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.

Areas of the Church which I have felt will not have any new temples in the near future

Hello again, everyone! To continue my series of posts on future temple prospects, I am temporarily turning my attention from locations within the Church's areas that I feel will get a temple to those areas which I have felt will not and the rationale behind that. Let's dive right in and discuss that.

With the 25 areas the Church has currently, I have felt that the following 6 areas likely will not get any temple in the near future: Asia North, Caribbean, Idaho, Middle East/Africa North, and North America West. Let me now detail the reasons I feel that way for each of those areas.

The countries within the Asia North Area are Japan, Micronesia, North Korea, Palau, South Korea, and Guam. There are currently four temples for the Saints to attend in that area: Fukuoka Japan, Sapporo Japan, Seoul Korea, and Tokyo Japan. The Sapporo Temple was dedicated just over a year ago, and the Tokyo Japan Temple is currently closed for renovation. While I don't know whether or not that renovation process will include an expansion of any kind (as it was originally built under President Kimball's smaller temple revelation), whether that happens or not, Japan seems to be well set for temples for now, especially once the Tokyo renovation process concludes.

Additionally, the Church has no significant presence in North Korea, so that nation will have to wait a while for a temple. In Micronesia, the Church does not have a mission, and only has 1 stake and 3 districts, which break down further into 5 wards and 17 branches. The Church may need to progress a bit farther there before a temple is built.

Guam has a similar issue, except it has 1 mission and 1 stake, with only 4 wards. There is a long way to go for the Church there before a temple is announced. And in Palau, only a single branch currently operates.

Now, just a word about South Korea. The Seoul Temple was dedicated in December of 1985, and since that time, the Church has added 2 missions, 2 stakes, and 4 districts.  No stakes, missions, or districts have been organized there since 2013. For all of these reasons, I feel that the Asia North Area may not get another temple for the foreseeable future.

Next, we turn to the Caribbean Area. There are two temples there currently, one in the Dominican Republic, and the one in Haiti that had a groundbreaking last month. I know that for a couple of previous General Conferences, I had San Juan Puerto Rico as a potential candidate city for a temple. But the recent upheavals of nature in the Caribbean give me reason to believe that the Church may hold off on announcing any other Caribbean temples until they can gauge how busy the new Haitian temple and the one in the Dominican Republic turn out to be.

I cannot rule out the Caribbean (specifically Puerto Rico) as a great candidate for a temple at some point, but I honestly don't see the Church announcing another Caribbean temple for the foreseeable future. That said, Puerto Rico is currently the third of the top ten nations in the world with the strongest LDS presence that does not have a temple in any phase. I see that happening sooner rather than later, but perhaps not as imminently likely as others.

The next area I want to discuss is Idaho. The Idaho Falls Idaho Temple was rededicated and the Meridian Idaho Temple was dedicated this year (becoming the fifth temple in that state), and President Monson announced a temple for Pocatello last April.The Boise district now serves 16 stakes, after the dedication of the Meridian Temple, which also serves 16 stakes. The Idaho Falls district covers 45 stakes. If the information I have is correct, that district will be cut roughly in half, and will be comprised of 23 stakes once the Pocatello temple is dedicated. The Rexburg temple district takes in 25 stakes. And the Twin Falls temple district covers 15 stakes. An argument could be made for a temple in Nampa, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

We now move on to the Middle East/Africa North Area. In response to the last post I did in this series, there was extensive talk about the potential for a temple to be built in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While I would love to see a temple in this area sometime soon, I don't believe that will be possible in the foreseeable future. I have two reasons for saying so.

First, the prevalent religion in that region is Islam, and I don't think the people there would accept the idea of a temple there. Second, and slightly less important is the issue of staffing such a temple if it were to be built. That would be a major problem, primarily because the bulk of the Church membership in that area is made up of servicemen (and in some cases their families), and such people are only there temporarily.

Additionally, as one who had a brother-in-law that served in the armed services within that area, I know that the Church only has a few branches in the entire area, which is not an ideal situation for a temple. It is my hope that the tide might turn in the next 35-70 years to allow the Church to flourish, which would enable a temple to be built there, but a temple seems like a long way away for the moment. I would love it if the Lord proved me wrong in that regard, but barring a miracle, it doesn't seem likely.

I don't know how many of you know this, but Elder Holland is the apostle assigned to oversee the Church in this area, and he is assisted by two General Authority Seventies, Elders Wilford W. Andersen and Anthony D. Perkins. The three men administer the area from Church headquarters, and a single Area Seventy, Gary S. Price, who is living in Saudi Arabia, assists them as well.

And finally, we come to the North America West Area. Comprising California, Hawaii, and a tiny portion of Arizona, the area seems to be well covered by the temples already within it. As many of you may be aware, California has seen many congregational consolidations lately (I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the 20 missions there were discontinued and the boundaries of the rest realigned), and the 7 temples in that state seem to be sufficient to serve the 1,140 wards and 141 branches (a total of 1,281 congregations, which averages out to  183 congregations per district), especially since more consolidations are anticipated in the near future.

In the meantime, Hawaii has 2 temples (in Kona and Laie) that serve the 1 mission and 16 stakes on that island. There are 125 wards and 16 branches there, for a total of 141 congregations, and of those, 4 stakes (which comprise 29 wards and 6 branches, for a total of 35 congregations) are served by the Kona Temple. This means the Laie Temple serves 14 stakes and 1 district, which have a total of 106 congregations. Some have speculated that the Church could announce a third temple in Honolulu, but since the dedication of the Kona temple in January 2000, only two stakes have been created, neither of which are based in Honolulu.

With that last bit of information, that does it for this post. Any and all comments are always welcome and appreciated, particularly those that address your thoughts on the arguments I have presented here about each of these areas. I look forward to reading that feedback. 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.

Some Thoughts About the Upcoming First Presidency's Christmas Devotional

Hello again, everyone! With the First Presidency's annual Christmas Devotional coming up next Sunday, I wanted to offer some thoughts about who we might hear from during that event. Since 2013, when the decision was made to include other Church leaders in that devotional, we have heard from President Monson once, President Eyring twice (most recently last time) and President Uchtdorf once (2 years ago). With President Monson out of the rotation, I anticipate President Uchtdorf will represent the First Presidency.

From the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we have heard from then-Elder Nelson, Elder Christofferson, Elder Bednar, and, most recently, Elder Oaks. And though we didn't know it at the time, Elder Rasband, who has since been called to the Twelve, represented the Presidency of the Seventy in his 2013 address. There hasn't seemed to be a regular pattern to the speaking rotation in that Quorum, but if I had to venture a guess, I could see the First Presidency calling on Elder Stevenson to speak this time.

In addition to Elder Rasband, we have also heard from the following members of the Presidency of the Seventy: Elders Maynes, Clayton, and Christensen. Again, there hasn't seemed to be any regular pattern in terms of who might speak, so if I had to venture a guess, I would say Elder Gong might be called upon to speak.

The only other speaker during that devotional has been a general officer of the Church. So far, we have heard from Primary General President Rosemary M. Wixom, Young Women General President Bonnie L. Oscarson, Relief Society General President Linda K. Burton, and the First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency, Douglas D. Holmes. Only the Sunday School General Presidency has gone unrepresented in that devotional, and I am thinking we could hear from the Second Counselor in that presidency, Brian K. Ashton.

There is also the possibility that the Church could call on a General Authority Seventy or member of the Presiding Bishopric.to speak as well. How likely that is remains to be seen. Those are my thoughts on this. That does it for this post. 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.