Reassessing the Size of Mormons, Adventists and Witnesses (2019 academic paper)

by Corney 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Corney

  This is one of the most recent academic papers on JW demographics. It analyzes official membership statistics of the three churches, compares them with census data and provides estimated global figures (9-10 million Mormons, 17 million Witnesses, and 28 million Adventists - all are self-identified adherents, not necessarily active ones). I think this is a good research though some aspects of the subject remain unexplored.

  This article compares the growth of three religious groups, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. All originated in America during the nineteenth century and have since globalized. It begins by using their official membership data to contrast their aggregate growth over time. It then questions the reliability of those official statistics. Noting that each group employs different criteria in selecting who it counts, it employs census data from 54 countries in all regions of the world and five surveys of US adult religious affiliation with adjustments for children as a proxy for an American census to provide a common basis for comparison. It finds consistent patterns, where membership data greatly overstate the number of Mormons, understate the number of Adventists, and also understate the number of Witnesses to an even greater extent. The article then calculates a weighted ratio between official and census data for each group and uses those ratios to estimate their aggregate adherents. This method results in a dramatic reordering of their sizes. Finally, the article accounts for the variations found between the three groups.
  Click here for a PDF version of the full article: https://rdcu.be/b3Yym [a shortened link to a Springer SharedIt page]
• 

  slimboyfat

  Very interesting, thank you. The abstract seems to confirm what I’ve been saying for years!

  Official Mormon figures are totally bogus, and JWs are the larger religious group worldwide.

  Ronald Lawson has an SDA background, I believe. He’s coauthored other articles with Ryan Cragun on JW statistics. I’ve not read the article yet but I’m looking forward to it.

  I reckon SDAs are probably the largest, then JWs not far behind, then Mormons significantly smaller. So I’m curious if this article will agree.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Very interesting to note that James Pellechia and Jolene Chu gave interviews to Lawson.
• 

  careful

  Welcome back, SBF! Thanks for the share Corney.
  
• 

  smiddy3

  Pardon my ignorance slim ,but who are James Pellechia and Jolene Chu ? And why does it surprise you they gave an interview to Lawson ?

  Are they somebodys in the JW Organization ?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yeah Jolene Chu is a researcher at bethel, and James Pellechia, I believe, was editor of the Awake! magazine. Watchtower have a history of not cooperating with outside researchers (notably they used to send out letters instructing elders not to answer questions or surveys) with a few exceptions, in particular surrounding holocaust research, for example, which Jolene Chu was involved with, and a few outside scholars who they have grown to trust, such as famously Massimo Introvigne, the so-called “Dracula” guy. Traditionally Watchtower has insisted that any legitimate enquiry from researchers can be adequately addressed by pointing to their literature. They have been reluctant to allow representatives, even high up writers and researchers, to give interviews, because however loyal they are, there is necessarily some loss of control over the message from the GB’s point of view. Note for example the embarrassment when a branch servant in Finland gave a media interview which appeared to be somewhat unorthodox on the topic of shunning and disfellowshipping. On the other hand there are reliable media performers such as Paul Gillies and J R Brown who Watchtower have used in particular to defend their stance on blood. But media relations is a slightly different topic than cooperation with academic researchers such as Ronald Lawson. Or to clarify further, it’s perhaps not surprising that Chu and Pellechia answer questions and foster positive contacts with outside researchers, which I believe they have done for some time, to try to get their message across. I suppose what is more unusual is for it to take the form of a structured interview and be referenced in the footnotes.