In Cook's infamous talk about how strong the church is today, an unjustifiable claim was backed up with a footnote, see footnote 24 from https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

The footnote reads:
"Over the last 25 years, the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced."

Let's assume Cook was talking about the results for 2014. The number of members for 2014 was 15,372,337. Twenty five years earlier would therefore refer to 1989, when membership was 7,300,000. Double 7,300,000 is 14,600,000, which is less than 15,372,337. Therefore, if membership count is the measure of the size of "the Church", the church has more than doubled in size and the statement is false.

Maybe the footnote is false, or maybe they are using a different, undisclosed measure for the size of the church? Does anyone care to make a guess?

Membership number sources:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/statistical-report-1989
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/statistical-report-2014?lang=eng

Edit to add: Maybe they need footnotes for the footnotes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 08:06AM by The Invisible Green Potato.

You're not supposed to check GA sources, you're supposed to accept them at face value.

But with current rates it is not going to double again in another 25 years.

The lack of focus on the Easter story and Christ's role was stark. Cook's talk referenced by the OP is a perfect example and mirrored "the prophet" in his opening remarks for Easter Sunday session.

A quick, "hey it's easter and Jesus really did us all a solid by doing that atonement thingy and then coming back from being dead. Now lets talk about __________________________." (Insert temples, membership statistics, Word of Wisdom etc.)

I'm confused. The footnote says that the church has "almost" doubled in size. It didn't say it "more than" doubled.

Same as saying "nearly 15"

Lol, as in "several months away from her 15th birthday"

That is the problem. The footnote says "almost doubled" but the membership numbers say "more than doubled". I don't know whether the footnote is in error or whether it is talking about something other than membership numbers.

Oh, I see what you are saying. The footnote actually UNDERSTATES what the actual numbers show. Yeah, that's kind of weird. You'd think the church footnote would say more than double if the supposed numbers showed that.

I've forgotten whether it is the ARIS or Pew surveys that show Mormonism holding steady at about 1.5% in the US during that time.

Seriously, doubled? That's a lot of third world baseball baptisms.

What they are saying is that in 1989 there were more people leaving the church than there are leaving today in actual numbers (which I don't believe).

But if true, since the total membership has approximately doubled in those 25 years, the percentage of membership lost is decreasing, just like the percentage of growth is decreasing because they add about the same number, 300K, every year on an ever increasing number.

The logic is correct (if the numbers were true), but there is no source for the "actual number of members leaving the Church" on which the logic is based.

They are obviously only counting resignations as "leaving the church" and not total inactivity (those are still evidently part of the total members).

If there were legitimate reporters at the Trib they would request a breakdown of how they create 15.4 million members before they reported that number. I am sure in other areas of the paper they third-party identify.


She's a hack or doormat. She hasn't investigated anything with a critical eye about Mormonism think of what she could really do if she had curiosity and ambition.

Dawkins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They are obviously only counting resignations as
> "leaving the church" and not total inactivity
> (those are still evidently part of the total
> members).

No, it is obvious they are not counting resignations at all. The resignations, formal and infomral, continue to be counted as members.

That's why no one is leaving, they don't count the millions who have left as leaving at all.

I wonder if any religious church really know how many members they have.

I've moved from time to time, I never notified any church that I was leaving, nor told the new parish I moved where I came from.

It's all nothing but some type of sampling and semi-scientific guesstimating that the numbers are generated.

Maybe the best guess comes from the old follow the money routine. If money doesn't come in, facilities and programs shut down. If money flows in, then there is more programs and facilities.

Those statistics are irrelevant anyway. Didn't the church actually release a statistic saying something to the effect of that only 30 percent of the members maintain regular church membership?

Less than that must be full tithe-payers. There's gotta be over a million mormons on welfare, jobless, or living so far under the poverty line there tithing is negligible. It's probably like the US: 10 percent of the members pay 90 percent of the tithing, or something like that.

Like the way they say 10 percent of US citizens have make 90% of the money annually. Same approximation. I don't know if it's true exactly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 01:28PM by midwestanon.

Square footage of temples?

They are still counting exmos, dead members with bones aged to 110, under 8, baseball baptisms... probably baptisms for the dead of former members...

I think I figured out what he was referring to.

Pretty much everyone who joins the church through baptism goes "inactive". Baptisms are down, so there are fewer people leaving.

Here is an interesting thought:

You can get away with saying anything {SO LONG AS} you have no one to challenge the veracity of your statements

If the church membership doubled over the last 25 years, that is equivalent to an average growth rate of 2.8% over that time.

Proof: The 25th root of 2 is 1.02811...

Now look at Figure 3 of the previously linked growth analysis at Mormonism 101:

http://www.mormonism101.com/2015/04/number-of-mormons-to-peak-at-20-million.html

We can see that the church's average growth rate fell below 2.8% around 2005 or 2006. This can be hard to tell if you're not used to logarithmic plots. The bottom line corresponds to a growth rate of 0.75%, the line above it corresponds to a growth of 2 * 0.75% = 1.5%, the line above that corresponds to 3 * 0.75% = 2.25% and that line above that corresponds to 4 * 0.75% = 3%.

The church's growth rate was reasonably high in 1990, 25 years ago. The chart shows it at about 5.25%, which would correspond to a doubling time of 13.5 years if that rate were constant.

The church's current growth rate is about 1.5%, which would correspond to a doubling time of 46.5 years if that rate were constant.

Cook's assertion that church membership has doubled in the past 25 years may be true, but it's really just a sound bite to comfort TBMs. That doubling time is nothing special, and it's equivalent to the church's average growth rate in the 1950s.

The church's growth rate is plummeting, and I agree that we are seeing logistic (i.e. sigmoid) behavior in the curve. The size of the church will plateau in the next couple of decades and may even begin to fall.

Note that the above analysis is based on the 10-year moving average growth rate data published at Mormonism 101, which is based on the church's own published figures. That makes it the church's *best* case. From census data (at the very least), we know that the church's numbers are greatly inflated and that the majority of converts to the Mormon church fall away quickly. The true situation is probably much worse.

Cook can try to distract people from what's going on, but that doesn't change reality.

So Cook you say "the percentage leaving is greatly reduced." Prove it. Provide the numbers that back up that statement, and the assumptions behind those numbers, or your statement is meaningless. You made the factual assertion, it is incumbent on you to support it.

A couple of years ago there was an article in Reuters that quoted from an interview with then LDS church spokesman Marlin Jensen. He said that attrition has accelerated in the last 5 or 10 years, and not since the 1837 failure of the church bank in Kirtland, OH have so many left the church. I think I believe Jensen more than Cook.

So, is Cook saying that people are twice as stupid as they were 25 years ago?

1989 was just 2 years after Mark Hoffman was convicted in the forgery bombings (Salamander letter, etc.). Is it possible that there was a big spike in members walking away from the Church back then?