Since its forced exodus from Nauvoo, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been associated Utah. From Utah, the Church sent missionaries throughout the world to preach the restored gospel with considerable success but Utah remains the crown jewel. It has more members than any country excluding the United States and more than twice as many members than any other state. Stakes cover the state and temples dot the land. As acceptance of the Church increased and economic opportunities opened, members left their refuge in Utah for other new homes, mixing with converts to bring growth in the Church in areas previously designated as the mission field. In this post, I will describe dramatic growth in the Church outside of Utah and the Intermountain West by examining the growth in members per 100 between 1977 and 2012, repeat my hypothesis of member osmosis, and discuss areas of future research.
Members per 100: 2012 Members per 100: 1977
The map “Members per 100: 2012 uses the usual color code configuration with member per 100 rescaled from zero to one and colors from yellow to dark red. The map confirms what we know, that Utah and the intermountain states are more densely populated with members of the Church. Juxtaposed to the map, “Members per 100: 1977,” little seems to have changed but the map hides more than it reveals due to high concentration of members in Utah and the low concentration in the east. A doubling or even tripling of the members per 100 in states east of the Rocky Mountains does not cause a color variation large enough to be easily seen.
Growth in Members per 100: 1977-2012
The growth rate in members per 100 is given in the table following the descriptive portion of the post. The data was used to construct the map “Growth in Members per 100.” It looks something akin to a negative of the two “Members per 100” maps. States to the east of the Rocky Mountains on average experienced 176% growth in members per 100 compared to 38% growth in members per 100 in the west. Five states had growth rates in members per 100 that exceeded 250%, Rhode Island (312%), New York (311%), New Jersey (284%), Massachusetts (262%) and North Dakota (258%).
The change in growth rate of members per 100 is better understood by braking it into two components: the growth rate of members and the ratio of the beginning period population to the ending period population (population ratio). The exact formula that links the growth rate in member density and its two components is
GD=((1+GC)*P77/P12-1)*100,
where GD is the growth rate of members per 100, GC is the growth rate of members, P77 is the population of a state in 1977 and P12 is the population of a state in 2012. Growth in Church membership increases the growth in members per 100 whereas growth in population as measured by the population ratio lowers it. For example, Texas had the highest annual growth in membership at 4.50%, but the fifth highest growth in population making the population ratio .506, resulting in the 18th highest growth in members per hundred. Rhode Island had strong growth in church membership, the fifth highest among the states at 3.55%, but slow growth in population, 43rd among the states at .905, resulting in the highest growth in members per 100 at 312%.
Births, convert baptisms and net migration increase membership. Migration works something like osmosis, defined by “The Free Dictionary” as “Diffusion of fluid through a semipermeable membrane from a solution with a low solute concentration to a solution with a higher solute concentration until there is an equal concentration of fluid on both sides of the membrane.” The fluid is members, the semipermeable membrane is state borders, and the solute concentration is a mixture of familial, cultural and economic factors that attract members or any person to move.
The freedom to practice religion and safety from persecution were the first factors that drew members to Utah. Over time, the importance of safety diminished but Mormon culture and family kept the concentration of members high in Utah. Eventually, missionary work created pockets of Mormon culture outside of Utah making it easier for members to migrate from Utah to these new areas when other “solutes” appeared, educational and job opportunities. My guess is that returned missionaries were heavily represented in these outward migrations because they had seen functioning units outside of Utah and the Intermountain West. Distance from Utah slowed the migration but falling transportation costs and improving communications made it easier for members to migrate and keep contact with family and attuned to the Mormon culture of Utah.
How does the data fit the story? I will need to conduct some sort of statistical analysis to test any hypothesis. Certainly the growth rate of members per 100 was greater in the east than the west but I would have anticipated that the growth rate would have been higher closer to Utah, in states like Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. I would have anticipated declines in members per 100 in the Intermountain West and only one state, Nevada, experienced a large decline. Perhaps people who are not members are reluctant to move to areas with a large concentration of members. I will have to conduct some sort of statistical testing as I did in “Distance from Salt Lake City” to place any confidence in a conclusion.
My next major research task will be to attempt to use birth and death rates by state as determined from the census to mechanically estimate the change in membership due to births, deaths and convert baptisms as I did in “Convert and Member of Record Baptisms, and Deaths” using international data. I also hope to statistically test the story told in this post as described in the previous paragraph. I might also attempt to extend this analysis to Canada, the only other country for which I have data by region within the country. Maybe I should make a note to Deseret News to expand their statistical analysis by country. Short of that, I could use stakes to measure growth overtime by country and I do have good data for that task!
The growth in density is the percentage of growth of density between 1977
| State | GD | =((1+ | GC | )* | P77 /P12 | -1)*100 | Rank GD | Rank GC | Rank P77 /P12 |
| Alabama | 195% | =((1+ | 2.76 | ) | .784 | -1)*100 | 14 | 16 | 27 |
| Alaska | 197% | =((1+ | 2.48 | ) | .568 | -1)*100 | 34 | 22 | 10 |
| Arizona | 16% | =((1+ | 2.14 | ) | .370 | -1)*100 | 47 | 28 | 2 |
| Arkansas | 230% | =((1+ | 3.41 | ) | .749 | -1)*100 | 8 | 8 | 24 |
| California | 17% | =((1+ | 9.87 | ) | .588 | -1)*100 | 46 | 46 | 13 |
| Colorado | 61% | =((1+ | 2.09 | ) | .520 | -1)*100 | 41 | 30 | 6 |
| Connecticut | 202% | =((1+ | 2.52 | ) | .859 | -1)*100 | 12 | 21 | 39 |
| Delaware | 107% | =((1+ | 2.21 | ) | .645 | -1)*100 | 33 | 27 | 17 |
| Florida | 103% | =((1+ | 3.44 | ) | .458 | -1)*100 | 35 | 7 | 3 |
| Georgia | 147% | =((1+ | 3.69 | ) | .526 | -1)*100 | 22 | 2 | 7 |
| Hawaii | 70% | =((1+ | 1.58 | ) | .660 | -1)*100 | 39 | 39 | 19 |
| Idaho | 2% | =((1+ | .85 | ) | .554 | -1)*100 | 48 | 48 | 9 |
| Illinois | 134% | =((1+ | 1.64 | ) | .884 | -1)*100 | 28 | 38 | 42 |
| Indiana | 122% | =((1+ | 1.68 | ) | .830 | -1)*100 | 30 | 37 | 36 |
| Iowa | 240% | =((1+ | 2.59 | ) | .948 | -1)*100 | 7 | 19 | 49 |
| Kansas | 214% | =((1+ | 2.90 | ) | .804 | -1)*100 | 9 | 12 | 29 |
| Kentucky | 155% | =((1+ | 2.13 | ) | .816 | -1)*100 | 21 | 29 | 32 |
| Louisiana | 160% | =((1+ | 1.98 | ) | .872 | -1)*100 | 20 | 34 | 41 |
| Maine | 135% | =((1+ | 1.83 | ) | .830 | -1)*100 | 27 | 36 | 37 |
| Maryland | 146% | =((1+ | 2.48 | ) | .709 | -1)*100 | 24 | 23 | 21 |
| Massachusetts | 262% | =((1+ | 3.19 | ) | .863 | -1)*100 | 4 | 11 | 40 |
| Michigan | 133% | =((1+ | 1.51 | ) | .928 | -1)*100 | 29 | 41 | 45 |
| Minnesota | 179% | =((1+ | 2.76 | ) | .742 | -1)*100 | 17 | 15 | 23 |
| Mississippi | 147% | =((1+ | 1.99 | ) | .824 | -1)*100 | 23 | 33 | 33 |
| Missouri | 245% | =((1+ | 3.27 | ) | .808 | -1)*100 | 6 | 9 | 30 |
| Montana | 44% | =((1+ | .88 | ) | .766 | -1)*100 | 43 | 47 | 26 |
| Nebraska | 201% | =((1+ | 2.58 | ) | .839 | -1)*100 | 13 | 20 | 38 |
| Nevada | -15% | =((1+ | 2.47 | ) | .246 | -1)*100 | 50 | 24 | 1 |
| New Hampshire | 98% | =((1+ | 2.00 | ) | .659 | -1)*100 | 36 | 32 | 18 |
| New Jersey | 284% | =((1+ | 3.63 | ) | .828 | -1)*100 | 3 | 3 | 35 |
| New Mexico | 46% | =((1+ | 1.51 | ) | .583 | -1)*100 | 42 | 42 | 11 |
| New York | 311% | =((1+ | 3.51 | ) | .910 | -1)*100 | 2 | 6 | 44 |
| North Carolina | 145% | =((1+ | 3.21 | ) | .583 | -1)*100 | 26 | 10 | 12 |
| North Dakota | 258% | =((1+ | 2.86 | ) | .929 | -1)*100 | 5 | 14 | 46 |
| Ohio | 167% | =((1+ | 1.86 | ) | .933 | -1)*100 | 19 | 35 | 48 |
| Oklahoma | 182% | =((1+ | 2.75 | ) | .752 | -1)*100 | 16 | 17 | 25 |
| Oregon | 42% | =((1+ | 1.27 | ) | .627 | -1)*100 | 44 | 44 | 14 |
| Pennsylvania | 204% | =((1+ | 2.27 | ) | .932 | -1)*100 | 11 | 26 | 47 |
| Rhode Island | 312% | =((1+ | 3.55 | ) | .905 | -1)*100 | 1 | 5 | 43 |
| South Carolina | 109% | =((1+ | 2.29 | ) | .633 | -1)*100 | 31 | 25 | 15 |
| South Dakota | 108% | =((1+ | 1.52 | ) | .826 | -1)*100 | 32 | 40 | 34 |
| Tennessee | 212% | =((1+ | 3.55 | ) | .685 | -1)*100 | 10 | 4 | 20 |
| Texas | 178% | =((1+ | 4.50 | ) | .506 | -1)*100 | 18 | 1 | 5 |
| Utah | -1% | =((1+ | 1.15 | ) | .462 | -1)*100 | 49 | 45 | 4 |
| Vermont | 93% | =((1+ | 1.46 | ) | .786 | -1)*100 | 37 | 43 | 28 |
| Virginia | 146% | =((1+ | 2.88 | ) | .634 | -1)*100 | 25 | 13 | 16 |
| Washington | 68% | =((1+ | 2.07 | ) | .547 | -1)*100 | 40 | 31 | 8 |
| West Virginia | 87% | =((1+ | .82 | ) | 1.028 | -1)*100 | 38 | 49 | 50 |
| Wisconsin | 194% | =((1+ | 2.63 | ) | .808 | -1)*100 | 15 | 18 | 31 |
| Wyoming | 30% | =((1+ | .81 | ) | .717 | -1)*100 | 45 | 50 | 22 |
| USA | 78% | =((1+ | 1.54 | ) | .702 | -1)*100 |
No comments:
Post a Comment