How fast is the church growing?

[Guest]

16 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Ill use my ward as an example, and in the people's republic of California I think it is a good representation of high activity levels.

We have potential Sacrament meeting attendance of 533 people, our average for the last quarter was 205 or 39% Now this was high because we do the children's sacrament program in September on purpose because it is a sweeps month and attendance that day was 260ish. 

Our normal Sacrament attendance runs about 175-200. So pretty much right on the 35% mark. 

I'm sure you're aware that a single ward's attendance is not a great sample size.  I've been in wards with 90% attendance rate.  My last ward was about 98%.  And 1% additional were less active because of work engagements.  But they still felt like they were active, themselves.  One ward really had no inactives.  But we never had more than 90% attendance because people were simply gone because of work or family or vacation or ...  That didn't make them inactive.  My current ward is about a 60% full activity rate with about 10% to 15% that come occasionally.  There is quite a bit of variance.  

If I can count those wards I've attended more than 5 times, I've probably attended over 100 wards.  They ran the gamut as far as activity rate.  The 50% number is the number I'd personally use.

Here's the official method of calculating activity rate:

At the end of the year, the bishop is supposed to check a box for each family.  He alone, not the ward clerk, makes the judgment of active or inactive.  He checks the box per household.  That is the data SLC uses to determine activity rate.  And the last I heard was that it has remained at around 50% for a few decades.

[Sunday21]

I wish I knew how those 90% wards manage to maintain that level. If only we could get that special sauce and spread it around, what a difference it would make!

[omegaseamaster75]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm sure you're aware that a single ward's attendance is not a great sample size.  I've been in wards with 90% attendance rate.  My last ward was about 98%.  And 1% additional were less active because of work engagements.  But they still felt like they were active, themselves.  One ward really had no inactives.  But we never had more than 90% attendance because people were simply gone because of work or family or vacation or ...  That didn't make them inactive.  My current ward is about a 60% full activity rate with about 10% to 15% that come occasionally.  There is quite a bit of variance.  

If I can count those wards I've attended more than 5 times, I've probably attended over 100 wards.  They ran the gamut as far as activity rate.  The 50% number is the number I'd personally use.

Here's the official method of calculating activity rate:

At the end of the year, the bishop is supposed to check a box for each family.  He alone, not the ward clerk, makes the judgment of active or inactive.  He checks the box per household.  That is the data SLC uses to determine activity rate.  And the last I heard was that it has remained at around 50% for a few decades.

I think I preempted by saying that outside of the mormon belt my local ward was reasonably typical. I have attended many wards also and while not in the "know" about potential attendance and actual in those wards I can say, and this is a seat of the pants analysis based on the wards that I have attended,that in the State of CA if you are getting 1/3 out on the reg you are doing pretty good

 

[omegaseamaster75]

10 hours ago, bytebear said:

I was in a phase one building, it was basically the cultural hall, and the pulpit stand was where the overflow area would be, and that was it.  It was tiny, and they were begging for converts so they could expand their building.  The non-Mormons, if they didn't think we were weird already, thought our half church was totally odd.  It didn't help that the steeple was detached next to the building.

But based on my analysis of ward attendance and total number of wards, I estimate church attendance is somewhere between 6 and 9 million.   But considering that maybe 20% are part timer attendees, I would say 50% is a fair estimate.

Worldwide 50% I'll never believe it.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think I preempted by saying that outside of the mormon belt my local ward was reasonably typical. I

27 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Worldwide 50% I'll never believe it.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "Mormon Belt".  The ward that had a 100% activity rate was in Phoenix.  I'm not sure if that qualifies for your "Mormon Belt" or not.  That one ward that had a 98% activity rate was here in Houston (Katy, Tx to be precise) which is decidedly outside what anyone would consider Mormon Belt. The reason it took so long to split the ward was that the 460 people of a normal ward would not have been so crowded due to activity rate.  But in this one, we were pretty crowded.  They eventually split the ward.  Then there were two wards in that building with high activity rates.

And I've only attended about 20 wards in Utah.  About a dozen wards were in California.  And they varied from about 30% to 70%.

If you don't want to believe some statistical facts because you simply choose not to, I can't stop you now, can I?  But I really don't understand how you can be  faithful, active, and obviously believing Mormon and yet continue to belittle your own faith like you do based on nothing but your own choices an little to nothing more.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Guest

[omegaseamaster75]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "Mormon Belt".  The ward that had a 100% activity rate was in Phoenix.  I'm not sure if that qualifies for your "Mormon Belt" or not.  That one ward that had a 98% activity rate was here in Houston (Katy, Tx to be precise) which is decidedly outside what anyone would consider Mormon Belt. The reason it took so long to split the ward was that the 460 people of a normal ward would not have been so crowded due to activity rate.  But in this one, we were pretty crowded.  They eventually split the ward.  Then there were two wards in that building with high activity rates.

And I've only attended about 20 wards in Utah.  About a dozen wards were in California.  And they varied from about 30% to 70%.

If you don't want to believe some statistical facts because you simply choose not to, I can't stop you now, can I?  But I really don't understand how you can be  faithful, active, and obviously believing Mormon and yet continue to belittle your own faith like you do based on nothing but your own choices an little to nothing more.

Show me a real statistical study and I'll become a believer until then we just have conflicting opinions.

Edited November 3, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Show me a real study and I'll become a believer until then we just have conflicting opinions.

Well what is a "real study"?  Would you accept the Church's method that I described earlier by taking the report from Bishops?

[omegaseamaster75]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If you don't want to believe some statistical facts because you simply choose not to, I can't stop you now, can I?  But I really don't understand how you can be  faithful, active, and obviously believing Mormon and yet continue to belittle your own faith like you do based on nothing but your own choices an little to nothing more.

Please show me where I have belittled my faith(the LDS church), be very specific. If you can't or won't I expect an apology. 

[NeuroTypical]

All we have are anecdotes.  But some of them are pretty cool.

Like the experiences I've had with three bishops in three different wards, trying to deal with uber-inactives and do-not-contacts.  They go check in on them every year or two, get told "stop contacting me!  I'm not Mormon any more!"  We tell them all they have to do is send in a letter and we'll take care of it, they angrily say they'll do it immediately to stop the "constant bugging" we do.  Then we don't hear from them ever.  

It's basically impossible to get an inactive person who doesn't consider themselves mormon, off the rolls.  I mean, activists and people who get ticked off will do it.  Some folks will do it.  But in my (limited, 3 ward experience), most of them don't.  

[omegaseamaster75]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

At the end of the year, the bishop is supposed to check a box for each family.  He alone, not the ward clerk, makes the judgment of active or inactive.  He checks the box per household.  That is the data SLC uses to determine activity rate.  And the last I heard was that it has remained at around 50% for a few decades.

I might accept this, do they still do this? I am unaware of the practice. CFR

 

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=church_growth_articles&story_id=14#id2

Member Activity and Convert Retention
United States

Although more than half of nominal LDS membership lives outside of the U.S., the LDS Church still draws its primary strength from the United States. Approximately 80% of full-time LDS missionaries worldwide come from North America. 75% of missionaries are men under 26, whereas 18% are women and 7% are older couples.[1]

The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, but nearly 50 percent of all LDS members. While the LDS Church is still one of the faster growing churches in the United States, unique contributors to North American LDS growth include family sizes slightly above the national average and the concentration of nearly one-third of all LDS missions in the United States.

One study found that only 22% of U.S. members born to active LDS families remain active lifelong, whereas 44% returned to the Church after inactivity of at least a year or more.[2] 19% were disengaged but expressed nominal belief in church doctrines, and 14% were disengaged non-believers. This study provides interesting insight into the outcomes of LDS members born into active U.S. families, but it provides no information on the outcomes of children born to inactive LDS families, who seem to overwhelmingly remain inactive, nor into the outcomes of converts, who experience far higher rates of disaffiliation and inactivity. These latter questions, which have become increasingly pertinent as LDS birth rates have decreased and growth has come to increasingly rely upon convert baptisms, are not well addressed in the sociologic literature.

 

[Traveler]

 

It would seem to me that the Church is not growing near as fast as is Babylon and those that would delight to destroy us (families).

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Please show me where I have belittled my faith(the LDS church), be very specific. If you can't or won't I expect an apology. 

In reference to the proceedings after the Manifesto:

On 8/5/2016 at 1:28 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

Yeah kind of funny how they didn't want their marriages recorded on the ledger....makes you wonder who had ultimate control of that ledger. They cooked the books, come on it's clear as day.

In reference to callings of bishops, etc.

On 11/16/2015 at 0:21 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

If a name gets rejected from salt Lake it is not because "it's not the right time" It is because in their background checks they found something that disqualifies that individual. 

Lets not kid ourselves and think that a GA ponders the names of a bunch of strangers/people he has no association with and gets some flash of enlightenment about who is worthy and who is not. 

Apparently General Authorities do not receive revelation in your book.  But you believe they are inspired.  I don't know how that works.

Regarding the history of Joseph Smith and Polygamy.

On 10/23/2014 at 1:11 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

I did not say or allude to Joseph Smiths marriages being sexual in nature at all. I did say that the wording of the authors has left reason to think that "some" were.

I personally think that most were not sexual in nature largely due to the lack of issue that would have been produced as a result. There is no record that I am aware of a bunch of Smith jrs running around. That said lets not kid ourselves.

Facts?  You are very often correct.  Commentary?  You're usually way off.

I've just deleted several paragraphs of additional commentary to explain my position.  I decided that I've already driven away a couple of very good people who made valuable contributions to this forum.  I don't really want to do that with you.  I think you make a valuable contribution to this forum.  And I don't really want to get into a flame war with you or make more personal attacks.  But I do have a basis for what I said.  The wording might have been off.  But I still believe you have the tendency.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I might accept this, do they still do this? I am unaware of the practice. CFR

 

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=church_growth_articles&story_id=14#id2

Member Activity and Convert Retention
United States

Although more than half of nominal LDS membership lives outside of the U.S., the LDS Church still draws its primary strength from the United States. Approximately 80% of full-time LDS missionaries worldwide come from North America. 75% of missionaries are men under 26, whereas 18% are women and 7% are older couples.[1]

The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, but nearly 50 percent of all LDS members. While the LDS Church is still one of the faster growing churches in the United States, unique contributors to North American LDS growth include family sizes slightly above the national average and the concentration of nearly one-third of all LDS missions in the United States.

One study found that only 22% of U.S. members born to active LDS families remain active lifelong, whereas 44% returned to the Church after inactivity of at least a year or more.[2] 19% were disengaged but expressed nominal belief in church doctrines, and 14% were disengaged non-believers. This study provides interesting insight into the outcomes of LDS members born into active U.S. families, but it provides no information on the outcomes of children born to inactive LDS families, who seem to overwhelmingly remain inactive, nor into the outcomes of converts, who experience far higher rates of disaffiliation and inactivity. These latter questions, which have become increasingly pertinent as LDS birth rates have decreased and growth has come to increasingly rely upon convert baptisms, are not well addressed in the sociologic literature.

 

Now if we can get back to the topic:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Activity_in_the_Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx

Now, take a look at the last one with those who "self-identify".  The numbers indicate much higher than 50% "self-identify" as mormons.  The real question is what do you consider to be "activity rate"?

[omegaseamaster75]

 

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In reference to the proceedings after the Manifesto:

In reference to callings of bishops, etc.

Apparently General Authorities do not receive revelation in your book.  But you believe they are inspired.  I don't know how that works.

Regarding the history of Joseph Smith and Polygamy.

Facts?  You are very often correct.  Commentary?  You're usually way off.

I've just deleted several paragraphs of additional commentary to explain my position.  I decided that I've already driven away a couple of very good people who made valuable contributions to this forum.  I don't really want to do that with you.  I think you make a valuable contribution to this forum.  And I don't really want to get into a flame war with you or make more personal attacks.  But I do have a basis for what I said.  The wording might have been off.  But I still believe you have the tendency.

1. You won't drive me off, that will never happen. 

2.  My opinions about church history, past leaders, doctrines and organizational structure of the church are shared by many.  My commentary in the past may not be worded in the most PC way for the few who post on this forum who refuse to accept that one can be a believer and have an opinion outside of the cultural norm.

3.  I stand by my statements and I stand by my testimony of the veracity of the gospel and the church.  It is not tolerable to me to have that called into doubt.  We may differ in opinion on church history, positions and stances leaders have taken, and interpretation of doctrine but that does not invalidate my testimony or make it any less than yours.  

[omegaseamaster75]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now if we can get back to the topic:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Activity_in_the_Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx

Now, take a look at the last one with those who "self-identify".  The numbers indicate much higher than 50% "self-identify" as mormons.  The real question is what do you consider to be "activity rate"?

1st link is dated info, but I'll take it at face value they point to 48% activite rate

2nd link is a wiki, so I take that with a grain of salt however they point ot a 30% activity rate

3rd link I think that when asked most will self identify as mormon even those that are less active I agree with this.

Now the real question what do I consider activity rate? Butts in seats that is my measure.

To be clear this is not a real measurement of activity as there are those who travel or have work commitments that prevent them from attending, personal health issues, social problems that make regular attendance intolerable, I think that the Lord knows what is in the individual's heart and will judge them accordingly.

Lastly there is the little temple recommend question that gets asked: Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church; to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings; and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

1st link is dated info, but I'll take it at face value they point to 48% activite rate

2nd link is a wiki, so I take that with a grain of salt however they point ot a 30% activity rate

3rd link I think that when asked most will self identify as mormon even those that are less active I agree with this.

Now the real question what do I consider activity rate? Butts in seats that is my measure.

To be clear this is not a real measurement of activity as there are those who travel or have work commitments that prevent them from attending, personal health issues, social problems that make regular attendance intolerable, I think that the Lord knows what is in the individual's heart and will judge them accordingly.

Lastly there is the little temple recommend question that gets asked: Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church; to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings; and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?

1) Although dated, I saw reports of the same numbers in the late 90s.  But I have not seen any official numbers from the Church since the turn of the century.

2) That 30% estimate came from a Salt Lake Tribune Author/Reporter.  We can each take this at what level of accuracy we will.

3) What you said is true.  But on earth, for earthly statistics, we rely on bishops.  I don't know if they still use this method.  It's been a while since I was involved in that.  But that is what I saw when I was a ward clerk.  There is a bit of a story behind it that I don't want to break confidences to explain.  But the bottom line is that there are many that are "active" (per the bishop's judgment) that you just don't see in the seats.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

Timely SLTribune article.

Mass exodus from Mormonism? LDS stats paint a different picture

Quote

Attorney Mark Naugle, a former Mormon in South Jordan, says he has personally submitted about 12,500 letters to the LDS Church in the past year from members asking to have their names removed from the faith's membership rolls. He has received requests from most states, Naugle says, as well as from Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, France, Germany, Great Britain and South Africa, to name a few.

"And there are plenty more," he says, "who tell me my services are not necessary" — that they know how to excise their memberships without his help.

The LDS Church acknowledges "periodic increases or decreases in [such] requests," explains spokesman Eric Hawkins, but "the number of people asking to have their names removed from the records of the church has been less than one-tenth of 1 percent (less than 1 in 1,000) for more than 20 consecutive years, including in 2015 and the first eight months of 2016."

That means of the 15,634,199 members reported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April, fewer than 15,634 have or will resign this year.

That figure pales in comparison to, say, the 257,402 converts who joined the church in 2015.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Timely SLTribune article.

Mass exodus from Mormonism? LDS stats paint a different picture

 

I've noticed that instead of formally resigning people just stop showing up. 

[NeuroTypical]

I've personally known two people who resigned.  One did it back a decade or two ago shortly after going inactive.  The other had been inactive for decades, and sent in their letter within hours of hearing the new policy on baptizing kids in same-sex households.  

A while ago in my ward, there was a lady on our rolls who had actually become an ordained minster in another church.  Nice lady.  We asked about her membership, and she said we could do whatever we wished.  She didn't see the point in taking the time to send in a letter.

Edited November 4, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[bytebear]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Timely SLTribune article.

Mass exodus from Mormonism? LDS stats paint a different picture

 

It seems to me that every conference the same 200 or so people resign (again).