The above subject line reflects an article that Kevin presented
that indicates that the conversion rate may be offset by a low retention
rate. Kevin did not make it up and is not lying, as you have accused.
that indicates that the conversion rate may be offset by a low retention
rate. Kevin did not make it up and is not lying, as you have accused.
The BIG FAT ZERO comes from a report written by Mormon Dr. David Stewart in May 2002 link provided below.
Dr. Stewart's report goes on to say that there is an enormous turnover rate in the LDS church compared to any of the religious groups in the country. He said there are almost as many people dropping out of active membership as there are joining. He goes on to say that the net result of their growth is zero!
One might put it this way: Mormonism has become one of the slowest growing faiths on the planet, maybe on Kolob this is not so.
Seems the problem might be as this Mormon Blogger postulates: We stake a lot of our pride on being #1 will this news be brushed aside as somehow inaccurate or unworthy of our attention?
A BLOG:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/07/church_growth_z.html
Church Growth: Zero
Peggy Stack has a very interesting article in the Salt Lake Tribune today that confirms what some keen observers have been suggesting online for a few years now: The Mormon Church is being outstripped in growth by other faiths, and is struggling to maintain converts.
Church Growth: Zero
Peggy Stack has a very interesting article in the Salt Lake Tribune today that confirms what some keen observers have been suggesting online for a few years now: The Mormon Church is being outstripped in growth by other faiths, and is struggling to maintain converts.
One study, conducted in 2001, showed that the Church was losing members as fast as it was gaining them; in other words, no growth whatsoever. Other studies arent quite as cynical, but do show Jehovahs Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists beating Mormonism in growth, but more significantly, walloping us in retention.
My two questions: First, what accounts for this? Why cant we keep members? Are we too lenient in our rules for letting people join? Second, and more interesting to me, what will the reaction of Church members be? We stake a lot of our pride on being #1 will this news be brushed aside as somehow inaccurate or unworthy of our attention? Or will it be taken seriously and will steps be taken to correct any perceived problems?
http://www.cumorah.com/report.html
http://www.cumorah.com/retentionstats.doc
USA Today in March 2002 demonstrates similar findings. A comparison of USA Today survey data on self-reported religious identification in all fifty states to official LDS Church Almanac data reveals even more strikingly that the percentage of individuals in almost every state identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints is significantly lower than official membership figures, often dramatically.
http://www.cumorah.com/retentionstats.doc
USA Today in March 2002 demonstrates similar findings. A comparison of USA Today survey data on self-reported religious identification in all fifty states to official LDS Church Almanac data reveals even more strikingly that the percentage of individuals in almost every state identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints is significantly lower than official membership figures, often dramatically.
INFLATED COUNTING
Address Unknown File
The LDS Address Unknown File (or "Lost Address File") consists of individuals who were once baptized but cannot be located. In Poland, the Address Unknown File represents approximately 10% of total membership. In Australia, the number of address unknown file members could fill twelve stakes. The total number of names in the worldwide Address Unknown File has not been publicly released, but the file has been described as "huge" and "surprisingly large" by church employees with access to the data. Church membership department employees confirm that individuals in the "Address Unknown File" are counted as full members and included on statistical reports until the age of 110 or until proof of death can be located. With an average life expectancy of 72 in the United States and significantly less in many developing nations, the "Address Unknown File" may result in an overcount of LDS membership. Additionally, since "Address Unknown File" members are not included on unit rolls, activity rate calculations based on attendance rates at the unit level may lead to an overestimation of overall LDS activity.
Address Unknown File
The LDS Address Unknown File (or "Lost Address File") consists of individuals who were once baptized but cannot be located. In Poland, the Address Unknown File represents approximately 10% of total membership. In Australia, the number of address unknown file members could fill twelve stakes. The total number of names in the worldwide Address Unknown File has not been publicly released, but the file has been described as "huge" and "surprisingly large" by church employees with access to the data. Church membership department employees confirm that individuals in the "Address Unknown File" are counted as full members and included on statistical reports until the age of 110 or until proof of death can be located. With an average life expectancy of 72 in the United States and significantly less in many developing nations, the "Address Unknown File" may result in an overcount of LDS membership. Additionally, since "Address Unknown File" members are not included on unit rolls, activity rate calculations based on attendance rates at the unit level may lead to an overestimation of overall LDS activity.
Double Affiliation
http://www.cumorah.com/trends.doc
worldwide LDS membership is currently growing at less than 3% per year -- much more slowly than the entire block of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches (7.3% annual membership growth) and Evangelical churches (5.6% growth per year).
worldwide LDS membership is currently growing at less than 3% per year -- much more slowly than the entire block of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches (7.3% annual membership growth) and Evangelical churches (5.6% growth per year).
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.
Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Blaine has, on more than one occasion, brought up what he said was a fast
growth rate and implyied that this was indicative of the mormon church being
the one true church. I also seem to rememeber it was he that started this
original thread (different subject line) by mentioning the growth rate of
the church. The above subject line reflects an article that Kevin presented
that indicates that the conversion rate may be offset by a low retention
rate. Kevin did not make it up and is not lying, as you have accused.
Perry
>From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church has ZERO Growth!
>Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:30:44 -0700
>
>DAVEH: We are obviously seeing this through different perspectives, John.
>When I read Blaine's comments, I see them from the LDS perspective that the
>Kingdom has been reestablished and will spread throughout the earth as is
>prophesied in latter-day Scripture. I don't (and I'm reasonably sure
>Blaine does not either if his LDS background is anything similar to mine)
>believe that means that the LDS Church will be either the largest or
>continue to be the denomination with the fastest growth rate. I've always
>believed that even in the end (by the time the Millennial reign rolls
>around) the LDS Church will be relatively small compared to those who
>oppose it. To me, Blaine's comments merely reflect that the Lord's Church
>is now here and proceeding as prophesied, never to be beaten down (as we
>view the Apostasy) again.
>
> From your perspective, you are reading into his comments something
>entirely different. You see him saying that because the LDS Church is
>(presumably) the fastest growing church it is the True Church. I see no
>logic in that at all. Nor do I think that is what Blaine was implying.
>For instance, I'm sure Blaine understands just as well as any TTer, that if
>I were to start my own church tomorrow, and convert one person to believe
>as I do within a year, and then 2 more next year, and then 4 more the
>following year.....which should not be too difficult in these weird
>times......that it would be relatively easy for my church to have an annual
>growth rate of 100%, which would far exceed virtually any modestly sized
>church in the world. I could probably get numbers like that for a dozen
>years or so. But that certainly would not be an indication that I've got
>the true church.
>
> Nor would sheer numbers indicate likewise. We all know the RCC folks
>have massive membership numbers, but I dare say there are few if any (and
>certainly not Blaine) TTers who would think for a second that that would
>imply the RCC is the True Church.
>
> So John........I simply don't think Blaine was trying to make that
>argument (that the LDS Church is true because of either its growth rate or
>size) as you and Kevin seem to believe. Logically it doesn't make sense.
>While there may be some LDS folks who do not think clearly and/or
>rationally who might miss the logic of this, but I assume Blaine is a
>reasonably intelligent person, and hence I am reading his comments with a
>different understanding than you might.
>
> BTW.........Look at the subject line of this thread. I assume Kevin
>penned it, but could be wrong. Anyway, it reflects an attitude that I
>think Kevin would like other TTers to believe. Why do you suppose he would
>want to foster this lie? And....how many TTers (percentage wise) do you
>think he has convinced that the LDS Church now has a zero growth rate?
>
> Have you considered that Blaine may have posted the things he did to
>counter some of the stuff Kevin posts, rather than to make an argument that
>the LDS Church is true because of its size and growth rate?
>
> FWIW....I think LDS folks have a different understanding of the term
>*Kingdom of God* than you, John. That does not mean we think your view is
>all screwed up, but rather that our view is different because we have a
>different understanding based on latter-day revelation.
>
> Regarding your comment.......
>
>*I see many within orthodoxy extending the right hand of fellowship and
>willing to consider this church as a denomination of the Larger Church. I
>do not see the same consideration coming from the Mormon Church.*
>
>............Interestingly I see it as exactly the opposite. As I see it,
>my experience in TT parallels how well the LDS Church fits into the
>Protestant world.
>
> Regarding your comment.......
>
>*My concern is this: that these words indicated that Mormonism considers
>itself the ONLY (true) Christians. *
>
>.............I simply don't know why you would get that impression from
>what either Blaine or I have posted. In fact, I think I have said that is
>not correct when it has come up before in TT.
>
> Regarding.......
>
>DAVEH: How many of those do you suppose can be attributed to the RCC birth
>rate?
>
>*Considerable -- and in much the same way as Mormon growth rates (?). *
>
>..........Yes, certainly the LDS growth rate is larger due to our birth
>rate. As I said in a parallel post tonight, the figures Kevin posted
>indicate there are about 100,000 convert baptisms per year by our
>missionaries. Yet I believe our Church is growing even faster than that
>despite the death rate combined with those who leave the
>Church........which leads me to wonder why anybody would think _LDS Church
>has ZERO Growth!_ as the subject line of this thread incorrectly implies.
>Yet it seems some TTers are pretty proud of their growth rate (was it 3,000
>per day) when in fact many of that number may simply be accounted for by
>RCC births.........
>
>/The list includes the rapidly growing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>Saints, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America,
>Jehovah's Witnesses, and - largest of all - the Roman Catholic Church. /
>
>..........This is from the National Council of Churches. Pretty
>interesting, is it not....especially since there must be some TTers who
>would like you to believe the LDS Church has a zero growth rate as the
>subject line implies.
>
> I would think it would be much more meaningful to know how many new
>Protestants there are each day. Does anybody have any figures on that? It
>might also be interesting to see how the Protestant Church membership rolls
>have held up over the years. If anybody has the time to search the net,
>that might be interesting to see.
>
> For instance, the NCC 1998 yearbook shows a decline for three mainline
>Protestant Churches....
>
>/Data on the continuing "flattening out" of "mainline" membership losses
>and "non-mainline" gains. For example, three mainline bellwethers, the
>Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ and United Methodist
>Church, all have cut membership losses significantly over the past three
>years./
>
>.........Does it make you wonder how they've fared since then?
>
> I found your comment........
>
>DAVEH: Such the RCC folks believe. They just don't quite understand why
>you (Protestants) felt the need to leave the nest.
>
>*It had to do with grace verses works salvationism. *
>
>......to be really interesting, John. I would have thought your main
>disagreement with them to be based on the authority. The RCC folks believe
>in a priesthood authority of the leadership, whereas I understand the
>Protestants to believe the authority is in the eyes of the believer. To
>me, that pretty much trumps the grace vs salvation distraction.
>
> Regarding......
>
>DAVEH: I don't recall doing much debating with Kevin recently. Perhaps
>you are confusing me with someone else, though that hardly seems possible.
>
>*I refer to what has been going on between the two of you over the past
>year and half.
>
>*...........Ahhhh, now I understand. I gave up trying to have a reasonable
>theological discussion with Kevin some time ago, and I didn't think we ever
>had a two sided debate previous to that....which is one reason why I gave
>up trying.
>
> Concerning the Apostasy.....
>
>DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, John. IF there was not a falling away,
>there would be no need for a restitution of all things, as I see it.
>
>*You have kinda of lost me, here. All of us can read about the First
>Church in the Book of Acts -- a church full of Jews unwilling to break
>with any of the Law, it's requirements and traditions, while, at the same
>time, accepting the message of Christ as Son of God. The First Church
>could not be any further off base than it was a month after Pentecost Day.
> Seeds of dnominationalism are recorded in script no more than 30 years
>following Pentecost. What was not effected by this missing of the mark
>was the preaching of the gospel of unmerited redemption by the apostles.
>That is what changed in the falling away -- and the Mormon Church
>certainly did not re-establish that teaching. ; *
>
>........I am surprised that you are somewhat lost on what I was conveying,
>since you have a bit of a connection to Mormonism through your
>Mother-in-law, if I remember correctly. (Or am I confusing you with
>Perry?)
>
> Anyway.......I believe the Bible predicts the Apostasy and Restoration,
>and as I see it the LDS Church fulfills that need...so to speak. But
>discussing it under this thread is a bit of a tangent, so if you want to
>chat about it more....let's start a new piece of paper and discuss it under
>a new subject heading. I'll leave it up to you to instigate the discussion
>as I'm sure Perry will find a reason to complain IF I introduce the topic.
> :-)
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> * As you read my response, please note the two underlined phrases at the
>>very beginning. It appears that you missed my parenthetical. *
>>
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> deegan and I are clearly not in the same boat BUT. I do think you are
>>>missing the point he is making on this, DH. *blaine has hung his hat
>>>(_/not entirely/_, of course) on Mormorn growth rate *
>>
>>DAVEH: I didn't quite see it that way. If Blaine believes that
>>*/_growth rate alone_/* reflects truth, I'd say he is using some pretty
>>screwed up logic as well. Perhaps he can clarify what he was saying.
>>Looking at the posts below in this thread, I was correcting what I
>>perceived to be outdated material you submitted, and Blaine was updating
>>the information even more. Relative to these posts, Blaine made no
>>comment about the relationship between the growth rate and its trueness.
>>Kevin pulled some quotes from other posts that made it seem like (and
>>Kevin implied that) Blaine was saying that the LDS Church is true because
>>of its rapid growth. I don't think that is what Blaine said or implied at
>>all. But....let's let him respond, as we (you, Kevin and me) have o ur
>>biases that affect our thinking processes. *Yes, I agree. Blaine
>>should speak for Blaine, in the final analysis. But, do you see how some
>>of us hear Blaine saying that growth (to a degree ) is evidence of God's
>>approval and the ultimate goal (set by God, apparently) that the Mormon
>>Church (equated to the "kingdom of God") will establish the Kingdom of
>>God throughout the world is irresistible, i.e.* (Blainer) The figures
>>don't lie. The rate of growth for the Mormon Church exceeds even the
>>Moslems in the US. Zion will flourish, and the Kingdom of God will be
>>established by the Mormon Church. It is just a matter of time *?????*
>>** *By the way - I do not see the Kingdom of God and the Church as being
>>the same, biblically speaking, anymore than I confuse "sovereign rule and
>>authority" with "assemblage." *
>>* *
>>*.*
>>
>>>and sees the Mormon religion as just that - a religion.
>>
>>DAVEH: Do you not find it interesting that the LDS Church is classified
>>amongst Christian churches in this study? Do you suppose it is considered
>>as a Christian church in contrast to what some TTers believe?
>> *I see many within orthodoxy extending the right hand of fellowship and
>>willing to consider this church as a denomination of the Larger Church.
>>I do not see the same consideration coming from the Mormon Church. *
>>
>>> I was thinking that the claim was that Mormonism is Christian.
>>>Such does not appear to be the case . Blaine writes: Mormonism, or
>>>the religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A
>>>rather disappointing comment.
>>
>>DAVEH: Without knowing the context of what else he said at the same time,
>>I can't offer an opinion one way or the other on this one. I don't see
>>where such a statement alone would suggest that Mormonism is not
>>Christian.
>> *My concern is this: that these words inidcated that Mormonism considers
>>itself the ONLY (true) Christians. *
>>
>>> And when we are talking about growth rates, world wide, the Christian
>>>faith (excluding Mormonis - apparently by thei r own admission) is
>>>growing at the rate of 3,000 per hour .
>>
>>DAVEH: How many of those do you suppose can be attributed to the RCC
>>birth rate?
>> *Considerable -- and in much the same way as Mormon growth rates (?).
>> *
>>
>>> Kingdom rule has already been established.
>>
>>DAVEH: Such the RCC folks believe. They just don't quite understand why
>>you (Protestants) felt the need to leave the nest.
>> *It had to do with grace verses works salvationism. *
>>
>>> Grace is the order of the day and the "right church" was never The
>>>Divine Concern except that this assemblage be CONSIDERED RIGHT through
>>>and because of Christ. The notion that the church was initially right
>>>(Book of Acts ) and that it fell away is simply not historically accurate
>>> (Book of Acts).
>>
>>DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, John. IF there was not a falling away,
>>there would be no need for a restitution of all things, as I see it. *You
>>have kinda of lost me, here. All of us can read about the First Church in
>>the Book of Acts -- a church full of Jews unwilling to break with any of
>>the Law, it's requirements and traditions, while, at the same time,
>>accepting the message of Christ as Son of God. The First Church could
>>not be any further off base than it was a month after Pentecost Day.
>>Seeds of dnominationalism are recorded in script no more than 30 years
>>following Pentecost. What was not effected by this missing of the mark
>>was the preaching of the gospel of unmerited redemption by the apostles.
>>That is what changed in the falling away -- and the Mormon Church
>>certainly did not re-establish that teaching. ; *
>>
>>> And your debate with deegan
>>
>>DAVEH: I don't recall doing much debating with Kevin recently. Perhaps
>>you are confusing me with someone else, though that hardly seems possible.
>> *I refer to what has been going on between the two of you over the past
>>year and half. *
>>
>>> and other works-salvationists on TT is only a debate over which rules
>>>are the right rules. The primary theology is the same and the method
>>>of institutional purity is identical -- x those who disagree -- damn
>>>such passages as Romans 14. JD
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dave Hansen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.langlitz.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If you wish to receive
>things I find interesting,
>I maintain six email lists...
>JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
>STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
>
>
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
