Monday, September 7, 2015

New Temple Prediction Map - September 2015 Edition

I have updated my temple prediction map in preparation for General Conference in early October. One potential new temple location was added to the map: Tooele, Utah. I believe we will likely see three to five new temples announced during the upcoming conference for the following reasons:
  • President Monson's announcement during the April 2015 conference that temple announcements will resume during future General Conferences. A hiatus on temple announcements occurred from April 2013 to April 2015.
  • Four temples have been dedicated since April, namely the Córdoba Argentina Temple, Payson Utah Temple, Trujillo Peru Temple, and the Indianapolis Indiana Temple.
  • Groundbreakings for two temples have occurred since last April (Star Valley Wyoming Temple and Cedar City Utah Temple)
  • Two additional groundbreakings have been scheduled (Concepción Chile Temple and Tuscon Arizona Temple)
My top 10 picks for the most likely temple announcements during the October General Conference are as follows:
  • Belém, Brazil
  • Belo Horizonte, Brazil 
  • Brasília, Brazil
  • Davao, Philippines
  • Guam OR Tarawa, Kiribati
  • Harare, Zimbabwe
  • Layton, Utah
  • Managua, Nicaragua
  • Puebla, Mexico
  • Rogers, Arkansas


Tom said...

It's always fun to speculate on temple announcements in anticipation of conference. I want to add to Ryan Searcy's comments in the Timor-Leste thread about a temple on the central coast of California. I'm in complete agreement that a temple there makes good sense. I'd consider a location farther north (Santa Barbara?) in addition to considering Ventura as a temple location. If located in Santa Barbara, the Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Newbury Park stakes would likely stay with the LA temple, as the Camarillo stake is almost exactly equidistant between Santa Barbara and LA. Camarillo would be the southern-most stake of the theoretical temple district. This would leave relatively few stakes in the potential temple district based on current stake/unit numbers, but Oxnard could split off into a new stake fairly soon (as I think you mentioned). Additionally, it wouldn't take much for a new stake to be formed from the Santa Maria & San Luis Obispo stakes (perhaps a Paso Robles or Atascadero stake, as I think you also mentioned as well); and it wasn't long ago that Lompoc was its own stake before it combined with Santa Barbara. With the creation of the new Lompoc Spanish branch, Lompoc now has as many units as it did when it was and independent stake, so I think it's possible that Lompoc could split within a few years again. That would make 8 stakes; 1). Atascadero/PasoRobles, 2). San Luis Obispo, 3). Santa Maria, 4). Lompoc, 5). Santa Barbara, 6). Ventura, 7). Oxnard, & 8). Camarillo. And eight stakes seems to be the magic number for a new temple. Santa Barbara could make sense since more of the stakes would develop up north, and a site north of Ventura would do more to bring those stakes within a shorter distance of a temple, but going any further north than that would leave Ventura and everything south as remaining geographically closer to LA. Lastly, that stretch of 101 between Carpinteria and Ventura can be an absolute parking lot at times, so the northern stakes would really benefit from avoiding that. Of course I don't see this happening right away, I'd say 5-7 years.

Last thought then I'll end my marathon post; Matt once suggested that a proposed Bakersfield temple could include San Luis Obispo & Santa Maria stakes via highways 41 & 46. I don't think these would work as they are narrow, slow highways that can become nearly impassible with so much as a fender bender or rain downpour. It looks good on a map but the topography is misleading. These wouldn't be easy trips to Bakersfield. Bakersfield could have a temple even without the coastal stakes audit is more affordable and actually growing.

Ryan what do you think?

Eduardo Clinch said...

Wow. South-central coast CA. For starters, low unemployment is always good for California membership. I would go with SLO with a major school. I think Greenfield in the Monterey Stake could attend there instead of Oakland.
I definitely could see Brazil supporting more temples. It is great that the Phillipines would have enough strength to support more.
Putting a temple in western Malaysia would be cheaper than Singapore and allow both memberships to attend.
Virginia: let's build 3!

Fredrick said...

Just a theory - I believe that the Church will not announce a temple in a city that, along with another temple under construction, would both take stakes away from the same temple, unless the current operating temple is overwhelmed (Mesa, Gilbert and Phoenix). While I think a Richmond should be announced soon, I think the Church will not announce it until the Philadelphia Temple is completed because both temples would take away stakes from the Washington DC Temple.

I also think that Colorado Springs Temple (which would serve 8 or 9 stakes) could be announced soon but it won't happen until after the Fort Collins Temple is finished. Both would take away stakes from the Denver Temple. Same with a Pocatello Temple -- until the Star Valley Temple is completed.

Now that the Fort Lauderdale Temple is completed, I think a Jacksonville Florida Temple is a real possibility. Jacksonville already has three stakes and one of them is quite large, and the temple would serve about 9 or 10 stakes.

If I were to predict five temples to be announced next month, they would be:

1. Layton, Utah
2. Jacksonville, Florida
3. Rogers, Arkansas
4. Managua, Nicaragua
5. Auckland or Wellington, New Zealand

Ryan Searcy said...

Santa Barbara is a fairly liberal city (though it has its surprises). When I was there, both Carpinteria and Santa Barbara has a ban on "large" structures (like Wal-Mart), so depending on what the limit is, it might have to be a small temple. Another consideration is building it in Goleta, where all of the big stores are (and near the stake center).

I doubt that Oxnard would get a stake in the near future. A ward in Oxnard was discontinued after I left, but I was told 4 of the 5 Camarillo wards were pretty small. The ward I served in was the largest, and they took bits out of it to support the neighboring wards. The YSA ward in Camarillo now serves Ventura as well, and it is now located in Oxnard, which would put 6 wards in Oxnard, but only 5 in Camarillo. I figured Oxnard, because that is where the new mission office is (plus, it is much larger than Ventura).

Since 2011, there has been a ward discontinued in Oxnard, Simi Valley, and 2 in Bakersfield. In the same period, there was a ward created in Arroyo Grande and in western Bakersfield, as well as the new Spanish branch in Lompoc. Many of the Spanish and YSA members in Lompoc would just travel to Santa Maria because it was closer. I believe a YSA branch in Lompoc is possible. I figure a new stake in Atascadero (which is currently the SLO stake center) that covers Atascadero, Templeton, and Paso Robles (5 wards, 1 branch). SLO would keep the 3 SLO Wards and Morro Bay, and gain Pismo Beach, and possibly both Arroyo Grande Wards (7 wards). Santa Maria would then get Lompoc (6 wards, 2 branches). This leaves Santa Barbara with 6 wards, 1 branch.

The SLO Stake had arranges a carpool system where members interested in going to the temple would travel to the SLO Chapel, and for $15 carpool down to LA. A few members in Paso Robles found it easier sometimes to just go to Fresno. A temple in Bakersfield could include SLO and Santa Maria. The 46 at least to Shandon was easy flow, but I never went past Shandon, so I don't really know how the road is. A temple in Bakersfield could also easily rope in Porterville, however, the Bakersfield South and East Stakes both lost a ward each, while the Bakersfield Stake gained one. If a temple in Bakersfield is announced, I would recommend norther Bakersfield. The entirety of the new ward (Snow) is pre-developed land, and a majority of the houses in northwest Bakersfield is new housing, with very pleasant looking neighborhoods. It would also be plausible to do something similar with the Twin Falls Temple, to build it, then a neighborhood around it. Another prospective place is northern Oildale. It is the complete opposite of southern Oildale, but just like northwestern Bakersfield (pre-developed land). Again, this area has a nice feel, and not very many people from southern Oildale (poor, drunk, drugs, crazy, etc) reach that far north.

Ryan Searcy said...

Also, the only place to build between Carpinteria and Ventura is La Conchita, but the land there is pretty unstable (watch out when it rains a lot!)

Ryan Searcy said...

The Santa Barbara website says it requires approval for all projects greater than 1,000 sq ft, which is very small. I believe the locals want the "small town feel."

Ryan Searcy said...

Also, Lompoc only has 2 wards and the Spanish Branch, even if you include Solvang, a Lompoc Stake would only contain 3 wards and a branch.

I also think Modesto is a pretty likely location to be announced. It easily gets 7 stakes in the northern San Joaquin Valley.

Pensacola or Fort Walton Beach ought to get a temple.

Sorry for so many posts. I give thoughts and have more afterward.

Joseph said...

Regarding a temple in Colorado Springs. It's roughly an hour travel time from the Springs to the Denver Temple. If I was to place one I would put a small one on the south side of Pueblo which would better serve the are of Southern Colorado and northern NM. If the church were stronger and the population larger I'd put it in Trinidad for geographic centrality.

For everyone interested in the history of international growth I recommend listening to 2015 Church History lecture series " Pioneers in Every Land", they have recently posted the videos and fr example elder Hamula who was recently a member of the Pacific Are Presidency spoke about past and recent developments in the Church including Paupa New Guinea.

Kevin Cottrell said...

I can't really see there being a new temple announced on the West side of Los Angeles any time in the near future. Not only is the LA temple already on the West side of town, there isn't any other location that would take away a considerable amount of stakes from it (prob no more than 8 at most). Even more than that though, is that the LA temple is the second largest temple (190k sq ft), so 40 stakes assigned to the district isn't a lot. This is the same reason that we always talk about Richmond VA not getting a temple announcement yet, the DC temple is pretty big so the pull needs to come from central/southern Virginia necessitating it even more than an issue of DC capacity.

Frank Pellett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryan Dorman said...

I am increasingly seeing Queretaro as a temple possibility more so than Puebla albeit I don't think any temples will be announced for Mexico within the current Mexico City Temple district. The temple is just now going to be rededicated this Sunday.

But reasons for Queretaro over Puebla:

Further from Mexico City, but with better connections to San Luis Potosi and Monterrey to the north, to Guadalajara to the west, and to Mexico City and Pachuca and Puebla to the east via the Arco Norte expressway.

Though not with as many stakes as Puebla Queretaro has seen consistent congregational growth as of late as well as neighboring state Hidalgo. The Guanajuato stakes as well as Morelia would go to Queretaro easier, not to mention San Luis. Puebla has seen a little congregational growth but has been limited to the South Mission (the North has been absolutely stagnant).

Also Queretaro is a burgeoning industrial city with more people willing to move their businesses there or in Puebla (Queretaro is preferred as there are no volcanoes nearby (Puebla has FOUR volcanos nearby and a fifth well within city limits), and is further away from the seismic zone that plagues the south of Mexico). There would be at least 15 stakes within that temple district plus 3 districts (if Pachuca were included). (Puebla would only have 14 if you count all Puebla and Tlaxcala stakes and one district)

Ben Hunt said...

Just curious.

In March, when the Provo City Center temple is dedicated, Provo will become the 2nd city in the world with 2 temples. Which city do you think will be the third? My guesses are: St. George, Logan, Mesa or Los Angeles. What do you think?

Jeff said...

Honestly, I don't see any of those four making sense. St. George just lost a bunch of stakes to Cedar, and a second temple there would likely go to Hurricane. A second in Cache valley similarly would go to another city. Mesa just lost most of its stakes to Gilbert/Phoenix and has few prospects for gaining additional stakes. LA doesn't have that many stakes within city limits. Another temple in the area would more likely go to Bakersfield or up the coast. 2nd temples in cities, though, are pretty anomalous, so it would be very hard to predict. There's a reason both are in Utah--very high concentrations of temple-goers, and both had unusual circumstances surrounding the location of the second temple. With that in mind, I would guess Draper if I had to, in the area that the prison is vacating. It could serve the booming population on the SL/Utah border. But then, I really wouldn't predict that other than if prompted by the 2nd temple in a city question. Thoughts from anyone else?

Matt said...

I believe we will see a second temple in a city outside the United States before we see a second temple in another American city. Some cities that may be good candidates (if temple attendance and member activity rates increase) include Lima, Peru and Mexico City. However, this seems decades away from being a reasonable possibility.

Fredrick said...

One city that might be a candidate for a second temple is Las Vegas, but that would be in the distant future. There are 21 stakes in the Las Vegas Metro Area. About 3 or 4 of these stakes could split in the next few years. The Las Vegas Temple is located on the east side of town in possibly the most inconvenient location for any temple. For the members on the west side of town, a trip to the temple could easily take 45 minutes with traffic. There's a parcel of land in Summerlin, on the west side of Vegas that the Church owns, and it looks like the perfect site to build another temple. Not sure if the land is planned for another chapel but then again, there's already a chapel a half mile away and there's room to build another chapel on the same lot.

Fredrick said...

It seems like with every major temple announcement, there's always a "dark horse" announcement, a temple no one could have predicted. Temples like Hartford, CT; Durban, South Africa; Sapporo, Japan; Star Valley, WY come to mind.

My choice for a "dark announcement" would be Missoula, MT. This temple would serve serve two stakes from the Spokane Temple, two from Billings Temple, 2 or 3 from Cardston and possibly one from Idaho Falls (Salmon, Idaho). Currently, members have to drive quite a distance to attend the temple in their district.

Mike Johnson said...

I agree with Matt, that there are cities outside of the United States that likely will have a second temple before another US city does.

Now, one thing to consider is that many temples are in suburbs and not in the city itself. South Jordan is about as far away (typically driving time at least) as Littleton is to Denver or Apex is to Raleigh. American Fork or Payson to Provo is roughly the same difference. So, in Utah, we hear about temples in small cities, but outside, they are usually named for the metropolitan central city and not actually the city itself.

Based on President Monson's statements, I think the issue wasn't that the Church stopped looking to build temples, but had decided to announce them later in the process. If so, the delay of 3 conferences without a temple announcement could have been just to realign announcements with temples later in the development cycle. This would mean that we might be back to a few temples being announced in most conferences, but they will be closer to moving toward getting ready for the approval process than before.

Alex said...

There are some great comments here!

One thing with most of the dark horse candidates: with a few exceptions (i.e. Winnepeg), even though there wasn't enough evidence to call them ahead of time, most of the dark horse candidates have good reasons for announcements. For example, Haiti has a different language and some cultural animosity with the Dominican Republic. Durban is actually about 350 miles away from Johannesburg, which puts it well outside of the 200 mile cutoff Pres Monson mentioned and better serves Madagascar, Lesotho, and possibly Mozambique. Boston is running hourly endowments, just like many temples posters here are predicting will get their districts split with a new temple (e.g., Seattle, Vegas, Orlando, and Salt Lake). The Billings temple only runs an endowment session every 2 hours (half of what Boston does), Missoula itself is right about 200 miles from Spokane, and neither the Spokane, Billings, or Cardston temple districts have increased their stake load much, if at all, since 2000. Missoula is a good idea as a dark horse, but other areas make more sense right now. My picks for a dark horse are Ulaanbataar, Mongolia and somewhere in northern Mexico (either Torreon or Culiacan).

One question for a potential intra-Vegas split. I agree that that is possible, but since the Vegas district also includes Henderson, what are the chances of a Henderson temple rather than a 2nd Vegas temple?

The current Draper temple is not busy. I would be shocked if the Church announced another temple in Draper in the next decade. If they want to relieve the pressure from additional housing being built where the prison is, they'll probably either build in the Lehi/Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs area, which would split the busy Mt. Timp district anyway, or build on the land the Church already has set aside for a temple in Bluffdale (Pres. Hinckley mentioned this land when he announced the Oquirrh Mountain temple).

The reason South Jordan and Provo got 2nd temples was because the members in those two cities were utilizing their temples so heavily that at one point Jordan River and Provo were the two busiest temples in the Church in terms of number of ordinances. Even after splitting off large sections of the temple district (with the Draper and Payson temples), the Church ran the numbers and saw that the temples would still be at or above capacity, requiring a really close temple to take the load off. The only other temple of which I am aware that is comparably busy is Mt. Timp, and putting in a northwest Utah County temple should relieve the congestion without a 2nd American Fork temple. For this reason, I agree that the 2nd dark horse candidate will probably be foreign, in a city so gigantic that it's its own temple district. Mexico City might fit this bill if the temple usage statistics fall out the right way, but at least Puebla and Cuautla will probably get temples first. Looking purely at the temple district size and how often the temple is used, my prediction for next city to get temple #2 is Sao Paulo. A good 2/3 of its stakes appear to be within city limits, and there are no suburbs similar to Puebla that would make sense as locations for a new temple. I don't think this temple would happen for a while (I think Brasilia, Belem, Belo Horizonte, and Salvador would all get temples in Brazil before Sao Paulo gets another), but it's more likely than any other non-US cities I see.

John said...

I could see Missoula getting its own temple at some point. But it would be after the stake there is divided again, and it gets its own mission. (Both of those I do see happening in the next several years.)

Tyler Sorensen said...

My dark horse candidate is Budapest Hungary, I believe they are close to a second stake within 5yrs, The district would include Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic and maybe even Austria. I think a second temple in Eastern Europe is due especially with the tensions in Ukraine keeping EU members from travelling there. Frankfurt and Freiberg are both having significant remodeling done and with Rome and Paris being built, Bern, Freiberg and Frankfurt could be under capacity but distance wise they need one further east. Vienna is a possibility as is Tirana Albania but Vienna may be too far west and Albania too unstable. Hungary makes sense distance wise, growth wise and being an EU stable member.

Fredrick said...

As far as a Henderson Temple is concerned - it wouldn't make any sense because Henderson is south of the Las Vegas Temple, which is located on the east side of the valley and a relatively short drive away.

The entire west side of Las Vegas does have quite a drive to get to the temple. I would imagine that the Church would split the temple districts evenly west / east sides of the valley. I just don't see another temple built on the same side of the valley.

Plus, as I mentioned before, the Church owns a parcel of land near Hualapai and Alta and it has a decent view of the valley. I am not sure the Church intended this to be used for another chapel since there's a chapel located a half mile away on Town Center and Alta. There's room for to build another chapel on that plot if need be. I'd expect the Church would call this proposed temple the Summerlin Temple or Red Rock Temple.

Deivisas said...

I'm thinking that Moscow or St. Petersburg Russia are both potential locations for a new temple.

Tyler Sorensen said...

Only way Russia gets a Temple in the next 5-10 yrs is if Ukraine turns more towards Europe and Russians are locked out. That is why the Temple was built in Kiev was a lapse in the law that government can enter any building same law in Russia and much more regulation on proselyting and the church in Russia.

Ben Hunt said...

I served part of my mission in Missoula, but that was several years ago. It has not seen the growth that other areas of Western Montana have, but more than other places. Montana is huge, and there are difficulties in traveling any distance during the winter months. The temple in Billings is a good location for Northern Wyoming and Eastern Montana as many people who live in the northern tier of Wyoming go to Billings to shop for things that aren't available in their towns just like people in Rock Spring and Evanston often travel to Salt Lake and people in Cheyenne and Laramie travel to Denver. Missoula is one of the hub towns in Western Montana, and Great Falls is the other. Helena and Butte are the western extent of the Billings temple district. The two stakes in Great Falls, and the Kalispell Stake are in the Cardston, Alberta temple district. The Missoula and Stevensville stakes are in the Spokane Washington temple district. If a temple is built in Missoula, it could serve six stakes (after the 2nd Missoula stake) that are not currently in the Billings temple district, plus that district would likely include Helena and Butte. Closer to Billings, there will eventually be a stake in Three Forks, but that is a few years off. Maybe after another ward or two is created in Bozeman. There could also be a stake in Powell, Wyoming in the near future. This would mean that a temple in Missoula may not have any net effect on the number of stakes that the Billings temple serves.

As far as a Mission split, the only thing that I could see is a mission that would cover Western Montana and the Idaho Panhandle. Missoula would be the natural place for the mission headquarters. Otherwise, I don't see anything else happening in the near future. The Montana Billings Mission is not as large at it was when I served there. It is still a large mission, but there are not a lot of people who live there.

John Pack Lambert said...

Sao Paulo, Brazil is a 3rd non-American city that I could see getting a 2nd temple. I can see New York City having a second temple at some point, but not in the near future. There are if I remember correctly 5 stakes at least partly in the city, with the New York City (Manhattan) stake having enough units to split it, so nowhere near enough, but on track. Salt Lake City might eventually get a second temple, but I don't find that likely. It would be out in the west part of the city and just happen to be in the city boundaries. Still I don't see any of these happening soon.

John Pack Lambert said...

Technically the Las Vegas Temple is not within the city boundaries of Las Vegas. It is in the area of Sunrise Manor, which has an exact status I am not sure I remember, but I do remember it is not within the city boundaries of Las Vegas. Summerlin though is within city boundaries.

L. Chris Jones said...

Where do you think the most likely location for a second Cache Valley temple would be?

L. Chris Jones said...

Where do you think the most likely location for a second Cache Valley temple would be?

James Anderson said...

We just had an area-wide conference here in Provo, for everything south of the Point, all the way south, east, and west to the state line from there down.

Got some temple details, obviously if new ones are announced anywhere it will be at Conference, but this meeting was said to be second only to General Conference in actual live attendance.

Bishop Davies, Sister Burton, Elder Hallstrom, and Elder Ballard all spoke.

Bishop Davies and Elder Hallstrom gave some temple details that were apparently mentioned for the first time today, although it is likely Hawaii members may have heard the story from Elder Hallstrom at some point.

Bishop Davies: Had been involved with trying to find a suitable site in the Paris area for the temple there. Site after site was approached, and site after site they got turned down on. This goes back to when President Faust was still alive. Later, he was able to finally identify four sites, the one chosen may have been one of those.

Elder Hallstrom. Was present at General Conference, in town as an area seventy, when President Hinckley announced the plans to build 30 smaller temples. But, as President Hinckley noted, locations were not announced then. Elder Hallstrom caught a flight home to Hawaii, he didn't get back there until midnight Hawaii time.

The next day he was at work and took a call from President Hinckley who asked where a good place for a second temple in Hawaii might go. Later discussions led to that one being the Kona Hawaii temple on the Big Island.

Grant Emery said...

The land for the Paris Temple was not one of four sites from President Faust's time. There were some attempted, but the one that succeeded was discovered whole Bishop Caussé was in the Europe Area Presidency.

James Anderson said...

That also fits the story. Bishop Davies did not mention if it even was one of the four sites found, so what you heard is definitely right and the present site may never have been one of those four, but one found later on once all was said and done.

Tom said...

@Ryan Searcy and Eduardo Clinch; thanks for your responses, sorry I never replied.

@Ryan; you're probably right that Santa Barbara would be a tougher place to build as compared to Venrura with regard to red tape & codes, etc. I wonder if the chapel in downtown Santa Barbara could be renovated and 'upgraded' to a temple, a la the Vernal, Copenhagen, & Provo city center temples. That property is very large, already zoned for a large religious building with a very tall tower & steeple, and it's in a mixed use area. The small temples built around 1999-2001 are around 10k square feet, and any central coast temple would only need to be about that size due to the relatively small # of stakes. The SB chapel is 20k+ square feet, so a small temple would be a downsize! Maybe the city council would look kindly on those factors. Who knows...I'm just having fun exploring the idea. Eduardo, SLO might be a bit far to the north as there's not much of a church presence above Paso Robles until you get to Greenfield (San Jose Mission), and everything south of Santa Barbara would end up being closer to LA, but wow, an SLO temple would be a gorgeous location! As would either SB or Ventura. At any rate, any of them would be better that sitting in traffic on the 405 all day! Thanks for humorist me & letting daydream a little bit about having a temple closer than LA!

Tom said...


...Danged auto-complete!

Ryan Searcy said...

I have had several thoughts about having the temple on the property of the Santa Barbara Chapel. This is probably the easiest way to have a temple in Santa Barbara. It is fairly easy to get to, and there is a large field immediately to the east of the chapel. The only real con, is the parking lot, in any case, they would most likely need to have a parking garage. This is probably the only realistic way to get a temple in the city. There are 3 possibilities on how this could work.

1. They renovate the chapel into a temple (it would most likely be a downsize), and build a new chapel to the east of the temple.

2. Build the temple on the field to the east of the temple.

3. Rebuild the chapel to one of the new designs and the temple, with both complementing the neighborhood (it is almost immediately south of the Old Santa Barbara Mission)

The chapel presently only has the Santa Barbara Ward and the Los Olivos Branch (Spanish), though the Mesa Vista Ward could go to the chapel. The large field is mostly used for stake social events. I was told, that when many of the Californian Chapels were built, they bought large properties and built small-medium chapels with the anticipation of having land readily available for a temple.

I once went to a baptism at the chapel, and where the font was, there were 3 rooms with dividers, and the room got so full (it was full, with people still trying to file in as it was starting), we had to move to the chapel after the baptism was performed.

I believe it was discovered the average investigation time in Santa Barbara was 10 years (from first contact to baptism). Many of the members said it took them quite a while to finally decide to join the church, but they became extremely active members.

@Tom - do you live near LA?

L. Chris Jones said...

What does that chappel look like? Does it have a unique design? In addition to Vernal and Provo city center temples, other temple that were renovated chapels are Manhattan NY, and Copenhagen Denmark.

Tom said...

@Ryan; I'm not in the area anymore but I lived in various cities between Paso Robles & Ventura for about 10 years. My family has roots in the LA area though.

I was thinking the exact same thing about the parking lot; a temple at that site would require underground parking, but that's nothing too difficult. I think it would be beautiful if the building were upgraded with design elements similar to the Tijuana temple, the parking underground (perhaps directly below where the current parking is) and some really beatiful grounds created, with maybe a residence for the temple president or something. Displacing the congregations that meet there and accomodating them elsewhere could be tough; I suppose the Spanish branch could meet at the stake center in Goleta, as about half of the active members of the branch live in Goleta anyways. The YSA ward currently at the Stake Center could move their meetings to the institute building in Isla Vista (they held Student ward services there for many years up until ~15 years ago) to decrease the crowding caused by moving the Spanish branch. The Santa Barbara ward would would be up a creek though. Many are from Montecito, so maybe sharing the Carpinteria building wouldn't be too much longer of a drive to church than they currently have (easy for me to say though, since I'm not the one being moved!).

L. Chris Jones; here's a picture of the chapel being referenced;

Ryan Searcy said...

Actually, a majority of the Santa Barbara Ward is closer to the Goleta Chapel, whereas the extreme east part of the Santa Barbara Ward (Montecito) is closer to the Carpinteria Chapel. I suppose it could work if they moved the YSA Ward to the institute building (not sure how that would work, not all YSAs are students, and a pass is required to access the parking lot), and maybe if they transfered Montecito to Carpinteria (they were a border-line ward when I was there).

Daud al-Harb said...

Where did Guam come from? The Church is small there, and it's only a three-hour flight from Manila.

I'll guess that they will announce a temple in Davao (or maybe Cagayan de Oro) soon, but not at this conference. The construction of the previously announced temple has been delayed because they have to find a new site. I think they will want to get that one done because building two temples at the same time in the Philippines could overstretch capacity.

Thanks for going out on a limb every six months with your predictions.

Jerome Laceda said...

thank you for considering Philippines

James said...

I always love reading about Matt's predictions for new temples. I love to share them with my blog readers. I have made some predictions for the upcoming conference as well. To view my predictions, as well as an analysis of them, please go to the following link: Thanks in advance to all who will read my predictions.

John Pack Lambert said...

Manhattan Temple is actually a 4th example of upgrading an existing building to be a temple, although also taking in the Hong Kong Temple plan of having a temple as only part of an entire structure. I think this was also used in the Fukuoka Temple, although there I believe the temple presidents residence is the only non-temple part of the building. At first I was under the impression Philadelphia Temple would have a chapel within the same building, but I am not sure if that is how it will happen.

I wonder if the Paris Temple is the temple that has had the most different sites sought?

John Pack Lambert said...

The Detroit Temple was built on the same site as the Bloomfield Hills Stake Center, which is smaller. This was doable because the stake center was built in the 1950s on one side of the land because there were plans to sell the other half at some point that never happened. So it might be possible to build a temple in Santa Barbara on the same principal, adding to the existing site. That would probably be easier to get approved, especially if smaller than the existing building, than building at a new site. I know the Phoenix Temple was built next to an existing LDS Chapel. I seem to recall the Brigham City Temple was also an example of such. Are there others?

L. Chris Jones said...

Lower level of Fukuoka Japan has the temple pres apartment, mission office and mission home and parking structure. Philadelphia original was planned to be a multipurpose building. But after moving plans changed. A meetong house and high rise building is being built across the the street.

L. Chris Jones said...

Upgraded buildings repurposed as temples include Vernal Utah, Copenhagen Denmark, Manhattan NY, and Provo City Center. Multipurpose buildings with temples are Hong Kong, Fukuoka, Manhattan, and speculation is the Bankock Thailand temple might be a multipurpose building with temple. Are there any others?

James Anderson said...

None that I am aware of.

Last week we had a historic first that went unnoticed by almost everyone, including the leaders involved. They held the Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults (formerly called CES Devotionals) in the chapel that is in the same building as the Manhattan Temple. The main part of the temple is directly above that chapel, which is a large multipurpose room, they can close off the area with the rostrum, choir seats, and pipe organ for other activities outside Sunday meetings, there were no pews, just folding chairs.

The baptistry and some other things are in the basement part of that building.

John Pack Lambert said...

So last week for the first time they held the Young Adult devotional in a building that includes a temple.

I believe the March 2000 CES devotional given by President Packer at the McKay Events Center on the UVSC (now UVU and the building was renamed too) campus was the first one to be held in a place other than the BYU Marriott Center. To be fair the CES/Young Adult firesides only date back to about 1992. Before that there were firesides for all the BYU stakes, and in about 1992 they changed to being more inclusive, but I believe always originated at BYU until that one at UVSC. I walked all the way from my dorm at BYU to the devotional. On the way I realized that UVSC was further than I had anticipated. I might have got a ride back from someone I knew, I don't remember for sure either way.

I am really glad to hear they did one in New York. I think they at one point did one in Canada. Have any others been from outside the US. I know some have originated from the Conference Center in SLC and there was one from Moscow, Idaho. I believe there may have been one from Tempe, Arizona. I wonder if anyone has a list.

John Pack Lambert said...

Now that general authorities are permitted to give their talks in a language other than English and have it translated (I still am not 100% convinced Elder Wong was the first speaker to give an address in general conference not in English. Back in the 19th-century general conference involved a lot of non-general authority speakers. actually at times even people not members of the Church gave talks at general conference. I know such Native American converts to the Church as Sagowitz (leader of the Shoshone in Northern Utah, who was involved in building the Logan Temple) and Chief Tuba came to Salt Lake City, and may have even spoken at the tabernacle. They would speak in their native language and have an interpreter. I believe Jonathan Napela may have done the same when he visited Utah. I am not sure any of these gave a sermon at general conference, but I am also not sure we have complete records to say one way or the other. I know in the early 20th-century there would be seperate sermons given to the overflow crowds in the Assembly Hall. As late as the 1930s generally all currently serving mission presidents based in the US would be among the speakers at general conference. For this reason Bryan S. Hinckley (President Hicnkley's father) spoke at general conference multiple times.

John Pack Lambert said...

My point is now that we have speakers at general conference in Cantonese, Spanish, Portuguese and maybe other languages, the next step would seem to be to have general conference originate in multiple locations. I am not thinking quite on the level of the Young Adult Devotionals which are totally held out of changing locations. More like having remote origination of part of the conference.

This was actually done with the April 1980 conference, where some of it originated from Manchester, New York. While in theory there would is the technology to fully involve people throughout the world in all the build-up meetings, there is some benefit to having the church leaders all physically present in Salt Lake City, and able to not only have meetings where they converse, but interact in less formal settings. So I don't see the major step forward having Elder Benjamin de Hoyos or Elder Jorge Zeballos originate their talks in Mexico or Chile respectively. I think the first step forward we could take would be having a choir at a remote location. To date it seems all the choirs performing at General Conference have been from either Utah or Idaho and overwhelmingly made up of white people. If we want General Conference to truly have a worldwide feel and show the worldwide Church it would help to have a choir from Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil or Chile.

John Pack Lambert said...

Here is an interesting article on the Family and Church History Headquarters Mission. This is the mission my grandparents served in (specifically with the Church History Department). The current mission president was my mission president in Las Vegas back in 2000-2002 (he was there 1999-2002). In one comment on this I wrote "the lady in the white in this picture was my mission president's wife" and then I had to explain she is still his wife, but I use the past tense because of that actually being her title more or less. We need a better one than mission president's wife. Back in the 1930s the title was Mission Relief Society President. However at that time missions only covered areas where there were no stakes.

I am not sure why the mission has young single elders but apparently not young single sisters. Maybe because sisters are not expected to serve full time missions it is not felt there is a need to find service missions for those who cannot meet the health requirements of full-time missionaries. On the other hand I do know that visitor center assignments are only given to single sisters, not to elders. I am not sure if any of these would be considered doable by people with challenges that might prevent other missions. Are there young single sisters serving Church Service missions?

dSquared said...

The Tokyo Temple building does contain an apartment for the Temple President.

Cliff P said...

My picks:
1. Layton, Utah
2. Managua, Nicaragua
3. Brasília, Brazil

Alex said...

Everyone has had interesting things to add which have changed my predictions. Thank you! As of right now, this is my top 10 for most likely temples to be announced, and even with 3 apostles being called at the same time for the first time since polygamy was a thing, I still think we'll see about 2 temples announced.

1. Lehi area, Utah
2. Richmond, Virginia
3. Managua, Nicaragua
4. Clearfield area, Utah
5. Brasilia, Brazil
6. Praia, Cape Verde
7. Puebla, Mexico
8. Auckland, New Zealand
9. Salvador, Brazil
10. Bentonville area, Arkansas

Dark horse: Hyderabad, India

Alex said...

Also, why are so many people thinking a Jacksonville temple will happen soon? Orlando is a fairly large temple that was designed to be fairly central in Florida, and it recently lost a bunch of stakes to Ft. Lauderdale, leaving it with only 20 stakes in the district as of today. Jacksonville is not in an area with tons of growth (only 1 stake created in a potential Jacksonville district since 1994), and it would be in an awkward area at the edge of its district, since it would probably not take anything as far north as the Macon Georgia Stake away from Atlanta. Also, unlike Fort Lauderdale, which had Miami stakes over 200 miles away from Orlando and a branch in Key West that had an 8-hour one-way commute to their temple, Jacksonville is only 140 miles away from Orlando along a freeway (I-95) that's almost a straight shot. Since Tallahassee/the panhandle doesn't make any more sense to me as a northern Florida temple site, if I were going to put a temple in northern Florida with the current stake load, I'd probably put it somewhere more central like Gainesville (home of the University of Florida), where it could more centrally serve the Tallahassee and Jacksonville areas. However, unless Orlando is a LOT busier than I think it is, the stake growth is slow enough that I just don't see a northern Florida temple happening in the next 5-10 years.

Fredrick said...

A Richmond Virginia Temple will not be announced until after the Philadelphia Temple is completed. Both temples will take a lot of stakes away from the Washington DC Temple and I think the Church will want to wait and see how the Philadelphia Temple affects the DC Temple.

Bryan Dorman said...

My dark horse for Mexico remains Queretaro. Torreon is also a distinct possibility (5 stakes in the metro plus additional stakes in Durango and Zacatecas state).

Puebla is going to go through some tough times with the VW scandal. There have already been 35000 job cuts as a result of the scandal. And the other automobile companies decided to evade Puebla after Puebla's governor decided to scrap them for AUDI (which is a VW subsidiary).

While I would not be surprised if a temple were announced for Puebla, I don't see that happening until VW gets back on its feet. The fact that the temple is on the east side of Mexico City is another negative for Puebla (though access to the temple from the east is sketchy due to many poor barrios on that side of town).

Querétaro is a city that is growing fast, and like neighboring Hidalgo state (where Pachuca is located) is right now enjoying consistent Church growth on a scale not seen in Puebla (where the southern half grew modestly, the north has been STAGNANT for the past five years). If you count the Hidalgo stakes (easy access via Arco Norte), the Guanajuato stakes (which are on the verge of dividing in the cases of León and Celaya), San Luis Potosi, you have more stakes than what you have in Puebla and Tlaxcala combined. Not to mention it is VERY well connected with GDL, MEX, and MTY. You could even get the Toluca stakes involved there as it is not far and traffic crossing Mexico City to the temple is very busy (and Toluca is also growing nicely).

Torreón has five stakes in its immediate area, is relatively far away from Monterrey, and like Queretaro, has good connections with Juarez, Monterrey, Culiacan, and points further south. There are also stakes in nearby areas such as Durango city and Zacatecas city. You could even grab the Delicias stake in southern Chihuahua and the Bermejillo and Madero Districts (the latter which is close to stakehood).

Culiacán is a possibility but there are only three stakes in the city and seven total in Sinaloa state. Growth has been comparatively stagnant in Sinaloa state, so I would lean more Torreón.

Unknown said...

Tooele, Utah?? Yessss!

Eduardo Clinch said...

I do not think Culiacan is easily accessible to Torreon; I think that Guadalajara or even Hermosillo temples are closer to Sinaloa stakes. Perhaps a temple in Durango would best serve the most Mexican Saints, helping both sides of Torreon get better distances to temples and coastal stakes and districts of the Pacific.
I think a La Paz , BCS temple would be fantastic to help those isolated members not have to take a boat and drive more in order to attend.
South of there looks to get hard by this hurricane-.I hope they are prepared and our faith and organization helps them.

Wesley Morgan said...

This is a really interesting discussion, and I love the map you made. President Monson's 200 mile goal definitely adds some perspective, so I think temples in Managua and Brasilia make the most sense. Nicaragua has 4 times as many stakes and members as any other country without a temple. The next most populous (by members) country without a temple is Papua New Guinea, with 2 stakes and 23,000 members.

Besides that, I have been looking at to see what countries have the highest ratios of members per temple. Even after the currently announced temples are completed, there will still be six countries with 200,000+ members per temple (in order): Chile, Philippines, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia. As was mentioned, they will probably finish building temples in Chile and the Philippines before they announce more. So, looking at that list, I would add Neuquén (which would serve all of southern Chile and Argentina) and Quito to Managua and Brasilia.

VnHorn said...

I don't know about 8 stakes being the magic number. Colorado has 30 stakes and currently only one (small) temple - another one is under construction, but that still leaves 15 stakes per temple.