Membership numbers and other stats not announced?

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:42 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Hey HappyJack,

Just wanted to point out a couple of things I've learned as I looked into some of the stuff you mention:

Quote

The Church has also emphasized better utilization of church meetinghouses in the United States and other areas of the world. As a result, the Church has encouraged larger numbers of congregations to share the same meetinghouse and for congregations to have larger numbers of active members in order to conserve meetinghouse maintenance and building costs. For example, in some areas the Church is striving for sacrament meeting attendance to comprise at least 75% of seating available in a meetinghouse. Consequently, the Church has combined smaller congregations in order to reduce the number of meetinghouses needed.

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/201 ... antly.html

In my area, I've seen the exact opposite as you.  We have gone for larger congregations and yet smaller stake sizes for better management:

Quote

Several other LDS statistical indicators that strongly correlate to stake growth did not accelerate in 2016. For example, the Church reported a net increase of approximately 200 official congregations (i.e. wards and branches) during 2017. As the average stake includes seven congregations, the number of stakes would have increased by only 29 if the Church organized new stakes in direct proportion to congregational growth rates for the year.

http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=vie ... 1&cat_id=8

When our stake grew the size of the wards through re-alignment, they also shrunk the number of wards in our stake from 11 to 8.  We were told they Church is trying to have stakes with fewer units for better management purposes.  This was shown in the data over the past few years.  The Church reached a high in stake creations in 2016, but, as is known, the number of units created during that time indicates the Church is creating stakes with less wards than they used to.  And it was decided for better use of buildings in the US, anyway, they wanted to create units with more people in them.  

With all of that said, there is an interest podcast that our old poster Consiglieri did to consider as well:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/03/radio-free-mormon-27-lies-damn-lies-statistics-pt-3/

I'd agree that some of this indicates that the Church is still hoping to give the impression of rapid growth, by redefining growth in a few different ways, even using the term "real growth" to make up for the actual steep decline in all measures of growth in recent years.  

Back at the LDSChurch growth website run by Matt Martinich he said:

Quote

Stake growth is a robust indicator of "real growth" in the LDS Church as stakes require certain minimum requirements to operate (e.g. number of active, full-tithe paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders [AFTPMP]; number of congregations; ratio of AFTPMP to general church membership; etc).

There was a reference to "real growth" in conference It hink in 2011, as well.  The problem with that term is many.  it is obvious the Church changed it's parameters for stake creation and unit creation.  The "real growth" he talks about seems to be attributed to smaller stakes (as in # of units in a stake) with larger units. And doesn't really indicate much growth at all, certainly nothing different in terms of growth then was previous.  At least it seems to me.  

 

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

I'm not so sure.  It's likely that a good percentage of one year's converts are the next years less actives--not to mention the whole new crop of members who lose engagement on top of it.  That may mean if the Church had, say, 5 million people who have something to do with the Church one year, and during that year, added 240,000 converts.  It's possible the next year, the Church actually had, 4,990,950 people who have something to do with the Church.  Let's do a little math to show this:

Year 1:  5,000,000

Added through conversion:  240,000

new Children of record:  100,000

Lost through death, excommunication, resignation:  100,000

The next year's (year 2) # of members who have something to do with the Church should then be:  5,240,000

But what is not factored in here is how many lose engagement to some measure enough to consider themselves not having anything to do with the Church.  What if that number is 249,050?  

If so, then the actual number of members who have anything to do with the Church the next year (year 2) is:  4,990,950

the hardest thing to measure, though, is whether someone who is on the roles has anything to do with the Church, if he/she never attends.  

But in this example, even if the number who lose interest/affiliation in the Church is something around 200,000 then the percentage of growth for that year is .01% (A much smaller percentage growth indicator than is reported through the general numbers.)

 

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

I have a suggestion. The most tangible statistic that the Church has is current adult temple recommend holders. It’s all computerised and up to date so there’s no ambiguity around whether they are alive or dead, how many times a year they turn up, whether they still self identify as Mormon etc. When a members is handing over cash they are engaged. Report that number and the membership would get a very accurate picture in terms of activity rates (at least at adult level) and changes year on year. I don’t think the Church will do that as it’s intention is not to give members the figures, but only the impression that the Church is growing each and every year.

That said, we do know that activity rates in Europe were running at 20% (thanks to a leaked Area Presidency report) and adult tithe payers represented 10% of the claimed membership total. We also know that global activity rates were running at 36% (thanks to a slip up by the Deseret News when they published data from a Church employed statisticians presentation).

Edited April 12, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey HappyJack,

Just wanted to point out a couple of things I've learned as I looked into some of the stuff you mention:

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/201 ... antly.html

In my area, I've seen the exact opposite as you.  We have gone for larger congregations and yet smaller stake sizes for better management:

http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=vie ... 1&cat_id=8

When our stake grew the size of the wards through re-alignment, they also shrunk the number of wards in our stake from 11 to 8.  We were told they Church is trying to have stakes with fewer units for better management purposes.  This was shown in the data over the past few years.  The Church reached a high in stake creations in 2016, but, as is known, the number of units created during that time indicates the Church is creating stakes with less wards than they used to.  And it was decided for better use of buildings in the US, anyway, they wanted to create units with more people in them.  

With all of that said, there is an interest podcast that our old poster Consiglieri did to consider as well:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/03/radio-free-mormon-27-lies-damn-lies-statistics-pt-3/

I'd agree that some of this indicates that the Church is still hoping to give the impression of rapid growth, by redefining growth in a few different ways, even using the term "real growth" to make up for the actual steep decline in all measures of growth in recent years.  

Back at the LDSChurch growth website run by Matt Martinich he said:

There was a reference to "real growth" in conference It hink in 2011, as well.  The problem with that term is many.  it is obvious the Church changed it's parameters for stake creation and unit creation.  The "real growth" he talks about seems to be attributed to smaller stakes (as in # of units in a stake) with larger units. And doesn't really indicate much growth at all, certainly nothing different in terms of growth then was previous.  At least it seems to me.  

 

Good points. Thanks.

The question I have with "real growth" is what is really being measured? For example, the church can have legitimate "real growth" in the number of temples it is building and operating. That number is merely a reflection of the will of church leaders. Same with unit size. Those things can be changed as they desire. It is often assumed that those areas of "real growth" are indicative of "real growth" in strength and activation of the members, but that is merely an assumption.

At work, I can grow my portfolio in new accounts by simply opening more accounts than I close. I can legitimately say I have "real growth" even though the value of the new accounts don't cover the higher value of accounts I've lost. IOW- I can grow new accounts yet still lose in the areas that really matter, like profitability. New accounts can be manipulated to an extent by providing special offers or discounted rates to new customers, yet if I can't manipulate the profitability.

With the church, we simply don't have enough information to know if Elder Cook was right about the church being stronger than ever. We can count the number of new temples/wards/stakes, but that doesn't really tell us anything about the strength of the membership. What are the rates for current temple recommend holders, home teaching statistics, church attendance? It would be interesting to see the trends to get an idea of whether or not church membership really is stronger now than it was 20 years ago. I have my doubts.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good points. Thanks.

The question I have with "real growth" is what is really being measured? For example, the church can have legitimate "real growth" in the number of temples it is building and operating. That number is merely a reflection of the will of church leaders. Same with unit size. Those things can be changed as they desire. It is often assumed that those areas of "real growth" are indicative of "real growth" in strength and activation of the members, but that is merely an assumption.

At work, I can grow my portfolio in new accounts by simply opening more accounts than I close. I can legitimately say I have "real growth" even though the value of the new accounts don't cover the higher value of accounts I've lost. IOW- I can grow new accounts yet still lose in the areas that really matter, like profitability. New accounts can be manipulated to an extent by providing special offers or discounted rates to new customers, yet if I can't manipulate the profitability.

With the church, we simply don't have enough information to know if Elder Cook was right about the church being stronger than ever. We can count the number of new temples/wards/stakes, but that doesn't really tell us anything about the strength of the membership. What are the rates for current temple recommend holders, home teaching statistics, church attendance? It would be interesting to see the trends to get an idea of whether or not church membership really is stronger now than it was 20 years ago. I have my doubts.

Why the need to make the claim “the church is stronger than ever” in the first place? If the Church was stronger than ever, that would be self-evident and there’d be no need to point that out to members. If you want to know what the Church is struggling with, listen to what Cook says is going well.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I have a suggestion. The most tangible statistic that the Church has is current adult temple recommend holders. It’s all computerised and up to date so there’s no ambiguity around whether they are alive or dead, how many times a year they turn up, whether they still self identify as Mormon etc. When a members is handing over cash they are engaged. Report that number and the membership would get a very accurate picture in terms of activity rates (at least at adult level) and changes year on year. I don’t think the Church will do that as it’s intention is not to give members the figures, but only the impression that the Church is growing each and every year.

Agreed. The church has the methods of determining legitimate levels of high engagement through temple recommends/attendance and tithing, among other things. Of course there are "less active" who don't attend church as often but still consider themselves Mormon. There are some that come every week who aren't endowed and who don't pay tithing, so those "less actives" would be harder to count properly. The only way to do that is by determining activity levels by county church attendance. Of course that is an easily manipulated number. By simply changing policy the church could claim a person who attends once per year is "active" instead of the once a quarter guideline they have now. But that really doesn't reflect on the person's actual level of engagement.

[Garden Girl]

On 4/12/2018 at 7:37 AM, Marginal Gains said:

I have a suggestion. The most tangible statistic that the Church has is current adult temple recommend holders. It’s all computerised and up to date so there’s no ambiguity around whether they are alive or dead, how many times a year they turn up, whether they still self identify as Mormon etc. When a members is handing over cash they are engaged. Report that number and the membership would get a very accurate picture in terms of activity rates (at least at adult level) and changes year on year. I don’t think the Church will do that as it’s intention is not to give members the figures, but only the impression that the Church is growing each and every year.

That said, we do know that activity rates in Europe were running at 20% (thanks to a leaked Area Presidency report) and adult tithe payers represented 10% of the claimed membership total. We also know that global activity rates were running at 36% (thanks to a slip up by the Deseret News when they published data from a Church employed statisticians presentation).

I just got my copy of the April 8 Deseret News... which contains the 2017 general statistical figures...  I don't agree that by counting the number of those "handing over cash,"  it would produce a "very accurate" picture of Church activity... members go in and out of activity (including paying tithing) all the time, and for various lengths of time.  There are some active members who may or may not pay tithing for a length of time.  The number of active members fluctuates... just like my activity did... and numerous members of my ward... I was very active until age 20, then went inactive when I married a non-member... until I finally heeded the promptings of the Spirit that I had received through the years, and I returned to full activity at age 55 (22 years ago), and I've never looked back.

GG

EDIT TO ADD:   2017 Statistics as usually read in April conf but published in April 8 Church News...

Number of stakes... 3,341

Districts... 553

Missions... 421

Wards and branches... 30,506

Total Membership... 16,118,169

New children of record during 2017...  106,771 

Converts baptized during 2017... 233,729

Missionaries... 67,049     Church-service missionaries...  36,172

Temples dedicated in 2017... 4        Rededicated... 1       Temples in operation... 159      New temples announced... 7

 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Garden Girl

[The Nehor]

I hypothesize that if we published the number of current temple recommend holders and that did not support the predictions of the doom and gloom crowd that they would find a new 'hidden' statistic that, if revealed, would reveal the church as a doddering and dying entity:

"Ah-ha, but you can see that the Church does not reveal the number of hymnbooks ordered by wards and I suspect it dropped by 5% last year. Since congregational singing is a mark of devotion in our sacrament meeting this trend is alarming and shows that even among attendees devotion and activity are flagging. Yet the church does not share these numbers and it is obvious why."

[Marginal Gains]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I hypothesize that if we published the number of current temple recommend holders and that did not support the predictions of the doom and gloom crowd that they would find a new 'hidden' statistic that, if revealed, would reveal the church as a doddering and dying entity:

"Ah-ha, but you can see that the Church does not reveal the number of hymnbooks ordered by wards and I suspect it dropped by 5% last year. Since congregational singing is a mark of devotion in our sacrament meeting this trend is alarming and shows that even among attendees devotion and activity are flagging. Yet the church does not share these numbers and it is obvious why."

It’s noteworthy that the mantra has gone from “fasting growing Church” as a justification of the claim Mormonism is The One True Church, to an apologetic of “lack of numbers was predicted in the scriptures as a sign of the true Church”. If lack of numbers is a sign the Church is true, why aren’t you rejoicing in the slowing growth rate?

Do you think the statistics the Church chooses to share publicly are positive?

Edited April 16, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s noteworthy that the mantra has gone from “fasting growing Church” as a justification of the claim Mormonism is The One True Church, to an apologetic of “lack of numbers was predicted in the scriptures as a sign of the true Church”. If lack of numbers is a sign the Church is true, why aren’t you rejoicing in the slowing growth rate?

Do you think the statistics the Church chooses to share publicly are positive?

Claiming to be the fastest growing Church was never a sign of being the true church except to idiots. Stop picking on idiots. They have a hard enough time in life.

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:57 PM, The Nehor said:

I hypothesize that if we published the number of current temple recommend holders and that did not support the predictions of the doom and gloom crowd that they would find a new 'hidden' statistic that, if revealed, would reveal the church as a doddering and dying entity:

"Ah-ha, but you can see that the Church does not reveal the number of hymnbooks ordered by wards and I suspect it dropped by 5% last year. Since congregational singing is a mark of devotion in our sacrament meeting this trend is alarming and shows that even among attendees devotion and activity are flagging. Yet the church does not share these numbers and it is obvious why."

Surely there are plenty who would find something negative to say about the Church about anything. I suppose that really irks the "all is well" crowd as well.  Likewise if the church published the number of current temple recommend holders and it did support the predictions of doom and gloom, the "all is well" crowd would figure out some way to defend and not stir up their fairy tale view of the Church.  It goes both ways...of course you know that.  

The problem is, the Church pretends to be doing all it can to be transparent and yet intentionally hides many things, reasons for which continue to be debated.  

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Surely there are plenty who would find something negative to say about the Church about anything. I suppose that really irks the "all is well" crowd as well.  Likewise if the church published the number of current temple recommend holders and it did support the predictions of doom and gloom, the "all is well" crowd would figure out some way to defend and not stir up their fairy tale view of the Church.  It goes both ways...of course you know that.  

The problem is, the Church pretends to be doing all it can to be transparent and yet intentionally hides many things, reasons for which continue to be debated.  

Reality and facts don't matter.  It is what is perceived and what feels good and norm..whatever works.

[The Nehor]

On 4/16/2018 at 2:29 PM, stemelbow said:

Surely there are plenty who would find something negative to say about the Church about anything. I suppose that really irks the "all is well" crowd as well.  Likewise if the church published the number of current temple recommend holders and it did support the predictions of doom and gloom, the "all is well" crowd would figure out some way to defend and not stir up their fairy tale view of the Church.  It goes both ways...of course you know that.  

The problem is, the Church pretends to be doing all it can to be transparent and yet intentionally hides many things, reasons for which continue to be debated.  

I have yet to see a good reason why the Church should share everything our critics want. I would not say they are explicitly trying to be transparent. They are trying to get more of our history out there but not all of it. As I have said before there are written revelations they are not going to share. Nor do they need a more comprehensive statistical report.

[cinepro]

On 4/15/2018 at 11:57 AM, The Nehor said:

I hypothesize that if we published the number of current temple recommend holders and that did not support the predictions of the doom and gloom crowd that they would find a new 'hidden' statistic that, if revealed, would reveal the church as a doddering and dying entity:

"Ah-ha, but you can see that the Church does not reveal the number of hymnbooks ordered by wards and I suspect it dropped by 5% last year. Since congregational singing is a mark of devotion in our sacrament meeting this trend is alarming and shows that even among attendees devotion and activity are flagging. Yet the church does not share these numbers and it is obvious why."

I disagree.  While there may be those that are forever accusing the Church of hiding some theorized disaster, good data will always have its uses.  As the cumorah.com website shows, even negative information can lead to positive change if approached with the right attitude. 

The question is whether the Church would ever have the guts to share the bad news.  While I'm not thoroughly versed in all 188 years of conference talks, I can't recall a single time that negative current information was acknowledged regarding growth or finances.  So my guess is "no."  The Church will exert every last ounce of creativity it can muster to present the numbers in some sort of positive light, at which point they will simply stop presenting the numbers.

[The Nehor]

On 4/16/2018 at 2:57 PM, Jeanne said:

Reality and facts don't matter.  It is what is perceived and what feels good and norm..whatever works.

Nope.