Click here to access the updated Reaching the Nations country profile for Jamaica. Many new sources were incorporated into this updated article, including dozens of surveys completed by returned missionaries and local members. The Church in Jamaica has struggled to achieve greater growth since its permanent establishment on the island nearly half a century ago. The Church currently reports more than 6,400 members although no more than 1,500 members appear to attend church regularly. The creation of the first stake in Jamaica in 2014 came after decades of preparation and signals some improvements in leadership development. Also, the first Jamaican to serve as a mission president began his 2013. However, there have not appeared to have been any measurable increases in active membership for the island since the stake was organized. Jamaica has one of the lowest percentages of Latter-day Saints in the population in the Caribbean as one in 465 was nominally a Latter-day Saint in 2017. See below for more information about cultural factors that have stifled growth, and the outlook for future growth.
Returned missionaries consistently report concerns with the over-saturation of churches in Jamaica and public indifference regarding the Latter-day Saint gospel message as many Jamaicans assume The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lacks distinctness from other religious groups. Nevertheless, the Church has experienced a large amount of persecution and prejudice especially in outlying cities and towns. Opposition has been strong enough to necessitate the closure of some cities to missionary work such as Lucea in May 2001. This has caused many Jamaicans to avoid learning about the Church and creates an atmosphere of intolerance. Many smaller communities are religiously divided based on denomination. Secularism has increased in recent years as interest in religious declines in the major cities. Widespread drug abuse and violent crime are major concerns.
The Church may organized a second stake in Jamaica in the medium term as the Mandeville Jamaica District has several branches that appear to meet the qualifications to become wards. Additional congregations along the northern coast and in the Saint Mary Parish may be organized. Small branches or groups in many of the small towns unreached by current congregations may be created once greater activity and membership growth occurs. Historically low convert retention rates and low member activity rates are consistent barriers to greater real church growth and self-sustainability. Little progress expanding national outreach will likely continue until these issues are resolved. The Church may build a small temple in Kingston once there are multiple stakes in Jamaica due to distance to the nearest temple.
28 comments:
Hello, Matt. Thanks for this report. I appreciate all the work you and David Stewart continue to do to update the country profiles, and your analysis of developments about which you have reported. The Lord seems to be very much mindful of His Church, and is hastening His work in its' time. We are blessed to live in a day when so many of those developments are so widely reported.
Aside from my thanks to Matt, I wanted to note a couple of things for anyone here who may be interested. First of all, as I mentioned in another thread on this blog, I was made aware of new information from a very reliable source that indicates a large number of new temples will be announced in the upcoming General Conference. A dozen or a score of new temples may be a ridiculously low-balled estimate for how many there might actually be. With all the preliminaries having been accomplished (including the test cases of fast approval for the Yigo, Praia, and San Juan Temples), there seems now to be very little doubt that President Nelson will be detailing his temple expansion plans, including the extent, specifics, timing, and definitive locations. I was less specific about this in the other threads, but wanted to expand upon those previous mentions here. With that, and possible changes coming for the missionary program (given what has been said on that subject in other threads), it is shaping up to be another historic conference, especially for being only the third one over which a Church President has presided since his prophetic administration began.
If anyone wants to keep up on the latest leading up to, during, and after General Conference, you can catch all the relevant coverage on my blog, to which I post the address below. I'd be remiss if I did not thank Matt for continuing to allow me to share such updates. We'd best buckle in. As the saying goes: we "ain't seen nothin' yet."
Sorry. I should perhaps have also mentioned that, based on the new information i mentioned above, I think a Kingston temple may be on the horizon sooner than anticipated. we may be fast entering unprecedented territory. By the end of this year, 7 new temples will have been dedicated. From what I understand, going forward, 7 new temples being dedicated in the course of a rough 3-month period could well become the new normal for the foreseeable future, and that's at the very least end of that spectrum. Exciting times ahead.
"possible changes coming for the missionary program"
Didn't we make up our own rumors about that here? Funny how we did that and now they're real rumors...
Our Stake president told us he has been informed that there will be changes announced which will result in fewer missionaries being assigned to "our part of the world". We were told this to prepare for the likelihood that we will no longer have missionaries in our ward.
We will maybe see the opening of China?
Unknown, I don't know whether or not you were aware of this, but I have always been known as one who has a firm understanding of what is going on in the Church. Around two decades ago (when I was a teenager), a widespread rumor had people convinced that the Church had opened or would shortly be opening mainland China for the preaching of the gospel. Among those leaning into believing such rumors were my uncle and aunt. They knew I often had the inside track on such things (due to my extensive study of such matters), and they asked me about it. I was able to tell them that if such a thing were occurring, there would be a First Presidency statement on the matter. And within a couple of months, a statement was released to note officially that nothing of the kind was happening. Something similar happened around the same time with rumors of an extended closure for the Salt Lake Temple.
So when the rumor mill is running, I always like to check for any information I can find that either confirms or denies the merit in such claims. I was unable to get on board with the rumor presented in another thread about a change to the missionary program because I had not yet done my research to know one way or another whether such rumors had merit. Having since consulted the many sources I have available, my research shows that something might be coming in that respect, but that it may not be what everyone seems to think will occur.
I hope that my explanation here has cleared up any confusion about my previous or current assertions. If not, at least I can rest easy knowing I gave it my best shot. I mean no offense here, and I hope none is taken. Best wishes.
Matt, Sorry for being a Grammar Nazi, but if you do further research you will find it was not the Moscow Russia South District that was discontinued. It was the Moscow Russia North District that was discontinued (merged) into the remaining Moscow Russia South District, with district center in the southern city of Voronezh. And was renamed just the "Moscow Russia District"with the South District unit number. I wonder with the combined District if in preparation to become the 4th Stake organized in Russia?
A new Spanish-speaking branch was organized in Arvin, California just outside Bakersfield. This may be a sign of vitality that could lead to a temple there.
Downtownchrisbrown, if your stake president was referring to the United States, which hogs far more than its share of missionaries at the expense of far more needy parts of the world, I certainly hope he's correct.
I live in Canada (North America North East area). I can think of a couple of possibilities:
1. Something dramatic like opening up of China
2. Something less dramatic - missionaries being redistributed due to changes in visa availability for other less served countries
3. Shorter missions - would ultimately lead to smaller missions eventually
4. A new emphasis on church planting within the existing missions - would not be less missionaries assigned, but would have fewer missionaries available to directly serve existing wards and branches in Stakes.
China rumors have persisted in various forms since the 1970s. Rumors about missionaries being moved from the US to the rest of the world have as well. Now if they do start having fewer missionaries in the US they will probably still have some because not everyone can get the proper travel documents but still be fit enough to serve a traditional proselyting mission, there might be a set per stake or maybe still a set in rural wards and branches, but in cities I could see that happening.
This all, plus any major temple announcements, if both done at this conference, will have a significant effect as it will be seen as a major sign of the times. The more active, converted, etc., will only accelerate what they are doing already while the sifting otherwise will continue and be a little more pronounced.
And on Kingston, I do eventually, if not this very time, a temple there, a stake now operates on Jamaica.
China is not going to open to full-time missionary work ANY TIME SOON. The condition of religious freedom in China has worsened in recent years. The Church's status in China is the most sensitive of any country in the world. The Church has one of the best relationships with the government among religious groups, but there is no means with current legislation and government policy to have full-time missionaries from outside of the country serve within the PRC. Interestingly, the Church in China has been very proactive with the organization of branches and member groups in additional cities as a steady rate despite few active members nationwide. Most cities with one million people now have a branch or member group - a major accomplishment despite no full-time missionaries who serve in the country. New branches continue to be organized regularly in cities where no branches have previously operated. The Church in China has much better prospects to growth given current restrictions as it fosters local leadership development without dependence on foreign, full-time missionaries to pick up the slack. The future for the Church in China appears bright given the growth seen in the country since the first branches for PRC members were organized in 2004.
Isn't proselytizing illegal in China, then how does the church grow there at all? Word of mouth? Are there ways to preach without proselytizing? If there is then this should surely be taken up in other nations for a more far reaching effort.
I have heard that airplane flights from China bring a lot of people here for business, etc., so some likely find out that way, or when they go to other parts of the world where members are.
Many smaller groups do things clandestinely, smuggling, other means to get literature in, those are the ones the government is after, a common tactic is to smuggle in Bibles, then carpet-bomb the neighborhoods with one on every doorstep in the middle of the night, not good by anyone's definition of how to do it.
If and when we do things, it will always be through the front door.
The Catholics recently reached an agreement with Beijing, this after a long spat between Beijing and the Vatican, one incident was when the Chinese appointed a certain leader to be the head of the Catholics in China, the Vatican would have none of that so they defrocked and excommunicated him.
William P,
This should answer all your questions.
https://www.lds.org/China
See mormonsandchina.org. an official website of the church. It explains everything on the rules in China.
Many Chineese live, work, and study overseas. A lot of them join the church and later return home. Chineese law will ONLY let them share the gospel with immidate family members. LDS.org/China explains more on this and the laws for returning members. This is info on who to contact to find their branch. The church also blocks the website in China to comply with the laws over there.
Each time I visit Temple Square, the missionaries tell me the most visitors they get are from China (I've seen them come in big tour groups). Some of the sisters are from there, also.
A friend of mine, who served in Hong Kong about ten years ago, told me a lot of their baptisms were people from Mainland China coming over for the day to get baptized, then going home. Don't know if it's still that way.
There is no longer a need for Mainland Chinese to go all the way to Hong Kong to be officially taught and baptized. A couple of years ago, the government began allowing Mainland Chinese to be taught by local members and baptized where they live. Still entirely segregated from expats, but at least they don't have to go to Hong Kong.
Here is some recent news on the current state of religious freedom in china:
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/china-city-offers-cash-for-information-in-religion-crackdown
http://www.startribune.com/china-city-offers-cash-for-information-in-religion-crackdown/507824412/
As we follow Article of Faith number 12, Our church tries very hard to work within the law in every country we operate. We go in through the front door without any deceit. In contrast, although they may have good intentions to spread Christianity; some organizations sneak bibles and other literature or operate underground. I think as we show we follow the law, the church is better able to operate and allow the spread of the gospel to grow in China.
The church had to shoot down a rumor, and yes it has to do with a particular temple that has not had its site confirmed yet.
From one of the KSL Facebook pages: A spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has confirmed a sign at 2200 West and Hill Field Road indicating a location for the Layton Utah Temple is fake. The temple's location has not yet been announced by church officials.
Picture of the fake sign:
https://www.facebook.com/kslcom/photos/a.10150101912774172/10157467610214172/?type=3&theater
It is a pity that the Church even had to spell that out. If only some of those who were misled by that sign had bothered to check the information on the following website, that likely would not have occurred.
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/layton-utah-temple/
It is interesting to observe how many people "buy in" to information as if it is official when it has not been confirmed as such. The Church has long been in a habit of transparency in terms of information, whether official or incorrect. That said, I am grateful to hear that a Church spokesman acted quickly to dispel this rumor.
KSL later said that this looked like an early April Fools prank, that just being two days away.
@ Grant Emery
Good to know.
Isn't https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/layton-utah-temple/ no more official than a sign someone posts in a field though? I'm not sure how your statement is credible James. NEITHER is an official source.
Buy into a website someone made or buy into a sign someone made... It's the same thing.
Also, someone on here commented that they noticed that that rumor also showed up on that website for at least a few minutes too. (Which may or may not be true.)
With all due respect, your point would be very well taken if it were not for a couple of things: The Church Temples site notes it is not an official website of the Church, as does my blog. But the webmaster of that site has access to information that has, in most cases, been either verified as officially correct by Church websites, or which has been taken down if and when it is found to be inaccurate. And anyone can put up a sign and perpetuate it as the real deal. And, by the way, the Church Temples site makes it clear in all its' entries and data that First Presidency confirmation is needed before it proves correct.
You can consider my statements credible or not. That's your choice. But i would hope that you are in the minority in doing so. Most people who comment here know that I never post any content here unless i am sure it has basis in fact. Unlike most people, I actually do my research before I buy into anything that crosses my radar. If that makes me not credible in your eyes, I guess I am guilty as charged. I choose to spend my time educating myself before offering an opinion on anything. i would respectfully suggest everyone else do the same.
Please be considerate to opinions that are not your own. Thank you.
Post a Comment