LDS general conference - Fall 2013

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think some of them do.

I also think the church, thru its missionaries and members (family units), needs to reach out to inactive members. Now I am not talking about Home teachers showing up and bugging you at night. I am talking about the inactive family that lives across the street. Invite them over for a dinner or an afternoon BBQ. Get a feel for their needs and goals. Show genuine interest in them as people and not potential reactivations. Elderly inactive couple needs help with the yard? Sounds like a perfect project for the young men or Elders quorum.

I was once told by my DL that I was a bad missionary for not teaching a certain number of discussions every week. You should have seen his face when he came to church with his companion and I had half a dozen people with me.

Or the missionaries invite you to church and when they do they bring someone else. This was a favorite tactic of mine. If I was getting some guy to come to church and I know a particular talent or interest of his I would bring someone smiliar. Like another guy his age that is a fan of the same soccer team. Then ask them about that teams last game. Let them build bonds with the people of the church. Not the organization of the church...

The church is perfect but the people are not is a popular phrase. I agree to a point. But the people, in my opnion, are the heart of the church and need to be much better utilized. The reactivation will come in its own time when it is right.

Does anybody else see the inconsistencies in the highlighted statements? I'm begging you guys not to reach out to me with the goal of reactivation. How would you feel if my buddies and I were constantly plotting ways to deactivate you? If you want to be friends that's cool. If you're doing it with the ulterior motive of changing me then please take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Stoked]

Does anybody else see the inconsistencies in the highlighted statements? I'm begging you guys not to reach out to me with the goal of reactivation. How would you feel if my buddies and I were constantly plotting ways to deactivate you? If you want to be friends that's cool. If you're doing it with the ulterior motive of changing me then please take a long walk off a short pier.

To be honest I do not. You are ignoring the last part of my post. The Church is all about out reach and love. Well the members should show it in a more genuine way.

As I said at the end of that post: The reactivation will come in its own time when it is right.

If it is never right then it wont come but that should not stop us from reaching out and being good neighbors and friends.

 

[Bronco70]

Does anybody else see the inconsistencies in the highlighted statements? I'm begging you guys not to reach out to me with the goal of reactivation. How would you feel if my buddies and I were constantly plotting ways to deactivate you? If you want to be friends that's cool. If you're doing it with the ulterior motive of changing me then please take a long walk off a short pier.

To be honest I do not. You are ignoring the last part of my post. The Church is all about out reach and love. Well the members should show it in a more genuine way.

As I said at the end of that post: The reactivation will come in its own time when it is right.

If it is never right then it wont come but that should not stop us from reaching out and being good neighbors and friends.

What Stoked said. But to reiterate, in my own words:

If inactive members want to come back, we should want to facilitate it. Some may not even realize they want to come back until they "re-bond" with active members. We should be their friends first and foremost. If they do not want to come back, we should be accepting of that decision, and still be their friend - genuinely.

I hate seeing a "reactivation" effort that is only that.

 

[sirkickyass]

Regardless of your personal stance on the LDS church and its theology it is interesting to see the growth of it.


Over 1 million members in UT. (01/2012 stats)

Over 500k in CA. (01/2012 stats)

Over 100k in NV, ID, WA, OR, AZ, CO, TX, FL. (01/2012 stats)

Over 10% of the population in UT, ID and WY. (01/2012 stats)

Over 5% of the population in NV and AZ. (01/2012 stats)

Over 1 million members (names on the membership roles) in Brazil, Mexico and the U.S. (2007 stats)

Over 1/2 a million in Chile, Peru and Phillipines. (2007 stats)

Over 100k in Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuala. (2007 stats)

We are witnessing the birth of a global religion.

For you and colton as well: Those numbers are all wrong. The LDS church systematically over reports growth and underreports loss.

Let's look at membership in Brazil. In 2010 the church claimed 1,138,740 members in Brazil. But in the 2010 census only 225,695 Brazilians claimed they were LDS. 913,014 members are missing! What gives?

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54497395-180/church-census-lds-reported.html.csp

The LDS church is very "optimistic" in figuring official membership numbers. It assumes 100% retention rates. Once you are counted as a member you are a member for life. And judging by the low death rates, members don't die as often as the rest of the population.

That doesn't mean the church doesn't know how many members are showing up to church, they are meticulous record keepers. Head counts are performed and quarterly reports are made. But these actual numbers are not reported to the public. They are a secret.

Let's take the numbers reported on April 6, 2013. Official membership was reported up by 341,127 to 14,782,473. The "increase in the children of record" is 122,273 and new converts are 272,330. (Mormon children are typically baptized at age 8, so a new "child of record" is a child of a member or a convert that hasn't been baptized yet.)

So are there any subtractions? The gross increase is 122,273 + 272,330 = 394,603. Difference between net and gross increase is 394,603 - 341,127 = 53,476. Even if we assume the entire subtraction is due to death, the death rate is at MOST 3.7 deaths per 1000. Compare that to the 8.4 and 8.3 deaths per 1000 for the U.S. and World respectively.

https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/demographics_profile.html

This has been going on for decades, and the LDS assumptions about its own death rates lead to a constantly increasing gap between the "real" number and the reported number even if we assumed retention rates were truly close to 100% as the church treats all former members that haven't officially resigned membership as current members.

Reality is retention rates will never be 100%. Only a fraction of these increases are keepers. Some older studies suggest 34% of the members born in the church will leave, while only 25% - 50% of the converts will stay for the first year. 80% of members will leave the church for at least 1 year.

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Vital_Statistics

Only the deaths of active members are reported by wards and branches to church headquarters. The church doesn't reveal numbers for resignations or excommunications.

The result is that the church over reports its gains and under reports its losses year after year. Over time the errors keep accumulating.

Sociologists have estimated that the self identifying membership is about 5 million. At 5 million the LDS church doesn't even rank with Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists in numbers (Both of those churches use participation/attendance to determine their numbers.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

If you count only active members, there is a strong argument that church membership peaked some time ago, is aging demographically, and is an institution on the decline numerically.

Check Slide four of this powerpoint for how big this exaggeration is: https://www.docstoc.com/docs/157705726/Mormon-Doctrine---ITC-Renewable

I think the rate is closer to 30% and shrinking of whatever the church is reporting.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

To be honest I do not. You are ignoring the last part of my post. The Church is all about out reach and love. Well the members should show it in a more genuine way.

As I said at the end of that post: The reactivation will come in its own time when it is right.

If it is never right then it wont come but that should not stop us from reaching out and being good neighbors and friends.

We obviously see it very differently. To me that last statement just emphasizes the reason I don't like what you said. Your assumption is that I should eventually change. But the reason I really don't like what you said is that your motivation for reaching out to these people is that they are "inactive members." You said that in your first sentence. And even if this is not your attitude and merely a slip of the keyboard, it is definitely the attitude of lots of your fellow members, and it is preached by the leadership of your church.

Think of it this way: If I was the leader of an anti-Mormon group and I told my followers "We need to reach out to active LDS members with the goal of deactivating them," you wouldn't like it. You don't want me to change you, but you feel like you'd be doing a good thing if you struck up a friendship with the ulterior motive of changing me.

 

[Stoked]

As I mentioned before Kicky using those that identify as Mormon is perhaps the best way.

But my point still stands. We are witnessing the birth of a major world wide religion.

 

[Stoked]

We obviously see it very differently. To me that last statement just emphasizes the reason I don't like what you said. Your assumption is that I should eventually change. But the reason I really don't like what you said is that your motivation for reaching out to these people is that they are "inactive members." You said that in your first sentence. And even if this is not your attitude and merely a slip of the keyboard, it is definitely the attitude of lots of your fellow members, and it is preached by the leadership of your church.

Think of it this way: If I was the leader of an anti-Mormon group and I told my followers "We need to reach out to active LDS members with the goal of deactivating them," you wouldn't like it. You don't want me to change you, but you feel like you'd be doing a good thing if you struck up a friendship with the ulterior motive of changing me.

No it isn't. My assumption is that if you do change it will be on your timetable and when you are ready. If it doesn't than that's cool too. You are ignoring the emphasis on genuine outreach as good neighbors and friends. That will do more good for the church's reaching out just to reactivate people.

If that is your stance than you should be wary of every one as every friendship changes us in someway.

 

[Bronco70]

We obviously see it very differently. To me that last statement just emphasizes the reason I don't like what you said. Your assumption is that I should eventually change. But the reason I really don't like what you said is that your motivation for reaching out to these people is that they are "inactive members." You said that in your first sentence. And even if this is not your attitude and merely a slip of the keyboard, it is definitely the attitude of lots of your fellow members, and it is preached by the leadership of your church.

Think of it this way: If I was the leader of an anti-Mormon group and I told my followers "We need to reach out to active LDS members with the goal of deactivating them," you wouldn't like it. You don't want me to change you, but you feel like you'd be doing a good thing if you struck up a friendship with the ulterior motive of changing me.

This logic is dependent on the assumption that "reaching out" is merely, and always, a reactivation tactic. Sometimes it is, but this is not what it's supposed to be. It's not all or nothing. Unfortunately, some of the more zealous members misinterpret the charge of "every member a missionary", and get a sort of tunnel vision, which compels them to believe that if they aren't actively converting or reactivating, they aren't living up to God's expectations. Those are they who get pushy, or lose interest in people who are not interested in embracing their message. It's too bad because not only is it way off the mark, it also leaves a bad impression of the rest of us with those they "fail" to reactivate.

Some of us aren't like that. Some of us truly want others to be happy on their own terms. But by the same token, I don't want to be lumped in with the overbearing or insincere, just because we happen to be of the same faith.

 

[Deleted member 848]

As I mentioned before Kicky using those that identify as Mormon is perhaps the best way.

But my point still stands. We are witnessing the birth of a major world wide religion.

As opposed to what? Was Mormonism considered a sect or something? I always figured that it was a denomination-- and I don't really see the significance of referring to it as a religion as opposed to a denomination.

 

[Bronco70]

As opposed to what? Was Mormonism considered a sect or something?

Depends on who you ask. Still considered a cult by many.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Depends on who you ask. Still considered a cult by many.

I wouldn't say that that is a very accurate gauge.

According to Howard P. Becker (dude who first started using the word 'cult' in terms of sociology), it definitely doesn't hold any water. I wouldn't describe mormonism as a "small religious group lacking in structure-- and promoting the private nature of personal beliefs".

I'd say that it is a denominational sect at worst-- and its on track to becoming a denomination (i.e. completely on par with Presbyterians, Catholicism, etc.-- which many could argue that it's already there)

 

[Deleted member 848]

For you and colton as well: Those numbers are all wrong. The LDS church systematically over reports growth and underreports loss.

Let's look at membership in Brazil. In 2010 the church claimed 1,138,740 members in Brazil. But in the 2010 census only 225,695 Brazilians claimed they were LDS. 913,014 members are missing! What gives?

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54497395-180/church-census-lds-reported.html.csp

The LDS church is very "optimistic" in figuring official membership numbers. It assumes 100% retention rates. Once you are counted as a member you are a member for life. And judging by the low death rates, members don't die as often as the rest of the population.

That doesn't mean the church doesn't know how many members are showing up to church, they are meticulous record keepers. Head counts are performed and quarterly reports are made. But these actual numbers are not reported to the public. They are a secret.

Let's take the numbers reported on April 6, 2013. Official membership was reported up by 341,127 to 14,782,473. The "increase in the children of record" is 122,273 and new converts are 272,330. (Mormon children are typically baptized at age 8, so a new "child of record" is a child of a member or a convert that hasn't been baptized yet.)

So are there any subtractions? The gross increase is 122,273 + 272,330 = 394,603. Difference between net and gross increase is 394,603 - 341,127 = 53,476. Even if we assume the entire subtraction is due to death, the death rate is at MOST 3.7 deaths per 1000. Compare that to the 8.4 and 8.3 deaths per 1000 for the U.S. and World respectively.

https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/demographics_profile.html

This has been going on for decades, and the LDS assumptions about its own death rates lead to a constantly increasing gap between the "real" number and the reported number even if we assumed retention rates were truly close to 100% as the church treats all former members that haven't officially resigned membership as current members.

Reality is retention rates will never be 100%. Only a fraction of these increases are keepers. Some older studies suggest 34% of the members born in the church will leave, while only 25% - 50% of the converts will stay for the first year. 80% of members will leave the church for at least 1 year.

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Vital_Statistics

Only the deaths of active members are reported by wards and branches to church headquarters. The church doesn't reveal numbers for resignations or excommunications.

The result is that the church over reports its gains and under reports its losses year after year. Over time the errors keep accumulating.

Sociologists have estimated that the self identifying membership is about 5 million. At 5 million the LDS church doesn't even rank with Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists in numbers (Both of those churches use participation/attendance to determine their numbers.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

If you count only active members, there is a strong argument that church membership peaked some time ago, is aging demographically, and is an institution on the decline numerically.

Check Slide four of this powerpoint for how big this exaggeration is: https://www.docstoc.com/docs/157705726/Mormon-Doctrine---ITC-Renewable

I think the rate is closer to 30% and shrinking of whatever the church is reporting.

Superb post. I've learned lots about this in the sociology courses that I've done-- and it's all very very true.

 

[Bronco70]

I wouldn't say that that is a very accurate gauge.

According to Howard P. Becker (dude who first started using the word 'cult' in terms of sociology), it definitely doesn't hold any water. I wouldn't describe mormonism as a "small religious group lacking in structure-- and promoting the private nature of personal beliefs".

I'd say that it is a denominational sect at worst-- and its on track to becoming a denomination (i.e. completely on par with Presbyterians, Catholicism, etc.-- which many could argue that it's already there)

Yeah, but my point was that there are still many who consider it to be, right or wrong. Google "mormon cult". You'll find plenty who are eager to tell you why the LDS church is a cult.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Yeah, but my point was that there are still many who consider it to be, right or wrong. Google "mormon cult". You'll find plenty who are eager to tell you why the LDS church is a cult.

True. But google "muslim terrorism" and you'll see even more people pigeon-holing > 1 billion people, as opposed to ~15 million according to the LDS church.

My point is that it is super prevalent-- but luckily, it growingly becomes less and less of an obstacle. Of course we shouldn't become complacent-- but lets appreciate the fact that America nearly elected a Mormon into power (and he was the candidate from the side that is more likely to be anti-Mormon, or 'anti-cult').

My initial question is that why should it be referred to as a 'religion' as opposed to a denomination. I ask this because I've heard it referred to as a 'religion' several times. I feel like it would be more advantageous to try and consider Mormonism a denomination of christianity-- but maybe the leaders of the LDS church think otherwise. I don't know nearly enough about the subject.

 

[LogGrad98]

here is the original before someone photoshopped it . . . https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/i...06/AP/Images/Mormon Conference.JPEG-0cb74.jpg

That shadow sure looks like he is flipping someone off.

hoohoopoopookeekee


Did I do it right?

Damn!

 

[Sneakers]

As I mentioned before Kicky using those that identify as Mormon is perhaps the best way.

But my point still stands. We are witnessing the birth of a major world wide religion.

Someone got a little pollyanna off of the Conference kool-aid.

 

[Stoked]

As opposed to what? Was Mormonism considered a sect or something? I always figured that it was a denomination-- and I don't really see the significance of referring to it as a religion as opposed to a denomination.

In the 90s while I lived in the south it was widely considered a cult. Until more modern times it was "lawful" to kill Mormons in Missouri.

 

[Stoked]

Someone got a little pollyanna off of the Conference kool-aid.

Didn't watch it at all and I am severely inactive. Nice try?

 

[Stoked]

True. But google "muslim terrorism" and you'll see even more people pigeon-holing > 1 billion people, as opposed to ~15 million according to the LDS church.

My point is that it is super prevalent-- but luckily, it growingly becomes less and less of an obstacle. Of course we shouldn't become complacent-- but lets appreciate the fact that America nearly elected a Mormon into power (and he was the candidate from the side that is more likely to be anti-Mormon, or 'anti-cult').

My initial question is that why should it be referred to as a 'religion' as opposed to a denomination. I ask this because I've heard it referred to as a 'religion' several times. I feel like it would be more advantageous to try and consider Mormonism a denomination of christianity-- but maybe the leaders of the LDS church think otherwise. I don't know nearly enough about the subject.

I say religion in the same sense I would use it to say that Catholicism is a major religion. Catholics are Christians.

 

[Sneakers]

Didn't watch it at all and I am severely inactive. Nice try?

Alright then.

Seems like a pretty grandiose statement, is all I'm saying. When did the birth occur? Who is the "we" that is playing witness? .002% of the world's population represents a major world wide religion? and that's if we accept the 12 million figure.