Wow...the Church grew a whopping 0% in the US from '90-'08!

[_Chap]

This site references the Deseret News 2009 Church Almanac as claiming 5,873,408 members in the United States.

Well, apparently the percentage of those who actually think they are LDS is:

100* 3,158,000/5,873,408 % = 54%

[_Thama]

I would like to see a new movement where people gather together and join in an effort to live good lives, support one another, and help our world improve its condition without all the doctrine, dogma, rigidness, and what many consider unhealthy or odd, outmoded teachings and rituals.

What's the definition of a "good life"? Eventually, you have to codify, doctrinize, and dogmatize it. You can't escape it.

The definition? Perhaps, but that definition need not be a rigid, doctrinal deontology. There are many fulfilling and logically valid ethical systems that are much more individually-determined and fluid than traditional Judeo-Christian ethics.

[_Danna]

Chap, very cool, thanks for the information.

I did a similar exercise for New Zealand a while ago on another board when the claim was made that the NZ Church was growing based on an increase in the percentage of self-reported Mormons between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. I came up with a similar 7.8% figure for missing Mormons but over a much shorter time-frame. That is 7.8% were missing at the 2006 census based on the expected figure extrapolated from the 2001 census. Breaking figures down by race, it is clear that the bulk of missing Mormons are Maori.

My personal guess is that this is due to the fallout from the Lamanite DNA issue, and media coverage of Maori DNA research showing a Taiwanese origin for Maori. For Maori, the Book of Mormon was a history of their ancestors, and the Lehi origin myth was a powerful faith promoter (as attested by my little brother, Lehi). Some Maori developed a unique myth of descent from Hagoth and claimed to be Nephites. When apologists imply that only the simple-minded would really think that all Amerinds and Polynesians were children of Lehi, the Maori voted with their feet.

All information is from NZStats census data (2001 and 2006), 2007 Demographic trends (all available on NZ Govt website); and www.ldschurch.org.nz media release data. I have done some post-grad demographics, but am by no means a real demographer – comments would be welcome.

First of all, TSCC claims over 91,000 members in NZ. Self reported data from the census places TSCC membership at 43,539. Ouch, bad start. However, self identified LDS membership increased 1.4% more (39,888 to 43,539) than the general population (which increased 290,670 to 4,027,947).

Looking at the LDS stats broken down by ethnicity and expected birth-rates, the LDS population has increased at a much LOWER rate than would be expected. NZEuro* women have 1.8 children on average, Maori women have 2.7 children, and Pacific women about 2.9 children. From self identified religion stats in the 2001 census, only 26.8% of LDS were NZEuro, 41.6% Maori, and 29.3 Pacific (national figures are 72%, 14% and 6%). The most conservative estimate would expect at least 25% more LDS births than average (based on ethnic fertility rates alone).

By estimating 2006 LDS based on ethnic natural increase (not considering missionary activity or the LDS propensity to have more children regardless of ethnicity), and inward and outward migration the same as the general population, one would expect a total LDS membership of 46,899 in 2006. So there are 3360 members missing from TSCC in NZ as at 2006 – about 7.8%. And that does not consider any expected growth due to missionary activity.

There have been small increases in some expected LDS subgroup numbers due to either an increased LDS birthrate or missionary work: the LDS Pacific Island population has increased 5.6% more than the NZ Pacific Island population and the NZEuropean LDS increased 2.1% over the general NZEuro population.

BUT, LDS Maori increase is 4.3% UNDER the general Maori population increase. There is no reason to expect more LDS Maori to leave the country (missionary numbers are discussed below). LDS Maori increased by only 654 over 5 years from 21096 in 2001 to 21750 in 2006. Not only are LDS Maori leaving the church, they are leaving at a far greater rate than non-Maori.

There are two other main ethnic demographics in our census data. We have seen considerable Asian immigration over the past few years but LDS Asian numbers are too few to play with, and it would be unreasonable to expect Asian immigrants to be LDS. Oddly enough, the last demographic MELAA (Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African – no, this grouping makes no sense to me either) is also increasing due to immigration and a disproportionate number ARE LDS. How odd. But the total numbers are so low (141 MELAA LDS in 2006) that they do not have any real effect on totals.

There about 400 missionaries in country including about 100 kiwis. A further 100-odd kiwis are ‘serving’ overseas. As the % of 18&19 year-old males is about 1.5% of the NZ population, the 200 kiwi mishies represent less than 1/3 of the eligible self identified LDS males (very conservatively, given the higher birthrate and thus higher proportion of young LDS).

In summary, the growth of the LDS in NZ is lower than expected based on natural increase alone. The higher birthrate of Maori and Pacific LDS is masking a significant exodus of Maori LDS, but even so, does not completely compensate for overall LDS losses. Recall that the ethnicity breakdown of LDS in 2001 was 26.8% NZEuro, 41.6% Maori, and 29.3 Pacific. By 2006, these numbers were: 26.3%, 39%, and 32.1%. As the proportion of LDS Pacific people increases, their higher birthrate will likely continue to mask other losses.

I hope I have not turned too many people off with the numbers.

(*NZEuro is those person identifying themselves as 'European' or ‘New Zealander’ or ‘other’ (for example Pakeha). So many mainly ‘Europeans’ were refusing to self-identify as such and ending up in the ‘other’ category, that the last census included the new category ‘New Zealander’. For continuity between census periods, and to be conservative when looking at LDS figures, it makes sense to combine these categories.)

[_Danna]

For some reason that submitted twice

[_Chap]

Chap, very cool, thanks for the information.

I did a similar exercise for New Zealand a while ago on another board when the claim was made that the NZ Church was growing based on an increase in the percentage of self-reported Mormons between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. I came up with a similar 7.8% figure for missing Mormons but over a much shorter time-frame. That is 7.8% were missing at the 2006 census based on the expected figure extrapolated from the 2001 census. Breaking figures down by race, it is clear that the bulk of missing Mormons are Maori.

My personal guess is that this is due to the fallout from the Lamanite DNA issue, and media coverage of Maori DNA research showing a Taiwanese origin for Maori. For Maori, the Book of Mormon was a history of their ancestors, and the Lehi origin myth was a powerful faith promoter (as attested by my little brother, Lehi). Some Maori developed a unique myth of descent from Hagoth and claimed to be Nephites. When apologists imply that only the simple-minded would really think that all Amerinds and Polynesians were children of Lehi, the Maori voted with their feet.

But ... you mean people are actually leaving a church that has Pahoran in it?

People like that deserve all they get.

[_truth dancer]

In the last several wards in which I lived, about 50% were active, and only twenty percent had a premium membership.

So, of the 3.2 million people who claim membership in the LDS church in the United States, it is likely only half of those are able potential temple goers.

[_cinepro]

So, of the 3.2 million people who claim membership in the LDS church in the United States, it is likely only half of those are able potential temple goers.

The 5.9 million number the Church puts out includes every person from birth-death, right? Does the 3.2 million number also include babies, children and teenagers?

If so, far fewer than half would be going to the Temple. (And if not, that might explain much of the discrepancy.)