huckelberry wrote:Is it not open knowledge how many people are in the ward? Anyone can count the attendance. I remember the attendance number was listed on a little board in Chapel.
Same, it was marked in the calendar on the ward bulletin board, and 130 in attendance out of 400 was considered a good sacrament turnout.
We had quarterly ward council meetings where we went through the list of inactive names, so no one was surprised. However, no one seems to think that the activity phoenomenon extends beyond their ward boundaries.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
moksha wrote:That activity percentage is extrapolated from an off the cuff remark in a story that had nothing to do with membership numbers. Making that inference sounds positively apologetic.
A local Church spokesperson, giving a formal response to a journalist about a fire, stating that (for each of the 3 Farmington wards) out of 500 members less than 200 show up on any given Sunday is neither an extrapolation on my part, nor an off the cuff comment on theirs.
This is not a great view of active membership. I would suggest based on these numbers the active membership would be higher then 40%. Most active members do not attend church at 100%, and you also have to consider other factors like older members who can no longer attend for health reasons, but are believing members of the ward. How many healthy members are sick on a given Sunday, have to work, or on vacation? I would guess active members based on these numbers is higher then 50%.
Themis wrote:This is not a great view of active membership. I would suggest based on these numbers the active membership would be higher then 40%. Most active members do not attend church at 100%, and you also have to consider other factors like older members who can no longer attend for health reasons, but are believing members of the ward. How many healthy members are sick on a given Sunday, have to work, or on vacation? I would guess active members based on these numbers is higher then 50%.
I think your guess is wrong.
I would suggest, based on the spokesman saying “up to 200 members” that 40% is the planets-aligned pinnacle of when everyone attends on the same Sunday. He didn’t say ‘at least 200’ or ‘more than 200’. I would guess, he was putting forward the best possible number he could muster without actually telling a lie.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:I think your guess is wrong.
I would suggest, based on the spokesman saying “up to 200 members” that 40% is the planets-aligned pinnacle of when everyone attends on the same Sunday. He didn’t say ‘at least 200’ or ‘more than 200’. I would guess, he was putting forward the best possible number he could muster without actually telling a lie.
Not if the numbers are accurate, which is why I based my guess on the numbers. Your problem is these are not recorded numbers he was stating, but a vague comment that had nothing to do with activity numbers, so we cannot really infer activity numbers with a hope of being accurate. Also activity rates for the church are not based on active members attending 100% of the time, but are based on whether each individual is attending enough to be considered active.
I have a question wrote:I think your guess is wrong.
I would suggest, based on the spokesman saying “up to 200 members” that 40% is the planets-aligned pinnacle of when everyone attends on the same Sunday. He didn’t say ‘at least 200’ or ‘more than 200’. I would guess, he was putting forward the best possible number he could muster without actually telling a lie.
Not if the numbers are accurate, which is why I based my guess on the numbers. Your problem is these are not recorded numbers he was stating, but a vague comment that had nothing to do with activity numbers, so we cannot really infer activity numbers with a hope of being accurate. Also activity rates for the church are not based on active members attending 100% of the time, but are based on whether each individual is attending enough to be considered active.
His comment that less than 200 out of the 500 members in each of the three wards attend Sunday services is consistent with a presentation by the Church's statistical department from a few years ago that was inadvertently leaked by the Deseret News - which said 36 out of 100 members show up on any given Sunday.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:His comment that less than 200 out of the 500 members in each of the three wards attend Sunday services is consistent with a presentation by the Church's statistical department from a few years ago that was inadvertently leaked by the Deseret News - which said 36 out of 100 members show up on any given Sunday.
The statement is vague and not even meant to be about activity rates. 36 out of a hundred means more then 36% of members would be active believing members for various reasons I stated above.
I have a question wrote: His comment that less than 200 out of the 500 members in each of the three wards attend Sunday services is consistent with a presentation by the Church's statistical department from a few years ago that was inadvertently leaked by the Deseret News - which said 36 out of 100 members show up on any given Sunday.
The statement is vague and not even meant to be about activity rates. 36 out of a hundred means more then 36% of members would be active believing members for various reasons I stated above.
The comment isn't vague. Vague would be "Each has a lot of members, and each service on Sundays is attended by quite a few of them." And I'm not seeing how a comment about activity rates is not a comment about activity rates. I do think your speculation that some active ward members won't attend each week for a variety of reasons is valid, but >10%? >50 members of each Farmington ward are regularly ill, on holiday or away visiting each Sunday? No, I can't buy that.
I'll change the thread title to "Local Church spokesman in Farmington says attendance <40%" as I think the distinction is valid.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
If he had said the number for each ward then I would agree, but he gave vague numbers that do not represent the actual numbers for each ward. It was off the cuff and could easily be way off the real numbers, so don't make too much out of it.
I do think your speculation that some active ward members won't attend each week for a variety of reasons is valid, but >10%? >50 members of each Farmington ward are regularly ill, on holiday or away visiting each Sunday? No, I can't buy that.
In this case we are talking about active members. I would suggest a person who attends at least one meeting a month would be considered active by most churches. Illness will always be a small percent each week, but there are many other reasons like work, holidays, some elderly members too feeble to attend. Then take into account the number of members who don't show up every Sunday. I would say it could exceed 10%. Not that it really matters.