LDS / Mormon Church Growth Statistics, 2017

UPDATED April 2, 2017: This article includes data through year-end 2016.

Each spring, as part of their General Conference, the Mormon church releases new statistics, so it’s time again to look at these new numbers and add them to the charts. If you’re interested in checking my numbers, you can download a very large and very boring CSV file which contains the raw data I’m using here — that way you don’t have to go through years of General Conference Statistical Reports, including the really old ones that are only available on video, to find this information, like I did.

Please note that these figures come from the LDS church itself. They self-report their numbers, and there’s no way to verify anything. Still, I have no reason to think that the Mormon church is not being truthful about their statistics.

First, let’s have a look at total LDS church membership, by year.

Mormon Church Membership 2016

In 2016, the Mormon church grew to 15,882,417 members, which is about what we should expect, considering the trend since 1970. People sometimes say that the LDS church is growing exponentially, but the numbers show that it’s not; the growth is quite linear, especially since about 1990. Yearly membership is predictable; there aren’t any peaks or valleys in this chart, and growth is steady. For more information, let’s have a look at year-over-year figures:

Year Over Year Change in Mormon Church Membership 2016

This graph shows year-over-year growth for each year. It’s simple to calculate; from the previous graph, we know how many members the Mormon church has each year, so to calculate the change in membership, we subtract the membership for each year from the preceding year. This figure isn’t specific about how these members are added; it’s simply a year over year change. Since 1992, there have been roughly 315,000 members added each year. The past four years have been down years, and 2016 was actually quite low, at 248,218, which is the fewest since 1987.

Mormon Church Growth Rate 2016

The preceding graph shows the growth rate of the Mormon church. This graph is calculated by dividing each year’s change in membership by total membership for each year. In 2013 the growth rate dropped below 2% for the first time, and it has gone down since, with 2016 at 1.56%. The growth rate is erratic, especially before 2000, but it has steadily declined overall since 1970. Put simply, a smaller percentage of Mormons are new members than ever before. Like any other organization, it’s easier to have large growth rates when things are small. Now that the Mormon church is large, it’s harder to add ever-increasing numbers of people. To look at one component of that growth, we can examine convert baptisms.

Annual Convert Baptisms 2016

When the missionaries baptize a new Mormon, that is a convert baptism, and there were 240,131 such baptisms in 2015. In 2013, we saw a big surge in the number of missionaries, but as we will see later, the number of missionaries and the number of convert baptisms does not always correspond. In fact, in 2016 there were fewer convert baptisms than we’ve seen since 1987, which is slightly fewer than even the less productive raise-the-bar era of 2003-2005.

Convert Baptisms Percent of Total 2016

The preceding graph shows the percentage of Mormons who were baptized in the last year. Obviously, if you’re a small organization and you gain three million members, a larger percentage of your total membership will be new members than if you’re already a much larger organization. This year, 1.51% of all members were baptized in the last year, or about 1 in 65. The percentage had been mostly flat since 2005, but things went down considerably in 2015 and again in 2016. It’s very different from 1980, for example, when nearly 1 in 20 Mormons were baptized within the previous year.

Children of Record and 8-Year-Olds Baptized - 2016

This graph is a little more complicated. The Mormon church has been inconsistent with its reporting of new members by birth, that is, members that were born to a Mormon parent. Sometimes they have reported 8-year-olds baptized, sometimes children of record, and sometimes both. The resulting graph is erratic and broken, but it is what it is, and we can only do our best to interpret it. I’ve tried my hand at interpretation in previous articles, but from now on I’ll simply present the data.

In the United States, in 2012, the birth rate was 12.6 per 1,000 people. Using this very rough estimate for the Mormon church as a whole, which admittedly has members outside the United States, we would expect Mormons to have about 193,000 children in 2015. But they had fewer children of record, only 115,000, so either Mormons are having fewer kids than the American population as a whole, which doesn’t seem likely, or not all children born to Mormons are being added as children of record.

Children of Record and 8-Year-Olds Baptized as Percentage of Total Membership

Similar to the graph showing the percentage of Mormons who were baptized in the past year, this graph shows the percentage of all Mormons who were born or baptized in the past year. Without a doubt, the Mormon birth rate has dropped significantly since 1970 — Mormon families are having fewer kids — but it has hovered at a similar level since the mid-1990s.

Anomale Graph 2016

The preceding graph is my signature graph, a wholly confusing affair; I’m working on a new way to do show this, but I wanted to post this update as close as possible to the 2017 General Conference so it’s not ready yet. Apologies.

I’ll explain. (We’re dealing with percentages here, not whole numbers.) From the second graph, we know the yearly change in membership. For this graph, I’ve made that number 100% for each year, and it’s indicated by the bright red line. Two components of the change in membership, new members and new births, are indicated by the blue and green bars, respectively, while the total of the two are shown by the gray bars. We expect the gray bars to stick out above the red line a little, because there’s also negative pressure on membership, which is members who leave and members who die — that’s why the conversions and births don’t actually add up to 100%.

I won’t focus too much on years where the gray bars don’t stick out above the red line, like 1989, which must mean that members were added through a means other than baptisms and births, seemingly out of thin air. Those years are anomalies, and no one knows what’s going on, aside from record keepers inside the Mormon church. It’s possible, or even likely, that these oddball years denote some kind of census or updated method for counting members.

It is interesting, though, that the grays bars stick quite far since about 2002, meaning that a larger percentage of Mormons are dying each year, or a larger percentage of Mormons are leaving, or a combination of both. For 2016, that discrepancy approaches 50% — 101,000 people — a decrease that nearly offsets the increase in children of record.

Full Time Missionaries 2016

Now let’s look at missionaries. In the fourth year of the missionary spike, the surge has been tapering off. Many people, including me, predicted a corresponding drop in missionaries once the 19-year-old and 21-year-old group left mission service in 2014, but it didn’t happen that year. From the comments section below, commenter Dave mentioned that I wasn’t taking into account high school graduation schedules related to the then-new surge. He appears to be right; the drop-off wasn’t seen until 2015. Anecdotally, it seems that more female missionaries are serving than ever before so I don’t expect the numbers to drop back to the 50,000 level again, but it appears that missionaries won’t soon return to 80,000.

It seems plausible that an increased number of missionaries would lead to an increased number of converts, but we haven’t seen that correlation in the number of convert baptisms. Four years into the surge, we can confidently say that the number of missionaries is not reliably predictive of the number of convert baptisms.

Mormons Serving Full Time Missions 2016

Here we see the percentage of Mormons who are serving full-time missions. After staying pretty consistent since the early ’80s, the percentage began to decrease in 2002, and reached a low point in 2010, during the “raise the bar” period for missionary requirements. The percentage had recovered by 2013 during the missionary surge and was more consistent with the numbers seen during the 1980s and 1990s, but since the surge has tapered off, this number has begun to drop again, although not anywhere near mid-2000s levels.

Convert Baptisms per Mormon Missionary 2016

Here we see baptisms per missionary. There has been a downward plunge corresponding with the increase in missionaries, although that level has remained about the same since the first year of the missionary surge at about 3.5 baptisms per missionary. It remains to be seen whether the Mormon church can find a way to increase the converts per missionary with the larger missionary force, but as of 2015 they have not.

For reference, please read my previous Mormon Church statistical updates. Reports are available for year-end 2012 and year-end 2013.

Comments

  1. I wonder if we can find out how many of the missionary force are so-called service missionaries, ones who don’t full-time (or even part-time) proselyte. And, with the aging of the church membership, you should see more and more of those in the pool. That would drop the baptism yield per missionary, although how much would be the question.

  2. All right everyone, so I’ve decided to break with my tradition of being way, way, way behind — sometimes as much as a year behind — and post an update to this article in a timely fashion this year, actually on general conference weekend! People who are familiar with this website will probably be shocked. I rushed this so it might not be 100% in every facet but it looks quite accurate. If I missed something or messed something up, please let me know. I’ll be simplifying my anomaly graph later this week, but for now it retains its brutally confusing nature. Check back soon.

    Oh, and my site got absolutely slammed with traffic on conference weekend and it kept crashing so I’ve moved RoundelMike.com to a shiny new server and it should be pretty snappy now. Thanks for your patience if you were waiting.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for the great statistical summary. You are correct in that it gets increasingly difficult to grow on a percent basis as any company, organization or church grows in size. As an observation I have seen the number of missionaries grow within 300 miles of my home grow at least 3x in the last 10 years through several mission splits. Roughly 500 covering an area once worked by about 150. I could be off but probably not by much. So baptisms per missionary would drop as a result. If you put a bank or restaurant on every block there is a point of saturation. Hoping they double or triple the number of Utah and Idaho missions. My daughter served in Utah and was exhausted constantly. She covered 1-2 stakes. But the LDS population isn’t as great there as it once was, and heaven knows members and non-members both struggle and need the message of the gospel. If you put any other Christian church next to these stats I think you’ll find declining numbers. A met a fantastic Methodist preacher recently that highly concerned about declining trends in his church. Too bad. It’s obvious the world has no replacement for Christ’s gospel.

  4. Still waiting for the update for 2015 We’re counting on you Mike.

    • All right, I’ve finally gotten around to updating this page with the latest data from 2015! Only a year late, right? :)

      I’ve tried a new thing this year and I’ve updated this same page and URL with the new information rather than write a completely new article as I’ve done in years past. Hopefully Google doesn’t punish me for it, but if they do, I guess you won’t be reading this anyway! Anyway, here’s the new data and I’ll try to get it updated with 2016 data on time this year.

      • GreenJello says:

        I finally realized you’ve updated things, but only because I read the comments… I know a lot of folks have been waiting for a new blog post with the updated data to hit. If you don’t create a new post, it won’t notify those who have subscriptions, etc.

        Might I suggest just copying and pasting the previous year’s post into a new one if you don’t want to write a whole new one? That way, it will still alert the interwebs that you have updated the information.

        Thank you for all that you do here with the stats. It is very helpful to me and many others.

        • Thanks for reading! You’ve touched on a topic that I’ve been wrestling with for years. Is it better to keep updating the same article or write a new one? I actually prefer to re-write the page fresh each year but there’s a big reason why I don’t: Google. Even if I write a new article, and I’ve done it a couple times before, Google will continue to link to this page because it’s older and it’s already being referenced in links from other websites (it has more “link juice”). So I’m kind of stuck with it. In the future I’d like to write ancillary posts with detailed commentary about individual metrics to augment this page. As always, it’s a work in progress. :)

  5. Anonymous says:

    Will there be an update to include data for 2015?

    • There will be. In fact, I have the graphs for 2015 (2016 conference report) ready to go. I just have to, you know, write the article. But, in short, things for 2015 progressed very much in line with 2014, with the exception of the number of full time missionaries, which dipped considerably.

      • Anonymous says:

        So where’s the data charts for 2015? and 2016 is coming to a close here in a few months. I’d like to know, because I run a forum that debunks most things that Mormons claim; as of recent news, an article was published that Mormonism is flourishing and growing in numbers all because they erected a new temple not long ago this year of 2016. I call b.s. , because of how much they push members to pay their tithing and a lot of that goes into building their temples, and there are an awful lot of rich Mormons out there.

        • Finally, I’ve updated the page. :) In all honesty, I just didn’t get around to it until today.

          On your temples comment, I agree with you as far as to say that temple construction isn’t at all relevant to Mormon church growth. I have no idea why anyone even considers it in relation to growth statistics, and that’s why you’ll never see temple statistics here. After all, you can construct as many buildings as you want regardless of total membership. Until lately when I’ve begun to thaw on the subject, I’ve refused to put anything here regarding congregation growth as well, because slicing up wards and stakes is pretty meaningless. What if the LDS church finds that wards operate more efficiently at a 10% smaller size, thereby increasing the number of wards? What if the opposite is true? Doesn’t mean anything. Now, with the inroads into Africa that the LDS church is reporting, number of congregations might begin to be relevant but I’m going to keep an eye on it for a few years before I start including it. I try hard to filter out the noise from the real numbers on my site.

      • Gloria Wright says:

        I have read the comments and have come to the conclusion that those who say the most know the least.
        I have read the Bible 12 times and The Book of Mormon 26 times and am more amazed than ever how well they fit together and
        the truths they teach. Joseph Smith never wrote The Book of Mormon. He only translated it by the gift and power of God.
        Eleven witnesses gave their dying testimony that the book was true. They had either handled the plates of ancient records or
        they had seen an angel who declared unto them that the book was true.

  6. LarryLawton says:

    It’s been well over twenty years, but I added the number of convert baptism to the number of eight year old baptized, and noticed the total was exceeded by the growth of total church membership. I addressed a respectful letter to the appropriate people (discovered after a phone call or two). The promptly replied, saying the church was computerizing membership records, and found there were many members who just hadn’t been included in the totals. They also noted that trend would probably continue for some time, until the computerization was completed. I wonder if some of the trends we think we see might be attributed to similar refinements, or to differences in the current makeup of membership. When serving with minorities and those from other countries, I learned that living to a ripe old age is a blessing not universally enjoyed. I was shocked at the number of relatively young members who died, not only from diseases but from the violence that pervades in much of the developing world. As the center of the church population migrates from the relative peace and good health of the Rocky Mountain west, differences in death rates might not be due to more accurate records.

  7. Some sad people on here. I have heard the term cult used to refer to the LDS church many of times but haven’t heard much explanation of how the LDS Church is a cult. Usually it is followed by tons of random quotes taken out of context.

    Oh and the Book of Mormon doesn’t claim to be a history as most people think of history. It is a religious history but other than that it more like a journal of events that happened.

    The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people unto Christ or follow him. It’s purpose is the same as the bible.

    In the Bible it states “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” 2 Cor 13:1.

    The Bible is one witness of Christ and the Book of Mormon is another witness.

    • GreenJello says:

      Maybe this will help you in identifying what a cult is:

      https://carm.org/signs-practices-of-a-cult

      And make no doubt– the LDS Church definitely qualifies under most of those. It’s difficult to see when you’re inside the Church, and blatantly obvious once you’ve left and are no longer “under the influence”.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I think it would be interesting to see the historical trends in terms of the number of stakes and wards since that would more closely reflect the number of active members.

    • It’s not a bad idea, and I have considered including congregations in my report before. Trouble is, once I start trying to analyze the number of congregations, I step into guessing territory and that’s somewhat antithetical to the point of the article. I want to simply and dispassionately present solid numbers for public reference.

      The advantage to analyzing the number of congregations is, of course, that it provides a window into actual, tangible church growth, as well as activity rates. But congregations and stakes vary widely in size — a Utah ward near splitting is nowhere near the size of a new branch in Africa — and LDS church leadership could decide at any time to alter their target congregation sizes. There’s just no way to do an analysis accurately, at least not with the limited information we have available.

      As a side note (and I’m not saying you suggested this), there is one statistic that I will NEVER analyze, and that is the number of operating temples. There seems to be a number of people who feel that temples are some kind of yardstick indicating Mormon church growth, and they’re absolutely no such thing. Temples are simply buildings, and the Mormon church can build as many or as few of them as they want without any meaning whatsoever. Other sites keenly watch temples as an indicator of growth, but it won’t happen here.

  9. It’s too bad the internet has exposed so much of Mormonism as a fraud. But so what if it’s a fraud? If association with the membership just to keep the Pioneer tradition going makes us happy who should really care? I think most of us are smart enough to know it’s not really true but we enjoy our associations with other members and like to live the fantasy. So just leave us alone to be happy in what we are comfortable with.

  10. sonoranhiker says:

    Nice work, interesting stuff. I guess the hard part is always going to be trying to define activity/participation rates. I’m curious about how many people voluntary leave each year. I wonder if that could be roughed in by looking at rates in relationships with wards/branches. Not sure.

    • I would like to see the inactive numbers.

    • GreenJello says:

      Well, I thought that’s what the grey bars were for– deaths plus name removals? Unless I understood it incorrectly?

      • You’re absolutely right. (And I wish I could think of a better way to display that on a graph because it’s pretty confusing as-is.)

        The gray bars show the percentage of baptisms compared to the total (100%) membership increase for that year. Most years, like 2014, are greater than 100%, which makes sense because undoubtedly a number of Mormons must die each year. The big unknown is whether or not resignations and excommunications are included in that number. I think they probably are included, because it would be quite openly dishonest of the LDS Church to do otherwise. Also, I think it’s highly unlikely that a higher and higher percentage of Mormons are dying over the past 15 years. It has to be resignations and excommunications, but there’s no way to be certain.

  11. Mike, why does the y-axis on the “Convert Baptisms Per Missionary Per Year” skip “5”?

    • Wow, good eye. I didn’t even notice. I’ve corrected the graph.

      Instead of being smart and using Microsoft Excel, I was trying to use Apple Numbers and it’s a little … quirky. (I’ve recently started using Excel again.) One of the quirks is axis labeling. Apple Numbers defaults to whole-number integers for axis labels, even though the gridline may actually be a decimal figure between them, so it just rounded up to “6” instead of 5.5556, which was the actual line. Super annoying. So the corrected chart didn’t change shape; only the gridlines are different. For reference, corrected graph reference showing the original graph, next to a non-rounded version of the graph, and then the corrected one. My bad.

  12. Molly Miller says:

    The reason numbers are going down is the access to the internet to check missionaries facts to see how they conceal the facts

  13. Interesting statistics but what would be more interesting, would be to try to do this same report on the so called Democrat christian world, the ones looking for the Free stuff like free grace, without having to keep the commandments. With all the sects that claim to be christian because they don’t want to be left out, so they think they can just through a cross around their neck and say i’m christian. Some feel one must be baptized, some don’t, some feel you don’t have to attend church to feel God, some do. Most minister can’t even agree on which trinity they want to believe in. So how would those numbers look? I have friends that are ministers that can’t even agree on which version of the bible is to be read. in fact husband and wife in the same home can’t agree. the lord said 1 lord one faith 1 baptism. I’m glad you chose this one as your example, it is the right one to choses. There is power in numbers and proof in organization, every one of the lord sheep are to be countered and numbered.

  14. Steve in Millcreek says:

    As noted, the increase in numbers of missionaries is (largely) offset by the decrease in numbers of converts per missionary. This may suggest that: (1) converts join due to unnamed forces and not missionary proximity or availability and (2) conversion rates are at or near saturation rate; more missionaries are now over-saturating (significant parts of the world) and are extra in those areas. Such ‘unnamed forces’ may be the compilation of all life experiences that move a person toward spiritual or religious solutions to life’s questions. If the aggregate of all forces are constant, then people join the Church at a constant rate once missionary saturation is reached.

    This is food for thought.

  15. Raymond J Wagner says:

    Can I get an update of statistics for the number of priesthood holders we have in the church today. Our presentation by President Hinkley at the Independence Visitor Center in Missouri says we have over 12million members and over 5 million priesthood holders Thanks.

    • Unfortunately it’s impossible to track the number of priesthood holders because the LDS church doesn’t release that information. We’re stuck only with the information the church gives us during their annual Statistical Report, and priesthood holders aren’t part of that report. Even if we added Hinckley’s 5mm data point, it would only be a single data point, and we wouldn’t be able to see a trend.

      Wouldn’t it be great if the Mormon church released a detailed, running statistical report? With such data, we could follow any trend we want, and we wouldn’t need silly websites like this one! Today, however, no such tool exists and we’re all stuck guessing.

      • Hi Mike,

        thanks for doing this work. You said that the church doesn’t release certain statistical information.
        I wonder if you (or anybody) ever asked and what the reply of the church is. Why wouldn’t they
        release that information? Of course we could do some statistical research in a number of wards
        and do a projection. That could be a little better than guessing. But then again I assume there is
        quite a range of deviation depending on the area you look at.
        12 million members and 5 million mph makes a ration of about 41%.
        If we apply that today we get to ~6.3 million mph.
        Next we need activity rates.

        • This is a great question. Embarrassingly, I actually have not contacted the Mormon church headquarters directly to ask if they’ll release additional information, or at least explain why they don’t make more statistics available. However, I will begin making that contact right away to see what comes of it.

  16. Excellent analysis and great graphs. Thank you. I do have a few comments.

    I believe you could be premature in accepting higher numbers of missionaries. According to my guesstimates, it will be summer this year when we see the end of the dual years of the 18- and 19-year-olds being called simultaneously as the 18-year-old will have had to wait until graduation in early summer 2013. The number of missionaries had already dropped from the 85k year-end to 83,471 by February according a Deseret News article.

    I’ve done some rough estimates of the numbers of missionaries based on percentages given out in various press releases and news articles. The number of elders didn’t increase that much, which is surprising. The increased numbers of sisters is what is keeping the stats high.

    • You may be right. I hadn’t thought to consider high school graduation schedules. It will be very interesting to see the numbers for 2015; with three years of missionary data it’ll be much easier to see a clear trend. I truly had expected a considerable drop in missionaries once the age change was complete.

      On the other hand, there may not be such a drop. Anecdotally, as you said, there seems to be a lot more female missionaries serving now. Perhaps the age change will create a cultural shift in the Mormon church, one where females serve as often as males. That could permanently double the missionary numbers. I’d love to have access to those numbers!

      I’m anthropologically interested in the long term effects of both men and women serving missions, although none of this will be reflected in the statistics. A culture could emerge where, rather than only women wanting to marry returned missionaries, men would also prefer to marry returned missionaries. Perhaps such a shift will embattle the patriarchal pecking order of the Mormon church, since women will make every sacrifice that men make, short of ambiguous priesthood powers. I’m very interested to see what happens.

  17. The reason is the numbers are sideways despite significant # of more missionaries is both church and non-church sources in relationship to the foundations and beginnings of the Mormon church are readily available. The church sources (J of D) and Joseph smiths journals are as damning as so called anti Mormon sources. The facades the Church shows (happy, eternal families ) cannot cover up the craziness and shifting positions of its founder, the core evidence against (or lack of historicity) of the Book of Mormon. In this case Thank God for the Internet exposing this

    The other question is how many converts are active after 1 year. I believe the Pew Center research shows only 25-33%. It took me 16 years to finials get out

    • marlon c says:

      I’m agree with you:

      1st) With internet one person has access to strong and real information about church history and JS lies.

      2nd) Missionaries: they are so ingorant. They want you to solve every strange data or contradiction with prayers. They are not prepared to answer the question from a studied person.

      • The internet is not a great source of accurate information; every lunatic idea known to man is on there. And as far as missionaries are concerned; they aren’t out there to be the smartest person around. They are there to show you how to feel the Spirit and get your information from the best source; and the so-called “studied person” you speak about is often someone who thinks they’re smart, but the scriptures clearly tell us that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. You just seem bitter so you speak the way you do, but I have news for you; the Mormon Church will continue to grow and grow and fill the whole earth when you are long rested in your grave. Million have and will find happiness within it because it is a positive and comforting theology. You sound unhappy, and I dare say you probably will never find any true satisfaction or happiness in your bitterness negative attitude.

        • hahaha

        • Agreed. It can be hard to know what’s true and what is lies on the internet. The way I know what’s real or not is I ask myself “Is this faith building and uplifting, or does it seem like something Lucifer would want me to believe?” If it makes you feel good about the church, it’s probably true. God wouldn’t let the church leaders do bad things and get away with them. We’re told that if a prophet would lead us astray, God would not let them continue to serve. And that’s how we know the church is growing and will always grow, because God has said so in his scriptures, and God does not lie. Lucifer is very happy about the internet because it “exposes” things about the church that aren’t true, and sometimes I wonder why God invented the internet at all!!

    • Anonymous says:

      You say the J of D is listed as a church resource? Ha. That’s hilarious. You quite obviously have no idea why it is or how it came about. But it is definitely NOT considered a church source. You are using the Internet as your source of reference? How about actually read anything the church has produced rather than just repeat hearsay. And dude, there is absolutely no such thing as “core evidence” against the Book of Mormon. How about actually reading it and finding out for yourself rather than listen to someone else who hasn’t read it either. I sure wouldn’t want to go to the Southern states and be forced to marry my sister cuz someone I know who has never been there told me this is what happens. And this is exactly how you sound.

      • There is a lot of core evidence againsagainst the book of Mormon it most certainly is not a historical account

      • To anonymous: The JD absolutely is a church resource, according to Brigham Young much of it is actually scripture.

        I did read the book of Mormon. Moroni 10:4 doesn’t work. I grew up in the church and served on a mission, and I’ve never met anyone who says it actually work for them either.

        The book of Mormon is a fraud. It claims that the story of Noah and the Tower of Babel are literally true. Do you believe that?

      • To anonymous: The JD absolutely is a church resource, according to Brigham Young much of it is actually scripture.

        I did read the book of Mormon. Moroni 10:4 doesn’t work. I grew up in the church and served on a mission, and I’ve never met anyone who says it actually work for them either.

        The book of Mormon is a fraud. It claims that the story of Noah and the Tower of Babel are literally true. Do you believe that?

  18. Soon the lines on the charts wont be slanted they will just go up!

  19. I find it interesting that the number of convert baptisms drops as the number of missionaries increase. Maybe, it has to do with the younger age of missionaries. New immature young adults thinking that they know the Gospel are know more than every serving on missions. I do believe that as missionary works becomes more and more of the focus and as more young woman become missionaries as well, those numbers will start to go up. Soon, maybe in ten years we may get 500 thousand a year!

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe the words getting out that this so called church is really a cult.

    • Number of baptisms per missionary = # of missionary baptisms / # of missionaries

      So more missionaries and around the same number of missionary baptisms means less missionary baptisms per missionary

      • Yes, if there are only a certain number of people who will respond to the LDS message that is how the formula works.

        • Or a limit to the number of contacts. Or a limit to a given population. Or a limit to……But yes, in the church it is doctrine that only the elect will heed the call to follow the Savior. The majority of people never even make it to the beginning of the iron rod…..

    • Anonymous says:

      Seems to me that there is a saturation point. There are a certain number of people the LDS message will appeal to and no more. The ore missionaries you add the less of those to spread among them.

Speak Your Mind