I know this is almost two weeks late, but please click
here to access our July 2019 monthly newsletter for
cumorah.com. I wanted to wait until the site was back up to post the newsletter so the links for the updated country profiles would work. I will include profiles updated in July in the August monthly newsletter since the links will not work at present, and I have not been able to post the updated Timor-Leste profile (where the Church has had some significant recent developments with convert baptisms). We are getting closer to fixing the issue with the site, and hopefully it will be back up in the next few days.
Wonderful developments on all fronts. Truly we are seeing the fulfillment of the promise of the Lord that He will hasten his work in its' time. Based on your report on progress in Nigeria, I could see one or two more temples being announced in that nation in the near future, and also Nigeria and maybe one or two surrounding nations being split into their own area. I have wondered if the Africa West Area could be divided into an Africa Northwest and Africa Southwest Area, but time will tell. In the meantime, all of these other developments are wonderful to read about. I am glad, Matt, that you were able to get enough information from the Cumorah website to release this newsletter today. And I look forward to seeing what is next in terms of Church growth, both throughout the rest of this month, and also through the remainder of this year. Thanks again, Matt, for this wonderful report.
ReplyDeleteI disagree no stakes created this month, lowest growth rate since 1937. We may see the church faltering everywhere but Africa.
DeleteUnknown, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion on that. The idea of Nigeria splitting off with other neighboring nations was originally proposed by Matt in an earlier post here, so I'd defer to his opinion in that respect. Whether or not such a split occurs, I am grateful to see significant growth occurring in several important aspects throughout the African continent.
DeleteThe Cumorah website still isn't operating when I selected the link.
ReplyDeleteDJarvis87, Matt explained that in the final two sentences of his post above. He is getting closer to a fix on these issues, but it may take more time to do so. So the links won't work right now, but will hopefully be operational in the not-too-distant future. Hope this comment is helpful.
DeleteAnyone knows how many of the 700 congregations in Nigeria are wards?
ReplyDeleteYamil..421 Wards, 283 Branches
ReplyDeleteWith a 3rd stake in Abuja I hope it and Benin City have temple announced this year. I am also hoping for a temple in Enugu with the growth in Benue State, but that might be delayed soon.
ReplyDeleteI would live to see a temple in Port Harcourt but that city is only 50 miles from the Aba Temple, so that might be a ways away. Also Uyo or Etinan could get temples but they are also close to Aba. Calabaris a candidate but a ways way.
Yamil, the 421 wards in Nigeria represent an increase of 27 wards year to date, or up about 7%. The number of branches amount to an increase of 28, or up 11%.
ReplyDeleteRay, to give additional insight YTD there has been 9 Branches upgraded to Wards.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Nephi. Good to know.
ReplyDeleteAnother curious fact I have found. Using the Classic LDS Maps site, I found the Port-au-Prince Haiti Stake (offices) are located within the Port-au-Prince Haiti North Stake boundaries. And the Port-au-Prince Haiti North Stake (offices) are located within the Port-au-Prince Haiti Stake boundaries. A fact that may be rectified in a few weeks (09/01/2019), after the Port-au-Prince Haiti Temple dedication. The new Temple is located next to the Meetinghouse for both the Freres and Tocelle Wards (Paroisse de), within also the Port-au-Prince Haiti North Stake boundaries.
ReplyDeleteHello again, everyone! I have some additional thoughts I'd like to share here if I may be permitted to do so. First of all, President and Sister Nelson and Elder and Sister Cook will be heading out on their Latin American Ministry Tour in 10 days. I happened to look at the itinerary again, and found something interesting. Insofar as I am aware, when the itinerary was originally released (on May 29 of this year), it originally called for President Nelson to make a stop in Buenos Aires on the 28th and then had the next stop (for Sao Paulo Brazil) set for September 1.
ReplyDeleteAt some point between May 29 and today, it appears that a stop was added to the itinerary, as it now shows the Nelsons and Cooks will make a stop in Brasilia Brazil on Friday August 30. The stop appears to be for the purpose of meeting with missionaries and government leaders, but if I were a betting man, I'd lay odds on the fact that the group will also be assessing the readiness of the Brasilia Brazil Temple for its' groundbreaking ceremony. The group might also spend some of their time during the stop in Quito Ecuador (on Monday August 26) to assess the progress of the construction of the temple in that city.
Above and beyond that, however, both bofore and after the itinerary was announced, I have heard reports that part of the purpose of the stops in Guatemala, Argentina, and Brazil will be to assess other temple prospects in the near future. I have heard from a Church member in Guatemala that the next temple in that nation could either go to Coban or to Villa Nueva, to break up the current Guatemala City Guatemala Temple district.
My brother-in-law served as a missionary in the Campinas region, and when I had a chance to talk to him recently, he said it wouldn't shock him if part of President Nelson's time in Sao Paulo was used to scout for new temple prospects, since both the Sao Paulo and Campinas Temples, along with one or two others around the same region, are reportedly kept very busy.
And there was a newspaper article shared on my blog a while ago which supports what I have heard regarding Bahia Blanca Argentina. Apparently, the Saints in that city have been lobbying Church leaders for a while for a temple in that city. So during these 3 stops on President Nelson's tour, I'd anticipate that they will be scouting for future temple sites, perhaps even locations that will have a temple announced in October.
Additionally, I have begun my preliminary analysis on Nelsonian temple announcements. And one thing of which I took note is that the only new African temple announcement was for Lagos Nigeria, which is in the Africa West Area. In the Africa Southeast Area (which will be split into the Africa Central and Africa South Areas by this time next year), since the April General Conference of this year, the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple has been dedicated, a dedication has been set for the Durban South Africa Temple, and if my information is correct, a groundbreaking for the Harare Zimbabwe Temple is anticipated before the end of this year, and the Nairobi Kenya Temple could also have a groundbreaking within the next year or less. So I feel reasonably confident that if only one African nation has a temple announced in October, it will be a nation within the Africa Southeast Area.
As I said, I am planning on posting a more formal analysis of Nelsonian temple announcements and the future of temple construction on my blog ASAP, but hopefully these observations are helpful to some of you in the meantime. My thanks again to you all.
Good insights into possible upcoming temple announcements, James. I appreciate you posting them. They gave me some food for thought.
DeleteMy sister-in-law is from Brasilia, so it would be exciting for her to have them announce the groundbreaking for that temple. A good friend and district leader on my mission in Kentucky had served most of his mission in Bahia Blanca (before returning to the states due to an American football related leg injury). He taught me a lot about his mission and the culture of Argentina in general, so it would be nice to see a temple announced for his former mission.
A couple of additional thoughts here: I currently have Brasilia at the top of my list for temples which could have a groundbreaking in the near future. But I am not convinced currently that President Nelson's visit will bring an announcement of the groundbreaking for that temple. It seems more likely to me that he could instead assess how soon the temple might be ready for a groundbreaking, and that the groundbreaking itself might occur later in September or October. But I say that as one relying only on what I hear from my available sources, which information is subject to confirmation by the Church through an official announcement.That said, I would be more than pleased if he were to announce the groundbreaking while there, or even if he were to preside over that groundbreaking himself on that date.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I also recently remembered that two temples were announced in the Pacific Area of the Church in April of this year, so that opens the prospect that perhaps two (or three) African temples could be among those announced by President Nelson in October. But I would also anticipate that, if that is the case, the maximum would be one for each African area (Africa Southeasat, Africa West, and possibly Middle East/Africa North). If 3 African cities have a temple announced, and one of them is not for the Middle East/Africa North Area, it is possible that two could be announced for either Africa West or Africa Southeast, and one announced for the other area. I have been wrong before, but that's just a feeling I have on likely African temple prospects.
And in so many ways, it does appear as though President Nelson has thrown away the rule book whereby past precedents were followed. That is why I have advocated a more unconventional, out-of-the-box apporach in considering prospective temple locations which could be announced in October. Having said that, Jonathan, I'd like to note that I appreciate the excellent give-and-take you and I have been able to have recently on the threads of this blog. For that reason, I'd like to personally invite you (and anyone else) who may be interested in doing so to weigh in on my latest list of potential locations for which a temple may be announced next October. That list was published on my blog around a month ago, and in a prior thread on this blog, Chris did a comparison/contrast of my list against information on Matt's Cumorah site.
I am working to refine that list between now and Monday September 30, when I will need to make any final tweaks or adjustments before General Conference weekend. So I'd welcome additional feedback from anyone here. My goal is to have an earnest give-and-take on this list, to figure out if I have overlooked, been too optimistic about, or underestimated. You can comment on that latest list at the following web address:
https://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2019/07/revised-and-expanded-list-of-potential.html
In the meantime, my thanks again to you all.
Thanks, James!
DeleteI'll definitely check out your temple prediction post.
Papua New Guinea must needs have a temple. This General Conference.
ReplyDeleteWith only 2 stakes it seems less pressing than Liberia, Sierra Leone and even Mozambique.
DeleteYou may have a fair point, JPL. Making a comparison just based on stakes alone, you'd be right on the money. But I'd draw your attention to Matt's latest list of the top 10 nation's with the strongest Church presence without a temple:
Deletehttp://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2019/04/updated-10-countriesterritories-with.html?m=1
As of when that list was posted, Papua New Guinea ranked first. And with an additional 12 districts operating, the congregational total (80) is also higher, as is the total membership. The Yigo Guam temple will only serve the Barrigada Guam stake for the moment, and the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple, when dedicated next year, will also serve just one stake. So a lower number of stakes alone wouldn't diminish the likelihood or imminence of a Papua New Guinea Temple.
Also, land was held in reserve long-term in quite a few of the cities for which President Nelson has announced temples this far (with Managua Nicaragua and Auckland New Zealand being two foremost examples), and both had temples announced in 2018. The same is true in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, in which land had been held for at least a decade, but perhaps longer. Insofar as I am aware, the Church does not yet have land held in reserve in any of the other 9 nations on that list.
Lastly, with the usual pattern of temple announcement traditions being essentially thrown out the window by President Nelson, I again share my belief that usual methods of reasoning on temple announcements may only take us so far but no further. The only reason I wound up being roughly 80% accurate on my temple predictions last April was because I used unconventional methods in my logic and reasoning as I considered theoptions to include. And it paid off.
With all of that said, I recognize your right to your own opinion, and I will be grateful to hear about any number of temples being announced anywhere, whether those locations are on any of my lists, or whether they are not. The Lord controls the process of where, when, how soon, and under which conditions such announcements are made, and I hope all of us (especially myself) will keep that in mind.
I agree with you on that, Eduardo. It seems very likely the next temple in the Pacific will be in Papua New Guinea. Land has been held in reserve in Port Moresby for decades now. I have had that nation on my list as long as I have had a list. I hope the time for that prospect is now.
ReplyDeleteAdded 8/14 a new Stake in Lima Peru. The "Lima Peru Santa Clara Stake" added to Classic LDS Maps.
ReplyDeleteSo that is the 5th stake created in the Lima metro area this year, correct? Awesome.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just an FYI to Matt, I don't see the Lima Perú Naranjal Stake on the right side of page where the new stakes for this year are listed. Thanks!
There was a mistake in the reporting of wards closed. In the Leeds England Stake as well as Skipton branch closing they closed Leeds 2,4 and 5 wards and replaced them with Crossgates and Morley wards. So an extra ward was closed. Thanks
ReplyDeleteEric S., besides the Lima Peru Naranjal Stake, The new Lima Santa Clara Stake has been created making it the 6th new stake for Peru this year.
ReplyDeleteEric S., besides the Lima Peru Naranjal Stake, The new Lima Santa Clara Stake has been created making it the 6th new stake for Peru.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ray! Yes, the 6th overall in the country and the 5th in Lima metro.
ReplyDeleteThat is amazing to think about. 5 more stakes in the Lima region, and 1 other elsehwere in Peru, this year alone. Based on that, I am reasonably confident we will see another Peruvian temple announced in October. I have my eyes on Iquitos and Cusco in that respect, and although I have chosen to prioritize Iquitos on my personal list, I fully believe that the Church will have temples announced in both cities within the next 3-5 years, if not sooner. It is wonderful to see such positive growth occurring in Peru.
ReplyDeleteThe claim "no stakes created this month" does not bear up under scrutiny. A stake was just created in Forteleza Brazil. Multiple stakes have been formed in Lima this year. Also multiple stakes have been formed in the Phillipines this year. The Church also continues to clearly grow in Utah.
ReplyDeleteThe Africa West Area being split in two is possible, but I do not know how likely it is. At present we have about 2/3rds the areas the Church had at the hight of the area phenomenon. That said, the history of administrative units between that of stakes/missions/districts and the Church as a whole is so complex, that I have only ever seen one article come close to getting it right. That is an article from the book on THe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Canada. Even there I am not sure they fully explain regional representatives (who oversaw the operations of the Church) and mission representatives (who were over training missionaries on a multi-mission level). The Area Presidencies inagurated in 1984 were the first ones to function as full presidencies, Zone Administrators and other general authorities leading before were assigned one by one.
When Area Authorities were first inagurated in 1995 under President Hinckley 3 were called as members of area presidencies. I think both Chile Area and Central America Area for a time had all area authority seventy area presidencies. Today I believe only the Europe East Area Presidency has an Area Sevnety in it.
I always argue that Areas are closer to Catholic dioceses than stakes. Even the number of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Area, which has by far the most Church members of any area, is still dwarfed by some Catholic dioceses, and even more by some archdioceses. On the other hand Europe East Area and Middle East/North Afirca Area (which I think they should rename Southwest Asia/North Africa) have similar membership numbers to many Catholic diocese in India.
JPL, the comment about no stakes being created this month was actually made in connection to my comment referencing Matt's suggestion of a split to the Africa West Area. So when Unknown mentioned that "no new stakes [were] created this month", that was in reference solely to the Africa West Area. I know that because on my mobile device, Unknown's comment from August 25 and mine in reply to it appear as direct replies branched off from the main discussion. So the relevant discussion in this case was about the prospect of either the Africa West Area being split into two areas, or about Matt's previously-offered suggestion that Nigeria and some surrounding nations could split off into their own area separately from the current Africa West Area.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if the Africa West Area growth has slowed temporarily, based on area statistics previously provided by Chris, although the current Africa Southeast Area encompasses more nations than the Africa West Area, the latter beats the former in terms of both stakes and districts and (unless things have changed in the last 4 years) in congregations as well. The Africa Southeast Area was likely split for geographical convenience, but the numbers for the Africa West Area which I have shared here may indicate a need to split that area in some way at some point, whether in the more immediate or more distant future.
As for your comment about area presidencies with area seventies, it is true that the Europe East Area has a current area seventy as Second Counselor. But that is also true as of the first of this month for the Middle East/Africa North Area, which for the first time this year has a 3-man presidency to oversee it. And of the 3, only the area seventy (Jeffrey H. Singer, who lives and works in the area) is actually on-site for the area. The other two presidency members (both General Authority Seventies) administer their share of the business for that area from Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, in the same way that the now-6 North American Areas are administered therefrom.
Incidentally, for those who may be curious, in one of the threads from my blog, the effect of the North American area consolidations on the composition of the Fifth and Sixth Quorums of the Seventy was finally resolved. Unless any other changes have subsequently been made, then the Fifth Quorum is now comprised of those Area Seventies living in the consolidated North America West and Utah Areas, while the Sixth Quorum is comprised of those Area Seventies serving in the consolidated North America Central (which now takes in Area Seventies living in Idaho) and the unchanged North America Northeast, North America Southeast, and North America Southweest Areas.
As for your suggestion that the Middle East/Africa North Area be renamed (which, if it occurred in the way you suggest, would more likely be called the Asia Southwest/Africa North Area), the reason for its' current name is that most of the area encompasses all the nations in the area the world geographically defines as being in the Middle Eastern region, with only a few nations from Northern Africa. And insofar as I have been able to ascertain, I have found no nations within it (or any that will be part of it as of August of next year) which would geographically qualify as being part of Southwestern Asia, unless you are espousing the minority view that some nations defined as being part of the Middle Eastern region should actually be defined as Western Asia nations.
Either way, you certainly have a right to your own opinion as well, and I would never try to take that away or convince you otherwide, but I hope the thoughts I have provided in response to your comment above are helpful in some manner.