These have been updated with the statistics released. The file contains 17 graphs.

http://jhuston.com/membership_new.pdf



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 11:15AM by Jim Huston.

I wonder if the US growth rate would look more the same if the US counted all citizens until they. Reached 100 years old as well?


HH

Jim Huston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These have been updated with the statistics
> released. The file contains 17 graphs.

Interesting as far as it goes (and I appreciate the difficulties of getting good and useful numbers on this).

Would really like to find some metric to estimate those who may still be listed but are inactive. Maybe some count of actual church attendance bracketed against the "cooked" numbers of members?

There are, I'm sure, vast numbers like myself who have distanced from the church without a formal resignation or excommunication. My reasons for not formally resigning are personal, and relate to the emotional trauma and costs of doing so (along with some probably really bad advice from a therapist who is no longer in practice, possibly due to gross incompetence on his part). Not saying all inactives are as far distant as I am, but it would be of some use to compare metrics that indicate real activity and investment in the church versus those who are just counted to keep up appearances and paint statistics in a light that favors the organization.

I wish I had the time to really study the numbers behind these charts. It seems so obvious that the church is just pulling numbers out of it's A$$. To my untrained eye it looks like the growth rate in total members just about parallels the number of people per unit. Both keep climbing and that seems like proof positive that the church has a serious retention problem.

Stunted

One question regarding the 5th graph on total membership.
If there really are 14 million members, why did 13 million, 200 thousand NOT watch the General Conference on TV, or online? Granted there were some who attended, but what's going on here? Do Mormons just not care about their church, or is 14 million not an accurate figure? How about a graph showing that comparison?

Yet, the other graphs behing them are more geometric in shape.

Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting that the total growth is pretty much
> a straight line.


I thought the same thing, RJ. I have limited experience with population studies (and mostly at national and global levels rather than within small communities, but the principles should be the same), but shouldn't a total membership graph show an upward growth curve?

I mean, even if it is growing at a steady rate (say 2% per year), the increase wouldn't just be 2% higher every year - it has to take into account the growth from the year before.

In other words, if it starts at 1,000,000 members the first year, and adds 2% (or 20,000), then year two will have 1,020,000. But you can't just add another 20,000 the next year to keep the straight line going - you have to take into account the 20,000 from the first year. So year three would be 1,020,000 + 2% = 1,040,400 - 400 people more than a straight line graph would indicate. The next year would be 1,061,208 - 1,208 people above the straight line graph. It should be curving upward, but it doesn't.

Unless the overall growth is reducing at the exact same rate necessary to counteract exponential growth, there's no way the total membership rate should be a straight line. But, according to the overall growth % chart, this isn't happening.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the Morg statistics department is pulling their numbers completely out of their asses. It's almost like they plotted a growth pattern ahead of time and keep reporting on the projection as if it were true, so the members won't notice the stagnation.

I instituted no math weekends in my family because my TBM husband who loves numbers and my kids were driving me crazy! Fist bump to all of you who get it!

Awesome graphs!

Just FYI, it looks to me like you missed updating the stakes in the first graph and everything in the third graph.

It would be amazing if some math genius would plug in the last decade's worth of stats into Duwayne Anderson's formulas (http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml) to see where the carrying capacity of the LDS church will likely end up.

It looks like they're falling more and more behind the predicted number every year, which means the carrying capacity is probably in the mid 20-million range.

That link didn't quite work. I'll try again:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml

I'm so glad there are people who love doing things like math and graphs, so I don't have to. My math challenged brain could take it. As an artist, I do like the pretty shapes and colors though.lol