World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat

  To let a (perhaps) wavering JW know that not all apostates either fail to understand what a net increase is or misrepresent the facts?

  I've "misrepresented" nothing, because I gave the equation used to arrive at the data in the very beginning, even if my choice of terminology in the header was poor. Certainly to call the figures a "net increase" as you suggested would have been equally "misrepresentative".

  Anyway, I've risen to your bait too much already. At least we understand eachother better as a result of this thread, eh? I've certainly learned more about you than I have about mathematical terminology, put it that way.

  It's funny how you once offered to help me with campaigns. I think I'll respectfully decline that offer now, if you don't mind.

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  But as Cedar's numbers point out, there is a huge churn. Every 5 years, a million new members join - but 500,000 leave (or are forced out).

  What other religion has such a huge exodus?

  First of all it's hard to say how other religions compare on that score because they don't keep comparable figures. What we do know is that Mormon retention rates are extremely poor, with many countries estimating activity rates at 20% or under. And secondly the retention rate of JWs doesn't look so bad if you factor in deaths. Between 2007 and 2011 1,421,714 were baptised and around 314,263 will have died. They grew by 701,167, so that leaves 386,904 missing publishers by the end of the period. Many of those will have been disfellowshipped. That means that fewer than 1% of JWs become inactive each year, or about half a publisher per congregation, compared with nearly three people getting baptised per congregation. Does that sound like a poor retention rate?
• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat - if your figures are so rock solid, why not start a new thread and give them a wider audience? I'm sure many on the forum will be amazed to discover that retention rates are stable, growth is impressive, and the literature isn't exaggerating the success of the worldwide preaching work. Those are pretty explosive revelations to many of us, so why not stand on the soapbox and say it on your own thread?

  Just a thought.

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  My post is relevant to the topic and a direct response to Sir82. I am capable of deciding what to post where, thanks anyway.

  Certainly to call the figures a "net increase" as you suggested would have been equally "misrepresentative".

  Where did I suggest you call your graphic "net increase"? I think you will find I did not. You have made so many false claims and put so many words into my mouth on this thread it would be a full time job to deny each and every one. But I trust to let the exchange stand for itself.
• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat - you're right, when it comes to what you post on this forum, you are your own master. However, it's certainly interesting for me to observe how you go about your business.

  In answer to your question...

  Where did I suggest you call your graphic "net increase"?

  Here's one from post 5666...

  Sleight of hand? I am trying to help you understand that a net increase cannot be described as a net reduction, that is all.

  Post 5652...

  Whatever you choose to call it, it would be less confusing and inaccurate if you did not take net increases in publisher numbers and call them net decreases. Surely that is simply stating the obvious!

  Cedars
• 

  La Falta Habitacion Por Sr Hor-Hey!!

  SMH, can't believe you guys are still arguing over this. Sheesh.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes it has been revealing.

  If you think your quotes from my posts show that I suggested you should call your graphic "net increases" then your close reading skills are beyond power to remedy them. Hardly worth a response. I am really coming to resent the time I have taken simply to refute basic misrepresentations of what I have said.
• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat - I understand what you're saying, but the only thing you could keep throwing at me during our early exchanges were the words "net increase" which really wasn't helpful at all. The simple fact is, you really weren't interested in helping me or remedying my work, or you would have suggested a suitable name for the chart straight away - which is what I repeatedly asked you for. I think you had another purpose as to this thread, and I think to a large extent, you achieved it. At least I'm wiser for the future.

  I'm not bothered about how I come across to people. I think people realize I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, even if I was confused over mathematical terminology and how it applied in this instance. I certainly don't have a hidden agenda to mislead people as you keep inferring. I'm happy for people to see that for themselves. Sure, this thread hasn't been my proudest moment, but we're all human. I sought help from the beginning, and despite bombarding this thread with posts all you could offer was criticism from the outset. It's a shame you find that way of doing things meaningful, but I understand we all come off worse from our JW experience, and it manifests itself in a variety of ways. I don't hold it against you, but I've certainly learned from this.

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  In my very first post on the thread I suggested possible terminology:

  I see what you are highlighting - that many publishers go AWOL

  Similar to 00DAD who suggested "missing in action", which I have heard before used for this statistic, and seems a reasonable description.

  You were so busy redefining "net" and casting aspersions you managed to miss them both!
• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat - as much as I appreciate 00DAD's contribution to this thread, you know very well that "MIA" (Missing In Action) and "AWOL" (Absent Without Leave) are terms associated with the military, and not condusive to a serious graph showing problems with retention of religious members. You know full well that you didn't offer that as a serious suggestion for a new heading, and nor was it received as such.

  It looks like your own "close reading skills" are coming up short with your above-selected quote.

  Cedars