Monday, September 19, 2016

New Temple Prediction Map - September 2016 Edition

I have updated my temple prediction map in preparation for General Conference in October. No new locations have been added to the new temple prediction map since the last update in March 2016. 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
  • Guam OR Tarawa, Kiribati
  • Lagos, Nigeria OR Benin City, Nigeria
  • Managua, Nicaragua 
  • Praia, Cape Verde
  • Puebla, Mexico
  • Rogers, Arkansas


Deivisas said...

If a Stake where announced in Moscow Russia, I would anticipate the St Petersburg Russia Stake being assigned to it even though the Temple in Finland would be closer giving a potential Temple in Moscow 3 Stakes and a few districts.

Bryansb1984 said...

I also see announcements for second temples in
Mexico city. Mexico
Buenos Aires Argentina
Sao Paulo Brazil

Jeff said...

I agree with Deivisas regarding a temple in Moscow. Transportation between the two cities is relatively cheap and easy and St. Pete members wouldn't need travel documents as with Finland. In practice, members would probably go to both depending on their individual circumstances. But really, we're not going to see a temple in Russia anytime soon. The political situation is pretty terrible right now.

As for predictions for this coming conference, I think the safest prediction looking back at the last few years is for no announcements. I would then anticipate in April for a few temples in the US to be announced (since the queue of US temples by that point will be almost empty). Maybe Rogers, Richmond, and Layton.

L. Chris Jones said...

With Russia's new religion laws. I don't think a temple will be there for a while. All religious work has to take place in a church and not even a home. I think all buildings need to be open to the public. However I also believe in miracles and nothing can stop the Lord's work.

L. Chris Jones said...

With Russia's new religion laws. I don't think a temple will be there for a while. All religious work has to take place in a church and not even a home. I think all buildings need to be open to the public. However I also believe in miracles and nothing can stop the Lord's work.

Deivisas said...

Oh, just realized my typo from this morning. Sorry I meant if a Temple where announced in Moscow, but I'm glad that others caught the meaning regardless of my poorly composed comment.

I would expect a lot of opposition trying to delay and prevent a Temple in Russia, but there will be great works accomplished among our Brothers & Sisters in Eastern Europe in the Lord's timing :)

Eduardo said...

It would be cool if Lithuania were to get a temple, or Poland.

Deivisas said...

Lithuania may get a temple someday:

Before offering the prayer of dedication of the land of Lithuania, Elder Ballard addressed the gathering, which included eight full-time missionaries assigned to Lithuania from the Russia St. Petersburg Mission: "From this small beginning, you will see the Church grow and prosper here. There will be many branches and then a district and, in the Lord's due time, there will be stakes. Who knows, if we could look out 50 years, perhaps a small temple. That all depends on us, really, and how diligent we are willing to be, and how wise and prudent we are willing to be as we proceed to establish the kingdom of God in Lithuania."

Deivisas said...

And the Members in Lithuania are awesome, we just need more of them :)

phxmars said...

I would drop NZ, Guam and a Brazil temple and add SE Va And No. Davis Cty, UT. Switch Puebla to a 2nd Mxco City temple.

Whizzbang said...

I see India, possibly Hyderabad, getting one and somewhere in Eastern Europe. I can see the Phillipines getting another one as well.

TempleRick said...

With the introduction of a new "mini temple" floor plan to be used in Winnipeg and Port-au-Prince, we could see some less-expected temple announcements in the future. For example, I could see a small temple in Iquitos, Peru, where there are three stakes of the Church isolated in the Peruvian rain forest. Residents must travel by boat or plane to reach any other city (aside from a few small villages in the rain forest). The Saints have attended the temple in Lima at great sacrifice, but in general, they cannot attend the temple. President Uchtdorf visited Iquitos in 2012 during his trip to dedicate the temple in Manaus. He said: "I have always hoped to visit Iquitos, Peru, because of its location and the beauty of the Amazon River and the rainforest." He added: "The Spirit suggested there were other reasons to go there."

Bryan Dorman said...

Iquitos would definitely hold a small temple.

For Mexico City, there is no way they are prepared for a second temple. Most of those that do go are from the surrounding areas and not from the city. The Aragon stake (where the temple is located) doesn't have a single temple worker set apart.

Puebla might happen. I think Queretaro and Torreon/Culiacan are more likely as they are far away from their existing temples with a decent number of stakes.

Puebla has potential though.

As for the USA I believe the Ozark region is the most likely area to build. NW Ark.

As for other areas no temple would be forthcoming for Poland or Lithuania until there are stakes.

My sleeper pick is Ullanbataar Mongolia.

The Opinion said...

TempleRick, you have me intrigued about this new mini temple concept. How is this design different than the one announced by Pres Hinckley?

Eduardo said...

When the '98 plan for small temples was announced, I thought of them as mini-temples as a name. Snowflake was one but it seems bigger than others I have seen. At least the external architecture seems bigger. I don't know about the Gila Valley... I think of them as bigger than the smallest.

Bryan Dorman said...

Looking at the plan for Winnipeg, that IS tiny.

Half the size of the meetinghouse...

From a picture uploaded to the ldschurchtemples website.

The Opinion said...

Here is a link to the article about the open house in Winnipeg. The 6th picture shows the elevation view of the temple. It looks like a stake center with an angel Moroni on it.Of course the square footage is much smaller.

TempleRick, feel free to share what you can about this new design.

James said...

Matt, as always, you have a good list. A couple of comments, though:
1. A temple in Bentonville is more likely than Rogers for Arkansas. My former TL at work served his mission in that region and reports that land has already been purchased for a temple there when membership warrants it.
2. With one temple under construction in Fortaleza, and one more soon to be constructed in Rio,a and an additional one announced in Belem, Brazil may not get another temple for a while. Brasilia and Belo Horizonte did make my list this time, though, and the Church has been known to blindside us at times with where they are announced.
3. I have looked at Church growth around the world and narrowed an initial list of 50 or 60 to the top 15 or 16 candidates. You can find my list at the blog address below: Enjoy and let me know what you think.

Dave said...

"As for the USA I believe the Ozark region is the most likely area to build. NW Ark."

Absolutely! Here in Branson, MO., we were in the St. Louis temple district, which is 4 1/2 hours away. Then a temple was built in Kansas City, which shaved 15 or 20 minutes off our commute up there.

A temple in Rogers, Arkansas would cut the commute in half, and would serve 8 stakes, not counting the Tulsa stakes, which would marginally benefit.

Gracie said...

I don't think Poland will have a temple announced this year, but I do think the more free and open countries on boarders with countries where temple building is problematic could hold temples primarily used by those coming across nearby boarders. Initially, that's what the temple in Switzerland was. For that reason I think Poland, Northern Italy, etc. are better candidates than they appear if you consider only their own LDS population.

Ryan Searcy said...

Curious, the pictures of the Winnipeg temple shown on the Mormon Newsroom article shows the temple as the "Winnipeg Canada Temple." I wonder if that was just an oversight?

Auckland, New Zealand
- this one would definitely be a good location, but I wonder if Wellington would be a better location because of distance? I understand that there is a very large LDS Population in Auckland, but it is fairly close to Hamilton, and would significantly reduce the number of stakes and districts in the temple district.

Belo Horizonte, Brazil
- I would say it's not likely until Rio is finished, but then Belem was announced when Fortaleza was just getting started, so it seems more probable.

Brasília, Brazil
- Definitely welcome, but I'm not sure if the Church would build Brasilia and Belo at the same time.

Davao, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines
- I would choose Cagayan over Davao, because Cagayan would be more "central" for the island, as well has having more stakes and larger districts on the north half of the island than the south.

Guam OR Tarawa, Kiribati
- I would also choose Tarawa over Barrigada. Kiribati and the Marshall Islands are among the most remote places in the world in terms of distance from a temple. Hong Kong covers a very large area (but Bangkok will be taking a bulk of that area), as well as Seoul and Kyiv. Stakes scattered on islands are trickier to figure out than stakes scattered on a landmass.

Lagos, Nigeria OR Benin City, Nigeria
- I imagine Benin City would be preferred, then you could simply have the Niger river as the boundary between Aba and Benin. Lagos could potentially get a temple as well, but I just imaging Benin City as more practical.

Managua, Nicaragua
- Aside from Belize, Nicaragua is the only Central American country without a temple, and now that Nicaragua has 10 stakes, that makes it all the more likely.

Praia, Cape Verde
- Again, a very remote place that is very far away from its host temple. This is a pretty favorable pick.

Puebla, Mexico
- From what i've heard about attendance at the Mexico City Temple, I would say not likely. I think Queretaro would be a better choice. I also think Puebla would get a temple after attendance improves within the city.

Rogers, Arkansas
- An excellent choice, though I agree that Bentonville would be better.

My picks (that are not on the list)
Pensacola, Florida
Tacoma, Washington
Budapest, Hungary
Neuquen, Argentina
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Bryan Dorman said...

NW Arkansas

Far north UT County (Lehi/Eagle Mtn/SS)

Queretaro MX (or maybe Puebla)

Salvador BR

Managua NI

San Pedro Sula HN


Nigeria NG (Lagos OR Benin, favor the former)

Mindanao PH

Praia CV

Those are my top ten.

Sleeper picks (TOP 5)

Ullanbattar MN
Nairobi KE
Antofagasta CL
Neuquen AR

John Pack Lambert said...

TempleRick's statement about Iquitos suggests to me that it may well get a temple announced. Paired with President Monson's implication a few years ago that the reason he was not announcing more temples was in part because they wanted to wait until temple preparations had moved a little further along to announce them, and I am lead to believe we have no good way of even guessing how many temples President Monson will announce in a week and a half.

I am guessing 3. I think Last October President Monson and his associates had spent so much energy on filling the vacancies in the 12 that they didn't feel up to announcing new temples. Plus, with two completed and dedicated since last October there is much potential.

I am guessing the 3 will be Aukland, New Zealand; Layton, Utah and one from somewhere in the Mexico City Temple district, either in another part of the city itself or maybe in Puebla.

I think Iquitos is the top 4th candidate. Peru already has 2 temples under constuction, but at one point Mexico may well have had 11, and Brazil I think had 4 at one point, so it is not an unbeatable number.

Brazil could benefit from another temple, and I have been expecting a temple announced there at least since President Monson arrived in that city just after dedicating the Curitiba Brazil Temple. Campinas has a huge temple district, and even though Rio will take some of that, it could still function if it lost to Brasilia as well and that area could have a temple of its own.

John Pack Lambert said...

I think Kenya is the only country that has a general authority from it that does not have a temple at least announced. Well, Puerto Rico sort of, but if we count it as part of the US, we get it off the list.

On the other hand, if there is a link between Elder Dube and the announcement of a temple in his homeland, it is more a result of what he did as the CES director, stake president and mission president there than of any special lobbying he may or may not have given to the first presidency to get a temple.

Kenya/Uganda have 4 stakes between them, equal to the number that were in Cambodia/Thailand when a temple was announced there. The prosepects for regular temple attendance to current temples might be even worse there than for Cambodia/Thailand.

Johannesburg already has 3 temples in process of being built that will take from its area, but realistically the level of attendance is probably so low from Kenya and Uganda due to distance and economic factors, that loosing those two countries would not affect operations at the temple. Botswana is about the only country in the temple district where them getting a temple might take away from attendance at Johannesburg.

Additionally in Kenya there is the Chyulu District with 10 branches and the Eldoret District with 9 branches. If either of them have been approved to be upgraded to be a stake, or are even remotely close to such a level, I could see that tipping things in favor of a temple. Kilungu Hills district's 5 branches could be enough to make a stake, but probably not yet. Mombasa District is less than a year old and only has 3 branches, so there would need to be splitting or new unit creation.

Back during his 1998 trip to Kenya, President Hinckley said there was "not the slightest doubt" in his mind that a temple would be built there if the members remained faithful. He did say it would not be for "a few years". At that point President Hinckley was able to hold the meeting with members who had traveled from at least 3 others countries in addition to Kenya in a conference room in his hotel. Admitedly it must have been a substantial room since 900 were crammed into the room, so it does not quite what I think of with that term. What I think of is the Conference Room in the Faculty Office Building at BYU that my Mormon Migration class met in, a room not meant to cram more than maybe 20 people at once. This sounds like it was more the size of a ballroom.

There is a district with 4 branches in Tanzania. There are another 10 or so branches between the Nairobi Kenya and Uganda Kampala missions that are not in stakes.

So Nairobi Kenya is actually a pretty strong candidate for being announced to me.

Ryan Searcy said...

If Nairobi, Kenya gets a temple as well as Praia, Cape Verde, then Antananarivo, Madagascar and Freetown Sierra Leone would be the the only places in Africa that are very far a way from a temple, with Antananarivo being more than 2000 miles from Johannesburg (not sure if it will be reassigned to Harare), and Freetown rests under 1000 miles from Accra, with it to be reassigned to Abidjan when it's finished. If a temple were announced for Praia, Cape Verde, it would be interesting if the Dakar Branch were to be assigned to it, since it would by far, be the closest temple. Presently, it is part of the Accra Ghana Temple District (being a shorter travel time to there than Madrid). The only other places that are far away from a temple are Windhoek, Namibia and Cape Town, South Africa.

Eduardo said...

I still count about 35 places really far from temples in Africa.

TempleRick said...

The floor plan to be built in Winnipeg is a single-level design featuring one endowment room (with no separate chapel), one sealing room, and one initiatory booth in each dressing area. The dressing areas are compact with just six stalls (several lockers per stall) per room. There is, of course, no clothing rental or cafeteria, but it still features a bride's room and nice waiting area before the recommend desk for non-patron guests, as has become customary. It's small but smartly designed at, I'd guess, just under 8,000 square feet.

The first three Hinckley temples in Monticello, Anchorage, and Colonia Juarez were even smaller than this, but the design was soon updated to the 10,700-square-foot floor plan we are familiar with, which has two endowment rooms and two sealing rooms. Monticello and Anchorage were later enlarged accordingly, leaving Colonia Juarez as the Church's smallest temple and only operating temple with just one endowment room and one sealing room.

Whizzbang said...

The Winnipeg Temple is 16,000 sq feet but it also includes a basement so estimated about 9000 sq. feet on the surface. It's slightly smaller than Regina. They anticipate a fall 2016 groundbreaking and construction to begin in the early months of 2017 sometime. Obviously all of this could change. Also they are building a new chapel on the site and that is supposed to be built prior to the Temple.

TempleRick said...

Thanks, Whizzbang.

Mike Johnson said...

When construction starts on the Winnipeg Temple will depend on approvals. My understanding is they plan to request those approvals by the end of the year and then the Church will have to wait for the approval process to happen.

I think there are a lot of temples that look smaller than the meetinghouse near by.

I am glad the Winnipeg Temple is moving forward.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

I returned from Belem and São Paulo, Brazil today. I speculate, based only on stake locations and distances, that there will almost certainly be temples announced in Brasília and Salvador Brazil in the next five years, and probably at some point in Belo Horizonte and maybe a second temple in São Paulo.

Brazil still has about half of South America’s area and population. It has about but only 9 of the South America’s 25 constructed or announced temples.

I agree with James that Brasilia should be on the short prediction list. I think it would come before Belo Horizonte for three reasons: It is the national capital, there is no temple in Brazil's Central West area, and the states of Minas Gerais (where Belo is located) and Espirito Santo are big parts of the future Rio de Janeiro temple district.

John Pack Lambert said...

Detroit Michigan Temple is probably still listed at 10,700 square feet. However a few years back they enclosed the outside entrance way, so the amount of space enclosed in the building was increased.

Does one initiatory booth mean that the whole initiatory service happens within one space, or does it mean a progressive set of spaces but only one such set? If it is the latter, that is what we have at Detroit.

I think Detroit Temple has 9 changing stalls in the men's changing room, but my count might be off.

It is a two-stage endowment set up. There are also two sealing rooms.

TempleRick said...

It is the latter.

Nathan Winder said...

Having served a mission in Hungary and living in Munich, Germany now, I try to keep a pretty close eye on church growth in Europe, particularly the central/eastern region.

Church growth in Europe remains relatively slow and I wouldn't really anticipate there being a new temple in Europe for the next few years. That said, I don't know much about the Olso and Moscow regions and so the next European temple being built in one of these cities is conceivable.

As for Central/Eastern Europe, I think the most likely candidate is Hungary or Austria. Right now Hungary, Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, and half of Romania belong to the Freiberg Temple District, which is quite far for the Hungarians and Romanians. The former Yugoslav countries belong to the Frankfurt Temple District, also a big journey. Albania belongs to the Bern Temple District.

The only countries in this region with current stakes are Austria, Hungary, and recently the Czech Rep. A Vienna or a Budapest temple would fill this huge gap and be a blessing for many in this part of the world.

Bryansb1984 said...

There could also be temple announcements for
Henderson, Nevada
West Valley City, Utah
Orem, Utah

Bryansb1984 said...

There could also be temple announcements for
Henderson, Nevada
West Valley City, Utah
Orem, Utah

Fredrick said...

No, there will NOT be a temple announcement for Henderson any time in the next 40 years. Henderson is just south of the Las Vegas Temple. If anything, the church will announce a temple in Summerlin - on the west side of Las Vegas.

miro said...

I wonder why so many people thing that Budapest is a more likly candidate for a temple than Vienna. Ok it is further away, but Austria has more stakes. There are more strong wards in Vienna and close by. Austrians go often to the temple. They have a lot of temple workers and a few temple presidents recently. And the church has legal status in Austria (if i remember correctly). I still think it is a few year off.

Gracie said...

A temple in Vienna would also put Prague and Budapest within 200 miles.

Unknown said...

An initiatory booth is composed of four compartments.

John Pack Lambert said...

I was just looking over the report on wards and branches world-wide from LDS Church I was surprised at how many more wards there are then branches (22,000 to 7,000). Although I still have the imrpession that there are things operating as groups today that would have already been made into branches 20 years ago, so some comparisons are a bit hard.

Also, even though there are more church units outside of the US, there are 12,000 wards in the US as opposed to 10,000 outside. The 5400 branches outside dwarf the 1900 inside the US.

John Pack Lambert said...

Summerlin and Henderson are both 17 or 18 miles from the Las Vegas Temple. Neither place has a clearly strong claim to getting a new temple. With the Las Vegas Temple at 80,000 square feet for 27 stakes, it has a lot more square footage per stake than Dallas with 26 stakes and 44,000 square feet.

Analyzing the map of the stake distribution for Dallas Texas Temple makes me think that Longview, Texas might be a dark horse candidate for a temple. It could take in Gilmer, Longview, Tyler and Shreveport stakes. 4 stakes is more than some temple districts, but I am not sure the distances (2 hour drive time from Longview to the Dallas Temple for example) are enough to justify a temple. Jasper Branch would be a little closer to Longview than Houston Temple, but it does not look like anywhere else in the Beaumont Stake would be worth reassigning. A Longview Temple would possibly take in part of the Monroe Louisiana State, but I still don't see it going over 5 stakes.

Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miro said...

@John Lambert
Yes there are more wards in the US than outside. Also the requirement for a ward in the US is a lot hight, than in outside (US&Cananda) 300 compared to 150 members on record. If the requirement would be the same, you might be able to double the wards in the US and that would dwarf the wards outside the US. I don't know why they have different requirements for wards and stakes in the (US and Canada) and the rest of the world. It might be just to slow expansion and save money in the US. Even toght today more members live outside the US I still think that the majority of active members lives in the US.
One reason for different requirements might be, that outside the US the Address Unknown File is a lot bigger. These members are part of the churchs country statistic, but not part of any stake or ward recods. I the AU File is big in some latin american countries. Also in others. I know it is very big in the UK. At a clerk's training meeting a church emploee from Frankfurt that did the training said that, the AU file in the UK is around a 100'000 in Germany around 6'000 and in Switzerland more than 1'000. In the UK it's more than half. When you take the number of stakes in the UK (I think 45) and multiply it with 1900, you see that most stakes are close to the minimum requirment. (UK Members 186000 - 100000 = 86000) 86'000 divided by 45 = 1'911 average members / stake.

Brett Stirling said...

A temple in Auckland would have 15 Stakes in it's district. Wellington and Christchurch would need a temple in the future at some point. A small temple would be ideal for those two locations.

Brisbane may need a new temple over the next 20 years, around the Gold Coast which has experienced substantial growth. The Western Suburbs in Melbourne would also probably see a temple eventually as well.

PNG is a high growth area that will need a temple soon.

@TempleRick - thank for your information on the new Winnepago floor plan. It's an interesting design concept. Hopefully the finishes are consistent with the new generation high detailed temples.

Brett Stirling said...

Another interesting impending milestone is the bicentenary of the founding of the Church in 2030. That's only 14 years away, any chance 200 temples could be dedicated by then?

Anonymous said...

This list of the top 10 new temple sites is very similar to mine.

Here is my list (in order):

1. Puebla, Mexico -- Mexico City has the largest temple district in the Church. This area is bound to get a new temple in the near future.
2. Lagos, Nigeria -- One of the largest population centers in the world. Also, unprecedented and active growth. Expect more temples in West Africa in the near future -- starting with one in Lagos.
3. Layton, Utah -- Huge population growth in last decade. Large active growth in the Davis and Weber County areas. Bountiful and Ogden temples are already filled to capacity.
4. Bahia Blanca, Argentina -- The Buenos Aries temple is an older and a smaller temple. The Church will look to "lighten the load" by slowly building down towards the Southern tip of a very the continent. The next step? Bahia Blanca. It will make a temple much closer for a large number of Argentine saints while, at the same time, reducing the load of a very small and busy temple. For the same reasons we are seeing a second temple in Lima Peru, we will see another temple on the East Coast of Argentina fairly soon.
5. Lehi, Utah -- Like Layton, Utah, this area is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom. This, of course, brings a huge increase in the population -- 80-90% of which is active LDS. Mount Timpanogos and Draper are filled to capacity already. Another temple in West Lehi is imminent.
6. Belo Horizonte, Brazil -- Large number of saints that are many hundreds of miles away from the nearest temple. Delays in the Rio temple will likely cause the Church to look to this area for a temple -- which is already overdue given the sheer number of active congregations in the area.
7. Davao, Philippines -- Large number of congregations on the Southern-most island of the Philippines. Large number of active congregants and a large population for potential growth.
8. Brasilia, Brazil -- Many hundreds of miles away from a temple. Large number of active congregations.
9. Salvador, Brazil -- Many hundreds of miles away from a temple. A large number of active congregations.
10. Bengaluru, India -- India is the second most populated nation on earth. It is also one of the fastest growing populations per capita. There are now a number of stakes/districts in and around India that could support a temple. There are a number of missions. A temple in India would be thousands of miles away from a nearest temple. It is virtually impossible for many saints in India to travel thousands of miles to the nearest temple in Hong Kong -- or even Bangkok. The temple would also serve the small, but active, saints in the Middle East in areas like Pakistan and Abu Dhabi.

Anonymous said...

Using a 12 factor test, this is what I came up with -- Top 40 Temple Sites with 25 Outliers to be announced in the next 5-10 Years (in order).

All But Certain (The Top 10 – In Order 1-10)
1. Puebla, Mexico
2. Lagos, Nigeria
3. Layton, Utah
4. Bahia Blanca, Argentina
5. Lehi, Utah
6. Belo Horizonte, Brazil
7. Davao, Philippines
8. Brasilia, Brazil
9. Salvador, Brazil
10. Bengaluru/Hyderabad, India

Highly Likely (In Order 11-20)
1. Managua, Nicaragua
2. Auckland, New Zealand
3. Richmond, Virginia
4. Valparaiso, Chile
5. Bengaluru, India
6. Maracaibo, Venezuela
7. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
8. San Pedro Sula, Honduras
9. Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
10. Pocatello, Idaho

Probable (In Order 21-30)
1. Cuernavaca, Mexico
2. Jacksonville, Florida
3. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
4. Mendoza, Argentina
5. Moscow, Russia
6. Nairobi, Kenya
7. Freetown, Sierra Leone
8. Lubumbashi, DR Congo
9. Benin City, Nigeria
10. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Possible (In Order 31-40)
1. Kirtland, Ohio (instead of Pittsburgh or Cleveland)
2. Edinburgh, Scotland
3. Singapore, Singapore
4. Praia, Cape Verde
5. Jakarta, Indonesia
6. West Valley City, Utah
7. Tarawa, Kiribati
8. San Juan, Puerto Rico
9. La Paz, Bolivia
10. Budapest, Hungary

25 Additional Outliers with Potential (In Order 1-30):
1. Eugene, Oregon
2. Daegu, South Korea
3. Tooele, Utah
4. Pago Pago, American Samoa
5. Culiacan, Mexico
6. Bakersfield, California
7. Abu Dhabi/Dubai, United Arab Emirates
8. San Jose, California
9. Mbuji-Mayi, DR Congo
10. Kumasi, Ghana
11. Mbuji-Mayi, DR Congo
12. Austin, Texas
13. Queretaro, Mexico
14. Price, Utah
15. Colorado Springs, Colorado
16. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
17. Neiafu Vava’u, Tonga
18. Little Rock, Arkansas
19. Cagayan de Oro, Philippines
20. Henderson, Nevada
21. Oslo, Norway
22. Charlotte, North Carolina
23. Antananarivo, Madagascar
24. Iquitos, Peru
25. Kampala, Uganda
26. Yerevan, Armenia

Outliers For No Good Reason Other than Prophecy or Spirit-Guided Proposal:
27. Adam Ondi Ahman, Missouri
28. Jerusalem, Israel
29. Vilnius, Lithuania
30. Independence, Missouri
31. Far West, Missouri
32. New Delhi, India
33. Kasai, DR Congo
34. Independence, Missouri
35. Far West, Missouri
36. Harrison, New York

If China Opens then all of these become “Possible” within 5 years
1. Shanghai, China
2. Beijing, China

Anonymous said...

12 Factor Test -- Factors:
1. Number of Units Served (with Stakes having higher priority) (the more units, the higher score – this factor is fairly simple)
2. LDS Growth Rate Trends Per Capita (the faster the growth of the Church per capita, the higher score)
3. Potential for New Growth (the larger the population as a as a “population center,” the greater the potential for visibility and new growth)
4. Population growth rate (the greater the total population area is growing, the higher the potential for new growth and the higher the score)
5. Potential future population growth rate, including economy (the greater the population in an area could likely grow, the score is higher)
6. Closeness in proximity to at least one additional temple (the closer an area is to at least one temple, the lower the score)
7. Proximity to more than one temple (the closer an area is to more than one temple, the lower the score).
8. Overburdened Temple in Area (the closer an area is to at least one temple that is clearly “bursting” at the seams due to number of units and the overall size of the temple, the higher the score – if it is close to two or more overburdened temples, the score is higher. Again, “overburdened temples are ones that serve a large number of units per temple square foot. If the only temple in the area is small and the unit number is high, the more likely the area will get a temple.)
9. First Temple in a Nation (if it is the first temple in the country, the higher the score).
10. Older temple likely due for renovation in near future is only temple in area (if the area only has one temple and that temple is older and is likely due for renovation and it would be reasonably difficult for members in the area to travel to another temple location for economic, language and especially cultural reasons, then the score is higher)
11. Political reasons – Political stability of a nation needs to be considered. On the flip side, the Church may also want to build a temple in the nation just to “prove a point.” The Church may also be loath to put a temple in a location where religious liberty is on the decline. (Hard to Determine -- varies depending on a variety of factors.)
12. Average Household Income (the wealthier an area is, the slightly higher the score)
13. Number of Missions (the more missions in the area, the more likely it will get a temple)
14. Remoteness – In addition to proximity to another a temple, are there other logistical, cultural, economic or technological barriers to travel (the greater the total remoteness, the higher the score)

Anonymous said...

I like your list, Matt. But, there are several sites in your top 10 I don't see happening this year.

1. Managua, Nicaragua -- Nicaragua is one of the the most corrupt governments on the planet. There is just too much risk for the Church to put a temple in Nicaragua right now I think. And, the saints can easily travel only a couple of hundred miles to temples in Panama and Honduras -- so it is not like they can't ever attend the temple. I agree this area should be high on a potential list of temple sites (maybe even the top 20), but top 10 is pushing it I think.

2. Auckland, New Zealand -- Also should be high on lists of potential sites, but (again) probably pushing it for a top 10. The Hamilton Temple is not at all that far from Auckland. I think it is probably more likely we will see a temple in Wellington or Christchurch than another temple in the northern part of New Zealand anytime soon. Auckland is still high on the list (maybe top 20), I just doubt it is top 10.

3.Guam OR Tarawa, Kiribati -- These islands are extremely small and extremely remote. For their size, they have a decent LDS population. But for a temple? There just does not seem to be enough people who live there or potential for growth. Eventually, I could see a temple in one of these areas (probably not both), but we are still probably at least a decade away from that announcement. I would still put both of these locations in the top 40, but I think top 10 is surely pushing it.

4. Praia, Cape Verde -- Like Guam and Kiribati, these islands are quite small. They are also relatively close to the temples in Portugal and Spain. Moreover, I think we are much more likely to see more temples on the West Coast the Africa's mainland before we see a temple on one of the islands of Cape Verde. Both Lagos, Benin City, and Freetown are probably all more likely than a temple in Cape Verde simply due to Church growth rates and population size.

5. Rogers, Arkansas -- I can all but guarantee there will not be a temple in Rogers, Arkansas announced in the next 10 years. Rogers does not have a large LDS population and is literally in the middle of nowhere. It is also not that far from other temples in Missouri (and not that far from other prophesied temples in that area to be built). A temple in Little Rock is far more likely -- and even a temple in little rock wouldn't make a top 75 list IMHO. New convert Church growth has slowed SUBSTANTIALLY in the U.S. And, the U.S. is already saturated with temples -- at least compared to the rest of the world. Even then, I think all of the following U.S. sites would get a temple before Rogers, Arkansas:

1. Layton, Utah
2. Lehi, Utah
3. Jacksonville, Florida
4. Richmond, Virginia
5. Kirkland, Ohio (or Pittsburg, Penn)
6. Austin, Texas
7. Eugene, Oregon
8. Bakersfield, California
9. Price, Utah
10. Colorado Springs, Colorado

I really don't see a temple in Arkansas anytime soon. I think it safe to say that there will be more temples announced in Missouri before Arkansas gets a temple. But, the Lord ultimately knows where he needs his temples and we will see. :)

The other 5 sites you mentioned are also on my list of top 10.

Eduardo said...

You wrote Far West twice. At least a few should transfer from the City of Enoch.
And Independence should have at least 24, I reckon. Maybe stretching up north.

Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Johnson said...

An Auckland NZ temple might have even more than 15 stakes in the temple district. But, that would depend on where in or around Auckland the temple would be built.

There are 13 Auckland stakes and 2 stakes to the north of Auckland. Also, the Noumea New Caledonia Stake would be in the district. Even the Christchurch and the Dunedin stakes would likely be in an Auckland district. It is about NZ$75 for a round trip ticket from Christchurch to Auckland and just over an hour flight. It would likely be a lot easier to get from Christchurch or Dunedin to Auckland that to Wellington. If an Auckland temple were relatively near the airport than I would think that Noumea, Christchurch and Dunedin would also be in an Auckland temple district. On the other hand, if the temple were on the north of the city, the stakes by air and possibly 3 Auckland stakes would likely be in the Hamilton district.

A Wellington temple would benefit a lot the three stakes in the Wellington region (Wellington, Upper Hutt, and Porirua), the nearby Palmerston North Stake, and the Nelson district on the South Island. The two Hastings stakes might be in a Wellington temple district but that would actually increase slightly the distance to the temple for these stakes. Wellington is the richest region in New Zealand and has a high immigrant population--particularly from the UK and Australia.

Eduardo said...

Kirtland, Ohio? No, based on geography and numbers, Arkansas should get a temple before the Cleveland area.

Brett Stirling said...

I've seen the original resource consent for the Manukau MTC and Stake Centre on Redoubt Road overlooking Rainbows End and a temple was approved between them and site grading and foundation preparation completed in 2010. This is very close to the airport.

It's important to note that Hamilton is a single endowment room temple of around 80 patrons and my parents are reliably told and have experienced regular packed sessions all the time. This is an old temple and has already been earmarked for a substantial refurbishment in the near future. The first phase of repurposing the adjacent former campus of CCNZ including a new very large Stake Centre and Church History Museum to be completed in the next 12 months.

If the temple is substantially refurbished over a long period, it leaves NZ without a working temple in almost 60 years. A new Manukau Temple would carry the burden during that time.

NewsAnchor007 said...

The Church owns property in the Southwest corner of the Salt Lake Valley (Herriman to be exact, drove past the site this summer). I think its more likely to have Herriman announced instead of Lehi, although only the Lord knows.

I also see a Layton, Utah announcement soon. Anyone have any thoughts about the Provo Temple shutting down and possibly getting a refurbishment like Ogden did? Or at least some renovations now that the Provo CC is open.

Gracie said...

@Eduardo Clinch, at least 24 temples in Independence, ha ha, yes. They're all part of the same larger temple though. Orson Pratt saw and described it as "a number of towers, placed apparently at equal distances on the outside, each of which were supported by buildings as large as [Nauvoo], and yet were united with, and were a part of the great temple. They were of as large dimensions as that which is on this temple (Nauvoo again). From the midst of these towers and in the center of the building arose in majestic grandeur an immense, large dome that seemed to tower as high above the towers as the towers were from the earth." (From the Book "Symbols in Stone, Symbolism on the Early Temples of the Restoration, pages 23-24; by Matthew B. Brown and Paul Thomas Smith.) Twenty four temples that have the same exterior finish and are all run together with a central dome; in a way both 1 temple and 24 temples. My former employer, an older architect, now about 75, told me that the church has plans drawn up for this building already and that a contact of his, an experienced geotechnical engineer was contacted and told he might be needed for input on it.

Gracie said...

@Jerimiah Bullfrog, thanks for your list and sharing your considerations! I think that any new temple in China doesn't need to wait for any changes in China's laws. The Hong Kong Temple is even now under Communist Rule even if their economic system is different than China at large. The government of China could decide at any time to have more beautiful buildings built, the likes of which they are already familiar with having the temple in Hong Kong operating all these years now. In 1991 Elder Oaks said in a talk at BYU (Getting to Know China) "China is already “open”—it is we who are closed. We are closed because we expect the Orient to be the same as the West, China to be the same as Canada or Chile." So, it's already open. :) Beijing or Shanghai could be announced this coming weekend; or next year. We don't have a lot to go on with respect to the numbers of members it might serve to know what kind of demand they already have for a temple farther north.

As far as my own weights and considerations: I know the church is trying for an increase in members within 200 miles of a temple, and I tend to give greater weight to the temples that would provide opportunities to attend to those that wouldn't otherwise have the chance, remote sites and islands; even if the history of building hasn't necessarily been that way. It's my own hopefulness that people get the opportunity who can't even get to a crowded temple.

Brett Stirling said...

@Gracie // The Status of the Church is a sensitive topic that has strict rules of engagement and participation in mainland China. It is by no means a done thing.

I do find it interesting that a number of temples have had all their interior mill work completed in China. Tijuana and Provo City Temples were all sourced from China.

Nathanial said...

Richmond Virginia is popular suggestion. Why is it so popular when D.C. is not full, Philadelphia was just dedicated? Is there something about Raliegh or anything else that I am missing?

Gracie said...

@Brett I know about the website and have read it. It's okay. I've been to China and studied with architects employed by the Chinese government there. I've been interested for awhile. There is already a temple in Communist ruled China now; if the current government gave permission more could be built. It doesn't mean we would have or need any other changes in what is published about Chinese citizens quietly living the gospel there. It's sensitive and full of respect, but not a situation we're waiting around to see a change in. We're living in it and it's a good sensitive situation -- we're following all the rules. There are also expat saints in the Beijing and Shanghai areas who would make good use of temples now, and why not use them while alternating with the Chinese citizens as the two groups don't worship together? Honestly, the current government knows what it's like to have a temple operating. They have one. And the temples are lovely. Why not have more?

Mike Johnson said...

Rogers or Bentonville probably doesn't make much difference. They are right next to each other and part of the same urbanized area. The Tulsa Oklahoma Mission recently became the Bentonville Arkansas Mission and the Rogers-Bentonville area is in the center for the mission. But, I think it likely that the three Oklahoma stakes in the mission would remain in the Oklahoma City temple district even if a temple were built in the Rogers-Bentonville area. I think there will be a temple in the area, but I think it more likely to be in Springfield, Missouri than in the Rogers-Bentonville area. There are six Missouri stakes in the area (44 wards and 10 branches) and four Arkansas stakes (26 wards and 12 branches), including both the St Robert Missouri Stake to the northeast and the Fort Smith Arkansas Stake to the south.

st2205 said...

Bentonville is an area growing very fast. With Walmart headquarters being there, in addition to many of their vendors, it brings in a lot of transplants. If anticipate the LDS membership there over the next 15-20 years will grow quite a bit. I don't know that I'd say the same for Springfield.

Mike Johnson said...

Northwest Arkansas is growing fast both in terms of the general population and the LDS population. But southern Missouri has added more stakes and congregations over the past few years than NW Arkansas and Springfield is more the center of the entire area that is growing and is distant from temples. Northwest Arkansas and the Roanoke region of Virginia are growing about as fast and are about the same size in population and both are fairly remote to temples.

I think Lagos Nigeria is the most likely temple announcement.

I wasn't going to mention Richmond this time. But, I thought I would try to answer the question about why Richmond. Virginia has far more stakes (21), congregations (about 200), and membership (about 94,000) than any other temple-less state and a lot of states with temples. The main reason there hasn't been a temple in Virginia is the proximity for some members in Virginia to the Washington DC temple. But, for many members that means crossing the worst traffic area in the country and usually takes 3-4 hours each way from many parts of Virginia. There are a lot of areas with fewer LDS that are closer to other temples that are getting temples (Harford CT for one). Virginia will get a temple, but Virginia has kept the Washington DC temple going. I am an ordnance worker on Saturday mornings at the DC temple and we are very often bursting above capacity. With Philadelphia, it remains to be seen if that continues. While I would love a temple in the Richmond or Williamsburg area, I continue to suspect that the first Virginia temple may be in the Shenandoah near Roanoke or Buena Vista.

While it is true that Hong Kong is part of China, the laws in the Special Administrative Area of Hong Kong are vastly different from the rest of China. Hong Kong is still very much like a different country and we should not assume that just because the laws in Hong Kong allow freedom of religion that the rest of China is anything like that. All that happened with Hong Kong is that the colonial government changed from appointed by London to appointed by Beijing. It is no part of mainland China than it was part of the United Kingdom.

Anonymous said...

As much as I love new temples, my guess is that the announcements will slow down a bit. I could be wrong but, I would expect about 3-3.5 announcements on average per year for the foreseable future as the church spends resources maintaining existing temples and expanding other areas of the work such as family history, education, self reliance, etc.

Brett Stirling said...

@Gracie The Hong Kong Temple was approved, built and dedicated under British rule, not communist.

Eduardo said...

I would like to know how many permanent move-ins arrived at Nauvoo after they re-dedicated that temple.I know of one from California.
A temple in Southern Virginia would attract a few new arrivees as well. As much as Buena Vista could support a temple, I like the thought of a bigger community getting a temple and having more publicity. Then again, having been to the Apex or Raleigh Temple, it seems so secluded that not a lot of outsiders notice it. Dallas seemed like that when I visited it years ago, although maybe I'm confusing it with a chapel we dropped off an elder at in 1982.

Eduardo said...

Oh, be careful of bursting ordnances! Ordinances are better to do in the temple. Save bombs for the battlefields.
What is our closest temple to a war zone? Kiev?

Gracie said...

@Brett, @Mike Johnson, history of Hong Kong and its temple are not news.

Brett Stirling said...

@Gracie No,but it does give context for any impending temple announcements in China. The only temple to have been approved, built and dedicated under a communist regime is the Freiberg, Germany Temple. I disagree with your assertion of any new temples being built in China.

TempleRick said...

Is Chicago getting a second temple? ;) Here is a fun article about a downtown Chicago meetinghouse under construction that the author calls an LDS temple, even drawing comparisons between it and the St. George Utah Temple.

A couple of days later, the author get his terminology down better and provides some additional renderings. Beautiful building!

Fredrick said...

It really doesn't matter where a new temple in NW Arkansas is located, knowing the Church, they will call it something like the Ozark Valley Temple.

Mike Johnson said...

Gracie, I would love for some temple announcements in Mainland China. I just don't see that happening anytime soon and the post I made about current administrative systems of China and Hong Kong explains why.

TempleRick said...

@Gracie Wow, I'd love to see the architectural plans for the New Jerusalem Temple. Fascinating information and insights! Thanks for sharing.

John Pack Lambert said...

Only the membership requirement is lower outside the US than inside. Other requirements, such as active full-tithe paying Melchezidek Priesthood holders are the same. There are lots of wards in the US that could be split on just number but are not because they do not meet other requirements, so I doubt lowering the requirements could double the number of units.

I found this article about visitor's centers very insteresting. Especially the number percentage of converts who had visted visitors centers. Of course I have to admit that the study descriptions cause me to ask, when were these studies done, what time frame had the converts joined the Church in, and so forth.

I had realized that Rome and Sao Paulo were getting visitors centers, but not Paris and Frankfurt. The Church is majorly increasing the number of visitors centers outside the US. I am trying to think if there were ones beyond London, Hyde Park Chapel, Mexico City and New Zealand previously.

I would think Chile, Peru and Argentina could all have visitors centers. I am not sure if the old or the new Lima Temple would be better for a visitors center. I am also thinking a visitors center by the Johannesburg South Africa Temple and one in Australia would be good. Maybe I just dream too big though.

Kirtland a little over 10 years ago, and then Harmony, Pennsyvlania just over a year ago have been the major steps forward for visitors centers in the US.

Still, is there a visitors center in the US that is more south-east than Washington DC?

On another front related to Church growth here is an article on how the Perpetual Education Fund has been expanded into Self-reliance services From the article it is clear that by most measures the Church has improved in areas where the PEF and SRS have been implemented. The methods used to mix training in capentry and building homes in the wake of a natural disaster in the Philippines are quite exciting.

My stake, here in Michigan, actually began having a self-reliance services program in May, so the program has started to be implemented in the US.

John Pack Lambert said...

I have to admit that the failure of the Chicago blogger to admit his previous mistake is miscalling the location a temple is sad. He also fails to explain the differences between temples and chapels at all.

At one point the Wikipedia article on LDS Temples claimed there was one being built in Serbia based on an article that had used temple to describe a chapel the LDS Church was building in that country. It was removed but it does show the flaw in Wikipedia's treating 3rd party sources as the gold standard, when it is internal to an organization or religion sources that most often get the terminology right.

On the other hand there are Episcopal Diocese with under 2,000 members, so maybe the "a stake is like a diocese" line is not as bad as I normally call it out as. However the diocese people are most familiar with are Catholic ones. Catholic diocese are all over the map in membership numbers. The Salt Lake City Diocese has 291,000 Catholics in it. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brwnsville has over 1 million Catholics. There is no reasonable comparison between an LDS stake and a Roman Catholic diocese.

Gracie said...

@TempleRick, I'd love to see the plans too. It was 10 years ago that I was told they were already drawn up. Otherwise, there has been a lot of recorded visions of early church leaders and members that describe the city Zion and the New Jerusalem Temple. These are available to everyone; I'll only mention a few things because some of what is written is conflicting. If you read enough of them, there begins to be some agreement in some places: hewn grey stone with white joints, clusters of 4 spires at the corners (a matching detail given to the city walls), taller central spires over each of the 24 perimeter temples, with a double height center, some sources say the perimeter are arranged in a circle, but probably only because of the so-called dome at the center. I agree with the sources that describe the 24 temples as being in lines, 4 perimeter rows of 7 temples each - corners are shared - so 6 unique to each side; and, surrounded by a city that is also based on square plan blocks, each block walled. This temple will have the shadow at day and pillar at night that the Tabernacle had while Isreal moved in the wilderness, and will be security to the saints living there and troubling to other nations. This one, I think, is some time out but we'll see it anyway.

Brett Stirling said...

I would say that an Area is comparable to a Catholic Diocese.

David Todd said...

My prediction for temples based on region:

Utah: 1st- Lehi
Runner up- Layton
U.S.A. (except Utah): 1st- Bentonville AR
Runner up: Austin TX
Africa: 1st- Lagos Nigeria
Runner up- Praia Cape Verde
Latin America: 1st- Brasilia Brazil
Runner up- Managua Nicaragua
Everywhere else: 1st- Davao Philippines
Runner up- Ulaanbaatar Mongolia
Surprise pick- Tirana Albania

Matt said...

I think Lubumbashi, DR Congo is another likely candidate. There are three stakes and all three of them will likely divide in the next three years.

Alex said...

Considering that temples will be announced when they are further along, I anticipate that any temples announced would be ones that have been apparent previously and maybe not so much ones based upon projected growth (because those would be earlier in the temple planning process). So my thoughts:
Texas (I'd go with the Valley over Austin)
Outside US
I'd think somewhere between 0-3 temples announced.

Fredrick said...

Interesting list you have there David Todd:

I agree with everything except the runner up for another USA (outside Utah) temple would be Richmond, VA. There are 13 stakes in mid to southern VA that have no reasonable access to a temple. Traffic up to DC is the worst in the nation.

Austin is less than 80 miles from San Antonio. I don't think the area has enough stakes to justify a new temple - yet. Over time, the church will continue to grow and traffic between the two cities will worsen. Maybe in 10-15 years. Richmond seems like a much better candidate for a new temple. Jacksonville, FL as well but not as much as Richmond.

A dark horse / surprise pick would be Edinburgh or Glasgow, Scotland. Far enough from Preston and it would serve around 8 stakes.

David Todd said...

Scotland seems a good place. I chose Austin because both the Dallas and San Antonio districts are growing very fast. Fort Worth would have more stakes in a district, but is closer to an existing temple than Austin.

David Todd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Pack Lambert said...

The thing is an Austin Temple would only take maybe the Waco Stake from the Dallas Temple District. It might take one stake from Houston Temple as well.

Basically Dallas Texas Temple has 44,000 square feet to Las Vegas' Temples 80,000 square feet. Yet Dallas has 26 stakes in its temple district, Las Vegas has 27 stakes.

San Antonio has 16,000 square feet, with 18 stakes and two districts. However I am not sure square footage is the best thing to compare. I am thinking maybe if we could compare endowment room seating it would work better, but that would beg the question is a set-up with a progressive two room endowment really comparable to fixed one room, since you can overlap sessions in the later, but not quite fully.

Columbus Ohio has 10,700 square feet. It has 16 stakes. This includes Pittsburgh West and Pittsburgh North, but Pittsburgh stake is in the DC Temple district.

Looking at things I think the Washington DC Temple could have 3 new temples built to take away from it right now and still make it. It would require calling on people to step up their level of discipleship, but I think it is doable.

With the core 18 stakes, including Martinsburg in WV, Chambersburg in Pennsylvania and all the stakes in Maryland plus the 7 in the close DC suburbs, I think Washington DC Temple could continue to operate.

A Richmond Temple could be built with the 3 Richmond Stakes, the 3 stakes in the Norfolk Urban conglomeration area, and the Stafford and Fredericksburg Stakes. 8 stakes is clearly enough for a temple.

A Pittsburgh Temple would then take the Pittsburgh, Clarksburg and Altoona Stakes from the DC Temple as well as the Pittsburgh North, Pittsburgh West and Youngstown Stakes from the Columbus Temple.

In addition a Roanoke Temple would take in the Pembroke, Roanoke, Buena Vista, Buena Vista YSA and Waynesboro Stakes. This plan also leaves the Winchester Virginia Stake in the Washington DC Temple district. The Roanoke Temple would take the Kingsport Tennessee Stake from the Columbia South Carolina Temple. In addition 2 or 3 wards at the north end of the Greensboro North Carolina Stake might move as well.

Alex said...

@TempleRick, I am excited to see the new LDS chapel go up in downtown Chicago. I just moved from that area, and the 3 wards and a branch that will go there, currently attending church in a nearby school, will be very blessed by this new building.

Since the temple question came up, Chicago is nowhere near ready for another real temple yet. The Indy temple drained a lot of their strength, and last I checked the Chicago temple was not very busy. Except for twice in 4 years that I know of (both on stake temple days), I don't think I have ever seen a double digit number of people in even the evening and weekend endowment sessions in Chicago. This is a medium-size temple that has 5 endowment rooms and runs every hour, so it's not anywhere near capacity. Also a second temple would be no closer than Milwaukee (90 miles north), and probably further north or west in Wisconsin even than that, before any other temples in Chicago itself.

Nathanial said...

Thanks Mike for your insight. I think you hit on something that is commonly missing from these discussions, actually numbers. I have found that the Lord rewards his children who make an effort. If members are not attempting to attend the the temple or even have a temple recommend, they will not get a temple in their area. I am the Washington D.C. temple district, and I have only seen on session close to full. I was there Friday evening. It was the Kensington's Ward temple night. There only 24 people in the session. I would have thought people would have excited to get to the temple after it was closed for a month and a half for cleaning.

Mike Johnson said...

I am familiar mostly with the Washington DC Temple on Saturdays when I am there. We did have an extra "week off" because of conference.

Fridays are days many people do not like to travel in the DC area because traffic is so bad on Fridays and people have been saying for a few years that Thursdays are now the new Fridays indicating how bad traffic has become on Thursdays as well. And then the BYU football game Friday night may also have had an impact.

Saturdays tend to start with small sessions of 20 to 40, but then we often have to add one or two sessions to the schedule because of the number of patrons exceed room capacity even putting in extra chairs. We often see numbers like 600 to 700 patrons on our shift in endowment rooms. But we did lose 11 stakes in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey to Philadelphia and now have 34 stakes in the district.

Mike Johnson said...

The DC Temple district currently has 34 stakes with 265 wards and 61 branches.

These stakes are in 7 missions. Historically, there has been a 1-1 correlation between missions and area coordinating councils of the same name in the North America Northeast Area.

Maryland Baltimore (6 stakes with 41 wards and 9 branches) in the DC Temple district + 1 stake in the Philadelphia temple district
Washington DC North (5 stakes with 41 wards and 8 branches) in the DC Temple district
Washington DC South (7 stakes with 70 wards and 1 branches) in the DC Temple district
Pennsylvania Pittsburgh (2 stakes with 12 wards and 9 branches) in the DC Temple district + 5 stakes in 3 other temple districts
Virginia Richmond (6 stakes with 42 wards and 13 branches) in the DC Temple district
Virginia Chesapeake (3 stakes with 24 wards and 9 branches) in the DC Temple district + 2 stakes in the Raleigh temple district
West Virginia Charleston (5 stakes with 35 wards and 12 branches) in the DC Temple district + 2 stakes in 2 other temple districts

One would think that a new stake could be created in the DC South Mission, with a current average of 10 wards in each of the 7 stakes.

The fact that the Pennsylvania Pittsburg Mission stakes are divided 4-ways by temples (2 in Columbus Ohio; 2 in Washington DC; 2 in Philadelphia Pennsylvania; and 1 in Palmyra New York) does suggest that a temple should be built there at some point.

4 of the 5 West Virginia Charleston stakes in the DC temple district are Virginia stakes (Buena Vista, Buena Vista YSA, Roanoke, and Pembroke)

Craig said...

I'd like to add two temples to the long-shot list that are not on Matt's list: McAllen Texas USA and Torreon Mexico.

John Pack Lambert said...

Well, it looks like it will not be until April that another temple is announced at the earliest, although Trujillo Peru Temple was announced on December 13, 2008, and going back further there are other examples of not at Conference announcements.

Especially since the annoucement would have most likely been done during the Sunday sessions, which are moving into the night almost to Monday for places like Kenya and I think even more so in Asia, if there is plans to announce a temple in Asia, Africa or Europe the 1st presidency may have put it off. I still don't expect an anouncement of new temples until at least April.

I do hope a few more dedication dates will be firm by then, and hopefully groundbreakings on a few more temples.

The Mount Vernon Virginia Stake alone has 13 wards. True, 2 are YSA and one is single adult. I still think it could be split outright. Woodbridge Stake just to the south-west has 9 wards, so that could allow for some combination. Ashburn Stake has 12 wards, and is just to the north of Centreville Stake with 10 wards. I think it might be possilbe to get 2 new stakes in the DC South Mission area of Virginia.

Eduardo said...

The Mount Vernon Stake baptizes better than the other DC South stakes (47 as of August) while Centreville is in second this year with 34. Ashburn is last with 18 as of August. Now that the new Stafford Stake broke off I expect the Mount Vernon numbers to lower.
The question remains: where to put the new stake center? Chantilly?

Nathanial said...

Mike thanks for the insight. The traffic was a little worse than I normally experience Friday night for the Washington metro area, but nothing to write home about. The church has numbers of not only temple recommend holders, but temple attendance and submitting names for the temple.

Eduardo, if a new stake center is built in Chantilly I would like that because it would mean my stake (Oakton) would be involved in a split. The church has land near the Dulles Tollway for a building, but the plans are that more than one stake will be using the building.

One issue of ward and stake size in the Washington metro area is finding places to build churches. People who know me, know that I would advocate for smaller wards (~150 active members), but I also know that there are many factors that I am not aware of.

Eduardo said...

Before the Tall Cedars Ward was finished two years ago Ashburn and Centreville shared the Westfield chapel. Both chapels are pretty new. I suggested a new chapel purchase in Sterling to stake leaders but they say "nothing in North America is being built newly" because of growth in West Africa.

Cory said...

I think there could still be be 200 operating temple by 2030. All that needs to happen is an average of 3 temple announcements every year for the next 8 years. That would but us at 200 operating or announced by 2024. I think this could be reasonable and all these temples could be finished by 2030. I think they more will come in April.

Mike Johnson said...

Eduardo, 3 stakes shared that meeting house just south of Dulles Airport, including the Oakton Stake. The meeting house on Willard Road in Chantilly still hosts the Centreville 1st and Fair Oaks wards from two stakes. A meeting house shared by 3 stakes was quite a novelty.

There are meeting houses being built in the North America areas but there needs to be shown that there is no additional capacity in nearby meeting houses. There are four wards in the Ashburn Stake Center, but there are two in the Stirling Park building and only one in the Tall Cedars building. The Brambleton Ward could easily meet in the Tall Cedars building. With nearby capacity, I can see that the stake would have difficulty getting approval for a sixth building.

I feel the same way and believe that the stake should have another building in the Hartwood area. But, the anticipated division of the Hartwood ward likely will put a third ward in our building. A few years ago we did a fill study on our meeting house. Our concern is parking, where both wards meeting in the building use at least 60% of the parking so overlap isn't possible--the last time overlap was used the cars were part along the roads and the county expressed concern. There were three wards meeting in the building at the time and they had to go to non-overlapping times (8:00, 11:30, 3:00). When the Stafford building was completed, this eased up. However, the two wards became so large that an hour and a half was used between services, until the ward was divided (3 wards became 4) and the new ward met in the new Stafford building. We may yet again need to go to three non-overlapping wards in our building.

Eduardo said...

Where is the Hartwood area? I recommended a chapel for sale to some Ashburn Stake leaders close to NOVA in Sterling on Potomac View but I don't know if that was close to where Church wishes to expand in Northern Virginia.

Mike Johnson said...

Hartwood is along US 17 west of I 95.

How big was the chapel? 70% of protestant churches have weekly attendance of less than 70 people and the chapels are quite small.

Mike Johnson said...

>>>Now that the new Stafford Stake broke off I expect the Mount Vernon numbers to lower.

Eduardo, I am not sure why the creation of the Stafford Stake would have any impact on the baptisms in the Mount Vernon Stake. We haven't been in the same mission for years now. The Stafford area has never been in the Mount Vernon Stake.ii

Eduardo said...

Oh right, I guess I was thinking of the Woodbridge Stake, and maybe they didn't lose any units to make the new Stafford Stake. With the mission swap and then the new stake I got mixed up. Good to hear that the numbers are still up and possibly higher as the DC area keeps growing. Thanks for the correction. I hope you guys keep baptizing and growing.

John Pack Lambert said...

In Kalamazoo Michigan there is an LDS Chapel that used to be a Protestant Church. However that is the one used by the Kalamazoo student branch, so a smaller size works.

One advantage to using existing Church buildings is that there is less potential for need to rezone and community opposition.

On the note of parking on streets, there are Protestant Churchs in Detroit where all parking is done on the streets and there is no parking lot at all. More common though are churches where the parking lot is across the street from the building.

All LDS chapels in the city of Detroit on the other hand have gates across the parking lot entrance.

Mike Johnson said...

All units in both the Stafford and the (current) Fredericksburg stakes were previously in the (old) Fredericksburg stake.

When I first lived in the Mount Vernon stake (1989-96), we have five wards and a branch. We lived in California from 1996 to 1998 and about that time two wards from the (then) Fredericksburg stake (Lake Ridge 1st and 2nd) were moved into the Mount Vernon stake. We moved back to the area and to Lake Ridge and were in the Mount Vernon Stake from 1998 to 2001. We then moved to Nevada and while we were there, the two Lake Ridge wards and the wards in the Fredericksburg stake in Prince William County were combined into the Woodbridge stake. At that point, I think there were 6 wards in the Woodbridge stake in two buildings. Today there are 9 wards in the Woodbridge stake in three buildings.

Meanwhile, the Mount Vernon stake in the same area were we once had 5 wards (4 family and 1 single adult) and 1 Spanish branch now has 13 wards. We had two buildings in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the stake and now there are 4 buildings.

One possibility in northern Virginia would be the creation of a singles stake and a Spanish stake. Each would have six wards:

Braddock YSA Ward from Annandale
Shenandoah YSA Ward from Ashburn
Langley YSA Ward from McLean
Colonial YSA 1st Ward from Mount Vernon
Colonial YSA 2nd Ward from Mount Vernon
Potomac Ward (Single Adult) from Mount Vernon

Little River Ward (Spanish) from Annandale
Sudley Ward (Spanish) from Centreville
Bella Vista Ward (Spanish) from McLean
Old Town Ward (Spanish) from Mount Vernon
Spring Lake Ward (Spanish) from Oakton
Potomac River Ward (Spanish) from Woodbridge

This would leave the existing stakes with the following number of wards:
Annandale Virginia Stake: 6 wards
Ashburn Virginia Stake: 11 wards
Centreville Virginia Stake: 9 wards and 1 branch
McLean Virginia Stake: 7 wards
Mount Vernon Virginia Stake: 9 wards
Oakton Virginia Stake: 8 wards
Woodbridge Virginia Stake: 8 wards

North of the Potomac, there are more singles and Spanish units:

Spa Creek Branch (Spanish) from Annapolis
Gaithersburg 2nd Ward (Spanish from Seneca
Olney 2nd Ward (Spanish) from Seneca
Glenmont Ward (Spanish) from Silver Spring
Silver Spring Ward (Spanish) from Silver Spring
Washington DC 1st Ward (Spanish) from Washington DC
Mount Pleasant Branch (Spanish) from Washington DC

Gaithersburg YSA Branch from Seneca
Glenn Dale YSA Ward from Silver Spring
Washington DC YSA 2nd Ward from Washington DC

Of course, traffic might make it difficult to have stakes with units north and south of the Potomac.

Mike Johnson said...

>>> Also the requirement for a ward in the US is a lot hight, than in outside (US&Cananda) 300 compared to 150 members on record. If the requirement would be the same, you might be able to double the wards in the US and that would dwarf the wards outside the US. I don't know why they have different requirements for wards and stakes in the (US and Canada) and the rest of the world.

Miro, the other requirement for a ward is 15 active full-tithe-paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders and that is the same both inside a North America area or in a non-North America area. Lower the member of record requirement from 300 to 150 would result in some more wards, but would not double the number of wards. There are areas with 500 to 900 members per ward and it wouldn't increase the number of wards in that case.

I don't know why the difference HB 1 didn't explain why the difference. It could be that there is more mobility in the US and Canada than in many other countries, with the possibility of lots of people moving into or out of an area quickly. But, I don't know.

Johnathan Reese Whiting said...

A branch in Corydon, Indiana, meets in an old Church of the Nazarene building that was purchased and fixed up by the LDS Church. The building has a gravel parking lot in back, a Protestant church-style marquee, and a cross over the doorway on the front facade. Back during my mission 12 years ago, the relatively small Corydon branch met there, but I believe a Spanish branch meets there now, as well.

215 W Chestnut St, Corydon, IN 47112

Johnathan Reese Whiting said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miro said...

@Mike Johnson
Yes the 15 active full-tithe-paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders (FTPMPH)is the same. I still think that in the US most ward with over 300 members on record have 30 more active FTPMPH. In my stake all the ward's have between 29 and 45 active MPH. In my experience as a ward finacial clerk nearly all of them pay full tithing. The wards in my stake have between 190 and 320 members on record. I cannot imagine that there would be a big difference in the US. The activity rate is similar or higher in the US.

I did not say, that if the requerement of the US and outside would be the same, that there would be twice as many ward's in the US, but that there could and they would still fullfil the minimum requriment for a ward. In my stake there are 2 ward with more than 300 members on record and more than 40 active MPH, but i would still say that they are far away from beeing split. And i think it is good that they are not.

A friend of mine, that works for the church in Frankfort, told be that they plan on splitting ward in europe, when attendance reaches 230. When they discuss the discontinuatoin of stakes or wards (or downgrading) the main concern is, that the minimum requirement of members on record is not fullfiled anymore.

In my opionion it would be better, if there would be a requirment of a miminum of acitve members (or attendance) than for members on record. (there propabli is, but it is not writen in the handbook)

Mike Johnson said...

mira, true there are a lot of wards that could be created. In my stake, I would guess that we would go from 7 wards and a branch to probably 10-11 wards and the branch.

There are a lot of wards in the US with 600-700 members. If they had 30 or more active full-tithe paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders my guess is they would be split.

I wonder if the process for splitting the two wards you mention is already happening. To create a ward and call a bishop it takes First Presidency action and that takes time.

Mike Johnson said...

The process of splitting a ward is not automatic of course. The stake decides whether they would like to realign and create new wards, but they don't have to. It may be that leadership is not thought to be ready for new wards, even if the criteria are available. Such judgement calls may be made at both the stake and the First Presidency level and although criteria are provided, ultimately, the stake, the area leadership, and First Presidency need to be comfortable with it.

Johnathan Reese Whiting said...

@Nathan Winder and others interested:

Cool article about Iranian and Afghan refugees converting to Christianity in Germany:

Bryansb1984 said...

Cheyenne Wyoming Stake
Cheyenne Wyoming Stake
Cheyenne Wyoming East Stake
Laramie Wyoming Stake (12 wards)
Casper Wyoming Stake (12 wards)

99 said...

A few possible additions:

Iquitos Peru (3 stakes)
Antananarivo Madagascar (2 stakes 3 districts)
Antofagasta Chile (7 stakes 2 districts)
Santa Cruz de la Sierra Bolivia (9 stakes 2 districts)
Cali Bogota (5 stakes 3 districts)
Guayana City Venezuela (9 stakes 2 districts)
Comodoro Rivadavia/Trelew Argentina or Punta Arenas Chile (4 stakes 5 districts)
Salta Argentina (7 stakes 3 districts)
Osaka Japan (6 stakes 2 districts)
Torreon Mexico (8 stakes 3 districts)
McAllen Texas or Reynoso Mexico (7 stakes 2 districts)
Legazpi Philippines (4 stakes 7 districts)

*This is in no regard to the degree of active members/recommend holders in each stake. I don't think I have access to such statistics. Perhaps the ones like Iquitos and Antananrivo would be super mini-temples as made during President Hickley's presidency. These seem very small amount of temple district but in consideration of the existing temples with 4 or less total units:
Adelaide Australia Temple District=3 stakes 1 district
Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple District=2 stakes 2 districts
Kona Hawaii Temple=4 stakes (Hawaii's size is noted)
Montreal Quebec Temple=4 stakes
Perth Australia Temple=4 stakes
Copenhagen Denmark Temple=3 stakes
Regina Saskatchewan Temple=3 stakes
Halifax Nova Scotia Temple=2 stakes

David said...

@Jonathan Whiting - that small branch in Corydon is now the Corydon 1st Ward, as of mid-November 2016. The boundaries were realigned to add some members with the hopes of getting a new building in the near future. And yes, they still share the building with the Corydon 2nd (Spanish) Branch. I was in the 1st Branch/Ward for the last 3 years and just recently moved out.

Johnathan Reese Whiting said...

That's good to hear. Did the boundary change take in some of the Old English Ward?
When I served there, we only had one Hispanic member - Edgardo - much less a Spanish-language branch.
Did the growth in the Spanish branch occur mostly due to move-ins, or a combination of move-ins and converts?