Insight From Statistical Report

[Analytics]

When people look at the church’s annual statistical report, they often look at total church size, number of missionaries, and number of convert baptisms.

I’d like to suggest that the most insightful number on the statistical report is the number of new children of record: if you want to understand how strong the church really is, this is the number to look at first.

In 2020, the Church had 65,540 new children of record. But what does this imply?

Pretend that the Church had another new 65,540 children of record in 2021, another 65,540 in 2022, another 65,540 in 2023, etc. And assume no convert baptisms, no deaths, and no apostasy. And assume everybody dies at an average life expectancy of 80 years. This model would predict that in the year 2099, the Church membership would consist of 65,540 80-year olds who were born in 2020, 65,540 79-year olds who were born in 2021...65,540 newborns who were born in 2099, for a total church membership of 65,540 x 80 = 5,243,200.

This metric is called the Born In the Church Projected Membership, or BIC Projected Membership, and represents the Church’s ability to continue itself through birth. It is calculated by multiplying the New Children of Record by an average life expectancy of 80.

The United States has something on the order of 3.75 million births last year. This is alarming because it implies the “Born in America future population” is 3.75 million x 80 = 300 million. If things don’t change or immigration doesn’t make up for the difference, the total population of the country will drift down from the 328 million that we now have to only 300 million.

So what does a BIC Projected Membership of 5,243,200 imply about the real strength of the Church? How has this number changed over time? What does that imply?

[IHAQ]

The blog "Common Consent" tracked New Children Of Record as a percentage of total membership. This showed a steadily downward trend 2008 - 2014.
https://bycommonconsent.wordpress.com/2 ... d-ldsconf/



For the years since 2014

2015 : 114,550 : 0.73%
2016 : 109,246 : 0.69%
2017 : 106,771 : 0.66%
2018 : 102,102 : 0.63%
2019 : 94,266 : 0.40%
2020 : 65,540 : 0.39%

Definitely a continuing trend - increasing total membership, decreasing number of new children of record.
Part of the explanation will be people having fewer children on average, marrying later etc. but the trend of decline also suggests to me that the total membership number is virtually meaningless in terms of indicating how many people are actually committed members.

The big drop 2018 to 2019 stands out.

[Chap]

... the total membership number is virtually meaningless in terms of indicating how many people are actually committed members.

I think that was settled on this board as a result of quite detailed discussions of a number of quantitative factors quite a while back. If I recall correctly, a major element was the large discrepancy between the proportion of the US population self-identifying as Mormons and the percentage calculated from the CoJCoLDS's membership figures.

And even if you don't like math, just think of the fact that once you are baptised you are counted as a member for the next 100 years (actually a bit more than that, no?) unless you go through all the hassle of resigning. And perhaps even resigning will not get you deleted.

Still, the money hasn't resigned, and never will! It's like the children of Israel died out or wandered off, but the Golden Calf still stood proudly on its pedestal, growing a little larger every day.

[Moksha]

Church HQ might consider putting out fertility encouragement reminders to all married members.

[Analytics]

The blog "Common Consent" tracked New Children Of Record as a percentage of total membership...

Thanks for the information and reference!

What makes those graphs misleading is why they are so interesting. We all know the denominator--the total nominal church membership--is a meaningless number. We know it contains millions of people who are dead or don't self-identify as members of the Church, but how many? How much of the decline in that ratio is due to the denominator becoming more and more bloated with people who aren't really members, and how much of it is due to changing demographics among the Church's membership?

It seems the real point of these reports is to measure how strong the Church really is, and to see what the trends are in that strength. The real strength of the Church is things like tithing revenue, count of temple recommends issued each year, and income from its businesses and assets. Those specific things aren't listed in the report. The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

Of publicly available information, I'm suggesting that the very best measure of the Church's actual strength is its ability to generate new children of record. This statistic isn't confused by changes in who is called on missions and how long missions are. It isn't messed up by the size of wards or stakes shifting over time, or by tiny temples that are only open a few hours a month. And it takes into account the demographics.

If you multiply the new children of record by average life expectancy, you put that number on the same scale as the total membership, and get a sense for how sustainable or bloated the total membership number is. A Church with 18,000,000 nominal members should have a BIC Projected Membership of 18,000,000 just to sustain that membership level through birth. The fact that it is about a quarter of that indicates that the Church's total fertility rate is a small fraction of the 2.1 children per woman that it needs in order to avoid shrinking over the long haul.

[Analytics]

Still, the money hasn't resigned, and never will! It's like the children of Israel died out or wandered off, but the Golden Calf still stood proudly on its pedestal, growing a little larger every day.

Exactly.

The last member standing gets a $100 billion bonus for turning off the lights.

[Lem]

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right? I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data? If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

[Gadianton]

Still, the money hasn't resigned, and never will! It's like the children of Israel died out or wandered off, but the Golden Calf still stood proudly on its pedestal, growing a little larger every day.

one of the better ways i've heard it put.

[toon]

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right? I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data? If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

I get your point on terminology. But I think his point may have been that if a greater percentage of full time missionaries are female today than, say, in the 80s, then the number of full time missionaries may not be as accurate an indicator of church growth and active membership over time than other numbers.

[Res Ipsa]

The blog "Common Consent" tracked New Children Of Record as a percentage of total membership...

Thanks for the information and reference!

What makes those graphs misleading is why they are so interesting. We all know the denominator--the total nominal church membership--is a meaningless number. We know it contains millions of people who are dead or don't self-identify as members of the Church, but how many? How much of the decline in that ratio is due to the denominator becoming more and more bloated with people who aren't really members, and how much of it is due to changing demographics among the Church's membership?

It seems the real point of these reports is to measure how strong the Church really is, and to see what the trends are in that strength. The real strength of the Church is things like tithing revenue, count of temple recommends issued each year, and income from its businesses and assets. Those specific things aren't listed in the report. The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

Of publicly available information, I'm suggesting that the very best measure of the Church's actual strength is its ability to generate new children of record. This statistic isn't confused by changes in who is called on missions and how long missions are. It isn't messed up by the size of wards or stakes shifting over time, or by tiny temples that are only open a few hours a month. And it takes into account the demographics.

If you multiply the new children of record by average life expectancy, you put that number on the same scale as the total membership, and get a sense for how sustainable or bloated the total membership number is. A Church with 18,000,000 nominal members should have a BIC Projected Membership of 18,000,000 just to sustain that membership level through birth. The fact that it is about a quarter of that indicates that the Church's total fertility rate is a small fraction of the 2.1 children per woman that it needs in order to avoid shrinking over the long haul.

Yeah, I was puzzled about the use of new children of record divided by total membership as being meaningful. A decrease in that percentage isn't inconsistent with a growing total membership. A declining trend in the number of new children of record, on the other hand, is not a good trend for the organization.

Does anyone know when the church adopted the practice of keeping members in the membership totals for 110 years if they don't get notice of the member's death?