's done at the ward, stake, class or quorum level.

Because heaven forbid that they meet the exact way that the Relief Society has for the past 170+ years.

Or that they have never modified anything such as primary not meeting Wednesdays like they did in the 1950's, or not sustaining a prophet for several like they did after they left Nauvoo.  Or changed ages for missionaries, or when they quit calling married men on missions such as they did during Pioneer times.

Or when they quit calling stake 70's like they did before the 1980's, or when they started to have stake presidents ordain patriarchs instead of members of the quorum of the 12.

With every change that is ever made some always look for ulterior motives.  The fact is there is no doubt the church is growing and as Elder Quentin L Cook stated in a recent conference at no other time has there been more endowed and active members.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/quentin-l-cook-the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by eddie

[why me]

The change had more to do with the change in the priesthood/sunday school meetings. We no longer have priesthood manuals and the meetings have changed. There is no sense in separating the groups anymore. We are now all working together with the new knowledge that we are receiving in one meeting. So, it has more to do with the change in meeting content for priesthood and the stress on one community of priesthood holders.

Edited April 1, 2018 by why me

[why me]

I suppose that the numbers will be available in print form somewhere. They will not be hidden. It is amazing just how some people see a negative in every nook and cranny. Sometimes it is better to just relax and let the feathers fall where may.

[cinepro]

52 minutes ago, eddie said:

With every change that is ever made some always look for ulterior motives.  The fact is there is no doubt the church is growing and as Elder Quentin L Cook stated in a recent conference at no other time has there been more endowed and active members.

 

If the day ever comes that the number of active and endowed members decreases, what will that mean?  And do you think they'd tell us?

[SteveO]

I think it’s pretty clear given the theme of the conference, and President Nelson’s talk just a few minutes ago, that we aren’t focusing on expansion as much as we are focusing on strengthening the existing membership.  

I don’t doubt that there are issues with casual membership, and the strength of new converts.  There’s no question that that’s a big part of what’s spurring these changes.  

I don’t think that’s a bad thing...

Edited April 1, 2018 by SteveO

[Bernard Gui]

We do all we can to persuade everyone to join us, to stay active, to endure. We are concerned about how we present the message. We seek to improve our approach, but as President Eyring just said, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not impose themselves on us. The knock comes to the door and we all choose how we respond.

This is made clear in the parable of the sower, the leavening in the bread, and Lehi’s and Nephi’s visions of the tree of life. The reality is that the numbers of the Saints worldwide will be small, but they will have significant influence. Why should we obsess about that?

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If the day ever comes that the number of active and endowed members decreases, what will that mean?  And do you think they'd tell us?

Well, it could mean many things. The time of gathering has past. The day of the Gentiles is over. The world is ripening in iniquity. The end times are here. Satan is raging in the hearts of men. People are complacent or past caring. People want the philosophies of men more than revelation from God. The lines between right and wrong have been erased. We need to increase our efforts. We need to make adjustments in the way we do things. God doesn't care about us any more. We don’t care about God anymore. 

They are telling us  already.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I realize we are not talking produce. My post was aimed at those pointing out the increase in the numbers of stakes as a sign of growth. I was just showing that 1/3 of that increase was from downsizing the number of members in a stake. We still should of had 50 new stakes based on membership increase. So if we are going to look at numbers of stakes as an indication of growth, we need to use the number 50 instead of 75.

Of course the real reason the analogy fails is because we aren't increasing the number of tomatoes/members and increasing the number of groups/quorums.

We have fewer groups of tomatoes/quorums (exactly half the number now), so that would logically indicate that we have fewer tomatoes.  If we had more tomatoes, then we could either make the existing groups bigger or make more groups.  But there is no reason to make fewer groups if we have the same number or a greater number of good tomatoes.

It's probably safe to assume that we're going to start seeing a greater emphasis on the Church gaining strength through smaller numbers instead of growth.  No more "stone cut out of a mountain" talk and instead "many are called but few are chosen."

Edited April 1, 2018 by cinepro

[why me]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If the day ever comes that the number of active and endowed members decreases, what will that mean?  And do you think they'd tell us?

It wouldn't mean much except that there are forces that want to destroy the church and are attempting to do just that. There also seems to be an attack against Christianity and the LDS could also be a casualty of that too. I know of no other faith that is being attacked as much as Christianity. In Great Britian we can see just what this means as more and more people do not call themselves Christian. It is open season on christians and their faith, especially in the west. However, very few people dare to be critical of Islam and so, that population is growing throughout the world, especially in europe. And so, why the attack on mormons and other christians and their churches?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/831569/Christianity-CRISIS-93-per-cent-church-marginalised-Britain-UK-religion-latest-news

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/britain-has-non-believers-ever-church-england-christians-make/

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by why me

[eddie]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

If the day ever comes that the number of active and endowed members decreases, what will that mean?  And do you think they'd tell us?

Why are you arguing hypotheticals, I thought you said the changes to HPs and Elders were a direct reflection on the weakening of the church?

It is very measurable by anyone in or out of the church to count how many wards and stakes there are in the world just by counting the building locators on the online maps.

The church did shrink in the late 1830's and 1850's and it was published. The number of stakes shrank in number in 2003 as well when they reorganized several in Chile that had a very high number of inactive members.   Rates will ebb and flow, but if a stock grew from 6 to over 16,000,000 in 187 years, then it would be a very good investment.  (Or from 1 to 3,341 in 170 years.)

Edited April 1, 2018 by eddie

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Of course the real reason the analogy fails is because we aren't increasing the number of tomatoes/members and increasing the number of groups/quorums.

We have fewer groups of tomatoes/quorums (exactly half the number now), so that would logically indicate that we have fewer tomatoes.  If we had more tomatoes, then we could either make the existing groups bigger or make more groups.  But there is no reason to make fewer groups if we have the same number or a greater number of good tomatoes.

It's probably safe to assume that we're going to start seeing a greater emphasis on the Church gaining strength through smaller numbers instead of growth.  No more "stone cut out of a mountain" talk and instead "many are called but few are chosen."

Maybe if you try number of tomatoes/membership numbers and increasing number of groups/STAKES it might make more sense to you.

I was trying to build on your point that there is serious problem with activity by showing that the increase in the number of stakes is also misleading because it is really a result of shrinking down the stake average size by 34 members per stake. Remember you were replying to someone who said that stakes were being created at "the highest percentage growth levels since the early 90's." I pointed out that is only true because they reduced the number of members per stake, or in my analogy, the number of tomatoes per group. My analogy had nothing to do with the quorums merging.

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe if you try number of tomatoes/membership numbers and increasing number of groups/STAKES it might make more sense to you.

 

Other than a small impact on the draw from leadership, Stakes are a relatively arbitrary organization in the Church.  Once you get beyond the 3 presidency members, 12 High Councilors, auxiliary presidencies and Patriarch,  it really doesn't matter whether there are 3 wards in a Stake or 20.  The Church can make that number whatever it wants it to be, within reason.

The Ward/Branch number is probably much more reliable (unless they would be willing to actually tell us what the tithing/temple recommend numbers are!)

Based on the ward numbers, there is still growth.  But the change to the EQ/HP groups changes what a "Ward" is, and will allow smaller groups of LDS to be classified as a "Ward."  How many active Priesthood holders does this free up (or reduce the requirement for)?  5 or 6?  If there are 30,000 wards, then the Church just created the equivalent of ~150,000 active Priesthood holders who are available and ready to serve in additional callings.  Or, to the degree that there were unfilled positions in those quorums, it just reduced the need for some thousands of Priesthood holders in order to maintain the functioning of the Wards.

[eddie]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Other than a small impact on the draw from leadership, Stakes are a relatively arbitrary organization in the Church.  Once you get beyond the 3 presidency members, 12 High Councilors, auxiliary presidencies and Patriarch,  it really doesn't matter whether there are 3 wards in a Stake or 20.  The Church can make that number whatever it wants it to be, within reason.

The Ward/Branch number is probably much more reliable (unless they would be willing to actually tell us what the tithing/temple recommend numbers are!)

Based on the ward numbers, there is still growth.  But the change to the EQ/HP groups changes what a "Ward" is, and will allow smaller groups of LDS to be classified as a "Ward."  How many active Priesthood holders does this free up (or reduce the requirement for)?  5 or 6?  If there are 30,000 wards, then the Church just created the equivalent of ~150,000 active Priesthood holders who are available and ready to serve in additional callings.  Or, to the degree that there were unfilled positions in those quorums, it just reduced the need for some thousands of Priesthood holders in order to maintain the functioning of the Wards.

While I don't disagree that the wards and branches is a valid indicator, the stake growth is as well.

For one, it shows broad maturity in the area.  A stake will not be organized without 5 functioning wards.  (According to my former mission president that was a church employee.  At the time of my service there were no stakes in my mission.)

There have to be a minimum number of active members, tithe payers, and priesthood holders in each ward.  Stakes also will not be split unless they can get between 10-12 wards.   Branches, while often administered under stake leadership, do not meet the criteria necessary to have a ward.   I live in a stake that stayed at 12 for a few years due to inactive members in one section.

With the growth in wards, stakes, and branches it shows that more members are active with the growth happening.  I would have to run the numbers to see, but when both stay at a relatively parallel rate, it would mean that fewer people are going inactive after joining.  That was a bigger issue several decades ago, and they have tried to take measures to reduce that.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

If the day ever comes that the number of active and endowed members decreases, what will that mean?  And do you think they'd tell us?

It would not mean anything that I can think of. I expect they would tell us but if not, it would not bother me.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but I think the most important "statistic" is that they are combining the EQ and HP groups in the wards.  This is an obvious indicator that there are serious problems with the "activity" among the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Church . Not in every ward, but generally enough.

In this Church, "splitting" means health, growth and activity.  Combining means the opposite, whether it's done at the ward, stake, class or quorum level.

I think it is more the increasing emphasis on helping developing wards and branches and not what works in Utah. It also prevents the overlaps in High Priest and Elder responsibilities and the duplication of effort.

[SteveO]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

We're not talking about tomatoes (an inanimate commodity).  We're talking about membership in a Church.  But if you're suggesting that this is a change that could (and should) have been made 10, 20 or 40 years ago for the same reasons and with the same benefits, then that's a valid argument to make.  Either the system with separate groups was inefficient and less effective, or something has changed to make a system that formerly worked need to be changed.

I suspect the latter.

If there's one thing LDS know, it's that we combine when things are weak, and split when things are strong. In the Sunday School presidency, we would combine youth classes when we didn't have enough attendance for two separate classes. In my junior year of High School, we combined seminary classes because we didn't have enough kids for two viable classes. When I lived in West LA, we overlapped our block schedule with the neighboring ward so our Primary and youth groups could combine since we had so few children and youth.

We combine wards or stakes when there isn't enough attendance or leadership for two separate wards or stakes.

I have never seen a situation where leadership said "Hey, we have two strong, vibrant groups here in the Church. Let's combine them!"

 

One thing that needs to be seen is what this will do for leadership.  The position of EQ President was a good training ground for young Melchizedek Priesthood holders to get leadership experience at the Quorum level.  If that changes, it could change how leadership is developed at the ward and stake level.

What do 7 new temples mean do you think?

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, SteveO said:

What do 7 new temples mean do you think?

Wow, Russia is getting one.  I am surprised they are being allowed.

"Salta, Argentina; Bengaluru, India; Managua Nicaragua; Cagayan de Oro, Philippines; Layton, Utah; Richmond, Virginia; and a major city yet to be determined in Russia."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/new-temples-april-2018-general-conference

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wow, Russia is getting one.  I am surprised they are being allowed.

"Salta, Argentina; Bengaluru, India; Managua Nicaragua; Cagayan de Oro, Philippines; Layton, Utah; Richmond, Virginia; and a major city yet to be determined in Russia."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/new-temples-april-2018-general-conference

You don’t get temples unless there’s a sizable, tithe paying population to support it correct?

I think these temples represent a success in reactivation efforts and  strengthening of existing church membership.  It was definitely the focus of this conference.

Also, how in the world did they get Putin to sign off on that?

Edited April 1, 2018 by SteveO