Click here to access the updated Reaching the Nations country profile for Indonesia. Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country with 263 million people. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reports only about 7,500 members in Indonesia despite a Church presence for 50 years. Indonesia ranks as the country with the 68th most Latter-day Saints among countries with membership figures reported as of year-end 2018. See below for the Future Prospects section of this article:
Potential for church growth remains high, but Latter-day Saints continue to lack the needed nationwide infrastructure and increase in the number of local full-time missionaries to expand mission outreach and reverse the trend of stagnant growth over the past two decades. Decreases in the number of Indonesians who serve missions in the past three decades has been a major challenge not only for mission outreach expansion, but also with supplying leadership for the future as returned missionaries often provide a significant source for leadership positions. All but three congregations are on the island of Java, and there were only four more congregations in Indonesia in late 2019 than in 1995. Church administrative decisions not to translate any church materials into languages spoken by over sixty million Indonesians, low involvement member-missionary programs, the lack of coherent vision for expanding national outreach into unreached areas, and the failure to reach out to receptive ethnic groups and develop a core leadership among them, all bode poorly for the Church’s prospects to achieve breakthroughs in growth in Indonesia in the medium term. Other denominations that have implemented broader visions for national outreach and have made better use of available opportunities have achieved far more rapid growth in Indonesia than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Government restrictions on visas for foreign full-time missionaries has limited expansion of national outreach over the past two decades. Greater local member participation in missionary activity within the bounds of the law is needed to open additional areas to missionary work, although greater institutional vision could considerably facilitate this process. Other Christian groups have demonstrated that excellent church growth opportunities exist but must be properly approached due to restrictive cultural and governmental conditions. Latter-day Saints have developed a capable, sustained local leadership that can assist in opening new areas of the country to the church if desired by regional church leadership. Due to the creation two new stakes and reduced administrative burden on the Indonesia Jakarta Mission during the early 2010s, additional areas may open to proselytism. However, efforts will likely continue to focus on centers of strength for the Church in select cities on Java, and the establishment of centers of strength in Medan, Manado, and Bali, rather than expansion of the Church into totally unreached provinces inhabited by tens of millions of people. A small temple may be announced in Jakarta within the foreseeable future due to distance and self-sustaining membership and leadership.
16 comments:
Thanks for this profile, Matt. A young man with whom I served in Aaronic Priesthood Quorums in my youth went on to serve his mission in Jakarta, and he spoke highly of his experiences when he gave his post-mission report in our Sacrament Meeting. I look forward to the day when a temple might be built there. And I think that nation could be one of the next in Asia to get a temple, though I anticipate one for Mongolia first, unless temples are announced for both nations next month or in April of next year. Thanks again for the report.
My mom and step dad served two years in Surabaya. Tough mission. The Church is slowly growing; not bad for 90 % Muslim.
How does a Potential Temple Site for "Prince George British Columbia" sound? To Serve both the remote Prince George B.C. Stake and Terrace B.C. District? Since Winnipeg with 1 Stake and 1 District is being built.
I second the prince prince temple. I've been thinking of that place for awhile and Victoria.
While all but three congregations may be on the island of Java (as well as "54 % of the country's nearly 270 million people), what about the government's plan to move their capital from Jakarta to the island of Borneo (see https://www.deseret.com/2019/8/26/20833033/indonesia-to-move-capital-from-sinking-jakarta-to-borneo). While placing the temple outside of Java island may be more difficult in the short term for the members, it may be a wise long term investment. The country is planning to invest significant resources in the move and development of the new capital (which would theoretically include new infrastructure and transportation). While it may be less convenient to members now, if the temple were placed on Borneo or perhaps another part of Java, there would also be less risk of flooding, earthquake, and pollution. Perhaps such would also bring missionary opportunities to another part of Indonesia. Food for thought. (Of course, if the Lord wants a temple in Jakarta, I'm confident it would be the right move.)
Tyler, if you were to more closely gexamine the sources on the Jakartan capital city possibly being relocated, you would find that only the political capital would be changing (with Jakarta still being the functional capital of Indonesia in terms of other definitions), and that the change in question may not be final for the next decade.
And regardless of what is done politically, that should not have much, if any bearing, on where the Church would choose to build an Indonesian temple. The temple in Guam is not being built in the capital city (Hagåtña) nor in the city from which its' only stake is operating (Barrigada). As to Indonesia specifically, its' only mission is based in Jakarta. The one downside to Jakarta as a prospective location for a temple is that it might not be central enough of a location that would be easily accessible to the rest of the Indonesian Saints.
Either way, a temple in Indonesia might be delayed anyways until a temple is announced for Mongolia, and until the temples in Bangkok, Bengaluru, and Phnom Penh are further along, and also perhaps until the renovation on the Hong Kong China Temple is closer to completion. I'd love to be wrong about that, but time will tell, either way,
Why are we even thinking of another temple for Canada when Nigeria has one temple serving 57 stakes. Canada has way more temples than is at all reasonable and a population that has the resources to do long distance travel and a road system that makes it doable.
It is far too early to believe anything about Indonesia relocating its Capitol. Keep in mind Indonesia is an imperial state where the central government imposes its will as a Javanese entity on other cultures, such as the heavily Christianized Spice Islands and the more Muslim Aceh, which was an independent country until the late 19th century conquest by the Dutch. The part of New Guinea in Indonesia also has strong breakaway elements.
Guam is so small it is not a good example. Better examples are Ivory Coast where Abijan and not Yamosokro is getting a temple, Nigeria where the 2nd temple is going in Lagos, the largest city and former capital, not Abuja the current capital. Ecuador where Guayaquil and not the capital Quito got the 1st temple, Brazil where Sao Paulo got the first temple and the old capital of Rio de Jainero got one before the new capital of Brazilia.
Neither of Germany's capitals has a temple. Capitals normally get temples when they are major cities. New Zealand and Hawaii also show a capital not getting the temple in both cases because of the same sort of regionalized specific growth that determined the placement of the temple in Aba and not elsewhere in Nigeria. Canada also lacks a temple in its capital.
In the US only 14 states have temples connected with their capital. California's capital temple is the most recent which makes it all the more interesting that it is by there the new temple in being built.
San Clemente California seems to have just gotten 2 new wards. That is good news for California.
Arizona and Idaho had a temple elsewhere long before the one in the capital.
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but I believe the reason Indonesia is relocating the capital city is because of the ground sinking, which might also make it a bad place to build a temple.
Easy there John. When we are at the point of very likely seeing ~15-20 new temples announced per year going forward, there is more than enough room for new temples in both Nigeria and northern BC or Vancouver Island. :)
Plus, like you said down below, Lagos has already been announced, Benin City will probably come within the next year or two and more will come after that.
John, I was interested in your commentary about state capitals, so refreshed my memory with a website listing capital and largest city for all 50 US states. The number I got was 17 capital cities with temples (counting Richmond, Virginia.) 9 of those 17 are also the largest city in their states, namely Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.
The case of Tennessee was interesting because Nashville, the capital, had a temple announced first, but construction delays caused it to be dedicated a couple months after the one in the largest city, Memphis.
The 8 states with a temple in their capital which is not the largest city are California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia.
Maine's capital, Augusta, seems like the most likely place for a temple in that state.
Of the 8 states I mentioned in the 12:01 post, California and Tennessee are the only ones that also have a temple in the largest city.
I forgot about the Richomond Temple, and I forgot Oklahoma City is the capital.
I also forgot about the Hartford Connecticut Temple. I would say "associated with the capital", since The Hartford Temple is not in Hartford.
In Minnesota the temple is in the Metro Area of the largest city.
How many states have a temple associated with their largest city?
Florida is a case of having a temple in neither the capital nor the largest city. Jacksonville, Florida is actually the most populous city in the south-east United States, although more people live in the the Miami Metro Area. This along with the fact that the Jacksonville Stake is the oldest in the south-east US (at least if you don't count DC as in the south-east) and was the first stake in the US created mainly from local growth as opposed to outmigration from the Utah/Idaho/Arizona core area.
5 US states (Delaware, Maine, Vermont, West Virgnia and Wyoming) lack any cities with over 100,000. On the other hand California has 74 such cities. However some of this is more a recflection of policies on city area and expansion permission than anything else.
Post a Comment