Am I alone in believing this way??

[zil2]

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

well-meaning but empty comments like, “Women are more faithful than men—that’s why more of them will be in heaven.”

...

The other part is, we shouldn't be frustrated with well-meaning truthful comments. The probability of the statement being shared is true. Why do we think truth is empty? All truth is from Christ.

Perhaps in today's world (literally 2025), we women are the first to see that this statement isn't as true as it once might have been?

Alternately, the comment can be made empty when spoken by a man who otherwise shows little to no interest in hearing anything a woman has to say.  If they are so much more faithful, then why on Earth would you refuse to consider what they have to say?

Back to that "perhaps", @Carborendum recently mentioned a study showing that for the first time, men outnumber women in the Church (I think the stat was for us, but maybe it was for Christianity).  He, and others (I've seen the same study discussed on X), seemed to assume that the stat indicated women were leaving the Church faster than men.  But I wondered whether it might indicate that men, who have been disenfranchised by the world, are now flocking to the Church as the only place where they are appreciated, whereas the women of the world would not be flocking to the Church, thus the imbalance.  Alas, I don't know the source of the graphic / info, so I can't go research the data behind it.

FWIW

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Back to that "perhaps", @Carborendum recently mentioned a study showing that for the first time, men outnumber women in the Church (I think the stat was for us, but maybe it was for Christianity).  He, and others (I've seen the same study discussed on X), seemed to assume that the stat indicated women were leaving the Church faster than men.  But I wondered whether it might indicate that men, who have been disenfranchised by the world, are now flocking to the Church as the only place where they are appreciated, whereas the women of the world would not be flocking to the Church, thus the imbalance.  Alas, I don't know the source of the graphic / info, so I can't go research the data behind it.

The study showed both.  All religions showed this pattern.  And we as LDS are not immune either.  Many women are leaving religions of all types.  So far, the numbers are not all that big.  But the fact that it has gone lower than men is a new phenomenon.  We've seen it in world history.  But in America?  This is the first time.

Men flocking to the faith?  No, I haven't heard about that.  I have heard that women are leaving.  And it seems that the driving force is modern feminism.

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

.....

Back to that "perhaps", @Carborendum recently mentioned a study showing that for the first time, men outnumber women in the Church .......

This is technically flawed and easily proven to be false.  The Church was organized on April 6, 1830.  The number of members were 6 and they were all men.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And it seems that the driving force is modern feminism.

Meaning...it's Disney's fault.  

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Men flocking to the faith?  No, I haven't heard about that.  I have heard that women are leaving.  And it seems that the driving force is modern feminism.

Almost all religions are experiencing a decline in membership and activity rates. Everyone wants to think their religion is immune to this, and that’s fine, but it’s not true. Religions all across the board are struggling right now. 

[NeuroTypical]

In 2024, we had 17.25M members.    Today we have 17.51M members.   1.2% increase.   We're not losing members, we gained 250,000 members in the last year.   It is true that our yearly growth numbers continue to slow, but that's true for global population rates as well.  2025 saw only a .9% increase in humans, so we're growing at a faster pace than humanity in general. 

So yeah, Gator is right that almost all religions are declining in membership.  Across the board.  But not the Latter-day Saints - we continue to grow.  I think most of it is growth across the world and not in the US.   Probably why way over half of the announced temples are not in the US.

[HaggisShuu]

44 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

In 2024, we had 17.25M members.    Today we have 17.51M members.   1.2% increase.   We're not losing members, we gained 250,000 members in the last year.   It is true that our yearly growth numbers continue to slow, but that's true for global population rates as well.  2025 saw only a .9% increase in humans, so we're growing at a faster pace than humanity in general. 

So yeah, Gator is right that almost all religions are declining in membership.  Across the board.  But not the Latter-day Saints - we continue to grow.  I think most of it is growth across the world and not in the US.   Probably why way over half of the announced temples are not in the US.

I think Islam is doing pretty well at the moment. We are reporting growth, but I don't think this is true for most of Europe, on paper my ward has grown (with converts and children) - in reality attendance has seen a pretty severe drop off. 
 

Although I'm not sure how much this is due to dodgy record keeping. I went through our records, and a huge chunk of people on our records were unbaptised COR, now adults, or people who moved years ago, or dead people. Thanks to a bit of diligence our ward attendance went from 30% to 50% overnight, while decreasing in membership

 

Edited April 15 by HaggisShuu

[Carborendum]

It is difficult to see exactly what is happening on the global level.  But in the US we can compare some interesting numbers.

• The US birth rate is below replacement.
• The US population keeps growing at 0.5%(2023) due to immigration (both legal and illegal).
• The Church growth rate in the US is at 0.9% (2023). 
  • A lot of this is because we're still one of the leading demographics for large families. We average 2.8 children per woman vs 1.6 for the nation as a whole.
  • Some is through missionary work.  We had around 250,000 convert baptisms in 2023.  This is approximately 0.03% of the rolls (not necessarily active). (only 3% to 4% of the total growth).
  • So, the overall growth of the Church in the US is largely driven by child-of-record births and immigration. 

Any way you slice it, we appear to be growing at a faster rate than the US population at large.

EDIT: To address activity rate, we must understand that 50% is 50% for both the membership numbers as well as growth numbers.  So, comparing apples-to-apples, the growth rate numbers shown above remain the same.

Edited April 15 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To address activity rate

I’ve always thought there’s a simple cure for low activity rates: be happy.
 

It does not take great insight to grasp that people are seeking a happy place to be in this world. If we created an environment where people left happy, we’d have no issues with retention and activity. 

[HaggisShuu]

21 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve always thought there’s a simple cure for low activity rates: be happy.
 

It does not take great insight to grasp that people are seeking a happy place to be in this world. If we created an environment where people left happy, we’d have no issues with retention and activity. 

This is definitely something I could personally do better. I have a habit of trying desperately to avoid other people while at church. 

I think this is only 50% of the equation though, I think the remaining 50% comes from the individual. Our ward lacks priesthood, and we had a 20 year old man convert from just hearing the missionaries talk about the saviour in the library. He was very enthusiastic, welcomed, loved and celebrated because "Yay - an enthusiastic man has come to save the day". He left after about 2 months because his previous baptist minister told him THE TRUTH about old Joe Smith. 

A sad loss really. 

Edited April 15 by HaggisShuu

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I think this is only 50% of the equation though,

Oh, of course. There‘s no easy answer.

 

28 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

He was very enthusiastic, welcomed, loved and celebrated because "Yay - an enthusiastic man has come to save the day"

I’ve seen the same thing happen. Once the enthusiasm wears off (and it did because the ward used him as a workhorse-he was the only one under 65) you’ve got someone with nothing to do and no meaningful connections. 

[mordorbund]

On 4/14/2025 at 5:07 PM, zil2 said:

There are many who do not understand what "preside" means

Sit before.

That's why the Church makes presiding leaders sit in front of everyone else.

[mordorbund]

On 4/14/2025 at 12:09 PM, zil2 said:

Regarding women giving blessings and priesthood and such, please watch these three videos and see if they widen or alter your perspective any.  The titles sound iffy, almost as if these might be approaching apostate, but they're not. I assume the titles are designed to get people to watch.  As far as I can tell, they don't teach anything false - to the contrary, I wish these things were taught this clearly in the Church now (and decades ago), in the way these videos present them.  (There is one thing that I'm not sure they have entirely right, but I prefer to wait and see anyone else here watches and addresses it.)

False Traditions around the Priesthood PART 1

Part 2

Part 3

IMO, these are really good to help women understand the priesthood better.  Happy to talk more about them after you watch, if you wish.  Indeed, I'd be interested in discussing them with anyone, and in knowing what any priesthood holders who watch them think.

For me Bruce Porter's is the outlier in these videos as it's not as well sourced as the other two (or, a least the principles do not come up as often). When it comes to healing, the videos refer to it as the power of righteousness and a product of faith. I refer to it as a gift of the spirit - no complaints there. But Porter talks about specific rites in the patriarchal order and specifically talks about father's (and mother's) blessings. I don't necessarily disagree, but 1) I haven't seen it sourced, 2) it's not currently taught in the Church, and 3) it seems to go against what the Church instructs with respect to father's blessings as performed "by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood" (not patriarchal).

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/15/2025 at 12:44 PM, NeuroTypical said:

In 2024, we had 17.25M members.    Today we have 17.51M members.   1.2% increase.   We're not losing members, we gained 250,000 members in the last year.   It is true that our yearly growth numbers continue to slow, but that's true for global population rates as well.  2025 saw only a .9% increase in humans, so we're growing at a faster pace than humanity in general. 

So yeah, Gator is right that almost all religions are declining in membership.  Across the board.  But not the Latter-day Saints - we continue to grow.  I think most of it is growth across the world and not in the US.   Probably why way over half of the announced temples are not in the US.

Almost All  religions have grown by the numbers our Church uses.  Most churches do not count members by how many have been baptized in them.  Many churches have new members baptized quite often into them.  They do not excommunicate these people, and people do not ask to be removed from those churches.  If they counted those numbers and only those numbers without accounting for who actually come on a regular basis and actually attend their church, many churches are growing still.  Our Church counts our membership by those numbers.  Other churches do not.

They normally count their numbers by how many active members are in them.  This would be equal to if we counted how many were attending our church meetings and were active in Church.  This would probably greatly decrease what our numbers are.  I have no idea if that would show our actual true active members increasing or decreasing.  It probably would be interesting to see, but these numbers are not made public.  We may have local numbers (if you are in the Bishopric, a Clerk, or part of the Stake Presidency), but that would not be reflective on what is happening in the Church as a whole.  In truth, we have no idea what is happening within our church currently.

Some areas have as high as 60% attendance and active members, others are down to 20% or less.  I have no idea how we really compare to many of those churches which are "decreasing" in activity, as the way they count their actual numbers and those who are active and attending are different than how we account for our numbers.

 

[HaggisShuu]

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Almost All  religions have grown by the numbers our Church uses.  Most churches do not count members by how many have been baptized in them.  Many churches have new members baptized quite often into them.  They do not excommunicate these people, and people do not ask to be removed from those churches.  If they counted those numbers and only those numbers without accounting for who actually come on a regular basis and actually attend their church, many churches are growing still.  Our Church counts our membership by those numbers.  Other churches do not.

They normally count their numbers by how many active members are in them.  This would be equal to if we counted how many were attending our church meetings and were active in Church.  This would probably greatly decrease what our numbers are.  I have no idea if that would show our actual true active members increasing or decreasing.  It probably would be interesting to see, but these numbers are not made public.  We may have local numbers (if you are in the Bishopric, a Clerk, or part of the Stake Presidency), but that would not be reflective on what is happening in the Church as a whole.  In truth, we have no idea what is happening within our church currently.

Some areas have as high as 60% attendance and active members, others are down to 20% or less.  I have no idea how we really compare to many of those churches which are "decreasing" in activity, as the way they count their actual numbers and those who are active and attending are different than how we account for our numbers.

 

The skeptic in me believes that those figures are withheld because they make for grim reading. I've seen estimates for activity rates around 30% world wide. 
 

But in conference they spoken about a record number of missionaries in the field, a record number of baptisms, a record number of youth engagement with church education. And all these temples being announced. Makes me wonder if the figures aren't as bleak as I initially thought. 

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/15/2025 at 2:46 PM, LDSGator said:

I’ve always thought there’s a simple cure for low activity rates: be happy.
 

It does not take great insight to grasp that people are seeking a happy place to be in this world. If we created an environment where people left happy, we’d have no issues with retention and activity. 

Happiness is not so simple though.

The principle of losing our life to find our life, sacrifice bringing blessing, and that joy comes from faith, righteousness, humility, service, obedience, and effort, are not intuitive to the human (natural man) condition.

People are (in their fallen "natural man" way) seeking self-fulfillment, money, pleasure, and ease, laughter, fun, and a painless existence. The gospel does not intuitively provide these things (though it does in a round about way). The core principles of Christ's gospel amount to denying oneself and taking up one's cross to follow the Savior.

These principles are obvious to those who've engaged in them, even in practical matters of life (such as working out and eating right to be healthy, being careful with money and working hard to be wealthy, etc., etc.). But the world, more and more, pushes the ideas of "deserve" and "self" and "victim" and "follow your passion" and all the Disney (a.k.a. Satan) garbage like that, which all feels, to the natural man, like how we should find/seek happiness. The problem is that it doesn't work.

So I'm not disagreeing with you. An environment where people left happy is, you're correct, the key. But what that environment looks like is sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and so forth. And that's a tough pill to swallow, even though it's the actual medicine we all need.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

The skeptic in me believes that those figures are withheld because they make for grim reading. I've seen estimates for activity rates around 30% world wide. 
 

But in conference they spoken about a record number of missionaries in the field, a record number of baptisms, a record number of youth engagement with church education. And all these temples being announced. Makes me wonder if the figures aren't as bleak as I initially thought. 

If you have LDS Tools, you should be able to see stats on average weekly sacrament meeting attendance in your unit (under “Reports —> Quarterly Reports —> Indicators of Conversion and Church Growth”) and how many members of your unit have received their endowment and how many of those have current temple recommends (under “Reports —> Unit statistics”).

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If you have LDS Tools, you should be able to see stats on average weekly sacrament meeting attendance in your unit (under “Reports —> Quarterly Reports —> Indicators of Conversion and Church Growth”) and how many members of your unit have received their endowment and how many of those have current temple recommends (under “Reports —> Unit statistics”).

Alas, only leadership and certain other callings get this.  The only report I have is "Class and Quorum Attendance" (but I only see RS and I think it's because I'm an RS teacher - since I see everyone's attendance, not just mine, and I don't see my SS class/attendance).

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/18/2025 at 8:04 AM, zil2 said:

Alas, only leadership and certain other callings get this.  The only report I have is "Class and Quorum Attendance" (but I only see RS and I think it's because I'm an RS teacher - since I see everyone's attendance, not just mine, and I don't see my SS class/attendance).

Interesting. Mine started working when I was SS President, but it’s kept working now even though I’m just a lowly temple and family history leader. 🤷‍♂️

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting. Mine started working when I was SS President, but it’s kept working now even though I’m just a lowly temple and family history leader. 🤷‍♂️

Someone probably forgot to fully update LCR.

[Vort]

On 4/14/2025 at 9:19 PM, Anddenex said:

The other part is, we shouldn't be frustrated with well-meaning truthful comments. The probability of the statement being shared is true.

Unlikely. Such blanket (and false) generalizations do no service either to the men demeaned by them or even to the women, many of whom wrongly conclude that they are doomed to be eternally attached to a lesser being. This is Satanic doctrine.

I remember while growing up that we young men would often receive lessons about how pure and wonderful the sisters were, how we were required to treat them with respect, and how God would demand of us an accounting of how we treated His daughters and would be very unhappy indeed with those men who did not treat the women well. I naively assumed that women were receiving substantially the same teachings about men. To my surprise, in my adult years I discovered that the young women were very rarely if ever taught that they owed the men respect, and that the adult women were never taught such things nor discussed them in Relief Society meetings. (My wife tried bringing the topic up once in RS, and was effectively shouted down by several of the other women.)

No, women are not naturally more righteous than men or better loved by God than men. These are, again, Satanic falsehoods. Many have noted that men, not women, hold the Priesthood. Some have bizarrely tried to explain this by claiming that men need the Priesthood because they are insufficent without it, but women don't, since they (the women) already naturally have all the spiritual power they need for reconciliation and salvation. I stand slack-jawed at this openly apostate teaching, that women are too righteous to need the power of the Priesthood exercised in their lives for salvation. I'm sure Jesus Christ will be surprised to learn this news, both in His role as Redeemer and Mediator and in his status as one of those insufficient men.

Men and women are both human and are both children of God. But as a group, men have certain strengths that women tend to lack and certain weaknesses that women tend to excel at. Bottom line: Anyone who tells you that women are by nature better or more Godly than men should be immediately and studiously ignored. Teach your children to ignore such teachings, and to ignore those who promulgate those teachings.

Edited 17 hours ago by Vort

[Carborendum]

On 4/19/2025 at 2:51 PM, zil2 said:

Someone probably forgot to fully update LCR.

I was a ward clerk for a while.  When they released me, it took a full year before my access went back to normal levels.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/21/2025 at 1:18 PM, Vort said:

Unlikely. Such blanket (and false) generalizations do no service either to the men demeaned by them or even to the women, many of whom wrongly conclude that they are doomed to be eternally attached to a lesser being. This is Satanic doctrine.

I remember while growing up that we young men would often receive lessons about how pure and wonderful the sisters were, how we were required to treat them with respect, and how God would demand of us an accounting of how we treated His daughters and would be very unhappy indeed with those men who did not treat the women well. I naively assumed that women were receiving substantially the same teachings about men. To my surprise, in my adult years I discovered that the young women were very rarely if ever taught that they owed the men respect, and that the adult women were never taught such things nor discussed them in Relief Society meetings. (My wife tried bringing the topic up once in RS, and was effectively shouted down by several of the other women.)

No, women are not naturally more righteous then men or better loved by God than men. These are, again, Satanic falsehoods. Many have noted that men, not women, hold the Priesthood. Some have bizarrely tried to explain this by claiming that men need the Priesthood because they are insufficent without it, but women don't, since they (the women) already naturally have all the spiritual power they need for reconciliation and salvation. I stand slack-jawed at this openly apostate teaching, that women are too righteous to need the power of the Priesthood exercised in their lives for salvation. I'm sure Jesus Christ will be surprised to learn this news, both in His role as Redeemer and Mediator and in his status as one of those insufficient men.

Men and women are both human and are both children of God. But as a group, men have certain strengths that women tend to lack and certain weaknesses that women tend to excel at. Bottom line: Anyone who tells you that women are by nature better or more Godly than men should be immediately and studiously ignored. Teach your children to ignore such teachings, and to ignore those who promulgate those teachings.

Moreover, even IF statistically more women make it to the Celestial Kingdom than men (which, you know....considering plural marriage.... but I digress....), the assumption that therefore any given woman is more righteous than any given man is classic biased stereotyping.

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

any given woman is more righteous than any given man is classic biased stereotyping.

I’ve mentioned this before but the idea that women are more holy than men was shoved down our throats growing up. At our confirmation the bishop (roughly equal to SP) ranted about boys being out of control and women being pure and innocent.
 

I can give more examples too. Amazingly, Catholic leaders in the 90’a would bash men constantly then complain about no man wanting to be a priest. Think hard guys. Real hard.  

Edited Tuesday at 08:44 PM by LDSGator

[Vort]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I can give more examples too. Amazingly, Catholic leaders in the 90’a would bash men constantly then complain about no man wanting to be a priest. Think hard guys. Real hard.

SMH