Those updates follow below. So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will end 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, as long as such comments are made in accordance with the established guidelines. 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.
Groundbreaking scheduled:
174. Pocatello
Idaho Temple: Youth service project held March 5, 2019; preparing for groundbreaking,
which is scheduled for Saturday March
16, 2019; completion estimated sometime during mid-to-late 2022.
175. Yigo Guam Temple: Yigo chapel closed on February 24, 2019 in preparation
for demolition; groundbreaking scheduled for Saturday May 4, 2019;
completion estimated sometime during early-to-mid
2021.
176. Praia Cabo Verde Temple: Preparing for groundbreaking, which is
scheduled for Saturday May 4, 2019; completion estimated sometime during
early-to-mid-2021.
177. San Juan Puerto Rico Temple: Trujillo Alto Ward chapel closed on January
20, 2019 in preparation for demolition; groundbreaking scheduled for Saturday
May 4, 2019; completion estimated sometime during early-to-mid 2021.
178. Quito
Ecuador Temple: Preparing for groundbreaking, which is
scheduled for Saturday May 11, 2019;
completion estimated sometime during mid-2021.
179. Lima Peru
Los Olivos Temple: Existing institute building and meetinghouse closed on
January 27, 2019 in preparation for demolition; groundbreaking
scheduled for Saturday June 8, 2019;
completion estimated sometime during early-to-mid
2022.
Groundbreaking anticipated:
180. Saratoga Springs Utah Temple: Government approval phase;
awaiting official site confirmation and release of artist’s rendering;
groundbreaking could occur in mid-2019.
181. Brasilia
Brazil Temple: Planning and approval phase; property fence installed around
temple site; groundbreaking could
occur in mid-2019.
182. Greater
Manila Philippines Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official name
announcement; groundbreaking could occur in mid-to-late 2019.
183. Nairobi
Kenya Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site confirmation;
groundbreaking could occur in mid-to-late 2019.
Note:
The Church of Jesus Christ Temples site noted in mid-February 2019 that a site
had been procured for this temple. But during President Nelson’s visit to
Nairobi in April 2018, a public affairs representative had noted that this
temple would be smaller, and that a dedication for it was anticipated to occur
sometime in 2021. So it seems reasonable to assume that a groundbreaking could
occur within the next 12 months, but hopefully sooner, if all goes well.
184. Harare
Zimbabwe Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement; President Nelson visited potential site on April 17, 2018;
groundbreaking anticipated in late 2019.
Note:
Although the site visited by President Nelson in April 2018 has not been
confirmed as the official location for the temple, Elder Andersen, in a
November meeting with Zimbabwe’s Vice President, noted that the Church hoped to
break ground for that temple in the late months of 2019. So I have no doubt
that will be able to occur.
185. Salta
Argentina Temple: Planning and approval phase; groundbreaking could occur in late 2019-early
2020.
Note:
The site has already been confirmed for this temple.
186. Mendoza Argentina Temple: Planning and approval phase; groundbreaking
could occur in late
2019-early 2020.
187. Puebla
Mexico Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement; groundbreaking could occur in early
2020.
Note:
A Church member living in Mexico reports that the area presidency is scouting
that city for temple locations, and that construction could begin in the early
months of 2020.
Announced Temples (for which more
information is needed before I provide a groundbreaking estimate):
188. Layton
Utah Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
A potential site has already been identified (though not yet confirmed) for
this temple.
189. Richmond Virginia Temple: Planning and approval phase;
awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
A potential site has already been identified (though not yet confirmed).
190. Belem Brazil Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting
official site announcement.
Note: On March 7, 2019, based on the unexpected timing whereby
groundbreakings were announced for the Quito Ecuador and Lima Peru Los Olivos
Temples, and given the anticipated timing for the groundbreaking of the Harare
Zimbabwe Temple, the Belem Brazil Temple is the only other one announced in
April 2016 that has not yet had a groundbreaking. And since President Nelson
has given some priority to the “oldest” among the announced temples, I am
hoping the Lord will similarly surprise us with word on this temple’s site and
groundbreaking in the not-too-distant future.
191. Managua Nicaragua Temple: Planning and approval phase;
awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
I found out several years ago that the Church had held land in reserve for a
temple in this city for a while now, so I hope that means a site confirmation
will occur sooner rather than later.
192. Bengaluru India Temple: Planning and approval phase;
announced April 1, 2018; awaiting official site announcement; President Nelson
toured potential locations on April 19, 2018.
193. Auckland New
Zealand Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement.
Note:
I found out several years ago that the Church had held land in reserve for a
temple in this city for a while now (with that fact confirmed by a Church
member living in that area), so I hope that means a site confirmation will
occur sooner rather than later.
194.
Phnom Penh Cambodia Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement; groundbreaking could occur in mid-2020.
Note: A potential site has already been identified
(though not yet confirmed) for this temple.
195.
Washington County Utah Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official city
(and site) announcement.
196.
Salvador Brazil Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement.
197.
Lagos Nigeria Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official site
announcement.
198. Cagayan de Oro Philippines Temple: Planning and
approval phase; awaiting official site announcement.
199. Davao Philippines Temple: Planning and approval
phase; awaiting official site announcement.
200.
Yuba City, California Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official
site announcement.
201. Russia
Temple: Planning and approval phase; awaiting official city (and site)
announcement.
The Auckland New Zealand temple, I'm not too sure with the transparency of current information. The newsrooms articles states that the Auckland Public Affairs office is unsure of the temple location or which part of the region.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary if you look up Matt's church of Jesus Christ temples website at the Auckland temple page in photos there is a clear site plan and location but its being from 2006. That land where the MTC is has clearly been prepped and properly landscaped, with earthworks completed already (apparently) and I hear the land is currently (2019) properly taken care of, kept clean, its not abandoned or such and is well maintained. I also don't understand if the church has been planning that temple from 2006 why since 2018, why has it taken this long to have a groundbreaking? I mean the designs, site plan and building approval would already be given the green light no?
I also hear from chat online that the MTC site is obviously correct as that exact suburb is the centre of South Auckland which is the main centre of strength for the church in the Auckland region and has the strongest hold of members.
I grew up in Auckland, why I seem so interested but I view this as the obvious location and don't know why the church/public affairs office is trying to claim otherwise.
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org.nz/article/new-temple-announced-for-auckland-new-zealand
ReplyDeletehttps://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/auckland-new-zealand-temple/photographs/
Hello. Thank you for sharing your concerns about the Auckland temple. First of all, Matt does not spearhead the Church of Jesus Christ Temples website. That site is maintained as an unofficial site for some official information by Rick Satterfield, who has no connection to Matt, other than having commented on the Church Growth Blog periodically.
DeleteAs for your specific concerns about the Auckland temple, the information I have used to justify what I have mentioned above about the Auckland Temple has been provided by a Church member living in Auckland who is familiar with the situation of that temple.
As far as why information the the Church Temples site would conflict with/contradict what is officially listed, the information in the latter, being unofficial, is based on a wide variety of sources, including feedback from local members. By contrast, the official sources would not want to report information that is not officially verified by the First Presidency, so the Newsroom in that respect would be more cautious.
Another important element in all of this is the fact that the Newsroom article is from October, when the temple was first announced, whereas the Church temples site contains the latest unofficial information that has most recently been provided, so there is that as well.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns about this. In the meantime, I hope the information I have provided is helpful to you.
Thanks for the clarification about who runs the temple website.
ReplyDeleteYes but the temple website includes an actual literal site plan proposed to the city council from the church in 2006 for the MTC, stake centre and future temple all 3 buildings would of been given the green light in 2006 or later on.
I know the temple website isn't an official church website but that site plan seems to be very legitimate in the church's regard.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see in the near future for any ongoing discussion from the church. I have been to that chapel besides the MTC found it a bit odd that the lawns between the 2 buildings was being kept short grass mowed etc when there was clearly nothing there. It does have a beautiful view out to the suburbs but has been currently blocked off from street view from nearby high rises being built.
Thank you for your blog its very informative.
Thank you for your additional comments. I am aware of what the temple website includes on the Auckland New Zealand Temple. My point was more that official Church resources have to wait for a definitive decision from the First Presidency before any official resources are updated to reflect information that has not been definitively designated as official by the First Presidency.
DeleteIn other words, yes, the land in question will probably be the spot for the temple, with the floor plan you mentioned. But since that has not been officially confirmed by the First Presidency, those who run the official Church websites cannot include that information for now. It wouldn't shock me to find that if and when an official announcement is made, that will be the spot and design for the temple. But since the Church temples site is unofficial, it can share information that is likely to turn out to be correct, whereas an officially sanctioned announcement is necessary for the Church website. Does that make sense?
As if why would the church spend all this money preparing that exact site, maintenance, landscaping, perimeter and boundary fencing, earthworks completed etc for no reason from 2006-present day?. Clearly something's up I do believe this is the temple location. Just my thoughts okay I should be going now. Thanks
ReplyDeleteThe Church has occasionally held land in reserve for a temple in certain cities that is not ultimately chosen, but until a determination is made one way or another, the land that was originally procured for the purpose of building a temple has to be maintained.
DeleteI do not anticipate, however, that that will be the case for the land in Auckland. In that particular case, that land was held in reserve for years for a temple when the time was right. But, as I noted in my comment above, this blog, and the Church Temples site, are not officially owned, endorsed, sanctioned, or sponsored by the Church. If you'll notice on the webpage on the Church Temples site for the Auckland Temple, it notes that a candidate site was acquired years ago, but that it will take an official announcement from the First Presidency to officially verify that is where the temple will be built.
Unofficial sites featuring information that may become official at some point is not all that uncommon. But I would hope in all such cases that a cautious disclaimer is issued, because nothing is officially official until the Brethren make it so. That does get a little tricky, but both this blog and the Church Temples site have made that arrangement work. Hope my two comments have helped to address your questions sufficiently. Please let me know if you have any other questions. I'd be more than happy to provide any insight I can.
Anonymous, I owe you an apology. I forgot to answer part of your question, and I only just noticed my failure to do so right now. You asked about why a site plan including a temple would have been submitted in 2006 but not acted upon before now. And that is a very crucial question. As I mentioned previously, the Church has been known to hold land in reserve long-term before a temple is ever announced that may ultimately be built in that spot. Auckland is one example of that, and Managua is another. There are even more places where the Church has had land in reserve for as long as a decade, but for which a temple announcement is still pending. Why is that the case? Because, if you go back and look at some of the recently-announced temples (many of which were based on a public proposal from an apostle), there were conditions specified that had to be met (such as sufficient congregational numbers and the strength thereof, which would make such regions strong enough to spiritually be able to support a temple). Look at the Church Temple site's entry for Managua, and you'll see what I mean. There are also several locations for which a temple has been publicly proposed:
Deletehttps://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/library/proposed/
As you can see from that page, some of those proposals are a decade or more old. I'd like to draw your attention further to the entry on that page for a "Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple". As the entry for that temple notes on that page, the site in question is in the area considered part of Herriman, and part of Bluffdale. My research shows that the land is currently within the borders of Herriman City, but the plot has been subjected to border disputes between Herriman and Bluffdale within the last decade.
And I can say that because it's what my research shows. But I would never presume to assert on behalf of the Church that that is the location in question. Until the Church confirms or denies whether my research is correct, the results thereof are nothing more than a conclusion of mine that may turn out to be incorrect.
But more than that: I have heard through a variety of the sources I have available to me that land continues to be held in reserve for a temple in the future in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, Bentonville Arkansas, and Missoula Montana, just to name a few places. The reason temples have not been announced in those locations up to this point is that a temple is anticipated to be announced in each location once congregational activity and attendance at the temples to which the members in this city are assigned necessitates an announcement becoming official.
So, just by way of review, the Church holds land in reserve, sometimes for decades, before a temple is formally announced. And once a temple is announced for a city in which land has been held in reserve, only an official announcement from the First Presidency will confirm that the land in question will indeed be used for the temple in that location. So, in such cases, there is around a 99% chance that land held in reserve will be used for that purpose. But there is also at least that 1% chance that the First Presidency may feel inspired to build the temple elsewhere, and to use the property initially intended for the temple for another Church-related purpose or need. That 1% occurrence isn't at all common, but nothing is definitive on any temple until the First Presidency confirms such details through an official announcement. Hope these additional insights are helpful to you. Thanks again.