I can't wrap my head around this ...

[JodyTJ]

The Church claims 14.7 million members, and I believe those numbers. But you got critics of the church who claim only 4-5 million members go to church regularly (and that's a large number in and of itself). But they don't take into account people who attend church once or twice a month, once or twice every few months, members who go only for important dates (like Christmas, Easter, etc) and members who consider themselves Mormons. I'm not a statistician, but I'd guesstimate that with all those added up, you could have a active and semi-active membership of 7-8 million? I just don't buy some of the statistics that some people through out. That's just me.

[Dark_Jedi]

The problem here, of course, is that the Church doesn't report such numbers. The mechanism to do so is there - clerks actually do count those in attendance each Sunday and that number is actually reported to SLC and it is used to determine funding for the ward/branch. Also you have to take into consideration what is considered "active." You might consider the member who attends only Christmas & Easter as active, I don't. So in some respects, you're right - your guess is as good as anybody else's.

There are sometimes things published about activity rates - usually when there is a concern. Chile, apparently, has a very low activity rate between 10% & 20%. Utah's is apparently in the range of 70%. Utah, however, has many more total members than Chile, so even if Chile's rate matched Utah's, Utah would still have more actual active people.

The other thing you can do is figure out how many people are listed as members of your ward (the bishopric, clerk, and perhaps some others have access to that info) and simply count how many are actually there. In our ward (east coast US), using this method reveals an activity rate of about 45%. There again, however, our small east coast ward is smaller than a small Utah ward - so that same 45% activity rate elsewhere might actually be more members or less members.

[JodyTJ]

The problem here, of course, is that the Church doesn't report such numbers. The mechanism to do so is there - clerks actually do count those in attendance each Sunday and that number is actually reported to SLC and it is used to determine funding for the ward/branch. Also you have to take into consideration what is considered "active." You might consider the member who attends only Christmas & Easter as active, I don't. So in some respects, you're right - your guess is as good as anybody else's.

There are sometimes things published about activity rates - usually when there is a concern. Chile, apparently, has a very low activity rate between 10% & 20%. Utah's is apparently in the range of 70%. Utah, however, has many more total members than Chile, so even if Chile's rate matched Utah's, Utah would still have more actual active people.

The other thing you can do is figure out how many people are listed as members of your ward (the bishopric, clerk, and perhaps some others have access to that info) and simply count how many are actually there. In our ward (east coast US), using this method reveals an activity rate of about 45%. There again, however, our small east coast ward is smaller than a small Utah ward - so that same 45% activity rate elsewhere might actually be more members or less members.

I don't consider them necessarily active, but I do consider them a Mormon. Btw, would you happen to know the activity rate in Canada? I heard from someone it's one of the highest, rivalling Utah's.

[Dark_Jedi]

I don't consider them necessarily active, but I do consider them a Mormon. Btw, would you happen to know the activity rate in Canada? I heard from someone it's one of the highest, rivalling Utah's.

You've really muddied the waters. The numbers the critics you refer to use are active members, which is open to interpretation. My guess is that most would consider active as those who attend most Sundays, have a calling that they at least attempt to fulfill, participate in other activities, etc. Are the ones who attend only once a twice a month Mormon? Yes (if they're baptized, confirmed, etc.). Are they active? Maybe or maybe not. I'm sure there are those out there who would consider any member who regularly prays and reads the scriptures but irregularly attends church active, but are they really? There is a small number of members who cannot regularly attend because of work commitments, poor health, etc. Are they Mormon? Are they active?

As far as I can tell, the critics you refer to only measure church attendance and/or those who report themselves to be Mormon. In some countries, it might be wise to not report yourself as Mormon on a census. I have also heard it said that in some (particularly South American) countries people will actually have been baptized Mormon but remain Roman Catholic as well, and maybe even join another protestant church - covering all their bases if you will. That's why church reported member numbers and census numbers don't always match - the members say they're Catholic (and in practice may actually be).

I don't about activity in Canada, and I'm not sure anyone does. I am reasonably certain that activity rates in the US & Canada tend to be higher than in other parts of the world, but I don't know that to be a fact.

[Anddenex]

The Church claims 14.7 million members, and I believe those numbers. But you got critics of the church who claim only 4-5 million members go to church regularly (and that's a large number in and of itself). But they don't take into account people who attend church once or twice a month, once or twice every few months, members who go only for important dates (like Christmas, Easter, etc) and members who consider themselves Mormons. I'm not a statistician, but I'd guesstimate that with all those added up, you could have a active and semi-active membership of 7-8 million? I just don't buy some of the statistics that some people through out. That's just me.

The Church's claim is accurate. Critics will be critics because they are looking for any and every opportunity disingenuously to discredit the Church.

As Joseph Smith declared, the same still exists today, "Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil disposed and designing men, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..."

The Church's claim is in accordance with the membership records which are on the Church's database. These are individuals who have been baptized into the Church. These are individuals who are active. These are individuals who are less active. These are traditional members of the Church, who never attend, but still believe. These are members who are sick, physically unable to attend, but still have faith. These are even ex-members who have not removed their name from the records of the Church, and are anti. At times, some of these number are also the fault of wards who have duplicate names on record. Example, while I was our ward membership clerk I had the Church delete two of three records for the same person. In other words, we have three membership records of the same individual, and I had emailed the Church headquarters to delete two of the records. NOTE: this doesn't happen much but it does happen.

Also, this is why a ward membership clerk is very important in making sure we have correct records. The Church, merely provides information according to what they have available in their database, which is a simple math algorithm to add up all the members.

[NeuroTypical]

Fun story:

So, bishops have responsibility over everyone in their flock. If you're a baptized member on his rolls, he has a clear scriptural mandate to know how you're doing. This is true even if you're an angry person who hates the church and has demanded no visits from any dang mormons.

So once every year or two, he and his counselors make an attempt to "contact the Do-Not-Contacts". I got to go with them one year, as Executive Seceretary. Interesting trip. We went to 4 homes, and saw 3 people. One guy politely thanked us for the visit, and said he wasn't interested. One guy got defensive, saying it was outrageous to expect a guy to go to 3 hours of church a day. One guy was mad that we knocked on his door.

So, every person we talked to, we let them know they still appear on our rolls, and all they need to do, is put a formal request to have their names removed in writing and send it to the bishop. The two uppity guys angrily said they'd do that immediately. I was Exec Sec another 3 years, and we never got any letter from either of them.

Bishops tell me this is hardly an uncommon occurance. So, in a congregation with 350 names on the rolls, there's the story of 4 of them for you.

[MarginOfError]

Both the church and its critics have a point here. The church has 14.5 million members listed in its records. Only somewhere between 40-50% of those people are in church on any given Sunday.

So yes, the Church has 14.5 million members. But the extent of it's influence into individual, daily lives is much smaller.

For the record, this is true of most Christian religions.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say inactivity means zero influence. Even my sister who hasn't been active for a couple of decades still lives the Gospel for the most part.

[Blackmarch]

The Church claims 14.7 million members, and I believe those numbers. But you got critics of the church who claim only 4-5 million members go to church regularly (and that's a large number in and of itself). But they don't take into account people who attend church once or twice a month, once or twice every few months, members who go only for important dates (like Christmas, Easter, etc) and members who consider themselves Mormons. I'm not a statistician, but I'd guesstimate that with all those added up, you could have a active and semi-active membership of 7-8 million? I just don't buy some of the statistics that some people through out. That's just me.

a different critic a different number. If they are for the number of attendance is higher, if they are against the number is lower.

[prisonchaplain]

It looks like most Christian churches have about 20% of members who are actively involved, and between 25-40% of members attending. My own fellowship bucks the trend, in that our nationwide membership is about 2 million, but our "adherents" (based on weekly attendance reports) is 3 million.

Churches' Dilemma: 80 Percent of Flock Is Inactive

[Maureen]

It looks like most Christian churches have about 20% of members who are actively involved, and between 25-40% of members attending. My own fellowship bucks the trend, in that our nationwide membership is about 2 million, but our "adherents" (based on weekly attendance reports) is 3 million....

I think there are a few protestant churches out there where you do not have to join (become a member, agree whole heartily with their statements of faith) to be part of the church family. You can be as active as you want and not be listed as an official member.

M.

[beefche]

How does one determine being a member of a Non-LDS congregation? LDS uses baptism as the record of being a member. But, I know alot of churches don't require baptism to join their congregation. How do you become a member? And what would be the advantage to being an official member as opposed to just joining a congregation (as Maureen described)?

[mrmarklin]

The Church claims 14.7 million members, and I believe those numbers. But you got critics of the church who claim only 4-5 million members go to church regularly (and that's a large number in and of itself). But they don't take into account people who attend church once or twice a month, once or twice every few months, members who go only for important dates (like Christmas, Easter, etc) and members who consider themselves Mormons. I'm not a statistician, but I'd guesstimate that with all those added up, you could have a active and semi-active membership of 7-8 million? I just don't buy some of the statistics that some people through out. That's just me.

Not sure why "critics" would claim 4-5 million go to church regularly and use it as a negative. I'd say that's a fairly good record.

I know a lot of Catholics, and I would say that the activity rate is much lower in that church. Catholics use baptism as a measure of who belongs, same as Mormons.

When I was in the mission home many many years ago, it was stated by a General Authority that 60% of the people in the audience at that time (all missionaries!) would go inactive! I remember looking around and wondering if that was true, that many of my Melchizedek priesthood holder peers would really go inactive. Now with more experience in life, I realize that it's a true statistic.

I think the important thing is that 90% plus of all members believe to some extent in the doctrine and identify themselves as members, whether they practice actively or not.

[mrmarklin]

It looks like most Christian churches have about 20% of members who are actively involved, and between 25-40% of members attending. My own fellowship bucks the trend, in that our nationwide membership is about 2 million, but our "adherents" (based on weekly attendance reports) is 3 million.

Churches' Dilemma: 80 Percent of Flock Is Inactive

Yes, PC it seems the old 80-20 rule is in full operation, even in churches.

[Dark_Jedi]

Both the church and its critics have a point here. The church has 14.5 million members listed in its records. Only somewhere between 40-50% of those people are in church on any given Sunday.

So yes, the Church has 14.5 million members. But the extent of it's influence into individual, daily lives is much smaller.

For the record, this is true of most Christian religions.

Yes, it is true of most Christian religions as well as Jews and Muslims. I suppose if you're Buddhist there really is no measure of outward activity.

[prisonchaplain]

How does one determine being a member of a Non-LDS congregation? LDS uses baptism as the record of being a member. But, I know alot of churches don't require baptism to join their congregation. How do you become a member? And what would be the advantage to being an official member as opposed to just joining a congregation (as Maureen described)?

In my church fellowship membership is a process in and of itself. You ask to join. You may be asked to intend a membership class. There is a sense of added responsibility communicated. Many churches will say that tithing is an expectation of members. The benefits of joining? Mostly spiritual. It's a way of saying I am "all in." Not only with God, but with this people. Of course, members get to vote on certain decisions that are made by the body.

Some choose not to join because, while they love the church, their may be one or two beliefs they disagree with. Tithing is a frequent one. Some do not believe it is an obligation of the New Testament church. Some people just aren't "joiners"--though they've been a part of the life and fabric of the congregation for years.

Then there is the truth that some fellowships--mine included--make membership something that is honorable service, rather than a marker of our growth.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes, PC it seems the old 80-20 rule is in full operation, even in churches.

I thought we invented that rule.

[Lakumi]

Some choose not to join because, while they love the church, their may be one or two beliefs they disagree with. Tithing is a frequent one. Some do not believe it is an obligation of the New Testament church. Some people just aren't "joiners"--though they've been a part of the life and fabric of the congregation for years.

I do wonder if that's the same for people and the LDS church?

[prisonchaplain]

Lakumi...I doubt there are many non-members who are deeply involved in LDS spirituality. It is a unique church with distinct teachings. Many Christians look with skepticism upon the LDS movement. So, unlike many Christian churches, I would guess that with the LDS faith, once one decides it is "mostly true," the natural progression is towards rigorous commitment and membership.