Below is a list of countries with the most members with only one temple planned or dedicated:
1. Dominican Republic
- 149,655 members
- 22 stakes, 9 districts
- 203 congregations (146 wards, 57 branches)
- Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple (dedicated in 2000)
- 129,963 members
- 22 stakes
- 155 congregations (127 wards, 28 branches)
- San Salvador El Salvador Temple (dedicated in 2011)
3. Uruguay
- 108,060 members
- 18 stakes, 2 districts
- 130 congregations (97 wards, 33 branches)
- Montevideo Uruguay Temple (dedicated in 2001)
4. Nicaragua
- 101,907 members
- 12 stakes, 4 districts
- 109 congregations (71 wards, 38 branches)
- Managua Nicaragua Temple (under construction, announced in 2018)
5. Paraguay
- 100,121 members
- 11 stakes, 9 districts
- 133 congregations (62 wards, 71 branches)
- Asunción Paraguay Temple (dedicated in 2002)
6. Cote d'Ivoire
- 63,058 members
- 20 stakes, 12 districts
- 262 congregations (154 wards, 108 branches)
- Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple (under construction, announced in 2015)
7. Panama
- 61,980 members
- 7 stakes, 4 districts
- 75 congregations (43 wards, 32 branches)
- Panama City Panama Temple (dedicated in 2008)
8. Costa Rica
- 54,473 members
- 10 stakes, 1 district
- 80 congregations (60 wards, 20 branches)
- San José Costa Rica Temple (dedicated in 2000)
9. Portugal
- 47,916 members
- 7 stakes, 1 district
- 62 congregations (41 wards, 21 branches)
- Lisbon Portugal Temple (dedicated in 2019)
10. Zimbabwe
- 41,262 members
- 9 stakes, 1 district
- 100 congregations (63 wards, 37 branches)
- Harare Zimbabwe Temple (under construction, announced in 2016)
Some observations about this list.
First, several of these countries appear highly likely to have a second temple announced in the immediate future, including the Dominican Republic (Santiago), El Salvador (Santa Ana), and Cote d'Ivoire (Yamoussoukro). However, most other countries do not appear likely to have a second temple announced for the foreseeable future due to low member activity rates and membership and stakes clustered in the city where a temple already operates, such as in Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Nevertheless, Zimbabwe (Bulawayo), Portugal (Porto), and Uruguay (a city in central or northern Uruguay) are countries with a moderate likelihood of a second temple announcement.
Second, there are major discrepancies in member activity rates among this list of countries with the most members with only one temple, although most of these countries have very low member activity rates. This is well illustrated by significant differences in the number of stakes and congregations between countries with similarly-sized memberships. For example, the Church in Cote d'Ivoire has 63,058 members organized into 262 congregations, 20 stakes, and 12 districts, whereas the Church in Panama has 61,980 members organized into 75 congregations, 7 stakes, and 4 districts. Countries with higher activity rates are more likely to have a second temple announced before countries with a lower member activity rate.
Third, the top 10 countries with the most members with only one temple tended to have their first temple dedicated either in the early 2000s or announced/dedicated in the late 2010s. This has correlated with periods of an increase in temple construction.
Fourth, most of these countries (seven) are located in Latin America.
30 comments:
Is it 118 or 180 wards in the Dominican Republic? It is clearly not 18 because that is less than the number of stakes.
Elder Ahmad Corbitt was mission president there. He served his mission in the Puerto Rico San Juan Mission. I am not sure if he was in Puerto Rico the whole time. That was roughly 1982-1984.
Ivory Coast does illustrate another issue. It is not just an issue of number if stakes, but where they are placed. Ivory Coast also has the most stakes and districts of any of these.
I am thinking Presodent Neldon will announce 24 temples in October. I know this would be the most ever. It would bring us to having President Nelson having announced 50% of all planned temples.
The second largest city in Paraguay is Ciudad Del Leste, on the border with Brazil and Argentina. In Uruguay, Rivera is also one of the largest cities and borders Brazil. It makes a lot of sense for the temples to be built on these borders, closing the gaps that exist between Porto Alegre, Montevideo and Asunción, in the former Country of The Seven Peoples of Missiones. I'm sure that the interior of Rio Grande do Sul will also have a temple included soon, in Santa Maria or Passo Fundo. This dynamic would put an end to all the problems of distance between members and temples throughout the Rio de la Plata basin, and it would be enough for the sessions to be alternated between Portuguese and Spanish so that everyone could participate.
Portugal has issues with inactivity that are quite significant by European standards. The country is also relatively small with easy travel. I actually believe that the most likely second temple announced for Portugal will be built in Funchal.
If we ranked by the count of wards, the two African countries on the list would both jump significantly up the list, Zimbabwe from 10 to 6 and the Ivory Coast from 6 to 1. Similar if we counted all units, but Zimbabwe would stay in 7 as Paraguay has a ton of branches.
1. What does this say about centers of strength? I know it may be unpopular to say so (here), but maybe it it worked? We see that after organizing the center of strength (ex in Cote d'Ivoire) that spreading out maybe seen as a natural second stage to church development within the country.
2. Wow Africa. Latin America, we really need to get hauling (I live in Mexico). What an exciting moment for them, lets do something comparable?
Daniel Moretti, if we built temples on the Brazil-Urugauy and Brazil-Paraguay borders, do you think they would end up in the Spanish speaking neighbors or in Brazil? From what I understand the church is stronger on the Brazilian side in both cases (Ciudad del Este/Iguacu and Rivera/Sant'Ana do Livramento). So in the end we would not help this list, but still help those members.
I think that on the Uruguayan border Rivera is stronger than Livramento, even though it is the opposite in terms of population. Salto or Paysandú, next to the Paraná River on the Argentine border, are also very possible options to host the northern Uruguayan temple. On the Paraguayan border, Foz do Iguaçu is bigger than Ciudad del Leste, but I don't know how the church dynamics work in that region. I only know that the largest Muslim population on the American continent lives there, which indicates a lot of religious freedom. So my guess is that the temple on the Uruguayan border would be in Uruguay and the temple on the Paraguayan border would be in Brazil.
I'm gonna bring the spire discussion over here because I am too lazy to check two posts a once.
To be honest, the discussion on on spires is kind of trite form an architectural standpoint. We have several temples that embody "mountain of the Lord" very well without one. Including some old, Cardston, Laie, and some new, Meridian, Los Olivos. The essential nature of the spire is therefore brought into question.
That religions should have the opportunity to promote their visibility and show devotion through monumental architecture, however, is also important; but the church's will do so should should be wiser- and in better faith with neighbors. As an architect, these large temples, especially in areas with no tall buildings around (Heber, McKinney, Lone Mountain, Deseret Peak), do speak to me as attempt at the appropriation of landscape- basically, these tall spires have a function of claiming land. This is really interesting in Heber, a place which is definitely ours, but has growing numbers of wealthy non-members moving in.
It is notable that neither Solomon's Temple nor Zerubbabel's had spires, neither did any of the first 3 out of Utah, and that apart from Salt Lake, the spires on the pioneer temples are all modest affairs when compared to most of those we are building today. Tall pointy things are not always the best way to show holiness, remember the tower of Babel.
Daniel, you have some of the most interesting comments on the Provo temple. Unfortunately the building was unfit for the future (structurally, mechanically, etc.)(what I think it was James said), and was in no-wise beautiful enough (neither inside, nor outside) to be saved. I also love modernism, but you can see it applied with significantly more success in places like Oakland, DC, and Jordan River. Tearing down a modern building to build one that looks like its supposed to be from 1910 is something that I also disagree with, but that has less to do with preserving the old temple.
The revivalism in temple architecture is very questionable on many levels, especially as seen in: Bangalore for copying Hindu stuff with little critical thought, Mexico City - for copying primarily post-apostacy Mesoamerican details (Uxmal, Mitla specifically)(to be fair, the archeology was not so clear on dates when they built the thing, but it shows the dangers of copying), many colonial-inspired temples in Latin America (are we catholic now?), and the kitsch traditional revivalism that has covered many of the new temples in the US (Birmingham England, Modesto, Yorba Linda, among others, being the some examples, in which the proposal more than being a building, is a caricature of a building. For most of these cases good counter-examples exist: Bangkok is better than Bangalore as it seeks to be inspired by both Thailand and LDS temple architecture rather than just copy old local stuff. Tegucigalpa has some great mesoamericanisms applied very tastefully. Phoenix and Preston, England serve as counterexamples to copy-paste temple decorations currently prevalent in the US and other places, new Ogden is also a beautiful counter-example to the Art-Deco proposal of Saratoga.
Also, JPL, your perspective on old buildings may be very Detroit and may not be applicable to most other places. We need to think in more universal ways in a church that strives to visit every clime and place.
Thanks Daniel for the border analysis!
Matt, curious about your take on this paper, which uses a new technique (cell phone geolocation) to estimate church attendance in the USA. It puts Latter-day Saint attendance at about 14%, which is way, way lower than what you get even when using the church's "anyone who has been baptized is a member" as a denominator -- other definitions yield lower counts of membership, and thus smaller denominators, and so I find this result very surprising.
There is some back-and-forth between the author and others at the following links, noting that many question the cell phone geolocation reliability, but that he does have responses to those critiques and those responses were incorporated in his estimates.
The paper itself: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32334#fromrss
Some back-and-forth:
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1779889740260499820
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/response-from-devin-pope.html
--Felix
The centers of strength policy over time does produce a stability and strength to the Church. We should keep in mind there is more to it than just focusing on key cities first.
There are also huge differences in outcome in Africa. Elder Sitati and Elder Mutombo were both essentially in the first family baptized as a family in their country, both in 1986. Yest today there are 3 stakes in Kenya, 21 in DR Congo. DR Congo is only about twice as populous, maybe a little more, so even if it had 9 stakes it would be a little more.
There are huge reasons for this. The Church j8t the ground running in DR Congo because Mobotu and David Kennedy had a long personal meeting. Mobutu also gave us a full green light because he disliked the Catholic Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not have a dictator clearly the way in Kenya, so things were slow. Still it is only 5 or do years diffent with the first stake. There are lots of other factors involved in different growth. Many are cultural.
A big difference in African countries versus Latin America is missionary staffing. In Latin America the first missionaries were mainly young, single Americans. Mexico is a bit different, but it also has the whole experience of the Third Convention and then President Pierce and George Albert Smith bringing them back. Even at that the first stake president in Mexico City is Harold Brown.
In South America not only are the missions opened with Amerucan missionaries but thry stay that way a long time. My Dad served in Brazil from 1972-1974. His mission had 0 Brazilian missionaries. That was over 35 years after missionary work starts in Brazil. Elder Mutombo was called as a general authority 24 years after missionary work starts in DR Congo.
When the freeze happens in Ghana in 1989 most missionaries are released because they are Ghanaians. The ones who were not were mainly Nigerians.
There are now 190 temples. The Urdaneta Phillippines Temple was dedicated today. Among those there were President and Sister Oaks, Elder Duncan and his wife and Elder Revillo and his wife. Elder Ravillo is in the Philuppi es Area Presidency.
Also present was Augusto A. Lim, the first stake president in the Phillipines, also later a general authority and president of the Manilla Temple.
It is 63 years to the day since then Elder Gordon B. Hinckley gave the opening blessing for missionary work in the Philippines. There was only one known Filipino member at that point.
Felix - I have already commented on my opinion about this cell phone data study on another post. There are some serious methodological flaws with using this data to ascertain church attendance and activity rates, and it irks me that the author is still positing that the data is useful when we get major discrepancies from the cell phone data and actual church attendance (not estimated, but the actual number of members attending). You know that a metric is not useful when it is NOT giving you data that is confirm through direct observation. This seems to be a garbage-in, garbage-out type of problem, and I do not find these numbers to be useful for our study of member activity rates and church attendance for Latter-day Saints.
I appreciate this incredible analysis, Hank. This all makes a lot of sense. As for modernist temples and the issue of caricatures, I confess that I find temples that evoke a bit of Catholic and Anglican tradition beautiful, precisely because they reassure the surrounding population regarding the purpose of the building. Obviously in this case it is a personal opinion and not a technical one. I also didn't like the final appearance of the Brasília temple. I mean, it's beautiful, but very far from what they intended to emulate. I believe that if the church wanted to pay homage to Niemeyer's masterful forms, it should have considered a larger tower (the current one is nothing more than a low antenna) or more curved elements in cornices and domes. Also softer lines for the arches, which were a little too oval to represent anything like government palaces. The covering between the marble plates that leave the temple surrounded by distinguishable squares also catches my attention. I would love to hear your opinion about this specific building, because of the pretension it carries in a city listed by UNESCO.
Nine years ago they formed the only new ward my stake ever had save for a YSA ward.
Today the ward was dissolved. Pioneer Village Ward, Provo North Park Stake. Named for the historic site in North Park which was within its boundaries, the park sits at 5th West and 5th North in Provo
Thanks, Matt. I must have somehow missed your earlier post about that paper. Apologies for the redundancy.
--Felix
I think Santa Maria will get a temple, pretty soon.
JPL, President Nelson has already announced 168 temples. There were 182 operating, under construction, and announced when he became President of the Church in 2018. This means we only has to announce 14 more temples to reach 50%. As pleased I would be for him to announce 24 temples in October, I'm fairly certain it will be 20 exactly (35 in total for the year, which has been the precedent for the past 3 years). At 100 years of age, he will have announced 6 more temples than all previous Church Presidents combined. He will also be the 4th Church President since Brigham Young to announce more than half of the Church's temples in his administration, preceded by David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, and Gordon B. Hinckley.
I agree with your entire comment, Noah! Thanks for those fun facts. I think President Nelson will stick to 35 temples per year for the foreseeable future. And every day he's alive, he sets a new record for the oldest living prophet and apostle. It occurred to me to wonder if they'll do another broadcast for his 100th birthday. If so, it'll probably happen the weekend after his birthday, since the Choir will be on your the weekend before his birthday.
tour, not your. Stupid autocorrect!
I know people who keep their location turned off on their phone. I know others who don't take their phone to church. Others will watch church online, especially shutins such as elderly and the sick. One ward in my stake in Ammon Idaho still streams the sacrament meeting every Sunday on the stakes YouTube channel. That is how I attended Stake conference this month. Also the majority of Latter-Day Saints watch or listen to General Conference virtually twice a year. I know of several people who live in assisted living homes and nursing homes who attend meetings right in the facility they live at. As a young man I took the sacrament to members in my ward who could not get out of the house. Many would have their own study or worship at home in some way.
It seems that this year our ward building's parking lot is fuller than usual. Many have to park in front of the elementary school next door. At first I considered that my ward had the middle time slot with the overlap of wards. But I never saw this in past years. And I also considered that in the winter plowed snow piles took up several parking spaces. But with the snow gone, there still seems to a problem finding a place to park. It seems that attendence is picking up. We are not in a growing area of town, so growth is not fed by new development, at least in my ward or stake. But nearby stakes have new development.
Hmm, I guess my math was off. I still like the idea of 24 or even 25 temples in October. Maybe I dream too big.
I know people who do not bring a phone with them to Church.
Is Puebla Mexico the next temple scheduled for dedication. I am looking forward yo tomorrow's temple news.
For what it’s worth, it seems to have worked well in Philadelphia. The word I hear is that many non-members feel as though it does befit the neighborhood, while many members visiting the area still recognize it unmistakably as a temple. While spires aren’t strictly necessary and usually aren’t functional, they’re quite common for Latter-Day Saint meetinghouses, and they are the historic norm for temples.
That said, there’s always been issues with getting local approvals, particularly in times of temple expansion. Harrison NY was caught up in red tape for years, and frankly, the town basically came just short of openly saying that it would never be built. (The chairman of the planning board took credit for getting the church to agree to some compromises, including some that were honestly at no risk of happening [holding a pageant or having a visitor’s center] or would have had absolutely no real impact on traffic [like not having a family history center]. And even then, those compromises weren’t enough to get the Town Board to let the temple progress, it took the threat of a lawsuit that the town was likely to lose to get them to be less obstinate.)
Hartford and Nashville were both planned to be larger regional temples in the 90s that were tied up in red tape, too. Hartford’s red tape is what ultimately led to Harrison’s red tape and to having a temple in Manhattan (that’s about the same size to the final agreed upon size of Harrison prior to its cancellation), and both are located in different cities to where the earlier properties for temples were. And that’s just examples I know off the top of my head. Besides, NIMBY is pretty much universal, some people seem to be flat out opposed to any change whatsoever.
Yes, JPL. Puebla is the next scheduled dedication, on May 19. Then there are 4 dedications in June, 2 for Utah temples and 2 for Latin American temples, all of which will occur between June 2 and June 16.
I spend many months serving in that border in the Uruguayan side and language is not a problem at all. Almost everyone in understand Spanish and Portuguese if not everyone but Portuguese has more strength. Many are bilingual.
Thanks for your very interesting analysis. I think that one of the objectives in the architecture of a temple is that can be recognized as a sacred place. I live in South America and it's clear to me that many of the new temples have similarities with colonial religious buildings (which is beautiful), but I see everyone in that cities know at first sight that that buildings are special religious building and become landmarks in our cities.
I honestly love temple architecture. Be it with a spire or not. I feel many people instinctively reject the idea of a temple because they feel threatened by it, as in, the idea that a "strange" religion (a religion they are not familiar with, and that they regularly hear bad things about) would come so close to their living places.
Of course, I would not ignore the concerns of those who believe such a structure would strip their neighborhood of its "rural setting", I myself feel saddened by the fast urbanization of my home city, because more often than not it comes with massive environmental issues.
Perhaps the church architects can plan designs that are both big enough for all saints in the area to use but also not as flashy? But even then, if such was considered for landmark temples such as the San Diego or DC, they would certainly not be recognized as widely and would not leave an impression on people to learn more about our religion.
Also, I see there is another Noah in the thread, so I will try to make my comments more distinguishable to avoid confusion!
Several flaws in the cell phone geolocation study - except for one: Trends. For the latter-day Saints, attendance was steady with steep drop offs for both General Conferences (when everyone was watching from home). For Catholics, there was a sharp spike in attendance on Christmas and Easter with much lower attendance in-between. The numbers maybe way off but the trends appear correct.
I truly feel that the following temples will be announced for Mexico in the near future:
Morelia Mexico Temple
Acapulco Mexico Temple
Zacatecas Mexico Temple
Leon Mexico Temple
Posa Rica Mexico Temple
Orizaba Mexico Temple
In the not so near future but will be announced eventually:
Durango Mexico Temple
Coatzacoalcos Mexico Temple
Tepic Mexico Temple
La Paz Mexico Temple
Post a Comment