I suppose that if the numbers really mattered in the larger scheme of things that the church would make it a point to reduce their margin of error.

I have a few questions and wonder if anyone has an idea.

1. How have past growth statistics panned out? Have there been other times when growth was relatively flat? The ceterus pa ribus idea would then make it difficult to determine.

2. Some missions have ceased tracting. I am from Kearns, Utah where church membership has shrunk precipitously–this in the heart of Salt Lake Valley. They’ve told the missionaries to only teach through a member or contact. I wonder if they’ll cease tracting nationwide soon. It seems so less effective. Anyone have any other thoughts on this? I always thought a missionary spending more time serving the poor and needy, maybe helping out other churches with no quid pro quo would do more than simple tracting.

3. How much of our slow growth is due to cultural circumstances or to a general feeling of faith malaise in the organization? Seems like the faithful are pretty pumped up about LDS destiny. Raise the bar, pornography, rise in law of chastity issues could help explain part of the slow growth due to shrinkage in the sales force. Family size getting smaller could help explain some demographic reasons. Quick and dirty baptisms can explain the retention rates.

Peak geographical “raw” investigator issues could also be at hand. Seems like most areas of the world have hit their peak conversions with America being the slow burn that continues to perfom best since 1830. Europe had its peak in the 19th century, Eastern Europe in the 1990s respectively, North America has seen parts of it peak at different times. Latin America has seen its peak in the last three decades. I believe Africa has yet to really see a peak. Open Asian countries have had theirs, but closed Asian and of course Middle Eastern countries still have no idea.

Again, one who believes we’re headed for a global economic meltdown, it will interesting to see how these trend change and if we see another explosion of converstions in the future.

I think that David and Nick are right, the watered down message is likely a response to reduced member motivation. The watering down was certainly an element that first introduced a ‘disaffected’ thought to my mind when I realized what I was teaching to others wasn’t ‘taught or emphasized.’

When I went through the temple in the MTC, I recall a conversation I had with an enthusiastic and fantastically friendly octogenarian working at the baptistery. He told the story of his mission in Denmark and the mission’s initial lack of success, he credited a huge turn around to focusing on the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible.

I can’t say that I have ever found the Book of Mormon to be inspirational (at all), but I think that emphasizing the distinctive characteristics is likely a more successful route, especially the elements that have some other basis for support (like no smoking / drinking).

I think that saying the member has peaked in North America is likely accurate (ceteris paribus), but I see some local evidence of a real decline in membership in smaller units.

I’ve sensed this sort of “salesmanship” as well, but I think it’s working exactly the opposite of what was intended. When I joined the LDS church, the message was remarkably different than so-called mainstream christian churches, and I was attracted by those differences. When LDS try to water down the distinctions and “blend in” with other churches, they create an image to potential converts that the LDS church has nothing special or different to offer, so there’s no particular reason to be interested. The only real distinction that is emphasized these days is the claim to priesthood authority, and while this is a major point, it can also convey an authoritarian bent.

Except, why then bother at all?

I wonder if you recall where you saw the stat with respect to poor LDS member missionary performance? I would love to read further. That, in my mind, would clarify why the church seems to be pushing for the traditional Christian mainstream. It is easier to ‘open your mouth’ when what you are saying isn’t substantially different from what people expect from a Christian church.

That growth is for every TWO years. So annual growth for units would be 1.5-2% and 2.5-3% for members.

Wow,recipe for failure in my mind.

Mormons are already supposed to do this. We are told almost every week that we should be doing this. The JWs actually achieve it because doing it is considered so much more essential to their salvation. If you will be saved you have to go full tilt, there is no luke warm. Even though a similar idea exists in the LDS church, its kind of half-hearted.

I think if Mormons were somehow really held accountable to knock on doors, which is to say essentially to become “freaks” to your neighbors, a great many might buckle and go inactive. For having such an encompassing religion, Mormons enjoy a uniquely comfortable position of being able to blend in with worldly folks (at least until they offer you a beer ) I think a lot of Mormons remain active because there are all kinds of loopholes and shortcuts you can take to enjoy the benefits without having to really prove your commitment. (e.g. The Same Ten People (STP) phenomenon of church service)

I happen to know the stake president very well, and that is what he told me. I have no idea what was announced over the pulpit though

From my own personal experience, redrawing of ward boundaries definitely does occur in some cases to distribute “strong priesthood holders” amongst wards. This is often the motivation behind super bizarre annexation of pockets within neighborhoods when re-orgs happen. I heard it from leadership personally that these were the motivations, and no, they did not tell people that in the open and certainly not over the pulpit. All re-orgs were explained under the umbrella of “inspiration”.

As far as trying to apply pressure to recruit new members, I haven’t ever heard of that personally.

Given that the current system is no longer yielding real growth in the US, should the LDS church adopt the member missionary approach of the JWs? Sure. Can it? No. The institution lacks the capacity to make such a significant change.

Among active church-goers in the US, LDS members are among the least likely to reach out to their non-member neighbors. I think this phenomenon is a result of the full-time missionary program, coupled with the extreme centralization of church authority (which disempowers the membership). Even though they know every member is supposed to be a missionary, most of the time for LDS members missionary work is somebody else’s job: the missionaries.

This is what was announced over the pulpit when they made the change? Usually, wards are split to make sure that everyone has a calling and they don’t have to make them up to give everyone a job. Converting members to fill jobs is a loser since they don’t know enough in the beginning of their church life to have an important calling that needs a more experienced person. So I doubt that was the motivation.

Struggling isn’t always bad.

I studied for over a year, attending church. I was not an official JW. 15 years ago, there were 2 books you had to study which were constructed like textbooks for school. You would read through a chapter and at the end there were discussion questions which kind of represented a quiz to make sure you understood what was covered. I was starting in on the second book, fully convinced and intending to be baptized, when we starting trying to convert the Mormon girl we met at work. My friends were extremely angry that I was proselyting, saying that because I was not yet educated completely or baptized I was “mocking God”. That, and the fact that I actually listened to the Mormon side, as well as the other Christians I worked with, and tried to seek out what felt like the truth, it all went downhill (from their P.O.V.) from there.

I heard that there were something like 200 questions in the baptismal interview. That might be an exaggeration, but clearly they wanted you to be ready to be a missionary.

Good points, perhaps my suggestion to measure using number of units was not helpful. Perhaps Chris’ self identification idea is a more honest one.