There has been much speculation and worry by some evangelical Christians that a Mormon president will lead to an explosion of converts for the LDS Church (and the bloggers at Evangelicals for Mitt have been doing a good job of refuting those claims).
However, all we need to do is look at the growth of the LDS Church in the state of Massachussetts before and during Mitt's governership to determine if there is any validity in such speculation.
The results are interesting. The annual rate of growth from 1993-1995 averaged 3.4%. It increased to 8% from 1995 to 1999. From 1999-2001 it dropped back to down to 3.1% per annum. Then here is the growth at the end of each of the following years covering Romney's campaign and most of his tenure in office:
2002--1.9%
2003--1.0%
2004--0.5%
2005--0.3%
These numbers are published in the Church's annual almanac, and the year-end numbers for 2006 will be published later this year.
Clearly, quite the opposite of the fearful speculation on some, Romney's time in the governor witnessed a tremendous decrease in LDS Church growth in Massachussetts. Now, to be fair, these are not the numbers of convert baptisms, just overall membership, which would include members moving in and out of the state. Still, Romney improved the economy, which can't be blamed for some kind of Mormon exodus from the Bay State.
One can speculate all one wants to, but when faced with data (as Romney prefers to make decisions from rather than rhetoric and opinion), a Romney presidency, if anything, doesn't bode well for Mormon missionary efforts and will not lead to an explosion of LDS Church growth.
However, all we need to do is look at the growth of the LDS Church in the state of Massachussetts before and during Mitt's governership to determine if there is any validity in such speculation.
The results are interesting. The annual rate of growth from 1993-1995 averaged 3.4%. It increased to 8% from 1995 to 1999. From 1999-2001 it dropped back to down to 3.1% per annum. Then here is the growth at the end of each of the following years covering Romney's campaign and most of his tenure in office:
2002--1.9%
2003--1.0%
2004--0.5%
2005--0.3%
These numbers are published in the Church's annual almanac, and the year-end numbers for 2006 will be published later this year.
Clearly, quite the opposite of the fearful speculation on some, Romney's time in the governor witnessed a tremendous decrease in LDS Church growth in Massachussetts. Now, to be fair, these are not the numbers of convert baptisms, just overall membership, which would include members moving in and out of the state. Still, Romney improved the economy, which can't be blamed for some kind of Mormon exodus from the Bay State.
One can speculate all one wants to, but when faced with data (as Romney prefers to make decisions from rather than rhetoric and opinion), a Romney presidency, if anything, doesn't bode well for Mormon missionary efforts and will not lead to an explosion of LDS Church growth.
posted by James Phillips | 11:36 AM
6 Comments:
So what are you saying? Vote for him because he will help to turn converts away from the church? or are you saying not to vote for him because he is not a good representative of the LDS church?
Either way this is not good news for MR.
Chris,
Obviously you have an agenda and your dislike of Romney, for whatever reason, is evident. Nice try on trying to twist my words around to say something you want to say. What I am saying is that there is no statistical evidence that a Mitt Romney presidency will lead to an explosion of growth for the LDS Church, and therefore to oppose his candidacy for only that reason is based on hearsay, not fact. Surely you understood that, but desire to try and get a potshot in under the guise of seeking clarification. Come on, Chris. If you don't have anything nice to say...
James,
I couldn't figure another way of contacting you, so this is how I thought I'd do it.
If you are interested, I would love to join you in blogging on your site. I have followed Mitt's campaign very closely since January of this year and am convinced of the excellence of his values, leadership skills and ability to actually bring change to our government.
I live in Desert Hills, AZ. I also love to write! Anyways, if you aren't interested, I would understand. If you are, you can contact me at anthonykwinters@gmail.com.
Thanks for your efforts in behalf of Mitt.
-Anthony Winters
My point is that there is no reason to play politics with religion. And also how can you support him when he supports Pro-state-choice on abortion? Thus the comment "not a good representative of the LDS church." I would like to see him change his pro-state-choice into a true pro-life stance. Then I can see voting for him, but until that happens he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Are you truely comfortable with his stance, or lack of stance, on abortion?
Chris,
I agree that one shouldn't play politics with religion. The data I gave was for those very people who do that, making unsubstantiated claims that his, or any other elected official's religion, will quantifiably benefit from taking office. The whole point was to prove that religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.
Secondly, Mitt Romney has stated (in an interview from Townhall.com) that ultimately he'd like to see the whole country pro-life, but that we're just not there yet. We're too divided, and therefore as a step towards that longterm goal he'd like to see the states have the ability to choose whether they're pro-life or not. That would be progress because conservative states could outlaw abortion, while liberal states would pretty much keep the status quo.
Then, just as happened with other constitutional amendments such as women's suffrage and prohibition, once the movement gains momentum in individual states, it is taken to the national level. His approach is a historically-proven, pragmatic one. Sure, he could declare like Huckabee that there should immediately be a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, but how realistic is that. Besides, the president has nothing to do, besides influence, with amendments anyway. That's up to the states and congress. And since congress isn't going to do it, allowing the states to begin the march, that will take several decades, to a nationwide pro-life status is the most effective course.
Sure, the diehard (but unrealistic) conservatives can try and make a claim that by not favoring immediate nationwide pro-life laws he's not a true pro-life candidate, but that's just balogna. As governor he vetoed laws that would have expanded abortion rights, and he's stated that a pro-life America is what he'd like to see, and as the pragmatic business man that he is, he's determined incremental goals that will realistically bridge the gap between the current state of affairs and the desired outcome. That's the type of president we need. Not someone content to inflame with rhetoric detached from reality.
I look forward to the day when abortion will be illegal, but it's not going to come overnight, and I don't see anyone offering a plan that has been historically proven to work to get us to that goal, other than Mitt Romney. Likewise, I don't see anyone defending traditional marriage like he has. Therefore, I will in good conscience support him as the candidate who will best put forth an agenda championing the values I hold regarding life and marriage, as well as in other areas such as government, taxes, etc.
Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Post a Comment
<< Home