Talk:Membership history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 1

What constitutes a 'church member'?
A recent PEW forum study indicated that the number of active mormons in the US is only about 50% of what the church itself claims. Given this discrepancy, why depend on the church's own numbers for this article?

Furthermore, the church has admitted that it keeps inactive, "lost" members on file until they hit 110 years old, meaning the church admits to artificially inflating its membership. (The church has never released the number of "active" members, despite tracking attendance in each ward and brach every single week).

I don't have the Pew study source handy, but the source for the 110 year old lost members is from a Salt Lake Tribune article, quoting a mormon general authority, archived here: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon268.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.132.88 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Old discussions
My intent is to finish gathering this data, then use it to produce some graphs of historical LDS church membership. Tom Haws 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Completed, but can't quite figure out how the percentages were created - by my math, they don't add up. Can you share formula? -Visorstuff 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! They were made the only way they could be made. Take the year's ending total, let's say 12,275,822 which was 2005. Subtract the previous year's ending total, in this case 11,985,254. This gives you the raw amount of growth in membership, in this case 290,568. Then you divide that by the initial membership size, that is, the previous year's total (11,985,254) and get the percentage. For instance 1834 to 1835 membership went from about 4000 to 8000 and the percentage growth is 100%. Just as it should be.

Check your math again, you must have done something wrong! :) Novel-Technology 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whew is right, Visorstuff! Nice work! Oh, and an easier way to explain how I calculated % would be year2/year1, which actually is the formula I used in the speadsheet. Oh and why does MSExcel not let you export a graph to any graphics format? What a pain it was to make that high-resolution graph. It's nice, though. Novel-Technology 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Got the issue I was having - I'm using a spreadsheet to calculate, and wasn't doing percentages, thus because you are showing two decimals, but only calculating one, I was getting different results. I've just updated the text with 2005 numbers and calculated to two decimals. Let me know if you want the spreadsheet. There are no major changes, aside from the addition of 2005.


 * There were 28 years of growth under 2 percent. There were 28 years of growth over 7 percent. 35 years of 2-3 percent growth, 39 years of 3-4 percent growth, 28 years of 4-5 percent growth and 19 years of 5-7 percent growth. Incidentally, the median growth is 3.74 percent.


 * By my projections, using this number, church growth in 2050 would be 65,554,219; by 2080, 197,236,806. A more modest growth number of just below recent levels 2 percent would result in 30,621,567 members by 2050; 55,466,731 by 2080.


 * At 3.74 percent growth, church membership would reach a billion members by 2125 (less than 300 years after organization); at 2 percent growth church membership would reach a billion members by 2227 (about 400 years after organization).


 * If only 250,000 members are added each year (the norm for the past ten years or so), membership would be 23,810,869 in 2050, and 31,310,869 in 2080. Membership wouldn't reach a billion until, well, it would be a long time from now, and church growth would resemble the history of Catholicism.


 * I know that growth estimates are much more complex, taking into account growth waves, declining family figures and other external influences, but kinda interesting.... -Visorstuff 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice graph addition. Thanks. -Visorstuff 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've made projections like this too, but in reality the outlook is not quite all rosy right now. There are some chronic problems in the church relating to growth and especially to convert retention. See the book The Law of the Harvest at http://www.cumorah.com for an excellent discussion of the factors and issues involved.Novel-Technology 04:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention on the church history page. I'm no techie.  Are you using Wiki software to make the chart?  What are our source(s) for the data?  Utah LDS records?  I'll have to look over the methodology, but looks like very interesting material.  The "big" chart presents a strong visual (and emotional) impression but may not be statistically useful.  From a history standpoint -- why not also break this down into distinct periods?  From the establishment of the Church of Christ to JSmith's death would be a great chart for history articles?  A chart on growth during the early European missions?  A chart on the growth of the Utah Saints under Brigham Young?  A chart on growth in the twentieth century?  We could even break it down by Prophet.   Good stuff with a variety of uses.  WBardwin 03:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll ask again. I know that the figures were printed in the Deserted News Almanac -- but what is the source of the information?  Are these published membership records from the church?  Are they comparable over the years?  Have differeing systems been used to gather the data?  How has the data been adjusted over the years?  Understanding the limits of the data is important before presenting it or analizing it.  Does the Almanac provide any of this information?  What does it show as its source.  WBardwin 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in response. The data does come from the church almanac, which takes its data from official church record reports. Each year, this detail is gathered under the instructions given in the D&C. Some are reported externally at conference. I used MS Excel to create the charts I've made. I'm unsure of when the estimation software for death was implemented, but my guess is that it was after the 60s correlation push. Methodology will be extremely difficult to obtain from the church, but some has been shared externally. -Visorstuff 23:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that pre-1844 data has lots of problems and the Utah colonizing period has a few as well.  Excommunications and rebaptisms are particularly difficult, and were quite common as people were removed from the rolls for relatively minor transgressions. When these figures have been quoted in papers/dissertations they usually have a few caveats.  Figures in the 20th century are usually more dependable.  If these figures are based on the older published material, I should probably track down those caveats as well.  I used to know someone who worked with these figures for the church -- but it's been awhile.  WBardwin

No, rebaptisms are not an issue with the figures we charted and graphed on this page because the figures are not tracking baptisms. Rather, they track total membership. If 50% of the Church members were excommunicated and then re-baptized in a certain year, that would show up as a net change of 0%. I think the official Church figures we work off here are quite reliable. Novel-Technology 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please add citations to this page - specifically the table of members by year? I would really like to be able to use these information for a paper but need to know the source. Thank you.69.245.48.161 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence is the reference. See the Deseret News LDS Almanac.  Tom Haws (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New graphs
I just want to note here that I created new graphs and narrative this year. Tom Haws (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking the math.
To be consistent and make sure the math is correct.
 * 2012 From http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2012-statistical-report-2013-april-general-conference the population of the church in 2012 was 14,782,473
 * 2013 From http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2013-statistical-report-2014-april-general-conference the population of the church in 2013 was 15,082,028

The number in the increase should be equal to ((15082028 / 14782473) * 100) -100 for which I get 2.02642007... , so with the rounding, I believe that 2.03 should be the proper entry.Naraht (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep your diploma. I agree with your conclusion (although I use a different calculation (299,555/14,782,473) to arrive at the same number.) Bahooka (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There's something you should know about me. I'm hard to convince that I'm wrong, but to my credit, once I've been proven wrong, I admit it. The math checks out. Keep your diploma. My mistake. Please accept my sincere apologies. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mormonnewsroom articles.
Not sure where we should add them as references, but Naraht (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2010-statistical-report-for-2011-april-general-conference
 * http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2011-statistical-report-for-2012-april-general-conference
 * http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2012-statistical-report-for-2013-april-general-conference
 * http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/2013-statistical-report-for-2014-april-general-conference


 * Aren't these statistics already in the article? I thought they were. Let me look. Just looked at it again. These statistics are already in the article. If you feel there are any relevant details we missed, please feel free to bring them to our attention. If not, then I don't know what else may need to be discussed about this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't any new information there, just that the article generally lacks references and for the last 4 years we may want to use those as references. I'm not sure whether the Almanac's continues to be updated or even exist in paper form.. Naraht (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Continuing to get the references. (Primary, I know)
 * 2009 - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/statistical-report-2009?lang=eng
 * 2008 - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/statistical-report-2008?lang=eng
 * 2007 - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/statistical-report-2007?lang=eng
 * And all others back to
 * 1976 - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/statistical-report-1976?lang=eng


 * 1975 - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/1976/04?lang=eng&vid=1510651794001&cid=1
 * Information is available on the site back to 1970...Naraht (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the Conference Reports from April of each year (which the church has added to the Internet Archive) you can go back a lot farther than that. — Asterisk *  Splat → 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unclear to me how far back you can go. I looked at the April 1918 Conference Report and couldn't find the number that is in the table for 1917: 488,038 anywhere there. OTOH, the April 1935 report does contain the number in the table for 1934: 730,738.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral or not...
I was thinking of adding that the percentage growth is the smallest since 1937, but I'm not sure if that would be non-NPOV...Naraht (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. It is a matter of fact, not POV. Oceanchaos (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Table contains different values than official statistics, 1984-1991
The LDS church reports their membership in April General conference [ During the period from 1984 to 1991, membership totals were rounded off to the nearest 10,000. For example, in 1987 membership was reported as 6,440,000, not 6,394,314 as appears in the table. I'm delighted to see more precision in the data, but we need a source to know where these revised values are coming from. Oceanchaos (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the first edits on the page back in 2006, the numbers come out of the 2006 Church Almanac. Though books.google.com has that book and I'm not finding it searching the previews.Naraht (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)