Does the Church have a geography problem?

[rustedwithlove]

I was just thinking about this earlier this week when I was out walking. I wish there was a more neutral manner in which to phrase the question, but I don't know how.

 

I'm currently on an extended holiday in Belgium, and haven't been to church in almost two months. This is largely because I don't have access to a car. The nearest meetinghouse is roughly 40 km (~25 miles) away, and there's no real practical way for me to get there without a car, especially on the Sabbath. (For anyone unfamiliar with Belgium, the country basically shuts down on Sunday, and the train and bus routes are scaled back on weekends.)

 

I don't want to say that this is a major crisis, since my time here is winding down and I'm heading back home shortly, but what if this was my normal situation?

 

Before I came here, a friend of mine in my ward–––"Rob," I'll call him–––told me that his sister-in-law was born in Belgium, and that her family emigrated to the United States when she was still a child. Rob and his brother first met her when they moved to the U.S., as the family moved into a house in their neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Mesa, for anyone unfamiliar with the city, has a long-standing history with the LDS faith and a high number of Latter-Day Saints.

 

When I asked Rob why his sister-in-law's family had decided to leave Belgium and settle in Mesa, he told me, "The Church. My sister-in-law's parents didn't think they could raise their children in the Church very well in Belgium."

 

My mother is from Belgium, and my father told me recently that one reason why he and Mom decided to settle in the U.S. and not in Belgium was because the Church is so sparse in numbers here.

 

And it's not just an international thing. I used to live in New England, where I belonged to a stake that included ten units in four counties in three states.

 

I suppose I would find it hard staying active in the church in a place where it's weak in numbers. But at the same time–––and I swear, on everything, that this is NOT an insult against anyone here who lives there–––but I would also go crazy if I lived in the Mormon Corridor, where I'd feel like I was drowning in LDS culture. The saying goes, "Be in the world, but not of it"; I'd struggle with that if I lived in the Corridor. (Where I live, in the South Sound of Washington, is something of a balance between the two ends of the scale.)

 

My point? I'm not sure I have one. I guess it's just this: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have, for lack of a better word, a geography problem? Are we stuck with a reality where you have places where the Church is saturated in numbers, places where the Church is weak in numbers, and little in between? How (positively or negatively) could this affect the Church?

[yjacket]

I think it depends on where the church is located and its growth.  I served a mission in Argentina and IMO the buildings were about as close as you could get to the people.  Wards were normally anywhere from 100-150 people attending, once it got beyond that they split the ward.  The buildings were generally only made for about that many people too.  They split the wards so quickly IMO so they could build more buildings and bring the meetinghouses closer to where people lived.  

 

Most people simply walked to church; every now and then you'd have people ride the bus or take a taxi, but at least 90% walked to church for Sunday meetings, mutual, etc.  Of course most people walked everywhere they went anyways, but still I'd call that keeping the church pretty close to the people.

 

I don't think we are stuck that way, it's called missionary work and it is always growing.  When the church starts out in an area with little membership it will start in the biggest cities and in the areas that should see the most return for the work put in.  Then as that grows and becomes stronger the missionaries will be sent to other areas to build up those cities/towns.

 

I don't know how Belgium is, but if it is like most modern economies having a car is not a terrible burden.  For example according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

 

The US has 809 cars per 1000 and Belgium has 559 cars per 1000 compared to Argentina @ 314 per 1000 people.  If one is used to the urban life 25 miles seems like forever away, but in a rural environment 25 miles is actually pretty close.  I grew up in the South and my home ward building was about 25 miles away and we drove there every Sunday, mutual etc.  Would I rather the building be 30 min. away in a car or 30 min. away by walking (2+ miles) . . . .I'd rather drive in a car thankyou. 

 

I actually liked growing up in an environment that we had to make a little "sacrifice" to get to church, it builds character.

[Blackmarch]

I was just thinking about this earlier this week when I was out walking. I wish there was a more neutral manner in which to phrase the question, but I don't know how.

 

I'm currently on an extended holiday in Belgium, and haven't been to church in almost two months. This is largely because I don't have access to a car. The nearest meetinghouse is roughly 40 km (~25 miles) away, and there's no real practical way for me to get there without a car, especially on the Sabbath. (For anyone unfamiliar with Belgium, the country basically shuts down on Sunday, and the train and bus routes are scaled back on weekends.)

 

I don't want to say that this is a major crisis, since my time here is winding down and I'm heading back home shortly, but what if this was my normal situation?

 

Before I came here, a friend of mine in my ward–––"Rob," I'll call him–––told me that his sister-in-law was born in Belgium, and that her family emigrated to the United States when she was still a child. Rob and his brother first met her when they moved to the U.S., as the family moved into a house in their neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Mesa, for anyone unfamiliar with the city, has a long-standing history with the LDS faith and a high number of Latter-Day Saints.

 

When I asked Rob why his sister-in-law's family had decided to leave Belgium and settle in Mesa, he told me, "The Church. My sister-in-law's parents didn't think they could raise their children in the Church very well in Belgium."

 

My mother is from Belgium, and my father told me recently that one reason why he and Mom decided to settle in the U.S. and not in Belgium was because the Church is so sparse in numbers here.

 

And it's not just an international thing. I used to live in New England, where I belonged to a stake that included ten units in four counties in three states.

 

I suppose I would find it hard staying active in the church in a place where it's weak in numbers. But at the same time–––and I swear, on everything, that this is NOT an insult against anyone here who lives there–––but I would also go crazy if I lived in the Mormon Corridor, where I'd feel like I was drowning in LDS culture. The saying goes, "Be in the world, but not of it"; I'd struggle with that if I lived in the Corridor. (Where I live, in the South Sound of Washington, is something of a balance between the two ends of the scale.)

 

My point? I'm not sure I have one. I guess it's just this: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have, for lack of a better word, a geography problem? Are we stuck with a reality where you have places where the Church is saturated in numbers, places where the Church is weak in numbers, and little in between? How (positively or negatively) could this affect the Church?

well every location has to go through "few members" before it gets to "many members". How fast that occurs for any given location varies. And that also has an influence on how many buildings are in a given area.

[Wingnut]

Doesn't sound to me like "the Church" has a problem with anything.  People live everywhere...some are LDS, some aren't.  Where there are more LDS, there are more facilities, where there are fewer LDS, there are fewer facilities.

[pam]

 

 

My point? I'm not sure I have one. I guess it's just this: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have, for lack of a better word, a geography problem? Are we stuck with a reality where you have places where the Church is saturated in numbers, places where the Church is weak in numbers, and little in between? How (positively or negatively) could this affect the Church?

 

I liken it to this.  You can drive through a state in the U.S.  You can have a city with 2M people.  Drive 100 miles away and have a town that only has 2K.  Does that state have a geography problem?  It's all about location and demographics.

[spamlds]

We have a historical and scriptural pattern in the gathering.  In every dispensation, the pattern roughly follows these steps:

 

• A key-holder/revelator is called by God.
• This prophet preaches the word and gathers a small following.
• Persecution raises its head and the believers are cast out from among the core of society.
• The persecuted gather together for safety and security.
• Their numbers become sufficient to build temples.
• The presence of the temple motivates the faithful in outlying areas to gather with the greater body of the Church.

 

It happened with Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Nephi, and perhaps many more.  In our missionary work, even today, we tend to start in large population centers.  As the Church grows, it develops branches that are administered by missions, then wards and branches under stakes.  Once a stake is in place, the full programs of the church become available to the members and there is a lot of stability.  It takes about 14 stakes in an area to support one temple.  Once a temple is built, they become magnets for people who want to have those blessings and not travel days to get there.

 

I wouldn't say it's a geography problem.  It's the Lord's pattern to gather out the righteous from the midst of the worldly and bring them together into communities of faith.

[Backroads]

Geography tough luck, yes. Problem, no.