Church statistics for 2009

[Maxel]

I agree with the sentiment that numbers don't matter so much. What does matter is that the members work on the two missions of the Church that deal with conversion- spreading the Gospel message and perfecting the Saints.

I think, as the events of the endtimes begin to occur more rapidly, we'll see member activity and conversion fluctuate greatly. And ultimatley, numbers don't validify the Church's truth.

[Wingnut]

Stats are announced in spring conferance and we will be well over 14 million.:)

At the end of 2007, there were 13,193,999 members worldwide. At the end of 2008, there were 13,508,509. That's a difference of 314,510. To reach exactly 14,000,000 for 2009, that means there would have to have been 491,491 baptisms this year. I don't think so.

And ultimatley, numbers don't validify the Church's truth.

Nice word invention! Seriously though, I agree with this statement 100%

[Guest mormonmusic]

I agree with the sentiment that numbers don't matter so much.

This is a thread all in itself, but I feel strongly that numbers DO matter. I hear the "numbers don't matter, people do" statement a lot, but the fact is, a lot of people look at the numbers as a starting point.-- Stake Presidents, High Councilors and the people above them.

If our numbers were low in home teaching, I would always hear about it -- either through a High Councilor, or from the Stake Presidency in a Ward Conference.

I believe that the numbers-don't-matter argument is sometimes an excuse for not stretching and trying one's best, or a means for combatting frustration. The Ward that has no baptisms, and 0% home teaching shows that people aren't even doing the basics, and it's trigger for discussion.

What I disagree with, however, is the focus on NUMBERS ALONE. As I said, I believe they are important starting point. However, one must dig to find out things -- such as the resources available to the Ward, or the underlying work that is driving the numbers before drawing solid conclusions.

If home teaching is 55% in the Ward, is it because both HP and EQ are doing 55% each? Or is it because HP are doing 100% and the EQ is doing 10%? Once our Stake President called us all to repentence on home teaching without realizing the HP were making acceptable contact with 80% of the members in their stewardship -- and that our low Ward number was due to low EQ efforts. That kind of reliance on numbers is unacceptable.

Also, if there are 500 baptisms in the Ward, the next question is - how many of these people went to the temple? How many have callings? How many are active? And from there, questions about the effectiveness of Ward programs.

Focusing on numbers alone leads to the kinds of experiences Wingnut mentioned, where you have numbers through the roof but no active people to back them up.

But my point is -- you need both -- so for me, "numbers don't matter" is a dead-end argument.

Edited December 17, 2009 by mormonmusic

[bytebear]

At the end of 2007, there were 13,193,999 members worldwide. At the end of 2008, there were 13,508,509. That's a difference of 314,510. To reach exactly 14,000,000 for 2009, that means there would have to have been 491,491 baptisms this year. I don't think so.

No, because it also includes babies born to LDS parents, and that will add a lot to the numbers.

[RanMan]

I think the statistics that are significant in this situation, is not how fast the Church is growing, but that it is still growing when many of the rest of the Christian churches are showing a decline in membership. I believe that I have heard that activity rates are usually around 45% and that is a number that is consistent for most Christian denominations, not just ours. So, 45% of 13.8 million is more than 45% of 12.5 million (duh). We have growth and that is good.

:)

[MarginOfError]

No, because it also includes babies born to LDS parents, and that will add a lot to the numbers.

I'm not sure that's true. You aren't considered a member of the Church unless Salt Lake (or a regional administration office) has a copy of your Confirmation record. So the membership figures would include new converts and confirmations of children of record. They shouldn't be including the children of record themselves.

If they are in fact counting children of record as members, then the 13,000,000 number is even more bogus than I thought.

[MarginOfError]

This is a thread all in itself, but I feel strongly that numbers DO matter. I hear the "numbers don't matter, people do" statement a lot, but the fact is, a lot of people look at the numbers as a starting point.-- Stake Presidents, High Councilors and the people above them.

Being a statistician, I may be biased here, but I agree. Numbers absolutely do matter. But that comes with the caveat that your numbers accurately reflect people. It also comes with the condition that your numbers are looking at a sufficiently large group.

At a ward or branch level, however, numbers have limited use. Which is why the membership report that wards and branches are required to send to their stakes (and then to Church HQ) are linked to reports of the members on which we are supposed to report. For example, when filling out the number for families home taught, there is a report available to list all of the families that should be home taught. The local leaders should be reviewing the list and familiar with who is and isn't being home taught.

If our numbers were low in home teaching, I would always hear about it -- either through a High Councilor, or from the Stake Presidency in a Ward Conference.

By the time the numbers get to a stake, you can usually use the numbers to interpret what is effective and what isn't at retaining the membership and keeping them converted. The numbers, when combined with effective interviews with the bishops, help identify areas that will improve the spiritual strength of the local members.

I believe that the numbers-don't-matter argument is sometimes an excuse for not stretching and trying one's best, or a means for combatting frustration. The Ward that has no baptisms, and 0% home teaching shows that people aren't even doing the basics, and it's trigger for discussion.

This may be true, but it's also true that a lot of people fail to grasp the power of numbers, and even more fail

I won't comment on the rest of your post because I agree. So, Maxel, be careful what you say when you say number don't matter.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Being a statistician, I may be biased here, but I agree. Numbers absolutely do matter. But that comes with the caveat that your numbers accurately reflect people. It also comes with the condition that your numbers are looking at a sufficiently large group.

Although I think we're largely in agreement on this one -- I think the part in bold represents the same mistake in reasoning I made a few years ago when I was studying psychology -- and that my professor corrected me about in class.

I don't think the numbers need to be based on a large enough group to truly understand what's happened in the Ward. This is because the numbers represent a population, not a sample. We're not doing inferential statistics here, they are descriptive.

If reports were based on a sample of the families in the Ward, or a sample of home teachers' performance, then yes, you'd have problems with representativeness that you'd have to deal with by making the sample size large. But since the reports are reports on a population, there's no need for large sample sizes; the numbers are what they are.

By the time the numbers get to a stake, you can usually use the numbers to interpret what is effective and what isn't at retaining the membership and keeping them converted. The numbers, when combined with effective interviews with the bishops, help identify areas that will improve the spiritual strength of the local members.

I think this is only true if every Ward is trying the same initiatives across the board -- only then can you see the impact on retention, make adjustments to policies and practices, and then try again. However, I've rarely seen a Stake that's able to get full participation from every Ward in every initiative, so the aggregate/Stake numbers will always contain noise that obscures the results.

[Hemidakota]

Church stats are usually posted here: Statistical Information - LDS Newsroom

[Wingnut]

No, because it also includes babies born to LDS parents, and that will add a lot to the numbers.

I tend to agree with MOE on this:

I'm not sure that's true. You aren't considered a member of the Church unless Salt Lake (or a regional administration office) has a copy of your Confirmation record. So the membership figures would include new converts and confirmations of children of record. They shouldn't be including the children of record themselves.

In the statistical report every year, several figures are given. One is total Church membership (baptized members). One is convert baptisms during the previous year. Another is increase in children of record. Children of record are children born or adopted into member families, or children of convert parents, but who are not yet age 8. The difference in overall membership between 2007 and 2008 is 314,510 people, while convert baptisms in 2008 are 265,593. Increase in children of record for 2008 is 123,502. If you combine the children of record stat with the convert baptisms stat, you get 389,095, which is more than the overall membership increase. So in 2008, there were 314,510 people baptized, 265,593 of which were convert baptism, and 48,917 member baptisms (members who were previously children of record but who have now been baptized).

Regardless, I still don't think we'll end up with 491,491 new members this year, even if you were to include children of record.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Wingnut
add one more children of record qualification