Nathan Simmons and Dr. Samuel Otterstrom, Geography

Recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gained world-wide recognition for the high standards the Church promotes, but perhaps even more so for the rapid growth and expansion it has experienced. Much of this spread is due to the Church’s policy of active proselytizing, a force which fuels the spatial diffusion of church membership. It is therefore valuable to study the spatial diffusion of the LDS faith throughout the world to better understand the factors that influence the distribution of church membership throughout the world, and that promote its growth.

This research spawns from earlier research done by Dr. Samuel Otterstrom, a professor at BYU. His research focused on LDS geography world-wide and he developed a model describing the spatial diffusion of church membership. In his research, Otterstrom analyzed the spatial diffusion of LDS membership – that is the process whereby behavior or characteristics of a landscape change as a result of what happens elsewhere earlier, and the spread of that phenomenon. He then developed a model outlining factors that contributed to the spread of membership, and then concluded that the diffusion of LDS membership followed a pattern of hierarchical diffusion. Hierarchical diffusion is when an idea or innovation flows from a larger urban center to the smaller surrounding areas. Although his research is detailed, it is an admitted limitation that there is a lack of study done on a micro-level. Seeing this lack, I endeavored to flesh out his model and apply it on a micro-level in the countries of Romania and Moldova, in Eastern Europe, to discover the type of spatial diffusion experienced by the Church in that region. It was my intention to apply his conclusion to the region to see if in fact the diffusion follows a hierarchical pattern rather than another pattern such as contagion or relocation. Otterstrom’s conclusion of a hierarchical pattern is true to some extent in Romania and Moldova, however it is not conclusive. It is partially true because the Church was first established in the capital cities, which are also the largest cities in each country; it was then established in other large cities in the countries. By looking at the diffusion this way, it does appear to follow somewhat of a hierarchical pattern.

But after looking further at the region several problems appear that refute the idea of hierarchical diffusion. One problem is that the church didn’t spread into the areas immediately surrounding the cities. In Romania, it spread to another large city, Ploiesti, and then further to other large cities, Brasov and Timisoara, which are quite a distance from where the church was first established. Similarly in Moldova the Church was first established in the capital in the southern part of the country then went to a city in the far north. This does not follow a classical hierarchical pattern.

Also, church membership has not expanded outside of the cities. There are very few members, if any, in the surrounding areas. The membership is concentrated within city limits and not in the countryside surrounding the major urban centers.

Another problem is that classical factors contributing to hierarchical diffusion are invalid because of how cities are opened to proselytizing. The cities that were opened to proselytizing are not chosen by size or proximity to the center, or capital, where the Church started. They are also not chosen by virtue of a hierarchical or even contagion, pattern, seeping into the surrounding area around the capital. Rather, they were chosen because there was at least one member in that city, and of course we also believe revelation to be a major factor.

Established membership seems to be a big contributor to the success of diffusion within the city. For example, when the city of Bacau was opened for missionary work there were half a dozen members already in the city, and the Church has experienced steady growth there. On-the-other hand, Turgu Muresi is a city that was opened without any members already there. Turgu Muresi struggled to get going and eventually was closed to missionary work because of a lack of baptisms, a benchmark of success in LDS diffusion.

Apart from the other problems, the major setback in applying Otterstrom’s model to Romania and Moldova is the newness of the Church in the area. The Church has only been established in Romania since the early 1990’s and in Moldova since 1997. Because the church is so new in the region its diffusion is not fully developed. Therefore no thorough conclusion can be drawn. This newness of the church in the region is also a partial explanation for why the membership is concentrated in the cities and has not spread to the immediately surrounding areas. More time will be needed in order to see more fully how the diffusion will play out.

Although I did learn many things conducting this research, a solid conclusion could not be reached pertaining to LDS membership diffusion. In order to get a good picture of what pattern this diffusion will take, more time will need to pass. It would be interesting in several years to take another look at the region to see the patterns that have developed in the diffusion of LDS church membership. Overall this was a valuable experience for me to learn to look at an area and analyze what factors contribute to the spread of a phenomenon and discover patterns that will hopefully one day be useful in helping the Church spread.