I put up a bit of a rant on the change in missionary age a few days ago. This is a follow-up.
So why did the church do it? What was the motivation?
First, growth is a critical part of the culture of Mormonism. Many (most?) members believe that the church is one of the fastest growing religions on the planet (and, for many, this fact buttresses their faith in its truth claims). If people are flocking to the church, the thinking goes, then it must be “true.”
For Mormons, the church is the stone cut out of the mountain without hands destined to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:44-45). In 1842, Joseph Smith described the church’s sense of spiritual manifest destiny in what has become known as the Wentworth letter: “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country” (History of the Church 4:540).
After more than 200 years since its founding, however, Mormonism remains a footnote in the religious economy:
e.g.
Islam: 1,600,000,000
Catholic Church: 1,166,000,000
Hinduism: 1,000,000,000
Mormons: 14,400,000 (0.9% of Islam, 1.23% of the Catholic church, 1.44% of Hinduism)
For comparison, Assemblies of God is approximately four times larger (60 million members). Zion Christian Church is approximately the same size (15 million members). There are approximately as many Mormons as Jews in the U.S.
In the minds of many Mormons, however, even though the church may be relatively small, it’s growth that matters.
But here’s the problem. The church, in real terms, probably hasn’t grown much in the last 20 years. It’s very likely, based on available data, that the church hasn’t grown at all in the U.S. during this same time period. The last ten years have been particularly difficult. The LDS church is no longer the fastest growing church (unless one gets really creative with the data).
In 2001, there were 11,721,548 members (according to church figures). Ten years later, at the end of 2011, there were 14,441,346. At first glance, these numbers suggest modest growth over the last decade. Look closer, and it becomes obvious that a number of trends are working against the church (see the data tables at the end of this post:
1) The number of convert baptisms has been trending down (in 2001, there were 325,026 convert baptisms, in 2011 there were 309,879)
2) Birth rates have dropped (in 1990, for example, 7.7 million members produced 78k children of record; in 2011, 14.4 million members resulted in 120k children of record). This trend has been associated with an increase in the average marriage age.
3) Missionary efforts have leveled off. For example, in 2001, there were 333 missions, 618 districts and 60,850 missionaries. Ten years later, in 2011, there were 340 missions, 608 districts, and 55,410 missionaries.
4) A large percentage of the growth over the last 20 years has come from outside the U.S. and it now appears that foreign membership numbers are inflated. For example, recent census data indicate that only 23.2% of the number of members reported by the church in Mexico self-identify as Mormons).
5) There is a continuing problem with retention of new converts. Data from Latin America, the Philippines, and other countries suggests that somewhere around 75% of new converts are inactive by the end of their first year of membership.
6) The church is losing members at an increasing rate. This is particularly true for younger members who often have a particularly hard time with what is perceived to be the church’s increasingly strident cultural conservatism (e.g. Prop 8, etc.).
To sum things up, a large percentage of the growth over the last ten years (or twenty years) has come from overseas, but it appears that the majority of these converts no longer self-identify as Mormon. Meanwhile, missionary efforts have leveled off, the annual number of convert baptisms has been trending down, and an increasing number of (young) members are leaving the church.
These trends, taken together, can be clearly seen in the annual number of those who “leave” (i.e. those whose names are removed from the roles due to death, excommunication, or resignation). This number is represented in the LFT column below. This number is the difference between the sum of convert baptisms and children of record, and reported growth in membership by year. Take a look at the trend over the last 10 years. In 2001, this number was 36,473. In other words, in 2001, there were 362,134 additions (baptisms and children of record), but the overall increase in church membership from 2000 to 2001 was 325,661. The difference between these two numbers is the number of individuals that were dropped from church membership rolls: 36,473. Ten years later, in 2011, this number was 91,350 (see the second-to-last column, LFT, in the first data table below). The rapid increase in this number may be due to an aging church population, but I’m guessing that it also reflects a rise in resignations.
It would be nice, of course, if the church would provide a measure of organizational size that more accurately reflected real growth (e.g. the number of full tithe payers or the number of temple recommend holders, for example), but it doesn’t. Church growth, therefore, is surprisingly hard to pin down. Here’s a link to one of the most thorough and data-driven attempts to do so.
Jeffrey R. Holland stated the following at a press conference about the age change: “The Lord is hastening this work and he needs more and more willing missionaries.”
I don’t think this was entirely accurate.
He should have said: “The Lord’s work has stalled. We’ve been treading water for close to twenty years in terms of real growth. We’ve given a lot of thought to what we might do to get things moving again and this is what we’ve come up with.” But of course he couldn’t have said that. It would have undermined the “we’re the fastest growing religion” myth (and it would have sounded too managerial).
I’m a management professor. I can understand the honest desire of those who have spent their lives building up the church to see it thrive. I can understand how someone in that position might start looking at the untapped resource pool of 19-21 year-old women as a solution. Growing the church through children of record is preferable (the retention rate is much higher), but at some point, because a smaller percentage of women are getting married before 21, and those that marry are having fewer children, I suspect someone made a convincing argument that women could be used more effectively in the mission field. Women can always get married after their missions (and having men and women serve together might even move that process along a bit).
Although a flood of sister missionaries might be able to jump start church growth, I’m sure the danger of this change in policy being interpreted as a step towards gender equality was something that concerned church leaders.
One way for the church to have its cake and eat it too is to preserve the preferred status of males by continuing to differentiate between the sexes. The age for women, therefore, was reduced to 19 (versus 18 for men). According to Holland, it was because “there needs to be at least some separation.” In other words, the church is hoping women can jump start growth, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be allowed equal footing with men.
Holland also joked about this policy change being a miracle. “One miracle at a time,” he said. As I said in my last post, when policy changes related to resource utilization driven by growth and demographic data are confused with miracles, it should be obvious what we’ve lost.
So, will the influx of young women into the mission field be enough to allow the church to preserve its growth myth?
If not, the church will survive. We can always fall back on 1 Nephi 14:12:
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
Nephi was shown our day. This passage makes it clear that we always understood that Christ’s church would be “small” in number. We never really believed that it would fill the earth, did we?
[Prior MCS Post: 42 The Only Thing I Know]
Data:
| YR | MMBRS | INCRS | BPTSMS | CHLDRN | BPT+CHLD | LFT | % GRWTH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | 7,300,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |
| 1990 | 7,760,000 | 460,000 | 330,877 | 78,000 | 408,877 | -51,123 | 6.30% |
| 1991 | 8,120,000 | 360,000 | 297,770 | 75,000 | 372,770 | 12,770 | 4.64% |
| 1992 | 8,406,895 | 286,895 | 274,477 | 77,380 | 351,857 | 64,962 | 3.53% |
| 1993 | 8,696,224 | 289,329 | 304,808 | 76,312 | 381,120 | 91,791 | 3.44% |
| 1994 | 9,024,368 | 328,144 | 300,730 | 72,538 | 373,268 | 45,124 | 3.77% |
| 1995 | 9,340,898 | 316,530 | 304,330 | 71,139 | 375,469 | 58,939 | 3.51% |
| 1996 | 9,694,549 | 353,651 | 321,385 | 81,017 | 402,402 | 48,751 | 3.79% |
| 1997 | 10,070,524 | 375,975 | 317,798 | 75,214 | 393,012 | 17,037 | 3.88% |
| 1998 | 10,354,241 | 283,717 | 299,134 | 76,829 | 375,963 | 92,246 | 2.82% |
| 1999 | 10,752,986 | 398,745 | 306,171 | 84,118 | 390,289 | 8,456 | 3.85% |
| 2000 | 11,068,861 | 315,875 | 273,973 | 81,450 | 355,423 | 39,548 | 2.94% |
| 2001 | 11,394,522 | 325,661 | 292,612 | 69,522 | 362,134 | 36,473 | 2.94% |
| 2002 | 11,721,548 | 327,026 | 283,138 | 81,132 | 364,270 | 37,244 | 2.87% |
| 2003 | 11,985,254 | 263,706 | 242,923 | 99,457 | 342,380 | 78,674 | 2.25% |
| 2004 | 12,275,822 | 290,568 | 241,239 | 98,870 | 340,109 | 49,541 | 2.42% |
| 2005 | 12,560,869 | 285,047 | 243,108 | 93,150 | 336,258 | 51,211 | 2.32% |
| 2006 | 12,868,606 | 307,737 | 272,845 | 94,006 | 366,851 | 59,114 | 2.45% |
| 2007 | 13,193,999 | 325,393 | 279,218 | 93,698 | 372,916 | 47,523 | 2.53% |
| 2008 | 13,508,509 | 314,510 | 265,593 | 123,502 | 389,095 | 74,585 | 2.38% |
| 2009 | 13,824,854 | 316,345 | 280,106 | 119,722 | 399,828 | 83,483 | 2.34% |
| 2010 | 14,131,467 | 306,613 | 272,814 | 120,528 | 393,342 | 86,729 | 2.22% |
| 2011 | 14,441,346 | 309,879 | 281,312 | 119,917 | 401,229 | 91,350 | 2.19% |
| YR | MSSNS | DSTRCTS | STKS | WRDS | MSSNRS | SRVC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 1990 | 256 | 479 | 1,784 | 18,090 | 43,651 | na |
| 1991 | 267 | 527 | 1,837 | 18,810 | 43,395 | na |
| 1992 | 276 | 601 | 1,919 | 20,081 | 46,025 | na |
| 1993 | 295 | 647 | 1,968 | 21,002 | 48,708 | na |
| 1994 | 303 | 709 | 2,008 | 21,774 | 47,311 | na |
| 1995 | 307 | 699 | 2,150 | 22,697 | 48,631 | na |
| 1996 | 309 | 671 | 2,296 | 23,528 | 52,938 | na |
| 1997 | 318 | 649 | 2,424 | 24,670 | 56,531 | na |
| 1998 | 331 | 631 | 2,505 | 25,551 | 57,853 | na |
| 1999 | 333 | 636 | 2,542 | 25,793 | 58,593 | na |
| 2000 | 334 | 621 | 2,581 | 25,915 | 60,784 | na |
| 2001 | 333 | 618 | 2,607 | 26,084 | 60,850 | na |
| 2002 | 335 | 641 | 2,602 | 26,143 | 61,638 | na |
| 2003 | 337 | 644 | 2,624 | 26,237 | 56,237 | na |
| 2004 | 338 | 646 | 2,665 | 26,670 | 51,067 | na |
| 2005 | 341 | 643 | 2,701 | 27,087 | 52,060 | na |
| 2006 | 344 | 630 | 2,745 | 27,475 | 53,164 | na |
| 2007 | 348 | 618 | 2,790 | 27,827 | 52,686 | na |
| 2008 | 348 | 622 | 2,818 | 28,109 | 52,494 | na |
| 2009 | 344 | 616 | 2,865 | 28,424 | 51,736 | na |
| 2010 | 340 | 614 | 2,896 | 28,660 | 52,225 | 20,813 |
| 2011 | 340 | 608 | 2,946 | 28,784 | 55,410 | 22,299 |
When I presented similar numbers during a lesson one Sunday, the response I heard back from the class was that the prophecy to “fill the earth” means that the gospel will be preached in all countries, not that membership will grow.
As my children and I have left the church, I am so aware of the perception held by our tbm loved ones, because of their knowledge of scripture, that we are among the very elect who are being/have been deceived. They love us, but LDS scriptures and the teachings have well-prepared them to safely “translate” (or pigeonhole) the disaffection of anyone, even those they trusted as most spiritually strong in the past – without a second thought. They don’t have to ask us why we are leaving. In their minds, they already know why; the scriptures and church leaders revealed it long before we fell away.
You have pointed out yet another way that the church is covered, and that is: whichever way membership growth goes, there’s a scripture to back it up. Membership increases: “We’re the stone cut without hands destined to fill the whole earth”. Membership decreases: “Our dominions of the earth are small because of … wickedness….” This is amazing to me.
How could this happen, in works written centuries apart by diverse individuals? One might conclude that God deliberately revealed these scriptures to ‘cover’ any outcome of human beings exercising agency.” To believe that, however, one would have to accept a deceiving God, which is (to me) no god at all.
Yep, we’re covered both ways (in terms of growth, and about everything else). We start with the assumption that “X” is true. Then we come up with an explanation for why “X” is true. It doesn’t really matter what “X” is. Church is growing? Here’s the explanation/confirmation (rock cut without hands). Church isn’t growing (we’re the elite, everyone else is deceived). Priesthood blessing “worked” (it’s a miracle). Priesthood blessing didn’t work (the person didn’t have enough faith, it wasn’t the will of the Lord, etc.). It’s a fascinating game we play.
This is one of my favorite aspects of Mormon life, it’s like we are writers on a Sci-Fi tv show that has gone on too many seasons. We create retroactive continuities to keep disbelief suspended.
So, Colin, you’re saying the church has “jumped the shark”? ;)
Like Fonzie on a pair of waterskis. :D
I can see your point. But, if the church really wanted to increase the number of women serving missions, why not simply change the rhetoric? Instead of saying that young women are not under obligation to serve, and that their service is entirely voluntary, how about strongly encouraging them to set aside time to serve? This seems to have been effective in increasing the number of senior couples and sisters who serve. Or why not lengthen the service time for young sisters to two years, instead of 18 months? That would increase the number serving at any one time by about 25%.
I don’t claim to know what the motivation for the change is, and I appear to be in the tiny minority by thinking it’s not really that big of a deal, but if the point was to increase the size of the missionary force, seems like they’re missing some other relatively easy changes that would contribute to that goal.
Because the Church has principles to maintain about the role of men and women. I think a Church official also pointed out that some of the differences in how women and men are treated helps prevent temptation, conflict, or other difficulties that would occur in the mission field.
wow…just wow. I hadn’t realized the numbers were like this.
@Laura, because the church has to walk a fine line here. Children of record (i.e. babies) are where the “real” growth comes from (because retention is so much higher), so it’s important that women be encouraged to get married and have babies. . . If mission service for women were made “mandatory” it could undermine this narrative and push up the marriage age (and lower the birth rate). It’s a balancing act.
Brent,
I too feel for the leaders of the organization. They face some really difficult problems and I imagine they have to look in the mirror everyday and ask themselves if why the church isn’t growing is due to their mistakes/inadequacies. I imagine that this decision was made for multiple reasons. My guess would be that it was mostly about retention of the youth and they kept the age and length requirement different because somehow they think this will make mission discipline better and maybe because YW need to get on with life sooner. It isn’t clear to me that even if women flooded into the missions that it would change the growth problems dramatically. It might help some but lets say they increase the number of missionaries by 25%. Lets also say (not unreasonably) that sisters find baptisms at some moderately higher rate. This does nothing for retention which is the huge barrier to growth in the countries that are growing. It also exacerbates one of the biggest bottlenecks to growth the balance of priesthood to other members so they can organize branches, wards and stakes. Due to the rules on cross-gender teaching the sister missionaries are going to increase baptisms primarily of sisters and maybe a few families. Maybe there are other changes to the missionary program coming up to try and address retention etc.
A second consideration. The power of being a missionary in personal transformation is about serving a cause larger then yourself. So even IF the primary driver was the retention of the youth, you can’t effectively say “we did it because missions are good for you” then you are destroying the very motivations that make missions such an effective conversion tool. It has to be about “hastening the Lords” work, at least in rhetoric. Many of us wish that at least some part of the motivation was them coming to terms with how inequalities such as this one are having a deleterious effect on the women and maybe some sense of it just being right. There seems to be very little sign of this, even in the subtleties. My only hope at this point is that there is some Hugh B. Brown faction that agitated in the quorum for the change for equality reasons but realized it couldn’t/wouldn’t happen if presented this way. A man can dream right?
The way to most effectively solve the growth problem INVHO is to give the women governance and priestesshood positions. It would transform the church for the modern era and make it possible to run far more units. Like the priesthood ban we may lose a few members, but probably only some to whom good riddance might be the best reaction.
Regarding sister missionaries mostly bringing in other women – is that others’ experience? It wasn’t mine. In fact, before I read this comment, I was thinking that sisters would be more likely to bring in more young new priesthood leaders (flirt to convert, right?)
Yes, there are restrictions for teaching single men, but often you get a member family involved as “chaperones” (which theoretically should help with retention too). I can’t honestly remember all the people I brought to baptism (and it was only 6 or something!) but I remember the first one was a teenage boy, introduced to us from a member family. The second was a man, introduced to us by his neighbor, a single woman.
Actually, this line of thought sparks a new idea: I recall having the idea that sisters were more likely to receive member referrals (b/c you know, everybody likes the sisters better and they aren’t as likely to screw things up like the elders). Maybe an increase in sister missionaries would increase member referrals, which would increase the number of converts who are actually retained. Although, on the other hand, I was a member referral, and I was only retained for 10 years. And that teenage boy I taught? Yeah, he actually left too (after heading to the MTC and then heading home again for some reason I never learned.)
I knew the church membership numbers were diminishing (I’m still ‘in’, btw, but I have a completely different attitude and am not a ‘tbm’)–
I tend to see a lot of ‘black and white’–
the church is either a racket, or it’s completely divine–
it’s something in between, I believe, and it’s for each person to sort it out–or not.
But I had heard that the 7th Day Adventists were actually growing faster recently–
Some of *us* LDS who are ‘in’ but not TBM (I know what that means; I use it, because it’s become an accepted way of labeling those who never question anything)–
have a completely different understanding, whether it is true or false–
the truth of God filling the earth is not limited to the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although, in its purity, the message taught by many missionaries is pretty ‘spot on’ the truth–most of the time (see how I cover myself there! LOL!)–
SOME times *we* are on the mark–sometimes . . . and so truth gets spread EVEN by LDS missionaries, but there is a movement, I believe, and I’m not a person who devalues religions that many do–among Bhuddists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims for ‘purity’–of thought and act–for greater service, more love, etc.–
What the mainstream media focuses on is hate–Jews hate Muslims; Muslims are terrorists; evangelical Christians hate everyone but themselves–those kinds of ideas–
but what is really happening is a worldwide awakening–
I have recently met peace-loving, Christlike protestants and Catholics and Muslims and Jews and Eastern religionists who really epitomize some kind of ‘gathering’ of thought towards God–and there is a commonality there that is hard to deny–
It isn’t the kind of thing that is being discussed in Gospel Doctrine; it isn’t on the news, but it is happening–
Many of the LDS I know almost fear this kind of thing; I rejoice in it–
Even Brigham Young, whose character and behavior were very dubious to me–said that in the end those who turned to God would be of ALL religions.
So, we are just a part of it. Joseph Smith restored a LOT of things, and most people couldn’t take it all in, though they managed to stub their toes on polygamy, which, it remains to be seen, could have been a huge misunderstanding–
he restored a lot of things, if you believe he was a prophet–
if not–there are still many good things to be found (I happen to believe, in a really inclusive way, that Joseph was a prophet)–
in the ‘gospel’ of this church, in spite of the church and its many mistakes, in its PR-centered corporate zeal–
people join; they are baptized; they leave; so what? Many times they leave being better people, and that’s the point. God never announced himself to be a Mormon or to prefer Mormons over His other children–
and He doesn’t deceive or lie, but He is often misunderstood, I believe, because of the problems of language/communication; there are scriptures that focus on that–
so I’m rambling, and I apologize, if you are still reading–
So WHAT if the membership decreases; it could mean that there is general apostasy, and that, too, was prophesied–
so all the bases are covered? I believe God covers bases, but not just Mormon bases–
and there will come a time of understanding, and truth will not be able to be thwarted; there will come a point at which PR won’t be enough–
and we will all have to face ourselves–
and be grateful for mercy–
As for missionary ages, it doesn’t affect anyone I love; my children stopped caring about missions long ago, but they do still care about truth–
I do have one child who is still in the church who does more peace and goodness spreading without going on a mission–there are other ways to serve; the ‘standard’ way gets a lot of applause in this culture, but it’s not the only or even the best way for every person to live or serve–
What does TBM mean?
True Blue Mormon
I didn’t make one of the points I wanted to make–
sometimes I think those who are purer in heart leave; those who are less pure stay–
It’s very easy for those who are ‘active’ to believe they are the faithful, when, in fact, sometimes those who are more faithful are the ones who can’t remain in the church anymore–
It would be so easy if those bad guys just kept those black hats on all the time and stopped putting on the white hats, wouldn’t it be?
Apostasy in the time of Christ was typified by someone who was very outwardly righteous and inwardly a ravening wolf–
many of those who leave have been eaten up by those who appear to be so righteous and who really are predatory–
spiritually and ecclesiastically predatory–
only God knows each heart–
Some biases on your report, but it’s a nice try. As long as you don’t provide the growth (and retention) of other churches I see a little difficult to debunk the fastest growing religion “myth”. In particular because for example, even if 1 million Americans or Europeans would become Muslims next year (something absolutely impossible), that would still be like a .001% growth. Btw I’m also a professor, from outside the US.
but the church doesn’t have to be the fastest growing to be valid–
that sort of competitive touch smacks of Babylon, not Zion–
I think your reasoning may be correct, but If the concern was church growth, shouldn’t we have also seen more talks encouraging larger families in addition to this announcement? As you mentioned, that’s where more reliable growth lies.
Whether church leaders intended it or not, I’m hopeful the change in missionary service for women is a step toward greater equality between men and women in the church. Maybe that wasn’t part of the Bretherens’ plans with this change, but I think it is part of God’s plans :)
Good question about talks encouraging more reproduction, ldslara. I don’t know if there are more of them (in fact, I suspect there might be fewer, although I haven’t checked), but certainly they haven’t gone away. Elder Anderson, for example, gave a talk last fall in which he encouraged us all to have more children.
The fastest-growing-church claim is tough to defend, even when cherry picking the criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion
I believe another strong reason for the age change is that church statistics show that a large number of young men become unworthy to serve a mission between the age of 17 and 19, young women have some issues between 19 and 21. If you can have these individuals focused on leaving on a mission sooner, there is a greater change that they will tow the line. I believe one of the strong reasons was a very practical decision aimed at keeping the young people involved in the church.
I’m late to the conversation here but it seems that self identified mormons mapps to reported membership numbers pretty well, including growth over the last ten years. This seems to suggest that the Mormon church is growing about as well as they claim.
1.7% of the US population (330 million * 0.017 = 5.7 million)
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf
6.3 million reported officially reported members in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_statistics_(United_States)
The number of self-reported Mormons has increased 45% from 2000 to 2010.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-02/religion-census-mromon/54701198/1
I worry that many of the commenters on D&S are as willing to be as uncritical of negative assertions about the church as TBMs are of positive assertions.
I completely agree that the number of “active” mormons is far smaller than these numbers but the number of “active” catholics is also far short of 1.2 billion. Self-reported identification seems like a pretty good apples-to-apples comparison since each religion has a different threshold for what counts as “active.”