On this blog, I, James Stokes, share insights and analysis covering the latest news and developments reported about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My specific emphasis and focus is on the ministry of our current apostles, General Conference, and up-to-date temple information. This site is neither officially owned, operated, or endorsed by the Church, and I, as the autthor thereof, am solely responsible for this content.
Search This Blog
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Musings on Church growth so far this year/Exploring the Potential for such growth during the remainder of this year
2 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.
How many district are lost due to becoming stakes and how many because they were discontinued? In a few cases I think two nearby districts have been united to become a stake.
ReplyDeleteChris, that is a good question, but, as I have said, some questions, especially those of that nature, are not within my expertise. I have mainly undertaken reporting on Church unit changes because I use the end-of-year totals I can get my hands on to refine my estimates for what the statistical report presented in April might look like. The transitions that have been made in terms of districts (whether being discontinued to form a stake, or being abolished) have been well documented by others, and I feel more confident in leaving it to them to answer that question. But what I do know is that, since writing this post late last night, the report of one more stake came in, this one in Brazil. I am sure that the Church growth experts that document these kinds of things so well will be doing posts on these new stakes, and then we will know more. Hope my response does not offend you, Chris, and thanks for your question. I am sorry that I don't feel qualified enough to give you a good answer. I haven't followed these things that extensively. Thanks again.
Delete