Reason #119: Because “fastest-growing” isn’t a reason to believe

 

Recently on a messageboard I ran across this chart and explanation.  Anyone want to check the math (or talk about the implications?):

HOW TO USE THESE CHARTS
  • The statistics with white backgrounds are ones reported by the church itself.
  • The statistics with gray backgrounds are derived by subsequently “doing the math” on one’s own.
  • The statistics with yellow borders (Starting with 1991) are approximations thanks to the church having rounded its numbers to the nearest thousand or ten thousand.
  • All negative signs (“-“) should be interpreted as “a loss of.”
  • If you’d like to check my math, click on the year to see the church’s official online Statistical Report for that particular year.

In the following chart, the “net increase” statistic comes from subtracting last year’s membership total from this year’s membership total.  The “gross increase” statistic comes from adding the “convert baptisms” to the “increase in children of record.”  Keep in mind that there should always be some loss of members (i.e., the “net increase this year” should always be less than the “gross increase this year”), since there will always be members who fail to become baptized at age 8*, voluntarily remove their names from the records, are excommunicated, or simply die.

* An official in the Church Office Building reports that for approximately the last 30 years “children of record” have been included in the membership total, not children who are baptized at age 8.   In other words, children blessed in Sacrament Meeting and children age 7 or less of converts are immediately included in the aggregate membership total. So for purposes of the church’s increase, the statistic titled “increase in children of record” should be considered in the total, not “eight-year-olds baptized,” “eight-year-old children of record baptized,” or “children of record baptized.”
Year Membership A: Net increase
this year
Convert
baptisms
Increase in chil-
dren of record
*
B: Gross increase
this year
(B minus A)
Member loss
2008 13,508,509 314,510 265,593 123,502 389,095 -74,585
2007 13,193,999 323,393 279,218 93,698 372,916 -47,523
2006 12,868,606 307,737 272,845 94,006 366,851 -59,114
2005 12,560,869 285,047 243,108 93,150 336,258 -51,211
2004 12,275,822 290,568 241,239 98,870 340,109 -49,541
2003 11,985,254 263,706 242,923 99,457 342,380 -78,674
2002 11,721,548 327,026 283,138 81,132 364,270 -37,244
2001 11,394,522 325,661 292,612 69,522 362,134 -36,473
2000 11,068,861 315,875 273,973 81,450 355,423 -39,548
1999 10,752,986 398,745 306,171 84,118 390,289 +8,456†
1998 10,354,241 283,717 299,134 76,829 375,963 -92,246
1997 10,070,524 375,975 317,798 75,214 393,012 -17,037
1996 9,694,549 353,651 321,385 ? ? ?
1995 9,340,898 316,329 304,330 ? ? ?
1994 9,024,569 328,345 300,730 ? ? ?
1993 8,696,224 289,329 304,808 ? ? ?
1992 8,406,895 286,895 274,477 ? ? ?
1991 8,120,000 360,000 297,770 ? ? ?
1990 7,760,000 460,000 330,877 ? ? ?
1989 7,300,000 580,000 318,940 ? ? ?
1988 6,720,000 280,000 256,515 93,000 349,515 -69,515
1987 6,440,000 270,000 227,284 99,000 326,284 -56,284
1986 6,170,000 250,000 216,210 93,000 309,210 -59,210
1985 5,920,000 270,000 197,640 95,000 292,640 -22,640
1984 5,650,000 250,000 192,983 98,000 290,983 -40,983
1983 5,400,000 235,000 189,419 120,000 309,419 -74,419
1982 5,165,000 229,000 207,000 124,000 331,000 -102,000
1981 4,936,000 298,000 224,000 >111,000§ >335,000 >  -37,000
1980 4,638,000 199,000 211,000 >103,000§ >314,000 >-115,000
1979 4,439,000 279,000 193,000 >107,000§ >300,000 >  -21,000
1978 4,160,000 194,000 152,000 > 97,000§ >249,000 >  -55,000
1977 3,966,000 223,251 167,939 > 95,000§ >262,939 >  -39,688
1976 3,742,749 170,547 133,959 > 88,522§ >222,481 >  -51,934
1975 3,572,202 186,293 95,412 > 79,723§ >175,135 >+11,158†
1974 3,385,909 64,353|| 69,018 > 72,717§ >141,735 >  -77,382

1 Comment

  1. Robert Badger
    Dec 18, 2009

    I’ve always known that Mormonism has a big problem with “inactives”. Given the funny things that Mormonism does with everything else, why should we believe their statistics? They openly lie, manipulate, and deceive.

Submit a Comment