Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Unit Gains and Losses Signal Somewhat Significant LDS Congregational Growth
Hello. While I do not speak much of unit growth here on my blog (since Matthew Martinich does a wonderful job of that, and I would never want to take that from him; he's better at the analysis of such trends and I respect him for that), the unit growth thus far this year is quite profound. There has been a net increase of 34 stakes this year. while the number of districts have decreased by a net amount of 14, and the total number of wards and branches have seen a net increase of 30 so far this year. Matt is working on analysis of all of that, and has added this post describing the significance of the Church having reached 3,300 stakes. More analysis will follow from him, which can be found on the main page of his blog here. As the year is more than halfway over, it may be hard to tell how the rest of the year will affect the total number of units in the Church, but, for my part, I will continue to offer updates as more information comes to my attention. Thanks to you all for your interest and support.
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
6 comments:
In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.
At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.
I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.
And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.
Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder how many of the net loss of districts was due to upgrading to stakes and not really a loss at all. I have seen some cases where two nearby districts combined to prepare to be a stake as well. Would any of these be a case like that?
ReplyDeleteMany of them are, Chris, as reported by Matt. I just report the numbers, since that's my thing/ Analyzing such developments and their significance in Church history is Matt's role, and he does that very well. But there have also been some districts that have been discontinued as well. In either case, the developments are no less significant, and if these numbers are any indication, then the end-of-year numbers are shaping up well. Thanks, as always, for the comment, Chris!
DeleteJames, quick note. If you are getting your info for the number of wards and branches from ldschurchtemples or from CDOL, be aware that that number does not include about 100 units that are not publicly listed because they are classified as "sensitive" due to the nature of certain political and geographic areas. (At least that's what I understood from one of Matt's comments.) So, the current number of ward and branches that is listed in CDOL (which is where ldschurchtemples get his info) is always about 100 less than the actual number. However, the final year-end numbers that are reported in General Conference DO include these units. So, there has actually been a net increase of about 130 wards/branches so far this year; i.e. 30304 at the end of 2016, and 30434 currently (30334 of which are publicly listed, and about 100 that are not listed).
ReplyDeleteJason, thanks for visiting and commenting. I do get my info from LDS Church Temples primarily. I never have had and probably never will have access to the CDOL. I understand fully how such "sensitive" units may not be listed in the available resources. My observations in this post are mainly a general comment on what I have access to, and in assembling my estimates for the year-end statistics that the Church presents each April, I do try to allow for a margin of error, which is different each year based on the information I have once I assemble those. And whether I have been proven wrong or right in such estimates and assertions, in my mind, that does not minimize or diminish the wonderful growth that is happening worldwide. I appreciate the information and will take that into account when I assemble my year-end estimates for those statistics. Thanks for letting me know, Jason, and for commenting today. I appreciate it, hope you are well, and will welcome your ongoing comments whenever you feel you want to do so. Thanks again.
DeleteL. Chris Jones, I believe you are correct. Matt has listed that only 6 districts have actually been discontinued so far this year. I believe that means that of the net 14 loss in districts, 8 of them became stakes and 6 were discontinued or merged into other districts/stakes.
ReplyDeleteJason, though this comment was not directed to me, I thank you for confirming what I subsequently said to Chris in response to his comment above. And that would be just about right, if I have tracked this correctly. But again, keeping all of that straight is Matt's specialty, not mine, and I won't be trying to infringe on his ability to do so. Thanks for this comment as well.
Delete