OK so it's not officially "Mormonism" anymore, but who cares? It is what it is.

10 year trends show shocking decline in religious activity.

Americans describing themselves as Christian
2009 77%
2019 65%

Americans religiously unaffiliated
2009 17%
2019 26%
In just 10 years, there was an increase of 30 million Americans in this category.

USA Protestants
2009 51%
2019 43%

Americans attending church once/month or more
2009 52%
2019 45%

White American adults attending church only a few times a year or less
2009 50%
2019 57% (and only 42% attend more than a few times per year)

Millennial generation (born 1981 to 1996)
(born 81 to 96) 49% identify as Christian, but only 22% attend any meetings
(born 1928 to 1945) 84% identify as Christian

Mormon retention in USA:
Realistic estimates are that only 22% of babies currently born into LDS homes will be active for life. Considering the extreme religious decline in American society these days, this 22% number (which may or may not be accurate) could tailspin down towards 10% or even single digits.

LDS membership in the USA is officially growing about 0.6% per year. This doesn't reflect any increasing inactivity rates. Given lower birth rates, and religious trends in the USA, and the flood of internet information about early Mormonism, it won't be long before LDS membership in the USA will DECLINE EACH YEAR and could escalate to a PRECIPITOUS DECLINE.

Over 80% of current LDS converts are outside the USA. Over 75% of foreign converts go inactive within a year of baptism. In vast areas of the world (such as much of Europe), converts are nearly impossible, causing consolidation and elimination of missions, and there's no sense on wasting missionary efforts on a total losing cause.

In Japan, vast numbers of missionaries have served for many decades. Many temples have been built or announced. Much success was seen decades ago. Things are currently stagnant. Converts are hard to find. Converts almost always go inactive. It seems unwise to keep so many missions and missionaries chasing a fantasy of church growth and prosperity.

In Mexico, LDS growth won't be through big families, since LDS family size has actually dropped below the national average!

You forgot to mention Islam (and non-Christian religions). Islam is growing fast. Within my lifetime it has overtaken Catholicism, and will probably overtake Christianity in the near future. I don't see much evidence that Islam is in decline. Like Mormonism, much of its growth comes from high birthrates.

Deep Anon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Islam is growing fast. (...)
> I don't see much evidence that Islam is in
> decline. Like Mormonism, much of its growth comes
> from high birthrates.


Not so fast. In most muslim-majority countries it is illegal to leave islam. In over a dozen it is punishable by death. No wonder you don't see much evidence of the faith being in decline.

But dig a little deeper. If you know people who were born and bred in Pakistan, Iran, KSA and the like you will see that even there, closeted atheism is booming behind closed doors. In the more liberal countries like Turkey and Tunesia, the percentage of people who call themselves non-practicing or atheist in polls is already higher than in the USA.

Whenever you hear the claim about "1.6 billion muslims" you should immediately ask what the number is based on. It is simply the combined population of all muslim-majority countries. Bollocks.

> If you know people who
> were born and bred in Pakistan, Iran, KSA and the
> like you will see that even there, closeted
> atheism is booming behind closed doors.

Very true. In Iran, and the Iranian diaspora, a lot of people are now complaining that Islam isn't even an Iranian religion but rather an inferior tradition foisted on the nation by Arabs.

It is important to recognize the complexity of the peoples and societies that fall within "Islam."

In about 1984, non-LDS professor of sociology Rodney Stark famously wrote a paper with a 100 year prediction of LDS growth.

https://www.deseret.com/1998/5/23/19381742/lds-church-growing-at-warp-speed-sociologist-says

Stark believed that by 2080, TCOJCOLDS could grow to about 64 million to 267 million members. It would truly be skyrocketing astronomical success if the church reached 267 million members.

In the 1998 Deseret News article, Stark gloated that the LDS church seemed to be growing even faster than his highest estimates. Stark foolishly noted that LDS growth seemed to reach the point (in 1998) where it was accelerating exponentially.

. . . well, needless to say . . . 267 million? . . . . not going to happen!!

. . . and how about the possibility of 64 million "Mormons" (or whatever they want to be called) in 2080? . . . . . come on man . . . . .

He was working with statistical trends. Unfortunately he didn't have the full data set, i.e. retention.

...and the internet happened.

I read that Methodists might split over LGBT views(?). I think that will automatically make the regressive half become obsolete over time.

IF they want to survive, they need to adapt faster. Gone are the days when they can control and spin public opinion from the pulpit in relative isolation.

Mormon God hadn’t really thought the seniority policy through.

Yeah!

Didn't ghawd foresee that 'the longest serving apostle' would likely also be the most decrepit?

Good ol' ghawd, who is always ready to pass along 'the word' via continuing revelation... All you have to do is ask him!

...Until it comes to asking him who the next Corporation Sole shall be. Then there's no revelation, just a calendar. And the members won't let themselves read the tea leaves.

Or at least they didn't use to. Now the tide is turning. Interesting times!

I think there will always be a need, from a certain sub-set of people, for high-demand religions including Mormonism, the JWs, Scientology, Christian Science, etc. Some people have a personality type that craves a lot of direction and control. Or, they have been deeply conditioned into that mindset from a young age and cannot escape it.

Agreed.

Meanwhile the church is trying to go mainstream, meaning it is moving the niche you mentioned to a much larger market that in fact is declining. I'm not at all sure that will work.

I don't think it will work. The best example of that is the Mormon-offshoot Community of Christ, which has lost membership in the process of mainstreaming.

From a marketing point of view, IMO the Mormon leadership would be best advised to maintain tight control. The membership in first-world countries might continue declining, but there will be a core group that will remain loyal. Meanwhile, most growth will be from poorer areas. I think this goes a long way towards explaining why the church is stockpiling cash.

Rusty is just addressing the worst annoyances in order to keep the faithful placated.

It seems to me that religion, like many other things,is part of a cyle. There will be times of increase and times of decrease.
Nothing ever stays the same.

I think you are right. Christianity is shrinking and Christians are being persecuted right now. Islam and even Marxism are growing in the west. Sometimes something worse replaces what went. Nature abhors a vacuum. As much as I dislike Mormonism, I’m fully aware something worse can fill the void it left. Seems to be how this screwed up world runs.

Rubicon, please provide evidence for these propositions?


---------------
> Christians are being persecuted right now.

Where? In the Sudan? Okay, yes. But anywhere else? Are Christians being crucified? Are priests being locked up as in Mexico decades ago or France during the Revolution?

Or do you mean that atheism/agnosticism/apathy/criticism constitute "persecution?"


---------------
> Islam and even Marxism are growing in the west.

Where exactly is Islam "growing in the west?" Or are you merely referring to refugees fleeing persecution? Because that would be a little like saying Celtic people were taking over the world during the Potato Famine.

Most bizarrely, where is Marxism "growing in the west?" Are there new Marxist newspapers or social clubs? New Marxist political parties forming in Congress?


----------------------
> Nature abhors a vacuum. As much as I dislike
> Mormonism, I’m fully aware something worse can
> fill the void it left.

True. But are you seriously asserting that that has already happened? If so, could you please tell us what "worse" things are replacing Mormonism?

Oh, come on. Everyone knows the cultural Marxists have taken over the world. Gwyneth Paltrow's success is proof enough that people's brains have been degraded. Credit cards! Fluoride! Dogs and cats sleeping together! The demise of 3.2 beer! Don't get me started...

Talk to anyone living in Italy or Hong Kong right now.

Italy was considerably more Catholic in 1943. Not sure that put them in a better place. There have always been problem spots in the world. And I think it is particularly hard to pin the current state of Italy and Hong Kong on the decline of Mormonism.

Meanwhile, the least Christian parts of Europe seem to be doing the best.

Utah seems to be doing OK, but I attribute that to the Mormon emphasis on education. That does not appear to be diminishing, even as the success of Mormonism in general, even in Utah, is declining.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2020 04:24PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Hong Kong?

Oh, you are asserting that China is a Marxist country. I get you. Like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy and the German Democratic Republic was a democracy.

Seriously, Rubicon, it's best to look beyond labels and see the fundamentals. China was once led by people who claimed to be inspired by Marxists, but almost immediately it became "socialism with Chinese characteristics." And all that went away with Deng Xiaoping, who announced a strategy of economic liberalization under the banner "to get rich is glorious." Can you name one policy since December 1978 that inclined towards Marxism rather than capitalism?"

What China represents today is authoritarian capitalism, the encouragement of rapid economic growth under the control of a totalitarian state. Hong Kong is indeed threatened by that, but to claim that Chinese power is Marxist--"withering away of the state"--is absurd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2020 04:54PM by Lot's Wife.

As for Italy, what are you on about?

Are you seriously suggesting that Communism (not Marxism, which is virtually non-existent in Italy) is anywhere near as powerful as in 1947 and 1948?

Are you alluding to the effort to try the leader of the right-wing opposition for crimes? Because that would be curious inasmuch as Salvini is requesting that parliament lift his immunity so he can go to trial. But perhaps you are among those who believe that elected officials cannot legitimately be held legally responsible for criminal activities?

Or are you referring to the foundering of the broader Five Star Movement? That would be strange because the organization is collapsing from within as members decide its ideology and policy are stupid. Or do you think that once a populist party gains momentum the state should intervene to prevent people from leaving?

"Withering away of the state." My heavens. . .

Here is an article that says the top 12 companies in China are government owned. So it is what we call a socialist country, meaning that the government owns the business.

https://fortune.com/2015/07/22/china-global-500-government-owned/

Another fact that China is a Marxist country is that they are running indoctrination camps to eliminate the oddballs in society. they are trying to bully Muslims somewhere around Tibet into not being Muslims anymore. People are dissapearring and getting locked up in institutions where they are forced to sing songs and color in coloring books, and later perhaps even tortured until they conform, (the way communists/socialists have always done).

Just look at this YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH5JPEoIRpY

I'm not sure how you see this as "authoritarian capitalism" or what that even is? Here is the definition of capitalism:

noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by "private owners" for profit, rather than by the state.

Socialism is indeed social ownership of the means of production. But that is not Marxism. The Nazis were every bit as socialist as the USSR in the 1930s. So you can't conclude that socialist economic organization indicates affinity for Marx: it assuredly does not.

China, furthermore, has been shrinking the state-owned sector for four decades. Why? Because Beijing recognizes that socialism has screwed up the economy and must be ended. The problem is that you can't throw 200 million workers out of their jobs all at once without destabilizing the country. So the process is one of capitalization, not the opposite. For a graphic representation of how far the country has gone in shrinking the state sector and replacing it with private enterprise, see:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-rise-of-private-business-in-china-over-state-owned-companies-in-two-charts-2014-4

And capitalization has worked very nicely for China. The Chinese economy has grown at a rate roughly three times faster than the United States or any other major economy for almost thirty years. The contrast with the socialist past could not be starker.

As for the appalling suppression of dissent and even of ethnicity in the Muslim case, there is nothing in Marxism that supports that. It is the action of a totalitarian dictatorship--again like Nazi Germany or what is happening in Turkey and Hungary right now. When discussing ideologies like Marxism, it's critical to get the definition right rather than attributing to it all bad things. I repeat: Marx advocated the withering away of the state, not the strengthening of the state or the use of state power to oppress minorities.

I am fully aware of the definition of capitalism. The superimposition of the word "authoritarian" is how experts describe China: a country that is using capitalism to generate economic growth and increased revenues which are then used to strengthen a dictatorship.

Marxism: withering away of the state and expansion of personal liberty.

Modern China: use of capitalism to strengthen the state at the expense of the individual.

"Marxism: withering away of the state and expansion of personal liberty."

Do you believe that? That's just the sales pitch. No Marxist revolution has achieved anything close to either of these things. In fact, they always head in the opposite direction.

Even Marx himself said dictatorship would be needed to get to true Communism, so it is hardly heretical Marxism.

Name a single "Marxist revolution." You are confusing the ideology with specific political organizations--you know, socialist states under the flag of communism.

There is nothing in Marxism that indicates the characteristics that macaRomney ascribes to it. Marx never advocated re-education camps, the suppression of ethnic minorities, or state-owned industries as in China.

People throw around words like "Marxist" and "fascist" without consideration. That is sloppy, an excuse for refusing to think.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2020 12:31AM by Lot's Wife.

Happy Saturday :-D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2020 08:25AM by Soft Machine.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Islam and even Marxism are growing in the west.

Oh no, not THAT debunked argument AGAIN?!

Sure, islam is growing in the west, at least according to islam. And mormonism is growing according to mormonism! The West was never part of the muslim world, so from zero to a handful feels like enormous growth but is still nearly nothing.

Even France, that country that colonized such a large swath of the muslim world (now 17 independent muslim-majority countries) has fewer than 10% of what the press will call "muslims", by which they simply mean "people who had one or more grandparents born in a muslim-majority country". A lot of those people are just as secular as your average French(wo)man.

Oh, you will say, but there are so many converts, aren't there? Well no. There are converts, but few of them last long, and fewer have children who remain in the faith. Altogether, there's a percentage of muslims, but it's in the single digits. If they are a majority, it's on a local level, never regional. And islamic political parties usually score below 1% in elections.




> Sometimes something worse replaces what went.
> Nature abhors a vacuum. As much as I dislike
> Mormonism, I’m fully aware something worse can
> fill the void it left.

Or something much better, like secularism, science and tolerance. The "replacement theory" that without christianity you will have islam, and that a high birth rate among whites will ensure a low birthrate among brown people is something that few Europeans will buy into. Sorry.

I can confirm everything in this excellent post. The following part I can confirm from personal experience:

"Even France, that country that colonized such a large swath of the muslim world (now 17 independent muslim-majority countries) has fewer than 10% of what the press will call "muslims", by which they simply mean "people who had one or more grandparents born in a muslim-majority country". A lot of those people are just as secular as your average French(wo)man."

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2020 08:29AM by Soft Machine.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that religion, like many other
> things,is part of a cyle. There will be times of
> increase and times of decrease.

It increases in time of ignorance and decreases when information is readily available.

I think religions will keep dying out as long as the internet is here to stay.

Perhaps the robots made us all anti-social, to make it easier for them to be the next logical evolution of humans.
They will keep a few of us nice ones, like cats.

We are already appendages to our phones, and that is just in the last 15 years. I already get the equivalent from my phone of the HAL 9000's famous line: "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that."

Seriously, computing is still a couple decades shy of being a century old (there were some precursors, but I consider the machines calculating ballistics tables for the Navy in WWII as Day Zero for functioning computers).

Given the rate of change in just my lifetime, I really can't imagine what computers will be able to do in 200 years. When I was a kid, a single transistor came in a case about the size of a number 2 pencil eraser, and portable radios proudly proclaimed on their cases the number of transistors inside. Now I can slip a few billion transistors in my pocket with room to spare. My phone recognizes my face.

   

3 shooters implicated, 1 in custody.
this location has a poor reputation for drug activity.

If membership tanks they can still survive for a long time on 100 billion.

I was thinking the same thing

Not if they get garnished to zero by a lawyer. This is not impossible as i have recently learned. Give a lawyer access to their bank accounts and they are screwed. The money will go to the recovery fund to the victims of the cult.