Today's temple announcements fall into three general categories we have seen in regards to where temples have been typically announced. These categories include:
- Remote locations
- Major centers of strength for the Church
- Cities with a large number of stakes without a temple
Historically, the Church has generally announced new temples in the last category I listed above: cities with a large number of stakes without a temple. The number of stakes in a city has often served as one of the best predictors of where a new temple may be announced. However, more recent temple announcements have favored locations far distant from the nearest temple (sometimes where the Church experiences slow or stagnant growth like Okinawa, Japan) or major Church centers even if we have not seen significant increases in the number of stakes in recent years (like São Paulo, Brazil).
See below for an analysis of today's temple announcements:
Tarawa Kiribati Temple
The Tarawa Kiribati Temple is the Church's first temple to be built in the Micronesian nation of Kiribati (population: 112,000). Prior to today's announcement, Kiribati was the country with the most Latter-day Saints without a temple with 20,946 members. The Church in Kiribati has experienced significant growth since its establishment in the mid-1970s. At year-end 2019, Church-reported membership accounted for 18.9% of the country's population. The establishment of Moroni High School has been a major catalyst for the Church's growth in Kiribati. Despite this progress, the Church in Kiribati has historically experienced some of the lowest member activity rates in Oceania. For example, census data indicate that self-affiliated Latter-day Saints constitute 5.3% of the population compared to Church-reported membership for 2015 which constituted 16.5% of the population. Nevertheless, there has been significant progress with improving member activity rates in many areas of the country, and there have been many outlying islands in southern Kiribati that have opened to the Church within the past decade. Moderate to slow membership growth rates have occurred in recent years. Currently, the Church operates two stakes and three districts in Kiribati. The new temple will likely also serve the Church's two stakes in the nearby Marshall Islands. Given Tarawa's low elevation and concerns with sea-level rise, it is likely the Church may implement special building protocols to prevent flooding of the building.
Port Vila Vanuatu Temple
The Port Vila Vanuatu Temple is the Church's first temple to be built in Vanuatu (population: 298,000). Prior to today's announcement, Vanuatu was the country with the eighth most members without a temple with 10,210 members. One of the more recently reached countries by the Church in Oceania, the Church reported approximately 1,000 members two decades ago. Approximately 3.5% of the population are members on Church records. There is one stake and three districts in Vanuatu. Membership growth rates have been high in Vanuatu for many years. The new temple will also likely include the sole stake of the Church on New Caledonia.
Lindon Utah Temple
This temple announcement completely surprised me as Lindon, Utah was not listed as a more likely or less likely candidate on my temple prediction map. The Church has operated a temple in American Fork, Utah (Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple) since 1996 and announced the Orem Utah Temple in 2019. Thus, it was a surprise that this area would have another temple announced given that additional temples in Utah County have been announced or built in recent years. The new temple will likely serve 15-20 stakes in Lindon, northern Orem, and Pleasant Grove. Utah is a major powerhouse for the Church's proxy temple ordinance work, and thus the Church has continued to announce temples to meet recent demand for patrons. The new temple is the Church's 25th temple in Utah.
Greater Guatemala City Temple
Guatemala City became the first city in Central America to have a second temple announced with today's announcement of a temple to be built in the greater Guatemala City area. I found this announcement quite surprising given that the Church operates a temple in Quetzaltenango (dedicated in 2011) and has announced a temple for Coban (announced in 2019). The Guatemala City metropolitan area includes 21 stakes. With five stakes in nearby cities, the new temple will likely service approximately 13 stakes. The new temple is the Church's fourth temple in Guatemala.
São Paulo East Brazil Temple
With today's announcement of a temple to be built in eastern São Paulo, São Paulo will become the first city in Brazil to have two temples. The new temple will likely service 12 stakes and one district within the eastern portion of the São Paulo metropolitan area. Altogether, the Church operates 41 stakes in the São Paulo metropolitan area albeit there have been few new stakes organized in the area within the past decade. Previously built or announced temples in Brazil include the São Paulo Brazil Temple (dedicated in 1978), the Recife Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Porto Alegre Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2000), the Campinas Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2002), the Curitiba Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2008), the Manaus Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2012), the Fortaleza Brazil Temple (dedicated in 2019), Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temple (announced in 2013 and currently waiting to be dedicated), Belém Brazil Temple (announced in 2016 and under construction), the Brasília Brazil Temple (announced in 2017 and under construction), and the Salvador Brazil Temple (announced in 2018). The new temple is the Church's 12th temple in Brazil.
Santa Cruz Bolivia Temple
Santa Cruz, Bolivia was the city outside of the United States with the most stakes without a temple prior to today's announcement. With 10 stakes, the Church in Santa Cruz has experienced steady growth since the first stake was created in 1979, and it has been on my list of likely potential announcements for many years. Unlike other major cities in Bolivia, the Church in Santa Cruz has regularly organized new stakes, and today the Church in Santa Cruz has more stakes than any other city in the country. The Church dedicated its first temple, and only temple prior to today's announcement, in Cochabamba in 2000. Membership growth rates in Bolivia has slowly accelerated in recent years but remain low (2.22% in 2019). There are 33 stakes and 8 districts in Bolivia, and the new temple will likely service 12 stakes and 4 districts.
85 comments:
From what I understand Santa Cruz is a wealthier part of Bolivia, so hopefully this creates more inroads among all levels of Bolivian society.
Kiribati is threatened by rising oceans so I guess the Church and its funds will be involved in preserving this country and its culture. I am betting the locals will really appreciate it. I wonder if dikes and things can be used to stop the incoming tides, like used in the Netherlands?
Vanuatu will be a great place to a temple and generate publicity for the Church.
Israel prevails and gathers...
Those eastside stakes in Sao Paulo are likely not the only ones, count any stakes/districts to close to the state line with Rio de Janeiro state, there is a long string of smaller cites that have stakes or districts or are oart of others directly on the highway between Sao Paulo and Rio. Cities like Jacarei, San Jose dos Campos, Taubate, etc. Follow BR-116 (Rod. Presidente Dutra) as these are on/near that.
I was surprised about Lindon as well. I thought that Lehi would be announced due to its exponential growth. Also in Utah County I had Spanish Fork and/or Springville as my predictions.
I wonder if the the Church asked Rick Satterfield to remove the Shanghai China Temple from his website also. Iy is no longer listed on his site. And his total of Temples (Operational, Under construction, or Announced) is 230, not the correct 231 (225+6=231).
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/temples/
The Shanghai China Temple was on his site up to and including Sept 16th 2020, on the "Wayback Machine".
https://web.archive.org/web/20200916050520/https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/temples/
Shanghai still has a page on his site, which is linked from some of his maps- though not the "temple map" under "Maps". You can view it by going to the page for the Hong Kong temple and clicking on "region map." I wonder if that was an oversight?
On his site, the Shanghai temple is shown on the maps section but it's just not listed
Rumors I'm hearing is the probable Lindon UT Temple site will be located on an empty lot just east of Oak Canyon Jr High on Center St or 200 S (2000 N Orem).
My wife is from Guatemala and was talking with her family that still lives there last night the rumor is that the temple could be either in the Northern part of Guatemala City, or if you look on the maps of some of the stake centers there is land next to a few of them. Either way it will be great for them and it is great to see that area get another temple.
When Detroit got its temple in 1999 it had been 20 years since the last new stake had been organized in Michigan. Recent stake growth and temples are not neccesarily closely linked.
On the other hand the Guatemala City Temple is in a city with 18 stakes and covers 33 stakes with less than 12,000 square feet in the temple. The Mexico City has 33 stakes, but the temple is 116,000 square feet.
I have to admit that I wish more temples had been announced this last conference.
The 4 current Utah County Temples serve 175 stakes. That is a huge number.
Considering that the Guatemala City Temple is under 12,000 square feet, and that Coban seems likely to only serve 4 stakes, I find the Guatemala City Temple announcement not surprising at all.
I think the leaders of the Church would much rather build a new temple than expand existing ones. This is probably even more so with baptisms for the dead being emphasized more of late.
Lindon is the second or third temple in Utah announced very close to an already planned temple. That is clearly going on in Syracuse and Layton, and might be seen as what is going on with Tooelle and Taylorsville.
Chris, Twinnumerouno, whizzbang, I don't speak for Rick, but I can tell you he made the decision to remove Shanghai from his Temple list after it was pointed out that Shanghai is not on the Church's Official Temple PAge:https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng
Nor is Shanghai in the Church's official Directory, where even the 6 temples announced yesterday already appear as of last night. I suppose that Rick decided to remove it when it became apparent that, for whatever reason, the Church is de emphasizing the temple announcement there.
It really is much too late to try to keep the Shanghai temple a secret.
Found that address, 200 South, would put it on some already-owned Church property, an older seminary building is on the corner but the lot looks like it is longer, same depth from the road branching off 200 S. as Orem is from Geneva Road. The lot is oriented longwide east to west parallel to 200 S.
Seems pretty logical. The only other big site in Lindon city limits on the hill is just east of the eastern stake center. Supposedly there are stability issues with the land and that’s why there hasn’t been development.
I’m sure Lehi/Alpine/Highland/Traverse Mountain won’t be far behind. I remember reading that the Church was looking at sites in that area around the time they were evaluating Orem for a site. The way things are going, we could easily have a Utah temple announced every conference for the next decade straight. I know everyone gets sick of Utah temples, but they’re the ones that typically deviate a bit from the trend in design, so it’s exciting to see that come to pass.
I would not be shocked if it remained unlisted for a time as the Church works with the Chinese government to soothe any fears they might have.
The Lindon announcement surprised me at first, but I’ve been kicking a thought around. Is the Provo temple in any sort of disrepair that may be forcing a renovation sooner rather than later? The Church is moving extremely quickly on the Orem temple and I expect them to do the same with Lindon; perhaps this is to prepare for a lengthy Provo renovation a la Ogden.
I wonder if, because I read about some official pushback from one member of the Chinese government or another, if the Church decided it will unofficially, quietly still work behind the scenes with China on proceeding forward with the Shanghai Temple?
They might proceed with the plans, and even the groundbreaking, construction, and dedication without feeling the need to announce it to the rest of the world?
(Only giving the details to those members in China who will be actually using the temple, once constructed, since President Nelson already specified that that Temple won't be for foreigners or tourists.)
Kind of like how they have sensitive Church units and stakes or districts and membership in China (and other countries), without revealing the details about all the meeting houses and official numbers to those of us outside of the loop?
Just a possibility that occurred to me. It would be a special circumstance (and something we haven't quite seen before, though the Church has had to adapt itself and its Temples to other special circumstances before, such as with the Freiburg Temple in East Germany, the Hong Kong or Manhattan Temples, and the smaller "Hinckleyan" Temples of the early 2000s).
What do you guys (and gals) think?
Hello again, everyone! After hearing about (and verifying) the removal of the Shanghai temple from the relevant pages of the Church Temples sites, I did some deeper digging, and apparently, if that temple had at one point been removed, it has since been restored, with that temple being listed at the top of those announced in April of this year. So it is on the list, just not in the same order in which it was announced six months ago. And a Google search for that temple yields that subpage from that site as one of the top results. See the following web pages for confirmation:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/construction/
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/shanghai-china-temple/
As far as the temple locations are concerned, I was gratified that both Tarawa Kiribati and Port Vila Vanuatu had temples announced. According to my Church member contact from Guatemala, the second temple announced for the greater Guatemala City area could be built in Villa Nueva or Mixco, where the Church is fairly well established.
I will be interested to see where the temple in the eastern part of Sao Paulo might be built. I had four Brazilian cities on my list this go-round. Not being a geography expert, I am not sure whether any of those four might be prospective locations.
Santa Cruz was no great surprise, since both that city and La Paz seemed like the most liely prospects for Bolivia's next two temples. I will be interested to see how that announcement might impact the timing in the future of a similar announcement for La Paz. In the meantime, Bolivia's newest temple was the first one announced by President Nelson for the South America Northwest Area. Meanwhile, Lindon was a prospect I had on my list in the near-but-not-immediate future, so that was good to see. The fact that a temple for Lindon was announced before the Orem Temple has even risen much above ground is indicative of the growth in this area, and future needs that are anticipated to be in play.
I was a little surprised that President Nelson announced only six new temples. That is the lowest number he has announced on a single occasion. Following the clearing of the queue that is anticipated to happen between now and the end of this year (and perhaps to continue even through next year), I'd anticipate a higher-than-usual number of temples being announced next April. Just some thoughts from me, FWIW. Thanks.
I just don't see what de-emphasizing the Shanghai temple is going to accomplish. It was one of the most exciting things church members have heard in decades, and they're not going to forget about it. On the other hand, if the Church pretends it's been canceled, that will shake some people's testimonies.
Is it official that foreigners living in China won't be allowed to use the temple? Rick's site says that as well, but I don't know if that's what President Nelson actually meant. He just said it won't be for tourists, and I assumed he meant that the government will be very annoyed if a bunch of members are like "Oh my gosh a temple in China" and flock over there to see it. I suppose foreign members would have to staff and attend the temple entirely separately from the natives.
@EP
I know I and others have been wondering if Provo might have a renovation or expansion for some time now. If they do, I hope they don't significantly alter the current circle-and-square ("Cloud by day, Pillar by night") design, as it's now singularly unique among our temples.
James, for the purpose for which the São Paulo East Temple was apparently announced (to serve the stakes in the São Paulo metropolitan area and the Paraíba Valley), the other cities on their list are not a viable option. João Pessoa and Belo Horizonte are located in distant regions of Brazil, Sorocaba remains part of the temple district in the west of São Paulo or Campinas, and Santos, on the coast, just about 65 km from the capital, can remain in either of the two districts.
if I can bet, I believe that the new temple will not be built in the city of São Paulo itself, but in the north of the capital's east side - in Guarulhos, close to the airport, or further south, in the cities of Santo André or Diadema.
Daniel, thanks for enlightining me about the Sao Paulo East Brazil Temple. I appreciate you providing the geographical context I was lacking in my comment above. If, as you've indicated, none of the locations on my list are anywhere near eastern Sao Paulo, then if nothing else, I can continue to include the four locations (which each qualify on their own merits) on my personal list for future conferences. Thanks again, Daniel!
For the interest of all concerned, this morning, the Church announced that Elder and Sister Gong had tested positive for COVID-19, but are actively receiving medical care and involved with contact tracing while experiencing mild symptoms. Additionally, the First Presidency today acted earlier than usual in sending out counsel to Church members, especially in the United States, on the importance of voting during this election year. Anyone interested can read my thoughts on these developments at the following web address:
https://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2020/10/breaking-newsl-elder-and-sister-gong.html
My thanks once again to you all.
James had four other cities well distant from SP for temples, it was not related otherwise.
There are a number of smaller cities on Via Dutra (BR-116) that will likely be included, anything north of the metro along Via Dom Pedro I (SP-065) like Atibaia will stay with Campinas.
The eastern part of SP city has a large number of large suburbs, and the temple may be built anywhere inside Rodoanel Mario Covas (SP-021), not in cities east like Aruja, San Jose dos Campos, or Jacarei
I read an article from the New York Times several months ago about the Shanghai Temple. Apparently, the government was not notified before the announcement and is not going to allow a temple in Shanghai. I would have assumed the church had settled everything with the government before announcing anything, so I'm thinking that it's still in the works behind the scenes and that it had been approved beforehand. I'm not making much sense here - there was something I got from that article that was key to understanding everything. I'll go take a look for it so I can better share.
Here is the article, from CNN, not the New York Times: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/asia/mormon-church-latter-day-saints-china-intl-hnk/index.html. It's thorough and helps to explain the nuances and difficulties the church is facing, which is probably why we're not hearing too much about the Temple in Shanghai right now.
Johnathan and EP make some good points. Given the already sensitive nature of church units in China, it does not surprise me that things may be quiet in the planning and, possibly, the construction and early operation phase. The temple wasn't listed on the official temple list on the church's website immediately after the April Conference, which indicates to me that the church was already planning to respect the sensitive nature of it even prior to President Nelson's announcement. This is a unique situation that we haven't really experienced before, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the coming years. In addition, The Church News article about this past weekend's announcements gives a year by year look back at all of the temples announced by President Nelson so far and lists the eight announced last April. Everyone take a deep breath and relax. :)
Part of chinese law for us is that chinese members and foreigners can not even meet together for regular Sunday service. I think with that regard, that the temple will be fully staffed by only chinese members. However I wonder if it could be possible for foreigners who live in china (not tourists) to have a designated day of the week with their own workers. I think this temple will have a quiet unannounced groundbreaking or no groundbreaking (like Paris and Tokyo). It may even have a quiet and private uneventful dedication if that helps comply with chinese law. The temple was even announced to be a modest multipurpose building.
@EP
I remember wondering if a major renovation would occur to Provo when both the Provo City Center temple was dedicated and when Saratoga Springs was announced. Perhaps a renovation may come when Orem and Lindon are complete. I agree with Johnathan and hope the design stays if one does occur.
Speaking of Lindon, given the fact that it will be between American Fork and Orem/Provo, I wonder if the temple size will be more along the lines of Oquirrh Mountain and Draper and not as large as some of the more recent ones announced. I'm also curious to see what the sizes will be for the other announced temples, especially the second temples in Guatemala City and São Paulo.
James, completing the comment: Florianópolis is also far away. As for Ribeirão Preto, the city where I live is close to this one. I actually live in a city halfway between Ribeirão Preto and Campinas, and we hope that the fourth temple in the state of São Paulo can be announced there soon, especially to facilitate access for residents of the northern part of the state. The Campinas temple district, one of the largest in the world (101 stakes), is gradually being broken down by the temples of Rio de Janeiro and Brasília. Ribeirão Preto and Belo Horizonte are the two main cities with the potential to receive new temples and to definitively divide this district to an acceptable size in terms of distance and number of units. But I venture to say that Belo Horizonte has more chances, since the State of Minas Gerais does not yet have a temple in its territory and also because this city is bigger than other. And sorry for my bad english, I don't know if translate is correct to be compreensível for tou.
I agree with you on the definition of the possible area limit for the temple on the Beltway, Jim. This also excludes other possibilities, such as Mogi das Cruzes.
China has seen an uptick in natural and man-made disasters lately, such as major flooding of the kind we do not always hear about anywhere usually along the well-known rivers and other places. Bubonic plague has surfaced in a major way in a western province, and in the last couple of weeks three petrochemical plants blew up including a large one in Beijing. The explosions while not as bad as a fireworks factory explosion a few years ago, were still serious.
So could that next possible temple go in somewhere like Araras on SP-330 (Anhanguera) or maybe SP 348 (Bandeirantes) in Santa Barbara de Oeste? Ribeirao Preto has more local stakes close to it, but Araras has both Limeira and Americana to the south. A mission is now in Piracicaba, that is also on Bandeirantes, mos of those cities have a stake or two in them also or are part of a nearby one.
Certainly near or south of where SP-310, Washington Luiz, connects with Bandeirantes and ends at Anhanguera, to avoid a backtrack of sorts for members coming in from the northwest of the state and maybe a few from Parana and the far northwest end of Minas Gerais.
Daniel, thanks for providing those additional comments and context. I haven't yet run the scoring or percentage on the accuracy of my predictions, but it appears that the only thing I got right relative to the predicted announcement of another Brazilian temple is that another Brazilian temple would be announced. I am not quite sure what, if anything, to make of the latest temple announcements from President Nelson. I do like, appreciate, and can get on board with the idea of second temples in other major cities like Buenos Aires Argentina, and there are surely other major cities that could use a second temple. There are other locations far distant from their currently-assigned temples, which surely need temples in the coming days. And it seems the approach in the United States is to bridge and/or fill in the current gaps.
What I will be intrigued to see is what effect the announcement of temples for Kiribati and Vanuatu will have on Matt's list of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence without a temple. Last time two nations were taken off that list, Indonesia and the Republic of the Congo were added to that list. Have any in the last list shifted up or down, or been rearranged, and which nations will be added. Looking forward to that update whenever it comes. Thanks again.
I’m surprised that a lot of people seem to share your opinion. It is in my eyes bar none the ugliest building in Church history, and I would love to see a modernized take on the basic design. Doesn’t need to be as extreme as Ogden, but the basic design of the building really ages it. I like the spire, though I think I’d like to see it come back as a spire of three equal sections instead of the 4 variable length sections we see now.
If someones testimony is shaken by the cancelation of the Shanghai Temple it is extremely fragile. Just look at how ling it has taken to build the Pago Pago Temple.
I have a suspicion that the Shanghai Temple was confirmed with Chinese government officials much higher than the ones the impertinent American journalist asked about it.
I also have to wonder if there may be some translation issues.
Never underestimate the good will President Nelson engendered in China by saving the life of the nation's favorite opera singer.
On a side note Elder Gong was branch president in Beijing in 1988. Elder Nelson and Elder Oajs stayed at the Gong home while on a visit to meet with government officials in Beijing that year.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that the government officials the impertinent journalists talked to were the right ones.
Since President Nelson has had significant dealings with China since 1980 and President Oaks since at least 1988 I do not for a minute believe the New York Times article. Especially since the prevailing philosophy at the Times, Kellerism, causes them to write articles with the underlying starting point that religious groups like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that treat only in marriage man/woman sex as acceptable are bad and on the wrong side of history and thus they slant articles against is. Did you see the Derek they called the obituary of Thomas S. Monson? Why would you trust anything from them?
It is just an anti-Katter-day Saint troupe spread to speak I'll of President Nelson. There is no truth to these lies. President Nelson has been working with China longer than many have been alive. I do not for a minute believe this Kelleristic rubbish.
An even worse source of absolute druk. A gotcha article written by one of the servants of Satan that seeks to uphold his work by sowing the dissention and loss of face designed to pause the work of the Lord. This is an example of truly irresponsible journalism built around mocking a truly great man and promised on the most absurd lie ever. There is no way that President Nelson did not get the highest preapproval. Pre-approval from people far higher up than who ever the face saving functionary who CNN talked with.
This is actually not an unprecedented event. The Friberg GDR Temple was built under very similar circumstances.
Jim, these regions are very close to Campinas, just 1 hour away around the temple. I think the future will show the demand for a more distant temple, if not in Ribeirão Preto, perhaps in São José do Rio Preto, where there are 2 stakes.
@John
Yes, thank you for the clarification. That was part of what I was agreeing with what Johnathan was saying. Perhaps I should say this is something in more recent history that is definitely unique. Will be exciting to see how it plays out in the coming years.
Here is a list of 17 Stakes + 1 District, that I believe would be assigned to the São Paulo Brazil East Temple. (14 Stakes from the current São Paulo Brazil Temple District + 3 Stakes from the Campinas Brazil Temple District). Based on Matt's original assessment for a future São Paulo Brazil Guarulhos Temple that was on his list before conference. His list included 12+1 of these. I added another 5 stakes to lower the Sao Paulo totals.
Stakes
526584 Guaratinguetá Brazil
464104 Mauá Brazil
522015 Ribeirão Pires Brazil
512818 Santo André Brazil
517240 São José dos Campos Brazil
2121204 São José dos Campos Brazil South
536962 São Paulo Brazil Cumbica
521418 São Paulo Brazil Guarulhos
513032 São Paulo Brazil Ipiranga
542741 São Paulo Brazil Itaquá
521388 São Paulo Brazil Itaquera
525162 São Paulo Brazil Jaçanã
521396 São Paulo Brazil Mogi das Cruzes
509043 São Paulo Brazil North
505161 São Paulo Brazil Penha
520918 São Paulo Brazil São Miguel Paulista
2151103 São Paulo Brazil Sapopemba
District (from the Campinas Brazil Temple District)
616990 São Sebastião Brazil
Any opinions are welcome.
I also considered adding the Santos Brazil stakes, but the road leads directly toward the current São Paulo Temple, on Google Earth maps. I don't see a route leading northeast from Santos toward the suburb of Guarulhos.
This count would leave 32 Stakes for São Paolo, 35 Stakes for Campinas, after the Río and Brasília Temples are dedicated (according to my best guess).
@John Pack Lambert-Sometimes the Church announces a temple and then get approvals, other times they get approvals first, it just depends. That happened here and I know in some other places as well. Aside from a mention the map section how do you account for the lack of mention on church sites? Would you accuse the church's own website for temples as a "servant of satan" does Satan tell you his plans? otherwise how would you know who works for satan?
Here is my list of 18 Stakes that I believe would be assigned to the future Lindon Utah Temple. (10 Stakes in Lindon + north Orem, from the Orem Utah Temple, and 8 of the 10 Stakes in Pleasant Grove, from the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple Districts).
Stakes
516058 Lindon Utah
412600 Lindon Utah Central
523976 Lindon Utah West
519235 Orem Utah Aspen
516899 Orem Utah Canyon View
526185 Orem Utah Heatheridge
505889 Orem Utah North
519227 Orem Utah Northridge
512176 Orem Utah Timpview
510696 Orem Utah Windsor
505838 Pleasant Grove Utah
510297 Pleasant Grove Utah East
363715 Pleasant Grove Utah Garden
522465 Pleasant Grove Utah Grove Creek
536911 Pleasant Grove Utah Mount Mahogany
527831 Pleasant Grove Utah North Field
501077 Pleasant Grove Utah Timpanogos
1072285 Pleasant Grove Utah West
Because of the short distance in miles for the Orem Utah and Mount Timpanogos Utah sites, it was difficult to guesstimate which stakes for all 3.
This would leave according to my count, 25 Stakes for the Orem Utah Temple and 20 Stakes for Mount Timpanogos Temple (after the Saratoga Springs Utah Temple is dedicated) to my best guess in research. So about 20 on average for all 3 temples.
Here is my list of Stakes that I believe would be assigned to the future Santa Cruz Bolivia Temple, from the current Cochabamba Bolivia Temple District. (14 Stakes + 3 Districts to Santa Cruz, leaving 19 Stakes + 5 Districts to Cochabamba).
Stakes
524336 Montero Bolivia
522767 Santa Cruz Bolivia Abundancia
2101246 Santa Cruz Bolivia Central
527866 Santa Cruz Bolivia El Bajío
520349 Santa Cruz Bolivia Equipetrol
511218 Santa Cruz Bolivia La Colorada
2120607 Santa Cruz Bolivia La Libertad
378127 Santa Cruz Bolivia La Merced
499153 Santa Cruz Bolivia La Pampa
514179 Santa Cruz Bolivia Paraíso
2103516 Santa Cruz Bolivia Viru Viru
421030 Trinidad Bolivia
525006 Tarija Bolivia
2067404 Tarija Bolivia Tabladita
Districts
614181 Bermejo Bolivia
610569 Tupiza Bolivia
616974 Yacuíba Bolivia
Of the remaining 19 Stakes in Bolivia, 9 are in La Paz/El Alto area, 7 are in Cochabamba, 1 in Oruro, 1 in Potosí and 1 in Sucre, all closer to Cochabamba than to Santa Cruz. As are the remaining 5 Districts are in the western half of the country.
There is a second route that goes a little east of Immigrantes, the one you are thinking of that goes into Sao Paulo and ending at Marginal Pinheiros, that one is Via Anchieta but once north of Rodoanel Mario Covas it tends to go more northwesterly in ending at Via Dutra a few miles east of Downtown.
Microregion of Caraguatatuba, Naresias, and Ubatuba may go to the east temple, they can approach by SP-99 and are far enough east of Bertioga even for them to stay with the existing temple.
Via Dutra may have a few mire cutues that have either a stake or mission district although the only one left near Sao Paulo is the one I mentioned on the coast named for one of those cities mentioned. Some of those take Dom Pedro I to Campinas so that still could stay the same although as I have seen it it is actually further to Campinas than Sao Paulo's metro area so they may be reassigned too.
Yes to Sao Jose do Rio Preto, how many stakes total would that take if you left the cities to the south in Campinas other than the obvious? I could see Araras and Leme as well as some others go there if one was announced for S. J. do Rio Preto.
And don't rule out Sorocaba getting one too, several stakes in and around it and similar distances to both Campinas and Sao Paulo. Traffic in or out of Sao Paulo is better using Raposo Tavares instead of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco has some of the worst traffic inside Rodoanel, and often is a problem just west of that, get anywhere near Osasco and you can count on problems,
I agree with Matt on his choices for the assigned Stakes/Districts to the new Tarawa Kiribati Temple District (4+4), and Port Vila Vanuatu Temple District (2+4) from the current Suva Fiji and Hamilton New Zealand Temples.
Tarawa Kiribati Stakes
613290 Kwajalein Marshall Islands
1014234 Majuro Marshall Islands
445843 Tarawa Kiribati East
525219 Tarawa Kiribati West
Tarawa Districts
612669 Kosrae Micronesia
2023539 Kiritimati Island Kiribati
2145480 Southern Kiribati
2030985 Tarawa Kiribati North
Port Vila Vanuatu Stakes
602213 Nouméa New Caledonia
617377 Port Vila Vanuatu
Port Vila Districts
1755188 Honiara Solomon Islands
528870 Luganville Vanuatu
1660187 Malekula Vanuatu
2024497 Tanna Vanuatu
And until we have a site announced for the Greater Guatemala City Temple, I don't want to guess as to which Stakes/Districts from the remaining 29 Stakes and 4 Districts after the Cobán Guatemala Temple is dedicated, will be reassigned.
Chris, I would suggest taking a look at YSA stakes as well. There are a lot in that part of Utah County - certainly enough to potentially affect temple district boundary decisions.
My Dad's first area on his mission was Maua. He also served in Santos, Presidente Pridente, and Sorocaba.
I can easily tell by the gleeful mocking of President Nelson evident in many who have taken joy in celebrating that the Shanghai Temple will not occur and then engaging in mocking of President Nelson over the matter.
@ John Pack Lambert, there is no "gleeful mocking" of President Nelson in the CNN article. Either you're reading into it or you are picking that up from other places, other than the article. So,the "servant of satan" comment is not a mature view of life. Neither of us have inside knowledge of how the church is planning this temple, if you did you would have said so. Just trust God,he'll figure it out in his own time and his own way.
Well said Francesca. The news channels have an important role in disseminating information and claiming one thing or another at this point about the Shanghai temple is just based on conjectures and rumors.
@EP
I don't get sick of Utah temples. I say the more the merrier! Build a lot here, and build a lot everywhere else, too.
However, I do live in Ogden, and so I have reasons for wanting additional temples here, especially a second one in North Weber County.
I can understand, however, how someone from somewhere else might be a bit disappointed to hear that a temple wasn't announced in their area (I'm still waiting on that Missoula Montana announcement, as that's where I grew up.) Especially if said person lives thousands and thousands of miles away from the nearest one.
But Utah (and other parts of the American West) have the numbers and the temple attendance to build more and more, so it makes sense that growth here would be exponential. It's also easier, I've noticed, for them to carry out the construction process with fewer obstacles and opposition, with such a majority of citizens already being members of the Church of Jesus Christ, and our headquarters being right nearby.
A notable exception to this rule would be the recent delay on the Tooele project, but that seems to be more about local politics than anything against the Church.
@Eric S.
Now you've gotten me curious about the potential temple sizes, too!
Los Olivos is larger than the original Lima temple. How do the the other 2nd-City Temples stack up? Is Alabang projected to be larger than Manila?
I know the 2nd Utah ones are pretty big.
I posted this on the previous thread, but as the conversation on Temple Renovations and Additional City Temples has spilled over, I'd like to share it here, as well:
@John Pack Lambert
I like the idea of Lima area getting a third temple. Since the Lima Temple is one of the smallest in the Church, I had thought that perhaps after Los Olivos is finished (or shortly thereafter, like within a year or two), that they might announce a rededication for the original Lima one (which is still something we might see happen).
However, that might then overtax the Los Olivos Temple and be counterproductive as to why they were building Los Olivos in the first place.
But if they did build a third one in Lima, they could then shut down the original Lima Temple for an update, and still have two active temples in the area available to carry the load.
This could potentially be done in other areas as well, like Manila or Guatemala City.
I also just noticed that one possible pattern is that they are planning on adding additional temples in the Metro areas of the smaller-to-mid-size, sloped-roof temples the Church constructed in the 1980s. They've already done so with Lima, Manila, Boise, and now Guatemala City (with potentials for Buenos Aires and others).
The recent announcement that bucks this trend is the São Paolo Temple, which was built in 1978, is not sloped-roof, and is mid-size-to-larger-sized.
I will be interested, however, to see if there is a pattern that develops for 2nd-city and/or 3rd-city temples that we can possibly predict.
Perhaps they are trying to accommodate those in other countries with high membership in a similar way as we experience here in Utah and certain parts of the Western US, where there are numerous temples now in certain metro areas within close driving distance of one another?
Or especially accommodate those members when an older, smaller temple needs to be shut down and updated, so that the active temple goers have more convenient multiple options?
@John Pack Lambert
I think you're on to something about the Church wanting to build more Temples now, when in the past they may have been more satisfied with building larger temples or expanding current ones.
I think the object is to bring the Temples closer to the people, rather than expecting a large amount of them to fly or drive thousands of miles away to attend.
This seems especially true with Pres. Nelson, Monson, and Hinckley, but also has it's roots as far back as Presidents Kimball and Benson in the late 70s and 80s - with the first wave of smaller international temples.
Perhaps in the past the idea was that we would build a giant temple(s) in the US and slowly expand it/them, expecting the people to come to it, in order to fulfill the prophecy of "The Mountain of the Lord's House shall be built in the Tops of the Mountains, and all Nations shall Flow Unto It."
However, now it seems we are taking the "Mountain of the Lord" unto all nations, which I think is great and is an additional fulfillment to that and other prophecies.
Richard Bushman (Joseph Smith Historian), once posed a question that made me pontificate:
(to paraphrase)
"Did the Lord give Joseph the Plat of Zion and the inspired plans for the Temple of Jackson County in order to literally have that Temple and City built, and to have us all gather to that one spot? Or did he give Brother Joseph (and through him, Brother Brigham) a template for an ideal temple site and urban plans for us to then take those plans and fill up the rest of the world? (as Brigham Young did with Temple Square in Salt Lake and elsewhere)."
Personally, it seems to me that we are currently carrying out the latter idea - making lots of little "Temple Squares" all over the earth - slowly and surely to every nation and kindred. All while still having the plans in the back of our minds to someday hopefully build that originally prophesied temple in Independence. Not being anxious or worrying about it, though, but allowing for the Lord's timing to help bring it to pass.
That said, I do think, however, that the Church still firmly plans to renovate and update existing temples (there are 8 on the renovation list right now, with announced plans for the Pioneer Temples to be completed later, along with potential others).
Perhaps that process will proceed more slowly than we've seen in the past, with less drastic upgrades and large expansions, but perhaps not!
(Salt Lake and Saint George are massive renovations, after all. Tokyo has a large annex being (re)-built and expanded, Hong Kong is a redesign, Mesa is having a giant restructuring to the grounds, Ogden had a complete face-lift from the ground up recently, Freiburg has been doubled in size a couple of times, São Paolo got its own Visitor's Center (first in South America), some of the 1980s sloped-roof design temples have had minor or significant additions (like Buenos Aires & Frankfurt), and even the smaller early 2000s temples are starting to get noticeable redesigns.)
I'm curious to see what the Temple Dept. will decide to do with renovations in the future. I'm particularly interested to see if and when we'll see some of the smaller Hinckleyan ones significantly expanded or redesigned - maybe even some of them someday changed from smaller temples to medium or large-sized ones (or completely redesigned like with Ogden)?
What do you gentlemen and ladies think?
@EP
I actually have a lot of opinions on the Provo/Ogden designs, as well.
I agree with you: those two temples are extreme examples of 1960s American modernist architecture (designed in the 60s, finished in the 70s).
I am however, a fan of some modern art, but especially modern architecture. I like Emil B. Fetzer's design sensibilities (the Church architect who designed Provo, Ogden, and Mexico City, as well as other Church buildings, if I'm not mistaken.)
I think part of it is due to comparison - many of our other temples have more traditional design sensibilities: Salt Lake looks like a Gothic Castle or Cathedral, some of our other temples have Greco-Roman columns and other elements, and even San Diego (though a modern design) evokes an arabesque or medieval fantasy Palace. Many of these temples look like something we're familiar with a building looking like, so our eyes understand them a bit better.
Modern architecture, however, is about simple, bold shapes, and I find that aesthetically pleasing (though I accept that not everyone does), and I experiment with similar designs in my own art.
A lot of modern architecture is inspired by Mesoamerican and Egyptian designs as well (can it really be considered "modern" then?), particularly because Frank Lloyd Wright incorporated those design elements into his buildings. We see those designs spill over into our other temples, as well: Idaho Falls is supposed to look like a Mesoamerican temple, Mexico City definitely is, and lots of our temples are blocky or squarish specifically because of that influence (also, to save money on extra elaborate features).
Of the two, I think Ogden was the less aesthetically pleasing (and I even did a painting of it, once!). Ogden's issue was its use of these regular metallic grills that were supposed to be golden looking, but ended up giving the building more of a greenish tint, and I think the regular sectioning of the circular hanging portion of the temple really weighed it down - counterproductive to the idea that it was supposed to resemble a floating cloud - an idea that was much better accomplished in the analogous section of the Provo temple, with its use of rising triangular motifs and without the metal grills.
But let's be honest: Ogden looked like a space ship and Provo still looks like a birthday cake with a candle on top! I don't deny this. :)
However, one thing that won me over with Provo was my many visits to it (I never had the chance to do any work in the original Ogden Temple). I loved walking around the inside of the circular section (which I lovingly refer to as the "saucer section," like with the Enterprise from Star Trek).
I loved watching the sunset through the white-curtained windows of the "cloud" section as I waited to do ordinances. It truly felt to me at those times that I was in a cloud, (or a ship), floating up in the heavens away from my problems down on earth. In that sense, I think that particular temple design served its purpose perfectly (and even the purpose of what temples are supposed to be about in general - lifting one's thoughts to heaven).
Having that personal connection, I really don't want to see that temple significantly altered.
Although, I wouldn't mind seeing some slight improvements or expansions that added to the design, rather than took away. As an artist, and someone who studies architecture in general and temple architecture in particular, I've even dabbled with some alternate designs to Provo myself. Particularly some added motifs to the bland square base of the temple, which I do think could stand some improvements (like just some interesting trim or crown molding, if nothing else).
@EP
I believe some of Provo's inside rooms could stand to use more curious workmanship or intricate designs, too.
I think a few other new temple designs could stand to learn from Provo and incorporate a circular walking or "floating" section of their own, or find a way to improve upon Emil Fetzer's original designs, as well.
To be honest though, (and I don't wish to disparage any of the Lord's Holy Houses), but I think the smaller 2000s temples have both Ogden and Provo beat in the non-aesthetically-pleasing department.
To me, they are bland and generic. I know the Church wanted to save money and get those temples out to as many people in remote locations as possible, and mostly focus on the Function of the temple over the Form, but I eagerly await the day, when most (possibly not all, as both Louisville KY and Spokane Washington were previously my assigned temples of that design), but I hope most of those temples are upgraded or redesigned.
That was probably more specific info than you ever wanted to know about the Provo and Ogden Temples, but I like talking about Temple Designs and you commented, so there you go. :)
PS: I like your alternate idea of a 3-section spire. Perhaps I'll steal it and incorporate that option the next time I do a Provo redesign sketch?
@John Pack Lambert
Or the Hartford Connecticut Temple. Or the Harrison New York Temple.
There are many who mock the current President of the Restored Church, or those of the past, to especially include Joseph Smith and Brigham Young for their perceived misguided marriages and spouses.
There are others that discredit all the ancient prophets, the ones from the Bible and the other scriptures that we have today, to include the Book of Mormon.
Organized religion to include Jesus Christ are mocked and rejected...
This is par for the course. We must love those that spite us...
Jesus is in charge, and the Chinese will reckon with Him, sooner or later.
@L. Chris Jones
I like your idea for a designated day of the week for foreign residents of China to attend Shanghai. I think you are probably right about a possible quiet groundbreaking and/or dedication.
In my mind's eye, I picture a very simple cube-like building (maybe even one story), with or without a simple, East Asian-style curved roof. Although, if this is to be multipurpose, then perhaps it will have to be vertical like Hong Kong or Manhattan, or perhaps long and one story like some of the more rectangular meeting houses I've seen outside the US. Or perhaps it could even be modest and small and boxish like the Hinckleyan early 2000s temples.
John - stop playing the victim card and discuss the issues at hand. Both the Russian and Shanghai temples are facing significant challenges to be fully operational anytime soon. There is a very good chance neither will be started or completed while President Nelson is alive.
I was just browsing on Rick Satterfield's site, and came across the Laie Hawaii Temple's History.
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/laie-hawaii-temple/
I didn't know it was originally only 10,000 square feet!
I wonder if one day (as with Laei), we'll look back at the storied history of the Shanghai Temple and its list of expansions and rededications, along with a list of its other sister temples in Mainland China?
@Eric S.
Thanks, man. I agree with the sentiment about relaxing and being patient to see what happens with Shanghai.
@Jim Anderson
Holy cow, Jim! I didn't even know Bubonic Plague was still a thing!
Brett Stirling, FWIW, and if it matters, while I agree that no one should be playing the victim card on behalf of the Church, it's also true that we don't know which officials actually cleared the plans for the temple vs. which ones have been solicted for public comment on the matter. There is a lot that isn't public knowledge. We do know that President Nelson remains an "old friend of China" and that that may give him an inside track on how to work through the bureaucratic red tape on the matter of the PRC temple. We also know that two of our current apostles spent time prior to their apostolic calls serving in the presidency of the Asia Area of the Church, and for the latter of those, Elder Gong, who has Asian ancestry, there may be ways in which he can assist the Church and President Nelson through the process of moving the announced temple forward.
Based on recent trends of temple-related announcements, it appears that most temples announced by President Nelson won't be in the queue for longer than 1-2 years before action of some sort is taken on them, which leaves more wiggle room for the Church to focus on more difficiult approvals. The fact that renderings were released for both the Bengaluru India and Phnom Pehn Cambodia Temples within 1.5 years of their being announced is also encouraging, as is the fact that ground will be broken on the Bengaluru India temple roughly two months from now.
What I hope this shows us is that, when the Church talks to and works with the right people on temple construction matters, things can be accelerated beyond current expectation or what has typically been traditional. Who would have thought that, in the midst of a global pandemic, the Church would not only meet, but exceed by 3 the goal of 18 temple groundbreakings during this period of time? All things are possible with God, and given the connnections President Nelson and Elder Gong have or may have with Chinese officials, perhaps any delays on the PRC temple won't be as bad as they seem to be.
The one other thing I'd note is that, by all accounts, President Nelson continues to be doing very well, even after recently observing his 96th birthday. I don't see it as any kind of stretch to believe that he very well could be around the next decade or two at minimum, which may, depending on the doors the Lord allows to be opened, be more than enough time to get the temples in PRC and Russia approved, built, dedicated, and in operation. When announcing the temple, President Nelson specifically mentioned the following:
"Context for the plan for Shanghai is very important. For more than two decades, temple-worthy members in the People’s Republic of China have attended the Hong Kong China Temple. But in July 2019, that temple was closed for long-planned and much-needed renovation.
"In Shanghai, a modest multipurpose meeting place will provide a way for Chinese members to continue to participate in ordinances of the temple—in the People’s Republic of China—for them and their ancestors."
Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines here, but when President Nelson mentions the closure of the Hong Kong temple in conjunction with an announcement on Shanghai, that to me suggests that the hope is to perhaps make the PRC temple available in some capacity for part of the period of time the Hong Kong renovation is wrapping up. That would suggest a far more accelerated process to get Shanghai up and running than would seem possible on the surface based on the bureaucracy and political red tape issues alone.
The reality of it is that President Nelson and Elder Gong are uniquely suited to navigate those issues during this time when that announcement has been made. And with that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if miracles are ahead for Shaghai, not just in terms of the planned temple. Hope these additional thoughts, for whatever they may be worth, are helpful to all who read them..
Just to lend credit - the popular exmo reddit supposedly fed disinfo to news people. The popular anti-newspaper sltrib published some of those things without actually chasing down their own sources, and then of course the bigger anti news pick it up and run wild with it
Meanwhile enemies of the church are laughing at the chaos they cause
However I agree that providing better context and properly targeting wrathful writing
Sometimes it can feel like friendly fire rather than the intended target
@Chris
Thanks for working out the potential Lindon Temple stakes! I may have to add that to my "Potential Temples by Utah Counties" doc.
@Chris
Did you also happen to make lists of the Potential Stakes for the Orem and Saratoga Springs Temples and post them here? If so, I missed them.
The 6 temples announced are half in Latin America. I have to admit it seems surprising no new temple for the Europe-Africa-Asia land mass was announced.
JPL, I was similarly surprised that no new temples were announced in Africa, Asia, or Europe. I was additionally surprised that only 1 US temple was announced (for Utah). At the same time, I've examined the data on Nelsonian temple announcements thus far, and with the 49 temples announced by President Nelson during the last 6 General Conferences, 4 new temples have been announced for the African continent (5 if the Dubai UAE temple for the Middle East/Africa North Area is included in that consideration).
The Asian continent has also seen 4 temples announced, but that number jumps to 7 if, as by some definitions, the 3 temples in the Philippines are lumped in to the numbers for Asia. And if we also take the more broad definition of what Asian geography includes, the Pacific Islands would also count, bringing that number to 13. By contrast, Europe has only seen 3 temples announced, which isn't surprising given the stagnation of Church growth in many areas of that continent.
Looking at that data as a whole picture, if I've calculated correctly, depending on the definition of which Church areas comprise the Europe-Africa-Asia land mass you mentioned, anywhere from 11-21 of the 49 temples announced thus far (which would work out to 22-43%) have been announced for that larger general region, while, by contrast, not as many have been announced elsewhere. Just some observations, FWIW.
One theory on why we only saw six is they were not able to travel outside the country, those that would make final decisions on one site over another have not been able to travel outside the US for an extended period, what we did see anounced then was already confirmed they had something but we may not know where for sure until an official announcement is made later.
Two members of the Twelve said they had to do everything via Zoom, priesthood conferences, some other nuts and bolts kinds of things,,but the need to visit a piece of property is somewhat paramount to being sure they have the right place and that a lot of other factors are met before they make an announcement for an area.
Bengaluru and Russia appear to be the exception based on what we know, there is a possibility with Russia but the other was not known to anyone before President Nelson announced it.
It was either here or in another discussion where it was mentioned that when Ulisses Soares was dating Rosana Fernandes Mogado although they both lived in Sao Paulo it was a 2 to 3 hour ride between their home. It was mentioned about Elder Soares staying with his future in-laws the Costas. Claudio R. M. Costa who is or at least was a general authority seventy was married to the sister of Elder Soares' wife. So he would stay at their house which was near the house where his now wife lived.
To be fair I can name at least 2 temples that the first site was moved. Philadelphia and Tegucigalpa. However I can see why not having visited the site would cause hesitancy.
Either here on somewhere else someone mentioned Elder Soares staying with his future in-laws the Costas. This did not seem right. I looked into it. Sister Soares' sister is married to Claudio R. M. Costa. So the two Brazilians who have served in the presidency of the 70 are married to sisters.
@James
Thanks for the rundown by World Region of President Nelson's temple announcements. I'd been wondering what the percentages were. How many have been announced for Latin America?
JPL, I think I was the one who mentioned that story about Elder Soares. I had just read a biographical article about him by Elder Neil L. Andersen in the October 2018 Ensign:
https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/10/elder-ulisses-soares-a-man-without-guile?lang=eng
The same issue had an article about Elder Gong by Elder Christofferson:
https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/10/elder-gerrit-w-gong-love-the-lord-and-trust-him?lang=eng
Johnathan Reese WHiting, that's a great question. By definition, Latin America would include Mexico, Central America, and the entirety of South America, taking in a total of 5 of the 22 total areas of the Church. I will answer your question by breaking down the total number announced in each of the six General Conferences, then give a grand total out of the 49 announced thus far.
April 2018: 2 of the 7
October 2018: 3 of the 12
April 2019: 2 of the 8
October 2019: 1 of the 8
April 2020: 1 of the 8
October 2020: 3 of the 6
Looking at that data as a whole, 12 of the total 49 announced have been for locations in Latin America, which means that roughly 24.48% of all temples have been announced for locations in Latin America. I have been trying to figure out if there is any kind of methodical rhyme or reason to the announcement of new temples, particularly in terms of some form of rotational pattern in the major world areas that are a focus for each set of announcements. Either way, we have been blessed to see 49 new temples announced over the course of the first 6 General Conferences held under President Nelson's dynamic leadership, and it appears that we have every reason to believe that a new set of temple announcements will continue to come down the pike during every one of the General Conferences that will be held for the foreseeable future.
One final note: In terms of temple data, only 1 temple announced by President MOnson remains in the queue of those announced. And for the 6 sets of temple announcements made thus far by President Nelson, the number of temples left in the queue by conference are as follows:
April 2018: 3 of the 7
October 2018: 2 of the 12
April 2019: 1 of the 8
October 2019: 2 of the 8
April 2020: 7 of the 8
October 2020: 6 of the 6
With that in mind, it appears that, except in rare cases, the longest any announced temple may be in the queue for the most part will be 1.5-2 yhears. Hope these additional observations are helpful. Thanks, Johnathan Whiting.
Would the Manhattan temple count? The Harrison NY (White Plains) temple was quietly counseled shortly after Manhattan was completed. It seems the Manhattan temple was announced after years of trying to get zoning or building permits approved.
Johnathan Reese Whiting, I thought had addressed your question previously, but either I didn't do so or it wasn't approved through moderation. Focusing on the textbook definition of Latin America (which takes in Mexico and Central America in addition to the entire South American continent, including Brazil), unless I've miscounted, there have been 13 of the the 49 temples announced for Latin America.
If you have any further specific questions on Nelsonian temple announcements, I'll refer you to the following document courtesy of Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AHEJOqAjEJDN7aXQLlfrkzc2yTVer6E0TRR5eYdNKB8/edit?usp=drivesdk
Hope this helps. Thanks.
Thanks for the info, James! :)
Post a Comment