Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: Philippines Area

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Friday, December 22, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: Philippines Area

Hello again, everyone! While I still welcome any feedback any of you have about anything I have posted about the current and potential future temples in the areas of the Church I have already covered (including and especially the six-part series within that series about the current and potential future temples that might be  announced within the Pacific Area), since I have time to do so, and since it will be the easiest of all the areas of the Church which I already have or will yet discuss, I wanted to take some time and share some observations on the Philippines Area, including a discussion of the four temples in various stages within those areas, and the two possible prospects which I have on my list for the near future. And that, barring anything unexpected, can all be done in one post.

As some of you may be aware, the Philippines Area includes not only the Philippines, but the US owned Northern Mariana Islands. In addition to having two operating temples (in Manila and Cebu City), there are two others that have been announced.

The temple anticipated to serve the Saints in Urdaneta and the surrounding regions was announced just over 7 years ago, during the October 2010 General Conference. Between having to change both the site location and also potentially the temple design and plan, this temple has had the members anxiously waiting for news. I heard through the grapevine that there is a possibility that the Urdaneta Temple will have a site announcement and groundbreaking in the early months of next year.

In the meantime, as we found out in April, the Church has a second temple planned to serve the Saints in the Greater Manila area, and its site (located in the Alabang area of Muntinlupa City) has already been confirmed and inspected by Church engineers. We may or may not see an official name announced and a groundbreaking scheduled for this temple at some point next year, or that may be delayed until the year following.

With that overview out of the way, I wanted to note next that, in addition to those 4 temples, the Church in the Philippines also has 21 missions, 101 stakes and 74 districts, which break down further into 645 wards and 573 branches, for a whopping total of 1,218 congregations.

If we divide that by two, then each currently operating temple serves 609 congregations, which is a lot for just two of them. When the Urdaneta and second Manila temples are dedicated, that will cut that average in half again, to 304.5 congregations. And even that is somewhat overwhelming for a single temple district. That is why I see a couple of other possible additional locations in the near future for the Philippines.

I wanted to move on to discuss first the history of the two temples currently serving this area, then to talk about the current districts, and conclude with my thoughts on how soon we might see other temples announced for this area, and where those might be built.

The temple in Manila was dedicated in the three day period spanning September 25-27, 1984, and was another dedicated by President Hinckley during the years he was the only fully functioning member of the First Presidency under President Kimball's leadership. Its' district includes 67 stakes and 43 districts, which means that this temple district is the largest of the two. And it appears that both the second Manila and Urdaneta Philippines temples will break up that district a bit.

Some stakes within the Cebu City Philippines Temple district may also be pulled away when the other two temples are dedicated. That temple, which was dedicated on June 13, 2010, by President Thomas S. Monson, has a very large district as well, with 36 stakes and 34 districts.

So we can see that the two temples that have been announced additionally are greatly needed. We also know that the Urdaneta Temple is anticipated to be a closer option for those Saints in the Luzon Island area, and that the second Manila Temple will further potentially split the current two and the potential Urdaneta district as well. Admittedly, I do not have a good sense of geography, so I am not sure how all that might play out.

In the meantime, the potential temples I see in the near future for this area might be built in either Cagayan del Oro, or Davao, and I would anticipate a temple in both locations at some point. Future prospects (which are further away) may be the areas covered by the stakes in Bacolod and Quezon City. If I had to narrow that down, I would give my guess that Quezon City and Davao will get temples first. I have had, at different times, either one or the other of them.

But these are just my own thoughts. Be sure to let me know yours in the comments below. That does it for this post. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

2 comments:

  1. I just wanted to comment here to advise anyone that has read this post but didn't know, even though I have done dozens of other posts since putting this one up on my blog, I continue to welcome feedback, especially if I have missed, overlooked, or failed to consider anything that I should have. Just let me know. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have I overlooked anything in my post above? Would Quezon City or Davao be the most likely locations for the next temples in the Philippines? And could both be announced simultaneously? How likely is it that the Church could announce either or both of them while construction is still pending on the Urdaneta and second Manila temples? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

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.