Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: Brazil Area

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: Brazil Area

Hello again, everyone! In the midst of my series of posts about the potential likelihood temple sites I see in each of the Church's geographical areas, I have only done two such posts in one day one other time, with the Asia Area two days ago. The fact that I am now doing a post to cover the Brazil Area after the previous post covered areas in which I felt no new temples would be announced is significant for me. That said, let's dive right into the discussion of the Brazil Area.

Brazil, as some of you may be aware, consists of 26 states, and within those states, there are 10 temples, 34 missions, 268 stakes and 40 districts, which in turn break down into 1,645 wards and 436 branches, or a grand total of 2,081 congregations. In terms of the 10 temples, let's talk some specifics. As I have thought about it, I have put three potential temples in my predictions for the Brazil area: Salvador, Belo Horizonte, and a potential second temple to serve the Sao Paulo Saints.

The Sao Paulo Temple, dedicated between October 30 and November 2, 1978, covers 45 stakes.Two-thirds of those stakes (30) are located in Sao Paulo. Based on that, I can certainly see why the Church might give those 30 stakes a second temple.

As recently as last year, when I started sharing my thoughts on future temple prospects, if someone had told me that less than two years later, second temples would be announced in Lima Peru and Manila Philippines, I would have dismissed that as impossible. But now that the Church has a precedent of doing so, it seems entirely possible that a second temple could be built to serve the Brazilian Saints in Sao Paulo. So I wanted to mention that possibility. A second temple in Sao Paulo would be the third built to accomodate Saints in that area, following the dedications of the Sao Paulo and Campinas

After that first temple was dedicated in Sao Paulo, it would be more ore than 22 years later before the next temples were dedicated. In 2000, President Hinckley dedicated the Recife Temple on December 15, and dedicated the Porto Alegre Brazil Temple two days after that. So the number of temples more than doubled in roughly a 72 hour period.

The Recife Brazil Temple currently serves 76 stakes and 9 districts, although that number will be cut somewhat when the Fortaleza Brazil Temple is dedicated (which will, barring any unexpected delays, take place in mid-to-late 2019).

If I have my facts straight, then, at minimum, the Fortaleza Temple district will be comprised of stakes in the the Ceara region, and there are 18 stakes there, which would trim down the Recife District to 58 stakes and 9 districts.

The stakes that are anticipated to be covered by the temple in Belem fall under that temple district as well, and, as we know, that temple was announced last year, though it has not had a site announcement or a groundbreaking as of yet. When that temple is dedicated, it will serve the Saints in the Para region, and will, at minimum, include the 6 stakes and 2 districts based in that region, which would then leave Recife with 52 stakes and 7 districts.

In addition to that, another city, Salvador, is the number one candidate I see for the next temple in Brazil. Salvador falls under the Bahia region, which contains 10 stakes and 2 districts. A temple there would trim the Recife district down to a a still respectable 42 stakes and 5 districts.

Turning our attention now to the Porrto Alegre Brazil Temple, it  serves 25 stakes and 8 districts. None of the temples currently under construction or announced fall under that temple district. Some may be theorizing that a second temple could be built in that region of Brazil, but I don't see a compelling enough case supporting that idea.

Less than two years following the dedications of their second and third temples, the Brazilian Saints celebrated the May 2002 dedication of the temple in Campinas. That temple district has a total of 80 stakes and 19 districts. Once the Rio de Janeiro Temple, currently under construction, is dedicated (which is anticipated to include, at minimum, the 15 stakes and 2 districts in that region of Brazil, that will leave the Campinas district with 65 stakes and 17 districts.

That district will further be trimmed down once the Brasilia Brazil Temple is dedicated. That temple will, at minimum serve 5 stakes and 1 district located in the Distrito Federal region of Brazil, which would then leave the Campinas Temple district with 60 stakes and 16 districts.

But that district could be trimmed even more if, as I am projecting, a temple is announced for Belo Horizonte Brazil. Falling under the Minas Gerais region of Brazil, a temple in Belo Horizonte would take in the 13 stakes and 6 districts within that region, which would then leave the Campinas temple district with 47 stakes and 10 districts.

The Saints in Brazil had to wait 6.5 year wait before the next temple was dedicated, this one in Curitiba. That district contains 28 stakes and 3 districts, so it seems small enough that it will not split, at least not anytime soon.

Then in June 2012, Brazilians celebrated the dedication of the temple in Manaus. That temple district covers 13 stakes and 1 district currently, so I don't see any other temples being announced to split that district, at least not for the foreseeable future.

With all of this in mind, I hope it is apparent why I favor Salvador and Belo Horizonte, and why I have thought and felt that there could easily be an argument in favor of a second temple in Sao Paulo.

That said, are there any locations I did not consider, or are there any that should be eliminated? I look forward to the discussion. 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 feel that a temple about halfway between Curitiba and Porto Alegre is very possible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for that comment, Chris! I had started to reply to it earlier today, but was unable to finish and I lost the original comment. I agree with you. A prime candidate for that would be the city of Florianopolis, which is 187.9 miles from Curitiba, and 285 miles from Porto Alegre. Another possibility might be the city of Rio Grande, which is 662.4 miles from Curitiba, and is 207.7 miles from Porto Alegre. The distance between Curitiba and Porto Alegre is 460.8 miles, so a temple between them makes a lot of sense.

    The one problem with Brazil is that there are two temples under construction currently there, and there are two others announced. Before I changed my mind, I had stated prior to General Conference in April that I did not see any new Brazilian temples being announced. I was wrong. So while the Church could wait to announce new temples until all four are further along, at the same time, there may be wisdom in announcing others. The two I listed in the post above are options, but are not by any means the only options. They just seem more imminent to me than any others. That said, I am always on the lookout to expand my list, either for the immediate or more distant future. I might stick with Belo Horizonte and Salvador for now. As you previously observed, the two could be announced at the same time, as they are far enough apart. In the meantime, as time and circumstances allow, I will continue to study other great candidates in this area and worldwide, and I have compiled a list of possibilities for the distant future in addition to this list. So I may add other candidates as I find them, including the two I mentioned in this comment. Thanks for commenting, Chris! I always appreciate your insights.

    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.