LDS Membership Numbers

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 6/20/2018 at 5:07 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I would like to see these figures graphed.  The decreases in some cases are too small to be statistically significant.

You and me both.  Thinking, you have done a good thing here.  But if you were to upload the raw data excel file, it could be a great thing.  Because charts make things great.

LM
(Bean-counter)

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The economy was doing excellent last time around as well

It was being driven by easy money - too easy. The liar loans and easy money drove up the real estate prices, and the extra money was fueling the economy. Construction workers were fully employed, etc. That all peaked when too many of these loans were defaulting, and the banks stopped making money. The loans began to dry up, and the new construction stopped. The construction workers were becoming unemployed, and it had a cascading effect. So, the "doing well" was "fake" or unsustainable. 

Quote

.  For me, the most important indicator is the income to cost of housing ratio.  If that gets too far out of alignment, things will come back to down. 

That is a poor economic indicator, and is self-correcting. If the cost gets too high, prices come back down. 

Quote

Another problem with just looking at the employment and growth rates is all of that is interconnected with real estate.  I’m not saying a crash like before is coming, but I think we need to keep a close eye on things.  It’s only a matter of time before a market correction, hopefully a less severe one than last time.  

There is a very reliable economic indicator which triggered before the last crash. It has triggered before every recession since it became an indicator. Highly priced real estate or overpriced real estate in one local market of the country is not an indicator for a country-wide crash. The thing that worries me is the country's debt level, and that is only worsening under Trump with his tax breaks. We will see if those will correct into more growth or not. We are now in one of the longest stable growth spurts for decades, but it seems kinda slow and sustainable at present. Market corrections typically happen every 6-8 years, but the last one was so bad, it delayed the cycle about 4 years. Using the market average, we are due for another correction by the end of Trump's 1st term. One thing allowing the current "bubble" to continue is that he US has refinanced its large debt at much cheaper rates. Sooner or later the deficit spending will make things bad, but Americans have become very narcissistic and short-sighted, and have fallen in love with the idea of the "government making the economy grow" which is a socialist and not a capitalist concept. IMHO governments this big spell trouble - they always have.

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It was being driven by easy money - too easy. The liar loans and easy money drove up the real estate prices, and the extra money was fueling the economy. Construction workers were fully employed, etc. That all peaked when too many of these loans were defaulting, and the banks stopped making money. The loans began to dry up, and the new construction stopped. The construction workers were becoming unemployed, and it had a cascading effect. So, the "doing well" was "fake" or unsustainable. 

That is a poor economic indicator, and is self-correcting. If the cost gets too high, prices come back down. 

Yes, I agree about the sub prime mortgages and the zero doc loans, those were huge problems propping up the false economy.  The CDOs built on these mortgages and the extreme amounts of leverage that investment banks were legally allowed to employ (40:1 leverage in some cases) were major contributing problems that caused the house of cards to collapse.  But that's my point about income and prices of real estate.  People were allowed to buy homes they couldn't afford, and this was enabling the growth.  Institutions were selling securities backed by these loans on Wall Street that had AAA ratings, and the underlying assets were phony.  There were many problems in the system that contributed.  

If the loans were true to what people actually could afford, and income based, then the whole mess would never have gotten out of control.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

There is a very reliable economic indicator which triggered before the last crash. It has triggered before every recession since it became an indicator. Highly priced real estate or overpriced real estate in one local market of the country is not an indicator for a country-wide crash. The thing that worries me is the country's debt level, and that is only worsening under Trump with his tax breaks. We will see if those will correct into more growth or not. We are now in one of the longest stable growth spurts for decades, but it seems kinda slow and sustainable at present. Market corrections typically happen every 6-8 years, but the last one was so bad, it delayed the cycle about 4 years. Using the market average, we are due for another correction by the end of Trump's 1st term. One thing allowing the current "bubble" to continue is that he US has refinanced its large debt at much cheaper rates. Sooner or later the deficit spending will make things bad, but Americans have become very narcissistic and short-sighted, and have fallen in love with the idea of the "government making the economy grow" which is a socialist and not a capitalist concept. IMHO governments this big spell trouble - they always have.

What's this reliable economic indicator you're referring to?  

The debt levels are concerning, but not materially worse under Trump than Obama. (I despise Trump, so this isn't a defense of him.)  We've been around 100% debt to GDP ratio ever since the financial collapse in 2009.  I'd like to see us get back to the 70% range like we were before that collapse, but we must be willing to cut government spending, and neither party seems willing to do this.  

There have been many exceptions to a 6-8 year timeline for cyclical markets historically.  Its very hard to predict when the next correction will come or how severe or long it will last.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

Quote

Another problem with just looking at the employment and growth rates is all of that is interconnected with real estate.  I’m not saying a crash like before is coming, but I think we need to keep a close eye on things.  It’s only a matter of time before a market correction, hopefully a less severe one than last time.  

There is a very reliable economic indicator which triggered before the last crash. It has triggered before every recession since it became an indicator. Highly priced real estate or overpriced real estate in one local market of the country is not an indicator for a country-wide crash. The thing that worries me is the country's debt level, and that is only worsening under Trump with his tax breaks. We will see if those will correct into more growth or not. We are now in one of the longest stable growth spurts for decades, but it seems kinda slow and sustainable at present. Market corrections typically happen every 6-8 years, but the last one was so bad, it delayed the cycle about 4 years. Using the market average, we are due for another correction by the end of Trump's 1st term. One thing allowing the current "bubble" to continue is that he US has refinanced its large debt at much cheaper rates. Sooner or later the deficit spending will make things bad, but Americans have become very narcissistic and short-sighted, and have fallen in love with the idea of the "government making the economy grow" which is a socialist and not a capitalist concept. IMHO governments this big spell trouble - they always have.

You have put your finger on it, Rev.  The massive debt recently approved by Congress, and now the tariff war started by Trump, will lead to galloping inflation and the destruction of our stable economy.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[why me]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have put your finger on it, Rev.  The massive debt recently approved by Congress, and now the tariff war started by Trump, will lead to galloping inflation and the destruction of our stable economy.

Tariffs have always been apart of the world economy. It has only been recent that free trade has been the name of the game, with the fall of the soviet union and communism in europe and the rise of neoliberalism. What trump is now doing is something that the US has done to protect American jobs in past years.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1987/01/1987a_bpea_crandall.pdf

What is amazing is that the democrats are for free trade in the age of trump when in the past they were against it, because of the loss of US jobs. Trump has thrown a wrench in the world system and it has sent a shock wave to countries who benefited from free access and free trade. Capitalism has always been a roller coaster ride for the average working person with the roller coaster going up and down at intervals. Nothing new here. By centering economic policies to benefit the american worker, trump may just be successful in securing a new deal for the citizens of the US. Or capitalism will continue to be a system of crisis.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

Tariffs have always been apart of the world economy. It has only been recent that free trade has been the name of the game, with the fall of the soviet union and communism in europe and the rise of neoliberalism. What trump is now doing is something that the US has done to protect American jobs in past years.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1987/01/1987a_bpea_crandall.pdf

What is amazing is that the democrats are for free trade in the age of trump when in the past they were against it, because of the loss of US jobs. Trump has thrown a wrench in the world system and it has sent a shock wave to countries who benefited from free access and free trade. Capitalism has always been a roller coaster ride for the average working person with the roller coaster going up and down at intervals. Nothing new here. By centering economic policies to benefit the american worker, trump may just be successful in securing a new deal for the citizens of the US. Or capitalism will continue to be a system of crisis.

Watch what happens, and weep . . .

[EdGoble]

yet another useless bunch of statistics put together perhaps by someone with too much time on their hands, that don't really have any meaningful affect on the lives of regular members of the Church that go every Sunday.  So, I personally choose to go to Church, and I do what I can to persuade others to do the same, and my choices remain the same.  I could be offended by many people if I chose to be, especially certain people that have treated me especially badly here, that have been mocking and disrespectful of my research and my work and my seriousness.  But the truth is, only a person that is not truly converted to the Church will let that kind of nonsense affect their commitment to the Church.

Trends that suggest that somehow the Church is not growing doesn't have any affect on my continued commitment, and doesn't have anything to do with me.  What do people that put this stuff out hope to prove?  That other people have free agency, and that some people that the Internet is taking its toll on people that are not fully committed to the Church anyway?  If people are fully committed, and fully converted, then they don't leave when the fiery darts of hell blow against us.  How is it surprising that not all are fully converted and fully committed?  I don't find that surprising.  I don't think that is news.  I don't think that it is meaningful.  It just is what it is, true or not.  My life goes on.  My commitment continues.

[why me]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Watch what happens, and weep . . .

I  remember the population shifts in the 70s as people left the northeast and went to the southwest for jobs. The wages were cheaper which is why companies moved to where the wages were cheaper. And mormons would move accordingly too. There is no  question that neoliberalism and free trade has had an affect on the mormons living in the US. Even in the seventies, californians were leaving the state for greener pastures in Montana, increasing the mormon population in that state.

Will  the next crisis come? It sure will. Will it be because of tariffs? Not really. It is the system itself which has crisis written in it with or without tariffs.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, EdGoble said:

yet another useless bunch of statistics put together perhaps by someone with too much time on their hands, that don't really have any meaningful affect on the lives of regular members of the Church that go every Sunday.  So, I personally choose to go to Church, and I do what I can to persuade others to do the same, and my choices remain the same.  I could be offended by many people if I chose to be, especially certain people that have treated me especially badly here, that have been mocking and disrespectful of my research and my work and my seriousness.  But the truth is, only a person that is not truly converted to the Church will let that kind of nonsense affect their commitment to the Church.

Trends that suggest that somehow the Church is not growing doesn't have any affect on my continued commitment, and doesn't have anything to do with me.  What do people that put this stuff out hope to prove?  That other people have free agency, and that some people that the Internet is taking its toll on people that are not fully committed to the Church anyway?  If people are fully committed, and fully converted, then they don't leave when the fiery darts of hell blow against us.  How is it surprising that not all are fully converted and fully committed?  I don't find that surprising.  I don't think that is news.  I don't think that it is meaningful.  It just is what it is, true or not.  My life goes on.  My commitment continues.

It took me less than an hour to add the 2017 numbers to the data. Aren't computers great? I wouldn't really care so much if the LDS Church didn't trumpet its membership numbers.

Quote

The global Church has more than 16 million members in nearly 190 countries around the world. Link

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/15-million-member-milestone-announced-at-churchs-general-conference

[aussieguy55]

The Chinese make most of the clothes I wear  (The underpants and sox I  just got for my birthday)  . If Americans want to produce their own at the wage costs they have I would not be importing any from the US.  Wait til the Chinese start selectively select industries and produce that are created and grown by Trumps supporters in the midwest.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, EdGoble said:

yet another useless bunch of statistics put together perhaps by someone with too much time on their hands, that don't really have any meaningful affect on the lives of regular members of the Church that go every Sunday.  ........................

The Brethren use such statistics to keep track of how the Church is doing, and to modify their programs accordingly, if necessary.  This blog is concerned with such matters, in addition to all our other concerns, and there is nothing at all wrong with studying them.

7 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Trends that suggest that somehow the Church is not growing doesn't have any affect on my continued commitment, and doesn't have anything to do with me.  ....................

Actually the LDS Church continues to grow.  The figures only show that growth is slower in some areas than others, perhaps even sluggish (Western Europe, for example), but it is growing fast elsewhere (in Africa, for example).  Declaring, with Chicken Little, that the sky is falling, is a self-defeating zero sum game.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I  remember the population shifts in the 70s as people left the northeast and went to the southwest for jobs. The wages were cheaper which is why companies moved to where the wages were cheaper. And mormons would move accordingly too. There is no  question that neoliberalism and free trade has had an affect on the mormons living in the US. Even in the seventies, californians were leaving the state for greener pastures in Montana, increasing the mormon population in that state.

Will  the next crisis come? It sure will. Will it be because of tariffs? Not really. It is the system itself which has crisis written in it with or without tariffs.

The proof is in the pudding, not in absurd and meaningless ideological claims.  Such claims are frequently made by people who have no concrete idea what they are talking about -- as usual.

The housing bubble burst and brought with it a major recession (the largest since the crash of '29). The reason for that bubble was the cancellation of regulations (Glass-Steagall) passed by Congress in the '30s as a result of the crash of 29.  Nearly every financial failure we experience is easily predictable based simply on practical realities.  When yokels are elected to Congress, the results are predictable.  In other words, stupid people elect stupid leaders, and we all get the govt we so richly deserve.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The proof is in the pudding, not in absurd and meaningless ideological claims.  Such claims are frequently made by people who have no concrete idea what they are talking about -- as usual.

The housing bubble burst and brought with it a major recession (the largest since the crash of '29). The reason for that bubble was the cancellation of regulations (Glass-Steagall) passed by Congress in the '30s as a result of the crash of 29.  Nearly every financial failure we experience is easily predictable based simply on practical realities.  When yokels are elected to Congress, the results are predictable.  In other words, stupid people elect stupid leaders, and we all get the govt we so richly deserve.

Which reminds me of the banking crisis of the 1830s and its effects on the mormon population and Joseph Smith.

Does the book have anything to teach us about recent economic events? We must be careful to avoid glib generalizations based on superficial or exaggerated parallels; the cause of business cycles remains the great unresolved theoretical problem of macroeconomics. Yet one relevant lesson does apply to both the Panic of 1837 and the financial crisis of 2007-08, a lesson reinforced by Lepler's research: An international crisis invariably involves international causes. Any story that just blames America's domestic monetary institutions and policies, whether for the 1830s or the 2000s, is seriously deficient.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/06/22/the-financial-crisis-of-1837

The system is the system. Crisis seems to be unavoidable. Or we humans are just ignorant of the past and why such a crisis happens. And each crisis has an effect on jobs, movements of people across the globe. And this has an impact on church membership throughout the world and just where mormons end up.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, EdGoble said:

yet another useless bunch of statistics put together perhaps by someone with too much time on their hands, that don't really have any meaningful affect on the lives of regular members of the Church that go every Sunday.  So, I personally choose to go to Church, and I do what I can to persuade others to do the same, and my choices remain the same.  I could be offended by many people if I chose to be, especially certain people that have treated me especially badly here, that have been mocking and disrespectful of my research and my work and my seriousness.  But the truth is, only a person that is not truly converted to the Church will let that kind of nonsense affect their commitment to the Church.

Trends that suggest that somehow the Church is not growing doesn't have any affect on my continued commitment, and doesn't have anything to do with me.  What do people that put this stuff out hope to prove?  That other people have free agency, and that some people that the Internet is taking its toll on people that are not fully committed to the Church anyway?  If people are fully committed, and fully converted, then they don't leave when the fiery darts of hell blow against us.  How is it surprising that not all are fully converted and fully committed?  I don't find that surprising.  I don't think that is news.  I don't think that it is meaningful.  It just is what it is, true or not.  My life goes on.  My commitment continues.

This doesn't contribute to the conversation at all.  If you don't like the topic, then don't comment.  Let those of us who like these kinds of topics have a conversation, without making this personal about how you view the church or your commitment toward the church, none of which is relevant in this thread.   

[EdGoble]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This doesn't contribute to the conversation at all.  If you don't like the topic, then don't comment.  Let those of us who like these kinds of topics have a conversation, without making this personal about how you view the church or your commitment toward the church, none of which is relevant in this thread.   

Actually, it does, showing how meaningless and lacking of substance the OP is to the lives of regular members who go about their lives.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

Actually, it does, showing how meaningless and lacking of substance the OP is to the lives of regular members who go about their lives.

The OP wasn't meaningless and lacking in substance and for this regular member, but your comment was.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

Actually, it does, showing how meaningless and lacking of substance the OP is to the lives of regular members who go about their lives.

It is a commentary on things some of us here like to pay attention to,  notlife altering, but fun and educational.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Which reminds me of the banking crisis of the 1830s and its effects on the mormon population and Joseph Smith.

Does the book have anything to teach us about recent economic events? We must be careful to avoid glib generalizations based on superficial or exaggerated parallels; the cause of business cycles remains the great unresolved theoretical problem of macroeconomics. Yet one relevant lesson does apply to both the Panic of 1837 and the financial crisis of 2007-08, a lesson reinforced by Lepler's research: An international crisis invariably involves international causes. Any story that just blames America's domestic monetary institutions and policies, whether for the 1830s or the 2000s, is seriously deficient.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/06/22/the-financial-crisis-of-1837

The system is the system. Crisis seems to be unavoidable. Or we humans are just ignorant of the past and why such a crisis happens. And each crisis has an effect on jobs, movements of people across the globe. And this has an impact on church membership throughout the world and just where mormons end up.

Yes, of course, and it always amazes me that some critics look at the Kirtland banking crisis in isolation, as though it was not a much more broadly-based economic  crisis.  The other major problem is the false belief that there is nothing we can do about it.  Indeed, if we approach such problems with intelligence, we can often ameliorate the difficulties and recover from them much more quickly.  We can see this phenomenon in the recent 2008 financial crisis worldwide -- some countries were able to recover quickly, some not, and some are still in the slough of despond.

Humans are animals -- mammals -- and they respond the way any animal population is likely to respond to stimuli.  That is at least one of the reasons for the cyclic nature of financial crises (and other types of crises).  That is one of the reasons why game theory is so applicable to human problem-solving.  We could try to rise above that animal level of understanding and action, but we seldom do.

[EdGoble]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It is a commentary on things some of us here like to pay attention to,  notlife altering, but fun and educational.

More power to those that care then.

[EdGoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The OP wasn't meaningless and lacking in substance and for this regular member, but your comment was.  

hmmm.   Ok.  I guess that must have been a criticism worth posting on a meaningless comment then.  

[mfbukowski]

On 6/20/2018 at 4:07 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

What was the basis of your selection of those particular areas (states, countries)?  Random, scientific sampling?  Hit and miss?

I would like to see these figures graphed.  The decreases in some cases are too small to be statistically significant.

In the case of Utah, which is growing quickly in population, St George, Utah, is the fastest growing metropolitan area in America. -- while California is experiencing a strong out-migration.  The demographics need to be looked at far more comprehensively.

My guess is that we have lost 10-15 % of our ward membership to Utah and Idaho as the seniors move to get closer to kids who can't afford houses here- and therefore also the kids who have moved also.  So for continued growth- that includes grandkids and great grandkids who will not be Californians.  And part of the rub is that it is the big and close-knit LDS families who are moving en masse it seems.  In that category our ward alone has lost probably 50 members to that phenomenon - and they were active members many in leadership.

But of course they have been replaced by just as active and just as faithful members as wards are combined.

But as you point out that is also the move to mountain states in general demographic trend among non-members as well.  Obviously Vegas has exploded.

On the other hand we have added many Hispanic brothers and sisters who are the backbone of the ward now. Our stake recently merged with a Spanish stake covering the same area,  so all of our Stake meetings are translated via headphones- UN style-  and really we are doing great as a Ward and  Stake.  We have a new calling- "Stake Translator"

 CA has just too many taxes, and for those of a conservative bent, too much authoritarian control toward political correctness etc.  Gas prices for example are hovering around $4.00 per gallon- most of which is taxes, most municipalities get around 11% sales tax so that $7.00 burger now turns out to be nearly 8 bucks- along with everything else you buy.  And state income tax.  A single person earning 52 k per year can expect to pay over 9% in in state income tax, of course on top of the Federal. Plus another 10% on the money you spend! Double Tithing to the Great State!   But imagine the benefits.... 

Nice weather yes, but a lot of people are fed up, and then you have the tents of the poor homeless folks along the freeways, visible for all to see daily.  And no one wants to build apartments because of rent control, so housing is scarce and prices continue to go up. 

Just a few problems in the People's Republic.  

But anyway, back to demographics....  

Edited June 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This doesn't contribute to the conversation at all.  If you don't like the topic, then don't comment.  Let those of us who like these kinds of topics have a conversation, without making this personal about how you view the church or your commitment toward the church, none of which is relevant in this thread.   

I am kind of torn here because I can see both points of view.

These kinds of threads about what critics see as a decline in the church are in fact irrelevant to faithful members.  We are to be IN the world and not OF it and not being OF it means pretty much not caring if the church is declining or not- what others do does not affect our testimonies.

So these kinds of threads can easily be classed as "anti-church" and not relevant to salvation and therefore irrelevant in general

On the other hand, for some of us it is interesting to contemplate what problems the church might be facing to generate possible solutions at least locally.

Maybe it would be better to just discuss the topic or not discuss it as you suggest.  But I do understand the frustration such a topic generates.

I think the only reason I am still here frankly is that I am probably addicted to apologetics.   Punching anti's in the nose gives me a buzz. 

I need to get over that.

Edited June 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 6/21/2018 at 7:20 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

You and me both.  Thinking, you have done a good thing here.  But if you were to upload the raw data excel file, it could be a great thing.  Because charts make things great.

LM
(Bean-counter)

Nice idea but are you going to go back and verify all his data and its interpretation? 

Garbage in garbage out.   Will it include comparisons to general demographic data about what areas of the country are growing etc?

Sounds like a major major undertaking for what?

If you did that would you get a Pulitzer for it?    Got a publisher in mind?  Peer reviewed?

We jes all be chewin da fat around heah afterall.   Ain't nuthin serious.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

hmmm.   Ok.  I guess that must have been a criticism worth posting on a meaningless comment then.  

I thought it was.  

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am kind of torn here because I can see both points of view.

These kinds of threads about what critics see as a decline in the church are in fact irrelevant to faithful members.  We are to be IN the world and not OF it and not being OF it means pretty much not caring if the church is declining or not- what others do does not affect our testimonies.

So these kinds of threads can easily be classed as "anti-church" and not relevant to salvation and therefore irrelevant in general

On the other hand, for some of us it is interesting to contemplate what problems the church might be facing to generate possible solutions at least locally.

Maybe it would be better to just discuss the topic or not discuss it as you suggest.  But I do understand the frustration such a topic generates.

I think the only reason I am still here frankly is that I am probably addicted to apologetics.   Punching anti's in the nose gives me a buzz. 

I need to get over that.

Its a matter of etiquette.  If I see a thread that I think is irrelevant, then I typically choose not to read it.  I don't look for topics that I find irrelevant and then try to side track the discussion by bad mouthing the topic.  That's a destructive way to navigate a message board and an unproductive use of a person's time in my opinion.  

And I didn't see anything "anti-church" in the OP.  Besides, I think people who have criticisms of the church are able to post here, as long as they do so within certain boundaries of decorum and respect.  

Honestly, I think the frustration is understandable, but its also a sign of personal insecurity. 

And I think you punch the orthodox in the nose sometimes too, you seem to relish zingers, which can be irritating at times, but also can develop into interesting conversations.