Church growth -- Matt Martinich Cumorah project podcast

[jay santos]

Latest podcast at MoSto. Pretty interesting.

I find the church growth subject very interesting, and I've been keeping a spreadsheet on it and discussing it for years. It seems it's a big topic now.

There are two very different issues related to church growth. Matt focuses on the first issue pretty much the entire podcast.

1. The big issue and has been for many years. This is related to finding and keeping new converts. We amped up missionary work and converts in the 70's and 80's but after two decades of this wild growth, I think we looked at attendance figures and realized little of it was sticking. The issues are widespread, but the usual suspects are:
--lack of priesthood leaders in developing areas
--cultural issues
--church is too small and viewed as wacky and non-mainstream

2. The one MoSto's love. Historical or political issues are causing members to lose faith, drop out of activity or resign membership, and are causing potential converts to not have interest. Matt Martinich kind of poo poo'd this as a real cause for growth problems, globally. I agree with him. I also served a mission in Korea, (20 years ago--maybe it's different now) and issues like Book of Abraham, Native American DNA, or US political issues like Prop 8 were the last things we worried about with potential converts. Some of the comments on the MoSto board are critical of Martinich for underestimating this problem, but I think those commenters are overestimating the effect these issues have on a global basis for church growth. I am interested to see how big the MoSto movement is and how much of an effect it has on church growth, but I doubt it's very big right now.


He talked about how various issues will have on church growth: Romney election, Book of Mormon musical, Prop 8, etc. I think he's probably spot on that it won't have much effect at a macro level.

My opinion: on growth issue #1 which is the international church and primarily minorities and the poor/uneducated in the US and other developed nations, it will help. Especially the Romney thing will serve to legitimatize the church as a normal, somewhat mainstream religion which is the biggest obstacle to this growth.

For #2, the apostate/MoSto movement, it will definitely increase the movement and hurt overall growth, but again I don't know how big it is and what kind of effect even a significant increase would have.

[Indy Coug]

The untold story, IMO, is the decline in LDS reproductive rates.

[Moliere]

That was an interesting podcast. I wonder why we have a policy that allows for us to baptize people when they have only come to church once or twice in their lives. How much better would it be to require 6 months of attendance prior to getting baptized?

In our ward we've had 2 baptisms in the last 4 years. One of them was pretty much baptized into inactivity and the other was a teenager. Granted we wouldn't be increasing our numbers but we also wouldn't have another inactive on the rolls and we wouldn't be spending time as home teachers and ward councils trying to figure out ways to get him to church.

Also, I wonder if our literalistic view of church records keeps us from purging the rolls. We have maybe 40-50% inactivity rate and I'd bet that 25-30% are "do not contacts". So why don't we take people off the rolls who want nothing to do with the church? Is it because we look at the church roll/records as the same list that is being kept in heaven or is it because we still have hope that maybe those people will come back to the church?

[jay santos]

That was an interesting podcast. I wonder why we have a policy that allows for us to baptize people when they have only come to church once or twice in their lives. How much better would it be to require 6 months of attendance prior to getting baptized?

In our ward we've had 2 baptisms in the last 4 years. One of them was pretty much baptized into inactivity and the other was a teenager. Granted we wouldn't be increasing our numbers but we also wouldn't have another inactive on the rolls and we wouldn't be spending time as home teachers and ward councils trying to figure out ways to get him to church.

Also, I wonder if our literalistic view of church records keeps us from purging the rolls. We have maybe 40-50% inactivity rate and I'd bet that 25-30% are "do not contacts". So why don't we take people off the rolls who want nothing to do with the church? Is it because we look at the church roll/records as the same list that is being kept in heaven or is it because we still have hope that maybe those people will come back to the church?

The MoSto's would assume there is something sinister about the church's practice of keeping people on the roll, but I don't see that. Probably just because it's easiest. And there is always a chance they can come back. On my mission, we had a lot of success working those lists.

Hearing the perspective of how other churches gain converts does make me rethink the practice of baptizing so quickly. Doesn't really make sense. Six months would be a major change (though probably a good one), but certainly four weeks at sacrament should be reasonable.

[Moliere]

Hearing the perspective of how other churches gain converts does make me rethink the practice of baptizing so quickly. Doesn't really make sense. Six months would be a major change (though probably a good one), but certainly four weeks at sacrament should be reasonable.

Personally I'm skeptical of someone that makes a huge, life changing decision based on 4 weeks of study, but maybe you are saying they would likely have already known and studied the church prior to going to sacrament meeting. I do think there is something unique about making someone "work" (using the term loosely) for membership rather than baptizing anyone and anything that walks into the chapel and trips into the font.

[jay santos]

Personally I'm skeptical of someone that makes a huge, life changing decision based on 4 weeks of study, but maybe you are saying they would likely have already known and studied the church prior to going to sacrament meeting. I do think there is something unique about making someone "work" (using the term loosely) for membership rather than baptizing anyone and anything that walks into the chapel and trips into the font.

I think the rule is once (or twice?) to sacrament now. I'm just talking about a move in the right direction.

[Indy Coug]

I think the rule is once (or twice?) to sacrament now. I'm just talking about a move in the right direction.

The rule varies from mission president to mission president. We had one that seemed to think one time was OK and another that wanted four.

[Sleeping in EQ]

My 10 second take on Mormons and growth is that while I agree with those who don't see a theological imperative to "take over the world" with increasingly large hordes of Mormons, I do see a cultural need for acceptance, and increasing Church membership helps Mormons meet that need.

[UtahDan]

Jay as you know I agree that volume of attrition is unknown at this point. But I don't necessarily think it follows directly from that that problem doctrinal and historical issues are not part of the equation. Investigators can use Google as well.

One of the interesting things that was said in the Ryan Cragun podcast that I don't think we talked about was the fact that people who study missionary work (missiologists, I believe) say that there is a sweet spot you hit with culture or nation where they are transitioning from pre-modern to modern that is ideal for making conversions. That is why Latin America was such a fertile ground 20-30 years ago (though I think he argues a lot of it no longer is because it has become modern, Chile for example). It is also why, according to him, a big proportion of the few converts in Europe are immigrants from Africa.

One of the things he said is that if you want to go to places in the world that are hitting the sweet spot right now you need to be in Africa and India. Which apparently the Adventists among others are to huge success. He said he would close the first world missions and put everyone in those two places (some hyperbole there obviously) though he did acknowledge there was a benefit to having missionaries just be present to support the stake and ward structures in many parts of the world.

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

That was an interesting podcast. I wonder why we have a policy that allows for us to baptize people when they have only come to church once or twice in their lives. How much better would it be to require 6 months of attendance prior to getting baptized?

In our ward we've had 2 baptisms in the last 4 years. One of them was pretty much baptized into inactivity and the other was a teenager. Granted we wouldn't be increasing our numbers but we also wouldn't have another inactive on the rolls and we wouldn't be spending time as home teachers and ward councils trying to figure out ways to get him to church.

Also, I wonder if our literalistic view of church records keeps us from purging the rolls. We have maybe 40-50% inactivity rate and I'd bet that 25-30% are "do not contacts". So why don't we take people off the rolls who want nothing to do with the church? Is it because we look at the church roll/records as the same list that is being kept in heaven or is it because we still have hope that maybe those people will come back to the church?

Rise of Modern Mormonism had some interesting portions addressing this issue. Basically, months of attending sacrament meeting, study with missionaries, etc. used to be the requirement, until (I believe) the mid- to late-50s when a bunch of corporate types came in as mission presidents in England and were (in my view) overly concerned about numbers. The prevailing thought among this group became, essentially, "Get 'em in the water the first time they feel the Spirit." That may be fine if your overall concern is growing the Church's numbers, but likely not so much if you're more concerned with enduring conversions. Of course, the pendulum swinging in this direction is what ended up leading to baseball baptisms, etc.

[Mormon Red Death]

The untold story, IMO, is the decline in LDS reproductive rates.

Very true. When I was growing up seemed liked everyone had 5+ kids. Now 4 maybe even 3 is the new norm.

[Mormon Red Death]

I think the rule is once (or twice?) to sacrament now. I'm just talking about a move in the right direction.

How about just changing the directive to when THEY ask for baptism not the missionaries.

[jay santos]

My 10 second take on Mormons and growth is that while I agree with those who don't see a theological imperative to "take over the world" with increasingly large hordes of Mormons, I do see a cultural need for acceptance, and increasing Church membership helps Mormons meet that need.

I think a lot of the people that have been dismissing this notion that the LDS church should be growing are progressive Mormons that also dismiss the literalness of basic Mormon beliefs like

--LDS have the only true priesthood power on the Earth
--LDS ordinances are required for exaltation
--only mankind will be judged on whether or not they accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, which is equivalent to accepting or rejecting baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or the equivalent in the Spirit World if they die without that chance)


I think you can only be totally fine with lack of growth if

a. you're a progressive Mormon and you're down with the "power of the myth"
b. you think lack of growth is temporary issue
c. you see some logic I don't in God restoring his one and only true church but only letting .1% of the world in on it, mostly a quirky Utah based tribe

[Indy Coug]

I think a lot of the people that have been dismissing this notion that the LDS church should be growing are progressive Mormons that also dismiss the literalness of basic Mormon beliefs like

--LDS have the only true priesthood power on the Earth
--LDS ordinances are required for exaltation
--only mankind will be judged on whether or not they accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, which is equivalent to accepting or rejecting baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or the equivalent in the Spirit World if they die without that chance)


I think you can only be totally fine with lack of growth if

a. you're a progressive Mormon and you're down with the "power of the myth"
b. you think lack of growth is temporary issue
c. you see some logic I don't in God restoring his one and only true church but only letting .1% of the world in on it, mostly a quirky Utah based tribe

Just like the problem of some researcher in the 1980s taking a local maximum in the LDS annual growth rates and projecting a 250 million membership in 2050, there is a problem with taking the current local minimum and creating a new extrapolation.

Despite the church gaining numerous footholds around the world, the fact remains that at least 50% of the earth's population is essentially an untapped market. Recent new markets like Africa have been subject to managed growth strategies. Less recent, high growth markets like South America and the Philippines have also seen shifts towards intelligently managing growth.

So if the church was really about just cranking out as many wet jumpsuits as possible they could do it pretty readily.

[NorthwestUteFan]

So if the church was really about just cranking out as many wet jumpsuits as possible they could do it pretty readily.

This is true. But while noticing the JW and Adventists are adding huge new numbers of 'wet jumpsuits', I realize both of those religions set the bar to join the religion far higher than we do. They require a significant amount of study, and by the time a person is allowed to join the congregation he has been fully integrated into the congregation for 6 months to 2 years and already knows most of the members. I lost track of the number of people in my wards over the last decade who got baptized, introduced in Sacrament Meeting, then disappeared forever only a few weeks later.

Imagine the retention rates we could have if we followed the 'People Over Numbers' model? Again, they have a HIGHER standard to join the church AND they have significantly HIGHER conversion numbers than we do, despite being relatively equivalent in size with us.

But as you mention, they are mostly coming in the developing nations (mostly in Africa, even in the Muslim countries where they can't proselyte).