Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:05AM

I started this in the GC prediction thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.

LDS Inc only reports Children Of Record (COR) in its annual statistical report, since that is a bigger number than baptisms of 8 year olds.

They actually did some finagling about 18 years ago to goose the "children of record" number. What I think they did was start perusing the birth announcements along the Mo Corridor and if a parent was a member of record, they added the baby as a child of record, whether it was blessed in church or not.

LDS Inc reported both COR and Baptisms of COR until 1988.
Then they only reported Baptisms of COR until 1996.
From 1997 to the present they only report Children of Record.

I assume the stopped reporting both numbers because then people could see how many children of record were not being baptized.

As for goosing the numbers:
Children of Record for various years
2001 69K
2002 81K
2003 99K
slow downward slide to...
2007 93K
2008 123K
another slow downward slide to...
2018 102K
(Source: ldsstatistics.com )

Children of Record has been trending down since its all-time high of 124K in 1982. BTW, total reported membership then was 5 million and change. Now it is 102K COR from a church with (supposedly) 16 million members.

There is no way I will believe that the birthrate took a huge spike in 2002 and 2003 and 2008. My guess is that they started combing the newspapers in 2002 to add children born to members of record, even if children were not blessed, and decided in 2008 to go whole hog on padding the Children of Record numbers, perhaps by expanding to Idaho and Arizona newspaper birth announcements.

Whatever it was, something clearly happened to spike the numbers in those years, and it wasn't a massive jump in the birthrate.


Prediction for 2019 (to be reported at April GC in a couple months): under 100K COR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2020 11:06AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:16AM

are U suggesting (or telling us) that ChurchCo reports (stats, others) aren't reliable - representative of reality?


Whoa Nelly!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:31AM

Yeah, who'd have thunk?

On the bright side, I do think they are distorting the numbers by reporting children who weren't blessed, as opposed to simply making numbers up out of whole cloth. I don't think they have sunk that low. Yet.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: CrispingPin ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:18AM

I thought TSCC stopped reporting membership numbers in conference a couple of years ago. The numbers are still available online, and are printed in the Ensign, but I thought they stopped reporting them from the pulpit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:20AM

Additional thought - those years when the numbers spiked (the 20-aughts) was the time when it would be possible to see birth announcements electronically and have computers generate a list of babies born to members of record by cross-tabbing the birth announcements and member records.

I seriously doubt LDS Inc would ask ward clerks to do such a task, because there are too many clerks. Word would leak out. But a new baby showing up for a family nobody in the ward knew, when the new ward list was sent from SLC - who would question that, or even notice?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:23AM

If what you theorize is correct, could they then further inflate their membership number when the missionaries find and baptize an older than 9-year-old child of a member of record?

The missionary and the MP sure count such a baptism when it comes time to report on their efforts!

Yeah, I know, it's a real weasel move, but we are talking about serious mormons ...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:36AM

I believe any baptism over 8 years old is considered a convert baptism. Would they double count someone as a COR and also as a convert baptism? Wouldn't surprise me. Clerical error, dontcha know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:39AM

Guess why the mish's attend member-family baptisms!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: CL2 ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 11:45AM

baptized. Of my parents' grandchildren and great grandchildren, only 5 were baptized. There are 13 that were not baptized. My still active, nonbelieving sister has the most who are not members, although her 3 children were baptized, her 8 grandchildren were not.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 12:06PM

Interesting. Something is indeed fishy.

You'd think the handbook or something would define the terms they use and share the data sources they used. I thought Children of Record meant strickly those who have received their initial blessing which is what would initiate a "record."

I don't think they would go through and count public birth records for this in certain states just assuming they count as Mormon. I think it is more likely they are just pulling whatever numbers they want out of their rear inconsistently. Maybe they use genealogy-type connections to determine who they think are associated with Mormons. They keep moving the goal posts for what they report and how it is calculated. There are inadequate explanations. It smacks of LSD propaganda for their own members' consumption. Who knows though. You might be right.

Next they will be counting frozen embryos and every sperm!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 01:40PM

The answer seems clear enough to me. We know the church doesn't remove members from their rolls until they reach the age of 110 even though virtually all people have died decades before then. Right?

Well, clearly the church has decided to apply the same logic in the opposite direction and is now counting children decades before their births.

It wouldn't be right, after all, to understate the speed with which the stone is rolling forth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: February 24, 2020 01:32PM

And like their geese of 110 will never get cooked neither will their goslings.

The Lord's accounting is really honest with us fellow "men."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scotchipman ( )
Date: February 22, 2020 04:22PM

Great membership resource at http://www.fullerconsideration.com/membership.php with a big section on children of record, see below without the nice figures/graphs. Best best to click on the link which is easier to read and includes the nice figures/graphs.

Children of Record

Increase of Children of Record
Definition: The number of children age 0-7 who are added to the records of the church without baptism, including children born to active members as well as convert children of record. Prior to 1989 these children were counted, but not included in the membership totals.

Children of Record Baptisms
Definition: Children age 8 who are baptized.

As discussed earlier, in 1910 and 1918 the general conference reports included "total baptisms," and in 1913 "baptism rate" from which total baptisms can be inferred. If baptism rate is assumed at 1% as discussed earlier, then subtracting the convert baptisms from this value yields children of record baptisms for 1910, 1913 and 1918 at 11,917, 10,298, and 9,801 respectively. Linear interpolation can be used to estimate between the known values.

Increase in Children of Record has not been reported in a consistent manner over the years. In 1914, 1918, and from 1921-1981 the annual reports listed "children blessed." From 1982-1987 and from 1997-2014 it reported "Increase of children of record." Separate figures for "Children of Record Baptized" were given from 1921-1996. The increase of children of record can generally be related to the children of record baptized 8 years later. During the last such pairing for which both of these figures were reported, 1987-1995, this ratio was 71.86%. Using this relationship projected forwards, and linear interpolation to fill in the gaps, yields Figure 2a:

As seen, when the reports were changed in 1997 to "increase of children of record" as opposed to "children of record baptized," it intuitively appeared that the same statistic was being reported under a different name. Interpolation yields a sudden and inexplicable drop in both statistics. It can be assumed, for the sake of continuity of data, that starting in 1997 the LDS church reported children of record baptisms, but under the incorrect label "increase of children of record." This assumption carried to the present yields Figure 2b:

As will be discussed later, activity rates can be inferred by the number of children born into the LDS church. When that particular method is employed on the data in Figure 2b, it yields an activity rate by births for 2009 as being between 50% and 60%. An analysis of the data at cumorah.com reveals the average global activity rate of the LDS church in 2009 should have been approximately 30.5%, which is instead consistent with the children of record baptisms value shown in Figure 2a, which yields an activity rate of 32.1%. This indicates that in 2009 the data in general conference were reported correctly, which prompts us to seek a third explanation for the irregularity.

In 2008 the values reported as increase of children of record took a sudden 30% increase, and have remained near that higher rate every year since. If it is assumed that this sudden increase represented the actual change from reporting children of record baptisms to increase of children of record, we obtain Figure 2c:

There are three reasons to accept Figure 2c as representing the most reliable interpretation of the data:

1: The data appear to be continuous, without the unusual jumps seen in Figure 2a.
2: The data yield the correct activity rate for 2009 as shown below in Figure 2f, as opposed to method B which yields the activity rate shown in Figure 2e.
3: The data yield an activity rate that declines steadily between 1990 and 2010, shown in Figure 2f, as opposed to dropping suddenly and recovering as shown in Figure 2d.

Increase of children of record prior to 1910 can be estimated by using conversion estimates described previously to estimate convert children of record, and adding that to recorded births, which is described in the next section. Children of record baptisms prior to 1910 can be estimated by taking the increase in children of record from 8 years prior, and adding one-eighth of the sum of the convert children of record from the preceding eight years times the activity rate (to account for retention of converts). These methods, combined with the method above, yield Figure 2g:

Recorded Births
Definition: The number of children born to members of the LDS church, who are added to the records of the church.

From 1914 to 2014, when increase of children of record is either known or inferred, recorded births are estimated by subtracting convert children of record from increase of children of record. This yields Figure 3a:


Birth rate is required to estimate births prior to 1914.

Birth Rate
Definition: The number of births to all Mormons, active and inactive, per thousand members, regardless of whether or not the newborns are added to church records.

The Mormon birth rate was first given as 40.2 in this report for 1908. It was then officially reported occasionally from 1910 to 1919, and consistently from 1920 to 1983.

In 1983, the last year when the LDS church reported a birth rate, the reported rate of 24.5 per thousand was very near the Utah birth rate at the time of 24.7. Therefore, it is assumed that since 1983 the LDS birth rate has remained somewhat near the Utah birth rate, which can be found in this report, and at this website.

Prior to 1908 the birth rate can be estimated using known number of births per woman, which are presented in Figure 4.5 of this report. Assuming the average woman married at 22, the number falling to 19 in the late 1800's due to polygamy, and rising to 23 by 1912, the average number of children born to each woman during her lifetime, for fertile mothers in any given year, can be estimated based on the values for the range of mothers born the number of years prior to the given year equal to the current Mormon life expectancy, which will be discussed later, and 19-23 years prior to the given year. Dividing that number by the range in fertility years for the women yields approximate number of children born to each woman that year.

The proportion of fertile women vs. non-fertile women is equal to the fertility range divided by life expectancy. The number of fertile women is equal to the total church membership times the fertility proportion times the ratio of women to men, which can be computed from the total number of women and men recorded by the Federal Census Bureau. Those data can be found in full here. The number of actual women bearing children is the number of fertile women times some unknown factor. The factor of children born to each birthing woman is the lifetime number of children born to women, estimated using the average described above, divided by the fertility span in years. The birth rate, then, can be estimated by multiplying the number of women bearing children by the factor of children born to each woman, times one-thousand, divided by total membership. In the final equation, the total membership and range of fertility cancel out, leaving only the ratio k unknown.

Because the birth rates for 1908, 1910, and 1911 are known, the ratio k can be estimated, and is found to be very near 0.7, which yields 39.5, 39.0, and 37.2 respectively, while the reported rates for those years are 40.2, 38, and 38 respectively. The resulting birth rate for all years is shown in Figure 3b:

Using these birth rates, and assuming 100% of all births to Mormons were recorded prior to 1914, which will be discussed later, the number of recorded births prior to 1914 can be estimated, completing our estimate of number of recorded births, shown in Figure 3c:



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2020 04:27PM by scotchipman.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: February 23, 2020 11:02AM

Thank you for this information.

It feels creepy that they are into data regarding fertility and birth rates. Why don't they just be honest and count the actual darn people who got blessed? If people do not take their baby to church, that baby should not be counted as Mormon. Gawd, what a shady religion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 24, 2020 11:47AM

Thanks for this info. The charts are pretty good, but I question some of the analysis.

Figure 2a presents basically the same data that I put in OP. It shows the big jumps in COR in 2001-3 and 2007-8.

Figure 2b is based on a supposition by the author that the Mormon authorities got the labels wrong, and they were really reporting Increase in Baptisms of Record, but were incorrectly calling it Increase in COR. I find that extremely unlikely. The numbers don't make a lot of sense as reported (unless you assume they are being heavily manipulated, which I did assume), but they still don't make much sense under this author's assumption.

In figure 2c, the author has completely discounted the massive increases in ICOR in 2001-3 and 2007-8. I am mystified as to how or why he did that.

Baptisms of COR and Increase of COR should be quite stable year to year, and even the changes up, down or flat should only change gradually. The graphs show this for the earlier years up to about 1970. At that point, ICOR started bouncing upward in uncharacteristic lurches up and down. BCOR stayed pretty steady until the mid 1990s, at which point it started bouncing around too, then LDS Inc stopped reporting BCOR at all and just reported ICOR.

I still think the Occam's Razor explanation is that they started inflating the ICOR numbers in the 1970s. The actual baptism numbers were still realistic, which made the gap between ICOR and BCOR grow dramatically.

That was a very bad look. So they simply stopped reporting baptisms of COR in 1997.

Even with inflated ICOR numbers, the annual ICOR value was dropping rapidly. When it cratered at 69K in 2001, the bureaucracy went into panic mode, and did something to goose the ICOR numbers quite dramatically. Whatever they did seemed to work, though after the initial bump they started slowly sunsiding again. There was a second, and even larger bump in 2008, and after that bump, the slow downward slide shows up in the stats again.

My take: ICOR has been on a downward slide since at least the 1980s, and possible a decade earlier, and LDS Inc has essentially been cooking the books to hide it. As others in this thread have pointed out, they are certainly capable of doing that at the local level, and I find it completely believable that they would do it at the church-wide level.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: messygoop ( )
Date: February 23, 2020 04:05PM

I served as ward clerk back in the 1990s. One of the strangest requests from SLC membership department was to "track down" missing members. This request came in a certified envelope to the church's mail box. It's hard to forget when I had to accompany the bishop to sign for it at the post office because it required both of us to sign for it.

There was a standardized cover sheet letter that indicated that the church believed that there were members were residing in our area who needed to be identified and recorded. The spiritual justification to this "hunt and find these people" was the parable of finding the lost sheep. Then there was the standard green/white computer printout with names and requests to find information for people (new address, telephone #, info about spouse, info about children's birthdates, names and gender).

What made this request so unusual was that SLC wanted data from excommunicated members! Even the bishop was perplexed as to why the church wanted birthdates of the children of former members.

Now it's evident what the church has been up to!

As a personal note, the lack of honesty bugged me a lot. It started as a missionary being expected to cook the numbers to please the mission president and then I ran into it again as a ward clerk. I routinely fought with bishop over sacrament attendance counts. I counted correctly and even fudged an extra 12 ghosts who were nowhere around in the foyer, yet the bishop asserted that I was a clod who miscounted. He refused to sign the monthly ward report unless I "cooked" the attendance.

I couldn't go for the lying for the lord game. How could one rationalize making fake stats for the same deity who expected members to confess to impure thoughts?

Forgot to add:

The demand went unanswered. The parents of the excommunicated daughters (law of chastity violation- 3 daughters became pregnant as teens) refused to divulge any info.

Even the church wanted updates on my older siblings who had stopped attending the church. One had been disfellowshipped, but had been reinstated (I don't know why as he never returned to accept penitence). I refused to provide any info that would have disrupted the fragile dynamics of my dysfunctional family.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2020 04:14PM by messygoop.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: CrispingPin ( )
Date: February 23, 2020 05:35PM

“It started as a missionary being expected to cook the numbers to please the mission president and then I ran into it again as a ward clerk. I routinely fought with bishop over sacrament attendance counts.”

Same story for me, but in my case, it wasn’t the bishop, it was the stake clerk. My sacrament meeting numbers were rarely questioned, but I was required to meet at the stake clerk’s house every quarter to explain the numbers that he didn’t like. At first, I tried working with the various auxiliary secretaries to help them get an accurate count, but every quarter he still wouldn’t accept some numbers. Eventually, I just learned what he expected, and I “corrected” the numbers as needed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: February 23, 2020 05:43PM

And thus we are inoculated against integrity and predisposed to lie as necessary to support the church. It's all so totalitarian, so Orwellian, a world in which people are compromised from youth to obey their leaders at any expense.

It's how an organization overcomes individual conscience and builds "company men."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: February 24, 2020 10:57AM

The youth interviews about sex and masturbation and personal prayers yada yada serve the same purpose. The young person learns that lying gets the desired result, and there is little chance of a downside.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: messygoop ( )
Date: February 24, 2020 10:27AM

CrispingPin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “It started as a missionary being expected to
> cook the numbers to please the mission president
> and then I ran into it again as a ward clerk. I
> routinely fought with bishop over sacrament
> attendance counts.”
>
> Same story for me, but in my case, it wasn’t the
> bishop, it was the stake clerk. My sacrament
> meeting numbers were rarely questioned, but I was
> required to meet at the stake clerk’s house
> every quarter to explain the numbers that he
> didn’t like. At first, I tried working with the
> various auxiliary secretaries to help them get an
> accurate count, but every quarter he still
> wouldn’t accept some numbers. Eventually, I just
> learned what he expected, and I “corrected”
> the numbers as needed.

That's what I ended up doing. I fed the previous years reports even though half of the stats were bunk. It mostly resolved the issue that 3 large families (6,8,and 10 members) had moved. The loss of 24 hurt sm attendance, but the bishop was in denial. These people didn't wake up and realized the church was a fraud. No, they left the ward and gave me their new address to move their records.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: idleswell ( )
Date: February 26, 2020 02:00PM

I recall the definition of a Child of Record fluctuated. We had a time when Children of Record were to be kept until age 18; then the age switched to 9 when they lost their status.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hervey Willets ( )
Date: February 27, 2020 11:14PM

I find a rolled-up sock the best way to hide shrinkage.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Anon for this ( )
Date: February 29, 2020 10:23PM

Not sure if this has anything to do with "Children of record". I had a conversation with a parent of a missionary who has been in Africa about 18 months. He said that most people who are taught can not get baptized because they are not married to the person they are living with, and that it is too expensive for most people in many poorer african countries to marry. So the church baptizes their children and counts the parents as pseudo-members, kind of like they are now "parents of record" but not baptized.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: March 02, 2020 10:59PM

I think this story may have been garbled in the retelling. Seems like it would be a great opportunity for LDS Inc to marry the parents for free, then baptize them.

When I was in Brazil in the 1960s, divorce was illegal, but you could get a legal separation. People who were separated and had a family with a new partner that they could not legally marry, could be baptized. They had to be interviewed by the mission pres to determine if they were living in a serious family relationship, and were only unmarried because of the "no divorce" law in Brazil.

This was actually a fairly common issue at the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2020 10:59PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hedning ( )
Date: March 03, 2020 10:48PM

The African tradition, lobola, requires couples to pay a dowry before they can marry. Because of this tradition, many couples live together for many years without being legally married because they don’t have the money for the lobola.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Eric3 ( )
Date: March 02, 2020 06:07PM

Given what we know about TSCC and a little reasonable inference, it would be shocking if they were not goosing the numbers.

Think what it would mean if they collected and published accurate numbers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: messygoop ( )
Date: March 03, 2020 12:17PM

Eric3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given what we know about TSCC and a little
> reasonable inference, it would be shocking if they
> were not goosing the numbers.
>
> Think what it would mean if they collected and
> published accurate numbers.

It might cause some members to panic, if not question how "effective" church leaders really are.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  **         ********  **     **  ********  
    **     **    **   **        **     **  **     ** 
    **     **    **   **        **     **  **     ** 
    **     **    **   ******    **     **  **     ** 
    **     *********  **         **   **   **     ** 
    **           **   **          ** **    **     ** 
    **           **   ********     ***     ********