Viewing Numbers Differently

[Moksha]

If instead of seeking after the "Number of Total Potential Members" as a yardstick for our relative truthfulness and success, if it might be better to look to the "Average Number of those Attending Sacrament Meeting on Sundays" as a better measurement as to how we are doing. I would not suggest any numbers as a measure of our truthfulness. This change in the number count would/could alter our perceptions and values.

Seeking after an increase of the number of attendees due to this shift of viewing numbers, would put emphasis on Church efforts for the retention of members and the activation of inactive members. It would place emphasis on the quality of the membership experience rather than the mass quantity of unseen members, and cause us to look for the reason of members being inactive rather than simply assuming that lack of inactivity is due to lack of faith or worthiness. We would be instructed explicitly in ways on how to be friendlier, kinder and gentler by our Church leaders.

Just an idea.

:)

[Guest Believer_1829]

I agree that average attendance would be a better barometer in evaluating success. If 350,000 are baptized each year and 150,000 are active, something needs to change.

[Snow]

If instead of seeking after the "Number of Total Potential Members" as a yardstick for our relative truthfulness and success, if it might be better to look to the "Average Number of those Attending Sacrament Meeting on Sundays" as a better measurement as to how we are doing. I would not suggest any numbers as a measure of our truthfulness. This change in the number count would/could alter our perceptions and values.

Obviously you are not a statistician Moksha. That would make it a lower number and as any good economist knows, more is preferred to less.

[john doe]

I was not aware that anyone uses 'number of total potential members' as a yardstick for truth. Mainly because the number of potential members is 'all who have not been baptized yet'. Besides, how would you be able to quantify truth by the number of people who don't yet believe? That makes no sense to me.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I was not aware that anyone uses 'number of total potential members' as a yardstick for truth. Mainly because the number of potential members is 'all who have not been baptized yet'. Besides, how would you be able to quantify truth by the number of people who don't yet believe? That makes no sense to me.

I have heard many LDS people use the "Look how fast we have grown." argument, especially against those in smaller Restoration churches.

[john doe]

I have heard many LDS people use the "Look how fast we have grown." argument, especially against those in smaller Restoration churches.

That's a growth-rate argument, not a potential members argument. And I have never heard the church use those numbers 'against' another church.

[Guest Believer_1829]

That's a growth-rate argument, not a potential members argument. And I have never heard the church use those numbers 'against' another church.

I haven't heard the church use those numbers as proof of truth either, I have heard members of the church use it as such...

Example: "If your church is the true successor to the church Joseph organized how come your numbers are so small? You are hardly filling the whole earth as Daniel (?) prophesied. While ours baptizes hundreds of thousands each year. I think that is proof the Lord has blessed us as the true church."

[Maxel]

Moksha-

I think you make a good point- anyone who attempts to look to the numbers of the Church to try to prove or support its truthfulness is going about building faith the wrong way. However, I think the Church as a whole does a pretty good job of going after the inactive- a strong emphasis on home teaching helps that goal along.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Moksha-

I think you make a good point- anyone who attempts to look to the numbers of the Church to try to prove or support its truthfulness is going about building faith the wrong way. However, I think the Church as a whole does a pretty good job of going after the inactive- a strong emphasis on home teaching helps that goal along.

Imagine if you could actually get Elder's Quorums to do their Home Teaching.

[Maxel]

Imagine if you could actually get Elder's Quorums to do their Home Teaching.

The church buildings would overcrowd pretty quickly. In a good way.

[Guest Believer_1829]

The church buildings would overcrowd pretty quickly. In a good way.

Would have to start building 2 chapels a day instead of one.

[Moksha]

I was not aware that anyone uses 'number of total potential members' as a yardstick for truth.

Surely you have heard fellow members boast whenever a new number estimate is released, or even repeat that "we are the fastest growing Church in the world". Some see a validation of the Church's 'being true' by our successful growth rather than appreciating what really makes for truth.

Mainly because the number of potential members is 'all who have not been baptized yet'. Besides, how would you be able to quantify truth by the number of people who don't yet believe? That makes no sense to me.

You know you're right. I should have said "the number total potential members we claim we have". This of course is based on practices like counting as members those who are merely on the books but have no wich to return or assuming that these members all live to 110 year, which produce inflated numbers*. This seems so unhelpful in terms of knowing how many active members we truly have. When we say the number of people who attend, it shifts to actual people.

*As to inflated numbers, I read an interesting Mormon Blog article today about inflating missionary numbers to satisfy Zone Leaders:

Zelophehad’s Daughters | Missions, Numbers, and Lying

[Guest Believer_1829]

Surely you have heard fellow members boast whenever a new number estimate is released, or even repeat that "we are the fastest growing Church in the world". Some see a validation of the Church's 'being true' by our successful growth rather than appreciating what really makes for truth.

You know you're right. I should have said "the number total potential members we claim we have". This of course is based on practices like counting as members those who are merely on the books but have no wich to return or assuming that these members all live to 110 year, which produce inflated numbers*. This seems so unhelpful in terms of knowing how many active members we truly have. When we say the number of people who attend, it shifts to actual people.

*As to inflated numbers, I read an interesting Mormon Blog article today about inflating missionary numbers to satisfy Zone Leaders:

Zelophehad’s Daughters | Missions, Numbers, and Lying

Wow! It would have never even occurred to me the submit false numbers and baptismal forms, but our mission was fairly successful as far as actual numbers.

Edit: Although in one notoriously bad area after me and my companion baptized a family of six and had six more people scheduled for baptism, mysteriously we were transferred on the same day and the Zone (or District (forgot which)) were moved into our area.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Believer_1829

[Wingnut]

When I entered the field, there had recently been a change in mission presidents; the old one was very numbers oriented, and the new one (though we didn't know it yet) wasn't. My trainer was at the end of her mission, and had therefore spent the large majority of it under the number-oriented president. As you might expect, she was very numbers oriented. There were a few weeks when we exaggerated the number of contacts we had made, but not any numbers that would ever probably be followed through on. For example: a contact was only supposed to count as a contact if we had arrangements to meet again, but we would sometimes include people we had talked with once but hadn't made firm plans with.

[Moksha]

Obviously you are not a statistician Moksha. That would make it a lower number and as any good economist knows, more is preferred to less.

Sounds like you would make a good Zone Leader!

Maxel wrote:

Moksha-

I think you make a good point- anyone who attempts to look to the numbers of the Church to try to prove or support its truthfulness is going about building faith the wrong way. However, I think the Church as a whole does a pretty good job of going after the inactive- a strong emphasis on home teaching helps that goal along.

Yes, home teaching does help when it is done. As Believer pointed out, more converts go inactive than remain active. Even life long members become inactive. Looking out at the chapel in my ward, it seems like we have a 2/3 vacancy. Many more names are in the directory than ever show up for Church. My guess as to why is that there are somehow more dissatisfiers than satisfiers. So perhaps if the dissatifiers were honestly uncovered by the Home Teachers, they could be worked on. Creating an open and nonjudgmental atmosphere for inactive members to share is easier said than done, but it would be very helpful. Taking this honest feedback and addressing it, along with consideration for satisfiers would not be an easy task.

Do you think the outcome would be worthwhile?

:)

[hordak]

Surely you have heard fellow members boast whenever a new number estimate is released, or even repeat that "we are the fastest growing Church in the world". Some see a validation of the Church's 'being true' by our successful growth rather than appreciating what really makes for truth.

Honestly i have seen a reverse in this trend. As the numbers have slowed i have seen more then a few change their tune and decide it's due to the "wheat and the tares".

Basing religious truth (or anything for that matter) on popularity is not a good idea IMO. Depending on the study, Christianity as a whole is 4th behind Islam, Bahia, and Sikhism. In the US Deism grew 717% and is the fastest growing. In Australia the Buddhist win.

I agree with your OP.

[john doe]

But focusing on home teaching instead of baptizing does nothing more than turn it into another numbers game. People who would fudge missionary numbers to make themselves look good would not stop to think about fudging their home teaching numbers. Same thing, different place.

[NeuroTypical]

If instead of seeking after the "Number of Total Potential Members" as a yardstick for our relative truthfulness and success, if it might be better to look to the "Average Number of those Attending Sacrament Meeting on Sundays" as a better measurement as to how we are doing.

Mok, am I correct in assuming that after a person enters the waters of baptism, a symbol of covenanting to be numbered among the church of Christ, you would consider them a "potential member" that we might be better off not-counting in our total membership numbers if they never come to church?

I mean yeah, I'm all for valid numbers. I have no problem thinking (and talking) in terms of "yeah, we've got 13+ million members, maybe around half of them are active every-Sunday-type people". But in a church with such a strong emphasis on personal accountability, I don't think baptized people will ever be considered anything other than a member of the church.

I'm reasonably certain everyone from Bishop on upwards has a good grip on several ways of counting our numbers. We do count and report sacrament meeting attendence weekly - our ward budgets are based on that number. Our EQ monthly report up the line includes Phood meeting attendence, potential elders attending Phood, hometeaching stats, etc. Pres. Hinckley's famous quote was along the lines of "before my body is even cold, you can bet I'll be haunting you, asking 'how are we doing on retention'?"

LM

(And only half of that half are worth a dang...)

[Danite]

Maybe we should wait until there endowed to be counted as a member that might be a better way of showing the active membership I know in my stake about 54% of the members are not attending sacrament meeting.I have been told this number is consistent thru out the US wards. Can anyone tell me what Salt Lake is saying about sacrament meeting attendance.

[Moksha]

Mok, am I correct in assuming that ...

LM

(And only half of that half are worth a dang...)

Sorry, should have said, "the number total potential members we claim we have". See post #12 for further details.

[john doe]

Maybe we should wait until there endowed to be counted as a member that might be a better way of showing the active membership I know in my stake about 54% of the members are not attending sacrament meeting.I have been told this number is consistent thru out the US wards. Can anyone tell me what Salt Lake is saying about sacrament meeting attendance.

Uhhhhh, this is just a guess, but I would imagine they are saying we should try to increase those numbers.