Church Growth


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

My wife just read the statistics from the Church and she pointed to the "new children of record" for 2022.  And it equals just a bit over  0.5% per yr (contributed by children of record).  Even if we consider that half of the total Church population is inactive, that only brings us up to 1%.  If it weren't for convert baptisms, we wouldn't even be up to replacement rate.  I'm not sure what that is, since that isn't available for this past year. (Maybe someone can link to it?).

Part of reason is what has happened with the general worldwide population.  Most countries in general have an even lower growth rate than the Church does.  But all of the major stats seem to indicate a dwindling population with a few exceptions.  India is still above replacement rate (barely).  Muslim nations are growing 50%+ higher than replacement rate.

Too many generations have done everything to decrease the number of children born.  And we've gotten it.  Several developed nations have already seen the difficulty of providing a workforce for the economy while the aging population is availing themselves of the various social programs of their respective nations. 

My retirement plan is our children.  But for so many others who have made their careers their family, they will find that their 401(k) will not keep them happy in their golden years.  And with inflation, it may not be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My wife just read the statistics from the Church and she pointed to the "new children of record" for 2022.  And it equals just a bit over  0.5% per yr (contributed by children of record).  Even if we consider that half of the total Church population is inactive, that only brings us up to 1%.  If it weren't for convert baptisms, we wouldn't even be up to replacement rate.  I'm not sure what that is, since that isn't available for this past year.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/2022-statistical-report-april-2023-conference

I don't know what to make of this. Maybe @MarginOfError can explain it to us. A 1% per annum increase seems to indicate a doubling time of 72 years, which might barely be replacement level. But while smaller families and fewer children are certainly the norm compared to how things were in my childhood, my observation is that young couples still have more than a replacement level of children. Not sure where the disconnect exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/2022-statistical-report-april-2023-conference

I don't know what to make of this. Maybe @MarginOfError can explain it to us. A 1% per annum increase seems to indicate a doubling time of 72 years, which might barely be replacement level. But while smaller families and fewer children are certainly the norm compared to how things were in my childhood, my observation is that young couples still have more than a replacement level of children. Not sure where the disconnect exists.

Replacement level is around 1.06% (2.1 babies per female, and since there are more males born than females...).

So, if the convert level is just a small fraction, we will be at replacement level.  However, the future activity rate of current babies born (and converts) drops that to below replacement level.

This is assuming, of course, that the activity level remains at around 50%.  I haven't seen the latest numbers on activity rate.  But I remember that it has been at 50% for a while.

The counter argument would be that those families that are still having children today will be largely made up of more faithful families who, hopefully, raise more faithful children.  But the reality of those assumptions remain to be seen.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’m curious as to how many in Utah are members. I would guess it’s still well over half who belong to the church. 

No.  There are more members of Christ's restored church outside of the United States now.  The bulk of our convert baptisms will come from the more humble nations in the world I believe.

I imagine too that we will not see large amounts of converts inside America anymore for a while.  We are a wicked and/or idol worshipping nation with the majority that live here in my opinion.  Law of chastitiy standards are almost completely abandoned by most of this nation sadly and we are seeing the fruits of it.  Hopefully there will be a great spiritual awakening in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

No.  There are more members of Christ's restored church outside of the United States now.  The bulk of our convert baptisms will come from the more humble nations in the world I believe.

I imagine too that we will not see large amounts of converts inside America anymore for a while.  We are a wicked and/or idol worshipping nation with the majority that live here in my opinion.  Law of chastitiy standards are almost completely abandoned by most of this nation sadly and we are seeing the fruits of it.  Hopefully there will be a great spiritual awakening in the future.

Thanks @Still_Small_Voice, I had no clue and I never would have guessed that more members live outside the US then in it, given that I think of LDS as being a very “American” faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Thanks @Still_Small_Voice, I had no clue and I never would have guessed that more members live outside the US then in it, given that I think of LDS as being a very “American” faith. 

Growing up most members were in Utah followed by California.   There was somewhat of a rivalry between Utah and California.  We had church wide basketball, fast pitch softball and road shows competition.  All that is left of that is the rivalry between BYU and U of U (which has nothing to do with California).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Activity rates are dirt low outside of Utah.  From what I've heard activity is closer to 25% or even 20% than 50%.

In that light, you'd need 25% of the church having record numbers of children to come up with a rate high enough to replace the others.

I've actually had some thoughts on this recently (Due to some recent things that happened with some students and investigators around me), but don't think this is the appropriate thread to address it. 

The numbers at institute are rather low in relation to the number of members at universities as well.  There is a general trend among young people to move away from Christianity in general.  That the LDS church is retaining the numbers it is, is actually sort of a testament to the church.  It seems that the numbers of young people growing distant from religion and Christianity have shot up to numbers I've never seen.  There seems to be a definitive split between 2020 and after.  The numbers seem to be growing at a much faster rate (this year especially) of those disillusioned with religion, or even more, being outright hostile towards christianity in general.

The Church wants us to be seen more in line with popular Christianity (at least that is my impression), but it is too late for that.  Christianity as a whole right now is having problems.  We don't stand out FAR enough from Christianity any longer, and being bunched in with a sinking ship won't do us any favors.  We need to show why we ARE better than the other choices out there, and WHY we are different that they should not lump us all in with those that they are starting to disassociate with (Sometimes for good reason). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently watched a video on “unplanned childlessness”. 

Only 5% of women in early child-bearing years say they don’t want children but far more than that actually never do. I need to read the book and check the numbers, but the claim is that women believe they can get a degree, build a career, seek a husband, and have children once they’re established. The reality is there’s a window of opportunity for having babies and the body doesn’t always wait for a career (and that’s assuming you beat out the women 5 years younger in attracting a mate).

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Only 5% of women in early child-bearing years say they don’t want children but far more than that actually never do. I need to read the book and check the numbers, but the claim is that women believe they can get a degree, build a career, seek a husband, and have children once they’re established. The reality is there’s a window of opportunity for having babies and the body doesn’t always wait for a career (and that’s assuming you beat out the women 5 years younger in attracting a mate).

I hear this far too often. The trouble is that once you have a career you kind of have to maintain said career and that's not always easy when you start your family in the middle of it.

I tend to advise having kids when you're still trying to figure some things out (I of course advise marriage and some semblance of a plan to keep body and soul together) as I think in some ways it's easier to bring in kids when you don't have this fancy settled life and kids can just fit into the growth.

I have single female friends and family who are pretty much accepting they are realistically going to miss the childbearing years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a bit of the morning pondering on the parent/career thing. I know this may wax controversial, but at least in my area and circles I've seen an uptick in more family-friendly work positions. Love or hate the idea of working from home, I honestly think it works great for some people and companies, and I think communities are responding to that with more child-trading and whatnot. 

Which is all to say, you don't necessarily have to ditch your child at daycare for twelve hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 9:01 AM, Backroads said:

I spent a bit of the morning pondering on the parent/career thing. I know this may wax controversial, but at least in my area and circles I've seen an uptick in more family-friendly work positions. Love or hate the idea of working from home, I honestly think it works great for some people and companies, and I think communities are responding to that with more child-trading and whatnot. 

Which is all to say, you don't necessarily have to ditch your child at daycare for twelve hours.

I think these are good trends (when done voluntarily by employers).  But I’m not sure it necessarily addresses the root causes.  Many European countries have been bending over backwards to accommodate working mothers for decades, but I understand their birthdates are still plummeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think these are good trends (when done voluntarily by employers).  But I’m not sure it necessarily addresses the root causes.  Many European countries have been bending over backwards to accommodate working mothers for decades, but I understand their birthdates are still plummeting.

My understanding from friends in that area is that despite the many accommodations culture is still tricky to change.

They may have, for example, lengthy maternity leave, but to a certain extent women aren't actually supposed to use all of it. All the working mother's accommodations in the world just aren't going to make up for not being active in one's career.

So, yeah, you're right on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/3/2023 at 12:19 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

I think these are good trends (when done voluntarily by employers).  But I’m not sure it necessarily addresses the root causes.  Many European countries have been bending over backwards to accommodate working mothers for decades, but I understand their birthdates are still plummeting.

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at).

It is too expensive to live in Europe.  What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe.  Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. 

The United States is quickly following that path.  Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly.  My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago.  No one's wage goes up that quickly on average).  Food costs are rising rapidly. 

Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration.  More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family.

Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish.  Houses should be a place to live...not an investment.  That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO).  

Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here.  The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being.  We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead.  They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society.  We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. 

I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view.  As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics.  It was far more restrained.  Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back.  Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago.  We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition.  Competition is good.  I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families.  Capitalism actually worked well then.  We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home.

When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary.  Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live.  It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at).

It is too expensive to live in Europe.  What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe.  Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. 

The United States is quickly following that path.  Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly.  My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago.  No one's wage goes up that quickly on average).  Food costs are rising rapidly. 

Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration.  More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family.

Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish.  Houses should be a place to live...not an investment.  That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO).  

Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here.  The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being.  We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead.  They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society.  We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. 

I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view.  As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics.  It was far more restrained.  Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back.  Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago.  We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition.  Competition is good.  I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families.  Capitalism actually worked well then.  We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home.

When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary.  Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live.  It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into. 

My time is limited to give much of a response, but I think there’s a broader malaise in much of the first world beyond the simple aggregation of wealth:  speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future (both collectively and individually) and have decided to cash out whatever spiritual, moral, and (yes) material inheritances left for them by their ancestors are available for liquidation in the here-and-now.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future

I don’t know who you associate with, but that’s not my experience. At all. Few of my friends wear rose colored glasses but the majority of us lead happy, fulfilled lives and look forward to the future. 
 

No, seriously. Get a new circle of friends. You’ll be much happier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I don’t know who you associate with, but that’s not my experience. At all. Few of my friends wear rose colored glasses but the majority of us lead happy, fulfilled lives and look forward to the future. 
 

No, seriously. Get a new circle of friends. You’ll be much happier. 

OK, Boomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My time is limited to give much of a response, but I think there’s a broader malaise in much of the first world beyond the simple aggregation of wealth:  speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future (both collectively and individually) and have decided to cash out whatever spiritual, moral, and (yes) material inheritances left for them by their ancestors are available for liquidation in the here-and-now.

It's the zeitgeist of our day. Eat your seed corn. We have money carefully earned and sequestered by our ancestors down to our own fathers and mothers? Let's tap that resource! We have a corporation over 100 years old that we're guiding? Quarterly profits, baby! We have oil reserves created over hundreds of millions of years? Drill!

The whole mindset is upside-down, inverted, cart-before-the-horse perversion. We need to have children! Why? For economic purposes, of course! How else are we going to keep the Ponzi scheme that is social security going if we don't have a next generation to pay us [a small fraction of] what was taken out of our paychecks throughout our lives? I saw an article a few days ago in which a young woman straightfacedly proposed increased incentives for unmarried mothers to bear more children. Even a generation ago, this would have been unthinkable. Welcome to 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number of children per female is going down in virtually every nation on earth.  This is no doubt caused by several factors.

  • Career women: Women who specifically put career ahead of family.
  • The hookup society: The default mentality is to have sex with no consequences (as if there ever was such a thing).
  • Fertility/Infertility rates:  This is an interesting statistic that is not very easy to unravel.
  • Zeitgeist regarding the future: Dealing with historically normal problems is to be expected.  But to raise a child "in this day and age" with all the problems in the world worsening That's child abuse.
  • Cost-of-living:  In much of the world, this is becoming more of a reality.  But in the US, this is usually just an excuse for materialism.

One major thing is that women who spend many years on the pill do damage that they are not aware of.  Early testing for the pill was for short durations -- a few years at best.  But some women are on it from adolescence to their late 30s and then wonder why they cannot carry to term.  There is no such thing as any medical procedure without side-effects.  And even after that, they only have time for one, maybe two children.

Casual sex practitioners tend to have it in their minds that sex is just for pleasure.  It's another form of recreation.  Does this really lend itself to an unselfish attitude towards bringing new life into this world?  Women think they can use this to find companions as they further their careers.  Men just like to use women.  And somehow, they feel like they have fulfilling lives. (If you say so...)

The problem with detecting real rates of infertility is that there are so many women who simply don't want children.  Some people also say that modern society (pesticides, pain relievers, common medications...) cause fertility issues with both men and women and we just aren't seeing it.  The availability of and social pressure for abortions is high.  Higher than we are normally aware of.

Poll after poll shows that people are less happy in the current decade than most previous decades.  Their outlook on the future is lower than it has been in my lifetime.  Yes, we still find happiness here and there.  And there are people who still have good lives where they are generally happy.  But polls show that it is less and less common than in previous decades.

People always talk about cost of living as an excuse to not have children anymore.  Why then, is it common for poorer families to have more children?  How often do you see wealthy families have large numbers of children?  In my ward, we see exceptions to this rule.  But it is certainly a rule for the population in general.

Our ward has eight families with five or more children (some of them are adults who live elsewhere.)  And one family from our neighboring ward had 12 children. They moved out recently.  And every single one of these families were fairly wealthy.  Why is this an exception to the rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Our ward has eight families with five or more children (some of them are adults who live elsewhere.)  And one family from our neighboring ward had 12 children. They moved out recently.  And every single one of these families were fairly wealthy.  Why is this an exception to the rule?

Child labor?  

 

;)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2023 at 11:07 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

My time is limited to give much of a response, but I think there’s a broader malaise in much of the first world beyond the simple aggregation of wealth:  speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future (both collectively and individually) and have decided to cash out whatever spiritual, moral, and (yes) material inheritances left for them by their ancestors are available for liquidation in the here-and-now.

Ready Player One may become our reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Child labor?  

;)

As tongue-in-cheek as this response is, I believe it only addresses one half of the equation.  Poorer families may find the additional help worth the cost of food/clothing/shelter.

But the other part of the equation... why don't more wealthy families have many children.  And really,  an intact first-marriage couple actually had at least three children, that would at least be something.  But the more the merrier, really.

If poor people can afford many children, why can't wealthy people afford many children?  Even Trump has 5 children (albeit from three wives).  The answer is that they can.  But they choose to limit their children because of ... whatever.

I know people have to limit because of health and many other reasons that are really out of our control.  But so many are self-limiting to 2 or fewer children for a variety of reasons.  And one of those is the belief that the earth is over-populated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share