- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
HiJolly, I know you disagree with much that I have written. Fair enough. If you wish to move the discussion along, you need to provide evidence and/or examples of what you mean. I really didn’t understand some of your concerns. Those I felt I understood, I tried to answer.
You may not see the church being run by a totalitarian gerontocracy, but I would need you to explain how that title doesn’t fit. Sadly, I think it does. Feel free to consult a dictionary. Sorry you felt I was attacking you. I never intended to. I apologize for making you feel that way. I just honestly didn’t get where you were coming from. Still, I find it interesting that you feel safe in judging my ability to love the church. I certainly don’t think you are right. In case you have been unable to understand my relationship with the church at present, all I can say is that I do not like the direction it is going. I think that the loss of freedom of thought, insistence on conformity, shallowness of the quality of teaching at church, and the high level of deception being practiced by the current leadership has really had a negative impact on the church. I think that is born out by the fact that the church has ceased growing, and the fact that the younger generation is leaving the church in droves. Something needs to be done by the leadership to fix those problems. I fail to see how attacking me personally and refusing to intelligently discuss the problems will help the situation. I mean, the first step in fixing a problem is to be aware of the problem, then analyze the problems, then make plans to fix the problem, and then implement the procedures to fix the problem. Currently, the way I see things in church is that when someone says there is a problem, the response is to deny that a problem exists. The next response is to blame the person and call him evil and a sinner. Neither an ostrich-like approach or blaming the whistle blower will ever solve any problem.
Gabe, Thanks for an insightful comment.
Gabe P wrote:I hear you about prophets being fallible and the examples that abound, but there are certainly scriptures in our canon that suggest that the basic direction of a true prophet will always be sound. For example, the excerpts following OD 1 (
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 ). At the least, one can make an argument that the scriptures don’t clearly make the argument that prophets can lead the church astray in a fundamental way.My only quibble is that what you cite is NOT scripture. If you look closely, you will see that the part about the prophet leading the church astray is from excerpts from talks. Those comments are no more canonized scripture than McConkie’s introductions to chapters of the BOM. I know some believe that whatever is said by a prophet or said in General Conference is scripture, but that idea is not scriptural.
My feeling is that in this information age that we live in, there needs to be more and not less openness and honesty about the church. I think the investigator who doesn’t look things up on the Internet is a fool. The leaders constantly say for us to trust them because they are inspired, but they really avoid saying or doing anything that they can be called on. That kind of deceptive behavior has and will continue to backfire.
I have not yet gotten to the point where I feel that more members would be hurt than helped by honesty. I sincerely hope you are wrong about that. You are right about some of the causes of apostasy, but don’t forget that bad leadership was also involved in some cases. Isaiah 9:16 “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.” Bad leadership is a killer.
Thanks. Yes, I suppose you’re right about that. I spoke rather loosely of scripture. There are verses in the D&C that come close to that, but you’re right that they don’t explicitly come right out and make the statement. We do teach that the conference talks have a quasi-scriptural quality, but if one’s feeling that the leadership is manipulative, I can see how that wouldn’t be very persuasive. Bad leadership is certainly a problem. I think one can make the argument that the Church’s leaders are exactly as you say. I see it a bit more charitably, but I can’t deny that you’ve got significant support for your view of it. I would certainly run things in a more open way if it were me. I think bad leadership, to the extent that it’s a problem in the Church today, probably will always be a problem. Those who question leadership at all are marginalized in the Church now, and the structure by which one becomes a leader in the Church favors orthodoxy above all else (which makes perfect sense, even if you do think of leadership callings as 100% inspired). I guess what I’m saying is that it’s just not a problem we can solve, so I try not to worry about it. If you feel strongly that the leadership needs correction in these areas, you should certainly speak up. The problem is that there are three basic groups of people: orthodox Mormons, borderlands Mormons, and nonmembers. The nonmembers don’t really care either way, and the borderlands Mormons already probably share your view. Moreover, only the orthodox actually have any power in the Church hierarchy, and questioning just isn’t welcomed there. So the choice comes down to martyrdom (whether by excommunication or alienation from the mainstream to the point that nobody listens), silence, or a very gradual attempt to change things from within.
So, I guess that’s a disturbing message, but I think the leadership issue is probably the most discouraging for us. Local circumstances tend to be more easily changed by us, while doctrinal issues can be resolved by simply deciding independently what we want to believe. We have no ability to change the leadership or impact it in a meaningful way. So we’ve just got to decide how we’re going to react to what will always be a disappointing leadership in one way or another.
Shederlaomach, Frankly, I have stayed out of the discussion largely because I have been having a hard time articulating what I want to say properly. I can see both sides of what is being said, and I also have sincere concerns about many things, but, in the end, I just don’t see everything you are describing in such black-and-white, alarmist terms as you are presenting them.
Having said that, my main objection is to what I see as a basic misrepresentation of baptism, retention and growth stats. It seems that the justification you are citing most fundamentally for your charges of aged ineptitude is that “people are leaving in droves” and “the growth rate is stagnant”. Frankly, that simply isn’t true (especially in relation to the Church’s historical trends – with many eras having MUCH lower activity rates and MUCH higher “leaving rates” than our current levels) – and even to the extent that retention and growth are critical (with which I agree completely), the Church is one of the few Christian denominations that actually still is growing (both in absolute new initiate rates AND self-identification rates). Almost all others are shrinking and have been shrinking for some time now – not just as a percent of the overall population, but in actual numbers. I will try to find the latest studies again, but here are some tidbits that I have found recently, with some of it coming straight off of a PowerPoint training done by the Q12 last year:
1) The “real activity rate” (meaning the percent of members who actually attend services at least monthly) is HIGHER in the LDS Church than in the Southern Baptist Convention – even with the MUCH higher practical commitment required of Mormons. Also, many SBC leaders are demanding that they excommunicate chronic non-attenders and quit counting them as “real members”. Right now, they excommunicate even less often than the LDS Church does.
2) Our retention rate for YSA’s (the lowest number we have in the entire church) is not lower than any other denomination. That group disassociates with religion across the board, and the numbers are abysmal everywhere. YSA’s who do attend church regularly generally associate with non-denominational congregations rather than with established denominations.
3) The LDS reactivation rate across a lifetime ends up being around 67%. The LDS Church refuses to count or claim this number, preferring to state the actual “current activity rate” of roughly 40% – again, which puts it near the top of the heap within Christianity at large.
4) We are baptizing roughly 300,000 converts per year, and the average baptism rate per missionary has gone up over the last 5 years since the “raise the bar” announcement.
5) The new convert baptism rate in the US and Canada is roughly 0% – but that is measured in terms of the number of convert baptisms in comparison to the previous year, NOT overall membership. That simply means we are baptizing roughly the same number of people each year – not that our overall growth is stagnant. The new convert baptism rate internationally is about 5%-6%, meaning we are baptizing about 5% MORE people each year internationally than the previous year. The overall new convert baptism rate world-wide is about 4% (higher than the previous year) – not stagnant.
6) The other religions you listed as experiencing “millions of new members” aren’t doing so in the studies I’ve seen. Evangelical numbers are notoriously inaccurate, since they often count “souls saved” in their international figures – and that’s determined not by prolonged attendance but rather in a one time event where they confess Jesus and are saved. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists report regular church attendance, NOT official ordinances of entrance and self-identification – meaning that someone who attends JW services for three years but is never baptized (like an investigator on my mission) is counted as a member in the reports. If we did that, our numbers would go up greatly. The “growth rate” might not change, assuming a fairly constant flow of investigators and visitors, but the overall membership numbers would increase. Every other denomination is dropping membership, not simply experiencing stagnant new conversion rates in one hemisphere.
7) The Church has NEVER been more financially sound, by ALL reasonable estimates I have read – which is interesting as we sort through the current fiscal crisis. Frankly, many complain about how “rich”the church is and the rapid increase in building-related expenditures, but I wonder how “prophetic” that focus might look if global financial conditions worsen at all in the near future (or even simply don’t reverse soon) – meaning that the Church might have expanded for future growth in the only time it was reasonable to do so. If the Church is financially secure (and debt free) through this hard time, while other churches face harsh realities tied to their own financial conditions . . . I don’t think that’s far-fetched, given what I’ve heard from many people outside the Church already.
Look, as I have said in other threads, I believe there are serious issues within the Church – that elements of apostasy exist still and that they ebb and flow constantly. I also believe there is serious abuse of authority at all levels of our structural governance. I’m not trying to say at all that your concerns are illegitimate as overall issues, and I honestly feel for you deeply. However, I simply disagree with the severity of the issues as you have presented them – and especially that these issues are unique to the Church or radically more striking within the Church than elsewhere. I simply can’t characterize the Church as “on the brink of collapse” by ANY stretch of the imagination, and, in fact, the Church still is looked upon from the outside generally as a marked exception to the serious issues most other denominations are facing right now.
Honestly, I think this is one case where your own personal experiences are coloring your objectivity and leading you to doom and gloom conclusions that objective analysis simply doesn’t support. I’m not totally objective myself, and I’m not claiming my conclusions are totally objective, but mine are based to a large degree on what more objective, outside sources are saying about us and other groups, as well. In relation to the issues you are addressing, those outside voices simply don’t support your conclusions, imo.
Ray, I’m glad you joined the discussion. I have been studying the rate of growth and retention for some time. I feel confident in the data that I presented. I would urge you to read David Stewart’s book
The Law of the Harvest. You might be surprised at how bad the situation is. That old saying of how there are lies, damned lies, and statistics is true. You can find someone, somewhere who will say whatever you wish to find. There are still people coming in the front door, but an equal number are leaving out the back door. Look at the CUNY survey results cited earlier in this thread. The church used to also report the number of men in the Melchizedek priesthood and the endowments performed in the temple. They have stopped reporting those numbers. Why? I good indicator of real growth is the number of stakes being created, and that has slid to about 40 new stake worldwide per year. Please provide documentation of your statistics, and I will review them. Not all Christian churches are losing ground. As far as the JWs and SDA, I would refer you again to Cumorah.com. They are far more honest about reporting their growth than our church is.
I don’t think I’ve ever said the church was having financial problems. Even though only a small percentage of the church pay tithing, the church is in great shape financially. I would just like to see more concern for the poor and needy and less spent in building shopping malls and empty temples, but maybe it is just because I really believe that people matter most.
I was surprised when I found how bad the situation in the church really is. Again, if you have some sources, please cite them. I really would like to be wrong about this. The sad truth is that our church has maybe 3-4 million members who come to church regularly. Probably half of those active members pay tithing and attend the temple. Growth has virtually stagnated in the truth. It really isn’t just my twisted opinion.
Given the South American experience, I don’t know that stake creation is a good measure of growth. I think an equally compelling interpretation would be that the Church is more concerned now about maintaining stakes with enough active people to support the Church’s programs, so they err on the side of not creating them. Shederlaomach, It’s late here, and I have to get up early, but I looked at the site you mentioned. Frankly, they are having their own cake and eating it, too. I’ll try to give specifics on Monday, but they are using certain stats to discount the LDS Church in some chapters and then using those same stats in the opposite way to highlight the “success” of other denominations.
I know the leader is an active member of the Church, based on his biographical description, but I’m bothered by the fact that nearly every conclusion is cast in the most negative light possible – even if the stats have to be used differently in various areas in order to do so.
Again, I understand there are serious problems the Church is facing, but that study didn’t convince me that the Church is on the precipice like you are saying. If anything, the actual conclusion is, essentially, the LDS Church isn’t doing nearly as well as the Church’s overall membership stats make it appear – but they aren’t doing any worse than most other denominations and they are doing better than any of the other large, established denominations. That would mesh with the essentials of what I’ve been saying, not that we are about to come to a crashing halt based on an incompetent gerontocracy. I don’t get that message at all from the study at cumorah.com.
Gabe P wrote:Given the South American experience, I don’t know that stake creation is a good measure of growth. I think an equally compelling interpretation would be that the Church is more concerned now about maintaining stakes with enough active people to support the Church’s programs, so they err on the side of not creating them.
Gabe, let me clarify myself. I think we are in agreement, but, since the church does not make much data available, stake growth is a better indicator of real growth than the meaningless baptismal numbers. The reason for this, of course, is that there have to be enough active members to fill the necessary positions, and most converts go inactive within 12 months. So, while some 300,000 people are being baptized annually, only some 40 stakes are being created annually. It takes some 4000 members per stake. You do the math. Most of the growth is smoke and mirrors. This is from MormonWiki:
“For instance, official church statistics report that in the two year interval between 2000 and 2002–the years relevant to the census data used above–Argentina added one stake and 19,500 new members. Venezuela also gained one stake and 16,320 members. Church-wide, however, the average number of members per stake is 4370. In the U.S. there are only about 4000 members per stake. Thus, based on the church-wide mean, Venezuela added over three stakes’ worth of members for its one new stake, and Argentina added the equivalent of four stakes’ worth of members for its new stake. In this same two year span, neither Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala or Honduras added a single new stake, but between them they added 38,185 (or almost 9 stakes’ worth) of new members. Colombia lost a stake through consolidation–going from 23 to 22–but added 6385 members. Peru lost a stake as well, but managed to add 19,731 new members. Finally, Brazil lost 3 stakes and a total of 190 congregations (88 wards and 102 branches) through consolidation between 2000 and 2002, yet added almost 66,000 new members–going from 743,182 to 808,940. The only explanation for the countervailing pattern of stake consolidation and membership growth in these nations is that rates of convert retention in Latin America are extraordinarily low.” – Rick Phillips, “Rethinking the International Expansion of Mormonism,” Nova Religio 10(1):52-68, August 2006.
As I said before, I went to a missionary meeting recently where a GA admitted there was no growth in North America. Most of the growth is in Latin America, and there you have horrendous retention problems and inactivity over 80% in places. Here is some info from Cumorah.com:
Methodological differences in the inclusion criteria among Latin American censuses shed further light upon data analysis. The Brazilian census recorded religious affiliation for people of all ages, whereas the Mexican census queried individuals aged five and above, and the Chilean census had the highest minimum inclusion age for religious preference at 15. The Brazilian census, which was completely inclusive, has the highest correlation between official LDS membership claims and self-identified religious affiliation at 27%; whereas the Mexican and Chilean censuses with their minimum ages of 5 and 15 correlate to official LDS membership at rates of 24% and 20%, respectively.
The correlation between results and inclusion ages would caution thoughtful analysts against concluding that the true correlation of self-identified and official membership, and by extrapolation member participation and activity in general, is any higher in Brazil than in Chile. The cohort of children under 15 excluded from religious reporting on the Chilean census constitutes 25.7 percent of the population; we can therefore estimate (ignoring potential differences in religious preferences among cohorts of various ages, which we have no way to calculate for young children) that the 103,735 individuals who identified themselves as Latter-day Saints represent 74.3% of the true LDS cohort, and that 139,600 individuals would have identified themselves as Latter-day Saints if younger children had been included. This would bring the correlation between self-identified religious affiliation and church-reported membership number up to 26.8%, which is nearly identical to the Brazilian census correlation. The 0-4 age demographic on the Mexican census constituted 11% of the population, leading to a similar corrected correlation ratio of 27%.
Other Data on the Church in Latin America
Census data harmonize closely with wide-ranging data from other sources. Peggy Fletcher Stack reported: “According to several Brazilian leaders, the LDS activity rate here is between 25 percent and 35 percent. That means for every three or four converts, only one stays.”[4] Former Eastern Europe Area President Wayne Hancock noted at a conference of the Russia Moscow Mission in December 2000 that in some parts of Latin America, 30 to 40 percent of new converts do not even return to church after baptism to be confirmed.[5]
Brigham Young University professor Ted Lyon, who served as a Chilean mission president and the president of the Chilean Missionary Training Center, noted that of the nominal 535,000 Latter-day Saints in Chile, only 57,000 attend church on an average week.[6] More Latter-day Saints attend church each week in Provo, Utah, than in the entire nation of Chile with the world’s fourth largest LDS membership.
End of quote.
All I can say is that I have studied this subject in great depth. I did not find anything contradictory in David Stewart’s reasoning or methodology. Things are pretty dead as far as church growth is concerned. I think our leaders know this, but, for whatever reason, are unwilling to admit it. If the official numbers are bad, they just quit reporting them. In Church News, you will only read that the church is growing steadily with constantly improving retention. I just wish they would tell the truth and make real efforts to solve the problem.
Subject: More on REAL LDS growth numbers…
Date:
Jul 30 12:02
Author:
Deconstructor
If you think the SL Tribune articles on pathetic Mormon Church growth were good, then you should check out this church statistics page:
http://www.cumorah.com/harvest.html Here are some interesting facts cited from the page:
Twice as many missionaries, half the converts
“The average missionary in 1989 brought 8 people into the church, while in 2000 the average missionary brought 4.6 people into the church. When one accounts for actual activity and retention rates, with the great majority of LDS convert growth occurring in Latin America and other areas with low retention, and only 20-25% of convert growth occurring in North America, one finds that of the 4.6 persons baptized by the average missionary each year, approximately 1.3 will remain active. This declining growth comes in spite of unprecedented increase in opportunity. From 1990 to 2000, the LDS Church opened an additional 59 nations to proselyting.”
“241,239 LDS convert baptisms were reported for 2004, the lowest number of converts since 1987. Other recent years have also demonstrated decelerating church growth. Over the past decade, LDS missionaries have been challenged to double the number of baptisms, but instead the number of baptisms per missionary has halved.”
Church growth down to 3% per year
“The LDS Church is one of the few Christian groups with a large missionary program to experience declining growth rates in spite of widening opportunities. An analysis of annual LDS statistical reports published in the May Ensigns of each year demonstrates that LDS growth has declined progressively from over 5% annually in the late 1980s to less than 3% annually from 2000 to 2004.”
Pathetic Mormon presence in Europe
“There are over 570,000 active Seventh-day Adventists in Kenya alone, but less than 570,000 Latter-day Saints (of which less than 200,000 are active) in all of continental Europe, Asia, and Africa combined. After more than fifteen years of proselyting in Russia with the largest full-time missionary force of any denomination, LDS membership has risen to only 17,000, with a fraction of those members remaining active. The same period has seen the number of active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia rise to over 140,000, with some 300,000 individuals attending conferences. There are more active Jehovah’s Witnesses in the countries of Georgia or Armenia than active Latter-day Saints in all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia together. There are fewer than 100,000 active Latter-day Saints in all of Europe, including the United Kingdom.”
Based on growth, Jehovah’s Witnesses is more true church than Mormon Church
“Given that the Mormons are generally viewed as the world’s most successful new religion and had about an 80-year start on the Witnesses, this is an astonishing achievement.” It is even more astonishing when we consider that, since Jehovah’s Witness participation significantly surpasses raw membership alone while LDS participation is only a fraction of raw membership, the number of active and participating Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide far surpasses the number of active and participating Latter-day Saints. In 1935, there were 56,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide and 746,384 Latter-day Saints. Since 1935, the number of active Jehovah’s Witnesses has multiplied their numbers by a factor of more than a hundredfold, while LDS membership has multiplied by a factor of twenty, with only a fraction of that number representing active members.”
Christian churches growing much faster than Mormon Church
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized in 1849 and recently overtook the LDS Church with 13 million members. Seventh-day Adventists were adding an average of 3,176 new members each day in 2000,15 and have experienced increased growth since that time, adding between 900,000 and 1.2 million members each year. In 2004, the LDS Church added an average of 661 converts and 270 children of record each day, from which only a minority go on to experience meaningful church activity. The Assemblies of God are growing at approximately 10% per year, or over three times the growth rate of the LDS Church, while the Seventh-day Adventists report growth two to three times LDS rates at 5.6-8% per year.”
Only Four Million active mormons worldwide
“While the Church makes no claims about member activity rates and no official reports of LDS activity rates are published, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes: “Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent. Europe and Africa average about 35 percent. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent.” While various idiosyncratic definitions of activity exist, the definition of members attending church weekly is the simplest and most meaningful. However, rates calculated by dividing church attendance by total membership may over-represent actual activity if nonmember visitors, small children, and other attendees are counted regardless of membership status. By multiplying the number of members in each area by the fractional activity and summating the data, one comes up with a worldwide LDS activity rate of approximately 35%, or approximately 4 million members. This is very similar to estimates published by the Associate Press in April 2003: ‘While the church doesn’t release statistics on church activity rates, some research suggests participation in the church is as low as 30 percent.’ For comparison, Adventist News Network reported in 2001 that worldwide Seventh-day Adventist member retention rates had fallen from 81% in previous years to a still very impressive 78% at present.”
Mormonism not sustaining growth from within
“Only about four million of the 11.3 million LDS members worldwide are active, and therefore likely to raise their children in the Church. Fractional annual proportional increases in LDS children of record relative to growth rates of healthy populations around the world correlate closely with low activity rates, suggesting that a large majority of inactive members raise their children outside of the church. Second, birth rates have declined substantially among the lifetime North American LDS members that have traditionally constituted the core membership of the LDS faith. Active LDS in the US average about three children per family, which represents a large decline from twenty years ago. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per couple is required for population replacement. With only 22% of Latter-day Saints born to active families in the U.S. remaining active lifelong and another 44% returning to the Church after periods of inactivity, the natural growth of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. appears to be below the level required even to sustain a stable population.”
Lower levels of temple marriages
“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes: “The percentage of adults in a temple marriage varies from about 45 percent in Utah to less than 2 percent in Mexico and Central America… For all of South America, with 2.25 million members, less than 1.8% of the total adult membership has been married in the temple.” This is a significant finding, since approximately 35% of all LDS members live in Latin America. Sociologist Tim Heaton notes that “Mexico saints have fewer children than the national average.” Difficulty in generating new LDS families through temple marriages has been a chronic problem for the church, especially outside of North America, where many young people marry outside of the Church or remain unmarried.”
Decline in new church units not because of unit size changes
“In 2002, LDS unit growth fell further to 0.22%, less than one-seventh of the annual rate of world population growth. Those who insist that the low number of new LDS units being formed is a result of policy changes influencing unit size are uninformed: the average number of LDS members per unit has remained relatively stable, going from 439 per unit in 1973 to 431.7 in 1991 and 437 in 2001.”
Hinckley lied about the numbers
“In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “We are experiencing a combined growth of converts and natural increase of some 400,000 a year. Every single year that is the equivalent of 160 new stakes of 2,500 people each.” This statement has been widely quoted as evidence of the Church’s rapid growth. In fact, the Church has never yet experienced a net gain of 400,000 members in a single year, nor has there ever been a year in the history of the Church when 160 or more stakes were formed. The highest stake gains ever were of 142 in 1995 and 146 in 1996, which were up from annual gains of 32-78 over the preceding decade. Over the most recent five-year period for which data are available (1998-2003), the Church gained a total of 119 stakes, or an average of only 24 stakes per year. The low number of congregations and stakes being formed reflects fractional retention of converts.”
LDS congregational growth in perspective
“In comparison to the 26,670 congregations serving the 12.256 million nominal LDS members, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had 12.894 million baptized adult members in 117,020 Sabbath Schools (congregations) meeting in 53,502 churches, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses with 6.5 million members list 96,894 congregations in their August 2004 membership annual report. This is not because LDS congregations are particularly large, but because the great majority of LDS members on the rolls are inactive. While on paper the LDS Church appears to be roughly the same size as the Seventh-day Adventist church in terms of members, and much larger than the Jehovah’s Witness organization, in reality, the latter two organizations are both far larger in terms of the total number of committed, active, and contributing members.”
Old-Timer wrote:Shederlaomach,
Ray, I was having trouble sleeping, so I thought I would try to answer you as well as I can.
Frankly, I have stayed out of the discussion largely because I have been having a hard time articulating what I want to say properly. I can see both sides of what is being said, and I also have sincere concerns about many things, but, in the end, I just don’t see everything you are describing in such black-and-white, alarmist terms as you are presenting them.
I don’t think that I am being “black-and-white” or “alarmist.” I am trying to be honest and objective. If I am failing in that, please feel free to help me see the truth.
Having said that, my main objection is to what I see as a basic misrepresentation of baptism, retention and growth stats. It seems that the justification you are citing most fundamentally for your charges of aged ineptitude is that “people are leaving in droves” and “the growth rate is stagnant”. Frankly, that simply isn’t true (especially in relation to the Church’s historical trends – with many eras having MUCH lower activity rates and MUCH higher “leaving rates” than our current levels) – and even to the extent that retention and growth are critical (with which I agree completely), the Church is one of the few Christian denominations that actually still is growing (both in absolute new initiate rates AND self-identification rates). Almost all others are shrinking and have been shrinking for some time now – not just as a percent of the overall population, but in actual numbers. I will try to find the latest studies again, but here are some tidbits that I have found recently, with some of it coming straight off of a PowerPoint training done by the Q12 last year:
I have grave doubts about the veracity of a report coming from leadership–unless there is some independent way to verify. Their credibility is low on the scale of total truthfulness.
1) The “real activity rate” (meaning the percent of members who actually attend services at least monthly) is HIGHER in the LDS Church than in the Southern Baptist Convention – even with the MUCH higher practical commitment required of Mormons. Also, many SBC leaders are demanding that they excommunicate chronic non-attenders and quit counting them as “real members”. Right now, they excommunicate even less often than the LDS Church does.
This may be true, but who cares? It is apples and oranges. We are supposed to be in the true church. The SBC is another apostate organization. We should be doing better than they are. The problem is when other churches are doing better than the Mormons.
2) Our retention rate for YSA’s (the lowest number we have in the entire church) is not lower than any other denomination. That group disassociates with religion across the board, and the numbers are abysmal everywhere. YSA’s who do attend church regularly generally associate with non-denominational congregations rather than with established denominations.
I’ve also heard these statistics. I have two children that have recently lapsed into inactivity. There are reports that up to 80% of the single young women in the church are inactive. I find it alarming that we are losing so many of our youth.
3) The LDS reactivation rate across a lifetime ends up being around 67%. The LDS Church refuses to count or claim this number, preferring to state the actual “current activity rate” of roughly 40% – again, which puts it near the top of the heap within Christianity at large.
I’ve also heard this statistic, and I believe it applies only to those who are born in the church. We have, historically, had great retention about those BIC, but that also is getting much worse in recent years.
4) We are baptizing roughly 300,000 converts per year, and the average baptism rate per missionary has gone up over the last 5 years since the “raise the bar” announcement.
Actually, we baptize far below 300,000 annually. If you note Stewart’s data reported above, we currently have twice the missionaries converting half as many people as before. The raising the bar episode dropped a lot of numbers. It is starting to go up slightly.
5) The new convert baptism rate in the US and Canada is roughly 0% – but that is measured in terms of the number of convert baptisms in comparison to the previous year, NOT overall membership. That simply means we are baptizing roughly the same number of people each year – not that our overall growth is stagnant. The new convert baptism rate internationally is about 5%-6%, meaning we are baptizing about 5% MORE people each year internationally than the previous year. The overall new convert baptism rate world-wide is about 4% (higher than the previous year) – not stagnant.
I think this is wrong. Net growth should be the total baptisms–convert and BIC–minus those who are excommunicated, resign, die, or lapse into inactivity. Net growth in North America is basically zero. I heard a GA say this, as I have said. I refer you to the ARIS and CUNY reports.
6) The other religions you listed as experiencing “millions of new members” aren’t doing so in the studies I’ve seen. Evangelical numbers are notoriously inaccurate, since they often count “souls saved” in their international figures – and that’s determined not by prolonged attendance but rather in a one time event where they confess Jesus and are saved. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists report regular church attendance, NOT official ordinances of entrance and self-identification – meaning that someone who attends JW services for three years but is never baptized (like an investigator on my mission) is counted as a member in the reports. If we did that, our numbers would go up greatly. The “growth rate” might not change, assuming a fairly constant flow of investigators and visitors, but the overall membership numbers would increase. Every other denomination is dropping membership, not simply experiencing stagnant new conversion rates in one hemisphere.
I think if you study the matter closely, you’ll see that the JWs and SDA have us beat in both conversions and retentions. They are also more honest in their reporting. See Cumorah.com.
7) The Church has NEVER been more financially sound, by ALL reasonable estimates I have read – which is interesting as we sort through the current fiscal crisis. Frankly, many complain about how “rich”the church is and the rapid increase in building-related expenditures, but I wonder how “prophetic” that focus might look if global financial conditions worsen at all in the near future (or even simply don’t reverse soon) – meaning that the Church might have expanded for future growth in the only time it was reasonable to do so. If the Church is financially secure (and debt free) through this hard time, while other churches face harsh realities tied to their own financial conditions . . . I don’t think that’s far-fetched, given what I’ve heard from many people outside the Church already.
I never said the church had financial trouble.
Look, as I have said in other threads, I believe there are serious issues within the Church – that elements of apostasy exist still and that they ebb and flow constantly. I also believe there is serious abuse of authority at all levels of our structural governance. I’m not trying to say at all that your concerns are illegitimate as overall issues, and I honestly feel for you deeply. However, I simply disagree with the severity of the issues as you have presented them – and especially that these issues are unique to the Church or radically more striking within the Church than elsewhere. I simply can’t characterize the Church as “on the brink of collapse” by ANY stretch of the imagination, and, in fact, the Church still is looked upon from the outside generally as a marked exception to the serious issues most other denominations are facing right now.
I’ve never said the church was on the “brink of collapse.” I have said that growth has stagnated and people are leaving in droves. I’ve heard that over 100,000 members officially resign each year. Many more just go inactive.
Honestly, I think this is one case where your own personal experiences are coloring your objectivity and leading you to doom and gloom conclusions that objective analysis simply doesn’t support. I’m not totally objective myself, and I’m not claiming my conclusions are totally objective, but mine are based to a large degree on what more objective, outside sources are saying about us and other groups, as well. In relation to the issues you are addressing, those outside voices simply don’t support your conclusions, imo.
It is odd that you find me “doom and gloom.” This is (or was) a millenarian church. Doom and gloom is the future–if we believe the scriptures. I do dispute your findings and look forward to when you will provide some data that can be verified independently. I think you may find that the Q12 PowerPoint presentation you watched was less than totally honest.
One comment before I dash to church: Everyone,
Please pardon my bluntness. Please realize how out of character this is for me. Based on the total body of what I have written here, I hope it is obvious how different this comment is than everything else I write. I am going to be candid and not pull any punches in this comment, then I am bowing out.
Shederlaomach,
I and others have tried to respond carefully and thoughtfully to what you are asking. Your response has been, essentially, “I didn’t say that – and nothing you’ve said makes any sense. I am completely right in this, and you are wrong if you don’t reach the same conclusions I do.” That’s not conversation and civil discussion; it’s debate and argument in the classic sense – not to understand each other, but rather to win an argument.
For example,
I’ve already left a comment late last night stating that I would take time to explain why I have some problems with the information on the site you listed– and I logged in quickly this morning to read your response to me that didn’t even acknowledge the time I took to go there and read the site. Instead, you referred me back to a site I just said I had read and to which I would respond later – and you copied and pasted large sections from that site in the process. Iow, you ignored my comment completely and posted a response that made it appear I hadn’t even responded. Then, you responded a second time to a previous comment, again totally ignoring my more recent one.Also, valoel said explicitly: “It would be better to keep this thread on-topic and about MADB and apologetics in general.” He asked you to start separate threads for each distinct topic you want to address. You completely ignored that request – didn’t even acknowledge it, in fact.
Frankly, going back to what HiJolly said in his very first comment to you on this thread, I’m not sure you want to “discuss” this issue. You seem to be 100% convinced of your conclusions. You called the leadership a “totalitarian gerontocracy”, “bad leadership”, “deceptive”, implied that the leadership doesn’t care about people, that we can’t trust ANY numbers they provide (even a self-critical report that highlights the PROBLEMS we are having and the results of their study of successful and FAILING wards and stakes and stipulates EXACTLY what you are claiming about baptism rates in the US and Canada being 0% growth over previous years), etc.
In one of your comments, you labeled anyone who disagreed with you (or, at the very least, those who disagree with your “reasoning” – implying they must understand and accept your reasoning) as
“tedious turds and power mad tyrants”– and you were talking about a thread that started out discussing whether or not church leaders know the Church is true. You expressed disbelief that they accused you of “derailing” the conversation, when, in fact, you had derailed the conversation and turned it from a discussion about testimonies into a discussion about baptism and retention rates. That is the classic definition of “derailing” – but you also stated that HiJolly should use a dictionary if he wasn’t clear on what the words you used meant. (talk about condescending and sarcastic – and nobody here had stooped to say anything like that to you) Now, this thread has morphed from a concern about that forum into the same discussion about baptism and retention rates – even though valoel asked you to address those concerns in a different thread. Can you see how it looks from the outside?It appears that you have a singular obsession with this one issue – and that you are forum shopping for a place where you can pound this point, no matter what the initial topic is. It appears that you start or join an existing conversation, introduce this topic, accuse the leadership of all sorts of things, toss derogatory labels on them, then start cutting and pasting from one site and simply dismissing all attempts to reason through the discussion. It appears that you apply your “tedious turds and power mad tyrants” description to anyone who doesn’t take that site’s conclusions at face value and tries to have a moderate discussion – even when they are agreeing that the Church faces a real problem with baptism rates and retention, which we have done here. We have agreed with the general point about the rates, we simply disagree with the harsh and stereotyping conclusions about the leadership and the condition of the Church – and yet you keep pounding the point upon which we agree, as if you aren’t even hearing our points of disagreement. This site was NOT established as a place to argue and win debates.Our attempt is to build a community where reasonable conversations can occur that help those who are struggling to “stay LDS”. We aren’t into polemics or apologetics, and we aren’t here as a forum to air single issues of fanatical obsession. Please understand that and start conversing with us as reasonable adults who are able to agree and disagree without resorting to quote bombing and insults.Shederlaomach, I think Ray has a good point. Look, I see why you’ve got a concern. Many of us have deep concerns about the leadership, particularly regarding their honesty. The things you’re talking about are definitely on the board for at least some of us.
That said – you seem so darn mad. All I can really say is that the leadership of the Church is what it is. It’s not going to change. All you can change is how you feel about it. I understand that you feel an obligation to speak about this issue and your feelings about it. But, I have to ask, is it working? Are you any closer to resolving your concerns or are you just angrier every day?
Old-Timer wrote:One comment before I dash to church:
Everyone,
Please pardon my bluntness. Please realize how out of character this is for me. Based on the total body of what I have written here, I hope it is obvious how different this comment is than everything else I write. I am going to be candid and not pull any punches in this comment, then I am bowing out.
It is kind of a weasel approach to launch an attack and then run away.
Shederlaomach,
I and others have tried to respond carefully and thoughtfully to what you are asking. Your response has been, essentially, “I didn’t say that – and nothing you’ve said makes any sense. I am completely right in this, and you are wrong if you don’t reach the same conclusions I do.” That’s not conversation and civil discussion; it’s debate and argument in the classic sense – not to understand each other, but rather to win an argument.
That is your perception, and I think you need to realize that you, also, might be wrong. I think I would know better than you or anyone else what I have said and/or what makes sense to me, unless you are either God or an inspired mind reader. Besides, those are hardly my main responses. I only claim that you misunderstand me when I feel you misunderstand me. Understand? Your generalization of my method of response is severely flawed. I have tried to answer each item you have raised, and I have tried to be polite. I can’t ever remember saying anything like “I am completely right in this, and you are wrong if you don’t reach the same conclusions I do.” Rather, I have stated my opinions and politely asked for others to provide additional insights if they can to help me understand. I don’t care about winning arguments, I care about learning truth.
For example,
I’ve already left a comment late last night stating that I would take time to explain why I have some problems with the information on the site you listed– and I logged in quickly this morning to read your response to me that didn’t even acknowledge the time I took to go there and read the site. Instead, you referred me back to a site I just said I had read and to which I would respond later – and you copied and pasted large sections from that site in the process. Iow, you ignored my comment completely and posted a response that made it appear I hadn’t even responded. Then, you responded a second time to a previous comment, again totally ignoring my more recent one.I tried to do to one of your post just what I am doing here. I read and answered each paragraph as well as I could. The Cumorah.com site has hours’ worth of data and writings. I doubt in the few minutes between the time I told you of this site and your response would indicate that you had the time to read much on the site, or the full text of David Stewart’s book
The Law of the Harvest, which is also on that site. I don’t see how you assert I had ignored your response when I tried to respond to every paragraph. You did assert that Stewart’s methodology was flawed and used to cast the church in the worst light possible and that he used data to draw contradictory conclusions. Of course, you failed to provide a single clear example of this apparent flaw. I would gladly try to discuss this material with you or anyone. I don’t see why you are so worked up about this. Also, valoel said explicitly: “It would be better to keep this thread on-topic and about MADB and apologetics in general.” He asked you to start separate threads for each distinct topic you want to address. You completely ignored that request – didn’t even acknowledge it, in fact.
Actually, I did try to keep this on topic, but conversations often tend to wander a bit. I am fairly new to this blogging stuff, so I surely have a lot to learn. A little forbearance with my ignorance would be appreciated. I will try to do better.
Frankly, going back to what HiJolly said in his very first comment to you on this thread, I’m not sure you want to “discuss” this issue. You seem to be 100% convinced of your conclusions. You called the leadership a “totalitarian gerontocracy”, “bad leadership”, “deceptive”, implied that the leadership doesn’t care about people, that we can’t trust ANY numbers they provide (even a self-critical report that highlights the PROBLEMS we are having and the results of their study of successful and FAILING wards and stakes and stipulates EXACTLY what you are claiming about baptism rates in the US and Canada being 0% growth over previous years), etc.
I have repeatedly asked for help in understanding why things are going the way they are in the church. I do wish to discuss the issue. I am not 100% sure of my conclusions, but I have put hundreds of thousands of hours and read thousands of books about the church and gospel. It would be foolish for me to argue something if I thought I was absolutely wrong, on the wrong side of an issue, and presenting knowingly wrong arguments. This may come as a shock to you, but I have actually experienced discussions where people have taken and position and tried to explain their position by using evidence and responding to other ideas that contradicted their own. What format do you use for your discussions? I have studied things out in my mind and am asking if I am understanding correctly. I try to follow the admonition of Paul where he suggested proving all things and hold fast to that which is good. If there is an error in that approach, I genuinely would like to know a better way. All I did (or tried to do anyway) was present what I perceived and explain why I perceived it that way. I asked many times for help in gaining better understanding. I said that the church leadership was behaving like a totalitarian gerontocracy in some ways. I think it is beyond dispute that most of the senior leaders in the church are old men, a government by old people is called a gerontocracy. I quote: “to·tal·i·tar·i·an [ tō tàllə térree ən ]adjective, Definition: centralized and dictatorial: relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.” That sounds a lot like the church to me. There are no popular elections in our church and no accepted form of opposition or means to bring about change. I admit that I have related several items that I viewed as bad leadership. I quoted Isaiah when he warns of how bad leadership caused the people to err. Do you also have a problem with scripture? I admit that I stated many times that our leaders have been deceptive in some of the things they have said and presented as fact, when they have been less than honest in telling the unvarnished truth. How do you define deceptive. I NEVER said or implied that the leadership doesn’t care about people. I know several leaders of the church in a variety of leadership positions, and the vast majority of them are very good people and trying to do the very best that they can. I admire many of them for their devotion and willingness to serve without pay or recognition. It is one of the things I love most about the church. As far as believing the numbers provided by the church officially about growth and retention, I think these numbers are often very deceptive. I also think Dave Stewart and others have shown that the official numbers can’t be trusted. I really think the situation in the church is really bad, as I have said. I think I explained the differences between the numbers you proposed as zero growth and what others have said. If I need to clarify that at another time, I will gladly.
In one of your comments, you labeled anyone who disagreed with you (or, at the very least, those who disagree with your “reasoning” – implying they must understand and accept your reasoning) as
“tedious turds and power mad tyrants”– and you were talking about a thread that started out discussing whether or not church leaders know the Church is true. You expressed disbelief that they accused you of “derailing” the conversation, when, in fact, you had derailed the conversation and turned it from a discussion about testimonies into a discussion about baptism and retention rates. That is the classic definition of “derailing” – but you also stated that HiJolly should use a dictionary if he wasn’t clear on what the words you used meant. (talk about condescending and sarcastic – and nobody here had stooped to say anything like that to you) Now, this thread has morphed from a concern about that forum into the same discussion about baptism and retention rates – even though valoel asked you to address those concerns in a different thread. This is a classic example of the way you project your ideas onto me and make claims I never made. If you reread this thread you will see that I labeled one individual, a person who uses the Web handle of Chronos as a “power mad tyrant” and a “tedious turd.” He was the only one–no one else, and I think I explained my reasons for that in my first post. I fail to see your psychic ability to discern the way I imply that people must “understand and accept” my reasoning. Maybe I am just retarded, but I also explained in detail why I felt my arguments were germane to the discussion on MADB. It wasn’t a discussion exclusively about testimonies, it was about whether or not the brethren knew the truth. I still feel that if people know something is true that it damages their credibility if they lie. You may feel I was derailing, but I feel that my comments were on point. I was always taught that discussions often involve people who have different ideas. Arbitrarily banning a person from the discussion with no warning, no possibility of appeal, and no discussion seems to me a very odd way of having a discussion. Sorry if I was condescending to HiJolly. I admit that I felt he had been attacking me personally, and I responded in kind. I am not perfect. How does it feel? It does seem a bit unfair to accuse me of derailing this thread, since I was the person who started it and has made most of the contributions. But maybe you are right that it should have been given another title. I will try to do better in the future. As I said, this is all new to me.
Can you see how it looks from the outside?It appears that you have a singular obsession with this one issue – and that you are forum shopping for a place where you can pound this point, no matter what the initial topic is. It appears that you start or join an existing conversation, introduce this topic, accuse the leadership of all sorts of things, toss derogatory labels on them, then start cutting and pasting from one site and simply dismissing all attempts to reason through the discussion. It appears that you apply your “tedious turds and power mad tyrants” description to anyone who doesn’t take that site’s conclusions at face value and tries to have a moderate discussion – even when they are agreeing that the Church faces a real problem with baptism rates and retention, which we have done here. We have agreed with the general point about the rates, we simply disagree with the harsh and stereotyping conclusions about the leadership and the condition of the Church – and yet you keep pounding the point upon which we agree, as if you aren’t even hearing our points of disagreement. I can’t just accept your godlike assertions. You need to realize that what you are saying is, “can you see how this looks to me and people like me? I think you have a singular obsession. . .” You are entitled to your opinion. That is the whole purpose of any discussion forum, but you are NOT entitled to be the arbiter of all knowledge. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don’t know what you are thinking and can’t speak as if I did. Get it? Obviously, I am trying to understand your point of view. I am deeply concerned about the issues I have brought up. Again, I don’t think I am “forum shopping,” since I started this topic here and tried to respond to a related topic on MADB. I really have no knowledge of–or much to contribute to or much interest in getting involved in–a discussion of, say, green Jello recipes. I plead guilty to cutting and pasting some information that I thought was relevant to the discussion. I do dispute that I dismiss “all attempts to reason through discussion,” and I think if you go back through this or any of my previous postings that you will see my willingness to engage in dialogue and desire for information stated in nearly every posting. This could be a case case of the pot calling the kettle black. Again, I don’t know which points of agreement you feel I keep pounding on. I also don’t see where you feel we have reached agreement. Frankly, as far as I can see, you have cited one unverified PowerPoint presentation you claim is from the “Q12.” Otherwise, you have provided little in the way of factual evidence or thoughtful, reasoned argument.
This site was NOT established as a place to argue and win debates.Our attempt is to build a community where reasonable conversations can occur that help those who are struggling to “stay LDS”. We aren’t into polemics or apologetics, and we aren’t here as a forum to air single issues of fanatical obsession. Please understand that and start conversing with us as reasonable adults who are able to agree and disagree without resorting to quote bombing and insults.Do you see your authoritarian attitude here. You are saying what this forum is for, as if your opinion is the only correct one. A man I deeply respect said something about how “by proving contraries truth is made manifest.” That seems like a reasonable approach. I don’t think I have been unwilling to converse with you or anyone else as a reasonable adult. Please explain where I have failed in that. I also don’t think that presenting relevant, verifiable, scholarly evidence in “quote bombing” or where I have been insulting to anyone. You disagree with me. Fine. I have tried to reason with you and explain why I think the way I do. I have tried very hard to give evidence to back up my points. I think you have engaged in a tremendous amount of projection–accusing me for things I have not done. Your mind reading ability needs to be perfected. I am amazed at the hubris it takes to claim to know what another is thinking or implying. You accuse me of saying and implying things I never did and, in fact, deny doing. You take various things I did say and apply them in ways neither I nor any reasonable reader would. And you do it all without bothering to bring any evidence or well-reasoned argument. You have taken a position of being above the fray and have condemned me and my arguments, but you have mostly done it from a position where you claim an authority you do not have. I will gladly try to answer your concerns. If you just want to vent your spleen, declare a moral victory, and vanish into the ether–no one is trying to stop you. Still, I feel this topic is crucial. The state of the church, I feel, has eternal consequences for us. If things are going astray, I feel that the problems needs to be honestly addressed and corrected.
If I can borrow an image started by Brigham Young who first described the church as “The Good Ship Zion.” I feel that the ship has run aground on a sandbar, is listing 5 degrees to starboard, is taking on water, and is stopped in its forward progress. An observer from another ship would see this dilemma and expect that the crew of the Good Ship Zion would be desperately trying to plug the leaks, stabilize the ship, and get it off the sandbar and back on its voyage. Instead, as I have said in other places, the crew is busy rearranging the deck chairs and denying that there is anything to be concerned about. They have the matter well under control. Unfortunately, some 2/3rds of those on board, like rats deserting a sinking ship, have left the church. Others join by coming aboard but an equal number abandons ship. Yes, I think it is deceptive of our leaders to hide the truth of our awful situation from us publicly. Yes, I think they are being intentionally dishonest because they desire to infantilize the members and feel that these members are incapable of dealing with the truth. And, yes, I see a real abuse of priesthood power when they try to exercise totalitarian principles in place of gospel principles. I suggest you listen to Ted Lyon’s talks located in the StayLDS library. I would also reread D&C121 and see if you understand why I am concerned. I would also suggest that you read the parable of the ten virgins and the one of the wheat and the tares. I could relate more scriptures, but you would probably just accuse me of scripture bombing. I honestly feel that I am not the one who is being unreasonable here. As I have said repeatedly, I wish to learn. If you wish to further the discussion, feel free to do so. If necessary, I can easily start another thread with a different title, but a rose by any other name, etc.
Shederlaomach, I know you now have officially classified me as a “tedious turd and a power mad tyrant”. Let me make myself very clear.
This site has a specific purpose, and it is what I have described already. I have the authority to emphasize that purpose, since I was involved at the beginning of this site and am an admin on it. If we don’t enforce the rules we established for this site, we might as well not have them. Therefore, I asked you directly to respect the nature of this site and accept the (very legitimate) requests of two different admins. You ignored them, and your response to me shows absolutely no desire to respect our wishes.
Again, let me reiterate:
We have tried HARD to engage you and your concerns constructively. We have agreed with much of what you have said; we have disagreed to varying degrees (as individuals will) with your conclusions. All we have asked is that you follow the simple rules that were established for this site and accept the very reasonable requests of the administrators. Your response was to accuse us of unrighteous dominion, showing that I was 100% correct in my assessment of your perspective.
If someone disagrees with you in any way and asks simply for civility and mutual respect, you castigate them for arrogance and toss them in your bulging trash can of oppressors. NOTHING in your last comment conveys ANY sense of regret or accommodation or compromise or understanding. Rather, it is just one more confrontational tirade. I’m sorry you can’t see that; I truly am.
I will not engage you further. I had intended to do so, as I said in my late night comment. There are serious flaws in the application of the data on the site you referenced, and I was planning on addressing those flaws. There is no point now.
The administrators will be discussing all the options we have. Please understand if it takes a while to communicate and decide what official action to take.
Having said all of that, I sincerely hope you find peace. I mean that, truly and honestly and from the depths of my soul.
This topic is being locked. The spirit of the discussion is off track. The topic is off track. Specifically, there have been problems with the following two board ettiquette rules:
*Please feel free to disagree with anyone. Nobody here has all the answers. We can all benefit from being challenged. This is not a debate club though. There is no winning or losing. Please try to stay supportive and positive with those who might not believe the same way.
*No profanity please (to include derogatory words associated with racism, sexual orientation, etc.).
- The topic ‘Mormon Apologetics Board’ is closed to new replies.