Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics

Guest

•

Guest post by Peter Wilson

 

In the last three months, The New York Times, the Salt Lake Tribune, and The Atlantic have all published articles in the last three months about the declining fertility rate among the Latter-day Saints!

The question the articles the New York Times and Salt Lake Tribune want to answer is what is going on with Latter-day Saint fertility? But because no one knows the Latter-day Saint total fertility rate, they rely on faulty proxies. The New York Times article focuses on Utah’s falling fertility rate, but less than half of Utahns now identify as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Atlantic reports on the church’s massive decline in reported births, but births are only recorded if optional paperwork is filled out in a timely manner by parents and an unpaid volunteer in the local congregation known as “the clerk.” So the record decline of church-reported births could be driven by decline in church activity or even by an increase in clerk laziness about paperwork!

The Trib’s article relies on lagged measures of fertility that capture how many kids members  had rather than how many they are having. For example, The Trib reports on “average number of children per family that respondents said they were raised in,” which is not a good way to capture a rapidly changing situation.

The gold standard of fertility reporting is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). TFR represents the average number of children a woman who is currently in her childbearing years will have.

In my article at substack, I use existing data from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and the The Public Religion Research Institute to provide an estimate of the total fertility rate of self-reported Latter-day Saints in Utah.

Check it out!

Peter Wilson writes about religious and cultural values that are hidden in plain sight on Substack. His formal education was in statistics, economics, and comparative literature; his real education came from arguing with his mom about scripture. He lives with his family in California and works at a large medical device company.

 

Comments

9 responses to “Latter-day Saint Fertility Statistics”

  1. Stephen C.

    Thank you for not doing the “actually it’s all about the fact that we don’t have Scandinavian safety nets (Norway TFR=1.45), so let’s stop talking about fertility decline and change the subject to that” shell game.

  2. Not a Cougar

    Peter, thanks for the link to the article. If I’m taking away the correct impression from your article, to the extent we can assign any sort of proximate cause for the decrease in LDS fertility today, it seems to be the same causes for the drop in non-LDS fertility rates 40+ years ago (primarily women in the workforce and increased social acceptance of birth control). While LDS fertility rates appear to be of worry to President Oaks, I think it’s going to take a lot more than an awkward reference in General Conference to get Latter-day Saints to start having children at significantly higher rates than they already do. Any ideas what that might take? A revelation? Bishops having meetings with couples with less than X number of children? I hesitate to bring up subsidized child or healthcare based on the first response above to your post.

  3. Stephen C.

    To be clear, I have no problem with subsidized child or healthcare since it may affect things at the margins, I just don’t think it’s the panacea people make it out to be.

  4. Peter Wilson

    @Not a Cougar: Thanks for the comment. It seems like LDS fertility is dropping both due to 1) lower rates of marriage AND 2) lower number of children within marriage. I have reason to suspect the latter effect is larger than the former, but I’m not positive yet.

    I will give your question some more thought once I have the above question figured out. My general understanding of the evidence is that, generally, cultural factors are more important than public policy. Some economic factors really do matter, especially housing stock / prices.

    A somewhat different framing of your question that would be a bit more modest of a goal: is there anything the church can do to stop the birth rate from continuing to decline in the U.S.?

    Sorry I don’t have anything more helpful at this point.

  5. Jack

    I agree Stephen. While culture and economics are certainly intertwined–I believe the drop in the birth rate has more to do with cultural elements than it does with purely economic concerns.

  6. jader3rd

    And here I am thinking that the church needs to figure out how to be more friendly for couples with one or two children. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the greater Seattle Metro area. Urban cores are growing in population, while the number of church going members drops. Buildings built in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, which used to contain multiple wards now host only one, or have been sold off. Whereas some building on the “edge of civilization” are bursting at the seams with active families. I suspect that it’s some sort of life style thing where people who live in the urban centers, who might be interested in the message or doctrine of the church, feel like they don’t belong, because their family doesn’t fit the image of the church, and so don’t continue to conversion.
    If the percentage of members held steady, the church buildings should be seeing increased usage, due to the increase in population. But they’re not. I feel like there’s an artificial blockage preventing local residents from becoming active members who would use the buildings.

  7. Coffinberry

    I have said for decades that it is the cost of transporting more than 2 children. I stand by that today.

    The US is set up to be a car-dependent system. Most places do not have anything remotely like reasonable public transportation (and even with that it is hard to transport more kids han you have hands for). It is a very steep cliff, both in up front purchase cost and in long term operating costs including fuel and insurance, to move from a car that can transport 2 kids to a car that can transport 3 or more. That big step slowed us having our third and fourth, back at the turn of the century. Going from 4 to more than that takes a massively huge vehicle, especially if you need to tote more than bodies (soccer/lacrosse/camping/suitcases?). It is a significant issue for my adult children, now.

  8. E

    Coffinberry I think you are right! I believe that economic and practical barriers are primary for most LDS people that I know. I also believe that some people just don’t want to be parents. It’s draining and unfulfilling for them. So they have fewer or no children because they don’t enjoy parenting. In the past people were not as free to make those decisions. It’s easy for me to remember families I knew growing up with a lot of children who seemed very stressed and unhappy due to the parents (especially the mother) not enjoying or being good at the only role that was socially acceptable. Women who did not want to be mothers were wicked and selfish.

  9. rogerdhansen

    There seems to be an underlying assumption that smaller families are bad (or at least a problem). That is only true if the Church is worried about membership numbers or future tithing sources. In today’s America, economic and practical realities make having large families impractical. For example, every child over 16 needs a car to handle their busy schedule of school and extra curricular activities. Particularly, if both parents work. One problem with smaller families is the graying of America and what that does for social safety nets.

    Half the current Church members live in developing countries. Many are barely eking out an existence. President Oaks needs to be careful about preaching large families for these members. The Church is a global organization and it needs to act like one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.