Growth of Church in U.K Stagnated

[Dusty52]

If you look at how long the church has been in the U.K. (1837) = 181 years and see what the proportion of the total population is LDS as of 2017, it is 0.29 admittedly approximately 70,000 members emigrated to Utah in the 1800s
If we compare the statistics to Papua New Guinea, the proportion of the population who are LDS is 0.39, the church has been in this country since 1980 = 38 years! Quite a difference
It doesn't seem to be working here!
What is the point!
People are not interested!
Something different needs to happen here, I don't know what, but I guess nothing will!

[Robin Hood]

If you look at how long the church has been in the U.K. (1837) = 181 years and see what the proportion of the total population is LDS as of 2017, it is 0.29 admittedly approximately 70,000 members emigrated to Utah in the 1800s
If we compare the statistics to Papua New Guinea, the proportion of the population who are LDS is 0.39, the church has been in this country since 1980 = 38 years! Quite a difference
It doesn't seem to be working here!
What is the point!
People are not interested!
Something different needs to happen here, I don't know what, but I guess nothing will!

Nearly 100,000 LDS have emigrated to the US (mostly Utah) since the early days.
Pres. Hinckley once said that if they had stayed the Church HQ would have ended up here!
I think we would be talking about a British LDS population numbering in the millions by now. So the comparison with other countries is not really very helpful

But the church is stagnating in terms of raw numbers here at present. Having said that, there are now multi-generational member families in most wards, and the church has certainly matured here in the UK.

[EmmaLee]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

[Robin Hood]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

This is part of the current problem.
I know of many people who have disregarded the counsel of successive church presidents and apostles to stay here and build up the church, and have gone elsewhere in pursuit of increased wealth. When it comes to a choice between following the prophets or chasing mammon, their priorities are obvious.

[righteousrepublic]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

This is part of the current problem.
I know of many people who have disregarded the counsel of successive church presidents and apostles to stay here and build up the church, and have gone elsewhere in pursuit of increased wealth. When it comes to a choice between following the prophets or chasing mammon, their priorities are obvious.

Perhaps the church isn't growing in numbers in the UK because they can't own guns
A guy needs a gun to fondle, clean, polish, tear down and reassemble, and to even shoot every so often. That privilege was ripped away. Bummer.

[brianj]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

Really? I love an Irish accent. Where are the recent single female Irish immigrants to Utah?

[EmmaLee]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

Really? I love an Irish accent. Where are the recent single female Irish immigrants to Utah?

None of these men are Irish. Two are from London (one cockney, one posh, bless 'em), and the other is from Scotland (Glasgow). The two who came with their (older) children are divorced - no idea where their ex-wives are. We did have a London woman move here to marry an American guy she met online - they don't live in our ward anymore though. Good luck!

[brianj]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

Really? I love an Irish accent. Where are the recent single female Irish immigrants to Utah?

None of these men are Irish. Two are from London (one cockney, one posh, bless 'em), and the other is from Scotland (Glasgow). The two who came with their (older) children are divorced - no idea where their ex-wives are. We did have a London woman move here to marry an American guy she met online - they don't live in our ward anymore though. Good luck!

I am intelligent enough to know that Ireland isn't part of the UK. But Northern Ireland is!

[righteousrepublic]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

Really? I love an Irish accent. Where are the recent single female Irish immigrants to Utah?

None of these men are Irish. Two are from London (one cockney, one posh, bless 'em), and the other is from Scotland (Glasgow). The two who came with their (older) children are divorced - no idea where their ex-wives are. We did have a London woman move here to marry an American guy she met online - they don't live in our ward anymore though. Good luck!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOE ... fVU70tZL8S

[Robin Hood]

And they're still coming, as we now have 3 men from the UK living in our ward here in the Midwest. Two brought their children with them - the other came here single, and then married an American woman.

Really? I love an Irish accent. Where are the recent single female Irish immigrants to Utah?

None of these men are Irish. Two are from London (one cockney, one posh, bless 'em), and the other is from Scotland (Glasgow). The two who came with their (older) children are divorced - no idea where their ex-wives are. We did have a London woman move here to marry an American guy she met online - they don't live in our ward anymore though. Good luck!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOE ... fVU70tZL8S

Thanks for the link.
It's ages since I've heard that.

[Robin Hood]

Speaking of Ireland, there has been some strong growth in converts in recent times. Ireland was always the poor relation in terms of church growth in the British Isles. However, I understand things have improved somewhat. I don't know why, but suspect it may, in part, be because of the demise of the influence of the Catnolic church following various high profile abuse scandals.

[David13]

Speaking of Ireland, there has been some strong growth in converts in recent times. Ireland was always the poor relation in terms of church growth in the British Isles. However, I understand things have improved somewhat. I don't know why, but suspect it may, in part, be because of the demise of the influence of the Catnolic church following various high profile abuse scandals.

I think that and the fact that Catholicism is bland dogmatism. Without the dynamic and interactive nature of our church. And that the entire world is becoming more atheistic, more secular.

I still think you should consider a long trip to the USA from a church point of view; a pilgrimage, not to Mecca, but to Salt Lake, and maybe all the other church sites in the US, or at least some of them. It's very common with church members here. Retracing the steps, in essence of those who came before, and did that relocation to Utah, or other areas. It gives you something to take back to your ward and stake.

Here in Utah last Tuesday, July 24 was a legal holiday, Pioneer Day, to honor those Mormon pioneers who traveled west, many basically on foot to, in 1847 establish Salt Lake and ultimately the state of Utah, primarily for their use and benefit. And to praise God.

Many of them from England and various other countries of the world, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

It emphasizes that the church has so much more to it than just praising God. It has a lot to do with our entire life.
dc


As a practical matter, I think England is by far one of the leaders in secularism and it's spread, and in denial of the existence of God.

[Robin Hood]

Speaking of Ireland, there has been some strong growth in converts in recent times. Ireland was always the poor relation in terms of church growth in the British Isles. However, I understand things have improved somewhat. I don't know why, but suspect it may, in part, be because of the demise of the influence of the Catnolic church following various high profile abuse scandals.

I think that and the fact that Catholicism is bland dogmatism. Without the dynamic and interactive nature of our church. And that the entire world is becoming more atheistic, more secular.

I still think you should consider a long trip to the USA from a church point of view; a pilgrimage, not to Mecca, but to Salt Lake, and maybe all the other church sites in the US, or at least some of them. It's very common with church members here. Retracing the steps, in essence of those who came before, and did that relocation to Utah, or other areas. It gives you something to take back to your ward and stake.

Here in Utah last Tuesday, July 24 was a legal holiday, Pioneer Day, to honor those Mormon pioneers who traveled west, many basically on foot to, in 1847 establish Salt Lake and ultimately the state of Utah, primarily for their use and benefit. And to praise God.

Many of them from England and various other countries of the world, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

It emphasizes that the church has so much more to it than just praising God. It has a lot to do with our entire life.
dc


As a practical matter, I think England is by far one of the leaders in secularism and it's spread, and in denial of the existence of God.

I've been to Utah, and was there for pioneer day.
I liked the place, though Salt Lake City itself was a big disappointment.

When we have time, Maid Marian and I are planning to do all of the major church history sites. Palmyra, Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, Winter Quarters etc as well as some of the less well known ones. We'll take a couple of months and do it thoroughly.
Probably won't be for a few years yet.

Dc, perhaps you should place your comment about secularism in the historical context that Great Britain has done more to spread and establish Christianity throughout the earth than any other nation... without exception.

[Dusty52]

I do like the work of Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Real (2007) and also read Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006)
Excellent books which have strengthened my faith

[Dusty52]

More generally it was quoted last year in one of our broadsheets here that 50% of people living in the U.K. "are of no religion "

[David13]

...


Dc, perhaps you should place your comment about secularism in the historical context that Great Britain has done more to spread and establish Christianity throughout the earth than any other nation... without exception.

Well, I wonder. I suppose that may at one time have been true. You know Spain spread a lot Christianity in the form of Catholicism. Basically all of central and south America is Catholic today due to the Spaniards and their Conquistadores.

Even Belize, the last British colony here is predominantly Catholic which Spain was, and Britain was not.

In looking at India, where the British did have quite an influence until ... Dickie Mountbatten ... the country is only 2.3% Christian. Christianity is the 3rd religion there.

So, it could have been true ... at one time ... except for Spain ... etc.

Go to Mexico today, it's basically all Catholic, no thanks to the Brits, but thanks or not to the Spaniards, and except for the seculars.

What have you got to support your statement.
dc

[Robin Hood]

...


Dc, perhaps you should place your comment about secularism in the historical context that Great Britain has done more to spread and establish Christianity throughout the earth than any other nation... without exception.

Well, I wonder. I suppose that may at one time have been true. You know Spain spread a lot Christianity in the form of Catholicism. Basically all of central and south America is Catholic today due to the Spaniards and their Conquistadores.

Even Belize, the last British colony here is predominantly Catholic which Spain was, and Britain was not.

In looking at India, where the British did have quite an influence until ... Dickie Mountbatten ... the country is only 2.3% Christian. Christianity is the 3rd religion there.

So, it could have been true ... at one time ... except for Spain ... etc.

Go to Mexico today, it's basically all Catholic, no thanks to the Brits, but thanks or not to the Spaniards, and except for the seculars.

What have you got to support your statement.
dc

America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, most of the African continent.... as well as places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At one time, there were significant British missions in China too. Indeed, the first Chinese born Olympic gold medal winner was Eric Liddel, a Church of Scotland missionary.
Even where Christianity was not established as the dominant religion, it gained a significant foothold. More importantly, freedom of religion was enshrined in law, thus opening up opportunities for the fulness of the gospel. President Hinckley spoke repeatedly of the role Britain played in taking Christianity and the rule of law, into the world under devine commission.

[David13]

...


Dc, perhaps you should place your comment about secularism in the historical context that Great Britain has done more to spread and establish Christianity throughout the earth than any other nation... without exception.

Well, I wonder. I suppose that may at one time have been true. You know Spain spread a lot Christianity in the form of Catholicism. Basically all of central and south America is Catholic today due to the Spaniards and their Conquistadores.

Even Belize, the last British colony here is predominantly Catholic which Spain was, and Britain was not.

In looking at India, where the British did have quite an influence until ... Dickie Mountbatten ... the country is only 2.3% Christian. Christianity is the 3rd religion there.

So, it could have been true ... at one time ... except for Spain ... etc.

Go to Mexico today, it's basically all Catholic, no thanks to the Brits, but thanks or not to the Spaniards, and except for the seculars.

What have you got to support your statement.
dc

America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, most of the African continent.... as well as places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At one time, there were significant British missions in China too. Indeed, the first Chinese born Olympic gold medal winner was Eric Liddel, a Church of Scotland missionary.
Even where Christianity was not established as the dominant religion, it gained a significant foothold. More importantly, freedom of religion was enshrined in law, thus opening up opportunities for the fulness of the gospel. President Hinckley spoke repeatedly of the role Britain played in taking Christianity and the rule of law, into the world under devine commission.

Wait?!! Wasn't it true that many of the Americans who arrived here in the early days were fleeing from England and other countries religion? Weren't they looking to have some form of religious freedom, which they did not have in England and other places?

So isn't it possible to say the US became a Christian nation in spite of, rather than due to the British empire?

I say that.

I also say that, upon reflection, Spain did vastly more to spread Christianity than anyone else.

It seems that at the time of Shakespeare (yes, even way way back then, before the beginning of time according to the young ones today) that England had a severe case of schizophrenia about their religion. They couldn't decide if they were to be Protestant or Catholic.

Again, probably a good way to lose adherents, rather than recruit new ones.
dc

[Robin Hood]

...


Dc, perhaps you should place your comment about secularism in the historical context that Great Britain has done more to spread and establish Christianity throughout the earth than any other nation... without exception.

Well, I wonder. I suppose that may at one time have been true. You know Spain spread a lot Christianity in the form of Catholicism. Basically all of central and south America is Catholic today due to the Spaniards and their Conquistadores.

Even Belize, the last British colony here is predominantly Catholic which Spain was, and Britain was not.

In looking at India, where the British did have quite an influence until ... Dickie Mountbatten ... the country is only 2.3% Christian. Christianity is the 3rd religion there.

So, it could have been true ... at one time ... except for Spain ... etc.

Go to Mexico today, it's basically all Catholic, no thanks to the Brits, but thanks or not to the Spaniards, and except for the seculars.

What have you got to support your statement.
dc

America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, most of the African continent.... as well as places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At one time, there were significant British missions in China too. Indeed, the first Chinese born Olympic gold medal winner was Eric Liddel, a Church of Scotland missionary.
Even where Christianity was not established as the dominant religion, it gained a significant foothold. More importantly, freedom of religion was enshrined in law, thus opening up opportunities for the fulness of the gospel. President Hinckley spoke repeatedly of the role Britain played in taking Christianity and the rule of law, into the world under devine commission.

Wait?!! Wasn't it true that many of the Americans who arrived here in the early days were fleeing from England and other countries religion? Weren't they looking to have some form of religious freedom, which they did not have in England and other places?

So isn't it possible to say the US became a Christian nation in spite of, rather than due to the British empire?

I say that.

I also say that, upon reflection, Spain did vastly more to spread Christianity than anyone else.

It seems that at the time of Shakespeare (yes, even way way back then, before the beginning of time according to the young ones today) that England had a severe case of schizophrenia about their religion. They couldn't decide if they were to be Protestant or Catholic.

Again, probably a good way to lose adherents, rather than recruit new ones.
dc

They weren't fleeing paganism! They (well, some of them at least) were seeking to get away from the established church (Church of England). Unless, of course, you are claiming that Anglicans are not Christians, your argument is found wanting.

As for the schizophrenia, last time I checked Protestants and Catholics were both christians too. So, to be honest, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
You appear to be flip-flopping in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
But you're going to have a problem on this particular issue dc, because I'm right.

[David13]

Well, I wonder. I suppose that may at one time have been true. You know Spain spread a lot Christianity in the form of Catholicism. Basically all of central and south America is Catholic today due to the Spaniards and their Conquistadores.

Even Belize, the last British colony here is predominantly Catholic which Spain was, and Britain was not.

In looking at India, where the British did have quite an influence until ... Dickie Mountbatten ... the country is only 2.3% Christian. Christianity is the 3rd religion there.

So, it could have been true ... at one time ... except for Spain ... etc.

Go to Mexico today, it's basically all Catholic, no thanks to the Brits, but thanks or not to the Spaniards, and except for the seculars.

What have you got to support your statement.
dc

America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, most of the African continent.... as well as places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At one time, there were significant British missions in China too. Indeed, the first Chinese born Olympic gold medal winner was Eric Liddel, a Church of Scotland missionary.
Even where Christianity was not established as the dominant religion, it gained a significant foothold. More importantly, freedom of religion was enshrined in law, thus opening up opportunities for the fulness of the gospel. President Hinckley spoke repeatedly of the role Britain played in taking Christianity and the rule of law, into the world under devine commission.

Wait?!! Wasn't it true that many of the Americans who arrived here in the early days were fleeing from England and other countries religion? Weren't they looking to have some form of religious freedom, which they did not have in England and other places?

So isn't it possible to say the US became a Christian nation in spite of, rather than due to the British empire?

I say that.

I also say that, upon reflection, Spain did vastly more to spread Christianity than anyone else.

It seems that at the time of Shakespeare (yes, even way way back then, before the beginning of time according to the young ones today) that England had a severe case of schizophrenia about their religion. They couldn't decide if they were to be Protestant or Catholic.

Again, probably a good way to lose adherents, rather than recruit new ones.
dc

They weren't fleeing paganism! They (well, some of them at least) were seeking to get away from the established church (Church of England). Unless, of course, you are claiming that Anglicans are not Christians, your argument is found wanting.

As for the schizophrenia, last time I checked Protestants and Catholics were both christians too. So, to be honest, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
You appear to be flip-flopping in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
But you're going to have a problem on this particular issue dc, because I'm right.

I'm very clear and correct here, and not anonymous, as you.

Spain did the most to spread Christianity, not England. Or are you saying that Spain, with their Catholicism were not Christians? They never had the English problem with ambiguity that England had.

It was the Catholic Church, from the first exploratory ship that went out to spread Christianity in their form, that Catholicism, and came back loaded with gold. And it's the same Catholic Church you find in Mexico and all of southern and central America, and a whole lot of north America.

So all that English and foolish pride washed away long ago, and yours should too. It became false pride long ago. So it's time for you to give up those foolish notions.

Viva Espana! Viva Mexico!

The real proof today is "how Christian is England today, v. Spain"? There's your answer.
dc

PS Mr (Your true name here). I know your foolish pride will prevent you from admitting your error with this one.

[Robin Hood]

America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, most of the African continent.... as well as places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. At one time, there were significant British missions in China too. Indeed, the first Chinese born Olympic gold medal winner was Eric Liddel, a Church of Scotland missionary.
Even where Christianity was not established as the dominant religion, it gained a significant foothold. More importantly, freedom of religion was enshrined in law, thus opening up opportunities for the fulness of the gospel. President Hinckley spoke repeatedly of the role Britain played in taking Christianity and the rule of law, into the world under devine commission.

Wait?!! Wasn't it true that many of the Americans who arrived here in the early days were fleeing from England and other countries religion? Weren't they looking to have some form of religious freedom, which they did not have in England and other places?

So isn't it possible to say the US became a Christian nation in spite of, rather than due to the British empire?

I say that.

I also say that, upon reflection, Spain did vastly more to spread Christianity than anyone else.

It seems that at the time of Shakespeare (yes, even way way back then, before the beginning of time according to the young ones today) that England had a severe case of schizophrenia about their religion. They couldn't decide if they were to be Protestant or Catholic.

Again, probably a good way to lose adherents, rather than recruit new ones.
dc

They weren't fleeing paganism! They (well, some of them at least) were seeking to get away from the established church (Church of England). Unless, of course, you are claiming that Anglicans are not Christians, your argument is found wanting.

As for the schizophrenia, last time I checked Protestants and Catholics were both christians too. So, to be honest, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
You appear to be flip-flopping in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
But you're going to have a problem on this particular issue dc, because I'm right.

I'm very clear and correct here, and not anonymous, as you.

Spain did the most to spread Christianity, not England. Or are you saying that Spain, with their Catholicism were not Christians? They never had the English problem with ambiguity that England had.

It was the Catholic Church, from the first exploratory ship that went out to spread Christianity in their form, that Catholicism, and came back loaded with gold. And it's the same Catholic Church you find in Mexico and all of southern and central America, and a whole lot of north America.

So all that English and foolish pride washed away long ago, and yours should too. It became false pride long ago. So it's time for you to give up those foolish notions.

Viva Espana! Viva Mexico!

The real proof today is "how Christian is England today, v. Spain"? There's your answer.
dc

PS Mr (Your true name here). I know your foolish pride will prevent you from admitting your error with this one.

Oh come on dc, you cannot be serious.
Spain spread Christianity to what is now South and Central America. That's it!
Have you any idea how vast the African continent is? It dwarfs South America (South America is less than half the size of Africa). And then there's Australasia. The Spanish never even went near the place.
You're wrong dc, and I think you know it.
You're just goading me as usual.
I don't mind. I'm used to it and have come to expect it from you.
Water off a ducks back mate.

[David13]

Wait?!! Wasn't it true that many of the Americans who arrived here in the early days were fleeing from England and other countries religion? Weren't they looking to have some form of religious freedom, which they did not have in England and other places?

So isn't it possible to say the US became a Christian nation in spite of, rather than due to the British empire?

I say that.

I also say that, upon reflection, Spain did vastly more to spread Christianity than anyone else.

It seems that at the time of Shakespeare (yes, even way way back then, before the beginning of time according to the young ones today) that England had a severe case of schizophrenia about their religion. They couldn't decide if they were to be Protestant or Catholic.

Again, probably a good way to lose adherents, rather than recruit new ones.
dc

They weren't fleeing paganism! They (well, some of them at least) were seeking to get away from the established church (Church of England). Unless, of course, you are claiming that Anglicans are not Christians, your argument is found wanting.

As for the schizophrenia, last time I checked Protestants and Catholics were both christians too. So, to be honest, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
You appear to be flip-flopping in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
But you're going to have a problem on this particular issue dc, because I'm right.

I'm very clear and correct here, and not anonymous, as you.

Spain did the most to spread Christianity, not England. Or are you saying that Spain, with their Catholicism were not Christians? They never had the English problem with ambiguity that England had.

It was the Catholic Church, from the first exploratory ship that went out to spread Christianity in their form, that Catholicism, and came back loaded with gold. And it's the same Catholic Church you find in Mexico and all of southern and central America, and a whole lot of north America.

So all that English and foolish pride washed away long ago, and yours should too. It became false pride long ago. So it's time for you to give up those foolish notions.

Viva Espana! Viva Mexico!

The real proof today is "how Christian is England today, v. Spain"? There's your answer.
dc

PS Mr (Your true name here). I know your foolish pride will prevent you from admitting your error with this one.

Oh come on dc, you cannot be serious.
Spain spread Christianity to what is now South and Central America. That's it!
Have you any idea how vast the African continent is? It dwarfs South America (South America is less than half the size of Africa). And then there's Australasia. The Spanish never even went near the place.
You're wrong dc, and I think you know it.
You're just goading me as usual.
I don't mind. I'm used to it and have come to expect it from you.
Water off a ducks back mate.

I know your pride won't let you admit the truth. You hate the French, but worse, to lose out on something like that to Spain? It's got to be painful for a Brit, I know.

What does Africa have to do with Britain? Very little, and they hardly took any Christianity there with them. In reality Britain was a minor role player in Africa, behind France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy who were the real influence. Britain gained a foothold in India, but look today, is India a Christian country? Not at all, with 2.3% Christian. So, looking to Africa look to France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Italy for any Christianity there.

Let's see, who outdid Britain in Africa? Ah Belgium.

Oh, that reminds me of World Cup. What happened to England there? Was it ... Belgium?
dc

[Robin Hood]

They weren't fleeing paganism! They (well, some of them at least) were seeking to get away from the established church (Church of England). Unless, of course, you are claiming that Anglicans are not Christians, your argument is found wanting.

As for the schizophrenia, last time I checked Protestants and Catholics were both christians too. So, to be honest, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
You appear to be flip-flopping in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
But you're going to have a problem on this particular issue dc, because I'm right.

I'm very clear and correct here, and not anonymous, as you.

Spain did the most to spread Christianity, not England. Or are you saying that Spain, with their Catholicism were not Christians? They never had the English problem with ambiguity that England had.

It was the Catholic Church, from the first exploratory ship that went out to spread Christianity in their form, that Catholicism, and came back loaded with gold. And it's the same Catholic Church you find in Mexico and all of southern and central America, and a whole lot of north America.

So all that English and foolish pride washed away long ago, and yours should too. It became false pride long ago. So it's time for you to give up those foolish notions.

Viva Espana! Viva Mexico!

The real proof today is "how Christian is England today, v. Spain"? There's your answer.
dc

PS Mr (Your true name here). I know your foolish pride will prevent you from admitting your error with this one.

Oh come on dc, you cannot be serious.
Spain spread Christianity to what is now South and Central America. That's it!
Have you any idea how vast the African continent is? It dwarfs South America (South America is less than half the size of Africa). And then there's Australasia. The Spanish never even went near the place.
You're wrong dc, and I think you know it.
You're just goading me as usual.
I don't mind. I'm used to it and have come to expect it from you.
Water off a ducks back mate.

I know your pride won't let you admit the truth. You hate the French, but worse, to lose out on something like that to Spain? It's got to be painful for a Brit, I know.

What does Africa have to do with Britain? Very little, and they hardly took any Christianity there with them. In reality Britain was a minor role player in Africa, behind France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy who were the real influence. Britain gained a foothold in India, but look today, is India a Christian country? Not at all, with 2.3% Christian. So, looking to Africa look to France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Italy for any Christianity there.

Let's see, who outdid Britain in Africa? Ah Belgium.

Oh, that reminds me of World Cup. What happened to England there? Was it ... Belgium?
dc

Your ignorance of history is astounding, especially concerning the continent of Africa. The only other nation that played any major role was France, and they came a distant second to us. I know Americans are famous throughout the world for being very poorly educated in history and geography, but I had you a cut above the rest. Seems I made a misjudgement.

Seriously dc, stop digging mate, the hole is getting deeper and you're rapidly disappearing, along with what credibility you have left concerning this issue.

P.S. England were knocked out of the World Cup by Croatia, in the semi-final.
Belgium were knocked out by France in the other semi-final.
How far did the USA get? Oh that's right... they didn't qualify. Panama beat them in the play-offs. England beat Panama 6-1.
Just sayin'.

[gardener4life]

The church stagnating in western countries is a sign of the times. This is right from the Book of Mormon and is a 'Mirror event' that the Book of Mormon experienced before his first coming. It will happen in other areas besides the UK I think.

This is part of the field being white ready to harvest being cleaned. The wheat will become secure and the tares will become 'BOUND' tightly. The servants of the most high have for over 150 years been trying to get the wheat gathered to be ready before the vineyard is burned. It wouldn't make sense for the vineyard to be burned if you left the good fruit in it...

For references...there are many scriptures alluding to field white ready for harvest, or vineyards ready for harvest, or the master of the vineyard in Jacob talking about 'what more can I do for my vineyard', etc.