weekly church attendance

[Nofear]

A recent survey: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/04/18/is-church-attendance-declining/

The Church is about 2% of the US population, so ideally the number would be higher. Nonetheless, the Church does seem to have some positives going.

 

[Tacenda]

Could higher than Catholic attendance be because of the temple recommend requirement?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Could higher than Catholic attendance be because of the temple recommend requirement?

In my experience, most people who value their temple recommend (as in, it means something to them and they use it when they can), want to be at church (even if it's just because they believe that that's where Heavenly Father wants them).  They are probably out there, but I've never heard anyone mention or allude that they don't believe God cares if they go to church or take the sacrament ever, but they are active because otherwise they'd lose their TR.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Could higher than Catholic attendance be because of the temple recommend requirement?

I wondered that a little considering how the study was done.  You could have someone sick for church on Sunday and still go to the temple within that 7 days, but I would guess it doesn't occur enough to make any real difference. It could also take into account of activities at the church during the week though the wording of the question would likely rule that out.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, most people who value their temple recommend (as in, it means something to them and they use it when they can), want to be at church (even if it's just because they believe that that's where Heavenly Father wants them).  They are probably out there, but I've never heard anyone mention or allude that they don't believe God cares if they go to church or take the sacrament ever, but they are active because otherwise they'd lose their TR.

The only real exception that I have heard is parents or siblings wanting to go to a temple wedding, and so for 6 months or however long it takes to get the recommend, they attend where they wouldn’t normally.  But these types of attendance are less likely to occur these days with not having to wait a year to be seal if married outside the temple.  I know of couples who have still chosen to marry in the temple and have a ceremony afterwards for those who can’t attend or don’t have an outside ceremony at all because that is most meaningful to them, so my guess are there are still some doing this, but also (guessing***) the number isn’t significant when you look at how many members are only having temple marriages and who have inactive members in their family who are willing and able to get recommends just by attending church (and possibly paying tithing and not drinking coffee, etc).

***we have on average two or three weddings in our ward a year and while we aren’t necessarily typical, it seems consistent with the wards I have been in since leaving college (which have been good size wards with the wards outside Utah having varied income levels with at least one with subsidized and student housing in its boundaries, inside Utah it’s on the higher income though with a few lower income because we chose to live in a quiet semi rural town, but that was 20 years ago and lots of housing added and lost a lot of the old timers who had lived there when it was the cheaper land and prices are much higher now, so average income is mostly higher…still have low income families living in a family home and elderly hanging on, though fewer each year), so three families would be affected, but extended family could raise that number…so let’s say on overage the potential is 4 families in a ward have a temple wedding coming up, let’s guesstimate 10 adults affected.  I have no way to know what percentage of weddings these days are temple only though…anyone have a guess?  And then the only relevant temple only weddings are those that have the potential wedding attendees that don’t have and don’t usually want recommends, but can get one by attending church for long enough to have been counted in this survey.  Just seems likely to be too few to be significant statistically speaking.  Maybe up the count by one out of a hundred attending at most….and I think that is likely a big stretch, more likely 1 in a 1000 or less.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

The location data was able to pinpoint which neighborhood each parishioner was from, allowing Pope to derive wealth statistics for faiths. He found that Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses had the most economic equality within their congregations, while Muslims had the least.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses not choose for themselves their Kingdom Hall, but attend a congregation based on geography like we do?

It would appear they are not assigned by location from what I read on quora, but the question (are they shunned if they visit a different Kingdom Hall than usual) may have limited the answer to halls they do not regular attend.

Quote

We are free to attend any kingdom hall we wish to. Many of us make it a part of our routine to visit other congregations on a regular basis. We actually view ourselves as one worldwide congregation, a family united by a common faith rooted in the truths of God's word. Each local congregation is in some ways viewed merely as a side branch off the main trunk. Every congregation studies the same material each week. So when we visit somewhere else we are prepared to participate in the study program.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-a-Jehovahs-Witness-can-you-attend-a-different-kingdom-hall-than-your-own-if-you-desire-to-do-so-for-an-event-without-being-shunned

Edited April 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

For those who want to view the study itself, you can get three free downloads a year from the site:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w32334

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

 They are probably out there, but I've never heard anyone mention or allude that they don't believe God cares if they go to church or take the sacrament ever, but they are active because otherwise they'd lose their TR.

This seems backwards.  It seems odd to me that they would care about their TR if they don't care about attending church.  Who cares about going to the temple if they never go anyway?

The temple is far more boring than Sunday church, unless one simply wants to find out the weekly change in wording in the Endowment.  

Oddly though, the temple ceremonies are fixed- and the "same" every time one attends, and are thus much more LIKE the Catholic Mass.   Our temple ceremonies are even more "fixed", though because the Mass has instructions and a message not unlike a "sacrament talk" with the bishop giving it, every sunday.

And since the temple recommend questions often start with "Do you STRIVE to .... (insert desired behavior)..." one might easily answer "yes" to STRIVING to attend church weekly but not achieving the goal.   Poof.  You get a recommend independent of attendance. 

Perhaps the wards should pass out LOUD alarm clocks to increase attendance ? 

 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The temple is far more boring than Sunday church, unless one simply wants to find out the weekly change in wording in the Endowment.

😅

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

A recent survey: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/04/18/is-church-attendance-declining/

The Church is about 2% of the US population, so ideally the number would be higher. Nonetheless, the Church does seem to have some positives going.

 

23% of the entire US population is shown as "Catholic" according to a quick google search.

Being "Catholic" means your parents had you baptized Catholic, and there is nothing like a "temple recommend" or an interview like that.  You could NEVER attend church and still be "Catholic".

I possibly could show as being Catholic because I was born Catholic and baptized.

So it's all really apples and oranges in comparing Catholic and LDS records, unless I missed something, which is highly probable

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The temple is far more boring than Sunday church

Not in my view,  but I realize I have an unusual view of ritual for a LDS.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Calm

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

23% of the entire US population is shown as "Catholic" according to a quick google search.

Being "Catholic" means your parents had you baptized Catholic, and there is nothing like a "temple recommend" or an interview like that.  You could NEVER attend church and still be "Catholic".

I possibly could show as being Catholic because I was born Catholic and baptized.

So it's all really apples and oranges in comparing Catholic and LDS records, unless I missed something, which is highly probable

 

 

I think the LDS definition of member is every bit as broad as the Catholic's.   A person can be blessed/baptized as a child, and never attend during their lifetime. Totally disappear, and still be counted until they are 110 years old. 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the LDS definition of member is every bit as broad as the Catholic's.   A person can be blessed/baptized as a child, and never attend during their lifetime. Totally disappear, and still be counted until they are 110 years old. 

Baptized yes, once in the records they are a member until they are excommunicated or resign. But a blessing (being given a name) only keeps them on the records until they are nine, doesn’t it?  Because once a child of record turns nine they must have the missionary discussions and go through that process as far as I am aware and that would suggest the name isn’t kept in the records at least as a member. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think the LDS definition of member is every bit as broad as the Catholic's.   A person can be blessed/baptized as a child, and never attend during their lifetime. Totally disappear, and still be counted until they are 110 years old. 

Latter Day Saints can resign from the church but from what our Catholic posters have said, once baptized there is nothing a Catholic person can do to leave the Catholic Church. Unless I’ve misunderstood something.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Latter Day Saints can resign from the church but from what our Catholic posters have said, once baptized there is nothing a Catholic person can do to leave the Catholic Church. Unless I’ve misunderstood something.

My sister married a Catholic, and she and her then fiance had to go to his Priest for permission to marry each other. Or something like that. Maybe someone can answer if that was needed. Going off memory as this was when I was a teenager. Something about the Catholic church not recognizing the LDS baptism. Turns out they were married by our LDS bishop. And he was such a humble man, compared to my brother-in-law's Priest who was not very friendly to them and smoked his cigar while speaking to them. If I'm remembering right, he even put his feet up on the desk. This could be a rare thing though. Not judging all Priests by how my BIL's acted. 

Edited April 22, 2024 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Is no one else wondering / concerned about how they gained access to everyone’s location data for this study??

[Calm]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is no one else wondering / concerned about how they gained access to everyone’s location data for this study??

Yeah, I was wondering if I would be counted as I turn off automatic location for everything and only allow the “one time” for the few apps that actually need it (Google maps, weather, Find My Husband)..

It’s very useful and very creepy.   No one should be allowed to be creepy stalkers but me!

 It’s not that I care complete strangers knowing where I am, it is that they think they have a right to sell private information for commercial or whatever use.  I know it’s legal, but it’s immoral imo.

Edited April 22, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is no one else wondering / concerned about how they gained access to everyone’s location data for this study??

I figured it was the work of Gypsies... and no one dares stand against the Gypsies. 😶‍🌫️

[MustardSeed]

Well, if it counts for anything, I attended to sacrament meetings yesterday.
And it’s funny how self-conscious I was not taking the sacrament the second time, worried that people in my old ward would judge me. Oh Humanity 🧐

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

worried that people in my old ward would judge me.

My observation is that a lot of people tend to judge themselves more harshly that others do. 

Sometimes I wonder why some people do some of the things that they do, but for the most part I have enough going on in my own life to worry about what others are doing for very long.

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My observation is that a lot of people tend to judge themselves more harshly that others do. 

Sometimes I wonder why some people do some of the things that they do, but for the most part I have enough going on in my own life to worry about what others are doing for very long.

Except that I was sitting by my worry, wart mother lol

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Latter Day Saints can resign from the church but from what our Catholic posters have said, once baptized there is nothing a Catholic person can do to leave the Catholic Church. Unless I’ve misunderstood something.

I don't think that is correct- my understanding is that if one is baptized into another church, one is essentially "excommunicated", spiritually from Catholicism, and I think that also applies to a Catholic who divorces and remarries.

Maybe it has changed?  Calling @MiserereNobis !

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Except that I was sitting by my worry, wart mother lol

Nothing I said applies to mothers

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think that is correct- my understanding is that if one is baptized into another church, one is essentially "excommunicated", spiritually from Catholicism, and I think that also applies to a Catholic who divorces and remarries.

Maybe it has changed?  Calling @MiserereNobis !

According to this, one remains Catholic, just not fully (which I assume means in full communion).

Quote

 

Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become “unbaptized,” although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin. But as to whether someone baptized Catholic is thereafter always Catholic, that’s a slightly different question.

In most cases, the answer will be that someone baptized Catholic remains Catholic (see CIC 111, 205). But, by implication of canon 205–which requires, to be considered in full communion with the Church, a basic profession of the faith, some level of sacramental participation, and some degree of submission to ecclesiastical governance–one can imagine circumstances under which someone who was baptized Catholic might reject any or all of these elements to the point at which he could not be considered fully Catholic anymore, notwithstanding the fact that he remained baptized.

 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/if-im-baptized-as-a-catholic-does-that-mean-im-catholic-forever-even-if-i-marry-outside-the

Quote

 

Canon 1117 requires that canonical form for marriage be observed by anyone baptized Catholic unless that person has “left the Church by a formal act of defection.” The 1983 Code does not define “formal act of defection,” but clearly the concept of leaving the Church, as opposed to simply lapsing in one’s faith or breaking the laws of the Church, exists in canon law and has repercussions in Church life.

While what is really needed here is an “authentic interpretation” by Roman authorities as to what constitutes a formal act of defection, a few things seem clear: (1) merely marrying outside the Church does not by itself count as a formal act of defection, and such a person would still be considered Catholic under canon law (albeit perhaps a “bad” Catholic and certainly one in an invalid marriage); (2) mere attendance at the services of another denomination, even if over a long period of time, does not constitute a formal act of defection from the Church; and (3) the failure to practice one’s Catholic faith, even over a long period of time, does not constitute a formal act of defection.

That said, it is generally accepted that formal registration in another denomination, especially when coupled with support or work for that denomination and extended participation in its religious services, does constitute a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. For that matter, a public declaration of defection from the Church, under otherwise credible circumstances, might well constitute a formal act of defection, since registration in another denomination is not strictly required for defection to take place. In any case, though, since Catholic baptism establishes a canonical presumption of Catholic affiliation, canonical proof of defection from the Church must be produced to overcome that presumption.

Need to see what a formal act of defection means, but since all that is needed to return to full communion appears to be confession, it seems unlikely it means some is no longer a catholic . 

Edited April 22, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

This is more complicated than expected. It would appear there was a process for a few years to leave the Church, removed in 2010. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church

http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/04/canonical-defection-just-got-harder-to.htmlI 

Edited April 22, 2024 by Calm