Canada
The Church organized its second YSA in Canada in Calgary, Alberta on May 5th. The Calgary Alberta YSA Stake was organized from stakes in the Calgary area and includes the following six wards: the Brentwood YSA, Carburn Park YSA, Edworthy Park YSA, Highland Park YSA, Pine Creek YSA, and Priddis Valley YSA Wards. The new stake is the Church's eighth stake in Calgary.
There are now 26 stakes in Alberta, and 51 stakes and 3 districts in Canada.
Guatemala
The Church organized its second Q'eqchi'-speaking stake in Guatemala on May 5th. The Chulac Guatemala Stake was organized from the Chulac Guatemala District (organized in 1992). The new stake includes the following five wards and two branches: the Buena Vista, Chulac, Corralpec, Sajonte, and Semuy Wards, and the Searanx and Sepamac Branches. The Church's first Q'eqchi'-speaking stake was organized in Senahu in 2017.
There are now 50 stakes and 13 districts in Guatemala.
Nigeria
The Church recently organized a new stake in Abia State. The Umuahia Nigeria South Stake was organized from a division of the Umuahia Nigeria Stake. Information on which wards and branches are assigned to the new stake is currently unavailable; however, the stake had seven wards and eight branches prior to division. Thus, it is likely several branches became wards or new wards were organized in order for the new stake creation to occur, or some units from the Okpuala Ngwa Nigeria Stake were included in the new stake. The Umuahia Nigeria Stake was originally organized in 1996, but the stake was discontinued and divided into two districts in 2005 (Umuahia and Okpuala Ngwa). The Umuahia Nigeria Stake was reinstated in 2014, whereas the Okpuala Ngwa Stake was organized in 2015. Significant congregational growth has occurred particularly in the Umuahia Nigeria Stake since its creation.
There are now 57 stakes and 17 districts in Nigeria.
Philippines
The Church organized a new stake in Nigeria on May 5th. The Camarin Philippines Stake was organized from a division of the Novaliches Philippines Stake. The new stake includes the following five wards: the Bagong Silang 1st, Bagong Silang 2nd, Camarin 1st, Camarin 2nd, and the Sampaguita Wards. There are now 29 stakes in the Metro Manila area.
There are now 109 stakes and 67 districts in the Philippines
Cote d'Ivoire
The Church organized a new district on April 28th. The Danané Cote d'Ivoire District was created from missions branches in the Cote d'Ivoire Yamoussoukro Mission. The new district includes the following three branches: the Danané 1st, Danané 2nd, and Mahapleu Branches. The new district is the Church's third new district organized in Cote d'Ivoire in 2019, and all three of these new districts are located in the Montagnes District, where the Church operated no districts before 2019. Missionaries report plans to organize additional branches and districts in the Cote d'Ivoire Yamoussoukro Mission. Likely locations for future districts include Issia, Meagui, Saioua, Sinfra, and villages in rural communities nearby Daloa and Yamoussoukro. For example, there are currently plans to organize a second branch in Issia, and possibly a second branch in Saioua. A second branch was recently organized in Sinfra, and two new branches were recently organized in Meagui. Also, several new wards/branches appear likely to be organized in Daloa given recent reports from missionaries.
There are now 14 stakes and 15 districts in Cote d'Ivoire. In contrast, the Church in Cote d'Ivoire reported only three stakes and one district in 2009. Thus, the Church in Cote d'Ivoire has by far experienced the most rapid growth within the international Church during the past decade. Given recent growth trends, it appears likely that the Church may announce a second temple in Abidjan considering half of the Church's 12 stakes in the city are ready to divide, the relatively small size of the temple for the rapidly growth Church in the country, historically high levels of temple attendance, and distance from the temple site in Cocody to many of the members in Abidjan. This would be an extraordinary development if another temple were announced as the Church only recent started construction on the Church's first temple in the country, the Abidjan Cote d'Ivoire Temple. Yopougon appears the most likely candidate for Abidjan's second temple given this area of the city has five stakes and is on the west city of the metropolitan area, whereas Cocody is located on the east side of the metropolitan area.
70 comments:
Love reading about the progress in Cote D'Ivoire. On a side note, I believe the stake in the Phillipines is located in the Phillipines ;)
New temple presidents and matrons called to serve in Tonga, Chicago, Korea and other areas around the world
https://www.thechurchnews.com/callings/2019-05-16/temple-presidents-tonga-chicago-korea-world-49829
"Pedro D. and Sonia T. Penha
Pedro Jorge da Cruz Penha, 60, Torreão Ward, Recife Brazil Stake, called as president of the new Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temple. President Penha’s wife, Sonia da Silva Tepedino Penha, will serve as temple matron. He is a Recife Brazil Temple presidency counselor and a former Area Seventy, Brazil Belém Mission president, stake president, bishop and patriarch. Retired institute director for the Church Educational System, he was born in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Alcidéa da Cruz Penha.
Sister Penha is an assistant to the matron of the Recife Brazil Temple and a former stake Relief Society and Young Women president, ward Relief Society presidency counselor and ward Young Women president. She was born in Três Rios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to José Carlos and Ivanete da Silva Tepedino."
I wonder if we're gonna hear of YSA stakes created in other countries besides the US and Canada
In foreign countries where the Church is robustly growing many of the cultures have less singles because they marry sooner, I believe.
Also, I think family togetherness across generations would make singles wards harder to come by.
Church is about family unity, I could see singles wards being a sort of threat to that notion or practice.
This is all I can find on YSA Congregations outside the U.S. and Canada
2 in Auckland, New Zealand
2 in Brisbane, Australia
1 in Sydney, Australia
1 in Singapore
1 in Manila, Philippines
1 in Gaborone, Botswana
1 in London, England
1 in Manchester, England
Edmonton, Alberta also has enough YSA wards for a YSA stake and enough regular wards for the existing stakes to get by without them.
What are the prospects of a temple being built in the Q'echi speaking area?
I seem to recall having read about how excited members were when it was announced the endownment had been translated to Mayan. I am not sure if this was specifically Q'echi.
In another note I am not sure we understand how significant the Salt Lake Temple going to having the endownment available in all 86 languages is.
While presiding over the Umuahia South stake organization Elder Dube predicted that Nigeria would reach 100 stakes by 2030.
Elder Dube was the first stake president in Zimbabwe. The article I read about this said something about 9 years forZimbabwe's first stake. It might have been 9 years until they got 2. I think it was closer to 60 years for Zimbabwe to get a stake. Although it took at least 6 years after 1978 for the Church to even begin moving away from being a white settler majority Church. Here in Detroit we wish the move had only taken 6 years. It was more like 10 and some days it feels like we have never bridged the gap.
How ling until Daloa gets a temple?
How easy is travel from other parts of Ivory Coast to Abijan? How far is the temple from the Airport.
I could see 7 temples announced for west Africa this October. Benin City, somewhere in Akwa Ibom state, Kumasi, a second Abijan temple, Yamassokro, Monrovia and Freetown. That would nearly dounble the 9 temples currently in some stake for Africa. I could see Lumbumbashi and Kampala having temples announced and maybe Brazzaville for good measure maybe more than doubling temples for Africa.
I believe the singapore congregation was just formed.
Singles congregations in the US began as student units. Early on single and married students were grouped together.
However there is always a benefit to a unified congregation in a college town, where the expertise in passed more broadly and where families all work together.
One thing that is not always pointed out is in some parts of Utah singles units functioned to give the non-singles units more viable youth programs.
It has been pointed out that in some areas at some times the majority of members are YSAs.
Church members in places like Ghana have historically married at older ages than the total population.
However with many converts being YSAs and other factors seperate wards are not justified. Also in some areas like much of Europe to achieve stable sized by membership wards the Church has gone to taking in large areas in congregations. This is especially true in Belgium. This does not bode well for taking people out to make YSA units.
Only Auckland and Brisbane could I see getting YSA stakes in the short term, and unless there are YSA groups in existing wards not yet seperated out, something I know exists some places, I doubt even those will be before the decade is out.
Two interesting things that I came across the past several days from both churchofjesuschristtemples.org and comments made on James' blog that I wanted to pass on:
First, a recent article in a Brazilian newspaper mentioned that Elder Soares will dedicate the Fortaleza Temple next month.
Second, a columnist for "The Jewish News of Northern California", David Wilensky, wrote about his experience of touring the Oakland Temple recently with Elders Cook and Stevenson. It's a great article and about halfway through it he wrote: "There are just 200 temples, completed or in the works, worldwide. The church’s goal is for 90 percent of its 16 million members to live within two hours of a temple, according to Emily Utt, the church’s historic sites curator. To live within reach of a temple is essential to the faithful."
https://www.jweekly.com/2019/05/14/a-journey-into-the-holy-of-holies-in-a-latter-day-saints-temple/
Two hours could mean an average off 100-120 miles in good traffic conditions in the US. Other countries the roads or method of transportation in an area could mean even more time for that same distance. So in making predictions we have to account for local travel conditions on a general level.
Three other factors are heavily involved and while those are not known specifically, regional anecdotal evidence regarding what is emphasized at a local level may provide clues as to what may yet be needed. Those three to look for are tithing faithfulnesss, sacrament meeting attendance, and use of an existing temple. A new temple opening usually will also mean more than before going and more frequently so that last one is a good gauge of how that might play out, the exception being significant distances to a temple.
Hello again, everyone! In view of some extensive health challenges my wife and I have continued to deal with of late, and due to all I was personally covering on my own blog, I have not commented on this blog in a while (around 3-4 weeks at least). But I have followed the threads of discussion as found here and have been very much uplifted and inspired thereby.
With the developments reported here relating to Guatemala, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Côte d'Ivoire, new temples there in the near future would not shock me at all. That said, while the idea of a second temple to serve the Saints in Abidjan is intriguing, given that none of the 3 sets of temple announcements made by President Nelson included a second temple for any major capital city in the world, mileage, the rigor or difficulty of travel, and the number of units in a prospective new temple district may be more of a focus.
On my end, research I have done recently points to the idea that, if the Ivory Coast is getting a second temple in the near future, it may be located in Yamoussoukro, which is far enough away from both Abidjan and other capital cities in neighboring nations that a temple there might be a priority. In the meantime, it has been suggested on my blog for a while now that the next Guatemala Temple will most likely be built in Coban. A third temple in Nigeria may go to Benin City, and could be announcd within the next 2-4 General Conferences, or certainly sooner if all goes well. And I have 3 candidate cities in the Philippines which seem most likely to have a temple announced: Tacloban, Bacolod, or Angeles.
I have some additional thoughts to offer on the subject of temples in the near future, but will offer them in a new comment in just a few minutes.
I was informed in the comments of my blog about the article in the Jewish newspaper, which referenced a statement from historic sites curator Emily Utt. The wording of that statement noted that the end goal towards which the Church is working is to have 90% of all Church members living within 2 hours of a temple. When that was mentioned on my blog, I shared, among other thoughts, the following comments:
"What she reportedly said very much aligns with what we have heard in recent months from apostles regarding President Nelson's plans. Having noted that, I did have a couple of additional thoughts about the temple expansion plans. I know that the nature of some of the statements we have heard recently seemed to imply that a substantial increase in the number of temples worldwide was imminently likely in the near future.
"But what if these statements, as given by prophets, seers, and revelators, are taking the long view in terms of those plans? What if the goals we have heard are the ultimate destination to which the temple construction program is heading, rather than something that will be implemented in the more distant future rather than the immediate or near future?
"Let me be clear: The fact that 37 new temples have been announced in the first three General Conferences of President Nelson's prophetic administration is surely unprecedented, and I fully anticipate more temples contiuing to be announced for the foreseeable future. But tese quenstions have been on my mind primarily because the Lord reminds us that we should not run faster or labor harder than we have strength to do so, and that all things should be done in wisdom and order.
"And with the knowledge of how vibrant and vigorous President Nelson is, that his Brethren anticipate he will be with us for at least another decade or two, and that General Conference last month represented an effort to provide constancy in the midst of the changes which had occurtred and would yet occur. So I am convinced that the temple expansion will be done in a very methodical way.
"That belief goes back to what President Nelson said in January 2018 from the Salt Lake Temple annex: 'We want to begin with the end in mind.' While President Nelson has been ahead of the curve in a lot of ways, and is more vigourous and healthy now than are most men 20-30 years younger than he is, these statements may be a long view of what is to come throughout President Nelson's presidency, rather than an immediate and significant increase in the number of temples.
"There also needs to be a focus on clearing the queue as additional temples continue to be announced. With all of that in mind, while I hope and believe that we will see a significant increase in the total number of temples over the next several years, perhaps more needs to be done before [the detailing and full implementation of President Nelson's plans] can happen. That said, I fully believe that what is coming for temple construction will be unprecedented, as it has been so far."
My reason for reproducing that part of my response here is to demonstrate that if President Nelson is going to be around until 2030 or even 2040, based on other things we have heard him and other apostles say, the ten-fold increase may not be as imminent, instant, or immediate as many of us have theorized previously. If that is the endgame result, there may be more pieces that need to fall into place before a mass number of temples would subsequently be announced at the same time. Amd I think a dual focus on both clearing the queue and regularly announcing new temples may serve as the foundation or springboard whereby the Church will ultimately see the ten-fold increase as has been described.
With all of that being said, I hope that for all of us, the ideas I have expressed here would not lessen our justified excitement that 27 new temples have been announced over the first 3 General Conferences of President Nelson's prophetic administration. Additionally, FWIW, based on my own research and the feedback I have received from a variety of sources, it seems safe to assume that President Nelson could (and likely will) announce roughly 12-16 additional new temples in October.
If that does wind up happening, then there are sure to be some locations of significance. That said, I have not yet seen anything which indicates that the Church is anywhere close to announcing two temples for any single nation (outside the US) this upcoming October. And I also anticipate that only 2-4 of the total number of temples that wind up being announced will be within the United States.
And in that respect, I have provided lots of additional content within the last month on my blog covering a wide variety of subjects relating to the Church, the ministry of our apostles, temple progress, and General Conference. I am in the midst of making final adjustments, edits, and improvements to the list of potential locations in which a temple may be announced during the October 20189 General Conference and hope to be able to publish that list at some point either during this weekend or early next week. I will also have full analysis of the Pacific Ministry Tour on which the Nelsons and Gongs have embarked.
With my ongoing thanks to Matt for the great, informative, and thought-provoking content he provides, and to all of you as well for adding to my understanding of the topics discussed in these threads, I'd also like to thank Matt for his ongoing willingness to allow me to post about content on my own blog in these threads. I welcome any and all feedback on any content at any time, and would appreciate the chance to dialogue more about these subjects there as well. The web address for my blog follows below:
http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/
I'd like to add here as well that new information of which I became aware today indicates that the renovation process for the Asuncion Paraguay Temple is anticipated to conclude by the end of this year. But it may not be as clear whether both its' open house and rededication will occur prior to the Christmas 2019 and New Year 2020 holiday observances, or if the open house will wrap up before the holidays, with the rededication in early January.
New information on the Durban South Africa Temple indicates its' open house and dedication may be delayed until early 2020 as well. And unless I miss my guess, the 8 temples for which the Church will have broken ground before the end of June may be overshadowed by the number of temples which will have a groundbreaking in the 5 months following the conclusion of the annual July recess for the General Authorities.
Just some additional thoughts from me, for what they may be worth to any and all who read them. My thanks once again to you all and especially to Matt for all his hard work and outstanding analysis.
James: Are you suggesting that President Nelson will be leading the Church "at least another decade or two" until "2030 or even 2040"?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's around for another decade, but two is pushing it. I interpreted that statement as a joke.
I'm more and more convinced of one of the main reasons, besides the symbolism, as to why all of the First presidency and Quorum of the Twelve attended the Rome Temple Dedication. He said something to the effect that the twelve will be better prepared to go unto all the world after this event. He also mentioned that there would be 12 temple dedications (or rededications) this year. I think its highly possible that is was a sort of "Training" for them to be prepared to preside at a temple dedication. So far the presiding authority to recent or announced temple dedications have been:
Rome: Nelson
Kinshasa: Renlund
Memphis: Holland
Oklahoma City: Eyring
Fortaleza: Soares
Raleigh: Ballard
Baton Rouge: Cook
Guesses:
Oakland: Bednar or Gong (Both born in bay area)
Port-au-Prince: Anderson (speaks french)
Lisbon: Ransband (or Soares again, served as mission president in Portugal)
Frankfurt: Uchtdorf
Dedications not announced but perhaps this year or early next year:
Arequipa: Christofferson
Durban: Stevenson/Oaks/Bednar
Asuncion: Christofferson/Holland/Oaks
Tokyo: Stevenson
Christopher & Thomas: that was no joke at all on my part, nor was it meant to be a joke by anyone else who said it. Every apostolic ministry report wherein any of the other apostles reference our prophet's health and vigor indicates that even our youngest apostle, Elder Soares, at 3.5 decades younger than the prophet, has trouble keeping up with him. And all the other apostles report having that same trouble. I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, but his wife Wendy has repeatedly shared that, watching him function day-to-day as the Lord's prophet, he does not act his age, and daily has the health & vigor of men 20-30 years younger than himself. There has also been a report that President Nelson told his counselors about what the Lord has planned for the Church over the next few years, and that revelation is coming to him to a significant degree. If there are changes anticipated to be implemented by President Nelson based on that inspiration, I doubt he would be obtaining it for changes that would be made by any of his prophetic successors. Based on all of this, a decade or two more for President Nelson may be an extreme underestimate. Again, I'd be more inclined to consider it a joke if it was a single isolated statement by one apostle or just his wife. But his wife and a majority (if not all) of his fellow apostles say the same things, so these statements cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. A search on the Church News website for President Nelson will confirm the statements. Not a joke at all.
Cory, thanks for your theories on who might preside at temple dedications or rededications. I have not personally seen any evidence yet that a more junior apostle than Elder Christofferson will be assigned to preside over a temple rededication. But it does seem likely that any apostle's past ties to a city in which a new temple is built may be assigned to preside at its' dedication. In that respect, going back & looking at the previous area assignments of apostles who served in area presidencies either prior to or (in the cases of then-Elder Oaks and Elder Holland) as part of their apostolic ministry may be helpful.
President Nelson said some interesting things last night in Samoa:
“This Church, when restored in its fulness, will prepare the world for the coming of the Lord,” but not before Christ’s followers are persecuted, he said.
“Church members in the Samoan Islands will not be immune from being persecuted,” he said, warning them to “prepare to be persecuted, even every day,” and telling them they have a solemn duty to prepare for it.
“Please protect your families from the deception you will see in your future,” he said. “That’s why we are all busily engaged in this work. We have to fortify our people against attacks of the adversary.”
Was from this article:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-05-18/pacific-tour-president-nelson-samoa-devotional-tuimalealiifano-vaaletoa-sualauvi-ii-49865?fbclid=IwAR2OATp9eZbCIpuI8swoh_cBrqdClZXchzAQWFqG4b_lp6LWcdsHAHA1Jtg
James Anderson, I just commented on that article and the Newsroom's coverage of his time in Samoa on my blog a short while ago. That coverage was significant for one other reason: for the first time ever, at least insofar as I am aware, a Catholic leader who was in attendance was quoted as sharing his testimony of President Nelson being the Lord's prophet on the earth today. That may very well be unprecedented. At very least, it is surely unique. That just goes to show that the inspirational power associated with someone bearing the prophetic mantle can and does at times transcend beyond religion. I was grateful that the Catholic leader in question shared that.
Despite the fact that President Nelson is showing incredible vigor for his age, living until 2030 would put him at around 105 years of age. Right now there are a handfull of people in the entire world at that age. I think that the Prophet might make it to his late 90s, but I do not see him going beyond 100. God knows all, and if he lives to be 105 good for all of us. I expect another president by 2030, which will be great for the Lord's Church.
20 years would put him in the top 10 of oldest living men ever recorded, outside the Bible anyway
Eduardo, you are, of course, entilted to your own opinion. Everything I have seen indicates to me that he's got at least another two decades at minimum. Only a handful of people live to that age? I think you'll find that the Church News disagrees with you on that point. Go to that website, and search the term "Centenarians". The Church News reports on such individuals at least twice a month, and there are at least two Latter-dsay Saints whose latest milestones as such are honored each time. The blessings associated with the Word of Wisdom and the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood has, does now, and will yet lead to people being beneficiaries of those promises through a miraculous extension of life.
I think one reason the statistics about centenarian Latter-day Saints may get skewed at times is because not a lot of Church Presidents have lived past 95. There have only been 3 of the 17 Church Presidents that fit that description, and 1 other who was close to it. And if other apostles are considered, that number rises to 5 of the 18 nonagenarian apostles there have been in this dispensation.
But I also think that people are evaluating President Nelson's lifespan prospects in some ways by those of his last two predecessors. And that's an unfair comparison as well. President Nelson needs to be judged in that respect on what has been said about him, including and especially by those who are interacting with and observing him day-to-day. I believe that some in the Church do a discourtesy to President Nelson by not taking the statements of his wife and his fellow apostles regarding his vigor and capacities into account in our assessment of his probable life expectancy.
Also, the Lord reminds us in Isaiah that His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. With that in mind, to only take mortal considerations and assessments into account in evaluating the probable life expectancy of our prophet seems in my opinion to be short-sighted. Having said all of that, if what you have seen, read, and heard has you convinced that President Nelson has only got 3-4 years left in him, that's not a problem. We can certainly agree to disagree for now. And in the meantime, if by some chance you are correct, and he does not have as much time as many (myself included) are anticipating, I will gladly come back here then and concede that you were right.
For now, however, everything I have seen, heard, and read indicates President Nelson's got a decade or two at minimum left in him. And again, the thing is that this is not just an isolated mention or two. His fellow apostles and his own wife talk about this all the time. So to me, there is overwhelming evidence that those statements should be taken seriously. If others disagree, that is their prerogative. I certainly hold no ill will towards anyone who disagrees, and hope no offense was taken by anyone who read my thoughts on this. All the best.
Downtownchrisbrown, i did not realize that another decade or two would put President Nelson among the top 10 oldest men in the world, but it makes sense. Also, I did the legwork for any who are interested. The following web address leads to a list of all articles on the Church News from most recent to least covering centenarians within the Church. I think any of you who look over these results will find at least 100 have been reported thus far in 2019. Food for thought, again, for what that may be worth to anyone here.
https://www.thechurchnews.com/search?q=Centenarians
I wonder if Emily Itt is related to the Utt who is director of the BYU honors program. 200 miles I think neccesitates a temple in Benin City. Cape Town too.
2 hours is a lot less than 100 miles in most metro-areas in the US. 2 hours means we should have a temple in Grand Rapids or Lansing in Michigan.
Elders Bednar and Gong were both born and raised in the bay area. This is not a case like Bruce R. McConkie born in Ann Arbor and raised in Utah. I hope Elder Gong rededicates the Oakland Temple. However Elder Bednar grew up much closer to Oakland, while where Elder Gong grew up was in the San Jose Temple district. Im convinced San Jose will have a temple announced before the dexade is out.
That may be so buteven President Hinckley was not able to outlive 100.
I woulx be shocked if President Nelson made it past 105. Of course making it that far might not be much longer than President McKay making it to 96 when advances in medicine are considered.
Elder Renlund presided at Kinshasa and he is more junior than Elder Christopherson.
His phrasing seems to indicate the Church is not yet restored in its fulness. The reforms and reemphasises of temple work are more key to this full restoration than we realize.
This has more to do with the rareity of good birth records in many populations before 1900 than anything else.
Since Church members are less than 0.5% of the world population, that means thinking 3000 people have tirned 100 in 2019 is probably a conservative estimate.
The weiter Herman Wouk just died at age 104 about 2 months ago. It is true that life expectancy has not risen as much as we would have hoped in 1960 based on the advances in the previous 60 years. Infant mortality rates in the US have if anything gotten worse. This may be more a result of criminalizing midwifery than anything else.
Also I meant 0.2% of the world population in my last post.
According to a UK website.
116 known British residents over 107.
18 over 110.
67 residents of USA over 110. So about 5.5 x UK. USA has five times UK population. So over 107, could be around 550-600 mark. The author of the UK site believes the UK figures to actually be 50% more.
I live in Alberta and am surprised Calgary got its YSA stake before Edmonton. Edomonton YSA has always been known as being very robust. I would expect one soon.
Rates of age are rising worldwide, which help the prospects of all of us reaching older ages. President Nelson started later than most and is amazingly lucid and fit for his age, even surpassing some in their 60s and seventies. It's great to behold. I hope his penchant for Chinese and his relationships there bear fruit there.
Each prophet has his work, as do their wives and children and relatives.
Observing the last years of Presidents Hinckley and Monson were interesting. I believe the latter had a longer more pronounced regression in health, while Gordan's last months seem to catch him faster. Not trying to be morbid, but also think of close loved ones who passed away in their 70s, 80s, and 90s.
I had an uncle pass away pretty recently at age 100 (is five years ago recent?). His wife had passed 25 years before during my mission.
The words of Isaiah are certainly true, I do not pretend to know His mind or complete intent for all. Interesting to think of U.S. presidents by 2024 or 2028. No other members on the horizon? I like everything I hear from Mia Love... Too bad Utah did not support her more. But I think she will come back strong.
Likely Erdogan and Putin will still be in power in 2028. Assad, too.
But again, the future can bring many changes.
Pardon, Gordon. I got to know one of his grandsons, Michael. He served in Czechia, early mid-nineties. I am not on a first name basis with any General Authority but I wanted to spell out the first name for practice of familiarity.
I'd like to add my own two cents about the discussion on President Nelson's age.
In our Western American culture, it's common (at least in my experience) when a loved one or friend becomes an octagenarian or nonagenarian and are in extremely good health, to make positive comments/idiomatic expressions to them about their age. Comments such as: "Wow, you're a spring chicken!" or "You're going to be around another 10, 20, or 30 years!"
Why do we do this?
A couple of reasons that I can surmise:
1. Many people that reach that age aren't in good health, and it's surprising to see someone looking robust and energetic well into their 80's & 90's (such as President Hinckley was).
2. It's generally understood and unspoken that said person is nearing the end of their life, so we are kind and optimistic with them, while also understanding that we are being tongue-in-cheek by flattering them in this way.
3. We love that person and want them to be around for as long as possible, and it would be nice (if unlikely) if they did live that long and were able to maintain that health.
Our Prophets and Apostles aren't above using such idiomatic expressions. Therefore, sometimes we need to take some of what they say with a grain of salt, rather than at face-value.
In my reading of the scriptures/Church history and my own experience, I've seen Apostles & Prophets capable of jokes, exaggeration, sarcasm, mistakes, opinions, etc.
After all, Brother Joseph himself once said, "This morning I...visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet;" but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."
See: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible
or https://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T5.html
A few of examples of this:
Elder Holland predicted 100,000 missionaries serving by 2019. Did this happen? Not strictly, as far as full-time missionaries go. Either he was overly enthusiastic about the new surge of missionaries due to the lowering of the age for missionary work and made an optimistically exaggerated prediction, or he was talking about the numbers of full-time missionaries combined with Church-service missionaries. However, his initial statement doesn't entirely make this clear, therefore that allows for differences in interpretations based on the context.
For his quote, see here: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2249417&itype=CMSID
Another example is also from Elder Holland (I swear I'm not intentionally picking on him, just using recent examples I can think of). He retracted a story he told about missionary work when he found that story to not be completely accurate. He made a mistake, he apologized, and that's fine.
See: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html
An example from President Hinckley:
"At the groundbreaking ceremony for the Vernal Utah Temple, President Hinckley said that constructing a temple from an existing building was something "we've never done before and we are not likely to do again."'
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/vernal-utah-temple/
Since then, Copenhagen, Manhattan, and Provo City Center have been converted from pre-existing buildings. It's fairly obvious then, from the context, that President Hinckley was expressing his opinion on the matter and not being prophetic.
One final example, and this one's from the Lord (Matthew 13: 31-32):
"...The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed...Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree..."
You've heard this one in seminary. The mustard seed isn't actually the least (smallest) of all seeds, and it doesn't grow into the greatest (largest) of all trees. The Lord wasn't lying, he was using a flowery idiomatic expression that he figured his audience would understand: that something small can grow into something big (faith, for example).
"The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men." - B. H. Roberts
Source: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible#cite_note-2
There are a few reasons I read this blog:
1. To find out hard facts/numbers/statistics of how the Church of Jesus Christ is growing. I like when Matt and others post verifiable numbers of new stakes, wards, missions, etc.
2. I like to hear Matt and others make educated guesses about possible new temple sites or likely new units of the Church. Many of us have access to information/sources that others of us don't, and it's nice to pool our resources and have a running dialogue about what's likely to happen.
3. I like to hear some outright predictions occasionally (and make some myself). This is more of a "fantasy pick" aspect of the comments section of this site, and it's fun to speculate on what might happen. It's exciting to imagine the possibilities, whether or not they'll actually happen in our lifetimes/ever.
However, while the possibilities and speculations are fun, I mostly watch this blog for the hard, actual numbers.
That said, it is useful when those posting or commenting here make differentiations between what is an actual fact, what is a possibility or likelihood, and what is pure speculations.
It's also nice when we allow others to speculate, interpret info, or have a different viewpoint without immediately naysaying, condescending, or being contrary.
I have noticed, James, that (as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm for commenting and sharing about your blog) you have the tendency to sometimes immediately gainsay others' points of view, while upholding and defending your own opinions, and sticking to what may be second-hand or unverifiable information yourself (or taking such information completely at face-value).
For examples:
Your statement: "There has also been a report that President Nelson told his counselors about what the Lord has planned for the Church over the next few years, and that revelation is coming to him to a significant degree. If there are changes anticipated to be implemented by President Nelson based on that inspiration, I doubt he would be obtaining it for changes that would be made by any of his prophetic successors."
There is plenty of historical precedent for one prophet receiving revelation that laid the foundation of work for his successor(s). This is part of what we know as "prophetic succession."
Joseph Smith laid the foundation of the Church, then Brigham Young received the mantle and led.
Brother Brigham started the construction of the Salt Lake Temple, which Wilford Woodruff completed (and which is still being worked on - see the April 19 renovation announcement).
President Monson announced several temples which have (and are) being built and dedicated by President Nelson, his successor.
An example of condescending and gainsaying another commenter's point of view and research:
Cory said:
"I'm more and more convinced of one of the main reasons, besides the symbolism, as to why all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve attended the Rome Temple Dedication. He said something to the effect that the twelve will be better prepared to go unto all the world after this event. He also mentioned that there would be 12 temple dedications (or rededications) this year. I think its highly possible that is was a sort of "Training" for them to be prepared to preside at a temple dedication."
Your response:
"I have not personally seen any evidence yet that a more junior apostle than Elder Christofferson will be assigned to preside over a temple rededication."
First off, Cory said it was a "possibility." It's unnecessary to point out/correct him that there's no evidence for it, as he was speculating based on information at hand by listing which previous Apostles had been assigned to what temple dedications/rededications. Cory is showing a pattern that lead him to a conclusion. You can respect that he's done his research (as he obviously took some time to find out which Apostles had been assigned to what, predicted likely assignments for the future, made a list of that information, and then shared it with us). This makes his hypothesis something that may be likely. Many things are announced that you and I have "seen no evidence of," that's what makes them a happy surprise, or "unprecedented." Many of our predictions here are based on historical trends or patterns, and not necessarily that someone from the pulpit absolutely said this was/wasn't going to happen. We're making guesses and predictions, but we'd like to think they're educated guesses and predictions. It's also important to note that Cory actually showed us the pattern that led him to his conclusion, and didn't just say, "Hey! I've got this crazy theory..." and left it at that.
Additionally, Unknown added later, "Elder Renlund presided at Kinshasa and he is more junior than Elder Christopherson." Although that was a dedication, and not a rededication (as was your nitpick), here's another person doing some verifiable research and adding some evidence to uphold Cory's possible pattern.
Many other announcements made by the Church/Brethren have also come as a surprise/been unexpected. Sometimes there's no hard evidence that a Prophet will announce something as groundbreaking as 100 temples by the year 2,000, or rebuilding the Nauvoo Temple from scratch, or having multiple temples in the same city, or changing home teaching to ministering, or suddenly reducing the missionary age. But these things still happen. Your saying, "This won't happen because I see no evidence to indicate it," is as specious an argument as someone saying to you, "President Nelson definitely absolutely won't live another 1 to 2 decades, no matter what anyone says, because I see no evidence proving it!" None of us here can for certain predict the future. These are possibilities we're talking about, and possibilities mean we don't know for sure what actually might happen, we're just having fun discussing.
Another example:
Eduardo said, "Despite the fact that President Nelson is showing incredible vigor for his age, living until 2030 would put him at around 105 years of age. Right now there are a handful of people in the entire world at that age."
A "handful of people" is, again, an idiomatic expression. Eduardo used it to mean "a small amount." It doesn't literally always mean an actual handful.
Some statistics:
"In 2014, there were 72,197 Americans aged 100 or older, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That number is up 44 percent from 2000, when there were only 50,281 centenarians."
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-more-americans-over-age-100-now-and-they-are-living-longer-180957914/
Let's say for sake of argument that, as of 2019, that number has increased exponentially to 1 Million 100 year-olds in the USA. Compare that to the roughly 330 Million total people who currently populate the US. 1 out of 330 could be considered a pretty small amount, or a "handful," if you will.
As for checking the Church News goes:
So, we have 100 centenarians so far this year (5/20/2019). Let's be very generous and say there will be 1,000 reported by the end of this year.
There are roughly 2 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Utah.
There are roughly 16 Million members of the Church worldwide.
That means 0.0005% of Utahns might be centenarians.
That means 0.0000625% (at very least) of the Worldwide Church would be centenarians (that we know about, based on what's reported in the Church News).
Let's be exceptionally generous, and say that there are 100,000 centenarians in the Worldwide Church. That's still only 0.00625% of Church Membership.
By your own standards (of only taking into account rough numbers of centenarians we read about in the paper), those are still incredibly small percentages. There may be more, there may be less, based on the fact that the Church News usually reports on local centenarians in the Western United States (correct me if I'm wrong and you've seen them post people's names from Taiwan or Mexico or Bali).
But that's kind of the point. We don't know how many there are, because they don't post totals. We don't know how many they left in or out. Just reading the paper twice a month isn't the same as actually crunching the numbers, because we don't have the numbers. What we do know is that, by most statistical standards, those possible small percentages of centenarians that we actually do know about could reasonably be considered "a handful of people" by Eduardo or others. (Math wizards, please correct me if I'm way off base with my calculations.)
This is why it's important to not just take everything someone says literally and immediately run off with it to argue semantics. That way, you'll avoid making constant strawman arguments.
One more quote from an article that I found helpful in researching this:
"Mormon women in the study had a life expectancy of more than 86 years— five years longer than comparable women overall; men lived to an average of more than 84 years, which was almost a decade longer."
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/mormonism-good-for-the-body-as-well-as-the-soul/2012/06/20/gJQARk3IqV_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.285b2ae50f6d
This goes back to my and others' original points here. If the average age for female members is 86 years, and the average age for male members is 84, then it's not unreasonable for some of us to think (based on precedent) that the Apostles were joking or using wishful thinking when they said President Nelson would live another couple of decades, even if several of them repeated the same sentiment.
A couple of other points:
There're a few quotes you like to share over and over, that I'd like some clarification on (forgive/correct me if I've misquoted them):
1. "The Church/Brethren are going to change the goal of having temples within 200 miles of the majority of members to being within 50 to 100 miles of the majority of members."
2. "The Church/Brethren have the plans for 80 new temples in the pipeline for the near future."
What are the sources for these claims? And are they written sources that can be verified by others (like those of us who read this blog)? I've seen other people ask for your sources on at least one of these quotes before, but haven't yet seen/might have missed you post the source.
If they aren't reliable sources available to all of us, I would please ask you to stop continuing to quote them here as if they're hard and fast doctrine. It's fine to believe rumors from people you know, it's another thing to confuse rumors as facts and continue to spread them around.
I understand the desire to have "an inside source," but if that source is unverifiable by anyone else, we have no reason to believe you're not making it up or just taking hearsay at face value.
This is why, in the scientific world, they have peer reviews, so that others can verify the information. Like I said, I'm here first and foremost for hard numbers on Church growth, and secondly for speculation (and others are probably here for the same reason). If the response is always, "My unnamed source told me such and such," then many of us will assume it's an unfounded rumor, and won't see you as a credible commenter.
I heard a story a few years back that Elder Bednar said Missoula Montana might get a temple someday. I've heard that President Hinckley said a similar thing around the time of the Billings, MT dedication. What I haven't seen, however, is any written verifiable source upholding these claims. While I personally believe these quotes are (probably) true, I let people know they're rumors when I share them. I don't continually spread them around like they're gospel.
One last point I'd like to reiterate is that of mutual respect.
Christopher Nicholson said:
"I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's around (President Nelson) for another decade, but two is pushing it. I interpreted that statement as a joke."
Your Response:
"Christopher & Thomas: that was no joke at all on my part, nor was it meant to be a joke by anyone else who said it."
"Again, I'd be more inclined to consider it a joke if it was a single isolated statement by one apostle or just his wife. But his wife and a majority (if not all) of his fellow apostles say the same things, so these statements cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. A search on the Church News website for President Nelson will confirm the statements. Not a joke at all."
I appreciate you think the comments said about President Nelson are absolutely true, but please don't try to tell us what we're allowed to think or feel about them. Some of us have differing (and just as valid) viewpoints on these matters as you do.
We want you to comment, we want to have conversations with you, but just shutting down someone else's viewpoint immediately with comments like "these statements cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand" or "nor was it meant to be a joke by anyone else who said it" doesn't give other people the benefit of the doubt. It tells us you think you can read the minds of the Prophets and Apostles and know exactly what they were thinking and feeling when they made those statements and anyone else who disagrees with you is wrong for even disagreeing.
It isn't cool or courteous or respectful. It shows that you only trust your own opinion and views. You can't just continually say someone else is wrong for interpreting something differently and expect them to continue listening to your opinion.
I understand you want your voice heard, and you want people to check out your blog, too. Great. Fine. But immediate contradictions to others' views/research/ideas, and constantly posting 5 paragraph responses to every post and comment others make is not the way to get more readers.
Like I said, we want you to comment, just don't be the guy who has to comment/respond/contradict/give an opinion about EVERY post. When you have an opinion and/or comment on everything, and that opinion is habitually contrary or disrespectful of others' intelligence, it becomes a problem. Again, it lessens your credibility.
I say this, because it seems like you want people to be EXCITED to read your blog and your comments, and not be like, "Uggh...this guy. He comments on EVERYTHING." SKIP! (As some others have pointed out on this blog that they regularly skip your comments, too.)
Respect that others may have more information available to them than you do, just as we respect that you may have more information available to you than we do. Because if you always act like you're the smartest person in the room, eventually you will be, because you'll be the only one there.
As far as President Nelson living for 1 or 2 more decades, I respectfully disagree that that statement was made as a prophetic statement. I think the brethren or others who said it did so out of love, respect, a bit of wonder at his longevity, and a bit of mirth.
5 more years? Probable. 10 more years? Possible (though a bit unlikely). 20 more? (highly unlikely, though I'd be amazed and delighted if it did happen, as long as he was still going strong and healthy).
If I'm wrong, and the "prophecy" ends up being true, then I'll eat my own hat (with ketchup).
P.S. My Uncle Lloyd from Wyoming died at 107 last year.
https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/wyoming-surveyor-dies-at/article_d6d5b8c6-61a5-5726-99ac-d412f5a2a8e2.html
Disappointed at the above comments attacking one commentator personally. Brother Stokes has quite the background and story. While my approach and methods in commenting and speculating certainly differ from his, and we all could use a little more humility when we speculate, such a comprehensive attack was uncalled for.
https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2015/07/young-adults/christ-has-felt-my-pain?lang=eng
I personally didn't take any offence to the the response to my comment. I don't think the dissection of the exchange was necessary or productive.
The articles written about the Oklahoma City Temple rededication mention President Eyring's connection to the state. If you recall from a talk in priesthood session a few years back, his great grandfather Heinrich Eyring was a missionary in the Indian Territory for many years. This does strengthen the idea that the first presidency is assigning apostles to preside in dedications where they have personal connections. Of course this is a trend, not a rule, that I wished to point out. I guessed Elder Christofferson for Arequipa and Asuncion because of his mission in south america and his ability to speak Spanish. But, Of course it could be anyone.
The often quoted "200 miles to the nearest temple" statement came from President Monson himself in General Conference a few times over the years. In 2009, he stated that 83% percent of Church membership lived within 200 miles of a temple:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/welcome-to-conference?lang=eng
In 2011 he stated the number was 85%:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-holy-temple-a-beacon-to-the-world?lang=eng
It seemed to be a goal of President Monson to increase that number. During the open house of the Idaho Falls temple in 2017, The head of the temple department did a sit down with a reporter. He explained the process of choosing cities to build temples. He stated that they analyze number of members, growth of the church, distance to the nearest temple, and cost to travel, in addition to other variables. In a sense, what we do on this blog is the same thing as what the temple department does. They just have more resources, we do more guess work. He also stated that the temple department has a long term plan and has identified 80 locations that MAY qualify for a temple in the next 15 years. This does NOT mean that they WILL receive a temple, but that the indicators are good to do so:
https://www.eastidahonews.com/2017/04/east-idaho-newsmakers-mormon-temple-dept-executive-director-elder-larry-wilson/
The comments from Emily Utt seem to indicate that the goal of the temple department has shifted under President Nelson to be having 90% of members within two hours of travel to the nearest temple:
https://www.jweekly.com/2019/05/14/a-journey-into-the-holy-of-holies-in-a-latter-day-saints-temple/
The comments signify that there is a sort of "inside baseball" that occurs in the temple department that occasionally gets out to the public. All temple announcements only occur with approval of the Church President, which for members of the church means through revelation. When the Pocatello Temple was announced, another local news outlet interviewed a general authority and stated that president Monson personally approved of it. By 2017 it was reported that he was not actively participating in church meetings, nevertheless they still consulted him on temple announcements. I'm not sure God cares exactly where the church builds temples, only that we do so and that we maximize the resources in the best way possible.
It's interesting to me that there is an ancient world religion from which Christianity sprung that is currently pretty well known for debate over the interpretation of the Law of God as previously revealed and implemented. There is a word for that process in Hebrew, I forget it, but Chaim Potok describes it aptly and poignantly in some of his masterful books. Here in our faith, which claims equally or even more more ancient origins of a latter day restored truth, we can vigorously debate present and future revelation, policy, or Law.
God is good, we are free to deliberate and offer conjecture. Things work out, and the appointed men and women holding the keys of the Kingdom are fine. They need our support, sweat, faith, and prayers.
We wish to be united as one people, as the Master ittered in John 17, in the most critical hours in human history.
Now it's on us, those who take His name upon us. Don't let up.
*uttered. (Ahh, almost got through that without err!)
@Michael Worley & Cory & James:
I appreciate your responses to my comments. I also appreciate you sharing the article about James' personal health struggles. It was enlightening and touching to read about his example and personal testimony. Cory, it was also helpful to see you share the sources for some of those quotes I asked about.
I understand that James is a unique individual with his own personal struggles. My comments weren't directed at the worth of his soul, however, but rather a response to how James sometimes/often talks to the other commenters here.
I apologize if my previous comments came off as harsh, and upon reflection, they probably were. I'm sorry if it came off as a personal attack.
At times, others commenters on this blog have (more concisely than I did) pointed out to James similar things to what I said, but I've noticed he's brushed those off, ignored them, or not responded entirely. I thought if I used a more comprehensive approach this time, it might get his attention.
Like I said, I think James is probably a nice guy in real life. I've been following this blog for the last 10 years or so (and reading most of the posts and comments), and I've noticed there are a handful of people who like to comment more than others. Some, a little too much and too often (in my opinion) to allow for a healthy discussion or participation from the others.
James has a very unique and interesting perspective to share. I respect that. So do many of us here. I'm asking for the same respect to be extended to others.
I'm also a person that others have at times called, "special" or, "unique." Some of us that are special and unique don't always pick up on the subtle social cues that others leave us, and need a more direct approach.
On my mission, a companion sat me down once and honestly explained to me why I was having trouble relating to the other missionaries, members, investigators, etc. It wasn't a very comfortable experience. I didn't think he was being very friendly to me at the time. But looking back, I'm glad he was straightforward. He picked up on stuff that I couldn't see - ways that I was talking to or treating others that were off-putting. Where other people were too "polite" or passive aggressive to be brutally honest with me, he did so, and it changed my life for the better.
My intention here was to give James similar feedback. Again I admit that my comments were probably born out of annoyance, and may have been uncalled for. However, it's a topic that I've wanted to discuss with James for a while, and thought the best way might be to address them here in the forum, which he frequents.
I sincerely want James to succeed and his blog to succeed. I want to be able to take his comments and posts seriously, but at times it's difficult for me to do so due to the way he often responds to others and their ideas.
For example, when he tells others that ideas he personally supports, "cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand," but then turns around and dismisses others' ideas out of hand (by telling them he sees no evidence to support what their saying), that to me is unfair and hypocritical.
I'm just asking that he take time and consider that others have probably put thought and time into their comments (and possibly re-read and analyze those comments) before responding and immediately contradicting them.
A good example I can put forth is how Matt responds when a commenter posts new information (he did this just recently on his newest post). Instead of telling the person that he "has no evidence to support what they're saying," he'll usually ask them to provide more info, or to explain their position further. This gives both the commenter credibility, and gives Matt credibility in turn for respecting them without being contrary.
Like I said before, I want James to comment (I'd even like him to comment on what I've said here if he's so inclined), as I don't want to drive anyone away from the comments section, but allow each person's voice to be as credible as another's.
P.S. @James: If I've offended you personally, I'm sorry. I hope you'll take my comments more as straightforward advice than as a personal attack. Also, I'm glad you're back with us after your recent health challenges. Best wishes to you and yours.
Johnathan, I don't comment much, but I read all of the posts and comments. Like you, I have followed this site for 10+ years. I agree with the comments you made about James. I've seen the tone that he uses and completely understand where you are coming from. From my point of view, it did not seem like a personal attack. I think it was worth bringing up, because I often find myself skipping his comments and not taking him seriously. I hope he reads it and finds it helpful, rather than offensive.
Additionally many changes take years to fully implement. Many that have been implemented under President Nelson pre-date the death of President Monson. A clear example is the break withboy scouts that was implemented for boys over 13 whilr President Monson was alive.
The same also seems to be true for curriculum changes and probably even the shift from teaching programs to ministry.
2 hours is a more flexible goal based on local conditions. It is also harder to pin down since travel time fluctuates. It does see a recognition that distance to temple and accesability are much different in suburban Utah, inner city areas with subpar bus systems and parts ofNigeria with mud roads.
@NewsAnchor007:
Thanks.
Article is in Spanish, but Elder Soares, the most junior apostle will dedicate the Fortaleza temple tomorrow.
https://masfe.org/noticias/el-elder-ulises-soares-dedicara-el-templo-de-fortaleza-brasil/
That's really cool!
I apologize that I am a little late to the game as far as addressing the comments made about the substance, nature, and tone of my prior comments here. I first became aware of this thread of conversation several days ago, but have opted to wait until now to address the matter in order to ensure my motivations, judgement, and mindset were in the right place. It's an approach I'd recommend to anyone here without hestiation. That being said, if there were any truth whatsoever regarding what has been said by others about the nature, length, tone, timbre, and substance of my prior comments, I would indeed bear the guilt for not being as considerate of others' views as I should have been.
And it is that mindset that has driven the previous rise of all manner of persecution of anyone who is different, whether that persectuion be religiously, politically, or ideaologically6 based, has, in times past, given rise to superiority complexes, Naziism, Islamic extremism, or any other kind of prejudice, bias, or justification of poor behavior. If I were coming from that frame of mind, then there is no doubt that the comments made about the way I comment would be fully and completely justified.
I have long held the opinion that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable, and it bothers me that anything I have said or the way I have said it has come across in any way, shape, or form as my being disagreeable, arrogant, self-centered, or anything else. I have always tried to assume good faith and think the best of just about everyone I have ever interacted with, so I sincerely apologize if my motivations, manner of expression, tone, or anything else conveyed anything to the contrary.
But I also believe that the only way any of us can know or understand where anyone else is coming from is if we are willing to open up dialogue about such things when there is doubt on that subject. The fact that the interpretation of my comments was addressed without anyone asking for clarification on anything I have said or my reasons for saying it bothers me a little as well. But I am not about to point out motes in anyone else's eye when there is clearly a beam in my own.
THe really great thing about taking an opportunity to dialogue with anyone else in a public setting such as this is the opportunity to see things from another perspective. And I have learned in a variety of ways that when one puts his or her thoughts out into the public, one should be ready and willing to have an earnest exchange in views with anyone who reads such thoughts, and that it takes pretty thick skin to put one's thoughts and insights out there.
With that in mind, I again want to apologize to anyone who may have been negatively impacted by my comments, or who has felt I care more about my own thoughts and opinions than I do about earnestly dialoguing on any issues. But in an effort to clarify my previous comments, let me now explain where I am coming from. If any of us who comment here were to go back in time 200-300 years and tell anyone living then that the life expectancy rates, medical knowledge and research, and lifestyle guidelines would, in the intervening centuries, change and increase the way they have, there would surely have been many living during that time that would have dismissed it as impossible or incomprehensible.
In the 1700s or so, those who lived past 40 or 50 were considered lucky, as many others did not do so. As centuries have passed since then, knwoledge and understanding of how to live with better health, in better circumstances, for a longer duration, have advanced. And within that same amount of time, organizations like WHO or the FDA have "discovered" better health practices about which the Church and other religious denominations have been aware for decades or centuries before those "discoveries."
For that reason, when considering the possible life length of any Church member, things like healthy lifestyles and practices, observance of the Word of Wisdom, and Church and temple activity need to be considered. But above and beyond that, if we were to measure the likely length of the life of any apostle or Church President solely by logic or worldly reasoning, then the idea of President Nelson living another decade or two at minimum would indeed be ridiculously errneous and surely short-sighted.
But with President Nelson in particular, not only does he have a firm gospel-based understanding of how to live a healthy life, he also has the medical knowledge of best health practices which can elongate lives, and the discipline to follow such practices. Failure to consider those factors in determining the estimated life expectancy of any apostle who has the same knowledge (minus the medical side of things for most of the rest of them) would not give the best results. It has been apatly pointed out that one cannot do an equation without considering or having all the variables, and that knowledge, intellect, and insight can take us so far but no further.
Above and beyond all of that, however, it would be unfair for any of us who have not interacted reguarly with President Nelson to make any kind of personal assumption about how long he might live, or how his health will hold out. For that reason, I personally put more stock into what has been said by President Nelson's wife and his apostolic colleauges relating to his health and vigor more seriously than I wuold take any worldly measure or logic about an individual of his age.
And there have been an abundance of reports from President Nelson's Brethren and his wife that he does not act his age (currently 94), and that when he is out and about mingling with Church members, or meeting with his general authority colleagues, and as he is petitioning the Lord for His direction and acting in response to such impressions, he is consistently doing so with a vigor, energy, and capacity of someone who is biologicaly 20-39 years younger than he himself is.
My father-in-law's parents both passed away before most of their children were adults. My dad's dad lived until his late 60s and passed away after years of struggling with many health issues. All of my other grandparents have lived or are living into their 80s or 90s. And if we add the number of centenarians reported in the Church News to the many nonagenarians in the Church, we find that age is just a number, and that worldly standards alone are not, on their own rationales, insufficient to adequately analyze the prospective life length of any current or future apostle or Church President.
I want to also note that I don't claim to be an expert in numerous fields. I'd be at a loss, for instance, on how to do all that Matt has done to analyze and report Church growth and put it into perspective, or in looking to find, record, and share temple progress to the degree done by Rick Satterfield. Everyone has an area in which they could be considered an expert. I have had a lifelong love and appreciation for any information I can glean from any Church-prodocued resource regarding many elements of Church history in general, and the life and ministry of our apostles in particular. I have studied for years to amass sufficient knowledge on that topic to a degree where that is one subject about which others among my acquaintance can turn to me for insights and information.
While I cannot speak regarding the merits of the preparation others have made to offer feedback on any issue, I have learned by experience that, if I desire to do so, I had better know what I am talking about, and have a firm grasp on resources that back up suh opinions. At a time when I find myself limited in what I can do on a day-to-day basis due to my health, I have taken the opportunity to repeatedly peruse resources that can enlighten me on subjects dear to my heart, with the ministry and longevity of our apostles' lives being just one example.
And I have made as concientious an effort as I know how to do whatever it takes to fully research any topic before I feel confident in my ability to offer an informed opinion on it. So if I comment on anything in a forum such as this, it is only because I have thoroughly and completely researched the matter in question, and am fully satisfied that the opinions I offer have a sound and valid basis. In trying to assume good faith on the part of others I interact with here, I hope a similar approach is being utilized.
I have the utmost respect for just about everyone with whom I have ever interacted here, and I again apologize if my motivations and intentions, or the substance and tone of my prior comments, were unclear in any manner. In the meantime, although the critiques of my prior opinions did seem harsh to a certain degree, I can plainly see the concern that has driven them, for which I am grateful. To the most significant level I can do so, I will do my level best to try and make my motivations, intentions, tone, and substance in comments here more transparent. I only know of One Man who was ever fully and completely perfect, and I am obviously not Him. I am not even close, and I don't know if I will ever be anywhere in the ballpark of that legacy. But like everyone else here, I am doing the best I can.
Thanks to all who take time to read my comments. I again apologize to anyone and everyone whom I may have offended, bothered, or unintentionally maligned in this thread and any other on this blog or my own. I will try harder to be more sensitive and receptive to such comments in the future. And in return, all I ask is that anyone who does read my comments would be willing to either give me the benefit of the doubt, to dialogue with me about what has driven and molded the opinions I offer, or to let me know if I ever appear overly dismissive in the future. We all have room to improve, and we can all work to help each other improve. That is one of many reasons we are here on Earth. My thanks again to you all for indulging my desire to explain myself in this matter. Hope you all know how much I respect each of you and appreciate all you bring to the table in these conversations.
Useful article, thank you for sharing the article!!!
Website blogcothebanchuabiet.com với blogcothebanchuabiet.com giúp bạn giải đáp blogcothebanchuabiet.com có những gì, chia sẻ blogcothebanchuabiet.com sẽ giúp bạn nhiều thông tin, chúc bạn có những thông tin hữu ích từ blogcothebanchuabiet.com cực hữu ích.
Post a Comment