See below for a list of annual membership growth rates by each United States state for the year 2024. Previous lists are available for 2017, 2018, the biennial period of 2020-2021, 2022, and 2023.
In 2024, the Church continued to experience gradual improvements in annual membership growth rates across many U.S. states, maintaining momentum that has developed in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. Only one state reported a net decline in membership for the year—a notable decrease compared to five in 2023, 22 during the 2020–2021 period, 13 in 2018, and nine in 2017.
Rhode Island, which topped the list in 2023, was overtaken in 2024 by the District of Columbia, which reported a 3.79% growth rate. Other states leading in growth included Kentucky, New York, Missouri, and South Dakota, all posting growth rates above 3.2%. New York’s annual membership growth rate of 3.46% was the highest reported since the 2000s and was slightly higher than what was reported for 2023.
Several traditionally slow-growth or declining states have also seen improvement. For example, California, which had reported net declines in membership every year since 2014, experienced a virtually flat trend in 2024—posting a minimal net increase of 41 members (0.01%). This marks the first positive change for California since 2013. The Church in Illinois reported the highest annual membership growth rate since 2004.
Utah, home to the Church’s headquarters and largest membership base, again reported near-historic lows in growth—just 0.66% for 2024. This trend continues to reflect the impact of declining birth rates and increased outward migration among members. Similarly, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado posted modest increases below 0.5%.
Ranked List of U.S. States and D.C. by 2024 Latter-day Saint Membership Growth Rate
| Rank | State | Growth Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | District of Columbia | 3.79 |
| 2 | Kentucky | 3.48 |
| 3 | New York | 3.46 |
| 4 | Missouri | 3.45 |
| 5 | South Dakota | 3.26 |
| 6 | Tennessee | 2.81 |
| 7 | New Jersey | 2.60 |
| 8 | Arkansas | 2.44 |
| 9 | Delaware | 2.25 |
| 10 | Indiana | 2.22 |
| 11 | Connecticut | 2.10 |
| 12 | Florida | 1.95 |
| 13 | Ohio | 1.88 |
| 14 | New Hampshire | 1.87 |
| 15 | Pennsylvania | 1.87 |
| 16 | North Carolina | 1.85 |
| 17 | North Dakota | 1.83 |
| 18 | Illinois | 1.81 |
| 19 | Texas | 1.76 |
| 20 | Michigan | 1.74 |
| 21 | Alabama | 1.72 |
| 22 | South Carolina | 1.69 |
| 23 | Iowa | 1.63 |
| 24 | Georgia | 1.58 |
| 25 | Oklahoma | 1.46 |
| 26 | Nebraska | 1.40 |
| 27 | Rhode Island | 1.36 |
| 28 | Maine | 1.34 |
| 29 | Virginia | 1.26 |
| 30 | Maryland | 1.26 |
| 31 | West Virginia | 1.17 |
| 32 | Wisconsin | 1.09 |
| 33 | Minnesota | 1.05 |
| 34 | Idaho | 1.04 |
| 35 | Hawaii | 0.95 |
| 36 | Massachusetts | 0.95 |
| 37 | Montana | 0.73 |
| 38 | Utah | 0.66 |
| 39 | Louisiana | 0.54 |
| 40 | Kansas | 0.53 |
| 41 | Vermont | 0.50 |
| 42 | Mississippi | 0.47 |
| 43 | Arizona | 0.43 |
| 44 | Colorado | 0.36 |
| 45 | Nevada | 0.17 |
| 46 | Washington | 0.16 |
| 47 | Oregon | 0.16 |
| 48 | Alaska | 0.11 |
| 49 | New Mexico | 0.03 |
| 50 | California | 0.01 |
| 51 | Wyoming | -0.26 |
90 comments:
I said this on the other post but here again in short form...I tip my hat to Illinois. Being ahead of other large(r) states with much, much more significant inbound migration of members (Virginia, Texas, Georgia come to mind) is an exceptional achievement. It's also very noteworthy that most of this growth is carried by downstate Illinois, not Chicagoland, which has seen quite a few unit consolidations despite a comparatively healthy population growth outlook. There are parts of Illinois where the Church likely grew between 5 and 10% in nominal membership last year, despite continued severe outmigration from these areas and a relatively aging Church (and general) population among existing members. Between this and the strong growth in Missouri - albeit likely more relocation-driven and a bit more on the western side of the state - I wonder if the Missouri St. Louis Mission might actually be the highest-baptizing Mission in the US now.
Yes. Even more impressive, Illinois general pop didn't grow that much according to the US Census. However, membership did.
As a former missionary in the Missouri St. Louis Mission, I literally can't believe it. The growth happening in that area would have been unthinkable when I was there. And a surprising amount of it is being driven by proselyting among Spanish-speakers and in the inner city, two demographics that we struggled tremendously to work with. Since I left in 2019, two Spanish branches and a second inner city branch have been created in that mission.
New York is in my mind the most impressive number. With the Sistrict of Columbia it is hard to say what is going on. The number is small and the area is do small it is hard to tell if it come from random movement in the metro area or people moving more broadly. Although it is also in part baptisns/addition of children of record exceeds deaths and other things that cause removal of records.
The top 3 fastest growth areas by percentage are all in North America Northeast. New York I think was also 5th in total growth.
New York is the only state with more than one temple to not have a temple announced by President Nelson.
However the adummitt New Jersey Temple partly reflects that the Manhattan Temple can operate without most of the New Jersey members currently assigned to it.
At least one more temple in New York and another in New England would be nice.
The District of Colombia getting a temple within its boundaries I highly doubt will happen any time soon. I expect Marland to have multiple additional temples before that happens, and I know my dream of a temple within Baltimore City limits is only a little less crazy than the dream of one in Deteoit City limits.
Still we live in a day when 10 temples have been announced for Peru.
I wouldn't get that excited about branch creations in general since the bar to create a branch is pretty darn low. They can come and go on a dime, far more so than wards. They don't even necessarily indicate real growth. Now if or when these branches become wards then that tends to be a much stronger indicator of substantive growth.
The new stake in Missouri will be the Branson Missouri Stake, per a facebook post from the Springfield South Stake
Also, a new branch was created this past weekend in the previously unreached city of Kindu, DRC which is significantly further up the Congo River than Kisangani. Kindu is a city with a population that is likely at least 200,000.
Absolutely shocked to see CA with a positive. Although outmigration has slowed down I keep hoping the bretheren will bite the bullet, close my stake and make larger wards. I live in a densley populated area so it wont dramatically increase anyones commute. They waited until a ward in my stake had sub-50 attendence before finally closing it a few years ago. Why keep proping up small units when we could easily have fewer, but better functioning wards. Current ward is around 90-110 down from 140-120ish 5 years ago.
I've updated the membership table for US states in Wikipedia (I haven't updated the other tables). With this table I kept the growth table to a decade. In the past decade:
Arkansas and four of its neighbors made up half of the top 10 fastest growing states in the nation, with Arkansas having more than 25% growth in membership in the past decade.
67.4% of numerical growth of the church within the US over the last decade came from 3 states: Utah (44.12%), Texas (12.43%), and Idaho (10.85%). Note: there are some states that declined in membership during this period so all states that grew actually add up to 111.9% of the growth within the US to offset those that declined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_statistics_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_(United_States)#Members_and_growth
Tom,
Yes, especially if the wards meet in the same chapel, why they can't consolidate. One thing Matt pointed out is that "Stakes and congregations increased in 2024, but at about half the rate of total membership growth."
I went on my mission in 1999 and even then, the couple of wards I saw consolidated had an attendance around 50. I find the church doesn't do realignments unless it feel a strong need. This maybe because in most realignments I've seen, someone goes less active because of it.
With the new ward/stake creation standards, I can see potentially a number of consolidations in urban areas outside the US for the fact you mentioned (their standards prior to 2024 was less than the US). With it taking a couple of years from application to approval, it maybe another year before we start seeing significant changes from this new policy.
No matter how good the statistical analysis, it all depends on how diligent the local ward clerk and his membership clerk, if any, are. Some wards are slow recording baby blessings, child of record baptisms, convert baptisms, moves in and out of the ward, and deaths. It can make a huge difference in the growth or decline statistics.
Other Matt here ..
Some new growth to report in Southern California.
San Diego East Stake created a Haitian-Creole speaking branch, to serve recent Haitian refugees.
City Heights Branch (Haitian), San Diego California East Stake.
For DC. Within the last year or so, a meetinghouse (Chevy Chase) just on the Maryland side of the DC line had a fire that caused it to be closed (and torn down and is being rebuilt), these units moved to meetinghouses in DC. While the percentage growth would probably be more if they were just counting attendance at the DC meetinghouses, a shift based on who in those units were closer to the new meetinghouses is possible.
DC getting a temple would mean two temples inside a current *stake*. Additionally, no place in DC is more than 40 minutes from the current temple, I'm not sure there are temples that close to each other outside the Intermontane West.
Ohhappydane, that is a fair point, but consider this. Typically, branches would not be allowed to be formed unless the ward that they split off of still maintained the minimum requirements to become a ward. Given that few if any central Illinois wards met the new ward criteria five years ago, being able to create branches more at will is a very good sign.
This is likely one of the reasons why we get these statistics in April and not January. Information needs some time to trickle through, perhaps with the exception of convert baptisms which are reported almost in real time by the inidividual missions.
Randolph, you bring up a good point.
When ARDA did their listing by adherents by county at least for 2010, the figures the church provided was where the ward the members were assigned to met. So I saw wards that covered several counties report the full number of members of the ward/branch in the county they met and zero members counties without a meetinghouse. Also, I think there was a county in northeastern Utah that had more members than general population because wards that covered areas outside the county met there.
For states, the difference this would cause is negligible (the ward clerk issue stated by Gary above is probably a far more significant issue). But again, I'm not sure how the church reports this. With it only being a 3-4% change, I'm thinking the church is reporting either as if they were still meeting at the Chevy Chase Chapel (since the move is temporary), or that they are using state boundaries after all in reporting members.
So much growth yet fewer congregations, i guess retention is bad
Retaining newly baptized members does not lead to immediate new units just as looking members does not lead to immediate congregational consolidation.
The thing probably most tied to retention is temple expansion. Having 6 new temples announced for the US is a good indication retention is good. Although I think we have never been to a point where temples were adequately present based on the number of members.
The level youth go to the temple today is way higher than when I was a youth. So some is the sane number of active members go to the temple more.
On consolidations, most units have large numbers of non-participating members on the roles. If you combine units you give them even longer lists. In some areas it is the most participating members who move out, leaving your units with longer lists of non-participating members. So on paper combining units is not always the panacea it may seem.
Compared to the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does very well at creating new units and consolidating small ones as need demands. However changing ward boundaries in any way is not an easy process. The easiest change is a straight up split. Any for of consolidation is hard, and adjusting boundaries to right size units without creating new ones is also hard. I understand why people do not do so when there is a hope that a mix of reactivation and conversion might bring about a change.
Also, the notion that combining two wards that meet in the sane building has no effect on the members travel is not fully true. While ministering does not require in home visits as much as home teaching, it is still a good thing at least sometimes, so potentially having ministering assignments over a larger area could be a result. Also not all things need to happen at the Chapel. However I guess if you meet for seminary at another location you can still do that in a combined ward. Seminary does not need to be done by ward. Seminary teachers are called at the stake level, so assignments can be arranged in the most logical ways. At times people even attend in other stakes.
On issue with counting units on the county level. My parent's ward is entirely in the county thry live in but meets in another county.
This is a good question as to how church membership in DC is counted. I think some wards may cross the boundary between DC and Maryland. There are also some units by language that cover large sections of the metro area.
Since DC is split between 2 stakes, I believe DC abd Suitland Maryland, it would be possible to build a temple in the part of SC in the Suitland Stake.
Also from the Shepherd Parkway station to the DC Temple right now us 41 minutes on the Beltway. It is 10:00 at night Saturday night. I expect that will be a much larger time on Tuesday at 5.
It is only 39 minutes drive right now from Summitt New Jersey to the Manhattan Temple. So actually I can find a place in DC with more travel time from the DC Temple than a place in the eastern US that is getting a temple is from the closest temple.
I still think Baltimore and Frederick will get temples before DC proper. Also I suspect the next North of the Potomac Temple in the Washington metro will happen in Prince Georges County. And even with WI Chester getting a temple I think somewhere in Fairfax County or do would get a temple before DC. Other than maybe Baltimore I do not think any if these temples are super likely.
How do we improve our birth rate? (ie encourage more child bearing)
JPL,
Wards I've been in that covered large geographical areas did consider location of members when making assignments. However, if there is a specific person good for a family, sometimes they will choose that person to minister - even if it means crossing ward boundaries.
It seemed like back in previous generations, it was engrained to go to seminary then go on a mission the moment you turned 19 then don't wait more than a year to get married, then don't wait to have children and somehow the Lord will provide a way to pay for it. The wife would typically stay at home and frugality and subsistence living was the rule. You were more likely to be shunned back then if you didn't meet this mold.
Now, it's go on a mission, but the absolute need get married right away is not there. One can spend time in a YSA ward while they focus on college and paying down debt. However, females marrying later brings a greater chance of infertility so we have more of that. There's still talk of the need to get married and have children, but it's not as culturally engrained like it use to. Hinckley made a big push for education, and I did not get the end-of-mission go get married talk.
Another driver is technology. People are literally choosing to play video games, spend time on social media, surf the internet, etc over actually meeting someone. It's also inhibiting themselves from preparing themselves to support a family.
This is also my weakness as I'm obviously on the computer doing something that's probably less productive than if my computer was off.
Multi-generational Latter-day Saints are now better educated and employed than they use to... and definitely more educated and financially stable than other faiths that push early marriage. But, this has also meant fewer children. The church still pushes marriage and having children, but not like they use to.
I don't think going back to the old way is the way to go, but there needs to be a balance.
I went on a mission. I married nearly tw years later and went on to have 8 children. The first 5 years might have been frugal but we were truly blessed financially. The Church encourages good education and skills acquisition. These can help you secure higher paying employment. By the way, my wife was a stay at home mum as well.
Experiences really vary. We are 31 and 32 without kids. We know from learned experience that we are extremely unlikely to conceive at this point, due to various mostly hereditary health issues on both sides. I also know that many of my ancestors had very small families but somehow always managed to put exactly one child through to adulthood. Low fertility likely runs in my family.
This might be my availability bias but to me, it seems like there are very, very many couples our age who have not managed to conceive children or have had a large number of miscarriages. I would venture to say that very few couples are actually physically able to have 8 kids, regardless of intentions.
Regarding the financial aspect, it is also worth noting that income rises much more slowly with increased education and skills in other countries than it does in the US. I work for a Fortune 100 company in the financial sector in Germany and I am definitely a top 2 or 3% earner in my age bracket. However, my takehome pay broken down to hours is probably only about twice that of someone who cooks fries at McDonald's, while for my US colleagues in the same type of role it is probably close to five or six times that of a fry cook. Our society is not at all built for single-income families since they've not really been a widespread thing during anyone's lifetime at this point. Salaries reflect that.
As the Church becomes more international, the rate of members where both parents are required to work for various reasons will likely become higher.
Happy Easter, everyone! My wife and I are in a similar situation. We got married when I was 24 and she was 30. Though we planned for a large family (ie, more than 10 children), medical complications (for both my wife and myself) made that impossible in this life. We are looking forward to having a family during the Millennium, but still wish it could have happened sooner, in this life.
On another note, I don't think there's anything any of us can do to "improve our birth rate (ie encourage more childbearing)." When there are no medical complications involved, the determination of family sizes (brought about by birth rates) rests solely in the hands of each married couple. Church leaders have, over the years, given some counsel about starting and growing families, but it's not our prerogative to counsel anyone about decisions that should be left solely to each couple, with the input and approval of the Lord. It's nobody else's place to do so.
I mean no offense by this comment, and I certainly hope none is taken.
On another note, Matt, I am looking forward to reading your more detailed analysis of the new temples that were announced earlier this month. I assume that analysis will only come next week at the earliest.
The Church News and the Newsroom have shared a statement from the First Presidency regarding this morning's passing away of Pope Francis of the Catholic Church, who passed away early this morning;
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-condolences-his-holiness-pope-francis
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2025/04/21/first-presidency-expresses-condolences-death-pope-francis/
My thanks once again to you all.
Even though I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, I admired Pope Francis immensely. He showed the world the values of loving one's neighbor and caring for the poor and needy. Even though he did not truly possess the authority of Peter, which was lost centuries ago, he was an example of service and compassion, and was respected even by the true living Prophet, Seer and Revelator for this world, who visited him at the dedication of the Temple of Rome. Above all, he was a progressive citizen who demonstrated the compatibility between a penitent way of life and hope through social activism and respect for minorities. He will always be remembered for his benevolence, from here in the most Catholic country and the second most LDS country in the world.
Oh I don't know. Palm Sunday. Holy week. Visible crosses. The Church is looking far more like the Catholic Church these days than it ever has in my lifetime.
I wonder if there's a way to know whether the growth in New York mainly came from New York City and suburbs (NY NY mission) or from upstate New York (Syracuse NY mission). My family is originally from upstate New York so this makes me happy to hear of such growth from my birth state. Next up, hopefully New England can get another temple soon (especially New Hampshire 🤞)
I would not call it violating Church doctrine and practice. The Church has neither a doctrine nor a practice on whether someone should wear a cross.
“Any Latter-day Saint who wears the cross doesn't recognize that difference and is violating Church doctrine & practice”
Pretty offensive. My mother in law is a convert, endowed, just became a US citizen, frequently goes to the temple. She wears the cross as a family heirloom and tradition from growing up catholic.
There is nothing in the Church Handbook that states a member of the church cannot wear a cross. That is more a cultural tradition, not official doctrine or practice, as to why many don't. Those who choose to do so should never be called out about it or told that they cannot officiate or participate in anything Church related if they do wear it.
Crosses were sometimes used by people when the Church was first organized.
I always liked the idea in Stephen R. Covey's book, "the Divine Center" where he asserted that a Christ-centered paradigm is superior to a church-centered paradigm. My point is: Christian first; Latter-day Saint very close second (or maybe tied for first).
BTW - I think the "Cross" entry on the Church website would be different if all the 15 apostles weighed in or if Christ himself wrote the entry. One potential clarification many non-Catholic Christians would make is that the cross isn't primarily a symbol of Christ's death to them. It is a symbol of Christ's suffering and sacrifice for them. Of note, many non-Catholic Christians would point out that they don't wear the Cross with Jesus on it (many Catholics do). I have had multiple non-Catholics tell me that the cross without Christ on it is specifically to not emphasis Christ's death.
It would be cool though to get a manly looking necklace of Christus statute. Not the Church logo, but just the Christus itself. I just did a quick google search and see that ldsbookstore.com has some, but they look feminine or unisex.
I think we need to pray for our Indian brothers and sisters; there’s a rumor online - so take it with some salt - that the temple is delayed due to their FCRA license not being renewed (cutting off their funding from abroad - many other Christian churches appear to be likewise affected). Fortunately no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing per the prophet Joseph Smith
Compounded by current US/India trade tensions, it's not looking good right now. However, miracles can happen.
My thoughts on the cross have changed over time.
My wife who I married in the temple sometimes wears a cross and has one in her car. To her it is a symbol of connecting with Christ.
I would also point out some of the things done in the temple specifically link to christ on the cross.
I understand not wanting to emphasize it, but until about 1915 there was actually at least some use of cross, cross jewelry and related materials by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While in general I have the impression we believe that more of the key sufferings were done in Gethsemrne than some other Christians, we do believe that the cross was also part of his suffering and death.
Some of the new hymns have large sections that mention the cross and Jesus hanging there.
I think I am now to about Paul's thought on some things with the cross. I will encourage the wearing by others of the cross, and might even wear one myself, all the jewelry I actually wear is my wedding ring and my watch. So my wearing a cross is unlikely but not because I dislike it, I am just not into jewelry.
On the other hand I understand some members of the Church have feelings that the cross is less focused on the resurrection than thry think we want to be. Although if do, why do we have way more humans on Jesus' suffering and death than resurrection? I think I know the answer is that we feel a need to sing one of the former every week with the sacrament and a need to sing the later only on Easter Sunday, but I think any Sunday has an Easter Element and all Sundays are at some level Easter, since we only celebrate Sunday as the Lord's day because it is that day he did rise. We make hymns more to our need than what we value theologically. We will see how the new hymnbook balances these things.
That said, I would not invoke the cross if I knew a group would be negative towards it, but I would never criticize it.
I hope one of the new art pieces put up this year or next on temple Square will be of Jesus on the cross.
My understanding is India has essentially banned all Christian religions from using any funding from abroad. They have to all fund entirely through internal funds.
The hope is either the hearts of the leaders will be softened, or things will change do that the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in India will pay enough in tithes and offerings to fund the temple.
I am not sure the whole scope of these regulations. They make much more than just building the temple difficult and force difficult decisions about many things.
The site location & preliminary details for the Eket Nigeria Temple and an exterior rendering for the Huntsville Alabama Temple were released in an unexpected morning announcement today:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/location-announced-for-eket-nigeria-temple-huntsville-alabama-rendering
https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2025/04/22/huntsville-alabama-temple-exterior-rendering/
https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2025/04/22/eket-nigeria-temple-lds-site-location/
https://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2025/04/breaking-temple-news-first-presidency.html
My thanks once again to you all.
https://www.ldsliving.com/what-church-leaders-and-church-history-teach-about-wearing-and-displaying-the-cross/s/10418
https://johnhiltoniii.com/can-we-use-the-cross/
It also heard reports that the church began to use the cross to identify meetinghouses instead of a Moroni symbol on Google maps in the last couple of years.
I would think a country would welcome money from abroad. Wouldn't it increase the economy and support jobs?
To understand India's current policies you have to realize the government is Hindu nationalist. They at some level view neither Christians nor Muslims as fully Indian.
There is also the complex legacy of "rice Christians". One view is these people were paid to become Christian. The other view is thryvwere so ilostracized by Hinfmdu society the missionaries needed to find them a new job.
The expectations that thry would be paid on baptism and the missionaries not having a roast system to bring new Converts into gainful employment short term was why the mission to India reached few natives in the 1850s. I do have a friend who has an ancestor who joined the Church in India in the 1850s who was a native descent, but she was also the wife of a British soldier.
R. Lanier Britach wrote a whole book on the history of the Church in Ikdia in the 19th-century entitled "nothing more heroic". It gives some understanding of how deep these issues go. It is an interesting book, not least because it is actually written in the voice of A. Milton Musser. I have doubts that a writer in the 1990s actually captured the voice of a 19th-century person. It is an interesting choice.
So basically for the government of India preserving the Hinduness of the land matters more than money.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2025/04/21/mormon-church-site-clearing-temple-permit.html
The headline here mentions something about a "$7.5 million permit". I am sure that is not the end cost of the temple, so I am not sure what the amount mentioned is and am not about to pay to find out. Anyone have access abd can tell what this article is actually about.
architect here, that $7.5m permit probably just refers to the permit/impact fees paid by the applicant (ie, the Church). The temple probably costs whole like more than that.
Others may fact check me on this if they like, but I recall my New Testament BYU professor pointing out to us that our hymns (in the older LDS hymnal, before the more recent additions), mentioned the Cross or the Cross of Calvary more often than the Garden of Gethsemane.
A few that immediately come to mind:
"Upon the Cross of Calvary"
"Onward Christian Soldiers"
"Nearer, My God to Thee"
"In Humility, Our Savior"
Several of the new hymns, including, "It is Well with My Soul," also mention the cross.
Steve-j, thank you. That makes sense. My guess us that the total cost for the temple will be at least 10 times that much.
The Washington DC Temple cost $15 million. That was when that much went a huge, huge amount further. I am thinking the Washington DC Temple today would cost at least $150 million. It is a huge Temple, and has a very large amount of landscaped land. Also buying that much land is not cheap.
The Des Moines Iowa Temple just buying the land cost a few million dollars.
Exactly.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but typically the cost of the land isn’t included in the permits fees. Usually it’s just the estimated cost of construction or size of the project.
I’m experience, $7.2m in permit fees is quite high, but I have no idea how that jurisdiction assesses fees.
I spoke today in person to the person in our mission office who handles convert baptisms. They do not submit a report to headquarters in real time or any other time. It is up to the ward clerks and/or membership clerks to process the convert records so that the Church can then count converts.
Here https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/04/24/tmple-squares-restaurants-will-reopen-this-year-but-with-big-changes/ is an article about the restaurants in the Joseph Smith Memorial building reopening. They have been reduced from 3 to 2.
The Lion house will no longer be a restaurant but will be a visitors/hostorci site.
The biggest takeaway from the article is the 3-5 million visitors estimate for the Salt Lake Temple open house. Those seem reasonable numbers, although there are lots of unknowns.
Thanks for sharing that article here, JPL. I also came across it. What I will be interested to see is how much of that 6 months is open house tours, and how much is the "celebration" part of it that was also mentioned in conjunction with the news of the "open house celebration" for the Salt Lake Temple. I think that the article might have lowballed the estimate. People will be coming in from all over the world, and this is probably a once-in-a-lifetime chance for most to see inside the Salt Lake Temple. I'm sure another renovation might be needed at some point (as is almost always true), but few of us (if any) might be alive to see that second major renovation happen. Also, FWIW, I still think there's a good chance that the dedication could span several days to around a full week or so, with opportunities for each of the apostles to lead at least 1 of the dedicatory sessions.
I keep wondering if one of the sessions of general conference will only be available at meeting houses and become a temple dedication session. The timing lines up to somehow make it a possibility. We know other temples, Winter Quarters, Nauvoo, and Palmyra were broadcast to meeting houses.
What do others think?
I believe that in an article on the progress of the Tabernacle Choir's hope tour they snuck in a mention at the end, another case of burying the lead really, that the tour after going to Buenos Aires this fall and to Sao Paulo in the early 2026, would continue on through the Tabernacle Choir performing at the November 2027 re-dedication of the Salt Lake Temple. So that suggests to me that the re-dedication will be after general conference.
Since Palmyra, Winter Quarters and Nauvoo were mass broadcast dedications, and a rededication of Mexico City Temple was broadcast not just all across Mexico but to the US as well (but it was a service in Spanish, so not widely advertised in the US), and I think Brigham City Temple dedication they broadcast to all of Utah, I suspect there will be a mass broadcast of the Salt Lake Temple dedication. Possibly even more than one session. While I understand why 1 session dedications make sense, they make everyone being there hard since only baptized members, and thus only those 8 or older can be present. While worldwide broadcasting there is no time that works for everyone well. Easily there could be a Sunday morning and a Sunday evening worldwide broadcast, or you could also start the dedication with a Saturday evening session, that would double as Sunday morning for some people, and then also mass broadcast Sunday morning.
Having a few more non-broadcast sessions might work. I see the appeal to having 15 sessions and having every member of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 preside. However that would delay the actual reopening. 15 sessions of Tabernacle Choir singing would be a bit much.
Another thing to keep in mind though, is seating everyone who wants to watch a broadcast. With current technology we could set up a closed, secure broadcast to every single chapel, not just those with satellite dishes as was once the case. However some buildings have enough members, and enough of them would be able to get a dedication recommend, that I think just from logistics you need at least 2 sessions broadcast. At that is broadly only doable if you large church owned buildings like the Marriott Center at BYU to hold massively huge amounts of people.
I think they will also have to use the Tabernacle, the Conference Center and the Assembly Hall as overflow seating.
I am sure a lot of this has been worked out, but probably not the final details.
The article I linked to above seems to suggest reopening the Lion and Beahive houses is planned to have their new historical displays ready to be seen by those in Salt Lake City for the open house. I suspect the Church History Museum, maybe the Church History Library, and for sure the conference center will have things connected with the open house.
On a related but not quite connected note I had an idea recently that I think it would be awesome if The Church of Jesus Christ created something with a name like the Art of Jesus museum. This would be a museum focused solely on having art work related to Jesus, his life and ministry, and his teachings. It would take a broad view (like Talmage in Jesus the Christ) and cover his pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal life. Unlike the Church History Museum which used to be the Museum of Church History and Art, it would not focus primarily on art created by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it would not include art by such members that could not in some way link to Jesus. A rendering of the First Vision that only shows Joseph Smith with the light on him but not Jesus and Heavenly Father might pass muster, but would be borderline, and I do not think John the Baptist ordaining Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith would fit at all. On the other hand, and this is where the thought came from, it would include broadly various forms of art by various Christians, and since the controlling issue would be subject not creator, in theory it might create art works by non-Christians.
I neither claim to know a good place to actually place it in the broad area around temple square, nor could I say how costly it might be. I think it would be a good thing.
I don't think that the Church will rededicate the Salt Lake Temple as part of a General Conference weekend that is only for Church members 8 and above and only broadcasted at stake centers or chapels. The very purpose of General Conference weekend has lately been to allow Church members and others who tune in to hear from Church leaders. If, as I suspect, the dedication does happen in April, that is more likely to occur after Easter Sunday (which in April 2028 will be celebrated on April 16). My current projection is that the rededication will occur between April 23-29, the week following Easter Sunday.
The article said the multi-year Global Ministry Tour would be capped and concluded by the Choir's performance at the rededication of the Salt Lake Temple, not that the rededication would occur in November of 2027. After the open house period, each temple gets a final cleaning prior to its' dedication or rededication. There is no way the post-open house cleaning of the Salt Lake Temple will be done in a month, especially if the tours do span the full six-month period between April & October. The Church hasn't yet set a window for that rededication. Read the sources again and you'll see that that is true.
Given the recent emphasis on placing art that focuses on or draws attention to the Savior in meetinghouses and temples, and the cost of the renovation of the Salt Lake Temple and the likely cost of cleaning the temple again after the six-month open house celebration period, I highly doubt the Church will build an entire new museum focused solely on the Savior, especially since a "Savior of the World" exhibit has been held every so often at the Museum of Church History and Art. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but it seems unlikely.
Money is probably not the question, efficacy is.
Do we have enough good LDS art on the Savior himself to fill a museum? No. Does the construction of a museum in Utah directly serve the purposes of the church? No. Could it help further LDS art as a communication method, maybe, but the international art competitions are already making good steps on this. A museum where you get tired of looking at pictures of only Jesus is of limited narrative use as an experience, rather an art museum that shows diverse art showing many parts of the mortal experience, with reference to and opportunity to give a central place to the Savior may be more appropriate.
The Church History museum is not a great place to exhibit art, a real gallery would be good.
I recently saw someone post Rick Satterfield's site showing new stakes and districts formed in the last 90 days. Can someone help me find that site? Also, while searching stake and wards on maps.lds.org recently, I was surprised to see boundaries shown for all these units. However, when I go there now, it only shows their wards and branches with no boundaries shown. How do I find those boundaries? Thanks for your help.
Ray, I don't know much about the Church Maps site, so I'll leave it to others who do to help you with the second part of your comment. But the Church of Jesus Christ Temples page to which you are referring can be found at the following web address.
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/units/
Hope that helps.
Thank you, James. That was precisely what I was looking for and a big help to stay current with the many changes that occur in Church units.
As far as boundaries, I think my experience has been slightly inconsistent, but I'm largely certain you need to be signed in to your LDS Account to see the boundaries.
And Ryan, thanks to you also. Once I signed into my Church account I was able to pull up the correct boundaries. Much appreciated.
My pleasure.
While the church is only having 1 dedication now, the dedication actually has at least sessions. 1 live and 1 recorded. I know this because family in Tooele. This allows families with small children to participate.
I did preface my idea of an Art of Jesus museum by saying it might be difficult.
On expenses, for years that was the main reason given to not do a BYU medical school, and no it is happening.
However I see I was not clear enough about the idea I have for this museum. In my idea, a large portion, maybe most, or the art in the museum would not be by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That might make it very expensive. Competing for the best art on Jesus could be expensive.
Whether a full fledged museum, as opposed to various artistic displays in buildings and grounds, would actually fulfill a purpose for the Church that would justify the cost I am also not certain.
One thing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has for the last 60 years and more flstruggled with is how to best make it so the things the Church does serves members worldwide not just in the inrltermountsin west or the United States.
Investing in a new additional museum in Salt Lake City needs to be seen to advance this worldwide mission and not just the local mission.
In fact the Pacific Area now has more or less its own museum right next to the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. Church history has employees and functions in all areas, although only Pacific Area has really a museum.
Historic sites expanding around the world might happen at some point. There are a few markers placed elsewhere, but outside the US only England has anything close to a functioning historic site.
Instead there are now internet sites by the Church that offer online tours and visit planning.
As I said the art of Jesus museum is a bold idea. I have to admit I am unconvinced cost is the main issue. I think bigger issues are the plann8ng that would need to go into it, specifically planning how it would best align with the goals of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In some ways we could see it as a visual counterpart to the Tabernacle Choir. However the way the choir functions has been built over many decades, while being revamped and reevaluated atany points.
Thinking of an art museum as bring able yo do Dimitar things I think requires thinking outside the way art museums have normally operated.v
FYI: There were 22 countries with over 100,000 members in 2014. The two that didn't make either top ten or bottom ten lists are:
Argentina: 13.7%
Mexico: 12.1%
States with more than 55,000 members that didn't make either list
Georgia: 11.74%
New York: 11.72%
Idaho: 11.7%
Utah: 10.23%
Ohio: 8.22%
Arizona: 6.87%
Virginia: 6.11%
Hawaii: 3.66%
Illinois: 3.16%
Pennsylvania: 0.56%
Correction: Pennsylvania: 5.08%
Correction: Oregon: -1.83%
Democratic Republic of the Congo leads this list by a huge margin. That does not surpriseme. Yet we are just in the last 3 years or less starting to reach a large part of the country. The northern third does not have a stake,and very few places have the villages been reached. In Kinshasa all the wards and branches are in less than 20% of the city/province, and the remaining 80% has none. To be fair probably less than 10% of the population lives in that area.I think Kinshasa is well over 3000 square miles, the main urban area about 200. There is a huge nature preserve in the non-urbankzed part, but there are also many communities (some probably in the nature preserve).
One interesting think might be to see what the percentages of the membership of the Church was in thr begolinnimg and the end. Clearly DR Congo has a h8gher percentage of ch7rch membership now than in 2014, and a lower percentage lives in California.
JPL, I'm not sure why you're mentioning the DR Congo in response to a post about US membership. Did yom mean to comment on the previous post, which does mention membership outside the US?
Far West Missouri Stake - split today - the Grand River Missouri Stake was created - April 27 2025
Grand River Missouri Stake
Far West YSA Ward
Gallatin Ward
Grand River Valley Ward
Mill Creek Ward
Spring Hill Ward
Three Forks Ward
Trenton Tongan Ward
Yellow Creek Ward
Far West Missouri Stake
Alta Vista Branch - Spanish
Crooked River Ward
Excelsior Springs Branch
Far West Ward
Fishing River Ward
Grindstone Creek Ward
Kearney Ward
Whitmer Ward
Did Branson Missouri Stake get created?
Other Matt here...
In a San Diego area Stake Conference, it was announced today the San Diego Temple will reopen later this year.
I'm seeing Branson Missouri did get created and a new stake was created in Orlando in a 3 stake to 4 stake split.
JGS, I think he's referring to my first post of the group of stats above.
Yes, the new stake in the Orlando area is called the Citrus Ridge Florida Stake. The Orlando Florida West Stake, which gave the most units to create the new stake, has been renamed the Winter Garden Florida Stake.
Caleb, Were the 3 Stakes involved, the Orlando Florida, Orlando Florida South and the ex-Orlando Florida West Stakes? Or were there other nearby Stakes involved also?
Thanks, David. That's helpful.
a new stake in Missouri in the Kansas City Area
what each state added in members
Utah - 14,524-
2,205,134
california-41 -
728,639
Idaho - 4,931-
481,049
Arizona-1,910-
444,789
Texas-6,800
Texas
392,400
Washington-464-
282,266
Nevada-311-Nevada
183,097
Florida-3,373-
176,291
Oregon-246-
150,416
Colorado-535-
149,722
Virginia-1,245-
100,031
North Carolina-2,298-
97,653
Georgia-1,1441-
92,583
New York-3,029-
90,634
Missouri-2,773-
83,213
Hawaii-722-
76,357
New Mexico-19-
69,451
Wyoming-Nevetive 173-
67,518
Ohio-1,214-
65,809
Tennessee-1,663-
60,865
Illionis-1,049-
58,886
Pennsylvania-990
54,015
Oklahoma-770-
53,614
Montana-378-
52,446
Indiana-1,062-
48,851
Michigan-803
46,847
South Carolina-776-
46,586
Maryland-555-
44,649
Alabama-699-
41,239
Kansas-Nevative 266-
40,003
Kentucky-1,340-
39,875
Arkansas-894-
37,524
New Jersey-921-
36,374
Alaska-39-
33,987
Minnesota-353-
34,112
Louisiana-163-
30,076
Iowa-477-
29,762
Massachusetts-273-
28,940
Wisconsin-311-
28,741
Nebraska-364-
26,299
Mississippi-105-
22,402
West Virginia-205-
17,762
Connecticut-336-
16,366
South Dakota-378-
11,979
North Dakota-214-
11,896
Maine-151-
11,384
New Hampshire-160
8,713
Delaware-129-
5,865
Vermont-23-
4,647
Rhode Island-65-
4,861
DC- 122-District of Columbia
3,337
"Other"' Matt, the Church Temples site put a completion estimate for that temple as "mid-to-late 2025'" which will be sometime between mid-August at the earliest and mid-October at the latest. Based on the fact that "the open house and dedication take place several months after completion", we are likely to see an open house in either late 2025 or early 2026 at earliest, with the dedication following in February or March of next year. My personal current estimate for that rededication is April of next year, though I will move it up if the Church Temples site moves its' estimate up.
L. Chris Jones, actually those reports are partially true - The cross in place of the Moroni symbol on Google Maps is merely a symptom of the abolishment of the true name of the Church, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Category used for meetinghouses as part of a Search Engine Optimization strategy for the Head of Reputation Management. It's a shame, really - I thought the Moroni pin icon looked great; Moroni was a really good role model. Thankfully he'll remain above the Temples, and Categories, like any variable on Google Maps, are largely crowdsourced as well.
I also wondered about whether the movement of the Chevy Chase Ward from on the Maryland side of Western Avenue to inside the District and if that contributed. But that would be about a 25% increase in members instead of the 3% increase.
Post a Comment