Divine Tides: Understanding Latter-day Saint Membership Demographics

Shifts in Latter-day Saint numbers in the U.S. align with scriptural prophecies and underscore the importance of spiritual depth over mere numerical strength.

In the realm of faith, as in nature, autumnal hues often preface a period of apparent decline. Recent discussions center on a purported decrease in membership numbers within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States, eliciting varied reactions from concern to gloom and even outright derision in some corners. It’s a narrative that fits neatly into a larger tale of dwindling religiosity in America, a tale often spun with a not-so-subtle thread of triumphalism.

But the Latter-day Saint story, like any narrative worth its divine salt, is rich and multi-dimensional. Truth is not a popularity contest, and changes in membership (positive or negative) are not by themselves a barometer of God’s approval. This piece aims to explore these membership trends, not with a sense of denial or desperation but with a clear-eyed recognition of the complexity and with faith in the Church’s divine mandate. We’ll delve into a fuller context, one that sustains the truthfulness of Latter-day Saint teachings while offering insight into how we might navigate these changes positively. For in the grand mosaic of the unfolding restoration, these shifts may be less of an end and more of a vital, transformative beginning.

Examining the numbers

Before we delve deeper into this narrative, it is essential to examine the numerical dynamics at play in a more nuanced way. The recent conversation has centered around an article published in the Washington Post.

The article was focused on politics, so it didn’t give much attention to the underlying data. The article reported that the number of self-reported Latter-day Saints in the United States has dropped by one million adult members over 15 years. Though this number may be imprecise, trusted demographer and data analyst Stephen Cranney writes that the trend is real.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

Still, there are a few cautions. This is asking for religious identification on political surveys. So there may be motivation for active members not to identify. And purported real losses are only calculated based on population percentages. But these likely don’t entirely undermine the bottom-line numbers.

The larger consideration is that while there may be fewer US-based Latter-day Saints, the Church is still continuing to grow.

The framing of the issue demands a more global perspective. The Church’s presence extends beyond American borders, and it is essential to understand the international growth in this context. The Church is experiencing growth in regions such as Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. It is a global body of believers, and the flow of numbers in one region or another does not encapsulate the entirety of its growth narrative.

What, then, does this international growth mean for the church community? First and foremost, it reflects the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise that the gospel shall be preached “to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” and perhaps another manifestation of the Lord’s vision that “the last shall be first, and the first last.” The Church’s expanding international footprint should inspire us with a sense of progress and purpose. We are participating in the unfolding of a divine plan, and that plan is not predicated on maintaining a specific percentage of believers in one nation but on the spread of truth and light to every corner of the earth.

Reframing Church Health: Beyond Numbers

Perhaps, more importantly, however, the tendency to view church health through the singular lens of numerical strength is, while understandable, to some extent, misleading. After all, we live in a world that worships quantifiable metrics, and numbers, in their stark absolutism, offer a tantalizing illusion of unambiguous objectivity. Yet, as Latter-day Saints, we understand that the most significant truths elude simplistic measurements.

Periods of ‘falling away’ or decline are an expected.

When Christ established His Church during His mortal ministry, He did not ask for a show of hands, nor did He seek to conquer through sheer numbers. Instead, He called for the “pure in heart” and emphasized the transformation of individual souls. If one could capture the Savior’s metrics for church health, they would likely include the depth of individuals’ conversion, the sincerity of their discipleship, and the fervor of their love for God and fellowmen.

In our modern society, it’s all too common to measure success in terms of grandiosity, volume, and viral potential. We may unconsciously transfer these metrics onto our understanding of God’s kingdom, equating numeric growth with divine approval. But such a metric becomes deeply flawed when viewed through the lens of the Gospel and the historical record of God’s dealings with His children.

Take, for example, the prophet Noah. By the world’s standards, his 120-year-long preaching effort would seem a dismal failure, persuading only his immediate family to join him in the ark. But in the heavenly ledger, Noah’s faithfulness, not the number of his followers, defined his success. Abinadi’s story offers a similar message.

And let’s not forget Elijah, who felt alone in his prophetic calling until God revealed that seven thousand faithful individuals were yet in Israel.

This principle underscores the broader divine mandate that Latter-day Saints believe they are entrusted with. We don’t merely belong to an organization seeking to increase its membership but to a divinely commissioned Church with the mission to “invite all to come unto Christ.” This commission is ours to fulfill, no matter how many of those accept that invitation along the way.

Alongside numerical growth, we must value the quality of fellowship, the depth of scriptural understanding, and the impact of service and outreach programs. The strength of a Church is more meaningfully gauged by the spiritual resilience of its members, the integrity of its families, and the intensity of its light in an often dim world. These factors, perhaps summarized as “conversion,” are left out of the social science research on these questions.

And if we use these metrics, we may find that the Church of Jesus Christ is more robust and radiant than we ever imagined.

Scriptural Perspectives

To truly understand these membership shifts within the Church, we need to draw on the wisdom offered in the ancient scriptures. This is far from the only period in history where the Church has faced significant cultural headwinds.

The prophecy that the stone would fill the whole earth did not include that it would do so at an exponential or consistent growth rate. A testimony of the restored gospel has never been predicated on its worldly popularity. Nor does the prophecy that the kingdom shall not be destroyed promise it will never ebb.

Much to the contrary, scripture is replete with suggestions that even the final dispensation will not be an uninterrupted period of growth.

The allegory of the olive tree from Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon covers a broad sweep of history, from the House of Israel’s earliest days to the end times. One of the critical themes is that of periods of growth and decay. Throughout the allegory, the master of the vineyard and his servants diligently work to preserve and nourish the trees, but despite their best efforts, there are times when branches wither, decay, and fall away.

In verses sixty-nine and seventy-three, we see that even in the final season of restoring the tree, there is a plan that bad fruit will grow and need to be cast off, and it occurs precisely as planned. The lord of the vineyard says that the final season included both a time of nourishment and a time of pruning.

A period of winnowing can be a period of great strengthening.

Periods of ‘falling away’ or decline are an expected season in the growth of God’s kingdom, even during this fullness of times. The Doctrine and Covenants is more forthright, prophesying that some within the Church will be deceived and taken away.

Meaningfully, when Gideon prepared to fight the Midianites, God reduced his army to a mere 300 men to demonstrate that victory was not dependent on numbers but on divine power. A period of winnowing can be a period of great strengthening of faith and courage amid those that remain. Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 with only a few loaves and fish.

Smaller numbers do not imply a lack of divine favor or power, nor are they contrary to God’s plan. Rather, they often set the stage for divine manifestations, resilience, steadfastness, and faith in times of adversity. The history of God’s dealings with His people is not a story of unimpeded growth but of oscillations, each pruning serving as a prelude to a new flow of spiritual power and enlightenment.

Even amid changing numbers, Latter-day Saints can see this period not as a setback but as an invitation to profound spiritual growth and renewal.

In these ways, a changing landscape need not erode our faith but can instead galvanize it. Just as precious metals are refined in the furnace, our collective faith can emerge stronger, more resilient, and more vibrant than before. Through this transformative process, we remain true to our divine mandate as Latter-day Saints, ever ready to serve, uplift, and illuminate the world.

The truth and vitality of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rest on numbers. They are rooted in the individual and collective faithfulness, resilience, and spiritual growth of its members. We are reminded of Christ’s teaching “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” For those of us in this portion of the Lord’s vineyard, population trends do not define nor diminish the Savior’s presence among His followers.

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor, Managing Editor, Communications and Media Directors, Visual Display Director and Copy Editor.

When Outrage Sells, Disciples Choose Peace

Dialogue

The Final Lesson of Peacemaking: Ask Better Questions

Health

Primum Non Nocere: A Berlin Museum’s Warning Against Silence

Our Culture of Contempt

Four Corners

What Past Attacks on Mormons and Catholics Teach Us About the Threat to Muslims

C.D. Cunningham

“Surviving Mormonism” and the Real Story of Institutional Harm

Are Surviving Mormonism’s stories typical? Comparative data show rare failures in an institution ahead on reform.

Dan Ellsworth

Church Choirs and the Sound of Belonging: Where Harmony Still Exists

Why do ward choirs matter? They build unity, model male-female harmony, bridge communities, and teach belonging.

Jeff Bennion

When Law Meets Love: Dallin H. Oaks’ Ministry to Sexual and Gender Minorities

Dallin H. Oaks pairs law with love, showing humility, outreach, and a call to hold truth with tenderness.

Jacob Z. Hess

Why are Some Latter-day Saints Hesitant to Talk about the Family Proclamation?

The Family Proclamation is beloved by members around the world. So why are some afraid to talk about it?

Cassandra Hedelius

Motherhood, Mortality, and the Myth of Control

A near-death experience at 39 leads a mother to challenge her perceptions of entitlement, faith, and mortality.

CATEGORIES

Settle Down and Raise a Family

‘Tis the Season to Spread Enmity?

Our response to recent media coverage of Jeff Green’s departure from The Church of Jesus Christ

The Supreme Court’s Textualist Temptation

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Bostock v Clayton County may in fact tell us more about how courts decide what law is than what law says. It may also serve as an unexpected opportunity for judicial conservatives to move away from textualism and reclaim a more inclusive jurisprudential methodology. For over four decades the legal community has been arguing about first principles for interpreting our laws. In Bostock v Clayton County, a case about LGBTQ rights that the United States Supreme Court will decide this term, the central question involves an interpretation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which famously bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. The case is important because it will determine whether discrimination based upon “sexual orientation” is covered by the original prohibition in the statute against discrimination on the basis of “sex.” But the case may actually be more important for the ideas used by the court in how we interpret our laws. The case presents what may well become a textbook example of the application of textualism, and its related concept, originalism, to the interpretation of a landmark statute. Thus from the standpoint of how laws are interpreted, the case is fraught with meaning and symbolism. That argument will take center stage in a highly ironic way. Judicial liberals will be arguing for textualism (typically the conservative position) and conservatives will be arguing for a much more broadly based contextual understanding (usually the liberal position). From my perspective as a judicial conservative, this is an opportunity to restore textualism to its traditional place in jurisprudence, which could also have the added benefit of reducing the tension between textualism and originalism, something that has received too little attention from conservatives. To understand the debate, some brief history is necessary. Textualism, Orginalism, and the Rise of Judicial Activism For many decades the main complaint of conservatives focused on “judicial activism”—the idea that courts are reading into the language of our laws certain policies that the framers or the legislators did not address. This is typically done by using arguments based upon fairness, equality, and broad readings of the purpose of the language in question. Doing so, conservatives, argued, was to subvert democratic decision-making and turn republican government into rule by the judiciary. This further tends to foreclose the discussion, debate, give and take, and compromise that will address all the related implications of the decision. To deal with their concerns, many judicial conservatives argued for increased reliance on two particular methods of interpretation: originalism and textualism. Textualism focuses on the literal words being interpreted, their grammatical meaning and their dictionary definition, and largely, although not entirely, ignores other considerations if the meaning of the words is thought to be clear. Originalism focuses on the meaning of the words as they were understood at the time, usually in the sense of how they would have been understood by the public. Neither method was new, but various champions of these concepts who emphasized their application (particularly when it came to constitutional questions), rose to prominence. Several of them are now on the United States Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was especially associated with textualism, and current Justice Gorsuch has publicly associated himself with this same approach Scalia favored. Justice Thomas is a devoted originalist; and Justice Alito is sympathetic to both originalism and textualism. On the other hand, the so-called “liberals” on the court are much more in tune with what former Justice William Brennan called “living constitutionalism.” That approach takes the position that many of the provisions of constitutions are intended to have broad and evolving meanings. They are generally in favor of giving preference to judicially developed ideas of fairness, equality, and policy considerations that they believe are appropriate for the current times and circumstances. While not rejecting the ideas of originalism or textualism out of hand, they view the usual application of those concepts as too narrow —insisting that other approaches should be given equal or more weight, depending on the circumstances. In this way, what others might argue is plain, they often find ambiguous. It’s also the case that many of the tools that they would apply are broadly accepted by judicial conservatives and liberals alike, such as looking at the structure and purpose of the law, and related statutes, as well as somewhat more controversial but commonly used methods such as legislative history, or even weighing the consequences of a decision. By contrast, originalism emphasizes the long understood idea that a written constitution by definition was constructed by its framers to have fixed meaning. Constitutions provide for a means of amendment, and that process implicitly confirms that what was not amended should be understood as unchanged. The bedrock idea is that a constitution represents the will of the people, freely adopted by both representation and ratification, and not imposed by any other means. Although statutes can be freely changed by the legislature, originalists insist they should have the meaning that they had when enacted. This straightforward concept is eroded, however, by two hundred years of change, some obvious and some, as the great historian Gibbon would have said “insensible”—happening so gradually and imperceptibly that most hardly even noticed it. Major events like the Civil War and the amendments to the Constitution that it generated, introduced broadened concepts of due process and equal protection to the constitutional text and our way of thinking about laws more generally. The massive economic growth of the country also generated different ways of thinking about commerce, and how the state regulates behavior through a huge administrative process. Together with these developments, a growing body of legal academics began to emphasize various sophisticated issues, such as the potential elasticity of some of the language of law, arguing that standards such as “cruel and unusual punishment” were intended to have an evolving meaning, not one fixed for all time unless amended. Finally, as judges and scholars have noted for over 150

Responsible Reform: Elder Cook’s Caution About “Persistent Bouts of Christianity.”

Even when we think we’re being “Christian” – when we’re having a “bout of Christianity” – we can be seriously misled. In responding to critics of faith, for instance, being “humble” and ready to put ourselves in the wrong does not solve the problem of the best, most responsible action.