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

[_cinepro]

USA Today has an interesting article on religious growth (or lack thereof) in the US over the last few decades. We awesomely beat the mainline Protestants and Catholics, but lost out to the Wiccans, Muslims and Pentacostals :(.

And they peg US Church membership at 3.2 million members. I wonder if the Church will revise their figure of 5.9 million to more closely reflect reality....?

The survey is pretty simple: they ask a bunch of people (113k in 1990, 54k in 2008) "What is your religious identity?"

I suspect we'll a letter from the FP in the next few months that simply says: "Attention fellow Church members: If someone calls or stops you on the street and asks you what your religious identity is, please answer "LDS/Mormon"

[_asbestosman]

I suspect we'll a letter from the FP in the next few months that simply says: "Attention fellow Church members: If someone calls or stops you on the street and asks you what your religious identity is, please answer "LDS/Mormon"

What if the person asking you is holding an "Overturn H8" sign?

[_The Nehor]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

[_TAK]

Looks like "No Religion" is the fastest growing segment..
Maybe there is hope afterall..

[_Daniel Peterson]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

Why, Nehor, do ye go about controverting the ways of cynicpro? Why do ye teach this people that there may not be an imminent collapse of the Church, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the rabid critics?

[_The Nehor]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

Why, Nehor, do ye go about controverting the ways of cynicpro? Why do ye teach this people that there may not be an imminent collapse of the Church, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the rabid critics?

Behold, an angel did appear to me and did teach me the words which I do say and I did teach them until I did believe them.

[_truth dancer]

This is an interesting article, it reflects my personal observation in that many people I know are letting go of organized religion due to the dogma and doctrine.

As the gap widens between science and religion; ancient ideas and modern awareness, more and more people are moving away from what doesn't make sense or seem healthy to them.

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.

I know, I know... it is not reality. It is just a little dream of mine.

~td~

[_Chap]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

Why, Nehor, do ye go about controverting the ways of cynicpro? Why do ye teach this people that there may not be an imminent collapse of the Church, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the rabid critics?

Unless The Nehor has already undergone theosis to a degree that induces Elohim-like personal plurality, shouldn't that be:

Why, Nehor, dost thou go about [or why goest thou about] controverting the ways of cynicpro? (etc.)

Mark you, I am thinking King James here. DCP may have other models in mind.

[Guest]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

Sorry, I should have clarified. The numbers did show that the Church grew at the same rate as the population, which is not the same as "no growth" (i.e. as many members in '08 as '90). It's as if the Church hadn't gained any market share.

I'm actually much more interested in the 3.2 million estimate compared to the Church's numbers. Other than the explanation that the Church uses such-and-such counting method and it's swell, any thoughts?

If the 3.2 million is closer to reality, should the Church take a more active role in reporting numbers that more closely reflect reality? Maybe reporting a "Total number on the rolls/ total average weekly attendance for the last 6 months" type scenario for comparison purposes?

Why, Nehor, do ye go about controverting the ways of cynicpro? Why do ye teach this people that there may not be an imminent collapse of the Church, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the rabid critics?

? CFR that I (a) want the Church to "collapse", (b)would rejoice in the process, or (c) prophecy that such will happen. You must be thinking of someone else. For someone who spends so much time and energy parsing accusations made against and attributes attributed to him, I'm kind of surprised to see you make such an statement.

[_Chap]

That is as a percentage of population, the actual numbers did grow unless we hit negative population growth when I wasn't looking.

Sorry, I should have clarified. The numbers did show that the Church grew at the same rate as the population, which is not the same as "no growth" (i.e. as many members in '08 as '90). It's as if the Church hadn't gained any market share.

Given that the LDS share of population has just been maintained, and that this is what one might expect to happen if no-one changed their religion from that of their parents, and all religions reproduced at the same rate, how would one's interpretation of these figures be affected by factoring in the larger number of children produced by LDS families compared to the rest of the population, I wonder?