Hello again, everyone! I am back with my third of four posts covering the South America Northwest Area. In this post, I will be discussing the composition of the current temple districts, detailing how many stakes and districts are served by each. Let's get right to it.
First of all, to me, it makes sense to approach this subject methodically, So we will start with the Arequipa, Lima, Los Olivos and Trujillo Peru temples, then turn our attention to the Barranquilla and Bogota Colombia Temples, followed by the Guayaquil and Quito Ecuador Temples, then finish with the Caracas Venezuela and Cochabama Bolivia Temples.
Starting in Peru and working chronologically, we first take a look at the Lima Peru Temple. That district currently comprises 73 stakes and 11 districts from Central and Southern Peru and the Peruvian Amazons. The temple district will be broken up somewhat when the Arequipa Peru Temple is dedicated, and will be further divided once the Los Olivos Temple is constructed and dedicated. It will be most interesting to see how those divisions occur.In the meantime, the Trujillo temple district, by comparison, is much smaller, as it takes in 25 stakes and 8 districts from the northern part of Peru.
The Bogota Colombia Temple takes in 28 stakes and 10 districts within Colombia, and that district will be divided once the Barranquilla Colombia Temple is dedicated (which is, as previously noted, anticipated to occur late next year). Again, it will be interesting, to be sure, to see how that division plays out.
As for Ecuador, the temple in Guayaquil serves the Saints in 39 stakes and 1 district from Ecuador, in addition to 1 stake and 1 district from the southwestern portion of Colombia. With the Quito temple anticipated to divide that district somewhat, it will be interesting to see what happens in that regard.
We now come to Caracas Venezuela, where the temple in that city serves 34 stakes and 6 districts. Again, the subject of whether or not an additional temple could be built in this nation to more evenly disperse those stakes and districts will be discussed in my next post.
And that brings us to the Cochabamba Bolivia Temple, which serves 32 stakes and 8 districts in Bolivia, in addition to 3 other stakes from southeastern Peru. That district is not perhaps as much in need of a split, but I will address if and how I feel that could happen in the next post.
As this wraps up my examination of the current districts within the South America Northwest Area, that does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post (which should come shortly and will discuss my thoughts about potential future temple locations, which will wrap up my discussion of this area), I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities: South America Northwest Area, Part Three--Composition of Current Temple Districts
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
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.