Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: Central America Area

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: Central America Area

Hello again, everyone! I am back in the early morning hours of November 28 with my next post in the series exploring potential future temple sites. This post will discuss the current temples in the Central America Area and which locations in that area might have a temple announced in the near future. Let's dive right in to that.

The Central America Area of the Church covers the nations of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. There are 6 temples in that area, 2 in Guatemala (Quetzeltenango & Guatemala City), 1 in El Salvador (San Salvador), 1 in Honduras (Tegucigalpa) 1 in Costa Rica (in San Jose), and 1 in Panama City Panama.

Let's get into specifics for each of these countries. Belize has 2 districts (with a total of 12 branches), so it seems unlikely that the Church will build a temple in that nation in the next little while. Costa Rica, in addition to having the aforementioned temple, also has two missions (both of which are headquartered in San Jose). There are also 10 stakes and 23 districts, which are further subdivided into 56 wards and 23 branches, making a grand total of 79 congregations.

Since the dedication of the temple in June 2000, the second mission in that country was established, and 4 of those 10 stakes have been created. Many have seen the case for a second temple there, and I explored two of those at one point. But lately Costa Rica has had a very negative political climate, which does not lend itself to the progress of the Church. It's possible, but not likely, in my opinion, that we will see a second temple in that nation in the near future.

In El Salvador, the three missions are all located in San Salvador, the capital city, although one of them also serves Belize. There are 21 stakes that further break down into 133 wards and 31 branches, for a total of 164 congregations. That nation may be set for now with just the one temple, but if and when I find a good potential candidate for a second one, I will be sure to pass that along.

Next we come to Guatemala, where there are two temples in operation: in Guatemala City and Quetzeltenango. There are six missions of the Church in Guatemala. There are also 48 stakes and 15 districts, which break down further into 285 wards and 156 branches, bringing the total number of Guatemalan congregations to 441.

But what of the current temple districts? The temple in Guatemala City has a district containing 31 stakes and 10 districts.  And Quetzeltenango;s temple district only serves 17 stakes and 7 districts.

In relation to Guatemala, for a while now, I have believed that Guatemala City could get a second temple, based on the precedent set with the second temples in Lima Peru and Manila Philippines. And that could still happen in a big way. But I looked into things further, and a city called Villa Nueva is 3,582 miles from Guatemala City. And while Villa Nueva may be closer to Quetzeltenango (by around 2,00 miles), it is still in the Guatemala City district). Either way, that is around 10 times further than President Monson's goal, so a temple in Villa Nueva makes sense. I could also see the merits of having a second temple in Guatemala City as well.

Now we turn our attention to Honduras. Its only temple is in Tegucigalpa. The nation has four missions (1 in Tegucigalpa, 1 in Comayaguela, and the final two in San Pedro Sula). There are also 31 stakes and 5 districts, which are further divided into 176 wards and 60 branches, making a grand total of 236 congregations, which is a lot for one temple. Many have said that a second temple in San Pedro Sula would be a great idea, and I couldn't agree more. So it is on my list.

Next on the list, I wanted to note that Nicaragua has no temples yet. That nation has two missions, both of which are headquartered in Managua. Nicaraguan members are currently assigned to the Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple district, and to get there, they have to travel a distance of 233.4 miles. That is not much further than the 200 mile goal President Monson set for each member's distance from a temple, but is still far enough to qualify for its own temple.

There are also 12 stakes and 4 districts, which are subdivided into 72 wards and 39 branches, for a total of 111 congregations. As I have previously noted, in 2012, then-Elder Nelson publicly proposed a temple for Managua, and my research indicates land has been held in reserve for that purpose, which means an announcement is only a matter of time. Additionally, Nicaragua ranks #1 of the top ten countries with the most members that does not have a temple in any phase. So it is sure to happen sooner rather than later.

We conclude the discussion of this area by reviewing where the Church is at in Panama. That nation's sole mission is located in Panama City, where the only temple is also located.There are 7 stakes and 4 districts in that nation, which further break down into 45 wards and 28 branches, for a total of 73 congregations. I don't see the Church announcing a second temple in that nation until more units are created.

That does it for this post. Thanks for wading through it. Any comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, 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.

5 comments:

  1. I think you got your numbers wrong on the miles between Villa Nueva and Guatemala City. However I do expect a third temple in Guatemala s
    ometime in the next few years

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that comment, Chris! I double-checked my math, and it appears that Villa Nueva is 3,623 miles from Quetzeltenango, and it is 10.2 miles from Guatemala City (its assigned temple). So I think I will change my prediction for Guatemala's next temple back to Guatemala City. Chalk it up to a late night and running the wrong calculations. Thanks, Chris!.

      Delete
    2. Just looked it up, and Guatemala City covers an area of 267.2 miles, so a second temple in that city makes sense, and I will put that location back on my list. Thanks again, Chris!

      Delete
  2. I'm hoping Nicaragua will get a Temple soon. My brother served his mission there 20 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this comment as well, Chris. Nicaragua has been on my list of temple possibilities since I first started sharing them, and for all the reasons I shared above, I am convinced a temple will be announced for that nation sooner rather than later. Nice to hear of your brother's connection to that area. Thanks for letting me know.

      Delete

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.