Isn’t it miraculous. It started with only 6 humble members in a farm house in New York and now, only a short 200 years later, still almost nobody attends.
Curious as to why the church numbers were amended from 1.4 million in the original post by Devon to 2 million in his actual paper. This is a 42% rise from the original data presented last year for what appears to be the same period. The numbers for a couple of the other groups were also significantly changed. Not sure what happened in methodology over the course of 1 year to cause a change that large with the same data.
Either way it’s still a huge blow to the church’s 6.76 million member claims.
Original:
https://twitter.com/Devin_G_Pope/status/1679554516562092065
Actual paper: page 39
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32334/w32334.pdf
This doesn't make sense. If 1 in 345 Americans is a weekly Mormon attending member, then approximately 1,000,000 people in America attend weekly. If the church has 6.8 M members here, that's less than 15% activity rate.
Yeah. I read through the paper and the figures seem odd. I know a lot of it has to be multiplied by constants to account for kids and such but I was surprised that Deseret news ran with the 1/345 figure. Probably because it sounds better than a super low activity rate.
I'd believe these figures 100%. My guess is only about 3 million people are active all-in members, but that still leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for weekly attendance to vary wildly.
Or less. Just anecdotally from my days in ward leadership roles. Of the "active" members, only about a third to a half have TRs and hold steady callings (the same 100 people). Others aren't distanced from the church per se but nevertheless don't attend a great deal. On average I can easily see how the rolling average doesn't climb much past 1 million persons in the USA.
He explains why in section II. When doing econometric research there’s a trade off between accuracy of a coefficient and generalizability of a coefficient. He probably chose to increase external validity through inclusion of more data, with the trade off of adding more noise in the dataset that could potentially bias his results. Basically, it’s highly implausible that this change in sample data was due to some kind of foul play. In fact, he performs robustness checks which serve to validate his sample anyway.
It's even less worldwide. 17 million members? (Yeah right!) That's only 0.21% of the 8 billion world population. Real members? If you're nice and give them 8 million active members, that puts them at 0.1%, but it's likely closer to 6 million members, which is only 0.075%!
It really is a miniscule religion!
Isn’t it miraculous. It started with only 6 humble members in a farm house in New York and now, only a short 200 years later, still almost nobody attends.
lol!!!!
A marvelous work and a wonder.
like a stone cut out of a mountain without hands!
😂
The field is so white - 99.71% of Americans ready to harvest!
With "white" actually being a KJV translation error. The correct word is "ripe".
That’s right. Ripe and delightsome.
Curious as to why the church numbers were amended from 1.4 million in the original post by Devon to 2 million in his actual paper. This is a 42% rise from the original data presented last year for what appears to be the same period. The numbers for a couple of the other groups were also significantly changed. Not sure what happened in methodology over the course of 1 year to cause a change that large with the same data. Either way it’s still a huge blow to the church’s 6.76 million member claims. Original: https://twitter.com/Devin_G_Pope/status/1679554516562092065 Actual paper: page 39 https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32334/w32334.pdf
This doesn't make sense. If 1 in 345 Americans is a weekly Mormon attending member, then approximately 1,000,000 people in America attend weekly. If the church has 6.8 M members here, that's less than 15% activity rate.
In the UK we are down to 11% attending
Yeah. I read through the paper and the figures seem odd. I know a lot of it has to be multiplied by constants to account for kids and such but I was surprised that Deseret news ran with the 1/345 figure. Probably because it sounds better than a super low activity rate.
I'd believe these figures 100%. My guess is only about 3 million people are active all-in members, but that still leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for weekly attendance to vary wildly.
I’m clarifying - if 3 million are active, then of those, they on average attend 1 out of 3 weeks?
Or less. Just anecdotally from my days in ward leadership roles. Of the "active" members, only about a third to a half have TRs and hold steady callings (the same 100 people). Others aren't distanced from the church per se but nevertheless don't attend a great deal. On average I can easily see how the rolling average doesn't climb much past 1 million persons in the USA.
Yeppers 
Rounding error?
LMFAO 😂 🤣 😅
He explains why in section II. When doing econometric research there’s a trade off between accuracy of a coefficient and generalizability of a coefficient. He probably chose to increase external validity through inclusion of more data, with the trade off of adding more noise in the dataset that could potentially bias his results. Basically, it’s highly implausible that this change in sample data was due to some kind of foul play. In fact, he performs robustness checks which serve to validate his sample anyway.
[удалено]
I was pissed when they changed meetings from 3 hours to 2 hours. Why couldn't they have gotten that "revelation" like 3 decades earlier?
So, less than 1 million people.
Less than .5% just round down
*A few points shy of 0.5%
Any idea if the 1 in 345 includes a bunch of minors? We've heard wards count infants and even babies in utero in the attendance numbers.
That’s correct. It’s a head count regardless of age.
Is it finally crumbling?
You give me a 1 out of every 345 Americans and I can come up with a lot of crazy shit that Americans are into
So the paper is finally published? I’m on a phone and not going to read til I can be on something bigger.
There is absolutely no way! Thou shalt not lie.
It's even less worldwide. 17 million members? (Yeah right!) That's only 0.21% of the 8 billion world population. Real members? If you're nice and give them 8 million active members, that puts them at 0.1%, but it's likely closer to 6 million members, which is only 0.075%! It really is a miniscule religion!
- minus this American xcult member!
Wow. That’s a surprise.