Guam and Winnepeg must have similar numbers of membership for thei respective temples. Snowflake, Arizona maybe has 2-3 times those numbers? Maybe Gila Valley has even more. Monticello maybe similar. Great to see these rural temples going to the people.
Hey, Chris! I tried to triangulate an answer for you on that from a few different Church news sources. When I couldn't do so, something prompted me to check the stakes listed for the Birmingham Alabama Temple district on the Church temples site. According to that list, the Bessemer stake is still operational, and there is no Tuscaloosa Alabama Staee listed. So I then looked at the temple districts in the neighboring states of Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. While it is possible that a name change has occurred for the stake in question, given that I have not found anything through either the Church News or the Church temples site, I am not sure what to surmise about your question. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
Hey, Chris! Thanks for that additional information. I guess it's one of those rare cases where the stake is given a name unrelated to its' geographical location. I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind the name change, but my assumption is that it may be one of those questions to which only those within the stake at the time of the name change and those who were privy to the decision to do so would have the answer. I appreciate the additional context.
I hadn't realized that the Church News was down to the final 3 mission presidents about whom information has not yet been published thus far. But that might explain why the Church has already started publishing articles introducing the new temple presidents and matrons who will begin serving later this year. It appears from those biographies that, with the exception of those temples for which a dedication or rededication will be held later this year or sometime next year, the Church has moved the starting mooth for their service from the traditional November to October.
Above and beyond that, however, I will be interested to see whether or not Elder Christofferson will be able to preside at the groundbreaking for the Alabang Philippines Temple as currently assigned. Just some additional random thoughts from me, for whatever they might be worth to all who read them.
It is nice to see that in places where there are so few baptized have a temple announced or in process. Indeed, it helps a great deal of faith for the baptized to be twinned, taught and supported in their spiritual life, so that on the day they go to the temple they remain there and do not leave or become inactive. Perhaps, the local leadership has not yet understood the importance of caring for and valuing all the baptized and not only staying with the messages that you have to work, in the church everyone is important and necessary, the work of helping must come from every person according to their time, and not only to some who always do.
I have heard several wards and stake presidencies being sustained by email. In one case, a stake president passed away and the bishop was put into the new stake presidency.
Thanks for the info. I hadn't thought that it could be done thru email, but it makes sense. So I guess we will still see new stakes and districts added to the list in some areas, even with the quarantine!
We will also need the bios for the new presidents of the Baltimore and Raleigh Missions,both of whose current (or at least then current) presidents were called as General Authority Seventies.
The new directive from the Church says that people can be set apart to new callings during this time without being sustained first. Forming a whole new stake without a conference would involve issuing at a minimum 16 callings, and probably more than that. Plus it would involve at least 5 branches presidencies being shifted to be bishoprics. I can see delays of this in most cases, but it could be done if very needed.
Thanks for that additional information, Chris. It might have been easier and more central at the time of its' establishment to put the stake center in Bessemer, whereas with additional developments in the boundaries of that stake, the more central location then became Tuscaloosa. Thanks again.
Luke, I'm not sure what this might mean to you, but I wanted to mention something here that I referenced in another thread on this blog. I don't have access to the CDOL, and I doubt I'll ever be called to serve in a capacity that would require access thereunto, but I do frequently peruse many of the publicly-accessible pages on the Church website, and from that I can personally attest to some inaccuracies that are apparent on the Church website, particularly those pertaining specifically to information on the classic or modern congregational and temple district maps, and also more particularly on the biographies of the Church's general authorities and general officers, in addition to the Quorum demographics and name lists for the area seventies.
Whenever I have brought up such inconsistencies and errors through the online feedback form, the reply I get most often instructs me to contact my local leaders with such questions. And while that advice is well-intentioned, and will work for general doctrinal or organizational questions, I don't think that the kind of questions for which I'm seeking answers would be the kind tht local leaders could address. One prime example: on the recently-updted official list of area seventies, for the members of the Fifth and Sixth Quorums of the Seventy, there are certain members serving in the same area, and half of them will be listed in one Quorum, with the other half listed in the other one. The Church is not in the habit of having area seventies in the same area being split in any way between two quorums.
All I'm saying is, when it comes to updatingo some official resources, it helps to bear in mind that, because those making the updates aren't yet perfect (I only know of one man that was), there are some updates that, due to human error, are inaccurately or erroneously made or temporarily overlooked. For the most part, the Church website is accurate. But there are some things, especially those for which updates have been verified as being problematic at times, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Just my advice, based on the examples I have personally encountered in that respect. Hope this comment, such as it is, is helpful.
Sorry. I wanted to provide one other key example to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. In April 2018, 5 new members of the Presidency of the Seventy were sustained, 2 of whom began their service immediately to fill the vacancies caused by the calls of Elders Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses Soares (the two were Carl B. Cook and Robert C. Gay), and the advanced sustaining vote for 3 other new members who would begin serving on August 1 (Elders Terence M. Vinson, Jose Teixeira, and Carlos A. Godoy would replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins, and Juan A. Uceda).
Once those changes went into effect on August 1 of that year, I routinely checked the biographies of the members of the Presidency of the Seventy. And by the time one year from the day on which the three were either sustained (March 31, 2018) or from when their assignments officially became effective (August 1, 2018), the biography of Elder Carlos A. Godoy still showed that he was serving as the President of the South America Northwest Area, contrary to the fact that the 2018 area leadership assignments had listed him in the Presidency of the Seventy, with Elder Enrique R. Falabella called to serve as president of the area in question in place of Elder Godoy.
I hope I am not flogging the proverbial dead horse, which I hate to do in general, but hope these additional insights further prove my point that sometimes, even information available to the general public is not an accurate reflection of what the actual information is. And if can happen as frequently as it seems to with information available to the general public through the Church website, it would not shock me if someone discovered similar or perhaps even more profound inaccuracies in the information that is shared on the CDOL. And all that means is that the people in charge of making those changes are not infallible, which should really be a given.
Hope the comments I have most recently added are helpful to all who read them. I also hope these remarks are not seen as criticisms of those updating such resources. All I meant to demostrate is that those making such changes on the website in general and the CDOL in particular are just as prone to make errors as are any of us who do or do not have access to the CDOL. Okay, I'm officially getting up off my soapbox for real this time on this issue. Thanks.
20 comments:
Guam and Winnepeg must have similar numbers of membership for thei respective temples.
Snowflake, Arizona maybe has 2-3 times those numbers? Maybe Gila Valley has even more. Monticello maybe similar. Great to see these rural temples going to the people.
While reviewing my Stakes/Districts lists/links. Does anyone know when the Bessemer Alabama Stake (515760) was renamed the Tuscaloosa Alabama Stake?
Was that when the Gadsden Alabama Stake was organized earlier this year?
https://classic.churchofjesuschrist.org/maps/#ll=33.3845,-86.981328&z=18&m=google.hybrid&layers=stakecenter&q=515760&find=stake:515760
Hey, Chris! I tried to triangulate an answer for you on that from a few different Church news sources. When I couldn't do so, something prompted me to check the stakes listed for the Birmingham Alabama Temple district on the Church temples site. According to that list, the Bessemer stake is still operational, and there is no Tuscaloosa Alabama Staee listed. So I then looked at the temple districts in the neighboring states of Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. While it is possible that a name change has occurred for the stake in question, given that I have not found anything through either the Church News or the Church temples site, I am not sure what to surmise about your question. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
Hey, Chris! Thanks for that additional information. I guess it's one of those rare cases where the stake is given a name unrelated to its' geographical location. I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind the name change, but my assumption is that it may be one of those questions to which only those within the stake at the time of the name change and those who were privy to the decision to do so would have the answer. I appreciate the additional context.
I hadn't realized that the Church News was down to the final 3 mission presidents about whom information has not yet been published thus far. But that might explain why the Church has already started publishing articles introducing the new temple presidents and matrons who will begin serving later this year. It appears from those biographies that, with the exception of those temples for which a dedication or rededication will be held later this year or sometime next year, the Church has moved the starting mooth for their service from the traditional November to October.
Above and beyond that, however, I will be interested to see whether or not Elder Christofferson will be able to preside at the groundbreaking for the Alabang Philippines Temple as currently assigned. Just some additional random thoughts from me, for whatever they might be worth to all who read them.
Hello!
It is nice to see that in places where there are so few baptized have a temple announced or in process.
Indeed, it helps a great deal of faith for the baptized to be twinned, taught and supported in their spiritual life, so that on the day they go to the temple they remain there and do not leave or become inactive.
Perhaps, the local leadership has not yet understood the importance of caring for and valuing all the baptized and not only staying with the messages that you have to work, in the church everyone is important and necessary, the work of helping must come from every person according to their time, and not only to some who always do.
a hug from Chile
Omar Elías
@Chris
Don't stake upgrades have to be done with a conference, with sustaining of the new stake Presidency by the stake body?
I have heard several wards and stake presidencies being sustained by email. In one case, a stake president passed away and the bishop was put into the new stake presidency.
@phxmars
Thanks for the info. I hadn't thought that it could be done thru email, but it makes sense. So I guess we will still see new stakes and districts added to the list in some areas, even with the quarantine!
We will also need the bios for the new presidents of the Baltimore and Raleigh Missions,both of whose current (or at least then current) presidents were called as General Authority Seventies.
The new directive from the Church says that people can be set apart to new callings during this time without being sustained first. Forming a whole new stake without a conference would involve issuing at a minimum 16 callings, and probably more than that. Plus it would involve at least 5 branches presidencies being shifted to be bishoprics. I can see delays of this in most cases, but it could be done if very needed.
Thanks for that additional information, Chris. It might have been easier and more central at the time of its' establishment to put the stake center in Bessemer, whereas with additional developments in the boundaries of that stake, the more central location then became Tuscaloosa. Thanks again.
As of this moment CDOL still says that the Borongan Philippines district is still a district. If true, it may change in a few days
Luke, I'm not sure what this might mean to you, but I wanted to mention something here that I referenced in another thread on this blog. I don't have access to the CDOL, and I doubt I'll ever be called to serve in a capacity that would require access thereunto, but I do frequently peruse many of the publicly-accessible pages on the Church website, and from that I can personally attest to some inaccuracies that are apparent on the Church website, particularly those pertaining specifically to information on the classic or modern congregational and temple district maps, and also more particularly on the biographies of the Church's general authorities and general officers, in addition to the Quorum demographics and name lists for the area seventies.
Whenever I have brought up such inconsistencies and errors through the online feedback form, the reply I get most often instructs me to contact my local leaders with such questions. And while that advice is well-intentioned, and will work for general doctrinal or organizational questions, I don't think that the kind of questions for which I'm seeking answers would be the kind tht local leaders could address. One prime example: on the recently-updted official list of area seventies, for the members of the Fifth and Sixth Quorums of the Seventy, there are certain members serving in the same area, and half of them will be listed in one Quorum, with the other half listed in the other one. The Church is not in the habit of having area seventies in the same area being split in any way between two quorums.
All I'm saying is, when it comes to updatingo some official resources, it helps to bear in mind that, because those making the updates aren't yet perfect (I only know of one man that was), there are some updates that, due to human error, are inaccurately or erroneously made or temporarily overlooked. For the most part, the Church website is accurate. But there are some things, especially those for which updates have been verified as being problematic at times, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Just my advice, based on the examples I have personally encountered in that respect. Hope this comment, such as it is, is helpful.
Sorry. I wanted to provide one other key example to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. In April 2018, 5 new members of the Presidency of the Seventy were sustained, 2 of whom began their service immediately to fill the vacancies caused by the calls of Elders Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses Soares (the two were Carl B. Cook and Robert C. Gay), and the advanced sustaining vote for 3 other new members who would begin serving on August 1 (Elders Terence M. Vinson, Jose Teixeira, and Carlos A. Godoy would replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins, and Juan A. Uceda).
Once those changes went into effect on August 1 of that year, I routinely checked the biographies of the members of the Presidency of the Seventy. And by the time one year from the day on which the three were either sustained (March 31, 2018) or from when their assignments officially became effective (August 1, 2018), the biography of Elder Carlos A. Godoy still showed that he was serving as the President of the South America Northwest Area, contrary to the fact that the 2018 area leadership assignments had listed him in the Presidency of the Seventy, with Elder Enrique R. Falabella called to serve as president of the area in question in place of Elder Godoy.
I hope I am not flogging the proverbial dead horse, which I hate to do in general, but hope these additional insights further prove my point that sometimes, even information available to the general public is not an accurate reflection of what the actual information is. And if can happen as frequently as it seems to with information available to the general public through the Church website, it would not shock me if someone discovered similar or perhaps even more profound inaccuracies in the information that is shared on the CDOL. And all that means is that the people in charge of making those changes are not infallible, which should really be a given.
Hope the comments I have most recently added are helpful to all who read them. I also hope these remarks are not seen as criticisms of those updating such resources. All I meant to demostrate is that those making such changes on the website in general and the CDOL in particular are just as prone to make errors as are any of us who do or do not have access to the CDOL. Okay, I'm officially getting up off my soapbox for real this time on this issue. Thanks.
Post a Comment