See below for a list of province and territory statistical profiles for Canada which I have recently posted on www.cumorah.com. With the exception of Alberta, none of these profiles have been posted previously. In general, the Church in Canada has reported essentially stagnant membership growth in most provinces or territories. The percentage of Latter-day Saints in the population has been stagnant or has declined for the past 10-20 years in essentially all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec.
19 comments:
I would suspect a major reason for stagnant growth has to do with all the new immigration coming into Canada of various ethnic groups and languages, with the church having no specific outreach for this population.
Actually new immigrants are the majority of growth and in Europe and other industrialized nations.
@Unknown
Are immigrants the main reason for some growth in Canada, as well? (sorry I haven't checked the articles, yet)
I live in Canada and yes we do get a lot of LDS immigration in and out. Stagnant growth is partly due to low retention.it seems all roads lead to Alberta which dries up areas outside and floods the market inside of Alberta
Whizzbang
Are people going to Alberta for jobs, or to be with the larger group of Saints?
Jobs, get married. However we, outside of Alberta, get what we call "Alberta Rent a Family" we get young couples come here for school, it's somehow easier and cheaper to get into a professional school outside your province so they come and they stay for 4 or so years and then move back to Alberta. We have had a guy move into the Stake and within months he was in the Stake Presidency, I think that's a risky move but he's moved out now years ago. So,with girls moving to Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton from all over Canada the odds of girls to guys is at some places 3 to 1, it's a flooded market
Man, I gotta move me north to Alberta, then!
The Church has outreach in parts of Cabada in Spanish. They also do outreach in Tagalog, Mandarin and some other languages. I know in my mission in Michigan missionaries have on their own initiative learned enough Turkish to teach potential members. There are attempts to create outreach.
Also many immigrants to Canada are from areas in Africa, South Asia or the Caribbean where they have some skill in the Englush l as language so gospel outreach can be done to m as my immigrants in English.
I am not sure why calling a new move in to the stake presidency would be risky. People move that is just a fact of life.
I used to see Michigan as having an inordinate number of temporary moved in members. However these come from Utah, Idaho, California and Arizona and that is still in many ways over simplifying things.
My current stake president was raised in California, and was in Texas and a bishop 5 or more years before he moved to Michigan. He was on pur high council almost 5 years before he became state president. His first counselor is a white man raised in Detroit in the 1980s when such were becoming rare. The second counselor is a UtH native who first moved to Michigan in the late 1970s but did spend 2005-2010 or so in Germany. He worked for Chrysler and then when they got bought by Daimler at some point was promoted.
My branch president is a Native of Canada raised in British Coloubia.There is at least one other stake member raised in BC. My parents bishop was raised in Nevada and his 1st counselor was for a time in the same ward as him as a child. The 1st counselor in my branch presidency is a white man raised in Detroit long enough ago that was fairly common. The 2nd counselor was raised in the area of Albany New York. Our elders quorum president is a Michigan native who joined the Church while residing in Colorado.
'm reminded of the story I heard of a man who was called to be the bishop of his ward. Because he and his family were planning on moving a short time later, he politely declined, citing the move as the reason. Not long after he moved, he was called to be the bishop of his new ward. The Lord qualifies those He has called, but He also calls those He intends to qualify. Once individuals are called to serve, they are accountable to the Lord for faithfully discharging their duties and honoring the trust they are given. Some rise to the challenge without fail. Others may struggle with self-doubt and feelings of inadequacies. And I think it may be easy for us to look at our leaders at various levels and wonder why those called to serve have been called to those positions.
But what any such thoughts should boil down to isa whether or not we understand, accept, and live by the principle of common consent, and a belief that the Savior's Atonement can and will compensate for any shortcomings, real or perceived, in any of our leaders. And in all such scenarios, if we could ask our leaders in such situations, many of them would surely cite feelings of inadequacy and how much they feel they fall short in various respects. But I believe that the Lord knows who needs to serve in what capacities, within which periods of time, and under which conditions that service prevails.
COVID-19 has given many of us a prime opportunity to look at our own readiness to do what needs to be done in terms of weekly worship. At the same time, for someone like me leading my own small family in that worship, there have definitely been moments where I have more keenly felt my own inadequacies and been all the more appreciative of local leaders who guide weekly meetings so well by contrast.
If nothing else, one impact the current pandemic conditions will have on me personally is to make me more inclined to throw a cloak of charity over any perceived imperfections on the part of my leaders, and to hope that they in turn will throw a similar cloack of charity over my weaknesses and imperfections, which for myself have become all the more transparent as a result of these circumstances. And that is an approach I would recommend to us all.
It's risky because nobody has worked with him, what he is like, etc.He could be a tyrant, preach weird doctrine, be narcissistic-you just don't know. Pres. N. Eldon Tanner said that good inspiration is based on good information, which is why you should have a lot of information about someone prior to calling them to a calling, people should be vetted before they extend a calling. Now, in this case he turned out great but others not so much and sometimes if they know about problems and they call them anyways then they deserve everything that they get and sometimes they get a lot back.
I disagree, Whizzbang. Maybe none of the mortals issuing the calling had worked with that man in particular. But "the Lord looketth on the heart." His call was clearly inspired. In all such cases, I'd refer you back to what President Hinckley said in October 2004 in relation to the apoostolic calls of Elders Uchtdorf and Bednar.
I feel that saying that the fact that any man's character being unknown makes calling him risky is a dangerous idea. We can all choose whether or not to have faith in that process. But to call such a process risky would be similar to saying that no local leader should be able to conduct temple recommend worthiness interviews. After all, when it comes right down to it, the only way any local leader can conduct such worthiness interviews is by exercising faith that the interviewers are answering honestly, especially since none of them are with any of us consistently enough to be sure that we are honest when having those interviews.
My point here is that the same gift of discernment that enables those called to determine worthiness are the same as those used to know who should serve where and in what capacity, and for what duration. And if one of those gifts are invalid, they are both more than likely to be so. No offense intended here, and I hope none is taken.
None taken, but I disagree. I am reminded of that quip of Pres. Hinckley from his Feb 1999 broadcast, when he said about Bishops, "Think of the risk the Lord took when He called you." even more so with people we don't know. We can have faith in the process but sometimes there is a breakdown somewhere, elsewise why are all there Bishops, Stake Presidency members, on ocassional Mission President who gets involved in illegal activities and they get splashed all over the new. I think in Canada at least, and that stuff does happen (We had a Bishopric member who didn't pay tithing(his wife said so) and he interviewed my Mom for a recommend and he asked her if she paid tithing and she said yes, and she wanted to ask him do you? if those extending the call would probe into someone's church activity, beleifs they would know that. I know a Bishopric member who had never read the BOM before, how did that guy ever become a High Priest? How can you "administer in spiritual things" if you don't know what that means? Right now on our High Council is a guy who attends the Catholic Church, prior to Covid 19 hardly ever attended Church, is a jerk to people and he plagiarizes his Church talks when he does come and is asked (I know because I busted him on it and sent him links on how to give a talk in Church) I and our Bishop think that the only reason he is still on the High Council is because they are afraid of him going inactive. In Canada, in certain parts, there is a desperation for members, guys who have good jobs, but know nothing really about the Church are called in responsible positions and it's get mucked up. There is an assumption that because you have a MBA or a MD or something that God is on your side and you're a cool guy but when thrown into it they get lost in the weeds and I've seen wards fall apart because of it and SO much inactivity. At one time in Canada there was more people in England who believed that the Jedi was a real thing than members of the Church here. About half are active, 90-100,000K
Whizzbang, thanks for not taking offense. Basaed on our recent exchange here, I'd say that we come from markedly different situations. I remember on other occasions President Hinckley described receiving a change in mission assignment, showing the ltter about it to his companion, who quipped, "You must have helped an old lady across the street in the preexistence. This has not come because of anything you've done here." In other settings, several Church leaders on a few different levels have quipped that the Lord must have called them because no one else would have thought of them.
With that noted, I can understand how the experiences you shared can impact your faith in people's abilities to do their callings, and even to be worthy of serving in those capacities. But I recall you mentioning something along those same lines in a few other instances on this blog within the last several months. That leads me to be concerned about the welfare and well-being of the Church in your neck of the woods. So I need to ask again, what have you and others in your area who are aware of these problems tried to do to resolve them? Again, if your rank-and-file leaders are not taking things seriously enough, or if you are aware of severe issues such as those you've described that are not being dealt with, there are lines of authority up through to members of the Presidency of the Seventy, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and even First Presidency who would take these matters seriously/
If my memory serves me correctly, you were living in Winnipeg the last time we exchanged dialogue about the problems with the Church in your area. With your area in Manitoba being within the North America Central Area, it does not appear that there are any area seventies assigned directly to Manitoba (although I could be mistaken in that respect). But you should be able to find contact information for the area office of the North America Central Area, and, as of August 1 (which may mean the transitions are already in progress), Elder S. Gifford Nielsen will remain area president for the next year, with Elder Chi Hong (Sam) Wong continuing as First Counselor and Elder Arnulfo Valenzuela replacing Elder Matthew L. Carpenter as Second Counselor. If your ward and stake leaders are not taking a serious enough response to the issues you've described, you need to contact the area seventy assigned to your area, or report that to the area presidency, eho eoulf, in turn, get those concerns relayed to their direct advisers in the Presidency of the Seventy and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It sounds as though, from what you described, as though there may be some apostosy or violations of Church policies and procedures going on in your area.
So I'd say at this poiint that you have a choice to make: You can either continue to mention these issues in the threads of this blog where feww, if any of us, would be able to relate thereunto, and certainly none of us would be able to do much to help you resolve them, or you can take the initiative to do what is needed to be part of the resolution of these issues. If any of your immediate rank-and-file leaders at the ward or stake level aren't taking these matters seriously, then that would likely be more that sufficient grounds for lwaders up the line to take more substantial steps in resolving them, including replacing the leaders who are problematic as well as the other leaders who aren't taking those problems seriously.
I apologize again if this comment offends you. That is not my intent. But I've learned from observation that members who are not part of the solution to the problems in their area are, by their inaction, contributors to the ongoing problems therein. And because what you describe is something that, to my knowledge, isn't commonplace or the status quo0 anywhere else, back-and-forth exchanges on this matter here in cases like this one won't yield any significant results to resolve the issues in your area. During the years spanning 2002-2005, Church leaders wound up sending 3 apostles out to areas outside of North America (the Philippines, Chile, and Europe) to directly deal with issues in those areas. And of those 3 apostles, one is now in the First Presidency (President Oaks), and another is second in seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to Acting President Ballard (Elder Holland). I'm hard pressed to believe that any apostle who knew about these issues would just shrug them off. So my suggestion is for you to be more of an active part of the solution to these issues. I hope you'll consider taking some action, but that's up to you. Godspeed, good brother!
@Whizzbang and James
I read through your comments, and I think I can see where you're both coming from.
I do want to say, though, that I agree with Whizzbang's assessment about the issues that can arise with local leaders being called because of cronyism, relation, or temporal success (such as being a businessman or having a degree). I've witnessed very similar examples in the Church to several of the ones he brings up (even here in Utah, also in Idaho and Montana, and on my mission in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois). I could list some of these examples if you would like, but I think the scriptures sum up what he's talking about in a clearer way:
D&c 121:
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
Also, Mosiah 3:19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
I don't necessarily think the situation that Whizzbang describes necessarily constitutes a spiritual "call to arms" on the Province of Manitoba, but rather some of the frustrations he's seen when it appears that certain people are called to authority positions for temporal, rather than spiritual reasons (a frustration I can relate to). Besides, the general authorities and Apostles will be visiting Manitoba soon for the upcoming temple dedication and for calling the temple president if they haven't already done so. They can root out any potential apostasy they find when they arrive.
One reason I believe that some men (and women) are called to position is to gain humility and love for those they're called to serve, and the Lord does qualify those he calls. It is the choice of the person in the calling, however, to take advantage of that qualification experience.
Like I said above, I agree with both of you. I think, ideally, both revelation and a vetting process should be used when calling someone to the work.
Whizzbang, if true about the priesthood there, that is nuts! So sorry to hear.
I have faith that the ultimate Priest is in control and knowledge and practice will increase and progress towards Christ and His gospel of truly great news.
Godspeed and stay in the fight, brother.
Hello again, everyone! I'd like to apologize if my viewpoints offered above (based mostly on the fact that I have been born in and spent my lifetime as a resident of Utah, and on my understanding of a few pertinent spiritual ideas contained in the scriptures) were expressed in a manner that did not adequately allow for differences in circumstance and situation. When it comes to the "real world" outside of Utah, I have to rely largely upon what I can glean from available sources and from conversations with others familiar with such regions. Perhaps when it comes down to it, I may be the least qualified person to weigh in on matters relating to problems of Church growth.
At the same time, if any member of the Church knows of any reason that any other individual should not be sustained in their assigned callings due to their character, morals, or actions, part of the principle of common consent is bringing that information to light through the proper channels. And if the rank-and-file leaders are not taking those issues seriously, it's advisable to go up the line as far as is necessary to enable that to happen. My only reason for mentioning this is that if the issues described by Whizzbang in his recent comments are occurring to the degree he has indicated, then the problem is that somewhere along the line, those called to lead, and those they have called, may not have had the information they needed to make a prudent choice about some of that leadership at some levels. And something that the Church saw early in its' history in this dispensation is that some people were engaged in apostate behaviors and practices. In that day, with the Church being smaller, it was easier for leaders at the top to know about problems that existed.
With the Church being so much larger now, if the leaders at the top levels don't know what problems are occurring and where, it will be virtually impossible for them to address those issues, which could then create further issues for such regions and areas. The reason that Church leaders always ask for a sustaning/opposing vote is for cases such as what was mentioned by Whizzbang. If there are issues in an area, and if they are not addressed, that could eventually have a more wide-spread impact. And issues like that are more easily dealt with at the level that they need to be dealt with when any of us who may know anything that would make any of our leaders unworthy to serve make that known through those channels.
Again, I apologize if I came on too strong or if the mode and manner of my previous comments offended or bothered anyone. Maybe my view of the Church is too oversimplified, and it is almost certainly lacking in direct personal longterm experience outside of Latter-day-Saintsville here in Utah. But I've read enough about apostate practices in the early days of the Church to recognize the general undertones thereof when it comes to certain conduct, and in that respect, I try to call it as I see it. But having said that, maybe I should get up off my soapbox and back to focusing on problems in my own neck of the woods. However, hopefully what i have laid out in my latest comments here is helpful to some degree to any who may need the information I shared here. Thanks.
Post a Comment