If present trends continue ...

[_wenglund]

I ask, because often in economics, if the hypothesis doesn't prove itself out, it is because the hypothesis is incorrect. In other words, if it doesn't make sense for the Church to build church houses to attract members, it is likely that your hypothesis, to that affect, is incorrect. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree Wade. On the other side of the coin, and I may not be alone in this thought, it has always seemed that there is a great significance placed by the church in being able to report building growth to its members yearly. Tallying dissolved stakes, retention rates, member resignations,etc does not seem to receive much air time. Perhaps the building of ward houses is more a function of enthusiastic optimism at times. This optimism seems to have played itself out with the rapid building of smaller temples. Like Runtu had mentioned, a surge in initial temple attendance was noticed in my local area. Following came a dramatic decline in attendance. Soon after, young married couples were called as temple patrons to help fill near empty sessions. Our local temple has been operating on a much restricted schedule.

I don't know if there is any clear evidence of over-building of church houses (do you know of any that remain vacant or under-utilized, because those in my area for the most part seem rather packed).

However, local temples, on the other hand, may be a somewhat different matter. When the temple in Bellevue, Washington was first built, there were challenges in getting adequate staffing and filling each session, though things have greatly imporved since then. It is my understanding (my father was on the High Counsel for the Bellevue Stake at the time) that the initial under-utilization of the temple was anticipated, but the decision to build the temple had been based on long-term demand projections (in connection with assessments of availability of favorable locations and the time required in getting temples approved through local governments and also the longer time it takes to build temples). In other words, where church houses tend to be built so as to best meet current demand, temples tend be built to meet future demand. Either way, I believe decisions in constructing both types of church buildings is driven be demand, rather than with the intent to increase demand (which is what I think Runtu was suggesting).

You had also mentioned that the church had demonstrated noteworthy growth throughout its history. True. In the last decade I believe there are have been indicators that would show that for practical intents, this growth has stopped. The Cuny report of 2000 seems to show this. Total church membership still increases with strong non U.S. missionary efforts. However, "butts in pews" I believe came to a standstill years ago and may very well be decreasing at this point.

I think it helpful to distinguish between growth, and rate of growth. From what I have seen of the Church's statistics, the Church continues to grow today, though at a somewhat slower rate than in various earlier periods. In other words, while the rate of growth has stalled or declined, the Church continues to grow (the membership of the Church is higher this year than it was last year, and the year before...)

But, for want of must interest, I haven't study this issue to any significant depth, so I could be mistaken in my perceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

Wade, you didn't offend me, and I'm surprised you thought I was "on the defensive." I just figured you read my post in an improperly negative light, so I meant to clarify.

I hadn't thought that I had offended you (as I understand things, one does not need to feel offended to react defensively), but I am glad we both had a chance to clarify. Hopefully it brought us both to a higher level of understanding (I know it did for me).

Perhaps if you apologized to me... ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

But, I haven't heard of any instances where people have spoken to members or missionaries and told them they wished to join the Church because they like the church houses and believe the church houses are true. Have you?

Have you ever read the account of the mass conversions in Huacuyo, Bolivia? They joined specifically because of the church's building program. The article about it is by David Knowlton in Dialogue (either that or Sunstone, can't remember). But the gist of it is that an entire ayllu (tribunal community) joined the church because they had seen the church buildings in La Paz and wanted one of their own. The church was happy to oblige.

No, I hadn't heard that. Sounds intriguing. But, I expect there will always be exceptions to prove the rule. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

No, I hadn't heard that. Sounds intriguing. But, I expect there will always be exceptions to prove the rule. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As I said, it was my sociology professor (who was for a time a regional rep in Central America) who told us that it was a deliberate strategy to build churches. The theory was, or so he said, that having these chapels would increase the visibility of the church and attract members. Plus, the buildings would serve as a reminder to inactive members to come back.

You may think my post was cynical, but there was actually some basis for it. If he was right, and I have no reason to doubt that he was, the strategy didn't pan out.

Anyone who has traveled in the underdeveloped world can tell you that most LDS chapels are nearly vacant on Sundays.

[_wenglund]

No, I hadn't heard that. Sounds intriguing. But, I expect there will always be exceptions to prove the rule. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As I said, it was my sociology professor (who was for a time a regional rep in Central America) who told us that it was a deliberate strategy to build churches. The theory was, or so he said, that having these chapels would increase the visibility of the church and attract members. Plus, the buildings would serve as a reminder to inactive members to come back.

You may think my post was cynical, but there was actually some basis for it. If he was right, and I have no reason to doubt that he was, the strategy didn't pan out.

Anyone who has traveled in the underdeveloped world can tell you that most LDS chapels are nearly vacant on Sundays.

I didn't think your post was cynical. Rather, as explained, I was trying to make sense of what you (and apparently your sociology professor) had asserted--which would make me more the cynic than you. Building a church house seem a rather expensive way to increase visibility and act as a reminder, particularly if, as you say, they remain nearly vacant on Sundays. But, I suppose it is possible that was the primary impetus for building the Church houses in some locals, though certainly not all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jason Bourne]

From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.

There is still some small growth at least in the US, but it is very small. And I think, again based only on what I see where I live, most joining are poorer, need welfare and are hard to retain. Over the past five years I can think of only a few that have joined in our ward that are financially stable and more traditional, not poor, not in need of lots of help. Course the gospel is to go to the poor and the poor are often more receptive to spiritual things. But when I compare to my state side mission, while I did baptize some that were not financially all that well off we had our share of families and persons more middle class per say. The answer from the MP is if we want better "quality" we need to share the gospel with our friends.

So, Hinckley's building push has been, in my judgment, a net drain on church finances. The missionary program is dead in the water in the developed world, and construction in the underdeveloped world has drained finances further. Frankly, the church's downtown mall project is an important investment to them. If this project, now estimated at over $2 billion, fails, the church could for the first time since 1959 face real financial problems. My visit to the Gateway complex tells me that the downtown malls project is iffy at best. The Gateway is already entrenched with upscale tenants, whom the church will have to attract for their mall project to succeed.

I think we can see some of the effects of the church's financial stresses already: the firing of church maintenance workers and the subsequent push for members to clean and maintain buildings, the tighter restrictions on budgets, particularly for Scouting and Young Women, the increased reliance on members to house and feed missionaries, and the increased use of broadcasts from the home office instead of GA travel.

None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive

.

While we do not know I believe it was Ostling that about 10 years ago estimated assets of the Churchin excess of 30 Billion and annual income of 6 Billion. I do not think those numbers are far off and I would bet that the annual income is about the same. There is still a core of economically strong member.

by the way I am not sure where you get the idea that scout and youth budgets are being parrred back. It is just the oppisite. About five years ago the Church added more allocation of funds for each youth and primary child. Something like $50 per head per year. This worked to more then double what is available for youth programs.

[_Jason Bourne]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hinckley a slum lord in his youth? If so, then doesn't it make sense?

You stand corrected. As far as I know he never rented or owned property.

[_karl61]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hinckley a slum lord in his youth? If so, then doesn't it make sense?

You stand corrected. As far as I know he never rented or owned property.

wow! looks like he has put faith in being taken care of since day one. He never owned a house and he never rented a house for his wife and kids? is this true or am I reading it wrong.

[_why me]

People, in general, are not doing that well with their finances. The world is in debt and church members are a part of that world. With housing prices in the toilet, many members are not feeling that rich these days. This can have a negative impact on tithing. But the church also has a problem of a different nature. The forces of evil are out to destroy the church and to some extent it is working. Heck, just look at this board and exmembers here. Not to mention RFM and the postmorgue. It is not easy being Mormon these days. It is a constant swim upstream when one looks at the direction of the world. Many swimmers will drown and swim toward land.

But there has been a steady growth in members. And to my understanding, no temples have closed their doors and certainly the LDS church is in better shape than many other christian churches. The problem is with the onslaught against christianity and in Mormonism in particular. But the LDS church is surviving.

[_Runtu]

People, in general, are not doing that well with their finances. The world is in debt and church members are a part of that world. With housing prices in the toilet, many members are not feeling that rich these days. This can have a negative impact on tithing. But the church also has a problem of a different nature. The forces of evil are out to destroy the church and to some extent it is working. Heck, just look at this board and exmembers here. Not to mention RFM and the postmorgue. It is not easy being Mormon these days. It is a constant swim upstream when one looks at the direction of the world. Many swimmers will drown and swim toward land.

Give me a break. The "forces of evil" generally don't give a crap about Mormonism. It's a tiny little religion that has barely registered a fleeting thought in the world's consciousness. And, in case you haven't noticed, most of us here and on RfM are not interested in destroying the church. Most of us would just rather be done with it and never have to think about it again. But we're only too happy to allow you guys to keep worshiping however you want.

But there has been a steady growth in members. And to my understanding, no temples have closed their doors and certainly the LDS church is in better shape than many other christian churches. The problem is with the onslaught against christianity and in Mormonism in particular. But the LDS church is surviving.

Of course it's surviving. You obviously didn't read my post. You just figured this was another "the church is collapsing" screed. Next time, get a grip before blathering about the forces of evil. K?