Today, President Nelson announced plans to construct 18 new temples in the following locations:
- Busan, Korea
- Naga, Philippines
- Santiago, Philippines
- Eket, Nigeria
- Chiclayo, Peru
- Buenos Aires City Center, Argentina
- Londrina, Brazil
- Riberão Prêto, Brazil
- Huehuetenango, Guatemala
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Grand Rapids, Michigan
- Prosper, Texas
- Lone Mountain, Nevada
- Tacoma, Washington
- Cuernavaca, Mexico
- Pachuca, Mexico
- Toluca, Mexico
- Tula, Mexico
With these 18 temples announced, this brings the total number of temples planned or dedicated to 300.
I will provide further analysis in the coming days regarding these announcements.
We got 8 this time, the rest came out of nowhere, although it is known that Mexico City is badly congested, the freeways have difficult traffic issues also. (same reason Sao Paulo East was announced and one other here today).
ReplyDeleteGrand Rapids, Michigan! We have been fasting and praying, and today our prayers were answered.
ReplyDeleteThere is a 20 acre church owned site in Northwest Las Vegas near Lone Mountain Park. I think its safe to say that is the site for this Temple.
ReplyDeletehttps://maps.clarkcountynv.gov/openweb/?@740641,26792298,4
John Pack Lambert is going to lose his mind in happiness with Grand Rapids, good for him.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful my hometown will receive a long-doubted second temple. I'm very curious how close to Lone Mountain the land the Church purchased is; I always figured the second temple would be in Summerlin somewhere. Perhaps a distant fourth temple in Summerlin then, after what will certainly be the third somewhere in west Henderson.
Also, a second in Vegas, a second in Buenos Aires, a third in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro, and 3-6 in the greater Mexico City area. Very clear direction coming now on multiple temples in big metros. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next few conferences add additional temples to the greater areas of Houston, TX; Lima, Peru; Phoenix, AZ (Queen Creek and maybe one out west in Surprise?); Bay Area (San Jose, CA); Southern California (maybe somewhere in the Inland Empire?); the entire Utah corridor; Treasure Valley (Nampa/Caldwell, ID); Colorado Springs, CO; another couple in big Brazil cities, another to relieve Manila in the Philippines, and I'm sure some I'm still missing. Really exciting stuff.
John Pack Lambert, we rejoice with you for a 2nd temple in Michigan. I had to look on the map for Lone Mountain NV. That seems to satisfy a 2nd temple for Las Vegas metro area. It looks relatively close to Sumerlin that some people had guessed. 18 new temples that brings the total to 300.
Delete@Cory that is almost certainly the place. Very recent land purchase too. But I think that's a good spot, pretty easy access to the 215 and not too close to the mountain that NIMBYs will complain.
ReplyDeleteThe Las Vegas temple was not placed in a good location. It is far from the freeways. The Lone Mountain Temple will certainly be a blessing to the Las Vegas area.
ReplyDeleteI gave an involuntary gasp at the announcement of the Grand Rapids, Michigan temple. This is where I served my mission and I'm so excited for the blessings of the temple to come closer to the people I love there.
ReplyDeleteJPL lives in Detroit, which already has a temple.
ReplyDeleteREALLY surprised about Prosper TX. I had to look at the Google Earth map again just to make sure that it was the same Prosper that I knew 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteIt is like NIGHT AND DAY what has happened there. Prosper probably had one stoplight at 380 and Preston and that was it back then. The Tollway only went to the 121 highway (which was two lanes at the time) and now it goes to Prosper (and the construction is ongoing to Celina).
Now I know that everyone from Plano northwards will be happy because that means they don't have to contend with the notorious traffic going down Stemmons, DNT, Preston, or Central. There's a fair number of stakes there so that temple is easily justified.
There's a stake in Prosper now! When I moved here 11 years ago there was just one ward. We are averaging a new ward every other year or so - mostly move-ins.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, the announcement was still ENTIRELY unexpected. Very excited!!
Morbid, but my Mom was commenting how Nelson seemed particularly emotional when saying goodbye at the end of the session. Considering that he announced the 300th temple of the church, and that the pandemic is finally waning, my Mom suggested that Nelson might consider his tenure as prophet fulfilled. Obviously pure conjecture, but still interesting to think about
ReplyDeleteAt his age (98) he may be considering the possibility that it could be his last Conference. He may not know, himself.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else notice that the official press release omitted Bahia Blanca from the list of temples in Argentina?
ReplyDelete@twinnumerouno
DeleteYes, I noticed that too. That is likely just a mistake from the Newsroom staff when the article was created. I've seen occasional similar things before in recent prior press releases of new temple announcements. Usually they are corrected pretty quick. Hopefully it is updated soon.
I actually found that President Nelson looked like he was in very good shape, especially today. That said, with six months until next conference and him closing in on the centennial mark, this doesn't mean much. Several of my older relatives who have passed away over the years made allusions to them knowing that it was their time to go. I believe there is some capacity in humans (especially those battling disease and disability late in life) to see the end coming, but I doubt that this is something that would have been revealed to him with certainty. Unless, of course, he is ill and doctors have given him a certain time horizon to live that is far less than six months. But even then this is not always accurate. I would not interpret too much into this and I am grateful that for now, we have President Nelson with us. President Oaks or whoever will be next in line to follow him after his passing will do just as well and will likely stay the course we have entered. I don't believe there is a way to step back from significant progress in building temples around the world.
ReplyDeleteOn the temples, I have frankly no deep personal connection to any of the locations. I am unsure about the trend of announcing multiple new temples in one metropolitan area when there are still vast numbers of stakes throughout the Church far removed from temples. I would have loved to hold off on this for a few years and fill the obvious gaps (we know what they are). For such a large number of new temples announced, I am slightly disappointed, but I know I should not be.
With all due respect to those who have expressed some concerns about President Nelson's health or lifespan, his tearing up while announcing temples is no more a sign that he's on his way out than the fact that he was seated during his remarks is a sign that he's on his way out. I addressed the sitting down issue in a previous thread, so won't rehash that here, but unless I'm mistaken, if you go back and rewatch any or all of the announcement videos for new temples on the Newsroom, more often than not, he's been tearing up over new temple announcements since at least the onset of the pandemic.
ReplyDeleteNewsflash: Some people tear up when they are feeling the Spirit really strongly (case in point: President Eyring, who appears to be in better health in contrast to his wife, of whom he spoke this afternoon, but he's teared up often when speaking, which can also be verified), and announcing new temples has always been a high point of being the Lord's prophet. GA Seventies 30 or 40 years his junior have said he is hard to keep up with. So I'm hard-pressed to believe he is on his way out, and that's why I commented on the issue of his sitting down in the threads of the previous post. Yes, President Nelson is old, but he's the youngest 98 year-old in the Church. Few can keep up with him, even on his bad days, and, as I noted in the previous thread, the sitting down was probably solely on the advice of his physician. I would respectfully caution all of us to not make any more or less of this than it is.
That being said, I've shared my own analysis on the temple announcements on my blog, so anyone here who may be interested in my thoughts on that can find them in the following post:
ReplyDeletehttps://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2022/10/breaking-temple-news-prophet-announces.html
Matt, thanks for providing the initial report. I look forward to your more thorough analysis in the coming week(s). And with 74 announced temples in the queue now, hopefully some of those construction methods President Nelson mentioned can be used to clear the queue more quickly.
I can't be happy. My new temple was announced in Ribeirão Preto, but the Brazilian elections today were a disaster, especially in parliament. The General Conference speeches focused on seeking happiness in the midst of adversity, but I can't see a future for Brazil far from fascism, as has been the case in Italy recently. I feel like Daniel in the days of Nebuchadnezzar's tyranny.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things jump out to me.
ReplyDelete1) There are no *new* countries in this group of temples (and I'd *really* have to look to find out the last time that happened.
2) A *very* high number of these temples are second/third/... in the same metropolitan areas, with the high point of that being four temples announced that I think will be the third-sixth in Mexico city and its suburbs.
3) None in Utah
I don't know the geography in places like the Philippines and Brazil, but I'm not sure if any of these are relatively remote from other places in the country. The only one that really struck me as "stretching the coverage area" in a country is Busan Korea which would be *anyone*'s guess (LDS, nonLDS, aliens who could read a population map of the planet) for the second temple in the Philippines (distance from Seoul to Busan is about 85% of the maximum distance between two points in the Philippines and Busan is the second largest city in South Korea.
So by Region:
3 in Asia/Pacific
1 in Africa
9 in Latin America
5 in the USA.
President Nelson showed that clip, the whole 3 Nephi 8-11 video came out immediately after the conference was over.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN4s5f6H-Ik
The only one that was a real surprise for me was Prosper, Texas. But having been to DFW two years ago, it is likely the same logic as the temples near Mexico City. It's a traffic issue. The Dallas, Texas temple will still do well for Dallas and the south east portions of the metro. But the new temples in the area will spare the Fort Worth and North Dallas areas from the trouble of traffic. Have to wonder how many other US metros will get the same benefit.
ReplyDeleteLA, for example could see temples in Simi Valley and San Fernando to help with the traffic of getting to Westwood. San Jose and San Rafael would help in the Oakland area. Vancouver, Washington would help with Portland. In addition to Tacoma, a temple Everett or Maryville would help with the traffic in the Seattle area. Not only Queen Creek in Maricopa Valley, but perhaps Glendale as well. There are perhaps others that I could mention.
President Hinckley closed the April 2002 Conference with "God be with you 'til we meet again", but he lived about six more years - making it to 97. I'm not about to speculate about the "old age truck" here. President Nelson may have vigor, but he is 98 so anything could happen. President Oaks seems to be doing well for 90 as well.
ReplyDeleteBrother Moretti, I'm not too worried about the future of the Church in Brazil or Italy. In both cases it's just one election. (And in Italy - I served my mission there - typically a government put in after an election will collapse after about a year, after which they'll have a coalition government for another year until they have another election. Even on state TV they joke about politics.) Remember that the Church flourished in the Philippines under Marcos, and in Chile under Pinochet, and both of them eventually left office.
As for new temples in metro areas that already have them, there's known demand, and to expand the existing temples would take them down for a year or more, and they wouldn't be any closer to outlying areas. You have to look at the big picture with the 118 or so temples President Nelson has announced. Some are in what planners call "edge cities" (I majored in planning but never really practiced) but others serve whole countries with just one or two stakes.
Busan is overdue. I don't know enough about the Philippines or Brazil to analyze the new temples there. Most of the others announced I hadn't really thought about, but they seem to make sense. (I've been to the Las Vegas temple site - it seems to be up in the hills so that the lights from the Strip(s) don't drown out its light. The dedicatory prayer even says something about that.)
Daniel, democratic countries are going through some hard times, sure. Russia and Turkiye (spelling changed) have gone a lot more autocratic. While Italy and Brazil may have some right leaning executives in power, I still think that both countries are pretty free and there is a lot of growth and prosperity. As believers on Jesus we should not put all our hopes and faith in earthly governments, but it is frustrating or downright scarry when people and groups do things in the extreme, things that do not represent our hopes and standards.
ReplyDeleteI could see people of South Bend and northern Indiana choosing to go to Grand Rapids instead of Chicago or Indianapolis, potentially. Hopefully some of the Upper Peninsula will be better served. The new temple in Nigeria is cool. I hope all these places will help serve the kingdoms on both sides of the veil.
Some remote spots will have a hard time getting temples, admittedly. Like southern Patagonia, it would be hard to coordinate the schedules there.
I still think a ship or even an airplane or large bus could be converted to give a temple experience for people in far off places, but that is a bit radical.
Great to see the increases in Mexico and Philippines. And everywhere.
A large tent wouldn’t be too radical.
DeleteI was very surprised by:
ReplyDeleteProsper, Texas, USA
Huehuetenango, Guatemala
Toluca, Mexico
Tula, Mexico
Anyone have any insight?
Sure. Prophets see what we cannot see. And they are tasked with preparing for the Church's future needs. As President Nelson stated, several temples will be needed in major metropolitan areas. And to paraphrase Field of Dreams: "If the Church builds temples, the people will come."
DeleteIn the last days, temples are needed more than ever before, and the need to be in the temple more regularly will be almost as great as our need to remain living inside our temple covenants. With all of that in mind, the only truly surprising thing is that we continue to be surprised by any temple announcement.
We have received yet another witness that the Lord's ways and thoughts are higher than ours. In the MCU movie Doctor Strange, when the titular character tells the Ancient One that what she's saying doesn't make sense, her response seems apropos in this case: "Not everything does. Not everything has to." Does that help?
Heard elsewhere that the search 'Prosper, Texas' blew up Google. Someone found out how to look up what searches are popular and discovered that.
ReplyDeleteDFW is said to be the size of Connecticut, but entirely urban for the most part, this could easily be a test area now for multiple metro area temples. Phoenix has the East Valley concentration but then the Phoenix temple was built. Yes to an eventual northwest or even southwest Phoenix area temple, Goodyear, Buckeye, El Mirage and Surprise are significant growth areas now that the 303 is being built out and an extension to another proposed freeway is in the works.
I love being surprised at the amount and different places of temples which are announced at each conference. It is important to remember that there are obviously many different reasons as to both where and when a certain temple is announced. Some of those reasons we can likely deduce, others are unknown to us. And others are likely only known to the prophet himself.
ReplyDeleteEchoing similar thoughts of others, I have to say that the biggest surprises to me were Eket, Prosper, Toluca, and Tula. I'm not particularly surprised at more temples in Nigeria, Texas and Mexico, more so it was a city I hadn't anticipated.
Naga and Santiago seem to help fill the two biggest gaps that were remaining in the Philippines, although I am sure there will be more in the years ahead. Ditto to Brazil and Mexico, as both have now had multiple temples announced in subsequent conferences.
Looking closer at it, the Prosper Temple will likely serve 6-7 stakes in the north Dallas area, along with bringing a temple closer to the Sherman stake. Based on the reports of growth, it seems like this temple is also being built in anticipation of more future growth. There will likely be additional stakes created by the time the temple is built. I have several family members that have moved to somewhere right in that area in the past few years, so it was cool hearing a temple announced near to where they live.
As some have indicated, I was flooded with joy at Grand Rapids getting a temple. Yes, I live in the city of Detroit. My Detroit raised wife (I was raised out in Sterling Heights in the north suburbs) thinks it is odd the Detroit Temple is called that when it is all the way out in Bloomfield Hills. I dream of the day there is a temple within the city limits of Detroit, but that day is still afar off. Still, I was very overjoyed that Grand Rapids is getting a temple.
ReplyDeleteEket is only 14 miles from Ikot Eyo, which I have at times suggested for a temple. Ekot Iyo is the place the widely distributed picture of Elder Ted Cannon baptizing a whole line of close to 100 people at once is from. If you look at that picture closely you will notice two brethren standing off to the side of the line. Those are men who had been baptized a week or two sooner, and are the witnesses for the baptism. Considering how many stakes are in the South South region of Nigeria, where Aba Temple is, Eket getting a temple is not surprising. Akwa Ibom state has the most stakes of any state of Nigeria, but no temple announced (although it borders Abia state, and Aba is in the south of Abia state so also close to Akwa Ibom and Rivers states, Rivers State is where Port Harcourt is). Eket has by some estimates over 200,000 people, so it seems a good choice. The distance calculator I used puts it at 81 miles from Eket to the Aba Nigeria Temple.
Not only did the Philippines get 2 new temples announced, which I think has never happened both at the same conference before, but they were both on Luzon. I do not believe any land mass less massive that Australia has had 2 temples announced at the same time before.
ReplyDeleteNaga is in the far south of Luzon. This was one of the largest gaps in temple coverage in the Philippines. Santiago is further north than any announced temple, although there still are areas quite a bit further north than it.
Tacoma makes sense, even if on the temple bracket I went with Olympia.
The list I posted in the temple predictions thread with 18 temples only had 3 right. Busan, South Korea; Grand Rapids Michigan and Chiclayo, Peru. My predictive power was not used very well.
ReplyDeleteBusan does not surprise me. South Korea has a good number of members, and a longer history with the Church than many places. President Nelson was there for part of the Korean War.
Chiclayo may well be the city with the most stakes that did not yet have a temple at least announced.
Grand Rapids, with Michigan having gotten 2 new stakes in the last 2 years seemed likely.
Jacksonville does not surprise me. It has 3 stakes and a few more not too far. Jacksonville stake when formed in 1947 was the only stake south of Washington DC Stake in the eastern US, and only Chicago and New York City east of the Mississippi had stakes as well. There was not even a stake in Texas then, although El Paso was in the Thatcher Arizona Stake.
Prosper, Texas totally threw me initially, and still surprises me a little, since the Dallas Texas Temple is to the north side of Dallas. However there has been so much growth north of the city limits, and so much traffic, that I do see why this is being done. I have to admit I had thought that the Dallas Temple was outside Dallas proper to the north, but it is actually within the city limits of Dallas, or at least its address is Dallas. Especially wih Fort Worth Temple not even started, I had not expected another temple for Metro-Dallast so soon.
Lone Mountain, Nevada still surprises me a little. Las Vegas Temple is over 80,000 square feet, and Las Vegas area is not super large, but President Nelson has a vision to make temples more used and closer to people.
I think back in the spring someone very viciously attacked my idea that they might announced 2 more temples for Mexico City and said it would never happen. That was before April conference, so since then 5 temples have been announced.
Elsewhere I did say I thought Buenos Aires would be the next place to have a second temple announced, I was right on that.
I believe Londrina was in my Dad's mission. He was in the Sao Paulo South mission. He was in Sorocaba which I think is somewhat close to Londrina. He was also in President Pridente, and Apucaran. He was also in Santo which had a temple announced in April of this year, and in Maua in metro Sao Paulo. Curitiba was also in his mission. He was there 1972-1974 so there was not even yet a temple in Sao Paulo.
We have now gone a whole year since a new temple was announced for Utah and 6 months since a new temple was announced for a country that did not have one. Still Utah has 11 planned temples, plus 3 under renovation and 2 more planned for renovation. Mexico, the country with the most temples in planning or construction outside the US, has 10 planned temples. Brazil I believe has 9 and the Philippines have 8, so Utah still leads.
With there now being 300 temples in some stage, the number of temples is now closing in on the number of missions. There are of course missions with multiple temples, such as Massachusetts Boston Mission, Columbus Ohio Mission, Reno Nevada Mission, and some in Utah and Idaho,as well as Farmington New Mexico Mission and I believe Tucson Mission has both Tucson and Gila Valley Temples, and there are a few in Canada, and only 1 mission in Samoa which has a second temple on the way. There are other examples.
ReplyDeleteStill Florida now has 1 temple per mission. Georgia has I believe 2 missions, but they are both Metro Atlanta. It would be interesting to plot what missions do not yet have a temple announced and look at that as a possible guide to where now temples may be announced. Some will probably not have a temple announced any time soon, but others may in fact be close to having a temple announced.
Some interesting choices there, looks like some needed areas are getting filled in.
ReplyDeleteStill surprising to me that there are several U.S. states w/o any temples yet, viz.:
South Dakota (Rapid City or Sioux Falls?)
Wisconsin (Milwaukee the obvious choice)
Iowa (Des Moines or Cedar Rapids?)
Mississippi
W. Virginia
Maryland
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
In addition to a few notable cities (including a few state capitals) lacking temples in states that have one already, e.g.:
Albany NY
Charlotte NC
Cincinnati
Springfield IL
Topeka KS
Lincoln NB
Flagstaff AZ
As far as Utah goes, iirc, there was a temple announced for Bluffdale / Herriman (SW valley) some years ago but I can't seem to find any updates on it so maybe it's need was obviated by other recent temples in the area like Draper and Oquirrh Mountain
The same day the Oquirrh Mountain temple was announced by President Hinkley, he said that property also also acquired for a future temple in the Southwest part of the valley. Offered thanks to developers for property in the west and southwest parts of the valley the first of which will be built in the so-called Daybreak development (Oquirrh Mountain temple). The second one never got an official announcement. See Ensign November 2005. October 2005 General Conference.
ReplyDeleteMaryland has a temple. The Washington DC Temple is in Maryland.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure Milwaukie is the obvious choice for Wisconsin. Milwaukie is very close to the Chicago Temple. Although if The Dallas Metroplex can get 3 temples, a temple for Milwaukie seems more likely.
However if there is a Milwaukie Temple, it would probably be built south of the city proper, to take in at least one metro Chicago Stake. This would also mean that there would probably be a temple announced for somewhere else in Wisconsin as well. After the temples announced for Tula, Toluca, Pachuca and Cuernavaca, I could easily see a Milwaukie Temple, but I expect one for elsewhere in Wisconsin too.
I am thinking that a Cincinatti Temple would be built farily north of the city to clearly take in the 3 Dayton stakes as well.
New Jersey, Rhode Island and Delaware also lack temples.
Maine is the only state that does not have a temple in an adjacent state.
In Brazil Sao Paulo state now has 2 temples with 3 more announced, and Parana State just had a second announced. Santa Catarina State, which is where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organized its first congregation in Brazil, is the furthest south state in Brazil lacking a temple. I really think Florianopolis will have one announced in the spring.
I wonder if either Brazil or Mexico will have temples in all states in the near future. I would be a little surprised. Canada having a temple in all Provinces also does not seem likely any time soon. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundand and Labrodor still lack stakes.
Tula is right by San Marcos, the place where Rafael Monroy and Vincente Morales were killed by revolutionaries in 1915 in part because they would not denounce the Church. Rafael Monroy was in some ways killed because he was a well off middle class type, but Vicente Morales was an Otomi who barely spoke Spanish, so his killing made no sense to most revolutionaries.
Brother Monroy was the branch president and Brother Morales was his counselor. Brother Monroy operated a large scale ranch, Morales worked on his staff. I also believe Morales wife was Monroy's cousin.
Hugo Montoya who spoke in conference (he is the one who mentioned shoveling snow) is a great grandson of Rafael Monroy. Elder Montoya was born in California, and raised in Caborca, a city not too far from Nogales and the Arizona border. Caborca still only has a district. If it and Nogales could progess to stakes I would be more confident in Ciudad Obregon soon getting a temple.
The first ethnic stake president in Mexico was Agricol Lozano Herrara. He was born and raised in San Marcos, where his father Agricol Lozano Bravo was a branch president. In the mid 1990s A. Lozano H. and his wife presided over the Mexico City Temple for 4 years. That was when the Mexico City Temple was the only one in Mexico. There was a large scale conference in Mexico where President Hinckley heaped praise on Brother Lozano. Elder Nelson may have been at it, for some of the years in the mid-1990s Elder Nelson has the specific assignment to oversee the Church in Mexico.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely astounding! It now seems our task is to try and identify which metro areas will be next for more temples
ReplyDeleteI was a bit surprised about the 2nd temple in Buenos Aires, but also excited. When I served my mission there 20 years ago the church had 10 missions in Argentina, including 3 in Bs.As. All but 4 of those missions now have temple built or announced within their boundaries. I can see Rosario and Neuquen getting temples before too long as well.
ReplyDeleteMy speculation is that once the new BsAs temple is built, the older one will close for renovation since it's 40 years old.
The Buenos Aires Temple had a major renovation and added two wings and rededicated about ten years ago.
DeleteThanks for those insights, JPL.
ReplyDeleteThe announcement for Prosper surprised me as well, largely because I had never even heard of that place. But after seeing it on a map and reading the commentary about traffic issues, I agree that it makes sense. Interesting to now have two temples announced for DFW area at the same time- but these things seem to be happening a lot under President Nelson.
Actually the Buenos Aires Argentina Temples was dedicated by President Monson in early 1986. It was the first temple dedicated by President Monson. So it is not yet 37 years old. It was closed and majorly expanded leading up to its rededication in 2012. So the current structure is just over 10 years old. There have been temples that had major renovations that close to heir last one (Mexico City was rededicated in 2008 and again in 2015 for example), so it is possible that after BACC temple is completed there will be renovation of BA temple, but it is also possible that they will wait. Provo as far as I can tell has had no major renovation or upgrades since it was built in 1972, and Salt Lake City's current such is the first since the early 1960s.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, only full scale renovations that cause a close to the point of needing a rededication are easy to track. Detroit Temple has had 2 significant multiple month renovations, one in which they enclosed the area originally under a open front porch, and another in which they reconfigured the front area, changing some walls, among other things, but they were both done using craftsmen and workers who were all endowed, so they did not have to rededicate the temple.
Living in Denton County, North of Dallas, I was not too surprised by the Prosper, Texas temple announcement. The DFW is gaining 125,000-150,000 new residents each year. Prosper, now about 30,000 will grow to over 100,000 in the next 15 years or sooner. Prosper is the typical area people are moving to, with a top rated school district, $50 million high school football stadium, lots of shopping, upscale housing, and strong community.
ReplyDeleteWithin the next 3-5 years, DFW area will have 3-5 more Stakes. My prediction is by time the two new Temples are finished, Dallas will have 12-13 Stakes, Fort Worth 10 Stakes, and Prosper 10 Stakes. The large metro (the geographical size of Connecticut), DFW will soon have appx 8 million people.
In Texas, Houston needs a 2nd Temple, and El Paso needs a Temple.
Looking at the map I think Longview or Tyler Texas could get a temple. Longview based on where current stakes are, Tyler for more historic regions, it covers where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints set up a colony, in Gilmer and Enoch, in the 1890s.
ReplyDeleteWith how much the Dallas Metro Area is growing, I would not be surprised if at some point a fourth temple was announced for somewhere in Arlington region or further south, but that may still be a ways away.
El Paso is a key contender. I do have to wonder though if somewhere like Midland, Texas might be a contender for a temple as well.
Looking at the Houston Area, I am thinking somewhere like League City might be where they would place a second temple.
I saw someone suggest Corpus Christi. I do not see that anytime soon, although somewhere out that sort of way like Bay, Texas might be a contender.
From the site link that was posted regarding the Lone Mountain Temple, the Church purchased the site in July, 2022 for $12.5 million dollars. Yep, this is the site of the Lone Mountain Temple.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to hear Huehuetenango's name in the list. I hadn't heard that name in a long time, but I had the chance to meet and teach some people from there (the highlands of western Guatemala) on my mission.
ReplyDeleteLove, Share and Invite just became a lot easier this week. Many general conference highlights are now found on the church facebook pages. It is super easy now for you to share they precious little gems directly to your friends and family. Just click on your their page link, find the video you like and then hit share. Being a member missionary has never been easier.
ReplyDeleteTo learn more about this amazing great new tool for member missionaries visit us at Stripling Warriors: https://www.facebook.com/groups/477593517252368
I have thought about how the new temples for the Mexico City area makes sense. One reason keeping people from the temple, especially older people and young couples with children is the amount of time it takes to get to the temple. An endowment session is a two hours for us here where I live, just across the river from the Jordan River Temple. Taking travel time out of the picture helps. When we lived in Vancouver, Washington a date night at the temple was often a 5 hour proposition. It is a good thing a couple of Beehives in our ward loved our kids and didn't mind watching them from 5:30 to 10:30. We would leave our place at 5:30 to get to the 7:30 session. That is how bad traffic in Portland is. We didn't have that luxury once we moved to Texas.
ReplyDeleteI can confirm this to be the case for Mon Chou and I as well when we lived in Vancouver, BC and that's going to the "Vancouver" Temple!!! (during the brief period of our lives when we lived there) because the Van temple isn't even in Vancouver and if you're coming from the west side of the city, after work, during rush hour.... And you're fortunate to have a car, it takes 2 hrs or 2.5 to get there. What about most who don't own cars in Vancouver because it's so expensive? Yeah, the busses don't really go there. Or what about the people on Vancouver island who ferry over as pedestrians for a few hours (because no one can afford to ferry their cars across), then they attempt to do a 4 hour bus ride and walk for really long time in a residential neighborhood in the rain? Yeah, it takes pretty much everybody a long time to get to the Vancouver, Bc temple unless you're the ward living in the same city as it -- Langley, BC. Def not Vancouver, Bc. Multiple smaller temples makes sense to me!!
DeleteWhen I lived in Provo at BYU, I went every week for 4 years, but when the temples are a bit more complicated to get to it decreases the amount of time I can actually attend the temple. So bringing the temple to the people, makes a whole lot of sense
Portland temple doesnt have the worker capacity as it is. I'm sure staffing a south west WA temple would be easier than finding replacements for Portland, but its still a concern.
DeleteI wonder what the temple of Ribeirão Preto will look like. It will probably have simple lines and a modest appearance, like Belo Horizonte, without Moroni and maybe even without spiers. The standard for new temples in Brazil has been 25,000 square feet, and I believe this will also be the size of the 'Brazilian California' temple. I am looking forward to the information about the future São Paulo East temple as well.
ReplyDeleteBen H.'s comments make me think a Vancover, Washington temple is a strong possibility in the near future. Especially if it is placed a little north of downtown so as to make a clear case for the Longview Washington Stake and the Rainer Oregon stake also being placed in it. That would give it 7 stakes to 12 meto-Portland stakes in Portland Temple, plus I think Salem, Monmouth, mcMinnville and Keizer from the greater Salem area. I am guessing Albany and Corvallis go to Eugene. The Dalles probably still goes to Portland. Although it is a close call between Portland and Columbia River. Chehalis is about mid-way between Tacoma and a potential Vancover Temple, depending on where exactly either temple is placed.
ReplyDeleteBetween Tacoma and Seattle Temples there are at least 34 stakes. Looking at where stakes are there could easily be a temple built to the north. Just looking at where stakes are Arlington, Washington would actually be my top pick. However I think overall the closer it can be built to I-5 the better.
This weekends announcements where all amazing and anywhere a temple can be placed is wonderful. It is great to see the Mexico City area now have seven temples in some form of development or building. I remember growing up and there only being one temple for the county and now it is just exploding.
ReplyDeleteI am also thrill with the Jacksonville Temple. For a long time living in Florida we heard it was going to happen and when they announced the Tallahassee temple a lot of though that Jacksonville would be put back like 10 years. Then in April with the Tampa Temple again some of us discussed that Jacksonville would be next but not knowing when. The fact of the matter is , given the tourist traffic, how much growth there is in all of Florida (despite the Hurricanes), and the frustration on the roads I can see why the temple was announced.
With that said now it makes me wonder about other areas where traffic is an issues lots of population and people holding a recommend, will those areas be announced. I would not be surprised if we hear another 100 temples announced in the coming 2-3 years and with them being small to midsize.
I began to think about the future possibility of a third temple for São Paulo. Mexico City and São Paulo have some characteristics in common, not only in terms of total population but also in terms of the number of active stakes and also the same difficulties in transit and displacement. It is important to remember that the Mexico City temple is twice the size of the São Paulo (west) temple and is the largest outside of the US.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on where the São Paulo East temple will be located. If it is closer to Guarulhos, there could be another one in the ABC region, and vice versa. Considering the entire macro-metropolis, we could say that Campinas and Santos are part of this same group.
Still in this same thought, it is possible to see Manila #3, Santiago #3, Lima #3, Buenos Aires #3, London #2, Fortaleza #2, among others, without invalidating the candidacy of cities such as Sorocaba, Angeles, Vina del Mar, Chimbote, Rosario, Teresina...
The challenge increases for the apostles, as they will have to reconcile investments in dense areas with the coverage of new territories, especially in Asia and South America.
I must also confess my amazement that Eket received a temple before Uyo, Calabar, Abuja and Port Harcourt. Nigeria will certainly still grow a lot, and will be able to support four more temples easily.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the western continental United States, every state (except Arizona) has at least one temple announced or under construction:
ReplyDeleteArkansas - Bentonville
California - Feather River, Yorba Linda, Modesto
Colorado - Grand Junction
Idaho - Burley, Montpelier, Teton River
Kansas - Wichita
Montana - Helena, Missoula
Nevada - Elko, Lone Mountain
New Mexico - Farmington
Oregon - Willamette Valley
Texas - McAllen, Fort Worth, Austin, Prosper
Utah - 11 Announced or under construction. 3 under renovation, 1 scheduled for renovation.
Washington - Moses Lake, Tacoma
Wyoming - Casper, Cody
Arizona currently has six operating temples
Mesa
Snowflake
Gila Valley
Gilbert
Phoenix
Tucson
I definitely see Arizona getting into the new temple queue next General Conference. Flagstaff could support a 20k sq ft temple. Two Stakes in Flagstaff and the NAU campus. Cottonwood Stake could be included.
The Queen Creek area, especially to the east and southeast would be heavily utilized, thinking a 90k sq ft temple here. Maybe somewhere along the 24 Highway (technically in Mesa) or Rittenhouse Rd.
The Surprise area in the NW metro area could support a 40k sq ft temple. There are currently 3 stakes in Surprise and six in the general area. By the time a temple could be built, there will be five stakes in Surprise. Huge residential growth in western and northern Surprise. The Church owns all the undeveloped land on both sides of the 303 freeway. Could utilize a parcel adjacent to the Surprise AZ Stake Center. Would make a great visual along the 303.
Prescott is possible and I am intrigued with the idea of smaller temples in more isolated areas like Yuma, Kingman or even Page.
Loved President Nelson's close to general conference:
“I promise that increased time in the temple will bless your life in ways nothing else can.
May you focus on the temple in ways you never have before. I bless you to grow closer to God and Jesus Christ every day. I love you.”
I plan to follow his admonition.
After 4 new temples announced for greater Mexico City at once, I would be shocked if 2025 dawns without another temple having been announced for Sao Paolo, and not at all shocked if it is another multiple temples for the urban area.
ReplyDeleteBesides Abuja, I think both Enugu and Port Harcourt could get temples soon. Port Harcourt would serve 8 stakes and at least 1 maybe 2 districts (the last district is basically halfway between Port Harcourt and Eket, so it might go both ways, or go one or the other based on exactly where temples fall, possible road improvments etc.).
Port Harcourt is only 44 miles from the Aba Nigeria Temple, but that may be longer on the roads that are there than some of us assume. Also if people do not have cars that is a long distance. It is probably a good hour maybe more each way, meaning weekday temple attendance is pretty hard, and only probably for the very few who have cars, so it pretty much means only going on Saturday or taking off from work. So it would be a huge blessing, and at 7 stakes is enough on its own to support a temple. The Yenegoa Stake over in is just over 100 miles from the Aba Temple, so about 45 or 50 from Port Harcourt, so this would be a huge blessing for that stake. Okrika Nigeria District is headquartered out on Bonny Island. There is no road to the mainland and not even any roads on the near mainland. It looks hard to take boats all the way to Aba, but Port Harcourt has lots of shore line. So a temple in Port Harcourt by or close to the water, I have no idea how easy such would be, would be a huge blessing to those in Okrika district since they could take boats much of the way.
Enugu Temple would serve 5 stakes (or probably 8 if it precedes Abuja) and 4 districts (another at least 1 if it procedes Abuja). It is about 110 miles from Enugu to Aba Temple, and all the other stakes it would serve are quite a bit further from the Aba Temple than that.
Calabar could serve 4 stakes, and at 88 miles it is further from Eket than Eket is from Aba. The distance would be a lot less, but one has to go about 20 miles up the Cross River to bridge it and then about the same distance south on the other side to get to Eket. A straight line from Calabar to Eket is only 35 miles.
I personally concur with the assumption that Arizona will start having temples announced. I looked just yesterday, and if I remember right Arizona has 30+ more stakes than Texas, but less temples now. If I remember right, Arizona has almost 4 times more stakes than Florida, yet now has only one more temple.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess, the next three temples would probably be in Flagstaff/Prescott, then in queen creek/San tan valley, then surprise I think would be the third. The land the church has owned next to the loop 303 would be a very good location for a temple and the parcel is large enough they would have flexibility in how much of it they would want to utilize
It is great when there are faithful members that attend services, live their ordinances, and do temple work. With a slowdown in convert baptisms in many parts of the world, plus those that opt out of membership, young and old, it is wonderful to see the expansion of temples across the globe, and to see people populate those sacred edifices. As prophesied.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see many people divest themselves of religion and beliefs in God and Jesus while these growth takes place. Wheat and chaff as some General Authorities have shared, or as Christ and prophets of the Bible have preached. Of course, many of us temple goers can go bad from within too; we have to watch against such problems. Latin America, and all of North America continue to grow. Europe has more temples continually, Africa keeps chugging along, parts of Asia are progressing, plus the Oceania regions.
I hope all of us strive to get to our temples and donate to the tithings and funds to keep them maintained. It is a great work, if not the greatest.
New England has some great distances, as does Wisconsin. Perhaps Madison or Green Bay make more sense than Milwaukee? West Virginia, and South Dakota will their temples soon.
Phoenix metro could easily get its 'swarm' of temples, maybe not the next go-round, but soon. It is roughly 30 miles or more in any direction from Downtown, just found a Youtube of a drive from about McDowell and Scotttsdale Roads, and it took him nearly 30 minutes on surface streets in good traffoc. The freeways would have gotten him there in 15 maybe, Phoenix Temple is about 20 minutes from downtown in good freeway traffic.
ReplyDeleteTakes 40 minutes to get to Mesa from the same Phoenix downtown. And that was before much of the growth and the freeways. Gilbert is another as much as 30 minutes via surface roads from that. The freeways are loops so not everyone has that luxury.
That site off the new 303 freeway is a good guess, Queen Creek has been rumored by locals to be possibly near the old GM Proving Grounds east of Signal Butte and the property they think it will go locally if announced is just north of the just-built 24 freeway.
Another fast-growing area is Goodyear and Buckeye, but fewer members move west, they all move east, and southeast outside the 202. But it is hard to tell for sure if and when for what.
Totally unrelated, but it seems like congregational expansion is increasing in Papua New Guinea, with several new locations reached after a few years of relative stagnation.
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong but I think Lone Mountain is in the North Las Vegas area. So that area would have a temple in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas via Lone Mountain. With the growth of the area I could see one day temples in both Henderson and Summerlin. Making a total of four temples in the Vegas metro area. Also one in Carson City near Reno.
ReplyDeleteLone Mountain is in front of Mount Charleston on the northwest, southwest of Rancho and north of Summerlin. The current temple is on Bonanza close to Frenchman (Sunrise) Mountain. I anticipate it being larger on account of other news and the fact that they seem to be 'going big' on the sizes in some areas with a lot of members.
ReplyDeleteAnyone have ideas on which cities will get 'swarms' of temples like Mexico City just did? Anticipating the Phoenix metro due to what I said about the freeway network being mostly loops save for three older routes.
In regard to previous post re: U.S. states without temples I think one consideration might be locating them in state capitals to take advantage of proximity to government worker members not to mention accessibility of media which tend to be concentrated in these areas.
ReplyDeleteSo though there's technically a temple in Maryland already, one in Annapolis could be beneficial. Might also note that there are a lot of military in the area and many are members. (This latter point would also argue for a temple in the Norfolk / VA Beach area)
Same reasoning in regards to presence of government workers would argue for the logic of a temple in Topeka despite proximity to the KC temple, or for Lincoln NB despite proximity to Winter Quarters (Omaha.)
@PanOptikAeon, could you expound a bit on why you think accessibility to government workers is, or ought to be, a consideration? I am a government worker, and I struggle to think of a reason why that would be a factor in siting temples. I do see other reasons why the church might choose to locate a temple in a capitol city in some cases -- media exposure, as you mentioned, and being visible to politicians, which may be helpful in making them more cognizant of the church's presence and role in their states. But I struggle to see why the presence of church members who are government workers would be any more (or less) relevant than the presence of other church members in decisions about where to build temples.
ReplyDelete--Felix
@PanOptikAeon Just to clarify, Lincoln NB (New Brunswick) is a suburban community in Sunbury County, New Brunswick. Lincoln NE is in Nebraska home to at times the 2nd largest city in Nebraska and the 3rd largest city in Nebraska at the same time. Both areas could use a temple wand Lincoln, NB might get one at the rate we are going, But with some growth in the next few years I could see Lincoln, NE getting one within the next 10 years
ReplyDeleteLincoln, NE is 50 miles or so from Omaha, which is across the river from Council Bluffs, which has a temple at the historic site. 680 across the river was a toll bridge and it is known as the 'Mormon Bridge', and President Hinckley paid the last toll collected symbolically.
ReplyDeleteI do know that the Des Moines coordinating council has been working on getting a temple in Des Moines, that would leave Council Bluffs with just that region and some west of it.
Jim Anderson, unless the Church Temples site and the Church's temple list are in error, it's actually Winter Quarters NE and not Council Bluffs IA that has the temple, and the address of the temple is in Omaha:
Deletehttps://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/winter-quarters-nebraska-temple/
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/details/winter-quarters-nebraska-temple?lang=eng
But Council Bluffs is served by the Winter Quarters Temple. When (not if) a temple comes to Iowa proper, it could be given the name of Mount Pisgah, which is a prominent pioneer landmark in the Des Moines area. The second stake in Des Moines actually bears the Mount Pisgah name as well.
I could have easily seen greater Phoenix getting at least 2 temples before last Sunday. Now I think we will see a Downtown/City Center Phoenix Temple, a temple built on top of the Institute Building by the Arizona State University campus, one in Queen Creek at one in the southwest of the Phoenix Metro Area, as well as probably ones in Prescott and Flagstaff as well. I could even see a temple being built in Bisbee or somewhere else south/south east of Tucson.
ReplyDeleteI think Lima Peru is a strong contender to get a swarm of temples, 3 more I think would be doable, for a total of 5 in the metro complex. I think this would be in addition to one in Iquitos. However one of those 3 more might be well beyond the urban conglomeration of Lima.
I think we will see more temples announced for Metro Sao Paulo, at least 2 more within the core urban area.
I think we will see at least 2 and maybe 4 or 5 additional temples announced for Southern California. Exact placement I have not even tried to work out.
I think at least San Jose and somewhere in Marin County for the San Francisco Bay Area, but could see President Nelson going full force and adding a temple also in either San Francisco itself or in a place just south of the southern edge of San Francisco, so it would still be called the San Francisco California Temple.
I think we will see a temple both in Baltimore, and at least one somewhere in northern Virginia.
I would expect that within 3 years there will be at least 1 temple announced for every mission that has at least one stake, including the Adriatic South Mission. That last one might be a little crazy of a vision on my part.
Pakistan I could see having a temple announced before it even gets a stake.
This means I think New Delhi will be announced by the end of 2025, as well as Ulan Batoor, and Lusaka, Zambia; Botswana; clearly Kampala; and the list goes on. I would not be super surprised if we get a few rare cases of places that get a temple announced before they get a stake, but I expect those to be rare.
The temple is the Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple. It is within the city limits of Omaha. Winter Quarters is where the pioneers lived in the winter of 1846-1847. This later became Florence, Nebraska, which later was absorbed into Omaha. It is closer to the center of downtown Omaha than much of the city of Omaha is.
ReplyDeleteThere are some cases where putting a temple in the capitol city of a state would make sense, but they are in my mind rare. Even government workers for the state do not always work in the capitol city. Here in Detroit we have a large high-rise office building, that was the headquarters of General Motors before they moved to the Renaissance Center, that is now owned by the State of Michigan.
In Wisconsin, I could see Madison being the first temple location, but I think more from both faculty and student results from the University of Wisconsin, than because it is the capitol. A little bit because it was chosen over Milwaukie as a capitol because of a desire to have a capitol not on the edge of the state.
North Dakota's capitol is far from the center of a stake. I would suspect either Rapid City (most likjely) or Sioux City (less likely, but still more likely than Pierre) would get a temple. New Jersey may have its first temple in Trenton, but I think the region closer to New York City is more likely.
Those sites are not in error, I have been to the grounds of the Winter Quarters temple in Omaha.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether there is any particular rationale or reason for putting temples in state capitols. But many of the states have their first or only temple in the capital, while several others got 1 or more temples in other places but have now received one in the capital city. Idaho was probably the first (I am not counting Utah here since the Salt Lake temple was the first to be under construction). Other examples include Arizona and California, plus there are now temples announced or under construction in the capitals of Florida, Texas and Montana.
On the other hand, Tacoma (Washington) was announced rather than Olympia. Other states with multiple temples without one in the capital include Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York. Hawaii would be on that list too unless we count all of Oahu as part of Honolulu. (I may have missed some.) Arkansas and Kansas have both had their 1st temple outside the capital.
If I am counting correctly, there are now 22 states that will have a temple in/named after their capital cities. (In some cases, they are in suburbs of the capital, like Detroit, Nashville and Atlanta.)
Now that Florida is going to have 5 temples (and Tennessee will have 3), I am wondering when Georgia and other populous southern states will start getting additional temples- though the southernmost parts of Georgia will probably be assigned to Tallahassee and Jacksonville.
Often times capital cities and large cities have several main highways and freeways leading directly into the city. I’d be surprised if that’s not a major factor.
ReplyDeleteI love the choice of the palladium-leafed Moroni for the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple!! Do we know why this is the one and (probably) only time they went with this design? Is the material significant to the region is it symbolic?
ReplyDeleteMon Chou, unless the information I have received is in error, the reason the Church has opted for the palladium-leafed Moroni in Abidjan and has phased out the angel Moroni in many other cases is primarily to save costs and avoid negative PR appearances. If the statue was used on temples in impoverished nations, it would not cast the Church in the best light. That might especially be true for that usual gold statues. Above and beyond temporal rationales, while the Church is trying to emphasize and correct the name of the Church and the Savior as the center thereof, having a statue atop that temple of someone aside from the Savior may send mixed messages. So when there are good doctrinal and temporal reasons to change the status quo, the Church would naturally want to do that. Does that answer your question?
DeleteJames, according to President Nelson, the time of ushering in the restoration if the gospel has passed. Therefore newly designed temples won’t have an angel moroni.
DeleteWhere did you get that interpretation of his statements? I've followed his public comments, reports of his remarks, and his social media posts extensively, and have not come across anything contradicting what he stated on the restoration of the Church in 2019:
Deletehttps://www.thechurchnews.com/2019/3/29/23214917/the-most-important-change-that-has-to-happen-for-the-churchs-unprecedented-future#:~:text=Nelson%2C%20shared%20a%20glimpse%20when,is%20much%20more%20to%20come.%E2%80%9D
Specifically, he stated that "if you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more ahead." He has said nothing in the last 3 years rescinding that statement, nor has he said since then that his 2019 assertions are no longer correct.
Further, the Church News has had the subheading "A Living Record of the Restoration" since he made that 2019 statement. Why would we need to have "a living record' of "the true and living Church if any prophet or apostle ever indicated what you asserted, that "the time of ushering in the restoration of the gospel has passed"?
Point me to a source quoting the prophet saying that, because I've followed his public statements extensively since his 2018 ordination as prophet, and none of those statements match your assertions. What did I miss and where can I find it?
Because if anyone aside from the Prophet told you that they heard him say it, or if they said they saw it, they may need to double-check that source's validity. Otherwise, it's a misquote, hearsay, or coming from Church critics.
As the scriptures admonish, "Beware of false prophets." Also, Abidjan, which had a groundbreaking in 2018, was not the last one to have an angel Moroni atop it. The Red Cliffs Utah Temple had ground broken two years ago and had a golden angel Moroni:
Deletehttps://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/red-cliffs-utah-temple/
The same is true for the Salta Argentina Temple:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/salta-argentina-temple/
The angel Moroni has been and might continue to be retained atop several temples that originally had it prior to their recent renovations. So the lack of an angel atop other new temples is indeed related to cutting costs and the Church being good global citizens and not wanting a bad PR move in certain cases.
James, slow down. When ushers are done ushering people in for a meeting, is the meeting over? Nope, it is just beginning. Also please note that I said “newly designed temples”. I haven’t seen any recently released temple rendering with an angel Moroni. I’ll just leave it at that.
DeleteSorry if what I said or how I said it was a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what you said. But you said that the Prophet said something that is not reflected in what I have seen him say, heard him say, or heard from other reliable sources that he said in any setting. So if I somehow. missed something, by all means, enlighten me.
DeleteWhen did he say that? What were his exact words? And where can I read them for myself? Aside from the prophet's statement I cited earlier, the previous Church Historian and Recorder noted in the April 2020 Liahona that the restoration remains ongoing, as did Elder Uchtdorf in September of that same year. And even Joseph Smith's "Standard of Truth" alludes to the fact that the Restoration and the dispensation of the Fullness of Times will not conclude "until the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say 'The work is done."
But by all means, I'm willing to be wrong if you can point me specifically to where President Nelson stated "the time for ushering in the Gospel has passed." I actively looked for such a statement before my initial reply to you and found nothing. What have I overlooked?
Detroit is not the capitol of Michigan. So that only gives you 21 states with a temple connected with the capitol, and another example of a second temple and neither of them in the capitol.
ReplyDeleteIn several states the capitol is the largest city. So those it is not surprising that the temple was placed there.
Capitol also tend towards the middle of the state, making them an easy target. Still 29 states do not have a temple in or named for their capitol. Nevada has 4 temples and Washington 5 with none connected with the capitol.
St. Paul, Minnesota is the only case I can think of where there seems to have been a deliberate choice to link temple to the capitol that is not explained by either top population or geography. It joins Mesa, Oakland, and La'ie as a temple that requires some explanation as to its name and accent. Although Mesa only I'd you look back because Phoenix has a temple. Oakland though has never been just a suburb of San Francisco, and St. Paul it is not just because it is the capitol.
Some would argue that Baton Rouge over New Orlean may be a case of choosing the capitol, but I think there are geography issues there.
There has been so much unit consolidations in places like California where existing chapels could be replaced with a temple on the same piece of property. So many meetinghouses that used to house multiple wards are down to one ward it's unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction, JPL. I know that Lansing is the capital of Michigan, but I was in a hurry yesterday and therefore relying on memory- not always the greatest combination. I had the state capitals all memorized when I was in school, but that is now many years ago and I occasionally get rusty.
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking about St. Paul and Baton Rouge- in the latter case I think we have seen evidence (in the form of flooding and other hurricane damage) that New Orleans would not have been a good location, although I believe there are parts of the city that have not received significant damaged.
As you said, some state capitals are the largest city in the state; this includes Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City, among others, while others are smaller cities, in some cases even fairly obscure places. I'm thinking here of Frankfort Kentucky, Salem Oregon and Montpelier Vermont. (I may be wrong, I don't have much knowledge of some of these places.)
I would be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the state capitals, including reasons why temples are or are not in the capital, and prospects for future temples in the capital. But I do not know if others would be interested in that- especially those who are not from the United States on this blog.
I see the Angel Moroni upon temples as a stylistic choice, which can be appropriate but as time progresses, like the newer image of the Church of Jesus Christ threw the image of Him Himself, develops and adapts. Also with the logo of the Church, or the covers of the Books of Mormon, or even the policies of the handbook or the missionary guides, etcetera. It is a process, and it is fun and at times challenging to keep up with. The removal of Boy Scouts was one of the biggest changes that I can think of, and it has a lot of reasons behind it, one of the foremost, in my opinion, was to be fairer or even with the youth and programs in the Church outside of the United States.
ReplyDeleteOne disparity that I have seen is that chapels in Chile with the same climate of most of California do not have central air or heating, while I believe that all the chapels in California do. Over the years I think that is one aspect that has contributed to declining attendance in Chile, among many others.
The Church continues to adapt, which is normal and right. As far as the President of the Church claiming that our faith is now in some level of maturity while also still relatively new, I can see both being the case. He is a true Prophet, but he is fallible as anyone can be. Our interpretations of his words can be taken many ways, too.
Riddle me this: which country will get a temple first (besides Hong Kong), Russia or China? Interesting times. Amazing that UAE will likely get theirs before either.
Always great to see the temple and stake growth, thanks for tracking it. Stay active.
I think almost a majority of temples are not actually in the city they are named after either. They may be in or near the same metro area. For example the Fort Lauderdale Florida temple is actually about 21 miles away from downtown Fort Lauderdale in the city of Davie. Same is true for other temples. Some may be in a city or town as much as 30 Mike's from the city they are named after. Does anyone have a list of temples not in their namesake city and the distance the temple is from it? (For Fort Lauderdale I measured the temple site from downtown not necessarily the edge of the cities.)
ReplyDelete@L. Chris Jones
DeleteI don't know if such a list exists, but I'd also be interested in seeing it if it does.
Two temples located out of their namesake city I can think of off the top of my head are Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames, thank you for your apology, but it's not so much what you said or how you said it, but that you overlooked my point and argued extensively with a point I did not make. I did not imply that the restoration of the gospel isn't ongoing. I know it is ongoing, which is in fact the point - no need to continue emphasizing Moroni's early role in the restoration because the restoration is and has been "ongoing" for a while now. Probably better now to focus more on the ongoing restoration and on the ushering in of the second coming of Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to cite my source. It's true that the source could have misheard, misunderstood, or misquoted.
Some temples are named for their metro areas. This was an issue with Indianapolis as a city councilman in Carmel Indiana balked at voting for that one until he was given the information by the church as to the naming conventions the church uses for temples.
ReplyDeleteOf course
DeleteWashington DC - Kensington, Maryland
Birmingham, Alabama - Gardendale, Alabama
Boston, Massachusetts - Belmont, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan - Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Chicago, Illinois - Glenview, Illinois.
Just to name a few.
I think the temples are built in those areas because 1 the church owns land there and 2 it would have been pretty difficult to obtain a piece of land large enough in those city limits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteInternationally, the Frankfurt, London, and Paris temples come to mind for not being that close to the respective cities they are named after. And while Frankfurt and Paris temples are still in their respective city's suburbs, London's is actually in the boonies.
DeleteOur temple in Indianapolis is also a solid 20-something miles north of downtown Indianapolis, and coming from the west, the approach to it feels almost rural as well.
I just learned that the Heber Utah temple groundbreaking will be at 2 pm (Mountain Time):
ReplyDeletehttps://mywebcast.churchofjesuschrist.org/templegroundbreaking?lang=eng&cid=tgb_broadcast
The 'Templetour' comment, while well intended, is spam.
ReplyDeleteLehi City approved the Skye Area Plan on Sept 23rd. When talking about residential densities, the rep from DR Horton mentioned that some land would have single family houses built on it [rather than townhomes] at the request of the Church. It was a strip of land on the west side of a street bordering the west side of the suspected future temple site in the Lehi Micron area. I wouldn’t be surprised if that temple is announced during the conference before or after the time DR Horton starts marketing the residential lots/houses for sale.
ReplyDeleteJust learned President Nelson was at the groundbreaking of the Heber Valley Temple today, video of that other than the live feed above, both the news story verseion, and the full version, to be posted by Church Newsroom later.
ReplyDeleteConsidering The Church of Jesus Christ if Latter-day Saints built a temple in Central Phildalphia, on a plot of land chosen after the first plot of land chosen was found to not be suitable to build a temple on, I do not think getting adequate land in a city center is why temples are not built there.
ReplyDeleteCity core temples can cost more, because underground parking or parking garages is much more expensive than city core parking, so the cost, and red tape, thus delay, to build outside a city is an issue.
There are lots of factors, and existing land is a big one. That is the only way we moved from 50 temples in late 1997 to 100 by October 2000.
However another factor is high amounts of traffic and road placement makes city cores less easily accessible to a wide range of people than placing it further out.
A temple within a few blocks of the White House would take longer yo get to from just about anywhere outside of DC, and even some parts of DC, than the temple placed right by the beltway.
No temple in Utah is named for a city it is not in.
The Las Vegas Temple is beyond the city limits but mat have a Las Vegas address. The St. Louis Temple has a St. Louis address but is outside the city limits. It is also close to major regional freeways.
Manhattan, Philadelphia, Nauvoo and Palmyra may be the only current temples east of the Mississippi in their designated cities. Toronto is well beyond the city boundaries, as is Vancover.
Oakland and LA Temples are in their city, and I think San Diego technically is, but Sacramento is not.
On the other hand at least 9 temples are not named for cities and the Winter Quarters Temple is essentially named for a defunct place.
"A temple within a few blocks of the White House would take longer yo get to from just about anywhere outside of DC, and even some parts of DC, than the temple placed right by the beltway."
ReplyDeleteYes, but only with the assumption that people are driving in a personal automobile, which is increasingly being questioned in this age of transit-oriented development. The temple in Kensington is not particularly accessible by Metro (members try to provide shuttle service to Forest Glen station, I believe).
How many temples in the US are accessible by mass transit? One would have naively thought that with the obvious effects of global warming that this would be much more of a consideration.
In Utah north of Salt Lake, all operating temples except Bountiful are accessible by public transportation. I've used the bus more frequently than my car to get to the Ogden Temple when I lived in South Ogden.
DeleteOne good thing about announcing all these new temples is that it seems to be motivating members to go back/go more frequently to the existing temples.
ReplyDeleteI've seen a big uptick in the number of ordinances completed by the Temple System of the Family Names I've submitted in general since The Prophet started announcing more, but especially since April General Conference (I believe I mentioned this in April, too).
In fact, I went from having 200 names completed to now 300 names completed since June (some of these were also done by some of my friends in Utah who I mailed/emailed temple name cards to)!
I saw a "Temple Ordinances Recorded" notification (from my Family Tree App) pop up on my phone nearly daily for a month after April Conference, and I'm seeing it again now after this October Conference.
Submit your Temple Names folks! The work is hastening. :)
While most of these were completed in Utah, Alberta, and the Intermountain West/"LDS" Corridor, I've seen ones completed in far away Temples like Detroit, Philadelphia, and even Tahiti!
DeleteI appreciated reading the comments about temple names. I might add that the Mount Timpanogos, Red Cliffs, Deseret Peak and Heber Valley Utah Temples do not bear the names of the cities they are in (American Fork, St. George, Tooele, and Heber City respectively).
ReplyDeleteAs was mentioned, President Nelson presided at today's groundbreaking for the Heber Valley Utah Temple:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2022/10/8/23394754/president-nelson-presides-at-heber-valley-utah-groundbreaking
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-presides-at-groundbreaking-ceremony-for-heber-valley-utah-temple
My thanks once again to you all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are 13 temples named for nearby landmarks or geographic features in the area (such as rivers, mountains, or valleys) or historical importance (Winter Quarters, for example).
ReplyDeleteNames of temples not named for the city (and the city in which they are located):
Columbia River Washington Temple (Richland)
Deseret Peak Utah Temple (Tooele)
Feather River California Temple (Yuba City)
Gila Valley Arizona Temple (Central)
Heber Valley Utah Temple (Heber City)
Jordan River Utah Temple (South Jordan)
Mount Timpanogos Temple (American Fork)
Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple (South Jordan)
Red Cliffs Utah Temple (St. George)
Star Valley Wyoming Temple (Afton)
Teton River Idaho Temple (Rexburg)
Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple (address is an Omaha address)
Willamette Valley Oregon Temple (Springfield)
What about those outside of city limits but in or near the metro city they are named after?
DeleteSpeaking of Naga, a new stake will be created in that city on November 6.
ReplyDeleteNaga Philippines Stake
Milaor Ward
Naga 2nd
Naga 3rd
Naga 4th
Pili
San Fernando Branch
Naga North Stake
Calabanga
Camaligan
Canaman
Naga 1st
Naga 5th (to be created)
Tinambac Branch
Also noticed 2 more stakes nearby that has 9 wards, 1 branch each, both potentially for splitting in the future (Goa and Daet stake) so more units under the future temple :)
To say that the Winter Quaters Temple has "an Omaha adress" is to mischaracterize things. When the Winter Quarters Temple in has been within the city limits of Omaha for 105 years. Florence where it is was a distinct place but was annexed by Omaha in 1917. It is closer to the focal downtown point of Omaha than is much of the city.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the Las Vegas Temple in Sunrise Manor with a Las Vegas address of the St. Louis Temple in Town and Country with a St. Louis address, this is like the Los Angeles Temple which is in Westwood which is a neighborhood of Los Angeles and much more central than many of the neighborhoods of LA.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@L. Chris Jones, the one Temple that I mentioned earlier, and later deleted, was the :
ReplyDeleteBuenos Aires Argentina Temple - Built in a southwest suburb in the Greater Buenos Aires Metro Area. Which is the City called "Ciudad Evita, Bs. As., Argentina", located in the Municipality (Partido de) of La Matanza, in the Province of Buenos Aires. Not far from my 1st area I served on my mission in 1989, in La Tablada.
https://www.bing.com/maps?q=ciudad+evita+google+maps&form=ANNTH1&refig=400ab038317c4dd58d1e558b3023d294&sp=10&qs=UT&pq=ciudad+evita&sk=CT1UT8&sc=10-12&cvid=400ab038317c4dd58d1e558b3023d294
I think at least 52 temples are outside the limits of the city they are named for. Las Vegas, St. Louis and Columbus seem to use the designated city address but are beyond its corporate limits. There are lots of temples announced lacking a firm address so that number is not of 300 but of less that 228. I may have missed some other in the Las Vegas set that I did not know of.
ReplyDeleteThe above list of temples not named for cities excludes Lone Mountain, Nevada.
Buenos Aires is one I missed on my list, so that ups it to at least 53. The majority of temples seem to be in their name cities, but that includes Anchorage with is over 1,000 square miles, Phoenix that is not close to the city core, Dallas that is far to the north of the city temple, Rome that was built far from the city core, and more.
ReplyDeleteIt also includes Redlands, Newport Beach, Freiburg and maybe even Oakland, where a city name is chosen because that is where it is but it is not the leading metropolitan city.
The following temples are outside city limits of the city for which the temple is named. There are 61 temples outside city limits, based on Google Maps. These are not including any that are announced or in planning that the location is not known or announced. Some may list Unicorporated as the place they are in because I an not sure what town, if any, they are in. This is what I came up with using Google Maps and the boundary lines given, so there could be some errors or mistakes.
ReplyDeleteName of Temple (actual city/town)
Arequipa Peru Temple (Carmen Alto)
Atlanta Georgia Temple (Sandy Springs)
Bern Switzerland Temple (Zollikofen)
Birmingham Alabama Temple (Gardendale)
Boston Massachusetts Temple (Belmont)
Chicago Illinois Temple (Glenview)
Columbia South Carolina (Hopkins)
Copenhagen Denmark Temple (Frederiksberg)
Denver Colorado Temple (Centennial)
Detroit Michigan Temple (Bloomfield)
Durban South Africa Temple (Umhlanga)
Fort Collins Colorado Temple (Unicorporated)
Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple (Davie)
Frankfort Germany Temple (Friedrichsdorf)
Guadalajara Mexico Temple (Zapopán)
Halifax Nova Scotia Temple (Dartmouth)
Hartford Connecticut Temple (Farmington)
Helena Montana Temple (Unicorporated)
Helsinki Finland Temple (Espoo)
Houston Texas Temple (Spring)
Indianapolis Indiana Temple (Carmel)
Kyiv Ukraine Temple (Kyivs'ka Oblast)
Las Vegas Nevada Temple (Unicorporated)
Lima Peru Los Olivos Temple (San Martín de Porres District)
Lima Peru Temple (La Molina)
Lisbon Portugal Temple (Moscavide)
London England Temple (Lingfield)
Louisville Kentucky Temple (Crestwood)
Manila Philippines Temple (Quezon City)
Medford Oregon Temple (Central Point)
Memphis Tennessee Temple (Bartlett)
Mendoza Argentina Temple (Las Heras)
Montreal Quebec Temple (Longueuil)
Nashville Tennessee Temple (Franklin)
Nuku'aloafa Tonga Temple (Liahona)
Orlando Florida Temple (Windermere)
Pago Pago American Samoa Temple (Tafuna, Western District)
Palmyra New York Temple (Unicorporated)
Paris France Temple (Le Chesnay)
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Temple (Cranberry Township)
Pocatello Idaho Temple (Unicorporated)
Portland Oregon Temple (Lake Oswego)
Preston England Temple (Chorley)
Raleigh North Carolina Temple (Apex)
Richmond Virginia Temple (Glen Allen)
Sacramento California Temple (Rancho Cordova)
San José Costa Rica Temple (Heredia)
Seattle Washington Temple (Bellevue)
Spokane Washington Temple (Unicorporated)
St. Louis Missouri Temple (Unicorporated or Town and Country)
St. Paul Minnesota Temple (Oakdale)
Stockholm Sweden Temple (Västerhaninge)
Tampico Mexico Temple (Ciudad Madero)
The Hugue Netherlands (Zoetermeer)
Toronto Ontario Temple (Brampton)
Torreón Mexico Temple (Gómez Palacio)
Trujillo Peru Temple (Huanchaco)
Tucson Arizona Temple (Unicorporated)
Urdaneta Phillipines Temple (Vallasis)
Vancouver British Columbia Temple (Langley)
Washington, D.C. (Kensington, MD)
Town and Country, Missouri is indeed an incorporated place.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteThe Sacramento Temple is located in unincorporated Sacramento County despite its Rancho Cordova address.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteMy undercount I think was because in some places the name of the city shows up in the address because it is also the name of a larger unit that appears in the address.
ReplyDeleteThe Detroit temple is in Bloomfield Hills. That is a city. There is also a township called Bloomfield, which almost surrounds Bloomfield Hills (Bloomfield Hills also shares a boundary with Birmingham), but that is a distinct place.
Next we should have three sets of numbers, temples in the incorporated place they are named for, temples not within the boundaries of the incorporated place they are named for, and temples that have a name that is not of an incorporated place. It is looking like the first group is going to be the largest, but not by much ahead of the second group, and the third group is the smallest. Palmyra though there are both towns and villages in New York, so which town is it in?
Sorry I missed Hills on Bloomfield Hills. I have updated my list. Also, I meant to remove the words 'address is listed as' for Omaha for the Winter Quarters Temple.
DeleteI used to live in the Palmyra temple district- I was told that the driveway and part of the parking lot are in Palmyra, while the temple itself is in Manchester.
ReplyDeleteThat would obviously be the town of Manchester, as the village is several miles to the south, beyond the Hill Cumorah which is also in the town of Manchester.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Delete