Sunday, October 16, 2022

New Temples Announced in October 2022 - Part II - Latin America

Chiclayo Peru Temple

The Chiclayo Peru Temple will be the Church's sixth temple in Peru following temples in Lima (dedicated in 1986), Trujillo (dedicated in 2015), Lima Los Olivos (announced in 2016), Arequipa (dedicated in 2019), and Cusco (announced in April 2022). The Church organized its first stake in Chiclayo in 1980, and there are now six stakes and one district in the Chiclayo metropolitan area. Chiclayo was previously one of the metropolitan areas outside of the United States with the most stakes without a temple. The new temple will likely include 13 stakes and three districts in northern Peru. The Church organized its own mission for Chiclayo in 2011. Stakes in Chiclayo and extreme northern Peru are currently assigned to the Trujillo Peru Temple district. Church growth trends in stakes and districts within the likely temple district for the Chiclayo Peru Temple have been slow in recent years. Only one new stake has been organized in the area during the past decade (Paita Peru Stake in 2019). The new temple is the Church's first temple in Lambayeque Region.

Buenos Aires City Center Argentina Temple

Buenos Aires was previously the metropolitan area outside of the United States with the most stakes with only one temple. There are 26 stakes in the greater Buenos Aires metropolitan area (including La Plata and excluding Zárate). The new Buenos Aires City Center Argentina Temple will be the Church's sixth temple in Argentina following temples in Buenos Aires (dedicated in 1986), Córdoba (dedicated in 2015), Salta (announced in April 2018), Mendoza (announced in October 2018), and Bahía Blanca (announced in 2020). The new temple district appears likely to include as many as 13 stakes in central and northwestern Buenos Aires. The current Buenos Aires Argentina Temple is fairly centrally located in Buenos Aires, and the new temple may not be very far away from the current temple unless it is built in the north-central area. The Church organized its first stake in Buenos Aires in 1966. The most recently organized stakes include the Lujan Argentina Stake (organized in 2016) and the Buenos Aires Argentina Chacabuco Stake (organized in 2014). Unlike most Latin American countries, the Church has never discontinued a stake before in Argentina, but there has been a net decline of more than 100 congregations for the country during the past 15 years. Church growth trends in Buenos Aires have been slow, and the number of congregations in the metropolitan area has slightly declined in the past decade. The new temple is the Church's third temple for Buenos Aires Province.

Londrina Brazil Temple

The Londrina Brazil Temple will be the Church's 17th temple in Brazil following temples in São Paulo (dedicated in 1978), Recife (dedicated in 2000), Porto Alegre (dedicated in 2000), Campinas (dedicated in 2002), Curitiba (dedicated in 2008), Manaus (dedicated in 2012), Fortaleza (dedicated in 2019), Rio de Janeiro (dedicated in 2022), Belem (announced in 2016, to be dedicated in November 2022), Brasília (announced in 2017), Salvador (announced in 2018), São Paulo Brazil East (announced in 2020), Belo Horizonte (announced in April 2021), Vitória (announced in October 2021), Maceió (announced in April 2022), and Santos (announced in April 2022). The new temple in Londrina will likely include eight stakes and three districts in western Paraná and São Paulo states. The Church organized its first stake in Londrina in 1979, and there are two stakes in the city today. Church growth has been slow, but steady, in this region of Brazil, with only two new stakes organized in the likely new temple district during the past decade. Stakes in the likely new temple district primarily pertain to the Curitiba Brazil Temple district and the Campinas Brazil Temple district, albeit the Foz do Iguaçu Brazil Stake is assigned to the Asunción Paraguay Temple district. The Brazil Londrina Mission was organized in 1995. The Londrina Brazil Temple is the Church's second temple in Paraná State.

Riberão Prêto Brazil Temple

The announcement of the Riberão Prêto Brazil Temple marks the second time in Church history in Brazil when two temples were announced on the same day (the first such instance was in April 2022). The Riberão Prêto Brazil Temple is the Church's 18th temple announced for Brazil. The new temple will likely include 13 stakes and one district in extreme northwestern São Paulo State and extreme western Minas Gerais State - areas currently serviced by the Campinas Brazil Temple. The Church organized its first stake in Riberão Prêto in 1987, followed by a second stake in 1992, and two additional stakes in 1993. However, the two stakes organized in 1993 were discontinued in 2001. Nevertheless, the Church organized a third stake in Riberão Prêto in 2019 after steady increases in the number of congregations in the city during the previous 5-10 years. Thus, Riberão Prêto is the city (that has never previously had a temple announced) to have had the most stakes previously discontinued and have a temple announced (the city with the most stakes ever discontinued to have another temple announced is Santiago, Chile where a second temple was announced in 2021 after 15 stakes were discontinued between 2000-2019 - the original Santiago Chile Temple was dedicated in 1983). Like the region that will likely be assigned to the Londrina Brazil Temple, Church growth trends have been slow, but steady. Only two new stakes have been organized in the area likely to be serviced by the Riberão Prêto Brazil Temple during the past decade.

São Paulo State is the province/state with the most temples (five) dedicated or announced in the world outside of the United States.

Huehuetenango Guatemala Temple

The Huehuetenango Guatemala Temple is the Church's fifth temple in Guatemala following temples in Guatemala City (dedicated in 1984), Quetzaltenango (dedicated in 2011), Cobán (announced in 2019), and Miraflores Guatemala City (announced in 2020). This location was not on my list of likely locations for new temple announcements due to few stakes and proximity to Quetzaltenango. The new temple in Huehuetenango will likely be a small temple as the prospective temple district will likely include only three stakes (all located in Huehuetenango) and two districts. The first stake in Huehuetenango was organized in 1988 followed by additional stakes created in 1994 and 2014. Stakes and districts in the Huehuetenango area currently pertain to the Quetzaltenango Guatemala Temple district and the Guatemala Quetzaltenango Mission.

Cuernavaca Mexico Temple

President Nelson explained during the announcement of four new temples in locations near Mexico City that, "We are also planning to build multiple temples in selected large metropolitan areas where travel time to an existing temple is a major challenge." 

The Cuernavaca Mexico Temple is the Church's 20th temple in Mexico. The Church in Mexico has previously dedicated or announced the following temples: the Mexico City Mexico Temple (dedicated in 1983), the Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple (dedicated in 1999), the Ciudad Juárez Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Hermosillo Sonora Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Oaxaca Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Tuxtla Gutiérrez Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Tampico Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Villahermosa Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Mérida Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Veracruz Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Guadalajara Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2001), the Monterrey Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2002), the Tijuana Mexico Temple (dedicated in 2015), the Puebla Mexico Temple (announced in 2018), the Querétaro Mexico Temple (announced in April 2021), the Torreón Mexico Temple (announced in April 2021), the Culiacán Mexico Temple (announced in October 2021), the San Luis Potosí Mexico Temple (announced in April 2022), and the Mexico City Benemérito Mexico Temple (announced in April 2022). The new Cuernavaca Mexico Temple will likely include 12 stakes in Morelos State, southern Estado de Mexico State, and Guerrero State. The first stake was organized in Cuernavaca in 1983, and there are two stakes in the city. The oldest stake in the prospective temple district was organized in Cuautla in 1975 where there are three stakes today. Church growth has been slow in the area of Mexico. The most recently organized stake was created in 2009. The Church organized a mission in Cuernavaca in 2006. The Cuernavaca Mexico Temple was the first temple to be announced in Morelos State. Stakes in the likely new temple district pertain to the Mexico City Mexico Temple.

Pachuca Mexico Temple

The Pachuca Mexico Temple is the Church's 21st temple in Mexico. The new temple will likely include five stakes in the Pachuca area. The oldest stake in the probable temple district was created in 1984 in Pachuca. There are three stakes in Pachuca. The Church has reported some of its more rapid growth in Mexico in the Pachuca area as attested by the creation of new stakes and districts (three of the five stakes likely to be in the new temple district were organized in 2008, 2010, and 2018). The Mexico Pachuca Mission was organized in 2013. The Pachuca Mexico Temple is the first temple to be announced in Hidalgo State. Stakes in the likely new temple district pertain to the Mexico City Mexico Temple.

Toluca Mexico Temple

The Toluca Mexico Temple is the Church's 22nd temple in Mexico. This temple was not included on my most recent map of likely locations for future temple announcements because there are only three stakes in the Toluca area and close proximity to Mexico City where there are two temples (one dedicated, one announced). The Toluca Mexico Temple will likely include only three stakes and one district (in Michoacán). However, a fourth stake in the area appears likely to be organized in the foreseeable future. The new temple will be the Church's first temple in Estado de Mexico State - a state with dozens of stakes that surrounds Mexico City proper. The first stake in the Toluca area was created in 1991. Church growth in the Toluca area has been steady and more rapid than most areas of Mexico, with the next two stakes created in 2005 and 2014. Stakes in the area are assigned to the Mexico Mexico City West Mission. Stakes in the likely new temple district pertain to the Mexico City Mexico Temple.

Tula Mexico Temple

The Tula Mexico Temple is the Church's 23rd temple in Mexico. Like the Toluca Mexico Temple, this location was not included on my most recent temple prediction map due to few stakes in the area and close proximity to Pachuca which I considered a much more likely prospect for a new temple (which coincidentally also had a temple announced at the same time). The Tula Mexico Temple will likely service only four stakes in western Hidalgo State. The announcement of the Tula Mexico Temple marks the first temple two temples have been announced at the same time for the same state/province where no temples previously operated. There is only one stake in Tula that was organized in 1975. Three of the four stakes in the prospective temple district may divide in the coming years if additional congregations are organized and the number of active members increases to warrant it. Stakes in the likely new temple district are divided between the Mexico Pachuca Mission and the Mexico Mexico City North Mission. Stakes in the likely new temple district pertain to the Mexico City Mexico Temple.

32 comments:

A. J. Merlos said...

Nice analysis! So it is safe to say that Huehuetenango's floor plan will be the 10,000 square feet design or maybe the same as Puerto Rico and Yigo, Guam? or perhaps a little bigger like the 17,000 square feet design of the lubumbashi temple

Chris D. said...

I counted these 14 Stakes and 3 Districts for the Chiclayo Peru Temple District. Compared to Matt's list of 13 + 1.

Stakes :
Chiclayo Perú
Chiclayo Perú Central
Chiclayo Perú El Dorado
Chiclayo Perú Federico Villarreal
Chiclayo Perú La Victoria
Chiclayo Perú Latina
Jaén Perú
Paita Perú
Pomalca Perú
Tumbes Perú
Sullana Perú
Piura Perú Castilla
Piura Perú Central
Piura Perú Miraflores

Districts :
Guadalupe Perú La Libertad
Lambayeque Perú
Talara Perú

With a possible 15th Stake about equal distance between Trujillo and Chiclayo, which could go either way.

Cajamarca Peru Stake

Daniel Moretti said...

I've been waiting for this post analyzing temples in Brazil to present my comment about my São Carlos stake and its relationship with the Ribeirão Preto temple.

São Carlos belongs to the Piracicaba mission and, consequently, to the Piracicaba correlation region, both linked to the Campinas temple. But Campinas is about 150km away from São Carlos, while Ribeirão is less than 100km away. I'm afraid this situation involves some administrative adjustment by the area presidency to accommodate my stake in the new district.

Are there similar situations in the US? How do people and leadership organize themselves when they are assigned to one temple but are closer to another?

And, adding to my previous comments: I am amazed at the delay in choosing the location and rendering of São Paulo east. I believe that this situation occurs for one of these reasons:
1. The east temple must be a special and extensive project, like Lima Los Olivos;
2. Difficulties in finding suitable land in the east side of São Paulo, a very populous region with few options for large land plots;
3. The change of plans in order to choose a site further north (Guarulhos), south (ABC) or east (Mogi das Cruzes and Vale do Paraíba Paulista), allowing a rational distribution of the territory for a future third temple in the Metropolitan area.

Danny said...

Yes, there are probably many such situations now. One example is people who live between seattle WA and portland OR temples in the USA. The tacoma temple will be a great help in allowing people to attend the temple more regularly.

Chris D. said...

My list for Londrina Brazil Temple includes the following 10 Stakes and 4 Districts. In comparison with Matt's 8 + 3.

Stakes
Apucarana Brazil
Bauru Brazil
Campo Grande Brazil
Campo Grande Brazil Monte Libano
Cascavel Brazil
Foz do Iguaçu Brazil
Londrina Brazil
Londrina Brazil Tiradentes
Marília Brazil
Maringá Brazil

Districts
Itapeva Brazil
Presidente Prudente Brazil
Tupã Brazil
Campo Mourão Brazil

twinnumerouno said...

A member of my current ward served in the Quetzaltenango mission; he said 3 of his 5 areas were in Huehuetenango. According to him Huehuetenango to Quetzaltenango is a 4-hour trip over roads that are not great, and the new temple has been needed badly. He was so touched by this announcement it brought tears to his eyes.

twinnumerouno said...

The Hamilton New Zealand temple has been re-dedicated by Elder Uchtdorf:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2022/10/16/23406879/elder-uchtdorf-rededicates-hamilton-new-zealand-temple

Chris D. said...

In the City of Kisangani, in eastern Province of Tshopo, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, with 3 new mission branches recently organized. There are now a total of 6 Mission Branches in the city.

Taken from the wikipedia article : "Kisangani /kiːsəŋˈɡɑːni/ (formerly Stanleyville or Stanleystad) is the capital of Tshopo province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is the fifth most populous urban area in the country, with an estimated population of 1,312,000 in 2021,[3] and the largest of the cities that lie in the tropical woodlands of the Congo."

Lubunga Branch
Kisangani Branch
Makiso Branch
137 Oct 14, 2022 Tshopo Branch Kisangani, Democratic Republic Of Congo
138 Oct 14, 2022 Kabondo Branch Kisangani, Democratic Republic Of Congo
139 Oct 14, 2022 Mangobo Branch Kinshasa, Democratic Republic Of Congo

I wonder how long it will be before the 6 Branches become a Mission District?

https://classic.churchofjesuschrist.org/maps/#ll=0.520149,25.200395&z=12&m=google.hybrid&layers=stakecenter&q=Kisangani&find=ward:2112531

Jim Anderson said...

Heard about that place, the mission worked to get solar on the one building, necessary because it was reported that the whole city was without power for a month once. When they flipped the switch they found they gave it too much power as it began to smoke.

Leadership meetings at that time, about 4 or 5 years ago, consisted of mostly how to operate a computer.

This is also the place where the saying came from 'Dr. Livingstone, I presume?'.

Yamil Inosotroza said...

I think there's a incorrect information about the Chiclayo Temple, Matt. You said Chiclayo was the city with more stakes without a temple outside the USA. According to the information I have, the city with more stakes without a temple is the Valparaiso/Viña del Mar Metro Area, in Chile with 8 stakes.

Matt said...

Yamil Inosotroza - I said that Chiclayo was "one" of the metropolitan areas outside of the United States with the most stakes without a temple prior to the announcement, so I did not say it had the most of any metropolitan area. Yes, Valparaiso/Viña del Mar Metro is #1, and #2 is Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

John Pack Lambert said...

Tula is adjacent to San Marcos, which is where Vicente Morales and Rafael Monroy, the martyrs of 1915, lived. It is also the place where Agricol Lozano Herrara, the first ethnically Mexican stake president in Mexico, was born and raised. It is in many ways the most storied place in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in central Mexico.

These numbers make me think a temple for somewhere is Guerroro is still a strong possibility. Cuernavaca looks to be ending up with far more stakes than the other 3 new temples, and the distances from parts of Guerrero to Cuernavaca are very large.

Valenzuela y Escobar said...

I really like these analyzes, it is undeniable that the church grows slowly, and in many cases it has stagnated, although I think that it does not only happen to the LDS church but to all the religions that one hears about.
I am from Santiago de Chile, my stake has been for decades since it was created and divided, that division was to empower leaders, not because there were more assets.
The temples attract attention, they give the feeling and I say this humbly that there is more strength than what we see in our wards and stakes.
Just yesterday after almost a month and a half, it was possible to have the meeting of temple and family history consultants, the history center had been closed for years, and it was not only because of the pandemic, also, because there are no volunteers, the baptized have not come to love his ancestors and the temple.
I do not say this to criticize and see everything wrong, obviously I want the church to grow, there are more temples not only for Chile but throughout the world, because it is necessary, it saddens me to see that menbresia has cooled down spiritually, there is no commitment, lack of service, I hope this changes.

Daniel Moretti said...

Bauru is closer to Campinas, Itapeva is closer to São Paulo. Araçatuba is equally distant from Londrina and Ribeirão Preto, but should remain with Ribeirão until a new temple is announced for the west of the State of São Paulo.

Chris D. said...

Looks like today the Classic Maps website has been officially taken down as was announced effective October 15th, 2022.

Chris D. said...

"Groundbreaking dates set for 4 temples — Guatemala, Nicaragua and 2 in Mexico"

https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2022/10/17/23408407/groundbreaking-dates-for-miraflores-guatemala-city-temple-managua-nicaragua-queretaro-mexico-torreon

Yamil Inosotroza said...

Thanks Matt, my wrong. Thank you for the analisys.

EP said...

Managua with all of its info and a groundbreaking set is wonderful to see. I think that leaves Russia as the furthest in the backlog of temples announced with no additional info. Can't say I'm surprised by that.

James G. Stokes said...

For the information of readers of this blog, in view of today's announcement, there are 2 temples of the 7 originally announced in April 2018 that have not had any official information confirmed yet: Cagayan de Oro Philippines, and Russia. Of the 12 temples announced in October 2018, only the Lagos Nigeria Temple has not had any official information confirmed. However, a site has reportedly been acquired for that temple, so it might just be a matter of time before we get an announcement on that temple.

Of the 8 temples announced in April 2019, the only one remaining in the queue of those announced is the Budapest Hungary Temple. If, as theorized elsewhere, Elder Bednar's recent trip to Hungary included looking at prospective sites, that may also simply be a matter of time before we get an official announcement. Of the 8 temples announced in October 2019, the Freetown Sierra Leone and Bacolod Philippines Temples both had groundbreakings within the last year (with full-scale construction pending on both), so the only one left is the Port Moresby Papua New Guinea Temple. With the recent update from the Church Temples site that the meetinghouse currently on the site is being demolished, hopefully, we could get an update on Port Moresby as well soon.

Of the 8 temples announced in April 2020, 4 have not yet had construction begin. Ground was broken at the end of August for the Lubumbashi DR Congo Temple, and we are still awaiting more official information on the Benin City Nigeria, Dubai UAE, and Shanghai China Temples. Of those 3, we are probably most likely to hear information on the Dubai temple first. Only 2 of the 6 temples announced in October 2020 are still in the queue of announced temples. Both are in Latin America: Sao Paulo East Brazil, and Santa Cruz Bolivia.

And with 20 temples announced in April 2021, we have no information on Oslo Norway, Brussels Belgium, and Vienna Austria (though Elder Bednar may or may not have scouted for locations for the latter temple during his recent ministry in that area). We know that the king of the Kumasi region of Ghana was presented with an exterior rendering, and it may be the genuine article. If so, that will likely be confirmed in the near term. We are awaiting information on the Beira Mozambique Temple, and a site location and rendering have been confirmed for Cape Town South Africa, Belo Horizonte Brazil, and Cali Colombia. A site location has been confirmed for the temple in Singapore, and groundbreakings were set today for the two Mexico Temples announced during that conference.

Potential sites have been identified (but not yet confirmed) for Taiwan's second temple and the temple in Tacloban Philippines, and there is no official information yet on the other 9 temples announced in October of last year, which includes 3 more African temples, 4 more Latin American temples, and 2 in the United States. That brings us to April of this year, and we are awaiting announcements on 15 of the 17 temples announced during that conference, which of course just leaves the 18 announced earlier this month.

With groundbreakings scheduled for 5 temples currently, of the 73 currently-announced temples, we have not yet received official announcements for 58. Hopefully that number goes down in the coming weeks. Hope these updates are helpful to at least some of you. My thanks once again to you all.

John Pack Lambert said...

The 4 new temples with ground breakings announced is exciting. We still have Cagayan de Oro waiting for a date though from April 2018. I hope we can keep up this every Monday there is some temple related announcement pace for a while.

James G. Stokes said...

JPL, regarding that, yesterday was the second Monday in a row to have major temple news announced. Since President Nelson announced 18 new temples in General Conference, that's likely why there was nothing else announced on the first Monday of this month. The major update on September 26 pertained to the renovation progress on the Salt Lake Temple, and the Church reported breaking temple news on September 19 and September 12.

So we have had major temple updates on or near Monday every week for the last 6 weeks straight. I think it's safe to say that is a continuing trend already. And I also think it's safe to assume that most Mondays for the rest of the year will yield major announcements. In a previous thread, Jim Anderson alluded to delays that are likely preventing the Church from announcing opening or reopening arrangements for several temples. So while the Church may not be able to make those announcements for the Columbus Ohio, Saratoga Springs Utah, Richmond Virginia, and Bangkok Thailand Temple, I wouldn't be surprised to see sites confirmed, renderings released, and/or groundbreakings set in the interim.

There are a few other Latin American, European, and African, and Pacific-area temples of which I'm aware which might be far enough along in the planning for announcements within the next few Mondays. So I think the 6-week trend we've seen thus far will continue for the foreseeable future. The Church has also mixed-and-matched sometimes, which we saw last Monday, when the Church confirmed the locations for the Singapore and Modesto California Temples.

I have some thoughts about the most likely upcoming announcements. The Church Temples site has noted that the Port Moresby Papua New Guinea Temple site is being cleared, so a groundbreaking could be announced in the near term there. The next two temples in the current queue of those that have sites announced are also in the Pacific Area, so I wouldn't count them out.

The sites for Idaho's two newest temples (Montpelier and Teton River) have been cleared, so announcements about either or both of those are possible. And since the Belo Horizonte Brazil and Cali Colombia Temples had sites confirmed and renderings released on the same day that corresponding information was confirmed for the Torreon Mexico and Greater Guatemala City Guatemala Temple (now known as Miraflores Guatemala City Guatemala Temple), those two (along with perhaps a couple of others for which we don't yet have information) might be able to have groundbreakings announced in the next little while as well.

The Church has also seen an uptick in the number of temples that have had sites confirmed, renderings released, and a groundbreaking set all at the same time, so we can't count that out. And as we also know, the Church is expected to receive the go-ahead on the temple in Dubai UAE at some point between now and the end of the year. So, there are probably several options. The big question is what will be prioritized, and in which order and how soon any of these announcements (or any other major temple news) might be forthcoming. And that's harder to answer definitively, but it has been great to have 6 straight weeks of temple-related announcements, and I'd anticipate that will continue to be a new Monday tradition for the remainder of the year at least, but perhaps longer than that. Hope this information is helpful to all who take time to read it.

Matt said...

Looks like the Fuller Consideration website will no longer be updating unit changes of the church.

James G. Stokes said...

Matt, when I read your comment, I did some digging on my end. That led ee to this page:

http://www.fullerconsideration.com/units.php

It looks to me as though the page might have simply been reorganized. There's now a world map on the top, followed by three line graphs, and the statistical information is below that. If you look there and it's not showing up, you might want to clear your browser's cache and cookies. Whenever any page I visit is missing or not showing information that's been there for a while, that usually fixes the issue. Of course, if others who comment here have the same issue, that mmight not be the problem, in which case, I'm not sure why the information is visible for me but isn't for you.

Pascal Friedmann said...

It says near the top that there will be no additional updates going forward.

James G. Stokes said...

Pascal, thanks for pointing that out to me. Not sure how I missed it. But you are correct. Unless I miss my guess, the reason for the change is probably the same reason that the Church asked the Church of Jesus Christ Temple site to remove similar information a year or two back. It did occur to me to wonder if the Church wants to prevent a potential negative spin on the data from Church critics. I could see where it could be easier to draw one conclusion from day-to-day updates and an entirely different conclusion when looking at the complete data for the year as a whole. Of course, that's just based on what I gathered from people commenting on the removal of that data from the Church Temples site years ago.

miro said...

@James
It probapy is because Classic Maps website is not available anymore.

John Pack Lambert said...

It looks like we will look to this website more for information on new unit developments. I hope someone comes up with a way to at least post some of them. Fuller Consideration occasionally misinterpreted names changes as unit closures, and it had some other data oddities.

I am always reminded of the stake presidency counselor who once pointed out to me the goal of the Church is not to create more units, but to bring more people to Jesus Christ through the ordinances of salvation and exaltation, many of which need to be done in temples. Unit configuration, naming and the like are not the most important things.

In some places and times having more units does lead to more growth. However in other circumstances having fewer church units allows people to better grow towards Jesus.

At the same time new units and closed units only captures some of what is going on. As opposed to 30 years ago the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now has larger requirements to be a branch, especially in a stake, so we now end up with more groups of various types than we would have in the 20th-century, when many of these would have been branches. Also, there are name changes and boundary changes that do not get reflected in stats that just list changes.

I hope that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can find a way to again share the information contained in classic maps. I think one issue in the old classic maps was the mapping exact boundaries works more or less in the US, but in some parts of Nigeria and DR Congo especially, functional limits of units in various villages and towns are hard to figure out.

One cans still use meetinghouse locator to find basically any ward or branch. It just does not allow you to determine the boundaries of those units directly. It is also in some ways hard to navigate, since you have to zoom in to make sure you are not missing close by buildings, but going over large amounts of space makes you want to zoom out.

twinnumerouno said...

I can't speak for all the members of my ward, but I think the consolidation of two small wards into a larger one has been largely a net benefit. (There may be people who have stopped coming because of it, though it's hard to be sure if that is the reason why. I suspect that there are also more ward members that have no calling.)

John Pack Lambert said...

My branch is much larger than it used to be 10 years ago. The total Sunday attendance is larger than all the units combined (basically 3) that covered the same area in the late 1990s.

Yet we still end up going multiple months without having weekday activities for the primary children. This is because getting enough adults (2) to staff such events is stretching our resources. Our Sunday attendance runs anywhere from 75 to about 110, although I am pretty sure we have never passed 100 without lots of out of boundary visitors, but I think we have gotten above 90 with basically everyone from within our boundaries.

I know just before Covid hit there were plans to explore boundary changes between our branch and the ward to our north. There are places in that ward where the residents are closer to our branch building than to their ward building. There are still cultural issues that make it hard to convince some Detroit residents to cross 8 Mile road. So I can see a benefit to changing the boundary, but it will take looking beyond the obvious, because weekly attendance is either even between my branch and the ward to the north, or my branch may have more numbers.

We still do have deep issues a low number of active, full-tithe paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders. We evidently actually have enough to technically become a ward, but just barely. I have been told the only thing we lack to become a ward is total number of members on the role.

Сњешко said...

I have received some insider information for the neighboring nation of Hungary the other day. Apparently, the Church had a prospective site they were going to use for the temple, but the local government there rezoned the land making it impossible for the Church to build a temple there. Whether the Church will select a different site, or try to win the battle in court over the plot of land is to be seen

Matt said...

I do believe in some cases, smaller local branches do a better job in outreach than a large ward covering vast distances.

If the smaller branches feel too isolated at times, perhaps a hybrid approach could work, where the branches meet together for Sunday services once a month or every other month.

This hybrid approach would work well for YSA or Single Adult units, or foreign language units (like Spanish) .

Downtownchrisbrown said...

Does anyone know where I can find estimates of effectiveness of activities that affect church activity in later life? For example, seminary, temple attendance, missions? I've heard these stats before but can't remember where