I hope that any of you will let me know if there are any glaring errors, omissions, or over-estimations in this list. With that said, the updated list and notes follow below. In order to not distract from the flow of that information, I will be ending here and now as I always do: That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly-added content, please feel free to subscribe. 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.
Africa Southeast[2]:
Antananarivo Madagascar; Second DR Congo Temple (in Mbuji-Mayi or Lubumbashi; Maputo
Mozambique; Kampala Uganda
Africa West[3]:
Freetown Sierra Leone; Kumasi Ghana; Monrovia Liberia; Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast;
Benin City Nigeria
Asia[4]:
Ulaanbaatar Mongolia; Jakarta Indonesia; Singapore; Taichung Taiwan; Hanoi
Vietnam
Asia North[5]:
Osaka Japan
Brazil[6]:
Belo Horizonte; Florianopolis; João Pessoa Ribeirão Preto
Caribbean: Kingston
Jamaica[7]
Central America[8]:
Coban Guatemala; San Pedro Sula Honduras
Europe[9]:
Budapest Hungary; Edinburgh Scotland; Vienna Austria; Oslo Norway
Europe East[10]:
Vilnius Lithuania
Mexico: Queretaro/Torreon
Mexico[11]
Middle East/Africa North: Dubai/Abu
Dhabi United Arab Emirates[12]
Pacific[13]:
Port Moresby Papua New Guinea; Tarawa Kiribati; Pago Pago American Samoa;
Neiafu Vava'u Tonga; Savaii Samoa; Christchurch New Zealand
Philippines[14]: Angeles/Bacolod/Tacloban
Philippines
South America Northwest[15]: Santa
Cruz/La Paz Bolivia; Iquitos/Cusco Peru; Cali/Medellin Colombia
South America South[16]: Antofagasta/Valparaiso
Chile; Neuquen/Rosario Argentina; Ciudad del Este Paraguay
North America (including
the United States and Canada) [17]:
Canada[18]: Victoria
British Columbia; Lethbridge Alberta
North America Central[19]:
Missoula Montana; Pueblo/Colorado Springs Colorado; Wichita Kansas; Green Bay
Wisconsin; Des Moines Iowa; Rapid City South Dakota
North America Northeast[20]: Cleveland
Ohio; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; East Brunswick New Jersey; Augusta Maine;
Montpelier Vermont
North America Northwest:
Fairbanks Alaska[21]
North America Southeast[22]:
Jackson Mississippi; Shreveport Louisiana; Jacksonville Florida; Knoxville
Tennessee; Savannah Georgia
North America Southwest[23]: Bentonville
Arkansas; Fort Worth Texas; Las Cruces New Mexico; Flagstaff Arizona; Elko/Ely Nevada
North America West:
Bakersfield California[24]
Utah[25]:
Herriman/Heber City/Tooele/Washington County Utah; Preston Idaho; Evanston
Wyoming
Result:
[1]Some have offered their
opinion that, with 19 new temples announced last year alone (which has resulted
in a current backlog of 27 temples, though 3 others have a groundbreaking
scheduled to occur roughly one month after this conference), no new temples may
be announced this go-round. While I understand (and appreciate) the rationale
behind such comments, from what others and I myself have directly or indirectly
heard, President Nelson may unveil his temple expansion plans during this
conference. Whether he does or not, the locations below (grouped by area, then
by likelihood within that area) represent the most likely locations in which I
feel such temples may be announced during this conference.
[2]The Africa Southeast Area
has experienced significant Church growth. With 1 dedicated temple in the area
currently, there are 2 under construction (1 of which will be dedicated the
week after conference, with the other anticipated to follow in 4-6 months), and
2 others announced (both of which have had sites procured, and could therefore
have a groundbreaking either later this year or early next year), I have found
5 other potential locations which may get a temple in the near future. Most of
these candidates are based on the mileage to the current temple(s), travel
rigor, or oversized temple districts. Additionally, Uganda, Madagascar, and Mozambique
are fifth, seventh, and ninth respectively on the list of top ten nations with
the strongest Church presence that do not have a temple in any phase.
Madagascar is my top pick for this area. And in reference to a second DR Congo
Temple, I have personally favored Lubumbashi, but a recent report on the Church
growth blog pointed to the idea that a temple in Mbuji-Mayi might be more
imminently needed, so I have prioritized that pick.
[3]The
same factors I referenced above in previously (about significant Church growth,
the mileage and rigors involved, and temple district sizes) also applies to the
Africa West Area, as reflected by the five candidate cities listed here. With
only 2 temples currently operating, one more other construction, and one
announced, the Church growth blog noted recently that West Africa could have at
least 13 operating temples by 2030. There are a couple of big differences,
though. Only two of the five candidates do not have a temple in any phase. The
two are Sierra Leone and Liberia, which rank as the second and sixth
respectively on the aforementioned top ten list. Sierra Leone is my top pick for this area. And
while it may be difficult to know how soon a second Ivory Coast temple and a
third Nigerian temple may be announced, I have felt confident enough in my
picks to justify their selection.
[4]The Asian Saints, whose
ability to practice their faith has been somewhat limited at times by
governmental regulations, are nonetheless very faithful, as evidenced by recent
temple announcements for that continent. With the Hong Kong and Taipei temples
serving the Saints currently, the one in Bangkok is under construction, and two
others have been announced for Bengaluru and Phnom Penh. The factors first
mentioned in previously above also apply to the Asia Area, which is the largest
geographically in the Church. Of the locations listed, Mongolia is my favored
pick, since that nation is eighth on the aforementioned top ten list. Also,
President Hinckley publicly proposed a temple in Singapore, and Vietnam is a
dark-horse pick that I included based on reports of Church growth in the area.
[5]The Asia North Area of the
Church has seen some stagnated growth, to the point where some have suggested
that that area could be merged with the Asia Area. While I understand the
thinking behind that, and while I would not be surprised if such a merge occurs
in the near future, I have evaluated the area and seen at least one prospective
location where a temple could be built, with the main reasoning being the
factors previously mentioned in previously.
[6]Brazil
has been a Church stronghold for a while now. With six temples currently in
operation, both the Fortaleza and Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temples will be
dedicated within the next year, during which time the Brasilia Brazil Temple is
likely to have a groundbreaking occur. With two other temples (Belem and
Salvador) awaiting a site announcement and groundbreaking, some may feel that
more Brazilian temples may be delayed. But my research indicates that, due to
the factors mentioned in previously, these cities are the next most likely
locations to have a temple announced. I personally favor Belo Horizonte, but
would be happy if any or all of these cities have a temple announced this
go-round.
[7]This city is another
dark-horse pick, but is on the list due to the factors mentioned in previously,
but also due to someone suggesting it elsewhere. And given what President
Nelson has done in terms of the 19 temples he announced last year, Kingston
could be another location for a smaller temple.
[8]A Church member living and
working in the Central America Area kindly informed me that a second temple to
serve the current Guatemala City temple district is the most imminent prospect
for the future in this area. As I studied that opinion, I concurred with him
that Coban would likely be the next Central American city in which a temple
will be announced. But I also feel (based on general consensus and according to
my research) that a San Pedro Sula temple may be on the horizon sooner rather
than later, so both cities are listed.
[9]The situation of Saints
living on the European continent is somewhat interesting. Where there are
centers of strength, significant growth has occurred. But in many European
nations, the Church has experienced some stagnated growth, which has
necessitated discontinuing some congregations in order to strengthen others
within the last year or two. But due to the factors I mentioned previously, it
appears likely that most (if not all) of the candidate cities that follow in this
section could get a temple, even if only a smaller one.
[10]This area of the Church
has also experienced stagnated growth to the point that some have suggested
that the Church could consolidate it into the Europe Area. Additionally,
although President Nelson boldly announced a temple in April of last year for a
major yet-to-be-determined city in Russia, the political and religious
oppression existing in that nation makes it hard to know how soon that temple
will be built. With that in mind, a temple in Vilnius makes a lot of sense. And
that is especially true given the public proposal for such a temple which was
made by then-Elder M. Russell Ballard in May 1993. Although Elder Ballard noted
that prospect might not occur for 50 years or so, based on what has been said
about President Nelson’s temple expansion plans, the prospect seems imminent
enough to include it on my list for now.
[11]The relevant factors in
notes 13 and 20 also apply in a way to Mexico (where centers of strength have
seen excellent growth in some respects, but in others, massive congregational
consolidates have also occurred within the last couple of years. Based on these
facts, it may be difficult to know how soon another temple may be announced for
Mexico, especially since one was announced for Puebla last October. But the
cities of Queretaro and Torreon have been identified by a Church member living
in Mexico as likely to get a temple in the near future, so both are on this
list.
[12]As recently as a year ago,
if someone had suggested a temple for the Middle East/Africa North Area, I
would have dismissed it as an impossibility. But within the last year, we have
seen President Nelson announce temples for areas which I felt would not get a
temple for 15-20 years, and with that in mind, a temple in this area seems
feasible, if only a smaller one. Although the bulk of Church membership in this
area is comprised of military personnel, the United Arab Emirates represent a
stronghold of the Church in this area. And with that in mind, a smaller temple
in either of the two most populous cities in the UAE (Dubai and Abu Dhabi
respectively), feels like it may be more practical than I would have believed
this time last year.
[13]The Pacific area is another
stronghold of Church growth. With 10 temples currently operating there (and one
other announced), it seems logical to assume that other temples will be needed
to serve the area. Most (if not all) of the factors I mentioned previously
apply equally to this area. Additionally, New Guinea, Kiribati, and American
Samoa are ranked first, third, and fourth respectively on the aforementioned
top ten list of nations. So I have no doubt the Pacific Area will see temples
announced in each of these cities within the next decade, if not sooner.
[14]The Church has two
operating temples in the Philippines (Manila and Cebu City). The temple
announced in October 2010 for Urdaneta had a groundbreaking ceremony in
January. And with the last 3 sets of temple announcements, the Philippines has
seen temples announced for the greater Manila area (which will be located in
Muntinlupa City), Cagayan de Oro, and Davao. If that is any indication of what
might happen in the future, then other temples may be needed for the
Philippines, and the cities mentioned here seem to have the best likelihood.
[15]The
entire South American continent has experienced massive Church growth. Having
previously discussed Brazil, in reference to the South America Northwest Area,
I wanted to observe that there are 7 operating temples there. 1 more is
currently under construction in Arequipa Peru (for which a dedication is
anticipated before the end of this year) Two others have been announced: the
Lima Peru Los Olivos and Quito Ecuador Temples, both of which could have a
groundbreaking within the next 2-3 years, though hopefully sooner if all goes
well. And while I have personally-favored candidates here, a second temple in
Bolivia may be the most imminent prospect. For Bolivia and Colombia, I have
listed two potential locations each due to my inability to narrow those down to
one.
[16]The
South America South Area has likewise seen very significant and rapidly
expanding growth. So again, with President Nelson’s extensive temple-building
plans in mind, I have considered the most imminent prospects for future temples
in this area, and the factors mentioned in previous notes hold true here as
well. Currently, this area of the Church is served by 6 operating temples (1 of
which is closed for renovation), and there were 2 more announced for this area
last year. With that in mind, the 5 locations listed in this section seem to
have the strongest case in their favor of a temple announced in the near
future. And for Argentina and Chile, I list two cities each because the sets
for each nation are about even in terms of their likelihood.
[17]Although
the North American continent (primarily in the United States) has seen somewhat
of a stagnating growth situation, in light of the recent increased mentions of
President Nelson’s ambitious temple-building plans, the likelihood is extremely
high that the US and Canada will be included in whatever the plans are to
expand the number of temples worldwide. The locations listed below represent
what I believe are the most imminent prospects for each of the now-8 North
American areas of the Church.
[18]For purposes of
simplification, I have chosen to list my temple candidates for Canada in a
separate section from those elsewhere in the United States. So the North
American areas listed below will not include these Canadian candidate cities.
Of the two, Lethbridge may be more of a long shot. But Victoria has been
mentioned to me as a prospect due to the cost and arduous nature of the journey
to worship at the Vancouver British Columbia Temple.
[19]As mentioned in previous
notes, on the one hand, it may be difficult (if not impossible) to gauge the
imminent likelihood of any locations. But as also mentioned, in view of some of
the relevant factors, I can see the merits of each location listed here. Particularly,
I heard a report of a public proposal of a temple for Missoula Montana. Pueblo
made the list due to a report I received of high attendance numbers at the
Denver Colorado Temple. For Kansas, Iowa, and South Dakota, mileage is the main
factor driving my choices, and a temple (if only a smaller one) seems likely
for all three states in the near future. A temple in Iowa could be named for
Mount Pisgah, a significant landmark in the pioneer history of the Church.
[20]Given the steady growth of
the Church in Ohio and Pennsylvania, second temples for each seem to be likely
sooner rather than later. And New Jersey, Maine, and Vermont may each be
eligible for a temple of their own given the distance factor, and the rigors of
travel involved in getting to their currently assigned temples.
[21]The Saints in both
Fairbanks and Juneau have an arduously lengthy journey to get to their assigned
temple in Anchorage. While both may have equal merits in terms of their
eligibility for a temple of their own, my research shows Fairbanks may be first
in line for such a prospect. But I would anticipate temples in both cities
within the next 5-15 years, if not sooner.
[22]Since the Saints in
Jackson currently have an arduous journey to get to their assigned temple, it
is my opinion that a temple will be announced in that city sooner rather than
later. And an arduous journey also factors in to my reasoning for temples in
Shreveport, Jacksonville, Knoxville, and Savannah. If, as I anticipate,
President Nelson plans to prioritize the mileage factor and also filling in the
gaps that exist in temple district coverage, then any or all of these may
simply be a matter of time.
[23]Things are a little tricky
for this area of the Church. Given that the Saints assigned to the districts of
temples over the Mexican border might possibly have a harder time accessing
those temples in the future, some have offered very specific opinions about the
merits of some of the candidate cities which are listed here. But I am basing
my theories on the potential location of an Arkansas temple on information from
a friend indicating that land has been held in reserve in that city for a
temple for several years now. And I am basing my picks for temples in Texas and
New Mexico on the opinion of someone living within the current Dallas Texas
Temple district. This individual noted that Fort Worth would almost certainly
be the next Texas city to get a temple. So if border issues arise, those could
be ameliorated by a temple in Las Cruces, which would likely also cover El Paso
for the time being. Arizona and Nevada both fall under the “Mormon corridor”,
and I have heard that Flagstaff may well be the most likely Arizona city to get
a temple. Both Elko and Ely have arduous journeys to their assigned temples in
Utah, so It seems to be just a matter of time before one (or both) of them get
a temple of their own, and I feel the next Nevada temple location is too close
to call.
[24]With a temple announced
last October for Yuba City, a temple in Bakersfield might potentially be
delayed, but however long it might take, I am reasonably confident that that
city will be the next one in California to get a temple of its’ own, as I have
been anticipating such a prospect for almost as long as I have been offering my
thoughts on future temple locations.
[25]A temple site was publicly
mentioned as being held in reserve in April 2005 for a temple in the Southwest
Salt Lake Valley. Though no official confirmation has occurred, if my research
is correct, the land in question has been the subject of a border dispute
between Herriman and Bluffdale cities, but is currently owned by the city of
Herriman. For Heber City, Tooele, Preston, and Evanston, they all seem to have
an equal likelihood of having a temple announced in the near future. And Elder
Steven E. Snow, who was born in Washington County, recently told the Saints
there at a stake conference that someone from the Temple Department had
indicated to him that a third Washington County temple would be needed in the
not-too-distant future. For these reasons, I couldn’t narrow any of these
selections down, at least not for the moment.
Thanks for your list and work, James. Question, why do you list the locations for the Philippines as one choice with a / between each name rather than a ; like most locatio choices? Are you suggesting only one temple announcements for the Philippines? These locations are not close to each other, really. Also, you do that with Utah locations that are all quite spread out. There are a couple locations in the list that aren't separated by either a / or ; and should be as they are distinct places. Great list! I think 12 is a good number. Could be as high as 16. Wil be awesome to witness!
ReplyDeleteHello, coachodeeps, and thank you for the comments and questions. I'd be happy to address them. Let me first say that, while i anticipate that President Nelson will be announcing a large number of temples again, and also that I am hoping he will detail his plans at some point, until he does so, I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that more than one temple will be announced at one time, at least not immediately, for any nation, island, or territory outside the United States, or any state within the US. Therefore, the three cities within the Philippines which are on my list above all seem at this point to have an equal likelihood of being the one city within the Philippines that could have a temple announced in General Conference.
DeleteThe Utah Area of the Church has several locations that could get a temple, and it was impossible for me to narrow the prospects down to the 2 or 3 that could, in comparison to the Philippines, have an equal likelihood of being announced. As to the reason they are separated by slash marks rather than a colon, I did it that way mainly because I couldn't narrow it down any further. If I had to trim down the Utah prospects, I'd make the choice of Herriman (in view of that city being the likely location of the Southwest Salt Lake valley Temple site referenced by President Hinckley in April 2005, Tooele, and Evanston. I may opt to separate each of those with a semi-colon as I give the list a final go-over.
In any other area, the prospects are listed in order of likelihood, and I can see the need to proofread the list again as you correctly pointed out some flaws in that respect. I will be sure to do so prior to General Conference. In the meantime, do you have any other questions/suggestions/feedback about this list? As always, thank you for taking time to comment, coachodeeps.
I’m not sure how likely Victoria British Columbia seems. It doesn’t seem like it has enough members to sustain its use. Your further thoughts (I grew up in Port Angeles, WA across the water.)
ReplyDeleteHello, Sam. Victoria was directly suggested to me by a Canadian Latter-day Saint living within the current Vancouver temple district. One thing President Nelson and his predecessors have done is to focus temple announcements on areas where an inordinate sacrifice of either time, money, or rigorous or dangerous travel is involved. According to the member in question, at least two of those elements apply to Victoria. Based on that assurance, I have it on the list. Hope that helps, and thanks for stopping by to comment.
DeleteThanks for the list. There are some I haven't considered that have made me think. However, I think there are a couple of over-estimations on the list. As a general rule, I do think that a city needs to have at least one stake to have a temple announcement. Having at least few wards in the immediate area that have members that can allow them to function, even if for only for three days a week, is probably an important factor. I believe the only temple that has been announced in a city without a stake was Kiev, but a stake was formed before the temple was completed.
ReplyDeleteIn Hanoi, there are only four branches. Many of these branches were formed after the mission was formed in 2016. The new temple is Cambodia will be much more accessible to Vietnam until enough stakes warrant a temple there. The same goes for Lithuania, currently there are only two branches in Vilnius. Right now, I don't think these places can even be considered Dark Horses.
An eastern European temple I see as a more likely Dark Horse is Albania. There is a Stake and 5 wards in Tirana (although Albania is in the Europe Area, not Europe East). In Asia North, Busan Korea would be more of a real possibility. There are 7 wards in Busan with a few other stakes not to far away. The church isn't growing much in these locations, but there are decent numbers of congregations. Both are still long shots, but would be more realistic.
A temple is Lethbridge would probably only leave two stakes in the Cardston Temple District. The temple is Large and has the capacity of a session every hour. So, other than the three I mentioned, I think it is a good list. There are always surprise announcements, so its fun to predict them. I was inspired by coachdeeps to make a Temple Bracket, so I made a printable pdf with my ranked choices.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBpo4DpfpN4bcpOaBEv3jORJN5LFQkZC/view?usp=sharing
Hello, Cory! You make some very fair and well-taken points, which I will take under advisement. Don't know if you were aware or not, but the Yigo Guam Temple (which will have a groundbreaking within roughly 4 weeks after General Conference) is being built in an area where only one or two wards have been established. Guam currently only has one stake, and that stake is based in Barrigada. If my calculations are correct, then the distance between Yigo and Barrigada comes in at less than 15 miles. To me, that suggests (especially if it is a new precedent) that any city without a stake that is within 15-20 miles of the stake center could be used in some cases for a temple. That said, such action would be the exception, not the rule.
DeleteNext, to your comments on Hanoi and Lithuania: I fully understand and would agree entirely with your reasoning on both if I were relying solely on data, facts, and known information. But new information I have received recently more or less confirms we may be entering uncharted territory in terms of what is ahead for temple construction, and particularly what might occur specifically during this next General Conference.
And since we have seen President Nelson do unprecedented things (as evidenced by what we saw in terms of the first year of his prophetic administration), he is clearly not afraid to do things differently or to change what has been ingrained tradition in procedure, policy, practice, or program. If anyone had told me one year ago that temples would be announced for both India and Russia during the April General Conference, I would have dismissed it as an impossibility. But as i searched for information about feasible locations that could see a temple announced in the near future, I was particularly impressed to think outside the box in some respects, and Hanoi and Lithuania are two locations that fall into the category of seemingly unlikely, but could be possible based on the new information I have.
That said, I know that a temple in Lethbridge would have the effect you mentioned. But since the Saints in Lethbridge have a round-trip distance of 100 miles to get to the Cardston temple, I can see the rigor, difficulty, or expense of that travel resulting in the Lethbridge Saints not making the effort to go frequently to the temple, which in turn would impact low attendance in Cardston. I have mentioned previously the 200-mile distance within which Presidents Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson indicated all Church members should be from their nearest temple. If we assume that is a round-trip distance, I am theorizing that part of the plan involved will be to halve or even quarter that distance. And if that occurs, then a round-trip of 100 miles would surely be a consideration into future temples, which would mean that Lethbridge would be eligible. Again, due to President Nelson's unprecedented 19-temple announcement within the first year of his prophetic administration, and in view of new information, I am confident in any choices that would, outside consideration of those two factors, surely be seen as impractical, improbable, or unlikely. I will have to look over your bracket sometime, as it sounds interesting. For now, thanks for taking time to share your feedback.
Thanks for engaging with the commenters on your blog. I agree with you, that fact that Guam has a temple at all signified that the church has unprecedented plans to bring temples closer to members.
DeleteI think that the main reason as to why the temple in Guam is being built in Yigo is because the existing church property in Yigo was large enough to fit the temple without having to acquire additional property. This really helps bring down the cost of building a temple. Even though the Guam Stake is named Barrigada, all of the wards in Guam are part of the same stake. It really doesn't matter that the names are. For example, The Hartford Connecticut temple is in Farmington, Connecticut. There are no stakes in Farmington, However, the wards in the Farmington Area belong to the Hartford Stake. Guam is the about the geographical size of Utah County, so whatever city the temple is built in, it is all considered the Guam stake.
I suppose I could imagine a senario where temple ordinance rooms could be built into a church building or a rented space. There could be a couple of rooms that could be used for temple ordinances once a week. Chairs could be rearranged so that an Endowment room could be changed into a sealing room. A small font, similar to those in meetinghouses, could be used for Baptisms for the dead. It's only a senario which I could see that Temple could be built in these remote areas that don't have stakes or that have not had ongoing missionary work for many years. Trained foreign senior missionaries would likely be the main temple workers in these locations.
No problem. The rationale for putting the temple in Yigo makes sense due to the reasons you mentioned. And I am sure inspiration and a view towards the future growth that will be occurring because of the temple was a factor as well. I am aware of temples being built in one city that are named for another. And cases in which that has happened has made sense.
DeleteAs for your statement about church buildings or rented space being used for a temple, even part-time, I don't think that will be a factor in play until we know more about the extent to which President Nelson's plans go. Prophecies about the Second Coming foretell, among other things, of a day when temples of the Church worldwide will be operating around the clock. while we may be getting closer to the time when that might occur, I don't think we are quite there yet, nor do I see a current need to convert meetinghouses or other spaces for temples, at least not in the immediate future. But I say that as one who is not privy to the conversations occurring at Church headquarters, and at this rate, we'd best be prepared for anything. Thanks, Cory, for these additional thoughts.
The Pacific ocean/islands are split into 3 subregions Micro, Mela and Polynesia. Yigo, Guam being the first temple in Micronesia with the other 2 subregions full of temples. Isn't it natural to think the position of a temple in Guam is for the entire Micronesia including Kiribati. Newsroom says there's 6 stakes total and a few extra congregations, listing the individual countries in Micronesia. The church of Jesus Christ temple site although not an official source seems to have a similar explanation on the Guam temple page.
DeleteThank you for this additional comment, William, and for drawing our attention to the specific information about the Yigo Guam Temple, which I had either not been aware of or forgotten about. You are correct in what has been noted about the Yigo Guam temple. That said, the statistics cited on the Newsroom for Micronesia have not yet been updated with the 2018 numbers, and that will not occur until the week or so after General Conference, since the 2018 Statistical Report will only be released via the Newsroom directly following the Saturday Afternoon Session of General Conference. So whenever those statistics are updated, more analysis may be in order.
DeleteI just crunched the numbers, and unless my research is in error (a possibility for which I must allow), the distance in miles between Yigo Guam and Tarawa Kiribati is over 2,000 miles one-way, which may constitute an undue hardship on the Saints in Kiribati. But above and beyond that, Kiribati now ranks as the third of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that do not of a temple in any phase. And since the temple announcements made from April 2015 to now have been for quite a few nations previously in various spots on the top ten list, I would imagine the Church will continue to announce temples for those nations which are currently or will yet be on that list. With that in mind, I might suggest that Yigo will be the first of a few temples strategically announced specifically for the regions you mentioned. Just some thoughts on your comments, for what they might be worth. As always, thank you for taking time to comment, William.
The Kiev Ukraine temple was announced before the first stake in that country was organized. However the stake was created by the time of the groundbreaking. I think the same thing happened with the Hamilton New Zealand Temple.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, I meant to add the caveat: "the only temple in the past five decades." The UK and Switzerland also didn't have stakes until the 60's, even though the temples were dedicated in the 50's. Even though they didn't have stakes, I'm guessing they had a decent amount of congregations. Pre-1960's, I think the formation of stakes was not nearly as uniformly streamlined as it is today.
DeleteHello, Chris, and hello again, Cory. As I mentioned above,Yigo is the most recent example of a city to have a temple announced without first having an individual stake. As the saying goes, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a stake in Yigo may be organized before the temple is dedicated. As I have previously observed, the construction of that temple is, if my information is correct, only going to take between 15-21 months to construct.
DeleteThe organization of stakes must be streamlined quite a bit more now. The Church, as i have also previously noted, has had a Boundary and Leadership Change Committee for at least the last couple of decades, if not longer, and therefore, the creation of new stakes has been a lot more easy to accomplish than it would have been before the creation of that Committee. It has been interesting, to say the least, to see how Church procedures, policies, and programs have evolved in their operation recently. Hope these insights are helpful to all who read them, and in the meantime, thank you again, Chris and Cory, for taking time to comment.
Just a thought of mine, I don't think it mattered that the temples of UK, Switzerland and New Zealand didn't have at least 1 stake in the area. Those temples serviced entire continents UK western areas of the mainland+UK isles. Switzerland would of been the rest of the continent and Hamilton NZ use to serve the continent of Australia+the rest of Oceania/pacific islands+NZ given its central location in NZ. I don't think stakes were required there and in that time as church membership was skyrocketing.
DeleteWilliam, thank you for those thoughts. You are correct, of course. In each of the cases you mentioned, temples were built where they would make sense logistically, but also in specific areas where the Church had a good relationship with local governments, and the temples in each location could be easily approved and built. We have seen that, as long as the membership of the Church can support a temple in such places, the only other important factor is where the Lord inspires a temple to be built. And I am assuming that tradition will continue. As I understand it, the temple in Russia (whenever it is built and dedicated) may be more of a regional one, given the sheer size of Russia and the distances involved in travel. Of course, I say that without the Church having confirmed anything in that regard yet.
DeleteBut I also believe that we as a Church are about to enter unprecedented territory in terms of what will occur with temple construction and dedication. So President Nelson's established tendency to think outside the box, and to follow and credit direct inspiration as coming from the Lord may play into what will likely take place in the future. I am not sure what exactly will occur in that respect next General Conference, but from what I hear with the new information I have, the idea of a dozen new temples being announced appears to be a definitive low-ball estimate. And it will surely be exciting for us to see what exactly happens in that respect. We may very well see the Church move temple construction forward in ways that have been heretofore unprecedented. I can't wait to see it all unfold. Thank you, William, for taking time to comment.
A Dark horse choice coululd be mainland China. I understand may that therebe many branches in that country for Native Chineese Members. Although we don't have missionaries there, many Chineese join the church while living for work and school abroad and then return home. They are not allowed to share the gospel with friends, but theythey teach and baptise immediate family members. I just wonder how a building closed to the general public will fare legally over there.
ReplyDeletePresident Nelson could help accomplish the furtherance of the work in mainland China, since he has been designated an "old friend" thereof. Mainland China would make a good candidate for a temple, since any Saints in that region currently travel quite a ways to get to the Hong Kong Temple (with most cities have several hundred or even over a thousand miles to get there), and that distance will be even greater following the closure of the Hong Kong temple on July 8 of this year, but I also feel as though the Chinese government's stance about religion in general and the Church in particular would have to soften a lot, and missionary work would need to be conducted for at least a period of 2-3 years there before a temple on the mainland is even a remote possibility. Hopefully between President Nelson's recognized status and Elder Gong's Asian ancestral ties will enable something to happen in relation to mainland China, but until I see evidence that that has occurred or will yet be so in the near future, that's one prospect I'd have trouble gaining and increasing confidence about. It is interesting to think about, though, to be sure. Thanks, Christ, for taking time to comment.
DeleteAgain sorry I did not proofread before submitting my last post.
ReplyDeleteI hope for a temple in Kirabati or Vanauatu someday soon. American Samoa could use one soon. I think other remote temples are needed in Paupa New Guinea, Jakarta, and Juneau, among many other locations around the word.
ReplyDeleteHello again, Chris! No worries about the typos. I am not even sure what your typo was in this case. If you made a comment about that typo, I am not seeing it either. With each set of announcements in recent years, the Presidents of the Church have taken 1 or more nations that have previously been on Matt's list of top ten locations with the strongest Church presence that do not have a temple in any phase. And I have 9 out of the 10 nations on Matt's most recent list on my list for this go-round.
ReplyDeleteI explained in an earlier comment on this thread that I have received information which seems to indicate that, whether or not President Nelson outlines his plans (although it seems most likely that he will do so), he will be announcing at least a dozen new temples, and perhaps even more than that. The report I received of that nature is one I have not been able to personally confirm is accurate, but I think it is safe to assume that something unprecedented will be mentioned about temples during the upcoming General Conference, whatever that might involve. Time will tell, of course, but that is just one of many reasons why my excitement about the upcoming General Conference has increased of late. Whatever happens in that respect, I will be sure to report on it in the as more information comes to light, and particularly over General Conference weekend. in the meantime, thank you, as always, Chris, for taking time to comment.
Have you ever tried to make a very short, concise prediction? Like... if you think there will be 12 announced, make a list of those top 12 specifically. Not a giant list of every major city in the world that has a presence of our religion.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to hear you feel that my list is too cumbersome, but based on what I have heard, the idea that a minimum of 12 temples may be announced may in and of itself be a grossly low-balled estimate. Because there are more than a dozen prospects that seem likely, and because it seems to be a near certainty that President Nelson will be detailing his plans and announcing several new temples, I could no more cut it down to the top 12 than I could to the top 30. Even 30 may not be in the neighborhood of the actual number, if what I hear from several sources proves correct. It seems that most of my readers understand why the list is so cumbersome, and I am sorry you don't feel the same way. But thanks for sharing your feedback all the same.
DeleteOne other thing: This is not a list of "every major city" in the world in which the Church has a presence. If it were, it would be longer, not shorter. There are several major cities of which I can think that I deliberately excluded from this list due to my lack of knowledge about the feasibility of a temple. Just some extra thoughts, for what they might be worth to you.
DeleteI just posted this in another thread on this blog and felt it necessary to reproduce it on this thread: Hello again, everyone! I have mentioned previously that some of the things I share have come from a wide variety of sources. This just in from one of those resources: If you thought 19 temples being announced last year was an exciting development, then taking Elder Cook's reference to a ten-fold increase in the number of temples at its' word may be some indication of things to come. I just gotta say, if I had a microphone, I'd be dropping it right now. Just another reason I suggest we all pay attention in General Conference. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI like your list and think all locations will eventually have a temple.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Richard. The subject of temples, whether those newly-announced or those undergoing construction or renovation is one that is near and dear to my heart. If everything I have heard is correct, then we as a Church are about to enter unprecedented territory regarding the expansion in the number of temples, the increase in efficiency relating to the construction process, and the speed, rate, and quantity of which temples can and will be dedicated going forward. It will be interesting to see it all unfold. Thank you again, Richard, for taking time to comment.
DeleteI expect 31 nations to get a new temple; with 73 temples announced.
DeleteADD (all 3-or-more-stake-Temples NEEDED for ALL stakes to be within 200 miles of a temple.)
afr se: East London South Africa (in Peddie)
afr w: Port Harcourt Nigeria, Calabar Nigeria, Uyo Nigeria
Brazil: Maceio Brazil, Sao Jose do Rio Preto Brazil, Natal, Goiania, Passo Fundo, Londrina, Sao Jose, Vitoria, Pelotas, Campo Grande, Teresina,
Caribbean: Santiago Dominican Republic,
Central Am: Ahuachapan El Salvador, Santa Ana El Salvador, Huehuetenango Guatemala,
Eu: Bristol England, Milan Italy, Porto Portugal, Bayonne France, Elche Spain, Barcelona Spain, Seville Spain,
Mexico: San Luis Potosi Mexico, Torreon, Culiacan, Acapulco, Chihuahua, Monclova,
Pac: Wellington NZ,
Philippines: Legazpi City, Luzon; Santiago, Luzon;
SA NW: Maracaibo Venezuela, Valencia Venezuela, Santa Fe Venezuela, Carhuamayo Peru, Huaytara Peru, San Cristobal Venezuela, Ciudad Bolivar Venezuela, Machala Ecuador, Ibarra Ecuador,
SA S: San Miguel de Tucuman Argentina, Rivera Uruguay, Melo Uruguay,
Chile: Valdivia, Arica Chile,
NA NE: Bangor ME,
NA NW: Casper WY,
NA SE:Charlotte NC, Pensacola FL,
DROP:
Hanoi Vietnam, Florianopolis Brazil, Ribeirao Preto Brazil, Vilnius Lithuania, Queretero Mexico, Dubai UAE, Christchurch NZ, Angeles Philippines, Lethbridge Alberta, Pueblo CO, Colorado Springs CO, Wichita KS, Green Bay WI, Des Moines IA, Cleveland OH, East Brunswick NJ, Augusta ME, Montpelier VT, Jackson MS, Knoxville TN, Savannah GA, Las Cruces NM, Flagstaff AZ, Bakersfield CA, Preston ID, Evanston WY.
By Continent, this is the number of temple-blessed nations: Africa 5, Asia 3, Europe 6, North America 6,
Oceania 1, South America 10. 6-continent total nations = 31.
Steven, thank you for taking time to share your thoughts. I have learned through many experiences over the last 3-4 years that the topic of future temples is one that yields a lot of interest. I have also learned that each of us approach the process of assembling our individual lists in different ways. And I additionally would like to note that I hear somewhat regularly from people in a position to know (due to their involvement in or knowledge about certain areas of the world or even involvement in the temple construction industry) who share insights about what's ahead.
DeleteWith that in mind, I feel fairly confident in the choices on my list, and I am sure the reasoning for the locations on your list is sound as well. That said, I have not personally seen any evidence to suggest the Church is anywhere close to announcing multiple temples at the same time for one nation. Of course, I say that without having knowledge of the full extent, scope and timing of President Nelson's plans, which seem more likely than not to be detailed in the upcoming General Conference. For that reason, I fully believe that in many cases, all of us will be gratified by many of the locations in which a temple will be announced, as we learn those locations were on our lists. At the same time, I also believe that some of the locations that will have a temple announced will come as a surprise to most, if not all, of us.
If the information I have is correct, whenever President Nelson does detail his plans (which does seem likely to occur during the upcoming General Conference), there could very well be several dozen temples announced at minimum. And if we are going to be seeing 3 temples dedicated roughly every 6 weeks, then something unprecedented will surely be occurring.
That said, I appreciate your feedback, and I definitely look forward to General Conference, during which many of the locations on many of our individual lists are almost certain to be announced. Thanks again, Steven, for taking time to comment.
I really like your list and the thought that you have put into compiling it. I agree with most of your locations, but would add Charlotte, NC. After reading the comments on this post I decided to do a property records search in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) to see if any properties have been recently purchased by the church. I found a vacant parcel that the church purchased in late 2017 that is next to Interstate 85/485. https://property.spatialest.com/nc/mecklenburg/#/property/339136. It's only a couple of acres but more vacant properties are around it so maybe they are looking to purchase more. With 4 stakes in the metro area and with more stakes created recently in SC I can see Charlotte getting a temple.
ReplyDeleteHello, Justin, and thank you for taking time to comment. I believe I recall hearing the suggestion of Charlotte elsewhere. I will need to take another look at it. The difficulty I face is balancing what I know against what I don't, which has included taking into account the still-stagnant growth in many parts of the United States. I also know that there have been several locations throughout the world where land has been held in reserve for a lengthy period of time before a temple is ever announced there. That was true for Managua Nicaragua and Auckland New Zealand (which was at least a decade or longer in both cases) and Richmond Virginia (where the Church reportedly procured land in 2015, around 3 years before the temple in that city was announced). And land has been held in reserve for similar long-term periods of time in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, Bentonville Arkansas, and Missoula Montana, to name just a few.
DeleteSo that leads to a question: What will the priority be on the plans, if, as I expect, they will be detailed during General Conference weekend? And that's hard to pin down as well. If we take into account that something unprecedented is in the works, we may be in entirely uncharted territory. Either way, the latest comments have given me much to think about, and I will have to look into what adjustments I may need to make in terms of my own thoughts on that subject. Thanks, Justin, for taking time to comment.