- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m responding to this quote from another thread but I think this issue is significant enough for a separate topic: mormonheretic wrote:
If you look for the good in the church, you will find it, and make yourself happier in the process. There are many good things in the church too, and that’s why it is growing, not shrinking. I am always surprised at how many people think the church isn’t growing, when in fact it really is.
From 1985 to 1995 the Church membership grew from 5.9 million to 9.3 million or about a 58% increase. By comparison from 1999 to 2009 the membership grew from 10.75 million to 13.82 million or an increase of about 29%. So while it is technically true that the Church is still growing the rate of growth has slowed significantly from the way it was before.
Another thing that is misleading about these statistics is that they count inactive members such as a large number of recent converts (especially in Latin America) that no longer consider themselves to be LDS. So even though many inactive members have not bothered to formally resign and have their names removed from the Church membership records many of them are probably not going to raise their children as members of the LDS Church. The actual number of active members is supposedly something like 4 million worldwide and I doubt this number has grown at nearly the same rate as the total number of members they typically cite.
My question is why has the growth slowed down so much in recent years and what does the future hold for the LDS Church if the current trends continue? My guess is that some of the main reasons for the decreased growth are anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet, lower birth rates, and decreasing interest in formal religion in general (the number of Catholics and Southern Baptists are reportedly declining in the US and Canada). Is there anything the Church and individual members can do about this or is this mostly inevitable and out of our control?
If seen the statistic of 60% inactivity thrown around for a couple of years. So any population statistics can be reduced to 40% of that value to gauge the number of actively participating members (which would be a better comparison to most other churches). I think a big part of the distaste for organized religion is cyclical in history. We are at a low-point in a normal 80 to 100 year cycle where individuality and distrust of big organizations are at a height. I don’t think this time we live in is that unique looking back over longer periods of the historical ebb and flow of western culture. We humans tend to build things up over a couple generations, then a decline happens due to dysfunction that creeps into centralization of power. When that collapses (as it needs to), people begin crave organization and stability again (being tired of the chaos). That is when the upsurge in organization happens again.
As to the specific case of Mormonism, I think it is natural that the rate of growth will slow. There’s only so many people that our mythology and world view will connect with. Most other churches splinter apart long before the point that we have reached. So thinking of that, I find our continued rate of growth and cohesion to be a success story as opposed to spelling doom for our future.
There was an interesting chapter in the book David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism that talked about the two warring philosophies of missionary work: –
baptize many, quickly.This approach yields a lot of convert baptisms and low retention rates. But its proponents feel that the fact that those people had contact long enough to have that spiritual moment may return later or may have family members who do later. –
baptize few, slowly. This approach yields fewer convert baptism with higher retention rates. Members typically prefer this approach, but it’s much more methodical, and discouraging to the young missionaries who are full of energy and enthusiasm. They don’t see as much “success” and get discouraged. Frankly, there are potential pitfalls both ways. The first approach can be a “baptize ’em all and let God sort ’em out” approach – people baptizing children without parents’ permission or the mentally challenged. The second approach can be too rigorous, almost talking people out of joining or making them feel like they will never be ready. The investigators can feel discouraged over time.
In any case, I think we are seeing in our numbers some of the shift away from the first approach and toward the second. But the “boom” we had that took us from 1 million to 13 million was because of the first approach being more common. That’s my view anyway.
Interesting point, Brian, about the cycles. I’d never heard that. Maybe that’s right…dunno. There was an interesting article about a year ago in the USA Today about this. I hope I can still access the link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm A few things that make sense to me are that first, there is instant access to the educated world about any subject, or debate about it, via the internet. It is difficult to “sell” a person on a particular faith mythology without them easily looking into the challenges of the story. And let’s face it, the JS Story is far from logically credible.
Next, again because of the easy access to information, we see that there are many dogmatic religions that claim to be the one true church. The daily news shows us that there are strong, life-giving convictions to that dogma, albeit diametrically opposed to what we might believe. That causes suspicion about any claim to unique connection and favoritism from the Divine. Thus, the educated world is leaving these types of religions. Less educated populations are joining in droves…as religions reach out for converts. But (practically) they tend to be more of a drain than an asset as they use welfare type dollars from the institutions.
My own thought and perception is that religions must evolve or die. They must soften the claim as the one and only truth (and they are, IMO). This is divisive and less PC today. Focusing on the tribal uniqueness, and the positives of a social, cultural system will keep them alive…and I see the LDS church as being very skilled at accomplishing this. It certainly has the momentum and wealth to continue being a positive force in our worldwide society.
A number of points, since organizational theory and restructuring are part of my “professional expertise”: 1)
NEVER, and I mean never, use annual percentage growth stats to disparage growth.It simply is not a good statistical method. When the LDS Church went from 6 members to 100 members in less than a month, its membership grew over 1600% – meaning over 20,000% annually. It’s all been downhill from there– based on annual percentage growth. 2) The philosophy of baptisms has changed, as Hawk said – and we now are SOLIDLY in a “baptize with caution” mode. If you doubt that, read “Preach My Gospel” carefully – and listen to one of the talks from the General Conference that just ended. One of the apostles said in crystal clear terms that the Church will ALWAYS be a tiny minority of the world. (Can’t remember which one. Help anyone?) I am convinced this is believed deeply by “The Brethren” and was stated to try to squash the runaway “fastest growing church in the world” and “next Catholicism” hyperbole that was so prevalent a while ago.
3) Successful newly formed organizations always position themselves in opposition to the established alternatives. They have to do so to gain any traction. As they become an “established option”, they must re-position themselves accordingly in order to continue to thrive. For example, Microsoft used to be the innovative new kid attacking the system; now they are the system. The same can be said of AT&T, Intel, GE, P&G and MANY more organizations. The LDS Church is no different from an organizational standpoint.
Explosive growth works in the beginning; it usually is catastrophic (literally) for more mature organizations.4) For mature organizations, “controlled growth” is critical to avoid ultimate splintering and siphoning off of talent and leadership – and the LDS Church has been practicing controlled growth for at least ten years now, and, in some areas of deepest concern, for quite a bit longer than that.
There is more I could say, but, lastly, I also have done some sample comparisons with other religions.
There really isn’t ANY other denomination that has a significantly higher activity rate than the LDS Church – and most of them don’t even try to report their own rate.When you add that to the FAR more rigorous commitments required by the LDS Church than most other denominations to be considered “active” . . . Things don’t look nearly as bleak as the critics paint them. I’m totally fine with 40% – which, by the way, would be roughly five million members, just to be precise. It’s easy to criticize in isolation, but when viewed broadly and comparatively, it’s quite astonishing that it’s so high.
Old-Timer wrote:A number of points, since organizaational theory and restructuring are part of my “professional expertise”:
1)
NEVER, and I mean never, use annual percentage growth stats to disparage growth.It simply is not a good statistical method. When the LDS Church went from 6 members to 100 members in less than a month, its membership grew over 1600% – meaning over 20,000% annually. It’s all been downhill from there– based on annual percentage growth. 2) The philosophy of baptisms has changed, as Hawk said – and we now are SOLIDLY in a “baptize with caution” mode. If you doubt that, read “Preach My Gospel” carefully – and listen to one of the talks from the General Conference that just ended…
Right I understand that it can vary a lot from one year to the next but I thought some of this would average out over ten years and give a rough idea of what is going on over the long term. I still believe it’s a real trend related to the factors I mentioned more than any conscious effort to baptize less.
The official resignations definitely look like they have been going up which I really think is directly related to anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet. Perhaps the most alarming thing to see is how many return missionaries are leaving the Church. Traditionally these were probably some of the most stalwart, enthusiastic, and well-trained members we had and now it seems like they are jumping ship more than ever.
My son-in-law is a bishop in the church, true & blue, a wonderful asset to my family. Recently we had a candid talk about sustained membership and lack of growth. In our area wards are being consolidated and a nearby stake was just dissolved. He said quietly & openly to me, “I can’t for the world think of a reason why non-members would want to join our church. When you consider tithing, multiple callings, obedience to authority, temple restrictions, who would choose it ? ” He had recently buried his father, who was a Russian convert. None of his people ever joined, though he had raised his own family LDS. At the funeral, which was 80% non-Mormon, a wonderful Russian choir sang the hymns of the Czars. There then followed a half hour preaching service on the plan of salvation by a LDS bishop. You should have seen the look on the faces of the choir who remained on the stage behind that speaker. They looked so uncomfortable. They hurried away from the church after the closing prayer. George wrote:He said quietly & openly to me, “I can’t for the world think of a reason why non-members would want to join our church. When you consider tithing, multiple callings, obedience to authority, temple restrictions, who would choose it ?
Exactly. Unless you were raised in the church to believe this is the norm it is going to get more difficult to get educated converts. Life is just getting so complex and difficult, to add the church responsibilities on top of all that it is just going to lose its appeal. Frankly if you painted a real picture of the overall responsibilities to converts I doubt we would get as many as we do.
Of course it is all based on it being the one true church so many would say no sacrifice is to great. So if we ever stop claiming one trueness then what do we have to offer.
Rix wrote:Interesting point, Brian, about the cycles. I’d never heard that. Maybe that’s right…dunno.
I am a fan of the sociologists William Strauss and Neil Howe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_Howe In particular, their book “The Fourth Turning” talks about four generational archetypes they find cycling over and over again going back 500 years into western history. We are currently living through a similar atmosphere that existed most recently in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Humans are doomed to repeat history.
I’m not trying to be a Pollyanna here, but I also have to point out that the actual numerical growth of the Church in the two ten-year periods mentioned in the post (1985-1995 and 1999-2009) is almost identical. The Church really is growing, both the overall membership AND the “active” membership. One more thing:
I don’t know the source right now, but the activity rate in the early 1900’s generally is understood to have been about 15-20%. Also, the “leave rate” was MUCH higher in the first twenty years of the Restoration than it is now.
All I’m saying is that the numbers aren’t bleak when you look at the comprehensive issue over our history.
There’s a lesson in this for lots of other topics, if you really consider the implications across topics.
Cadence wrote:George wrote:He said quietly & openly to me, “I can’t for the world think of a reason why non-members would want to join our church. When you consider tithing, multiple callings, obedience to authority, temple restrictions, who would choose it ?
Exactly. Unless you were raised in the church to believe this is the norm it is going to get more difficult to get educated converts. Life is just getting so complex and difficult, to add the church responsibilities on top of all that it is just going to lose its appeal…Of course it is all based on it being the one true church so many would say no sacrifice is to great. So if we ever stop claiming one trueness then what do we have to offer.
I agree that the high demands of the Church are probably the single biggest factor that limits sustained long-term growth. Not only does this limit who will join in the first place but it weeds out existing members in large numbers. Even some members who have been faithful for over 30 years eventually get worn down and give up.
However, these demands haven’t really changed much in a long time. What I think has changed recently is that more members are starting to question the justification for these demands. It’s a little bit easier to sacrifice something if you really believe that it’s what God wants you to do and that you will be blessed in this life and the next for it than if you think this is simply coming down from mere mortals.
On my mission in Brazil there were a lot of Pentecostal/Evangelical churches that were very strict. Not only did many of these Evangelicals not drink or smoke and give lots of money to these churches but they didn’t watch TV or listen to popular music either. I was surprised by how many of these churches there were and that they were always full. I don’t know how to explain their success, but my point is that I don’t believe the demands like tithing, callings, or the WoW are the only thing limiting the Church’s growth because I have seen counter examples to this theory.
Brian Johnston wrote:
As to the specific case of Mormonism, I think it is natural that the rate of growth will slow. There’s only so many people that our mythology and world view will connect with.Rix wrote:
It is difficult to “sell” a person on a particular faith mythology without them easily looking into the challenges of the story. And let’s face it, the JS Story is far from logically credible.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the Church is that they are desperately trying to sell and hold onto what is essentially a myth, the idea of (nearly) infallible prophets starting with Joseph Smith. Now I’m not trying to claim that most active members actually believe that the prophets are perfect but I do believe that the majority of TBMs aren’t aware of the tip of the iceberg of some of the contradictions and non faith-promoting information that exist to discredit the LDS prophets.
Personally, I think the Church should move in the direction of de-emphasizing some of the prophet mythology and simplify things so that fellowship in the Church doesn’t depend quite so much on unwavering belief in so many specific hard-line doctrines and rules. Sure I can’t really control what the Church leaders at the top of the hierarchy do but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with everything they say. Maybe the Church culture can gradually change over time from the bottom up but the problem is that many dissatisfied members just don’t have the patience to stick around long enough to make a difference this way.
Quote:Personally, I think the Church should move in the direction of de-emphasizing some of the prophet mythology and simplify things so that fellowship in the Church doesn’t depend quite so much on unwavering belief in so many specific hard-line doctrines and rules.
I agree – if anyone wanted my opinion, I’d recommend that we focus on the practical value of church membership, that it is a really effective way to live a Christian life with many practical opportunities to grow, develop, learn, and serve. The problem I see is with the superficial stance inherent in the products being sold:
– prophet with direct access to God = an answer, not a method to finding your own answers. Instead there should be focus on our belief in individual personal revelation and the gift of the Holy Ghost for all confirmed members.
– saving ordinances = a unique pass to Heaven. Instead, I’d focus on the practical value of being a covenant-making people who make promises and commitments to behave and live like Christians, not just talk about it conceptually.
Anyway, that’s how I would spin those. I would not de-emphasize the requirements of lay callings because I think it’s one of the unique practical values the church provides. Look at how awesome our youth are because they have to run the youth program and do talks in front of a huge congregation and serve a two-year mission. Those are some amazing benefits of the church, and why Mormons often have stand-out skills among Christian sects.
Fwiw, Hawk’s suggestions actually are being implemented at the top. Receiving and living by personal revelation has been one of the major themes of General Conference for at least the last three conferences – and I can’t remember the last time I’ve heard someone at General Conference even hint that prophets are infallible. hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:if anyone wanted my opinion, I’d recommend that we focus on the practical value of church membership,
Exactly —- this is why I was so torn about staying or leaving the church. I believe I could have found the spiritual aspects on my own – but I wanted my kids to have the practical advantages that church membership has given me. SL is certainly moving this direction, especially just in the last few years, and I’m grateful for it.
Quote:“From 1985 to 1995 the Church membership grew from 5.9 million to 9.3 million or about a 58% increase. By comparison from 1999 to 2009 the membership grew from 10.75 million to 13.82 million or an increase of about 29%. So while it is technically true that the Church is still growing the rate of growth has slowed significantly from the way it was before.”
I find these statistics to be completely unbelievable. Would like a source. Growth of that kind in any organization would be so phenomenal as to break records. I don’t buy it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.