Linear growth in church membership

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes I know that. It's still an indication that population growth will eventually slow down as well, as indicated in this projected population rate and growth graph....................................

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a lot that can change in 80 years affecting growth rates and absolute population............................

Exactly.  Several assumptions undergird the predictive power of those graphs.  With three or four singularities staring us in the face, we cannot possibly come out the other end of those graphs with anything like what they predict.  The causal nature of that problem is the rapid change in cybernetics, climate, and power production.  All of those features will hit us hard in the 21st century.  Many will live to see the full effects:

1.  Artificial intelligence will become faster and better (more sophisticated) than human intelligence and creativity.

2. The climate change debacle (extreme global warming) is already uncontrollable, and will be in full swing by century end, with more than a three meter rise in ocean levels.

3. Fusion reactors will provide limitless power production before century end.

AI will see humans as a useless infestation on the planet and will seek to eliminate us.  It will have unlimited fusion power to act on its whims.

Global warming will eliminate whole cities near the sea, and eliminate whole countries which are too low (Bangladesh, Holland, etc.), leading to mass death and war.  All nations will have to continually build new port facilities to keep ahead of rising waters and ocean surges.  Weather instability will wreak havoc on agriculture.  Political instability will lead to wars.  AI will determine who lives or dies.

Perhaps the Second Coming will attenuate all that.  We shall see.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

AI will see humans as a useless infestation on the planet and will seek to eliminate us.

This assumes AI will think like humans and the worst of humans no less.  Big question is will AI mimic humanity enough to be jealous/emotional/bigoted/arrogant etc. and especially competitive or will its creativity be fully progressive and not destructive because it does not perceive competition or threat from humanity.  If energy is unlimited, why not share it?  Just as some of humanity finds great value in less intelligent life, why wouldn't AIs?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don’t understand the appeal of dystopian fantasies. 

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

The annual world growth rate has been slowing down since 1960 ... and is projected to continue to decrease in years to come ... I am sure this is and will also have some small effect on church growth rate.

So one might think, yes. But world population has risen 50% since the late 1980's, and all that world population growth has done nothing to the growth in church membership, which has held stubbornly to its straight-line trend. So it seems as though church growth does not in fact have anything to do with world population.

And that sounds ridiculous. I don't see how to get around it, though. That's the mystery.

[churchistrue]

Bad data analysis. The numbers are not linear. They just appear linear when you graph them like that. Also, linear's not the right word, linear would be the same growth % each year. You're talking about the same gross amount each year, which is a decreasing growth rate.

Anytime you do a bar chart on the total amount like that when the growth is low, ie between 1 and 5% like it is in this dataset, the growth will appear linear. Do you own bar chart in Excel and plug in random numbers between 1 and 5% for growth over a 20 year period and you'll see it looks the same. 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by churchistrue

[CAS]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

Maybe that was once true, but IMO, it is definitely not the case now.   The age of the internet and the information available there regarding some of the difficult details from church history and past doctrines, have hurt missionary work and also caused once some active members to stop attending.  That's been my observation.  

Just because people with weak or no testimony have disaffected due to poor interpretation of info on the internet does not prove me wrong. In fact there are people joining because of the very thing you are saying and in some respects it is also a form of opposition and, to be fair, persecution. The Church has earnestly provided abundant info on the internet and unfortunately some have taken things out of context as a reason to leave, it is bound to happen and has been happening since the times of Cain.

[CAS]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We had a senior couple in my mission whose previous mission had been at the Hill Cumorah Visitors Centre. They said a local man would hand out photocopied tracts across the street from the entry each day, warning people away from what they would be told once in the centre. One day, no visitors in the centre seemed interested at all, and nothing the missionaries said could change that. When this senior couple left for lunch, they noticed that the local 'anti' was missing. I can't remember if he was gone for just a day or maybe a few more, but he came back, and immediately interest amongst visitors picked up. The senior missionary couple asked him where he'd been, and he said he'd run out of money to make more photocopies. They then told him that if that ever happened again, to let them know, and they'd pay for his tracts since they were an essential part of their work in the visitors centre. They said he hadn't enjoyed hearing that!

That is hilarious, thank you.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We had a senior couple in my mission whose previous mission had been at the Hill Cumorah Visitors Centre. They said a local man would hand out photocopied tracts across the street from the entry each day, warning people away from what they would be told once in the centre. One day, no visitors in the centre seemed interested at all, and nothing the missionaries said could change that. When this senior couple left for lunch, they noticed that the local 'anti' was missing. I can't remember if he was gone for just a day or maybe a few more, but he came back, and immediately interest amongst visitors picked up. The senior missionary couple asked him where he'd been, and he said he'd run out of money to make more photocopies. They then told him that if that ever happened again, to let them know, and they'd pay for his tracts since they were an essential part of their work in the visitors centre. They said he hadn't enjoyed hearing that!

That's hilarious! Like protesting in front of a movie theater, I guess. You just make people more curious about what all the fuss is about.

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Bad data analysis. The numbers are not linear. They just appear linear when you graph them like that.

The way I graphed the numbers was simply to plot the total versus time. If the growth looks linear when you plot it like that, then it IS linear. That's what "linear" means. Any statistical calculation that you could possibly do, to answer the question of whether this is linear growth or not, would be nothing but an alternative mathematical way of expressing the question, "Can you lay a straight line along the tops of the bars?" In this case, you can. This is linear growth.

Quote

Also, linear's not the right word, linear would be the same growth % each year. You're talking about the same gross amount each year, which is a decreasing growth rate.

No, linear growth is NOT same the growth % per year. That would be exponential growth, like compounding interest.

Linear growth is the same gross amount per year, so that the total number as a function of time looks like A + B t, where A and B are constants and t is time. This is a linear function. Hence the name "linear growth".

It does indeed imply a decreasing percentage growth rate. I explained how that worked in my original post. When the growth is actually linear, discussing growth in terms of percentages is still possible, but it's misleading and awkward. When the percentage rates are steadily falling because the absolute rate is holding steady, one should forget the percentages and focus on the absolute rate.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

Children of record are counted as members. They are only removed if not baptized.

You can see them counted in the annual stats:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/2017-statistical-report-for-2018-april-general-conference?lang=eng

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2016-statistical-report-2017-april-conference

But they have their own specific group.  They are not viewed the same as members who are baptized though they have a membership record like a baptized member does.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CAS said:

Just because people with weak or no testimony have disaffected due to poor interpretation of info on the internet does not prove me wrong.

That is not the truth.  Maybe some who leave fit into this category, but most I have known do not.  We are having local leaders and very strong, active members struggling with a faith crisis and trying to remain active....or going completely inactive.  It's not mainly the ones with "weak or not testimony".  That is not an accurate assessment at all, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, CAS said:

The Church has earnestly provided abundant info on the internet and unfortunately some have taken things out of context as a reason to leave, it is bound to happen and has been happening since the times of Cain.

That is also not true (in the past).  But they are definitely taking steps to make information regarding difficult issues (such as more details on how polygamy was lived in Nauvoo, polyandry, etc.) more available for members.  I applaud them doing that too.  But, most of the details are new to many members (strong, active members) and it's not from taking "things out of context", but just from learning the actual facts.

Edited February 18, 2019 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

But they have their own specific group.  They are not viewed the same as members who are baptized though they have a membership record like a baptized member does.

They have a category of their own, but they are included in the total membership count.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

They have a category of their own, but they are included in the total membership count.

But they have their own designation, which is different than the designation of a baptized member.

[churchistrue]

58 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

The way I graphed the numbers was simply to plot the total versus time. If the growth looks linear when you plot it like that, then it IS linear. That's what "linear" means. Any statistical calculation that you could possibly do, to answer the question of whether this is linear growth or not, would be nothing but an alternative mathematical way of expressing the question, "Can you lay a straight line along the tops of the bars?" In this case, you can. This is linear growth.

No, linear growth is NOT same the growth % per year. That would be exponential growth, like compounding interest.

Linear growth is the same gross amount per year, so that the total number as a function of time looks like A + B t, where A and B are constants and t is time. This is a linear function. Hence the name "linear growth".

It does indeed imply a decreasing percentage growth rate. I explained how that worked in my original post. When the growth is actually linear, discussing growth in terms of percentages is still possible, but it's misleading and awkward. When the percentage rates are steadily falling because the absolute rate is holding steady, one should forget the percentages and focus on the absolute rate.

Your definition for linear is off, but that's fine. It's not material to the point. The point is that the growth is not linear/consistent/same. It's simply not. Large numbers with low growth when graphed always "look" like the increments are the same. Try it yourself in Excel. The actuals in this case bounce around from 236K to 580K, but on a 15M base, they "appear" the same. Try graphing the increments, you'll see they vary in the way you would expect them to. Or alternatively create a dataset with a large base and a random increment that's very low, ie in the 2% range, and it will "appear" in the chart that the increments are the same. 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by churchistrue

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But they have their own designation, which is different than the designation of a baptized member.

I suppose my point was about membership statistics. I don't disagree otherwise.

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Your definition for linear is off, but that's fine.

You might want to Google "linear growth". It will help you to communicate your data if you use standard terms. Just sayin'.

Quote

Large numbers with low growth when graphed always "look" like the increments are the same. Try it yourself in Excel. The actuals in this case bounce around from 236K to 580K, but on a 15M base, they "appear" the same.

You need to think more about the difference between noise and trends. I explained this in a previous post in this thread: it's like climate or season versus weather. There is a fair amount of noise in this pattern, and that shows up if you just plot the annual gains versus time. There is no nonlinear trend, though. The only steady trend is linear.

It's true that low nonlinear growth on large numbers can look linear for a while. In this case, though, we have linear growth that continued so long, the total church membership grew by two-and-a-half times. Exponential growth over more than a doubling time always looks distinctly nonlinear. The defining property of exponential growth is that the growth is a fixed percentage of the total. The slope of the curve is in a constant ratio to the height of the curve. So if the total doubles, then so does the annual growth amount. This has not happened with church membership. The growth is definitely not exponential with any fixed rate.

Sure, you can describe it as exponential growth with a steadily falling percentage gain rate. That's just clumsy presentation that masks a simple pattern, however. The simple pattern is growth so linear, you can lay a line across the tops of the bars.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Physics Guy

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

So one might think, yes. But world population has risen 50% since the late 1980's, and all that world population growth has done nothing to the growth in church membership, which has held stubbornly to its straight-line trend. So it seems as though church growth does not in fact have anything to do with world population.

And that sounds ridiculous. I don't see how to get around it, though. That's the mystery.

I get your point and agree--there isn't an obvious natural reason to see linear growth like this. Here are a few points to consider:

1- Perhaps 300k converts is kind of like a "comfort zone" number of baptisms for the Church, kind of like how I always golf in the mid 90's, despite years of practice and all sorts of theoretical reasons why I should be improving.

2-  The definition of "number of members" is surprisingly fluid, and has changed from year to year. For example:

a- are you a member when you are born into the church, or when you are actually baptized?

b- if you are born into the church but aren't baptized, when is your name removed from the record?

c- if you resign from the church, are you removed from the membership count?

d- if you are a completely inactive member to the point where the Church has lost total track of you, at what point will it remove your name from the membership count? After you've been lost for 10 years? After your 110th birthday?

They never explain these rules nor provide a full accounting of how the membership total changes. If they are free to change the rules for how membership is counted, they can make adjustments to manage the membership count and keep it within expectations.

If you look at history you can tell they've made adjustments to how they do the counting. For example, if you take the membership count for last year, add new membership from babies, add convert baptisms, and then subtract the total membership count at the end of next year, you should get the total number of decrements: deaths plus resignations plus excommunications. This number tends to fluctuated wildly, and there have been a couple of times over the last 30 years where we've seen the total membership grow by <I>more</I> than the total number of convert and born-in-church baptisms. 

I think that explains the overall smoothness to the declining growth rate. I think the growth rate is declining because in a consistent way missionaries are getting less effective, members are having fewer children, and a large percentage of converts quickly drop out and don't go on missions, don't raise kids in the church, don't send their kids on missions, etc. Those totally-inactives bloat the roles but don't contribute to growth.

[bluebell]

People keep saying to just make a bar graph and that will show that it’s not linear. Has anyone done that yet?  Wouldn’t doing that be an easy way to settle the dispute?

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would like to see some hard evidence for those assertions, with separate figures for each area or nation. 

We’d all like to see the hard data for sure. But the church isn’t open about activity rates and such, but we still have good data to make someobsevations.  A very general one is looking at s America vs north.  The north may have twice as many members on the church’s roles but it has three times the units.  On top of that the north is said to have as much as twice as many active members per unit.  If say the north has 40% activity the south has somewhere down around half that.  That is to say if the south has 4 million members a much smaller number of those actually see themselves as members.  Again general, on my phone and not very specific.  I’ll see what I can find when I have more time.  

When I say relatively few I mean compared to the number on the rolls.   It’s hard to conclude growth at all when taken into consideration.  Many on the rolls leave the faith without excluding their names. 

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I am well aware of stasis in some areas, and rapid growth in others.  We also must be able to distinguish loss of members in one area, but growth in areas to which those "lost" members moved.  If declining participation is real, I would like to see those figures arranged by area and by age.  We have had some discussions of this in the recent past.  Is it to those discussions that you refer?  If so, please cite them.

I think Somme of this is out there and I’ll see what I can find when time permits.  

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your own personal experience in your area/stake/ward is of interest.  Are young people drifting away in large numbers (what is the percentage?) in your area of concern?  To what do you attribute that tendency, if it actually exists?

Many lose interest.  I haven’t seen the rate of leavers among the youth in former years as much as in recent years,  but I just might have been a bit blind to it before

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People keep saying to just make a bar graph and that will show that it’s not linear. Has anyone done that yet?  Wouldn’t doing that be an easy way to settle the dispute?

That is what Physics Guy did, and he is right. He knows what he is talking about regarding what "linear growth" and "exponential growth" mean, and he is correct in noting that the growth has been very linear for the last 30 years.

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is what Physics Guy did, and he is right. He knows what he is talking about regarding what "linear growth" and "exponential growth" mean, and he is correct in noting that the growth has been very linear for the last 30 years.

 

Thanks!  I saw his line graph but I didn't see the bar one.  I'll see if I can find it.

[churchistrue]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is what Physics Guy did, and he is right. He knows what he is talking about regarding what "linear growth" and "exponential growth" mean, and he is correct in noting that the growth has been very linear for the last 30 years.

 

No. His claim is that the data is so linear it's suspicious that it's real data and not faked. That's nonsense. 

What's happening is that growth has slowed from something around 4.5% to something just under 2%. That's the trend. When growth rates are dropping, it can "appear" to be linear because you have a smaller number on a larger base each year. But within that trend, there's plenty of randomness. 

[Physics Guy]

That the data is fake is one hypothesis. It's an obvious possibility in principle. I make no claim that it's necessarily true. In fact I'd bet a coffee that the data is genuine, but not a beer. That's my level of confidence. I think it could well be fake, but probably isn't.

Anyway, "hypothesis" is all I've said here about the fake possibility. Perhaps you are recalling my posts on another board a few months ago, when I was more inclined to believe the data couldn't be genuine. I've thought more about this point since, and what I've posted here has been different accordingly. I think you should read more carefully before misrepresenting someone's posts in such strong terms.

Whether real or fake, the data is linear growth, and it's weird. If the data isn't fake, then something strange has been going on with church growth—for thirty years. This is my statement.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Physics Guy

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If they are free to change the rules for how membership is counted, they can make adjustments to manage the membership count and keep it within expectations.

Huh. This would explain the steady growth in much the way that fake numbers would, yet without entirely faking the numbers. Just keep moving the goalposts so the rate of scoring stays the same. As someone mentioned, there are lies and statistics.

This might well be a factor. I'd be surprised if it were the whole explanation for the steady linearity, because I'd be surprised if one could keep on finding convenient redefinitions of membership for thirty years, but maybe the data could be explained by this factor plus some modest flukes.

[churchistrue]

30 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

That the data is fake is one hypothesis. It's an obvious possibility in principle. I make no claim that it's necessarily true. In fact I'd bet a coffee that the data is genuine, but not a beer. That's my level of confidence. I think it could well be fake, but probably isn't.

Anyway, "hypothesis" is all I've said here about the fake possibility. Perhaps you are recalling my posts on another board a few months ago, when I was more inclined to believe the data couldn't be genuine. I've thought more about this point since, and what I've posted here has been different accordingly. I think you should read more carefully before misrepresenting someone's posts in such strong terms.

Whether real or fake, the data is linear growth, and it's weird. If the data isn't fake, then something strange has been going on with church growth—for thirty years. This is my statement.

What's weird about it? And did you get this impression from actually looking at the data or ballparking the chart visually? There's nothing weird about it at all. It's exactly what you would expect from a dataset where there is a slowing growth rate.