Insight From Statistical Report

[Dr Moore]

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

No, reading 1 it would read more like this:

The number of male full-time missionaries is interesting, but [the disclosed data on male FTM is] clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

It isn’t irrational, but like I said it assumes “interesting” implies that FTM means the apples-apples comparison in the disclosed FTM data, eg Male missionaries which are by default represented in the disclosed FTM numbers. As I also said, my first reading was the second version.

[Lem]

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.

It is an interesting an accurate metric. The fact that finite numbers of children of record are declining, at the same time as total claimed membership is steadily rising, is fascinating and bears further thinking as to what is behind the trend.

I find it interesting because it is another stat that shows a trend that the virtually linear growth, up until very recently, doesn't seem to accurately reflect.

One number that seems very prone to manipulation is the New Convert Baptisms. One would think this would be related to the number of missionaries, but after hearing from Gadianton and some others here about how those numbers have traditionally been reported up the chain, I started to suspect a less than forthright process may have been happening. I don't have the numbers in front of me now, but if you looked at the number of missionaries from about 1998 to 2018, If I recall correctly, they bounce from about 50k up to 86k and back down. The number of convert baptisms, however, is very stable over that time period, ranging from something like 250,000 to 330,000. I'll have to confirm this when I have the numbers available, but there seems to be no correlation whatsoever between the number of missionaries and the baptisms.

This complete lack of correlation between missionaries and baptisms, combined with the reports here from missionaries about how the numbers get counted up has led me to suspect that the expectations from the reporting process may be driving the stability of the baptisms reported, with a little fudging here and there, just enough to keep the higher-ups happy.

The last few years seem to have more realistic numbers in this respect, so maybe that reporting process is now being more properly supervised. (Or, it could be that the core of proselytizing missionaries has been fairly stable, with the fluctuation being due to something like the LDS tendency to call seniors as 'missionaries' for jobs unrelated to proselytizing. It's an interesting question.)

[Res Ipsa]

Lem, if you scroll down on the link in the op, there are graphs of total membership and convert baptisms through 2014. There doesn’t appear to be any obvious correlation between the two.

I think you make a good point about the convert baptisms. They could also fudge with numbers they don’t show — people taken off the rolls. If I remember correctly, Alf would compute and plot that number, and it took some wild year to year swings.

The policy of keeping people on the rolls until 110 allowed them to defer removal of a bunch of people from the official total. I keep thinking that will catch up to them at some point, but I can’t even guess when.

[Dr Moore]

One number that seems very prone to manipulation is the New Convert Baptisms. One would think this would be related to the number of missionaries, but after hearing from Gadianton and some others here about how those numbers have traditionally been reported up the chain, I started to suspect a less than forthright process may have been happening.

I don’t believe they would ever disclose the breakout between adult and non adult convert baptisms. But given the global situation in 2020, I bet new adult convert baptisms fell much harder than those of children in less active or inactive families.

[Lem]

One number that seems very prone to manipulation is the New Convert Baptisms. One would think this would be related to the number of missionaries, but after hearing from Gadianton and some others here about how those numbers have traditionally been reported up the chain, I started to suspect a less than forthright process may have been happening.

I don’t believe they would ever disclose the breakout between adult and non adult convert baptisms. But given the global situation in 2020, I bet new adult convert baptisms fell much harder than those of children in less active or inactive families.

That's a good point. I agree a fall in adult convert baptisms was inevitable given the pandemic and may have resulted in the extremely low number for 2020.

But, if a child of record isn't baptized at 8, but instead at 9 or older, If I recall correctly isn't it considered a convert baptism? Way too much opportunity for double counting, in my opinion, since they were already counted at birth, but maybe that's your point. Is that what has been driving the stability of that number?

[Dr Moore]

I actually don’t know if kids are counted at birth to inactive members. Pretty sure BIC babies that get blessed are counted. Where is the deciding line? Not sure. I doubt they will double count.

[Lem]

I actually don’t know if kids are counted at birth to inactive members. Pretty sure BIC babies that get blessed are counted. Where is the deciding line? Not sure. I doubt they will double count.

Good question. From the LDS tech wiki

For statistical and reporting purposes, the following persons are members of record and should have a membership record:

Those who have been baptized and confirmed.
Those under age nine who have been blessed but not baptized.
Those who are not accountable because of intellectual disabilities, regardless of age.

Unblessed children under age eight when:
Two member parents request you create a record.
One member parent requests you create a record and the nonmember parent gives permission.

So blessing not necessary for a record to be created, if at least one parent is a member, and no distinction is made for inactive members.

(Re following the rules: My member exhusband lied about my ‘permission’ when he wanted to secretly baptize our child, and his bishop, who knew better, let it slide. From my conversations with others in similar situations, this is not unusual at all, so I’m not sanguine about any of these rules being strictly followed. Of course, just my anecdotal assessment.)

[Res Ipsa]

I actually don’t know if kids are counted at birth to inactive members. Pretty sure BIC babies that get blessed are counted. Where is the deciding line? Not sure. I doubt they will double count.

According to the current General Handbook 33.6.2., a new child of record should be either:

A child that has been blessed within the last year; or

An unblessed child under age 8 for whom a record was created in the last year, including children of converts. At least one parent or grandparent must be a member and both parents (or a parent who has sole legal custody) must consent.

When a child of record turns 9 and is not baptized, they are no longer considered a member of record. However, the local ward retains the record until the child turns 18. Then, if the former child chooses not to be baptized after being given "every opportunity" to do so, the bishop is supposed to cancel the membership record, but only after getting permission from the stake president.

There is lots of information about how to handle membership records. I have yet to find a section that explains the circumstances under which adult records get canceled.

Under the systems as described, there shouldn't be any double counting. There is only one member record for each member. Once a child has a record, they should never be given a new record. Any status changes are made to the existing record.

[Res Ipsa]

I actually don’t know if kids are counted at birth to inactive members. Pretty sure BIC babies that get blessed are counted. Where is the deciding line? Not sure. I doubt they will double count.

Good question. From the LDS tech wiki

For statistical and reporting purposes, the following persons are members of record and should have a membership record:

Those who have been baptized and confirmed.
Those under age nine who have been blessed but not baptized.
Those who are not accountable because of intellectual disabilities, regardless of age.

Unblessed children under age eight when:
Two member parents request you create a record.
One member parent requests you create a record and the nonmember parent gives permission.

So blessing not necessary for a record to be created, if at least one parent is a member, and no distinction is made for inactive members.

(Re following the rules: My member exhusband lied about my ‘permission’ when he wanted to secretly baptize our child, and his bishop, who knew better, let it slide. From my conversations with others in similar situations, this is not unusual at all, so I’m not sanguine about any of these rules being strictly followed. Of course, just my anecdotal assessment.)

I'm not sanguine either. I've heard other similar stories.

[Lem]

Also from the LDS wiki

It is important to record the life events for all individuals within the unit boundaries.

Even children born to inactives?

....Births

New children born into the unit should be recorded on Church records.

Children that are blessed in fast and testimony meeting, have the blessing recorded by the clerk and the certificate printed for the family.

It is not necessary to have a child blessing to create a new child of record.

https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wi ... ords_(MLS)

I don’t know. Maybe I am being overly suspicious, but that leaves open a lot of doors to —righteously, with the very best of intentions, done with an eye to eternity, rather than bothering with the short-sighted rules of earth—-potentially manipulate records.