Church statistics don't add up...

[_Buffalo]

Most people die well before age 110, so there are of course hundreds of thousands of dead Saints on the membership rolls.

[_aranyborju]

I don't know that the number is too far off to be egregious in any case. To me the bigger question is activity vs. inactivity.

The ward/branch clerk counts sacrament meeting attendance each week and submits these numbers to the stake, who in turn sends them further up the line. I wonder if the church has ever bothered to add up how many people, members of record or not, actually attend their meetings on any given Sabbath. That number would be a better indicator of over growth/decline.

For example, the branch I last attended had 189 people on the membership directory, and and average sacrament meeting attendance of anywhere from 45-55 depending on which families didn't show up from one week to the next. However the ward that I attended in Houston for several years had about 400 people on the directory, with almost 200 attending sacrament on a weekly basis. That is still only 50% but was considered pretty good attendance.

[_Drifting]

I don't know that the number is too far off to be egregious in any case. To me the bigger question is activity vs. inactivity.

The ward/branch clerk counts sacrament meeting attendance each week and submits these numbers to the stake, who in turn sends them further up the line. I wonder if the church has ever bothered to add up how many people, members of record or not, actually attend their meetings on any given Sabbath. That number would be a better indicator of over growth/decline.

For example, the branch I last attended had 189 people on the membership directory, and and average sacrament meeting attendance of anywhere from 45-55 depending on which families didn't show up from one week to the next. However the ward that I attended in Houston for several years had about 400 people on the directory, with almost 200 attending sacrament on a weekly basis. That is still only 50% but was considered pretty good attendance.

Based on the Church published numbers there should be circa 500 people per ward on average attending Sacrament Meeting each week.
In my area, average SM attendance is less than 100 per ward. This equates to an activity rate of around 25% of the ward lists.

[_aranyborju]

Based on the Church published numbers there should be circa 500 people per ward on average attending Sacrament Meeting each week.
In my area, average SM attendance is less than 100 per ward. This equates to an activity rate of around 25% of the ward lists.

Interesting. So we are probably looking at less that 5,000,000 actively attending members worldwide.

[_Drifting]

Based on the Church published numbers there should be circa 500 people per ward on average attending Sacrament Meeting each week.
In my area, average SM attendance is less than 100 per ward. This equates to an activity rate of around 25% of the ward lists.

Interesting. So we are probably looking at less that 5,000,000 actively attending members worldwide.

Well, I would say in balance that attendance rates in the US will probably be higher than here in Europe. So you are probably looking at an active membership of <7,000,000. Of which maybe 50% are full tithe payers.

I was speaking with someone who would know these ratios for Europe and when I floated the suggestion that attendance was 25% and tithe paying 50% of that they clammed up and tried to change the subject.

[_aranyborju]

Well, I would say in balance that attendance rates in the US will probably be higher than here in Europe. So you are probably looking at an active membership of <7,000,000. Of which maybe 50% are full tithe payers.

I was speaking with someone who would know these ratios for Europe and when I floated the suggestion that attendance was 25% and tithe paying 50% of that they clammed up and tried to change the subject.

The spirit must have constrained them.

[_schreech]

i simply quoted the title of the study, and pointed out the glaring fallacies in the OP... and your references have not diminished either point, rather, just your ability to discern simple things.

In other words, you didn't read the article considering it states that less-active LDS men (you know, people that are counted as members of the LDS church) are significantly MORE likely to commit suicide than their non-lds counterparts. Since at least 50% of the members of the LDS chruch are "less-active", this study says exactly the opposite of what you hoped it said. Like I said, maybe you should have actually read it and you would know that you didn't even quote the title of the actual article - elohim you are gullible... Maybe you should have read my references and checked out the actual article ("High Religious Commitment Linked to Less Suicide") before continuing to make a fool of yourself.

"Utah has ranked second for the lowest overall death rate, with only 5.6 deaths per 1,000" - please link me to the study that this came from.

[_subgenius]

I can understand you wanting to avoid facing the actual Church published statistics but come on, join in. You may even learn something old boy....

what i am learning is that your dedication to the absurd is bordering on sad.

The difference between membership growth and new members is 91,000. That's using Church published numbers.

ok, great.

Do you believe that to be all Mormon deaths, including those inactives off the radar who died?

no, why would i?...your own OP insists that we make certain assumptions...without any real cause...except that you are trying to infer something without actual evidence.

Do you believe that when a member resigns their membership they are deducted from the Church published membership numbers?

my "belief" on the numbers is irrelevant. Only by what is known and is a reasonable conclusion matters.
You also disregard excommunications...or people who were "re-communicated" or "re-activated"(not converts)...it also disregards a host of other influences on either number. Such as duplicate records....
not to mention your assumption and application of 8.5% death rate as somehow applying to the whole of church membership....you would have to weigh the death rates for each known region and membership in order to get the deviation you are hoping for...your broad stroke is fundamentally flawed, pure and simple.
If you wanted the "difference" to be closer to 120k, then how close is "reasonable" to you?
If it had been 119k? 110k?, 100k?....what about if it had been 160k?
you have no justification for what is "close enough" except some testimony you surely must receive via the HG....right?....or do you have something else to hang your hat on?
Bottom line
you have insufficient data to conclude what you are stating in the OP. Your premise relies on hyperbole and assumptions and suppositions.

[_Drifting]

Do you believe that when a member resigns their membership they are deducted from the Church published membership numbers?

my "belief" on the numbers is irrelevant. Only by what is known and is a reasonable conclusion matters.
You also disregard excommunications...or people who were "re-communicated" or "re-activated"(not converts)...it also disregards a host of other influences on either number. Such as duplicate records....
not to mention your assumption and application of 8.5% death rate as somehow applying to the whole of church membership....you would have to weigh the death rates for each known region and membership in order to get the deviation you are hoping for...your broad stroke is fundamentally flawed, pure and simple.
If you wanted the "difference" to be closer to 120k, then how close is "reasonable" to you?
If it had been 119k? 110k?, 100k?....what about if it had been 160k?
you have no justification for what is "close enough" except some testimony you surely must receive via the HG....right?....or do you have something else to hang your hat on?
Bottom line
you have insufficient data to conclude what you are stating in the OP. Your premise relies on hyperbole and assumptions and suppositions.

I think you are, in answer to my question, saying 'yes'...oh wait...make that a 'no'...no, hang on...yes...wait...no...yes...no...

[_Wisdom Seeker]

The statistical numbers look fairly reasonable, considering that great attention is probably given to make it look reasonable. One figure that stands out to me is the number of added stakes and congregations. It is typical and statistically verified to have about 7 to 9 new congregations for every new stake created. This year it seems as if there are only 2.48 newly created congregations for every stake created. The jump in the number of stakes added this year is at a 13 year high, while the number of congregations added is at an 8 year low.