Membership numbers and other stats not announced?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

Tithe paying showing commitment and likelihood to use the temple, definitely.  

There are 13,141 members in India alone (don't know what other countries will use this as their temple), 43 congregations.

11 family history centers, I wonder if genealogy is popular in India.

Russia has 23,180 members, 103 congregations, and 64 family history centers.  

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, why me said:

However, very few people dare to be critical of Islam and so, that population is growing throughout the world, especially in europe. 

I'd guess Islam is not growing because very few people dare to be critical of it. I hear at least one anti-Islamic comment per day, at least.
Many people seem to have a real certifiable fear of Muslims, and Islam, so much so that there is even a word for it.

I've never heard of Christianophobia

[why me]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'd guess Islam is not growing because very few people dare to be critical of it. I hear at least one anti-Islamic comment per day, at least.
Many people seem to have a real certifiable fear of Muslims, and Islam, so much so that there is even a word for it.

I've never heard of Christianophobia

http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2015/june-web-exclusives/responding-to-rise-of-christianophobia.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/what-christianophobia-looks-like-in-america.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christianophobia.html

I believe that inside the Islamic religion itself, one should not question it or challenge it. What we see in the traditionally Christian West is an attempt to debunk the christian faith. It is relentless, especially in the media. I do believe that other faiths do get more of a free pass in the media. With the internet, (including podcasts) mormonism is raked over the coals. I don't think that muslims are actively raking islam over the coals in many islamic countries.

My point was simple: In states that have been dominant christian, the christians are persecuted by a very seuclar media and education system. Relativism has been the word of the day. It is no surprise that christians, including mormons, are losing their faith.

When I was a young catholic boy, I loved to watch the Hollywood movies: The Bells of Saint Mary, Going My Way, The Song of Bernedette and other religious themed movies such as The Quiet Man where John and Maureen waited for marriage before doing something.

What happend?

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by why me

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, why me said:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2015/june-web-exclusives/responding-to-rise-of-christianophobia.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/what-christianophobia-looks-like-in-america.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christianophobia.html

Still never heard of it until just now. But from one of the articles:

"Anti-Christian hostility is certainly real, captured by the American National Election Studies, which include questions about animosity toward various social groups. About one third of respondents rated conservative Christians significantly lower (by at least one standard deviation) than other religious and racial groups. The only group to fare worse was atheists, who received low rankings from nearly half the respondents...atheists drew more global hostility than any other group."

Sounds like the world dislikes Muslims, Atheists and Christians equally, even hating the atheists slightly more than everybody else. Your safest bet is probably agnostic : )

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

........................................

We do not in fact know whether Putin is allowing a new temple.  We may not even have broached the subject with the Russians at this stage.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We do not in fact know whether Putin is allowing a new temple.  We may not even have broached the subject with the Russians at this stage.

That would be very foolish imo not to have done so and then announced it as I know a number of Russians who would take instant offense. As soon as it is made public, if they didn't already know, the Russian Orthodox leadership will be working hard to get it banned if past behaviour is any indicator.   I don't believe our leaders are that foolish.  Otoh, there was a lot of behind the scenes prep before opening up Russia as a mission so it makes more sense they are following that pattern.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

On 4/1/2018 at 9:28 AM, 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 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.

While there does seem to be a slight upward trend in the rate of stake growth over the past few years, there is too much variability to say that the growth is significant.  Post 1998, we've been relatively flat in rate of stake creation.

And, although some of the data can be used to support higher activity levels, it isn't conclusive.

For example:  The growth rate for wards/branches in 2017 was 0.67% while the growth rate of gross membership was 1.48%.  Divide those two numbers and you get an estimated activity rate.  For 2017, that activity rate would be about 45%.  

But, stake/ward creation is a step function so it's best to look at trends rather than one year in isolation.  So, if we look at the "average activity rate" over the past decade, it hovers around 47%.

Not a totally conclusive calculation either.

Ultimately, we don't have the data we need to determine activity rate trends.  The data tells us, as a matter of fact, that the membership growth rate has been on a decline for decades now.  2017 continued that same trend.  But, I hope you are right, and that we are seeing a higher activity rate among current members.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 2:56 PM, eddie said:

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.)

I recall reading that the church was moving towards smaller units. That has definitely been the case in my area. Just a couple of weeks ago in my stake another ward was created. There was great cheering and excitement for the growth of the church. But there weren't any more members the month the ward was created from the year before. Boundaries were simply realigned and virtually every ward in the area is right at 300 members (which is the minimum). So my stake literally has an extra ward, yet no extra membership over the previous year. And this isn't an anomaly in my area. Every year boundaries are shifted among numerous wards and a new ward is created. Still, membership in the stake hasn't risen. There hasn't been any real growth yet there is a perception of growth because of the increase in # of units. IOW- I'm not convinced that looking at # of stakes and wards is an accurate way to judge growth because those numbers can be impacted by a policy for smaller units, instead of growth in membership. I seem to recall reading about a stake being created in Arkansas a couple of years ago with only 1500 members. That was a very small stake (usually it requires 3000-3500 minimum). So having more stakes, which are smaller in size, doesn't reflect growth IMO.

One could argue that smaller units are a reflection of priesthood strength but combining HPG and EQ together seems to refute that notion for the church overall. If the priesthood was getting stronger, the church would not have combined quorums to strengthen them.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

That would be very foolish imo not to have done so and then announced it as I know a number of Russians who would take instant offense. As soon as it is made public, if they didn't already know, the Russian Orthodox leadership will be working hard to get it banned if past behaviour is any indicator.   I don't believe our leaders are that foolish.  Otoh, there was a lot of behind the scenes prep before opening up Russia as a mission so it makes more sense they are following that pattern.

Good points, Calm.  I am still a bit surprised.  Putin has been making it very difficult for JWs, Mormons, and other Western religions to meet together, much less to proselyte.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good points, Calm.  I am still a bit surprised.  Putin has been making it very difficult for JWs, Mormons, and other Western religions to meet together, much less to proselyte.

I am very surprised myself.

I suspect it may be seen as a political/personal favor to Huntsman.

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am very surprised myself.

I suspect it may be seen as a political/personal favor to Huntsman.

Howso?  Did they cure Putin of cancer?

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Howso?  Did they cure Putin of cancer?

I believe that Huntsman was expelled along with several dozen U.S. diplomats by Russia a week ago.  

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I believe that Huntsman was expelled along with several dozen U.S. diplomats by Russia a week ago.  

Haven't been paying attention.  That is interesting.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Howso?  Did they cure Putin of cancer?

The whole US Ambassador thing...thinking it might be a chip to play later on.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I believe that Huntsman was expelled along with several dozen U.S. diplomats by Russia a week ago.  

Apparently not.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900014399/russia-expels-60-us-diplomats-what-does-that-mean-for-jon-huntsman-jr.html

They want them to downsize the staff.

seems like spy games/brinkmanship/t-itfor tat

Quote

The diplomats have until April 5 to leave the country, according to CNN. There will still be roughly 700 U.S. diplomats left in Russia.

The other U.S. consulate in Vladivostok, Russia, will not be affected.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously asked the U.S. to reduce its number of diplomats by 750 in July 2017. At the time, there was believed to be about 1,200 U.S. State Department employees in Russia, according to BBC.

Quote

Russia’s decision comes after the United States expelled 60 Russian diplomats Monday as a response to the United Kingdom blaming Moscow exposing a former Russian double agent and his daughter to a nerve agent, BBC News reported. The father and daughter remained hospitalized since the March 4 poisoning.

Huntsman Jr. said earlier this week that Russia needs to change its behavior so that relations between Russia and the U.S. can improve, according to the Deseret News.

 

[VAUFLDS]

On 3/31/2018 at 7:18 PM, JulieM said:

Don’t they always conduct business (sustainings, etc.) at every general conference but still take time for the statistical announcements?

I’m reading that it’s because missionary numbers and membership numbers are down even more (along with the closing of two of the MTCs).  But that might not be the case.

Some will really thoroughly evaluate the statistics when they are published now I’d imagine 

I can't know what the motivation was for leaving it out. I just thought the the sustainings were extremely lengthy as compared to the norm. I could be wrong. It just seemed to go on and on.

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, VAUFLDS said:

I can't know what the motivation was for leaving it out. I just thought the the sustainings were extremely lengthy as compared to the norm. I could be wrong. It just seemed to go on and on.

I can understand the thought that there were lengthy sustainings and they still wanted to focus on the addresses.   But, Section 20 instructs us that the conferences are to be held to conduct “church business”.

It will be interesting to see what happens in coming years.  The numbers don’t look too good.  If trends continue, we’ll actually be shrinking, as a percentage of the global population, within a few years.

Seemingly extemporaneous, but public  statements, by a couple apostles in recent years have been questioned as they seemed to contradict the church’s published data.

When church finances started to look bad, they stopped disclosing them.

So, I predict that we’ve seen the end of membership numbers being reported verbally in conference.  They’ll have them online for a while and eventually that will disappear.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by rockpond

[VAUFLDS]

Good points. We'll see in 6 months.

[rockpond]

Just now, VAUFLDS said:

Good points. We'll see in 6 months.

12 months.  Stats are only reported at the April conference.

[Tacenda]

Not sure if this link has been shared...https://www.lds.org/church/news/april-2018-general-conference-news-and-announcements?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_SA-31-3-2018_dPFD_fGC_xLIDyL2-1_  It shows the stats.

ETA: The link has been shared. So I don't want to waste a post, can I ask...would it affect anyone's testimony if the numbers go way down in the near future?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Would it affect anyone's testimony if the numbers go way down in the near future?

My testimony is literally just that, a collection of the things that I have personally seen, heard, experienced. It has nothing to do with numbers.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not sure if this link has been shared...https://www.lds.org/church/news/april-2018-general-conference-news-and-announcements?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_SA-31-3-2018_dPFD_fGC_xLIDyL2-1_  It shows the stats.

ETA: The link has been shared. So I don't want to waste a post, can I ask...would it affect anyone's testimony if the numbers go way down in the near future?

No. 

[Marginal Gains]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not sure if this link has been shared...https://www.lds.org/church/news/april-2018-general-conference-news-and-announcements?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_SA-31-3-2018_dPFD_fGC_xLIDyL2-1_  It shows the stats.

ETA: The link has been shared. So I don't want to waste a post, can I ask...would it affect anyone's testimony if the numbers go way down in the near future?

It would affect the leaderships ability to proclaim growth and strength every April.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can understand the thought that there were lengthy sustainings and they still wanted to focus on the addresses.   But, Section 20 instructs us that the conferences are to be held to conduct “church business”.

It will be interesting to see what happens in coming years.  The numbers don’t look too good.  If trends continue, we’ll actually be shrinking, as a percentage of the global population, within a few years.

Seemingly extemporaneous, but public  statements, by a couple apostles in recent years have been questioned as they seemed to contradict the church’s published data.

When church finances started to look bad, they stopped disclosing them.

So, I predict that we’ve seen the end of membership numbers being reported verbally in conference.  They’ll have them online for a while and eventually that will disappear.

 

Church growth was around 1.5%. Global population growth is @ 1.1% which really surprised me. I thought it would have been higher.

Of course the real number reflected in 1.5% of a 16 million member church is a far cry from 1.1% growth on a population of around 8 billion. That means 75-80 million people are added to the global population each year while 240,000 are added to church membership.

So if we divide 240,000 by 75,000,000 we get an annual church growth rate around .3% of the global population.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Church growth was around 1.5%. Global population growth is @ 1.1% which really surprised me. I thought it would have been higher.

Of course the real number reflected in 1.5% of a 16 million member church is a far cry from 1.1% growth on a population of around 8 billion. That means 75-80 million people are added to the global population each year while 240,000 are added to church membership.

So if we divide 240,000 by 75,000,000 we get an annual church growth rate around .3% of the global population.

 

Church growth rate would probably look a lot better if we stopped counting people who no longer having anything to do with the Church. But then our raw numbers would take a hit.