I started playing around with numbers, and I came up with a prediction, based on current trends, of when membership in the Mormon Church would dry up. This prediction is based on very little data projected over many years, several unverifiable assumptions, and does not take into account unforeseen changes in the future that would affect these projections—so the results are probably completely meaningless. But it’s still a fun exercise.

First of all, here is the annual growth rate in number of congregations worldwide over the last thirty years:

1983 2.78%
1984 3.35%
1985 3.75%
1986 2.56%
1987 4.01%
1988 3.45%
1989 4.51%
1990 4.54%
1991 3.98%
1992 6.76%
1993 4.59%
1994 3.68%
1995 4.24%
1996 3.66%
1997 4.85%
1998 3.57%
1999 0.95%
2000 0.47%
2001 0.65%
2002 0.23%
2003 0.36%
2004 1.65%
2005 1.56%
2006 1.43%
2007 1.28%
2008 1.01%
2009 1.12%
2010 0.83%
2011 0.43%
2012 0.80%

The Church was growing rapidly in the 80s and 90s, had a steep drop off in 1999, stayed below 1% for a few years, jumped back up slightly in 2004, then has seen a gradual decline since then. So here’s my first conjecture: The Church was growing rapidly in the 80s and early 90s, but right around the mid-90s, when the Internet was becoming prevalent, growth started to slow down as information about the problems with Church history and doctrine became more readily accessible. Perhaps it took a while for Church leaders to realize this, and they kept up the higher rate of creating new wards and branches through 1998, then over-corrected over the next five years. By 2004, Church leaders had the growth rate of the number of congregations back to about the same level as the growth rate of active membership—thus the steady, gradual decline in growth since 2004. I realize this is all speculation, but it seems at least slightly reasonable.

So my assumption is that, since 2004, the growth rate of Church membership has mirrored the growth rate of the number of units. This growth rate appears to have a downward linear trend. Another assumption, then, is that this linear downward trend will continue in the future. I performed a linear regression on the values since 2004, and came up with projected growth rates into the future. Based on this projection, the growth rate will go negative in 2017—in other words, Church membership will peak in 2016 and then start to decrease.

Since we don’t have any published data on number of active members, I assumed that the current number of active members of the Church worldwide is 5 million. Based on this and the predicted growth rates, active Church membership will peak in 2016 at 5,048,261. It will decrease to 4 million by 2035, 3 million by 2044, 2 million by 2053, 1 million by 2065, and it will reach zero around 2165.

This analysis probably has about as much validity as the Rodney Stark’s prediction in 1984 that Mormon Church membership would reach 260 million by 2080. I do think that active Church membership will peak in the next few years and then begin a gradual decline. But I think that decline will take much longer—probably several hundred years. Perhaps in the year 3000, there will still be a small group of devout Mormons learning the Masonic rituals that they believe are necessary to get into heaven.

While I would love to see the demise of the Mormon Church, really what I want is for Church membership to decrease by six (my wife and five kids) within my lifetime, preferably sooner than later.

Brilliantly flawed brilliance here! Love this! Granted, you would be laughed out of a conference, and flunk your dissertation, but genius nonetheless!

We should show this to TBM as a contrast to the faith-promoting stuff they hear about growth and the flawed crap non-demographers have mathematically deduced from church bad data.

Linear regression on what is definitely not a past linear trend is in fact flawed. However, I think that acceleration of membership loss is very likely.


How can anyone perceive of the LDS church increasing the rate at which they get converts? At the very least, the difference between population growth rates and LDS growth rates shows that they will become less and less important over time. I predict that the more people leave, the more others will decide it's okay to get out given the swell of exmo support. The more normal exmos that members know, the more likely they are to embrace becoming one of us. That will accelerate over time.

Excellent analysis - the most reasonable I've seen. A continued linear decline is even conservative. First, the possibility of a trend reversal seems very unlikely. Success of the missionary uptick? Success in 3rd-world conversions? Gradual liberalization of church policies? Each may slow the negative trend, but are unlikely to change the overall trajectory. Second, any number of likely events could provide for an accelerated loss of members. Reduced birthrate within the Mormon population. Continued disaffection of younger generations. Blow-back from financial, doctrinal or social missteps.

The next few years should be very telling. I personally can't wait for the first announcement of an overall loss in membership - should be cause for some major soul-searching across the church. For your sake I hope your immediate family sees the light even earlier than that...

Rodney stark fit an exponential curve to the LDS growth data back in the 1970s or thereabouts, and assumed that would continue on indefinitely. Exponential growth never continues forever. His projections were wildly inaccurate.

Assuming a linear decline has the same problem. Most short segments of any growth or decline curve appear linear. That almost never remains true in the long run.

I think LDS Inc is entering a sharp decline right now, on the order of 1 to 2% per year. What with all the births and converts each year, to lose all that growth, and an additional 1 to 2% is a huge deal.

However, the Suits seem to be cranking out new stakes and wards at a good clip this year. Potemkin Villages, IMHO, but we shall see in a few years.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2013 04:05PM by fudley.

World population will reach zero before that.

Thanks for posting this. It's really interesting, and I agree with some of your observations.

However, I think the membership of the church will most likely follow a trend like shown on this graph: http://www.soundience.com/blog/response_curves/tv.png

i.e.
A fast growth at the beginning. Then it slows down, but is still growing. Then a period of time where it's roughly stable for a while. Then a period of time with slight decreases. Then the decline accelerates until membership is "small". Then the decline continues, but slows down, and tends towards 0 (but never quite reaches it).

Brilliant in it's brilliance!

- And you didn't even have to put your face in a hat.

Great post!

My gut for the tick back up over 1% growth from the years 2004-2008 was because of GBH.

Yes, the internet was raging, but the growth stats may have picked up during the last 4 years of GBH.

He was at concert pitch. It was new temple after new temple. Women thought he was so sweet and cute. Lots of TBM's loved him, bought in, and bought his biography by Sheri Dew, etc, etc, etc.

I know using unit numbers (stakes, wards/branches) is more a more accurate count of active membership, and I had a thought this morning while reading a thread from Cali-Sally:

The upspike in unit numbers in 98/99 may have come from when they converted Ricks to BYU-I, and with it needed to create a lot of additional student wards/stakes suddenly. It gave the appearance of a lot of new units, but they were mainly comprised of members who had been moved around.

Ok. This is so flawed I won't event attempt to introduce science and logic into it.

BUT, it does bring up an interesting point:

The church is in survival mode. The old sales tactics no longer work, thanks to the advent of logic and the internet.

What we do have is a systematic adaptation by the church in order to retain assets (members and their money).

I see the following logical sequence:

Older more conservative (baby boomers)- less interwebs savvy members will die of at the same rate as eryone in their generation, they are the financial backbone ofthe church.

The church is represented (not led), and will continue to be by this generation for the next 15-20 years.

The following generation (now 30-50) is less religious and it is being decimated by the realization that they were lied to.

The youngest generation (10-30) is being brainwashed by the same lies that will backfire even faster. They are more vocal and a lot more likely to take their iphone out during seminary and raise their hand and say- bullshit brother thomas, that did not happen.

The LDS brand is in decline. Like Levi's denim, they will have their buyers and outlets and they will be caried every where, but they are no longer the icon they once were and they are not the only pair of jeans in town. Some young kids wear them and a few hipsters think they are retro cool, Sure grandma will buy them for you thinking they are the best and only option there is, but grandma wears stir up pants and will be dead soon...

Mormonism will fall into the same ocean of religions that had to mainstream to survive. Wat we are seeying ins the growing pains of that process.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 02:54PM by erictheex.

BTW... there are a few of us boomers who are techno-savvy and have left, and exert significant influence on others. We know the old history. And don't forget how many there are who just walked away without fanfare....

Some leave before dying, spending their money elsewhere. Being "old," "conservative," and "set in our ways" is a bit cliche.

Did a quick scan of this:
Scholarly work on the decline of the Shakers
(available online via JSTOR)

The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer, 1984)
contains: The Demographic Features of the Shaker Decline, 1787-1900
Priscilla J. Brewer
pp. 31-52 (22 pages)

Lost 75% of membership 1860-1870.

Immediately preceded by:
- Doubts about the leadership.
- Worldly intrusion ("employment opportunities" in this case vs internet)

Some similarities - and if the decline parallels anything like what the Shakers experienced, it will be precipitous.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 03:07PM by zenjamin.

I saw this chart linked on another board:

http://i.imgur.com/fnzo5JR.png

The peak year for the church appears to have been 1979, with another little boomlet around 1995-96. The internet years have been a complete bust. For 2011-2012, you can see how the church is massaging the numbers.

I agree with copostmo--let my extended family and quality members be among the droves leaving! Let Third World people who really need charitable help find someone to REALLY help them!

I always wonder if, at some point, ex-Mormons will organize, and have their own trained missionary force, and maybe a team of educated experts who know how to de-program brainwashed cult members. Let's get more informative books published, including books on the emotional havoc the cult creates in the lives of decent, family-oriented people, who are deluded that the Mormons "mean well" and "this is the best way to raise children. Facts + emotional ramifications. RFM has made a great start!

How does a stone cut from a mountain roll back uphill?

In the late 1990’s Church President Gordon B. Hinckley began the McTemple building program. Looking at the OP’s data in the 1990's I would assume that LDS INC. was getting excited with the church growth and thought to either maintain or accelerate those numbers with the addition of several McTemples (afterall the Temples are built to bring in revenue and cause growth).

There’s steady growth from 1990 through 1998 in the OP's figures. From the list below temples were announced as such:

Before or During 1998: 32 McTemples
During 1999: 16 McTemples
During 2000: 5 McTemples
During 2001: 3 McTemples

By the time the growth data was processed through 1999 (probably computed at the beginning of 2000) LDS INC. had already announced 48 McTemples. When the data was analyzed that 1999 had seen such a big drop in growth, the McTemple program seems to have been radically reduced and only generated 8 more in 2000-2001.

I think comparing the McTemple figures with the OP's growth figures is telling!

------

McTEMPLES

Temple No. in chronology .... (square footage) .... [Announcement date] .... Dedication date

53: Monticello Utah (7,000 then 11,225 sq ft) [Announced 25 Apr 1998] - Dedicated 21 Aug 1999
54: Anchorage Alaska (6,800 then 11,937) [4 Oct 1997] - 9 Jan 1999
55: Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Mexico (6,800) [4 Oct 1997] - 6 Mar 1999
59: Spokane Washington (10,700) (4 Oct 1997) - 12 Nov 1997
60: Columbus Ohio (10,700) [25 Apr 1998] - 4 Sep 1999

61: Bismarck North Dakota (10,700) [9 Jul 1998] - 19 Sep 1999
62: Columbia South Carolina (10,700) [11 Sep 1998] - 16 Oct 1999
63: Detroit Michigan (10,700) [10 Aug 1998] - 23 Oct 1999
64: Halifax Nova Scotia (10,700) [7 May 1998] - 14 Nov 1999
65: Regina Saskatchewan (10,700) [3 Aug 1998] - 14 Nov 1999

67: Edmonton Alberta (10,700) [11 Aug 1998] - 11 Dec 1999
68: Raleigh North Carolina (10,700) [3 Sep 1998] - 18 Dec 1999
69: St. Paul Minnesota (10,700) [29 Jul 1998] - 9 Jan 2000
70: Kona Hawaii (10,700) [7 May 1998] - 23 Jan 2000
71: Ciudad Juarez Mexico (10,700) [7 May 1998] - 28 Feb 2000

72: Hermosillo Sonora Mexico (10,769) [20 Jul 1998] - 27 Feb 2000
74: Oaxaca Mexico (10,700) [23 Feb 1999] - 11 Mar 2000
75: Tuxtla Gutierrez Mexico (10,700) [25 Feb 1999] - 12 Mar 2000
76: Louisville Kentucky (10,700) [17 Mar 1999] - 19Mar 2000
77: Palmyra New York (10,900) [21 Feb 1999] - 6 April 2000

78: Fresno California (10,700) [8 Jan 1999] - 9 Apr 2000
79: Medford Oregon (10,700) [15 Mar 1999] - 16 Apr 2000
80: Memphis Tennessee (10,700) [17 Sep 1998] - 23 Apr 2000
81: Reno Nevada (10,700) [12 Apr 1999] - 23 Apr 2000
83: Tampico Mexico (10,700) [8 Jul 1998] - 20 May 2000

84: Nashville Tennessee (10,700) [9 May 1994] - 21 May 2000
85: Villahermosa Mexico (10,700) [30 Oct 1998] - 21 May 2000
86: Montréal Québec (10,700 to ?) [6 Aug 1998] - 4 Jun 2000
87: San Jose Costa Rica (10,700) [17 Mar 1999] - 4 Jun 2000
88: Fukuoka Japan (10,700) [7 May 1998] - 11 Jun 2000

89: Adelaide Australia (10,700) [17 Mar 1999] - 15 Jun 2000
90: Melbourne Australia (10,700) [30 Oct 1998] - 16 Jun 2000
91: Suva Fiji (10,700) [7 May 1998] - 18 Jun 2000
92: Merida Mexico (10,700) [25 Sep 1998] - 8 Jul 2000
93: Veracruz Mexico (10,700) [17 Apr 1999] - 9 Jul 2000

94: Baton Rouge Louisiana (10,700) [14 Apr 1999] - 9 Jul 2000
95: Oklahoma City Oklahoma (10,769) [14 Mar 1999] - 30 Jul 2000
96: Caracas Venezuela Temple (15,332) [30 Sep 1998] – 20 Aug 2000
98: Birmingham Alabama (10,700) [11 Sep 1998] - 3 Sep 2000
102: Porto Alegre Brazil (10,700) [30 Sep 1997] - 17 Dec 2000

103: Montevideo Uruguay (10,700) [2 Nov 1998] - 18 Mar 2001
104: Winter Quarters Nebraska (16,000) [14 Jun 1999] - 22 Apr 2001
105: Guadalajara Mexico (10,700) [14 Apr 1999] - 29 Apr 2001
106: Perth Australia (10,700) [11 Jun 1999] - 20 May 2001
107: Columbia River Washington (16,800) [2 Apr 2000] - 18 Nov 2001

108: Snowflake Arizona (18,621) [2 Apr 2000] - 3 Mar 2002
109: Lubbock Texas (16,498) [2 Apr 2000] - 21 Apr 2002
110: Monterrey Mexico (16,498) [21 Dec 1995] - 28 Apr 2002
112: Asuncion Paraguay (10,700) [2 Apr 2000] - 19 May 2002
114: The Hague Netherlands (10,500) [16 Aug 1999] -8 Sept 2002

115: Brisbane Australia (10,700) [20 Jul 1998] - 15 Jun 2003
116: Redlands California (17,300) [21 Apr 2001] - 14 Sep 2003
117: Accra Ghana (10,500) [16 Feb 1998] - 11 Jan 2004
120: San Antonio Texas (16,800) [24 Jun 2001] - 22 May 2005
121: Aba Nigeria (11,500) [2 Apr 2000] - 7 Aug 2005

122: Newport Beach California (17,800) [21 Apr 2001] - 28 Aug 2005

(Temple statistics taken from http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/)



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 08:05PM by jiminycricket.

Don't compare your fine work to the garbage that Rodney Stark produced.

Rodney Stark is the Harold Camping of demographic projection.

Utah and surrounding areas will remain the church's stronghold. The rest of the world will move on.

Based on the percentage of time I have been dead in the last 30 years, I predict that I will live forever. Simple extrapolation.

Thank God for the internet.

According to a leaked Area Presidency report; of the 500,000 claimed members in Europe, only 100,000 show up for Sacrament Meeting. That's a 20% activity rate. It's been 100,000 for the last five years yet membership numbers have grown.

So activity is declining and retention is poor and getting worse.

It is that trend which is the reason behind the age reduction for missionaries. Get them onto missions and married before they have a chance to go inactive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 06:01AM by Stumbling.