Monday, March 13, 2017

New Temple Prediction Map - March 2017 Edition

I have updated my temple prediction map in preparation for General Conference in April. For this edition, I removed Scotland from the list due to recent reports that the Preston England Temple has been poorly utilized by members within the temple district. Furthermore, there has been no noticeable improvements in LDS growth trends in northern England and Scotland for many years. Vienna, Austria was added to the list of locations that appear likely for a future temple announcement primarily due to the strong, developed core of LDS membership in Vienna and distance to the nearest temple in several nearby nations such as Hungary and Romania. My top 10 picks for the most likely temple announcements during next month's General Conference include:

  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Belo Horizonte, Brazil 
  • Brasília, Brazil
  • Davao, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines
  • Tarawa, Kiribati
  • Lagos, Nigeria OR Benin City, Nigeria
  • Managua, Nicaragua 
  • Nairobi, Kenya
  • Praia, Cape Verde
  • Rogers, Arkansas

49 comments:

J S A said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J S A said...

Looking forward to General Conference and the possibility of new Temples.

Unit update: Far West Missouri Stake - Albany branch reorganized as the Three Forks Ward.

coachodeeps said...

Interesting list, Matt. I find it fascinating to see the change of building temples in the US and North America to building them worldwide. Your top 10 list highlights that.

I agree with Brazil, Nigeria and Arkansas for sure. Interesting you have Aukland, New Zealand on your list. Any major reason to put that on top?

Pascal Friedmann said...

The reason that Auckland, in particular, is on top of the list is that it is high up in the alphabet. I don't believe the top 10 are ordered by likelihood.

Jeff Steed said...

It is all just speculation, but here is my guess.

1. Auckland, New Zealand -- This did not quite make my top 10. The fact is that Auckland is still very close to Hamilton, where there is already another temple. It is possible, but unlikely in 2017.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil -- This is far to close to the new Rio temple. I think Brasilia is a much better option.
Brasília, Brazil -- Yes, this is a top 10 option.
Davao, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines -- Davao Phillippines is in the top 10.
Tarawa, Kiribati -- Too remote and benefits far to few saints in the area for now. I disagree this is on the list of top 10 potential site.
Lagos, Nigeria OR Benin City, Nigeria -- Lagos is one of the largest cities in the world. Given the massive growth in the area, I am guessing top 10.
Managua, Nicaragua -- Yes, top 10. Especially given Elder Rasband's recent visit to Nicaragua.
Nairobi, Kenya -- This makes my top 10 as well.
Praia, Cape Verde -- Again, I could be wrong, but also not in the top 10. We are talking only 3-4 stakes. Yes, it is remote, but so are other areas of the world that have far more saints -- and, far more growth potential.
Rogers, Arkansas -- I could be wrong, but I think this is nowhere near the top 40. Too few saints in an area that is at least accessible to several other temples in the midwest.


My top 10 (in order):

1. Lagos, Nigeria -- One of the largest cities in the world. One of the fastest growing areas of the Church.
2. Puebla, Mexico -- Currently has the largest temple district in the world over a HUGE amount of territory.
3. Layton, Utah -- Sandwiched between two extremely large and extremely active temple districts -- and two extremely overcrowded temples. Good LDS growth in the Davis and Weber County areas.
4. Hyderabad, India -- 4 stakes and several districts in a remote area of the world that is inaccessible to a temple by land and is thousands of miles from the nearest temple by air or boat travel. Second largest population in the world. Huge potential growth. Proximity to saints living in the middle east -- which also has no temple.
5. Managua, Nicaragua -- The only remaining nation in central amercia (other than Belize) without an LDS temple. Rasband's recent visit makes this a likely scenario.
6. Brasilia, Brasil -- Capital of Brasil. Thousands of miles from the nearest temple. Many stakes in the area which would be much closer to a temple.
7. Davo, Phillippines -- Many stakes and districts in the area. Many miles from the nearest temple. Completely land-locked between temples.
8. Lehi, Utah -- Huge LDS population boom in this area. Mt. Timpanogos temple is maxxed out in its capacity.
10. Nairobi, Kenya -- Several fast-growing stakes and districts in an area that is thousands of miles away fromt the nearest temple.

Jeff Steed said...

Oops, I forgot my last one, Kaosuing City, Taiwan. The Tiapei temple is the smallest in the world and is presently serving some 20 or so fast-growing stakes. The temple is too old, too remote and too small to handle the growing Taiwanese Church.

Bryan Dorman said...

I like Arkansas. Six nearby stakes would support a small temple though it is not difficult to make the trip to KC or OKC.

Lehi and Layton are obvious.

Pocatello has always been a tease.

Deivisas said...

On Russia, the map shows Russia with 2 Stakes and 7 Districts, but Russia is at 3 Stakes and 10 Districs as of 2016:
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/statistics/units/russia/

Jeff Steed said...

On Russia, St. Petersburg is far closer in distance to the temple in Helsinki, Finland than it would be to a potential temple in Moscow -- the most likely location for a temple in Russia. So, that is my guess why the St. Petersburg stake is not included.

On the Hyderabad, India location, there are actually 3 stakes now in India, not two. Also, Hyderabad would be the closest to the two stakes in Baharian and Abu Dhabi in the Middle East -- so those stakes should also be included. That would be 5 stakes, 9 districts and at least 2 missions for a new temple in India -- which is the second most populated country in the world I might add.

I would also, again, state that the temple in Taiwan is just too small and due for renovation. For the same reasons that the Church is building a second temple in Lima Peru, expect a new temple in Taiwan shortly. Also, I would expect a new temple in Valparisio, Chile and somewhere South of Beunos Ares, Argentina as well.

twinnumerouno said...

Another interesting statistic: there are now 5 countries with only 1 temple and more than 20 stakes:
1. Nigeria (42)
2. Venezuela (34)
3. New Zealand (30)
4. Honduras (29)
5. Bolivia (28)

Also I notice that the New Zealand temple has only 1 ordinance room, for what that's worth. As for an Auckland temple, that would be the logical place if only considering numbers (i.e., dividing the district evenly) and not geography/distance.

Regarding Davao/Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, I understood that there was an issue with terrorism or religious violence on that island, Mindanao. Does anyone know if those issues have been resolved? I have also wondered if the Church will have to move the Urdaneta temple to a different city with the problems there have been. And maybe it's just because my dad served in Bacolod (one island west of Cebu), back in 1967-68 when 4 missionaries covered the whole island, but on the Cebu temple district map, that sure seems like another potential temple location.

Eduardo Clinch said...

Is Brasilia really over one thousand miles from the nearest temple (presumably Campinas). I do agree that a temple needs to go there.
Valpo, Chile has many members but it is still a 2 hour drive from Santiago, whereas Antofogasta is maybe 1,000 miles north and needs closer access. I'd love to see both plus a couple more in Patagonia. Both countries.
Incidentally, Chile has had some bad fires and I'm sure thousands of LDS have been affected. Hopefully many have been chastened to honor their baptismal covenants. In the late 80s and early 90s the Valparaiso Mission would baptize well over a thousand per month. Many fall away, but tragedies humble people. Elder McConky has choice things to say about this nation.
India would be awesone, but I think that Gulf members would still fly to Europe, I don't know. But having a choice is great.

James said...

The subject of possible future temple sites has been widely discussed on the LDS Church Growth forum. I don't have a list of top ten picks, but I do have a list of those most likely to be announced grouped first by the geographical areas of the Church, then by likelihood within those areas. While I would be surprised to see another temple in Brazil (given the one under construction in Fortaleza, the one with construction pending in Rio de Janeiro (which had a groundbreaking on the first Saturday of this month), and one announced (last April for Belem)), Brazil seems to be a great area for temple construction, so it wouldn't be unwelcome. And I can see a day when all major Brazilian cities have at least one temple. As far as Utah temples, Lehi is another quite feasible option, in my opinion. And as for Arkansas, I have received a report of a site having been purchased in Bentonville for that state's first temple, and an announcement seems imminent there. I would be happy to see a temple in both Rogers and Bentonville. But the fact that Rogers has been on most people's lists for so long without it happening, added to the report of a site being purchased in Bentonville, makes me think that the latter is more likely than the former. I could see any of the others being possibilities. I have also received reports that temple sites have been officially purchased in Managua Nicaragua, Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, and Missoula Montana. And I have no reasons to doubt these reports, which come from people well acquainted with the areas the temples will serve. I will look forward to seeing how my temple predictions, such as they are, compare with Matt's. It was Matt's predictions and their accuracy that have given me the courage to make my own predictions in this regard based on all the factors involved. And my specific selections are being avidly and extensively discussed on the LDS Growth Forum. Feel free to join the discussion there at the link below. Also, for what it's worth, the site for the Port-au-Prince Haiti Temple was officially confirmed by Elder Neil L. Andersen over the weekend. You can catch all the latest temple-related developments on my own blog, to which I also post a link. Thanks.
Church Growth Forum--http://ldsgrowth.proboards.com/
My blog--http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com

David Todd said...

There wouldn't be one built in both Rogers and Bentonville as they are basically the same town.

James said...

Thank you for that observation, David. My point was more that since land has been purchased in Bentonville, the first temple in Arkansas will likely be there rather than Rogers. I know Matt has been predicting Rogers for a while, but the information I have received on a site purchase in Bentonville cannot be doubted, as it comes from a member I know well who is intimately familiar with the area and got that information from the members he is still in contact with. So I have no reason to doubt it. Bentonville will be the site of the first temple in Arkansas, mark my words. I just didn't like calling Matt's information, which also surely comes from a good source, into question. So that was my reasoning. Thanks again, David!

James said...

Matt, if you would like me to, I can give you the contact information of the member who reported that land purchase to me so you can contact him to verify. I would need to just get his okay to have that happen. But I would prefer it if I could give you that information by e-mail. You know how to reach me. Thanks.

Pascal Friedmann said...

A Rogers/Bentonville Temple would likely cover a district like this:

in Arkansas:

- Bentonville Stake (8 wards)
- Rogers Stake (5 wards, 5 branches)
- Springdale Stake (7 wards, 3 branches)
- Fort Smith Stake (6 wards, 4 branches)
- North Little Rock Stake (6 wards, 2 branches)

in Missouri:

- Joplin Stake (8 wards, 2 branches)
- Monett Stake (5 wards, 2 branches)
- Springfield Stake (10 wards)
- Springfield South Stake (9 wards, 2 branches)

in Oklahoma:

- Bartlesville Stake (9 wards, 3 branches)
- Tulsa East Stake (9 wards, 2 branches)

as well as one ward and two branches in southeastern Kansas that are part of the Joplin Stake.

That's 11 stakes with 82 wards and 25 branches. At the same time, I would leave Tulsa proper with OKC and most of Little Rock with Memphis and Dallas. There's a solid case for a temple in northwestern Arkansas, not just for distance.

James said...

Nice to see that breakdown, Pascal! When i make my temple site predictions, I rely on a variety of factors, not the least of which is what region the potential temple district might cover. But as one who is self-defined as geographically challenged, my ability to make solid predictions in this regard is not one of my great strengths. So at least with that factor, I am reliant on the research of others in that regard. Pascal, if you would be able/willing to, you can feel free to join the discussion of my future temple picks on the LDS Growth Forum. Information like what area the temples I have proposed would cover would be most helpful to me in determining just how feasible my personal selections are. I also include another link to that forum for all who are interested. While it is not as active as some forums are, for a newly created one, it is doing very well. We have several regular contributors to that discussion. Check it out.

http://ldsgrowth.proboards.com/

Tyer Sorensen said...

Budapest makes a lot more sense than Vienna for a lot of reasons. #1 It is closer most of the temple district it would server in Eastern Europe. #2 Budapest is preparing for a second stake and Romania has the largest LDS population without a stake in Europe I believe. #3 Most of the steady growth of the church is in Eastern Europe over Germany/Austria. Germany/Austria is pretty stagnant if not declining outside of refugees and immigrants many of which are eastern europeans.

Tyer Sorensen said...

Bucharest District only needs a few more active Priesthood holders otherwise they meet all other requirements to be a stake. It has been on the shortlist for 10 yrs I expect it before 2020

miro said...

I think that Vienna is more likly than Budapest. I am from Switerland right next to Austria and i know a lot of members from there. I also know a few Hungarian members.
The Vienna stake has in my estimate around 1000 (>=600 in city of Vienna iteself) active members. Budapest in my estimate betwwen 600 -700 (Around 300 in Budapest).
The Saltzburg stake has also around 700 active members. I don't think that the whole of Hungary (stake and districts) have more than 1100 active members. In Austria you have many multi generation members and a lot of austrians have served as Templepreisdent's ir in presidencies recently. They are also go dilligently to the temple even tought it's far away. Gorth in easter europe is not realy bigger than in central europe. They have more baptisms but a lot of good active members move away. Active membership in Austria has increased the past few years. 2 branches became wards and the wards are growing. There are 2-3 ward with active membersip close to 200.

John Pack Lambert said...

I will go with a guess of three. I think Benin City, Nigeria, Auckland New Zealand and Rogers Arkansas are most likely although I might be off on the specific place in Arkansas.

John Pack Lambert said...

The city of Lima alone has 41 stakes so the issue there is a lot more pressing.

John Pack Lambert said...

I think after the shut down Aba went through having local membership be able to run the temple is probably more wanted than before. So I suspect Austria over Hungary if the temple happens in the near future.

For the same reasons I rank Benin City over Lagos. Benin City has had a stake longer and has more stakes.

phxmars said...

Lehi, NW Arkansas, 2nd Nigeria and Managua (not in any particular order)

James said...

I appreciate these additional thoughts from you all. While I trust implicitly the people who have shared temple site purchases with me, so I have no doubt that those four I have mentioned are more imminent than any others. That said, I recognize that there are several temples that have been on my list for years without an announcement, and the challenge associated with predicting where future temples will be announced is in the fact that the Lord's plans, ways, and thoughts are much higher than educated guesses and well researched predictions. That is why I am gratified and humbled when I get things correct, but am even more so when the Lord surprises me with where He puts temples. As before mentioned, of the last seven temple sites, three blew me away (the ones announced in 2015), all came as a surprise to me, and, of the four announced less than a year ago, I got the exact location for two of the four and the right nation but incorrect city for the other two. So what amounts to roughly three out of seven is not a bad average. That said, I also recognize that, as a well-respected Church growth expert, Matt has been more accurate overall than I will ever be. But I am grateful that interest in my picks has seemed to pick up of late. It's obvious that the location of future temples is of interest to people, and it is wonderful to realize that I have been recognized in my own right as having some valid arguments. I can never hope to be as successful as Matt in accuracy on future temple picks, but I always am gratified to think that I may have been inspired as much as it seems I have been. In my own efforts in this regard, I am getting more feedback than ever, which comes both publicly and privately. And I am grateful to have heard from faithful Church members about temple site selections all around the world. What a wonderful time we live in, where so many temples are being built to dot the earth. I look forward to seeing how much I may have been inspired in my current picks when we have General Conference in 18 or 19 days (depending on how far into the conference we might be before such an announcement is made). Thanks to you all for your thoughts on this wonderful topic.

Tyer Sorensen said...

I will try to check with my sources but it seems unlikely that only 6-700 are active in the Budapest Stake. Romania has almost 3500 members but only about 7-800 active not all in Bucharest District. Bucharest District will be a stake within the next 2-3 years. Budapest would be closer for most of South Eastern Europe as well

miro said...

@Tyer
On the atlas on cumorah for Hungary are a few numbers concerning active members in Hungary.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ll=46.960098016235925%2C19.621582453124915&spn=2.559931%2C5.817261&msa=0&mid=1APoiKy_3_TShZSLOH7nSfJ7NMII&z=8

There is one for one ward in Budapast that is 90. 5 wards makes 450
There are 4 for the branches. (50 + 25 + 35 + 44) Average is 39. (9x 3) = 351
So you right after this callculation membership in the stake woud be arraound 800 (450+351 = 801) but for the whole country it is still just arround 1100. It could be that the temple would be built in Budapest for travell reasons. Austrians can afford a trip easier. But it would be a lot more difficult for the church to staff a temple there.

Fredrick said...

Auckland is a tough call mainly because of how close it is to Hamilton.

An Auckland Temple would serve about half of the NZ stakes, leaving the other half for Hamilton.

Hamilton also has only one ordinance room. What will determine whether or not Auckland gets a temple is based on how basy the Hamilton Temple.

The other possibility would be a temple in Wellington. But that would serve only 8 stakes, 1 district maximum.

John Pack Lambert said...

I believe Auckland New Zealand and Pocotello Idaho are the urban areas with the most stakes without a temple or a temple announced.

OC Surfer said...

I see Bakersfield, California; Olympia or Tacoma Washington; and Summerlin (Las Vegas #2), Nevada as other possibilities.

James said...

It is my feeling that we might have a temple in Auckland very soon, but I don't know how imminent it might be. That city made my list of possibilities when there were 60+ on it, but I determined that Auckland did not appear to be as likely or as imminent as other possibilities with a stronger case and a greater likelihood. That said, I recognize that there are many temples on my personal list that others feel are unlikely. I believe it is within everyone's rights to agree or disagree as they will with personal lists. And I have found some lists to be more accurate that others. I for one know that Matt is very good at predicting new temples. He has a pretty good grasp of what goes into such selections.

That said, I am getting better at doing so in my own right. Though each of the three the locations announced in April 2 years ago took me by complete surprise, of the four announced the following year, I nailed the exact location for two, and had the right nation but incorrect city for the other two. That's essentially three out of four (75%). And I can pretty much guarantee that we will see Managua Nicaragua and Port Moresby Papua New Guinea within the next two years, that the next temple in Montana will be Missoula, and the first temple in Arkansas will be built in Bentonville. I trust the information I have received implicitly.

As to the other comments, I do think that we will see an Auckland Temple before too much longer (the lack of sufficient growth in Asia lately seems to indicate it might not happen for a short while). Idaho's next temple will be built in Pocatello, that's certain. I haven't done much study about California, but Bakersfield might be a possibility.

I have eliminated Tacoma Washtingon as a possibility for the moment. It is close enough to one of the three temples in Washington (can't remember which) that we can rule it out. Olympia might be a more feasible option. And another temple in Nevada might not happen for a while either.

These are just some preliminary observations. Further study on my part might lead me to add some of these excellent possibilities to a future list. But for now, I am confident that we will not only see several temples announced this conference, but that some of those announced will take us by surprise, while others will have been needed for years, predicted by a variety of people who have offered their feelings on the subject, and which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone. Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

Eduardo Clinch said...

Tacoma is maybe a 30 minute drive to Bellevue. I am not sure how active the Seattle Temple is but a temple in Olympia would help the people on the coast more, and I think southern Tacoma would have their choice.
Washington would then have 4 temples?
Great to see states with multiple temples.
Any projections for a West Virginia temple? Also, the talk of a Virginia temple has seemed to die down lately.
It would have been nice when the DC temple closes for two years.

Eduardo Clinch said...

Tacoma is maybe a 30 minute drive to Bellevue. I am not sure how active the Seattle Temple is but a temple in Olympia would help the people on the coast more, and I think southern Tacoma would have their choice.
Washington would then have 4 temples?
Great to see states with multiple temples.
Any projections for a West Virginia temple? Also, the talk of a Virginia temple has seemed to die down lately.
It would have been nice when the DC temple closes for two years.

James said...

Hey, Eduardo! Tacoma was on my list of possibilities for Washington state's next temple, but when someone on the LDS Growth Forum presented an argument against it that rang true, I removed it. Olympia might be a good candidate for that honor. If a temple is built in Virginia anytime soon (I have a projected one on my list for Richmond, which, to me, makes more sense than some other Virginian cities that were mentioned as being possible for that honor), then it is not likely that West Virginia will get one at least until attendance at the newly renovated Washington DC and newly constructed temple in Virginia make it a feasible option. That said, I could see a temple being built in West Virginia instead of Virginia, which would not impact the DC temple as much, but of the two, Virginia is more likely. Unless I am mistaken, Virginia ranks as either one of the top or the #1 state in the United States with the most significant LDS presence without a temple. As growth has, by all reports, stagnated a lot within the US recently, it is unclear how many more new temples we might see in the near future being built in the US until that stagnant growth resolves itself. That said, there are states that have really taken off in terms of Church growth, even in light of the lack of general Church growth in the United States, and some of those would be, in my mind, excellent candidates for a temple's home city. Within the next 16 days, we will know beyond doubt if any new temples will have been announced in the April General Conference. I am sure we will see at least 3 new temple sites announced, but I for one am hoping for several locations to get a temple during the upcoming conference. For what it's worth, these are just some additional thoughts I had when reading your comment above. Hope that addresses your questions/comments. Thanks.

Eduardo Clinch said...

What number of growth would put LDS beyond stagnation?

James said...

I don't know if there is a specific "growth amount" that would indicate an end to the stagnant growth which is now, according to the above-mentioned article that quoted Matt, existent in the United States. That said, even if the stagnation in growth within the United States continues, while that did prevent temples from being announced in the US in the last four years, it might not prevent such announcements from occurring this go-round. It would be most interesting indeed if General Conference comes and goes without any new US temples announced in general, and with no new temple announcements whatsoever in particular. So it will be interesting to see what happens there.

John Pack Lambert said...

I don't think one can call growth patterns in either Texas or Arizona "stagnation".

In the Arizona case, metro Phoenix went from 1 to 3 temples very quickly, so it would take a significant level of growth to justify building a 4th temple.

Texas is a trickier case, and is a place not heavily mentioned that I think may have a shot at an additional temple in the near future. Both Dallas and San Antonio Temples are probably nearing top district size levels, but the parts of Texas where an additional temple would most increase access opportunities are McAllen and El Paso. El Paso is close to the Ciudad Juarze Temple, but international travel to go to the temple, especially between the US and Mexico, is probably becoming more difficult.

McAllen is probably by distance and accress improvement studies the best candidate for a new temple in Texas. But even if the hoped for stake in Laredo is formed this year, I am not sure there are enough stakes. Although there are more stakes than in the Winnipeg or Halifax Temple districts, so a temple is doable.

I have been told many members in McAllen area do not want to travel to the Houston Temple because due to various factors, at least if I understood what I was told, immigtration check points are between McAllen and Houston and some of these members have irregular immigration status. I was told this about 15 years ago, and the Church has formed an additional stake in the extreme lower Rio Grande Valley since then.

One issue is that Corpus Christi is closer to San Antonio Temple, about 2 hours and 19 minutes, than the 2 hours and 24 minutes to McAllen. It is close enough that the exact citing of the McAllen Temple would matter, but Corpus Christi would not get much improved access by a temple in McAllen. Laredo is the same way. The time would be in theory 2 minutes longer. Distance would increse by about 10 miles. Kingville Ward would see maybe a 30 minute drop in travel time, so would probably go to McAllen Temple. On the other hand the Beeville Ward in the Corpus Christi Stake would see about a 50 minute increase in travel time, so some of Corpus Christi stake would stay with San Antonio Temple. So a McAllen Temple even when Laredo gets promoted to being a stake would only at best take in 5 stakes, and clearly not even all of them, and only 3 stakes would see improvement in access to the temple.

This is why Austin and Waco and Fort Worth are sometimes mentioned as more likely next temple in Texas. Las Vegas Temple has 80,000 square feet and 29 stakes. Dallas Temple has 44,000 square feet and 27 stakes.

Deivisas said...

Texas had a great year in 2016 with the number of Stakes there increasing by double digits over 2015.

John Pack Lambert said...

Also in the last 2 years 3 new stakes have been formed in the DC area. This would suggest that it is now more likely the DC Temple could still function if a temple was built somewhere in Virginia.

James said...

I hope everyone here knows that I mean no disrespect when I seem to disregard the strong arguments against the selections I have made through extensive study and prayer. I know I don't know everything about temples, but I have studied the subject of future temple sites extensively enough to know that, in every possible way, Fort Worth does seem to be the most likely option for the next temple in Texas. This has been verified by two or three of the excellent experts on such things with whom I have discussed my picks. I am more than happy to be proven wrong, but I have found such people to be trustworthy as far as knowing what they are talking about. So I have no doubt that I can believe what they have said in this regard. I know that no one knows with absolute certainty where the Lord will put His temples except those involved in that sacred decision-making process, but there are certain indicators that make particular sites more likely than others. And in that regard, the four I have before mentioned as being almost absolutely certain have been verified by these top experts as the most likely ones that will soon be announced. I would be elated and not surprised at all if others are announced first, but because my own research has verified these opinions, I know they are above reproach. Hope that helps explain my perspective better. And I also fully believe that we will have a temple in Virginia before too much longer. Many people have mentioned several cities as being likely hosts for that state's first temple. But the more I read about and research the matter, the more I am convinced that the capital city of Richmond is the best and most likely option. I also believe that such a temple will be announced within the next 3 years if not before. For what it's worth, those are some additional thoughts I had. Thanks.

Brett Stirling said...

Auckland is likely for a number of reasons:

- Majority of members live there
- The new redevelopment of the former CCNZ site and opening of Church lands surrounding for development will see a larger concentrated member population to service the existing Hamilton temple. Therefore if Auckland is built and transfers that membership away from Hamilton, it will have sufficient local numbers to sustain it.
- The Hamilton temple has been earmarked from sometime for a major renovation which will most likely involve moving from one large endowment room of a couple of hundred to smaller ones to increase frequency of sessions. Maybe Auckland will be built before then to ensure NZ still had an operational Temple.
- I worked for the local council and saw the original resource consent for the Manukau Stake Centre and MTC. A large parcel of land has been left in the middle on a prominent hill overlooking the city centre and the main freeway that travels from Auckland right down the centre of the North Island. A perfect location. During construction the land set aside for what looked similar to the Panama Temple was prepared with grading and other water table related systems.

Michael Worley said...

Nigeria strikes me as the most likely of them all. Nigeria is served by one smaller temple, but has 42 stakes. It seems clear the Aba temple is at or near capacity.

John Pack Lambert said...

Aba Nigeria Temple has 11,500 square feet. It has a two-stage progessive two endowment room set up plus 2 sealing rooms. This is not quite Lima Peru at 9,600 square feet with 41 stakes just in the city and 73 stakes and 12 districts overall (but some will go to Arequipa), still it is about that. Lima has 4 ordinance rooms and 3 sealing rooms, although I have no clue how the space in these rooms compares.

Brett Stirling said...

According to this original article, the Lima Peru Temple is larger than 9,600. I don't see how you can fit four endowment rooms in a 9,600 foot temple.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/03/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

twinnumerouno said...

Brett, I enjoyed that article you referenced from 1982. It is interesting to see how temple designs have evolved, along with the process of announcing new temples. Not to be contentious, but was there another article you meant to reference? In my reading of this article, it does not give any square footage numbers for any of the 10 new temples it lists (the only large numbers I see in the article are the maximum possible endowment sessions per year- 195k for 3 larger ones and 90k for the 7 smaller ones, including Lima- along with a general reference at the very end to how many temples there will be someday).

The article also gives the useful information that the smaller temples being announced have 4 ordinance rooms which each seat 23- those rooms sound pretty small- and that the 3 larger ones also have 4 ordinance rooms which hold 50).

I also double-checked ldschurchtemples.com and, as I remembered, TempleRick gives 9,600 as the square footage for Lima. I'm pretty sure I've seen that number elsewhere too.

Brett Stirling said...

I think the reference is wrong. The capacity for the other temples are the same. Even though small, physically it would be difficult to fit all the rooms of the temple in a space smaller than President Hinckekys mini temples. IMHO

I agree. GC announcements is a relatively new thing. Often they would be announced at local meetings or a press release.

I hate to disparage temples. But the quality of those built in the 1960's to the early 90's are lower than the expected standards today.

James said...

I see Auckland as a likely possibility for the near future, but, as I said, I don't think it is as imminent as some people think, and might not happen this conference. I recognize Matt has the expertise in this regard to justify this choice, but he has been predicting temples for Auckland, Rogers Arkansas, and Nicaragua for years. I know that for Arkansas, a site has been purchased in Bentonville, and a site has also been purchased in Managua Nicaragua and was proposed years ago by then-Elder Russell M. Nelson. I know there has been much talk about Auckland as a possible candidate, and I wouldn't rule it out within the next two or three years, but between the study I personally have done on temples and the kind feedback from so many others who have given their opinions on the possibilities I have listed, Auckland may not be needed as much as some others. The Lord has been known to surprise me, and I will be fully on board with a temple announcement in Auckland if He inspires the prophet to make one, but to me it seems like more of a possibility within the next 2-3 years. I can only cite my own study and the opinions of others (including one or two individuals with no small familiarity on temples) on that study as verification for this feeling, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. I won't be surprised either way.

I feel Nigeria will get its second temple soon as well, if not this conference, then for sure within the next two or three years. And my own study has verified that Lagos would make the most sense for that milestone. So it will happen, and most likely sooner rather than later.

I love the additional comments on temple capacity and design. I agree that some of the temples built earlier are not up to today's standards. I have also heard that we might hear of several full-scale renovations for many temples within the next several years, especially for some none of us are expecting or anticipating. I look forward to seeing what happens there.

James said...

What is interesting to me is that, even though the dedications scheduled this year will clear out any new US temples from being under construction, there is one being renovated in Utah that will hopefully be finished next year, and two elsewhere in the United States that will commence renovation at around the same time. For that reason, I expect to see at least one or two new US temples announced as well.

But as before observed, the Church is no longer just the Utah or US Church it started out as being. Its reach is worldwide, and the temples announced elsewhere in the world within the last two years is a testament to the growing appeal of the gospel outside the traditional "Mormon corridor." And the fact that South America and Africa have been so favored of late in terms of temple announcements indicates that if we do have temples announced in just over a week, South America and Africa could see at least one more temple each.

I have high hopes that we will see a minimum of 3 temples announced, but I am personally hoping for more, especially since the "backlog" that once existed has not been an issue with all that has happened regarding temple construction the last couple of years and what is expected to happen over the next couple of years (with 5 temples dedicated in 2015, 6 in 2016, 4 this year, at least 5 anticipated for next year, and at least 5 in 2019), I would anticipate a windfall of announcements coming over the next couple of years.

As has also been observed before, the idea that we might have a minimum of 200 temples by or before the 200th anniversary of the reestablishment of the Church is fast becoming more of a reality. We are already guaranteed to have 159 temples in operation this year, and could have 164 by the end of 2018, and 168 or 169 by the end of 2019. So it is not unreasonable to believe that the Church could get 31 more dedicated within the next 10.25 years. All it would take is an average of 3 per year, and with more than that dedicated in the years prior to that, it is very plausible, whether or not an official goal is set to do so.

I hope that in saying all this, I am not perceived as being full of myself or believing that my thoughts on the matter are more valid than anyone else's. If I have expressed myself as though I do feel that way, it was not intentional. I recognize the beauty of everyone having different thoughts and feelings about how, when, and where future temple-events will take place, and I hope that we can continue the discussion of this fantastic subject with great respect and deference to each other's opinions. If it can be so, then I hope that my thoughts, such as they are, can be seen as having just as much value as anyone else's, and that they might prove helpful to anyone who reads them.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Matt for allowing all of us to contribute to the discussion not just about his picks, but about our own personal feelings. Thanks to you all. The comments in this regard have been most inspiring.

St George Bob said...

I do not understand why Pocatello, Idaho is not included on these prediction maps. There are so many stakes in and around Pocatello and still a lot left in the Idaho Falls area to warrant thee additional temple in Idaho. If Boise and Meridian can warrant temples so too can Mormon dominated Eastern Idaho. Just sayin.