- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across the following article through some Presbyterian friends who are lamenting the decreasing membership of their denomination. I thought everyone here should see it – NOT as an “all is well in Zion” comparison (since you all know I don’t believe that) but simply to reinforce that some things that seem particularly challenging to the LDS Church (or, to some people, even seem unique to the LDS Church) are not isolated to us. In fact, using only sheer membership numbers and growth rate, the LDS Church still is doing fairly well in comparison to most other denominations. From the article, “The membership total of the newly formed PCUSA in 1983 was 3,131,228.” Now it is 1,849,496.
That is a decrease of 1,281,732 – or 41% in the last 30 years.There is NO other message in this post; I am not trying to say anything other than what I said above. I just think perspective is important in any discussion.
“2012 statistics show dramatic decrease in PCUSA membership, congregations”http://www.layman.org/2012-statistics-show-dramatic-decrease-in-pcusa-membership-congregations/ I agree. I learned through my non-profit service that a lot of the same problems I have witnessed in the church — such as organization egocentrism, sometimes at the expense of the org’s very mission — happens everywhere. I would like to see statistics or precedents on how other churches handle dissent, and whether the LDS church is more heavy-handed than other churches out there. It’s nearly impossible to accurately compare denominations’ numbers. Do you track: – those who actively attend? How does each church define that? Do they all track it? How frequent is active?
– those who pay tithing? Do they all require tithes? Do they track at an individual level?
– those who profess affiliation? Does it matter if they don’t attend at all?
– those who profess belief? How much belief? What if they affiliate but don’t believe it all? Where is the line drawn?
– those who were baptized? What about the churches that don’t require a new baptism to join but accept other denominations’ baptisms? What about those who were baptized but then disaffiliated?
It’s never a simply thing to track and compare.
I agree, which is why I didn’t try to draw any specific conclusions. 
Then I guess all we have left is uninformed discussion and opinion. Oh goody! Sounds like your run of the mill RS lesson. Quote:Sounds like your run of the mill RS lesson.
😆 😆 Presbyterians are a lot more realistic about their numbers. Their congregation is aging though and they do not retain the young well.
Also their buildings get very low use. Some of them are only used on Sunday and Wednesday mornings.
We have no idea how many members belong to the LDS church. None.
We know what is reported, but there is no way to ever verify the truth of the matter. This is just one example or comparison of the LDS church and Orwellian 1984.
Quote:In 1984, the Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled.
In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all.Quote:For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record?He tried to remember in what year he had first heard mention of Big Brother. He thought it must have been at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be certain. In the Party histories, of course, Big Brother figured as the leader and guardian of the Revolution since its very earliest days. His exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with glass sides. There was no knowing how much of this legend was true and how much invented. Winston could not even remember at what date the Party itself had come into existence. (1.3.22) I’d guess the worldwide figure is perhaps 5,6,7 million. There is, as pointed out, a question as to who is a member. We have a family, the S.s who I WOULD define as members – kids attend, and I#’ve seen them periodically down the years. No TRs, parents don’t take sacrament. cwald, the same can be said of any religious denomination – and even of quite a few non-religious organizations. I’ve seen serious number fudging even in higher education, and colleges and universities are supposed to be bastions of transparent honesty as much as religions. Seriously, every single denomination has the exact same issue – and some of them report their numbers in ways that are FAR more subjective and sketchy than the LDS Church (like some Protestant conversion numbers counting all people who attend a revival and raise their hands to give their lives to Christ and be saved, regardless of any formal ordinance performance or regular church attendance). The LDS Church’s measures are about as objective and simple as it gets: the number of people who have been baptized and not asked to have their names removed. The leadership also actively and openly distinguishes between active and inactive (or less active) members, even if they don’t publish estimates externally – and many denominations don’t even do that. I even saw one Southern Baptist Convention discussion of membership reports that praised the LDS Church for the way it addresses membership and activity rates – and that group generally would risk Hell to avoid praising the LDS Church.
Cynicism is one thing; complaining about reported membership numbers as if it is a unique aspect of the LDS Church comparable to Orwellian society is silly.
Really? Can you supply any data that would collaborate the church’s claim of membership?
They could very easy make a membership database available to the public, like many other churches do. Old-Timer wrote:cwald, the same can be said of any religious denomination – and even of quite a few non-religious organizations. I’ve seen serious number fudging even in higher education, and colleges and universities are supposed to be bastions of transparent honesty as much as religions.
Seriously, every single denomination has the exact same issue – and some of them report their numbers in ways that are FAR more subjective and sketchy than the LDS Church (like some Protestant conversion numbers counting all people who attend a revival and raise their hands to give their lives to Christ and be saved, regardless of any formal ordinance performance or regular church attendance). The LDS Church’s measures are about as objective and simple as it gets: the number of people who have been baptized and not asked to have their names removed. The leadership also actively and openly distinguishes between active and inactive (or less active) members, even if they don’t publish estimates externally – and many denominations don’t even do that. I even saw one Southern Baptist Convention discussion of membership reports that praised the LDS Church for the way it addresses membership and activity rates – and that group generally would risk Hell to avoid praising the LDS Church.
Cynicism is one thing; complaining about reported membership numbers as if it is a unique aspect of the LDS Church comparable to Orwellian society is silly.
I never said it was unique to the LDS church.
I will not comment about the comparison with Orwellian society out of respect for the mission of stayLDS.
I am not sure total membership of any organization really makes any difference to its truth claims. Even if the church is not adding any new members at all, the average member would find a way to spin that as a faith promoting statistic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.