SAHS
jwfacts/steve2 correction , seems the better way to go , short and sweet and says it all , good luck to you .
smiddy
Poignant Statistics Summary for Comment at This Sunday WT Study! (Aug. 3, 2014)
by SAHS 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
factfinder
I don't see how baptisms can be used to calculate how many fall away.
The publishers figure already includes EVERYBODY who got baptized that year, the baptism figure can't be added to the previous publisher figure.
I started in FS in 1976. I handed in monthly FS reports but did not get baptzed until 1978. But since I was a publisher the 1977 figure included me. In 1978 the publisher figure included me. I got baptized that year as did my brother but you could not ADD that years baptisms to the publisher figure because those getting baptized were already included in the publisher figure. Otherwise you are counting baptized publishers twice.
So am I missing something?
-
Phizzy
Dear Factfinder, I think your question is answered on JWfacts Site, over a 10 year period it is a sample over long enough to ask the valid question:
" 2.7 Mill Baptized, increase 1.5 Mill, WHERE ARE THE MISSING ONE MILLION PLUS PEOPLE ?"
-
smiddy
I think most of us are here Phizzy
smiddy
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Factfinder: Otherwise you are counting baptized publishers twice.
You are correct. WT does count the same person twice.
-
factfinder
Phizzy- that is a lot of missing people, yes
-
SAHS
“factfinder”: “. . . the baptism figure can't be added to the previous publisher figure. . . . you could not ADD that years baptisms to the publisher figure because those getting baptized were already included in the publisher figure. Otherwise you are counting baptized publishers twice.”
“AndDontCallMeShirley”: “You are correct. WT does count the same person twice.”
That’s an interesting point, guys! (It all gets rather confusing, and I’m certainly not very good in the math department – I think I’m more right-brained than left-brained, thus better at linguistic creativity than numerical problem-solving.)
Anyway, as I am guessing, the issue here is the distinction between newly baptized versus new or old publishers. And as you pointed out, “factfinder,” often prospective full-fledged members (baptized publishers) first began reporting their time as “unbaptized publishers” before they were added to the actual baptized membership roll (i.e., increase in baptized publishers) – therein the double counting.
Others, though, perhaps may have wished to wait until their baptism before starting to report time, in which case their increase as a baptism and as a new publisher would be under one and the same single count, although this may be the exception.
-
OneEyedJoe
Regardless of the semantics about publishers and baptisms, the numbers (especially over a 10yr period) are sufficient to show a trend. Either there's a ton getting DF'd (there are, but not that many) or there's a ton of baptized folks that went inactive.
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
SAHS: Others, though, perhaps may have wished to wait until their baptism before starting to report time
Unless something has changed in WT's requirements, a person must be active in preaching and reporting field service time every month in order to get baptized.
No preachy, no dunky.