The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership history - Wikipedia Here’s another source showing declining growth. That rough stone isn’t rolling so much anymore.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Church Makes 'Surprise' Change on LGBT Issues
- Thread starter idea
- Start date
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
As Mark Twain attributed to Disraeli, but the Earl of Balfour probably said first: "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
I studied statistics. Not the math part (computers do that stuff now) but the designing the survey/poll questions part. As a result, I have found that statisticians lie more than about anybody else, and they do it by manipulating data. The fact is, the projected lines on those graphs simply so not follow, in either progression or number, the established graph points that prompted them. One does not have to have studied statistics, as I did, to see that.
We already do, in that those marriages are quite legal in law. We don't argue with that. We do not, however, recognize them as eligible for Temple sealings, and I doubt very much that we ever will, given our most basic doctrines. I think that all other Christian groups can recognize same sex marriage without messing with basic doctrines, but I honestly do not see how we can.
(shrug) Perhaps someone can come up with a work around, but I don't see it, myself. I'm willing to wait and see, though.
A bit off-topic, but why the sharp one-year spike in new missionaries in the early 2010s?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Do you understand the difference between 'slowest growth' and 'losing members in record numbers,' resulting in a shrinking of the membership population? I have already mentioned that our growth is slowing. That is to be expected in today's culture. There may well come a time when we truly do begin to shrink, rather than grow, in numbers. However, that day is not this day. This is not in any way proof, or even evidence, that what we teach is true, mind you.
I just want the critics to concentrate upon stuff that is real, not made up stuff that they can use to deflect away from the substantive issues.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
A lowering of the age at which missionaries could go out from nineteen to eighteen, resulting in a rather large upswell in new missionaries. That settled out as the 'doubled' group came home.
Perhaps you can explain why you think the projections are off instead of just calling the well reasoned individuals who put this together liars.
The LDS Church lowered the age of young men who can serve missions from 19 to 18. That way they captured people to go on missions who otherwise might have done something else that would take them away (college, marriage, unworthiness, etc).
The claim from another poster that started this was that the Church is “losing members” in “record numbers.” The claim was not that the Church is “shrinking.”
Do you deny that more people are leaving the Church than ever before? Isn’t that “losing members”?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Then perhaps there would be no argument had Bob the Unbeliever just said, "Mormonism is now experiencing its slowest growth in well over 100 years" instead of saying "the LDS, are shrinking faster than they are replacing membership." A small net growth is still growth; it can't accurately be described as a net loss. Mormonism is not, as he stated, in a "rocket-sled to oblivion." Personally, I'm not really all that surprised by the slowing in growth, considering how quickly the Church grew in the last half of the 20th century. A leveling out is only logical. With more than a quarter of a million new converts being baptized last year (which is more than double the number of children in LDS families being baptized), we are continuing to grow, if only much more slowly than in prior years.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I studied statistics. I concentrated on the design aspect of surveys and polls, and was well educated in how questions and numbers could be manipulated into supporting opposite opinions. As Mark Twain attributed to Disraeli (but it looks like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, actually said it first) there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damned lies and statistics."
Let us look at this chart:
Look at the projection line here.
The graph itself shows a very clear tendency DOWNWARD as to 'names removed,' with one sort of 'outlier) that shows an upswing. If one were to follow the actual line of the graph (and do the math) the projected future line would ignore both 'outliers" and continue downward. However, this doesn't. it takes the projection up.
Then let us look at this one:
This one is innocuous enough...except of course that the site it comes from is absolutely an anti-Mormon site.
Look at this one, from the Child Trends Data Bank:
Notice the similarities? We, like the rest of the world (especially the USA) have been dealing with the "Baby Boom." the birth rates are following the same statistical path...but this site is posting it as if it were peculiarly an LDS 'problem."
I was not, btw, committing an 'ad hominem.' I was questioning the content...and asking for the source.
I was correct to question the content; it's more than a bit twisty, even if the data used is accurate. As for asking for the source? I looked that up for myself. this is absolutely an anti-Mormon site. Clint Kimball is very much a critic of the church.
I found his posting on 'the reputation of the Smith family' page, and noticed that he published EVERY negative thing he could find, Some of them repeated. The only positive ones came from the Smith family itself. (All three of them). As I am quite aware that there ARE positive affidavits of the character of Joseph Smith and his family, not finding them on that site is a dead giveaway that Kimball is not in any way an objective reporter, no matter how much he claims to be. Therefore I have some solid reasons to question his sources and data manipulation.
As well, he posts on his site information which no Latter-day saint who honors his/her Temple promises would talk about, never mind post on a website for all to see. (shrug)
I have also found some quotes by him on YouTube and other sites; the man is not a friend. Now this does not automatically make him deceitful or biased; just a critic. His utter lack of including those 'pro-Smith' affidavits on his 'Smith family reputation' page, however, makes him both deceitful AND biased.
I have no problem with 'biased,' by the way. In religion, everybody is. However, I have a major problem with those who pretend not to be; who promote their 'anti' agendas while they claim to be fair, honest and 'doing a service." I'd rather deal with "Saints Alive" (that's the Ed Decker 'The Godmakers" site) any day than Kimball's underhandedness.
For these reasons, then, I question your source....and his.
Katzpur, the post that started this particular discussion did not say shrinking.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I quoted Bob the Unbeliever, although I did not use the quote feature. That may not have been the post that started this particular discussion, but it was an exact quote. I don't believe I've moved the goalposts, although they have been completely knocked over since the OP.
Interesting that you would assume a downward trend when the left side of the graph is at zero and the right side of the data is positive.
The data's pretty noisy, but the trendline could be up or down depending on what period we use for the regression analysis.
I find your review of the graphs superficial.I studied statistics. I concentrated on the design aspect of surveys and polls, and was well educated in how questions and numbers could be manipulated into supporting opposite opinions. As Mark Twain attributed to Disraeli (but it looks like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, actually said it first) there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damned lies and statistics."
Let us look at this chart:
Look at the projection line here.
The graph itself shows a very clear tendency DOWNWARD as to 'names removed,' with one sort of 'outlier) that shows an upswing. If one were to follow the actual line of the graph (and do the math) the projected future line would ignore both 'outliers" and continue downward. However, this doesn't. it takes the projection up.
Then let us look at this one:
This one is innocuous enough...except of course that the site it comes from is absolutely an anti-Mormon site.
Look at this one, from the Child Trends Data Bank:
Notice the similarities? We, like the rest of the world (especially the USA) have been dealing with the "Baby Boom." the birth rates are following the same statistical path...but this site is posting it as if it were peculiarly an LDS 'problem."
I was not, btw, committing an 'ad hominem.' I was questioning the content...and asking for the source.
I was correct to question the content; it's more than a bit twisty, even if the data used is accurate. As for asking for the source? I looked that up for myself. this is absolutely an anti-Mormon site. Clint Kimball is very much a critic of the church.
I found his posting on 'the reputation of the Smith family' page, and noticed that he published EVERY negative thing he could find, Some of them repeated. The only positive ones came from the Smith family itself. (All three of them). As I am quite aware that there ARE positive affidavits of the character of Joseph Smith and his family, not finding them on that site is a dead giveaway that Kimball is not in any way an objective reporter, no matter how much he claims to be. Therefore I have some solid reasons to question his sources and data manipulation.
As well, he posts on his site information which no Latter-day saint who honors his/her Temple promises would talk about, never mind post on a website for all to see. (shrug)
I have also found some quotes by him on YouTube and other sites; the man is not a friend. Now this does not automatically make him deceitful or biased; just a critic. His utter lack of including those 'pro-Smith' affidavits on his 'Smith family reputation' page, however, makes him both deceitful AND biased.
I have no problem with 'biased,' by the way. In religion, everybody is. However, I have a major problem with those who pretend not to be; who promote their 'anti' agendas while they claim to be fair, honest and 'doing a service." I'd rather deal with "Saints Alive" (that's the Ed Decker 'The Godmakers" site) any day than Kimball's underhandedness.
For these reasons, then, I question your source....and his.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you do. Or at least, you say you do. that does not, however, mean it was 'superficial,' or false.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I studied statistics. I concentrated on the design aspect of surveys and polls, and was well educated in how questions and numbers could be manipulated into supporting opposite opinions. As Mark Twain attributed to Disraeli (but it looks like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, actually said it first) there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damned lies and statistics."
Let us look at this chart:
Look at the projection line here.
The graph itself shows a very clear tendency DOWNWARD as to 'names removed,' with one sort of 'outlier) that shows an upswing. If one were to follow the actual line of the graph (and do the math) the projected future line would ignore both 'outliers" and continue downward. However, this doesn't. it takes the projection up.
Then let us look at this one:
This one is innocuous enough...except of course that the site it comes from is absolutely an anti-Mormon site.
Look at this one, from the Child Trends Data Bank:
Notice the similarities? We, like the rest of the world (especially the USA) have been dealing with the "Baby Boom." the birth rates are following the same statistical path...but this site is posting it as if it were peculiarly an LDS 'problem."
I was not, btw, committing an 'ad hominem.' I was questioning the content...and asking for the source.
I was correct to question the content; it's more than a bit twisty, even if the data used is accurate. As for asking for the source? I looked that up for myself. this is absolutely an anti-Mormon site. Clint Kimball is very much a critic of the church.
I found his posting on 'the reputation of the Smith family' page, and noticed that he published EVERY negative thing he could find, Some of them repeated. The only positive ones came from the Smith family itself. (All three of them). As I am quite aware that there ARE positive affidavits of the character of Joseph Smith and his family, not finding them on that site is a dead giveaway that Kimball is not in any way an objective reporter, no matter how much he claims to be. Therefore I have some solid reasons to question his sources and data manipulation.
As well, he posts on his site information which no Latter-day saint who honors his/her Temple promises would talk about, never mind post on a website for all to see. (shrug)
I have also found some quotes by him on YouTube and other sites; the man is not a friend. Now this does not automatically make him deceitful or biased; just a critic. His utter lack of including those 'pro-Smith' affidavits on his 'Smith family reputation' page, however, makes him both deceitful AND biased.
I have no problem with 'biased,' by the way. In religion, everybody is. However, I have a major problem with those who pretend not to be; who promote their 'anti' agendas while they claim to be fair, honest and 'doing a service." I'd rather deal with "Saints Alive" (that's the Ed Decker 'The Godmakers" site) any day than Kimball's underhandedness.
For these reasons, then, I question your source....and his.
LOOK AT THAT CHART! If you leave out the Fantasy-Delusion "projection"?
ROCKET SLED TO OBLIVION FITS QUITE WELL-- A SHARP DIVE TO NO MEMBERS...
What'ya know? Who knew? Oh! I did!
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
And yet it was. Just because you say it wasn’t doesn’t matter.
And you’re a prime example of that holier than thou attitude that’s such a great example for the church.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
It was YOUR chart that showed an incredible trend towards oblivion. If you ignore the Fantasy Delusion part -- the "projected" section which was absolutely not based in reality.