Proof that the membership numbers are cooked

[_Polygamy Porter]

A well known former Mormon has posted the following on RfM

Six years ago he and his wife file their resignation letters. They both received a confirmation that their names were removed.

Not so.

He recently found out his wife is still on the books "in good standing".

They lie about the membership numbers. This is hard evidence.

[_Dr. Shades]

PP, it's worse than that: Sometimes they don't even bother removing people who die. Not only that, but sometimes, with a few keystrokes, add "ghost members" that don't actually exist.

All it takes to discover this is to do the math, which I did at:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm

[_Jason Bourne]

A well known former Mormon has posted the following on RfM

Six years ago he and his wife file their resignation letters. They both received a confirmation that their names were removed.

Not so.

He recently found out his wife is still on the books "in good standing".

They lie about the membership numbers. This is hard evidence.

Why should we believe this anecdote? But even if it is true her is the problem. It is a local leader issue. If local leaders would all follow procedure this would never happen. When I was in a position to take care of such things the names always came off and came off easily when someone wanted them off. Fact is, it was almost impossible to get people to write a damn letter. We would send them a letter asking for one when it came to our attention that they may not want to be members, and include an already addressed and stamped envelope to return a letter back to us. I do wish the church allowed a local bishop to remove names without a letter and make it a bit easier. But still a letter is not that big of a deal but rarely would people write one.

And sometime bishops are stubborn and don't do the removal or are bad administrator and fail to do the paper work. I know when one bishop was released in my ward there were over 10 names for removal that letters had been sent for and lost and never removed. The new bishop was able to push those through without new letters because he felt that asking for new letters would be bad for the Church and thoughtless of the wishes of the disaffected member. So he pushed them through without letters.

[_Jason Bourne]

PP, it's worse than that: Sometimes they don't even bother removing people who die. Not only that, but sometimes, with a few keystrokes, add "ghost members" that don't actually exist.

All it takes to discover this is to do the math, which I did at:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm

You continue to roll this out as if it is some great discovery when oonly noe year has an oddity and we are not even sure your conclusion about the data is accurate.

[_Dr. Shades]

You continue to roll this out as if it is some great discovery when oonly noe year has an oddity and we are not even sure your conclusion about the data is accurate.

Four years have a discrepancy (not merely an oddity), not one. Look closer at 1999 and 1975. Then scroll down a little and look at the children lost in 1981 and 1985.

If my conclusion about the data is inaccurate, by all means, please supply me with the accurate conclusion. I'm totally serious about this.

[_Jason Bourne]

You continue to roll this out as if it is some great discovery when oonly noe year has an oddity and we are not even sure your conclusion about the data is accurate.

Four years have a discrepancy (not merely an oddity), not one. Look closer at 1998 and 1975. Then scroll down a little and look at the children lost in 1981 and 1985.

If my conclusion about the data is inaccurate, by all means, please supply me with the accurate conclusion. I'm totally serious about this.

There are minor errors in 1981 and 1975. Ok. So a few thousand off. Nobody says they are 100% accurate and erros can creep in. Overall though I think it reflects pretty accurate numbers. Of course the number that are inactive and do not care to remove their name but would not considert themselves LDS is not reflected.

[_Dr. Shades]

There are minor errors in 1981 and 1975. Ok. So a few thousand off. Nobody says they are 100% accurate and erros can creep in. Overall though I think it reflects pretty accurate numbers. Of course the number that are inactive and do not care to remove their name but would not considert themselves LDS is not reflected.

The major errors are in 1999 and 1975, but they're worse than they appear, since not only were "ghost members" added, but people who really were gone (thanks to death, excommunication, or whatever) were NOT SUBTRACTED either.

[_Jason Bourne]

There are minor errors in 1981 and 1975. Ok. So a few thousand off. Nobody says they are 100% accurate and erros can creep in. Overall though I think it reflects pretty accurate numbers. Of course the number that are inactive and do not care to remove their name but would not considert themselves LDS is not reflected.

The major errors are in 1999 and 1975, but they're worse than they appear, since not only were "ghost members" added, but people who really were gone (thanks to death, excommunication, or whatever) were NOT SUBTRACTED either.

So we are off by 30,000-70,000 or so??? .0053%??? Wow!!

[_Dr. Shades]

So we are off by 30,000-70,000 or so??? .0053%??? Wow!!

You're forgetting that those are the only years that their tampering is obvious. We simply don't know how much book cooking took place during all the other years.

I'm guessing that all the tampering adds up over time.

[_Jason Bourne]

So we are off by 30,000-70,000 or so??? .0053%??? Wow!!

You're forgetting that those are the only years that their tampering is obvious. We simply don't know how much book cooking took place during all the other years.

I'm guessing that all the tampering adds up over time.

Why guess on the negative said. Point is you do not know and a few minor errors is not enough to establish major problems.