Philippines
Three new stakes were created in the Philippines.
The Aparri Philippines Stake was organized from the Aparri Philippines District (organized in 1988) on August 10th. The new stake includes the following five wards and two branches: the Aparri 1st, Aparri 2nd, Camalaniugan 1st, Gattaran, and Lal-Lo Wards and the Camalaniugan 2nd and Magapit Branches. The Aparri Philippines District was one of the oldest districts that had not yet become a stake in the Philippines.
The Muñoz Philippines Stake was organized on August 10th from the Guimba Philippines District (organized in 1992). The new stake includes the following five wards and one branch: the Guimba 1st, Guimba 2nd, Muñoz 1st, Muñoz 2nd, and San Antonio Wards and the Guimba 3rd Branch.
The Tarlac Philippines South Stake was organized on August 24th from the Tarlac Philippines Stake (organized in 1981). The new stake includes the following four wards and one branch: the Capas, Concepcion, Lapaz, and Tarlac 5th Wards and the Dap-Dap Branch.
There are now 137 stakes and 51 districts in the Philippines.
Arkansas
A new stake was created in Arkansas on September 14th. The Centerton Arkansas Stake was organized from a division of the Bentonville Arkansas Stake (organized in 2014) and includes the following seven wards: the Centerton 1st, Centerton 2nd, Centerton 3rd, Gravette, Grove, Highlands, and Morningside Wards. The Rogers Arkansas Stake was also realigned with the Bentonville Arkansas Stake as part of the new stake creation.
There are now four stakes in northwestern Arkansas. There are now eight stakes in Arkansas.
Canada
A new stake was created on September 21st in Alberta, Canada. The Beaumont Alberta Stake was organized from a division of the Edmonton Alberta Gateway Stake (organized in 1983) and includes the following seven wards: the Beaumont, Blackmud Creek, Ellerslie, Meadowlark (Tagalog), Rio Vista (Spanish), Wetaskiwin, and Wildrose (Tagalog) Wards. The new stake is the Church's seventh stake in Edmonton and the third new stake organized during the past decade.
There are now 54 stakes and three districts in Canada.
Idaho
A new stake was created in Idaho on August 24th. The Pocatello Idaho Highland South Stake was organized from a division of the Pocatello Highland Stake (organized in 1963). The new stake includes the following seven wards: the Highland 1st, Highland 2nd, Highland 6th, Highland 7th, Highland 8th, Highland 10th, and Highland 14th Wards. This is the first new stake in Pocatello since the late 1990s. There are now 11 stakes in Pocatello.
There are now 146 stakes in Idaho.
Kiribati
A new stake was created in Kiribati on September 14th. The Tarawa Kiribati Betio Stake was organized from the Tarawa Kiribati West Stake (organized in 2007). The new stake includes the following four wards and two branches: the Betio 1st, Betio 2nd, Betio 3rd, and Temakin Wards and the Borotiam and Tabontebike-Abaiang Branches. Reports also suggest that the Tarawa Kiribati North District may become a stake in October, although this has not yet been confirmed.
There are now three stakes and three districts in Kiribati.
Madagascar
A new stake was created in Madagascar on August 3rd. The Antsirabe Madagascar Stake was organized from the Antsirabe Madagascar District (organized in 2010). The new stake includes the following four wards and three branches: the Ambohimena, Antsirabe, Mahazoarivo, and Tomboarivo Wards and the Andranomanelatra, Manandona, and Saradroa Branches. Antsirabe is now the third city in Madagascar to have a stake following Antananarivo and Toamasina.
There are now five stakes and one district in Madagascar.
South Carolina
A new stake was created in South Carolina on August 24th. The Spartanburg South Carolina Stake was organized from the Greenville South Carolina East Stake (organized in 2003). The new stake includes the following six wards and one branch: the Boiling Springs, Gaffney, Inman, Roebuck, Spartanburg, and Tyger River Wards and the Union Branch. There are now three stakes in the greater Greenville area and 11 stakes statewide.
Texas
A new stake was created in Texas on September 14th. The Temple Texas Stake was organized from the Waco Texas Stake (organized in 2010). The new stake includes the following five wards: the Belton, Morgans Point, Salado Creek, Temple 1st, and Temple 2nd Wards.
There are now 83 stakes in Texas.
Brazil
A new district was created in Brazil on September 14th. The Tubarão Brazil District was organized from a division of what was previously known as the Tubarão Brazil Stake (organized in 1993; now renamed the Criciúma Brazil Stake). The new district includes the following four branches: the Bairro São João, Imbituba, Laguna, and Oficinas Branches. There are now 11 stakes and one district in Santa Catarina State.
There are now 288 stakes and 36 districts in Brazil.
Mozambique
A new district was created in Mozambique on August 17th. The Tete Mozambique District was organized from four Mozambique Beira Mission branches in Tete where the first branch was organized in 2005. The new district includes the following four branches: the Matundo, Moatize, Tete, and Zambeze Branches.
There are now eight stakes and three districts in Mozambique.
Utah
A new correctional facility district was created in Utah on August 19th. The Wasatch Range Utah (Correctional Facility) District was organized with correctional facility branches in Salt Lake City, Utah. The new district includes the following six correctional facility branches: the Atherton, Bonneville, Fortitude, Geneva Fields, Glendale, and Orange Street Branches.
There are now six correctional facility districts in Utah.
There are now 644 stakes and seven districts in Utah.
California
A stake was discontinued in California. Organized in 1992, the San Fernando California (Spanish) Stake was discontinued and its units were reassigned to neighboring stakes. As recently as a few years ago, the stake had seven wards and one branch. The decision to consolidate the stake with overlapping stakes was likely rooted in efforts in most areas of the United States to discontinue language-specific stakes and rather have Spanish-speaking congregations assimilate with English-speaking units in the same stakes (a similar decision was made in Houston, Texas several years ago). English-speaking stakes in the area that once covered the San Fernando California (Spanish) Stake have experienced a steady decline in the number of English-speaking congregations for decades.
There are now 145 stakes in California.
New Zealand
A stake was discontinued in New Zealand. The Upper Hutt New Zealand Stake (organized in 1977) was discontinued and consolidated with the neighboring Wellington New Zealand Stake which was renamed the Wellington and Hutt New Zealand Stake. Stakes in the Wellington area have had few congregations for many years, and the decision to consolidate the stake was likely to help conserve limited leadership and prepare to support the future Wellington New Zealand Temple. There are now two stakes in the Wellington area.
There are now 28 stakes and two districts in New Zealand.
Guatemala
A district was discontinued in Guatemala. The Chiquimula Guatemala South District (organized in 2024) was discontinued and three of the district’s four branches were reassigned to the Zacapa Guatemala Stake after the San Luis Branch was closed. The district had been organized approximately 18 months ago. The reasons for the district’s early discontinuation remain unclear
There are now 51 stakes and 10 districts in Guatemala.
275 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 275 of 275Jonathon, that's good to know. Michael, glad to hear that my latest explanation was enough to convince you.
Daniel, the 17 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency was when David O. McKay had a total of 5 counselors. His Third Counselor was Hugh B. Brown; his prophetic successor, Joseph Fielding Smith, served as both an additional counselor and simultaneously as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve and an active member of that Quorum in addition to his First Presidency role. The Assistant to the Twelve who also served in the First Presidency was Elder Alvin R. Dyer, who went back to being an Assistant to the Twelve upon the 1970 death of President McKay and the dissolution of the First Presidency.
If it was to replace a chapel, I would suspect the Rodney Parham Chapel due to the chosen location being within the current Pinnacle Mountain Ward. This is a very central and easy location to get to by most members, and I would really support that location for a temple. However, it's not in the upscale type of neighborhood you would typically see a new temple.
Also, if this is a replacement of the Rodney Parham Chapel, there will no longer be a chapel east of I-430 in Little Rock.
Usually the mixup I receive: I'm on the phone and they see my address as AR, they assume it stands for Arizona.
I’m going to double down on my prediction that the First Presidency will be reorganized today. I think there was a memorial for that reason.
James, do you think that the Nelson family will hold their own private family funeral for only descendants and close friends of the Prophet?
I take that back. The below article in the Deseret News says it is not expected to reorganize the First Presidency.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/10/03/first-latter-day-saint-general-conference-without-church-president-since-1951/
No. I think the memorial devotional allowed Church leaders to have their turn honoring President Nelson while the funeral will allow his family their turn to pay tribute to him.
The Improvement Era ends in 1970, the Ensign lasts from 1971 until I think the end of 2021.
Alvin R. Dyer was previously an assistant to the Quorum of the 12 and then made an additional counselor to David. O. McKay. He was never slotted into the Quorum of the 12. Joseph Fielding Smith was at the same time an additional counselor to President McKay and the functioning president of the Quorum of the 12.
Back to the interview with Larry Wilson. It is not clear that 600 was the final goal number for tye 15 year plan after President Nelson said add a 0 to 60. Elder Wilson was emeritized back in 2019, so it is hard to say much about the decisions made since.
That said it took 7 years to announced 200 temples, although the rate was much slower in 2018-2020 than it has been since.
The other thing unclear is if the 15 year plan was we want to announce these 60 temples in the next 15 years, or we want to complete and dedicated these 60 temples I'm the next 15 years. If something close to the later is the goal, and something like 600 is the plan, and President Oaks stays the course, we may actually see an uptick in trmple announcements. That is a lot of modifiers so I have to admit knowing little of the future.
General conference is about to start on less than an hour. I expect a solemn assembly to occur, I expect Elder Bednar and Elder Gong to be called as President Oaks counselors, I expect Elder Arnulfo Valenzuela to be called as the new apostle, I expect all this to happen at the start of the first session.
I expect President Oaks will announced temples for North Weber County, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Wales, Angeles, Philippines; Legazpi City, Philippines; Otavalo, Ecuador; Resistencia, Argentina; Port Harcourt, Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria, Bo, Sierra Leone, Kinshasa DR Congo 2, Lome, Togo, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, Sebdai, Japan,
I accidentally posted my last comment when I was doing an edit. The list was Sendai, Japan which I misspelled. Then also Kolwezi, DR Congo; Poza Rica, Mexico; Kimgston, Jamaica; Thousand Oaks, California; Manilla City Center, Philippines; Hapapai Group, Samoa; Baltimore, Maryland, Chicago City Center Illinois, Lima Peru 4 and Antigua, Guatemala. Also the Originsl Guatemala City; Lima and Manila Temples will undergo major revisions with expansion once the in each case 2 planned but not completed temples in their metro area are completed.
Of course if all thst happens as I wrote I would be shocked.
I meant Ha'apai Group, Tonga. I have to admit that I would not be shocked if the First Presidency is not announced, but I still think it will be. I think if the first Presidency is reorganized thry will call an apostle but could be wrong. If they call an apostle I am not all the certain it will be Elder Valenzuela. I have other guesses, but I think him the most likely.
I think temples being announced is independent of the First Presidency bring reorganized. I could see President Oaks pulling a President Hinckley in April 1998 and announcing a number of temples but saying thry will be announced over the coming weeks.
If temples are announced I do not think my list of 25 above will do any worse than my list of 15 did in April but we shall see.
The article that says the First Presidency will probably not be reorganized is from the Deseret News not the Church News. Some may ask what the difference. While the Church News is not correlated for accuracy due to time constraints like the Liahona, it is seen as a Church publication and so tries to avoid stating things that could be seen as Church pronouncements unless there is clear evidence.
While the Deseret News is fully owned by the Church, and Sarah Jane Weaver, Doug Wilks and the executive leadership team are all faithful church members, the material thry publish is not meant to reflect the views if the Church per se. Tab Walch is a religion reporter who mainly covers The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I enjoy his articles and respect the research he does. He may be right. However he is reporting based on past events, not any indigent from actually interviewing President Oaks or any other apostle in reorganizing the First Presidency.
I am excited for general conference although unsure what eill happen.
Well I really like the pre-conference video thry have explaining the meaning of general conference as bringing us closer to Jesus Christ. They show people on Oahu, in Masvingo, Zimbabwe, a rice paddy in the Phillipines and in Switzerland watching general Co ference at specific times. I now wish I had started watching the pre-seasion materials earlier.
Well, as.expected, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was sustained as the presiding authority of the Church. I did not predict President Oaks' opening remarks, but it's nice to know he will also conclude General Conference, which I was projecting.
Based on what President Oaks said in his remarks I think he will speak twice tomorrow. He said his opening and closing remarks were in addition to planned talks which would all occur. I assume he already had a planned talk in addition to those so he will speak three times. I may have misunderstood what he said.
The numbers Elder Cook gave were staggering. Both my branch and stake have seen a significant uptick in baptisms.
I found Elder Kevin G. Brown's talk to be a very moving one. I liked a lot of other talks as well.
In the interview with Elder Wilson, I didn't take it to mean that they would do 600 in the following 15 years, that the 60 was far too small and you need to think much larger, hence "adding the zero." I think that could even go for something like 400 temples over 15 years, would have the same connotation/significance.
Elder Cook mentioned the convert baptisms again today. Said "900k over the last 36 months." With there having been 252k and 309k in 2023 & 2024, that would mean approximately 340k for 2025. He's obviously rounding, but if there was indeed over 20% YoY increase in every area aside from North America which was still 17%, that means that number should easily be over 370k. He mentioned that number was from the end of June, so there is a chance that the number has slowed down, but I would expect increased referrals to round out the year due to the positive publicity the church has gotten this past month. Only 331k would be needed to set the calendar year record.
There wasn't anything special about 2024 that seemed to drive more people out of the church, yet it was the highest number of records removed from death and other means. 2018 Makes sense with the children of LGTBQ debacle that got a lot of inactives choosing to resign their membership, but I can't think of anything that would cause the large increase in 2024. With this large influx of converts coming on, I wonder if they are doing what the corporate world would call "incoming smoothing," ie during a good year removing more old records that are probably sitting in Salt Lake to balance the large number of new converts coming online. The record for largest year increase is 399k in 1999. I'd guess we'd need around 420k convert baptisms to pull that off.
Yesterday, President Oaks said that he would be taking President Nelson’s place for the final talk of conference. If he ends up announcing temples, would that be the first time when temples were announced by someone who was not the prophet?
President Hinckley announced temples as a counselor to both President Kimball and President Benson. Other temples were actually announced in a letter from the First Presidency.
On President Hinckley announcing temples in October 1992 he announced the Hong Kong, Hartford and an additional time for Utah County in conference.
That is correct. But I believe this may mark the first time new temples have been announced during an apostolic interregnum.
Or at least the first time in over 100 years.
That is correct. Including President Oaks' concluding remarks, there are 7 apostolic addresses yet to come, which means that 4 of those 7 will be speaking in a single session.
Brigham Young announced plans and location of the salt lake temple during the first apostolic interregnum. any temples announced today will be in very good company.
Last minute predictions:
October 2025
Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire
Lomé, Togo
Bo, Sierra Leone
Kinshasa DR Congo #2
Angeles, Philippines
Santa Maria/Passo Fundo, Brazil
Pisco, Peru
Neuquén, Argentina
Marshall Islands
Toulouse, France
Augusta, ME
Jackson, MS
Henderson, NV
Rigby, ID
Little Rock, AR
South Lake, TX
Evanston/Lyman/Bridger Valley, WY
North Ogden/Pleasant View, UT
Renovation: Logan, UT (at opening of Smithfield temple)
Here are my 11th hour temple predictions: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=10lauuaMZA5ZyrCXU5DpKk1kbhZKpCExq&ll=37.51227452065889%2C-105.97324477167969&z=11
Thank you, Chris. I may have to start reducing my radius for the USA. Unfortunately, I have not been able to update the USA recently as it is so dense and takes a lot to process, and reducing the radius may allow me to keep up with it. Even though I find the calculation of up to 200 miles driving or 3 hours driving fascinating; because I like that if that value is less, where two radius join is equal distance to either Temple, whether that is 10 miles or 200. The area where radius join also changes as the exact locations are announced.
Elder Godoy just spoke of the Maseru Lesotho District preparing to become a new Stake in his talk. I wonder if that will come about during the next District Conference scheduled for next month, November 15-16, 2025, with currently 8 branches?
https://maps.churchofjesuschrist.org/stakes/2067226
Absolutely sad that there are no more temples.
I remember when President Thomas S Monson also announced a pause on Temple announcements during conference. I think that pause lasted about a year for temple construction to catch up with announcements.
That was April 2014.
Well that was anticlimactic. So much for all of the predictions posted here.
Makes one wonder if President Nelson had not passed away what temples likely would have been announced today.
I think they would just be pushed further out, whenever this hiatus ends. It might last longer than the last one simply based on the backlog size. I probably wouldn't have done it that way but for good reasons I'm not in charge.
I already miss him. That's not to say I'll change my approach to supporting the authorities. But I miss, as I miss the kind President Hinckley even more. The world was happier back then
A couple of ideas. One, they may be pausing to catch up in much needed meeting houses. Two, since they said they may announce the temples differently, maybe an announcement will be made outside of conference after the first presidency has been reorganized.
They are not stopping temple announcements all together. President Oaks said it was appropriate to slow down the announcements and not announce any specifically in this conference. He also said the church will also continue moving forward in providing the ordinances of the temple, including when and where to announce new temples. Below is his quote within this summary from the Newsroom:
"The President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said the Church will “move forward in providing the ordinances of the temple to members of the Church throughout the world, including when and where to announce the construction of new temples.” He did not announce any new temples during his remarks, noting that “with the large number of temples now in the very earliest phases of planning and construction, it is appropriate that we slow down the announcement of new temples.” "
According to this Facebook article from the official Church Newsroom account, President Oaks said there will be a slowing down of temple announcements to focus on moving along the currently announced temples. That is also the reason there were no temples announced at conference.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Z9Kc6RTZW/
Before President's Nelson's passing, I thought the number of announcements would be 18 today, with the number slowing down thereafter to 20-30 per year.
As President Oaks stated, there are a large number of temples in the earliest stages. If new temples were to be announced today or in a year, I think it really wouldn't affect the timing of dedications, just the magnitude of backlog. I think a large backlog can put some positive urgency into getting temples built and dedicated, but having too large of a backlog risks operational inefficiency and lowered morale among those working on the pipeline.
Also wanted to point out, that President Oaks didn't state that we were taking a break from temple announcements, though there may very well be a break. He stated that, "it is appropriate that we slow down the announcement of new temples.” He also noted that "with the approval of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we will not announce any new temples at this conference."
That is it. Let's not read into it too much. Maybe we will see some announcements soon, but at a rate noticeably smaller than in recent years. Maybe soon after the 1st Presidency is announced. President Oaks mentioned they would move forward with determining "when and where" temples will be built. Maybe temples will be announced outside of conference, maybe even outside of conference weekend or even throughout the year sporadically. We really don't know. It hasn't been stated. I don't have any opinion on when or how any of this will happen... the main purpose of my post is to hopefully preclude hasty conclusions on what was and wasn't stated in conferencec
I think the point is that nobody really saw this coming. It is a sudden and dramatic shift. Everyone here has been assuming unstoppable temple growth with bold predictions of imminent announcements of hundreds of more temples for the foreseeable future. Clearly that will not be happening now.
I think they probably would have. If President Nelson made a list for today and President Oaks has the list, I'm guessing they will be among the first temples announced by the new first presidency, but have no idea on timing. Could be after the funeral, could be over a year away, I have no idea.
Correction, Matt the owner of this blog DID see this coming. I think the point is that expectations should be tempered from here on out.
I expected no temple announcements. If President Nelson hadn't died, he would have announced some. But, if President Oaks announced those temples I think there would be some who would consider them Nelson temples. President Nelson is not the prophet, and it as he no longer leads yhe church a period of resetting everything is a good idea. The next time temples are announced it will be by the current prophet of God. Meanwhile I would love to see groundbreakings announced at an accelerated pace.
An advantage of slowing announcements with such a large number in the announced pipeline, is that circumstances change. Having too many in the pipeline can make responding to new developments slower and have temples announced for ultimately subpar locations. Example 1) in a fast-growth area, it becomes evident a temple is needed ASAP. However, due to a backlog it takes several years after announcement to get the resultant temple through the pipeline to dedication. Example 2) a temple is announced and plans decided, but during the long time in the pipeline, there is a shift in demographics that if known would have lead to a larger or smaller capacity temple. Example 3) similar to example 2, except that a shift in demographics if know would have placed a new temple in a different, better location within the temple district.
Another thing is that if land is actually identified before a temple announcement, factors can be taken into consideration before announcing, such as how easy going the community / planning commission is expected to be in the area.
Honestly, it could be strategically smart to work with jurisdictions individually and announce each temple individually when the information is expected to become public in due course or when the info is leaked. Isn't this how most businesses make announcements of locations?
I agree happy dane. The backlog is quite large. I would prefer fewer temple announcements in the foreseeable future so that saints living in announced temples dont have to wait for a long period of time for it to be built. Bring the backlog significantly down and announce temples at an appropriate throughput rate that the temple department can handle.
Sincerely,
A project manager.
It was a bit disappointing that there were no new announcements, but completely understandable. I myself was wondering how much time before we got too much bloat with the number of temples in the announcement stage with not much being publicly known about them. Based on my chart, we have 6 with dedication dates, 56 post-groundbreaking but pre-dedication dates (of which I count 11 that don't appear to active construction), 48 with a site announcement (includes upcoming groundbreaking), and 64 announced.
I'm fine with the slowdown of temples, and in fact, I really hope that future announcements will have more planned to them than just a city. I get that that might increase the inevitability of plans being 'leaked' or announced by an outside source prematurely like with Paris, but it seems to me the better option to have temples already in the approval process when they are announced.
For the April 2026 here is my prediction
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. Bo SLE
2. Angeles PHI
3. Evanston WY
4. Santa Maria BRA
less likely
5. Kinshasa #2 RDC
6. Lima #3 PER
7. Aguas calientes MEX
and that's all
Other Matt here..
Technically there isn't a First Presidency to make an announcement. Once a First Presidency is reorganized, then temples will be announced at General Conference or periodically in church statements signed by the First Presidency.
I keep seeing this as an excuse, but how come just about everyone here still assumed there were going to be temple announcements today?
In response to Dane, I will count myself as one who was surprised by no announcements. I would agree that some had begun projecting a continuing and imminent large expansion in temple announcements, but not all. Several posters have been pointing out the seeming unsustainable nature of the rate of announcements, the increasing backlog, and the eventual reduction in temple-ready locations (short a massive paradigm shift in what we think of as "temple-ready").
Based on the words of President Oaks, it does seem like there were some temples ready for announcement. "With the approval of the Quorum of the Tewelve Apostles, we will not announce any new temples at this conference." That makes it seem that some were ready to be announced, and he ran it by the Quorum to get their approval to delay those announcements. Stated differently, if there were no announcements planned, why would he need the approval of the Quorum to not announce temples?
Another thought I had, and this was just my first impression when he made the "when and where" comment was this. What if, at least for a time, new temples were announced by members of the First Presidency and the Twelve when they are travelling, and they announced them in the proposed city? It seems a bit far-fetched, but, that was just a thought.
I suppose that is a possible interpretation of what has transpired. But that is not the reasoning that President Oaks gave. It would have been plenty easy enough for him to say, "As the First Presidency has not yet been reorganized, we do not feel it is appropriate to announce temples at this time" or something similar.
Instead, he stated that the backlog of temples was the impetus for the pause at this time. The reason for no announcements hopefully is not a cause of anyone's faith to waver. I am a simple man and will take the explanation actually provided by the president of the highest governing body of the Church.
As I stated below, I was surprised by no announcements. The lack of a First Presidency, to me, does not seem to be a barrier to announcing a temple.
As has has been stated, there was no First Presidency this conference to make announcements. Also, we all know there is a large backlog of temples, and there are only so many project managers, and construction crews that know how to actually build a house of the Lord.
There needs to be time to catch up on the backlog, and I don’t know what the future holds, but I think it’s wisdom that mass announcements don’t occur at this time. Maybe I’m reading between the lines too much on what President Oaks said, but to me, considering the fighting and backlash that we’ve had over the temples announced in Cody Wyoming, and Heber City Utah, and Lone Mountain Nevada, and Prosper Texas, and China, and Moscow Russia, and probably other sites that I have forgotten, it seems to me like it would be wisdom for the Brethren to not announce new temples until the land had already been purchased and the building permits already signed and in hand, and then they announce either at general conference, or at stake or area conferences. Once permits are in hand in the land purchased there is not a lot of opposition that could actually take place.
Also, I think if a new temple announcement were to be made at a stake or multi-stake conference, it would be much more exciting for the local Saints to be able to rejoice both in that meeting and after the meeting with each other over the excitement of “their” temple being announced in their own community
Just some thoughts…but as we get closer to the Millennium, we know that the opposition from Satan is going to increase, and that includes those here upon the Earth who choose him to be their leader.
Therefore, the building of more houses of the Lord might have to become much more quiet and local than it has been in the past until that time that Satan is bound and the Lord reigns as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
President Oaks statement left open the possibility of new temples being announced at a time other than general conference. We will see.
There are 110 temples awaiting groundbreaking and 75 more awaiting dedication, though a few in both categories have dates.
One other possibility I'd President Oaks and his counselors may decide to in the fitilure not announce temples as soon in the process as President Nelson did. Such as awaiting clear temple sites and not announcing until thry are owned by the Church.
We shall see.
If the first Presidency is announced this week it will be interesting to see what happens October 13.
Gary, these were my thoughts exactly regarding the possibility of announcing a temple at a multi-stake conference. Let's say you have 3 stakes gathered for the creation of a 4th stake in the area. While there, the presiding officer announces the temple plans. I don't think it is likely, but I think it would be really neat.
JPL, it is interesting how different trends occur. I believe when President Monson announced a pause, he specifically stated a desire to allow the process to be further along prior to the announcement. Then, under President Nelson's administration, temples gradually got announced earlier and earlier. Perhaps we will now see a bit of a shift back to waiting until the process is a bit further along.
Even if President Oaks announces temples as early in the process as President Nelson, we'll see fewer announcements. Two main reasons:
1) Backlog on getting temples to construction. This has been a concern I've expressed for 2-3 years now. As mentioned above, most of Nelson's announcements have not received groundbreaking announcements.
2) Backlog on meetinghouse needs. In some areas wards can't split, wards are renting spaces, and existing meetinghouses can't get the maintenance they need.
I would expect President Oaks will not make many announcements during his tenure, and announcements would be strictly needs based. I don't expect any being removed from the list other than maybe one or two due to external political issues (ie Shanghai). However, I wonder if some will be put on the backburner (ie. Yuma Arizona).
Strictly based on his words tonight, I would suspect announcements will be less President Oaks will likely announce at a lower rate than President Monson 4.5 temples per year, but dedicate at a higher rate than Monson's 3.5 temples/year.
I think there's a list of 300 that would like to be announced, but we cannot physically build that many. Most of Nelson's announcements are still awaiting groundbreaking.
I've been calling announcements "looking more like a wish list" for a couple of years now. That with meetinghouse needs. The cooling of announcements is probably much needed.
I too was thinking Nelson's list (assuming there was one) would get announced.
I was also somewhat surprised (and disappointed) when there were no new temples announced. But then, the more my wife and I talked about it, especially in view of the fact that there is no current First Presidency in place to make that announcement, plus the current backlog, it makes sense to pull back on temple announcements for now.
That being said, JPL, I didn't quite understand what you meant about October 13. It is a Monday, so are you thinking the next major temple construction announcement will be made? Based on what President Oaks said, I'm curious about that as well. Will those regular Monday announcements continue? Stay tuned.
On a separate note, with President Nelson's funeral on Tuesday, I assume the reorganization of the First Presidency will take place in the days following that.. The last few meetings of the Qourum of the Twelve to reorganize the top Quorum of the Church took place on a Sunday. But the next two Sundays will see new temples dedicated. And since that reorganization involves all of the Quorum of the Twelve, I think we can rule out both of those Sundays.
So I think it will happen at some point this week. When?j The Church has often made major announcements on Thursday, so it occurs to me that 2 days after the funeral might be when it happens. As far as what we might expect on that, I don't see President Oaks retaining President Eyring. President Eyring hasn't been present for most of the meetings of the First Presidency lately, and he doesn't look well. Since President Oaks has been the only one actively functioning, I'm sure he'll want counselors who will be well enough to travel as extensively as a global Church requires.
So if President Eyring is not retained, who might be tapped to join President Oaks? As I've mentioned, I think it will be Elders Jeffrey R. Holland (who has traveled both stateside and internationally in the recent past, and looked and sounded as good as he was looking and sounding before his latest health challenges) and Dieter F. Uchtdorf.
I think President Eyring will return to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the Acting President, and that if he is also too unwell to function as such, I could see President Oaks creating an Assistant Acting President role for Elder Bednar. I likewise have theories about the resulting apostolic vacancy, but I don't know how fast President Oaks and the other apostles may move on that. I would hope the vacancy is filled within a week or two after the First Presidency is reconstituted, but we shall see. Lots to look forward to in the weeks ahead!
Question…MUST a member of the Twelve dedicate a temple, or could an assigned Area Authority Seventy do it?
In any given year, groundbreakings were typically 1/4 to 1/2 of announcements when President Nelson went to 30+ announcements/year. To keep from looking like a "wish list", groundbreakings would have to match announcements.
As mentioned above, I don't see very many temples being announced anytime soon (possibly even after Oaks)...Maybe a need for a few announcements each year.
I suspect President Oaks tenure would see more dedications than announcements - something not seen since Joseph Fielding Smith (who passed away in 1972). Joseph Fielding Smith had 2 dedications but no announcements.
Two presidents since Joseph Fielding Smith had the same number of announcements as dedications under their watch. Harold B. Lee had no announcements or dedications. Ezra Taft Benson had 9 announcements and 9 dedications. All others since 1972 had more announcements than dedications.
Yes, it must be done by an apostle, as it requires the apostolic authority and assignment from the Prophet. If you review the latest temple dedicatory prayers, the presiding apostle has mentioned that it is being done by the keys of the holy apostleshio and by assignment from the President of the Church, who holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. The particular keys are doctrinally limited to the ordained apostles, and it would take a change in that doctrine to enable GA Seventies or area secenties to preside at temple dedications.
Plus, the assignments made by President Nelson for the current scheduled dedications will be honored by President Oaks. That too is doctrinally supported.
No, there is no doctrine that you must be a member of the Twelve to dedicate a temple. In practice the most senior apostle, who is the only apostle authorized to exercise all priesthood keys authorizes a specific person to dedicate it. Since the beginning of Church history, every person authorized to dedicate a temple has been an apostle. Doctrinally, you must be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. This is clear when you understand that there are only two Priesthoods (Aaronic and Melchizedek). Under the current form of Church government, I would think that any general authority could be authorized to use the prophet's delegated authority to dedicate a temple. Perhaps even an Area Seventy if the temple was within the assigned area. You specified "MUST" so that's the answer. In practice we may never see anyone other than apostles do the dedicating, especially for new temples, but you never know given different countries political environment, or if a temple needs to be rededicated.
Interesting to note is that for a very long time in Church history, apostles only/primarily ordained stake patriarchs. However, stake presidents are now typically authorized to set apart the stake patriarch within their stake. The wording is very specific in the authorization letter from the office of the 12 or the 1st presidency (I don't recall which) which gives authorization to the stake president by name, the approved patriarch's name, the stake name, the exact wording to say, along with stating that it's done by delegated priesthood authority.
@Ohhappydane33 I tought temples would be anouned, because it was said: "That general conference would proceed exactly as President Nelson planned".
From Presidnet Oaks talk it sounded like that part of the plan was changed in agreement with the quorum of the appostles.
I mean no disrespect, but the Church disagrees with you on this point, Anonymous. This page was illuminating for me. Of particular note is this sentence: "Temples are always dedicated by a general authority, whereas a meetinghouse may be dedicated by a local Church leader. "
So that suggests that a General Authority Seventy or member of the Presiding Bishopric could technically dedicate a temple if delegated to do so by the Church President, but that privilege is not within the authority of an area seventy or just any Melchizedek Priesthood holder. And Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated that ""the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture".
So while I was incorrect that it requires apostolic authority specifically, "the practice of the Church" when it comes to temple dedications has been that it is currently limited to members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Could that change in the future? Sure, but that change would be instituted by the apostles in general and the prophet in particular. And in any case, that question arose in relation to my comment that during the next two Sundays, the Church has two members of the Quorum of the Twelve out dedicating temples.
With that in mind, I do think the reconstitution of the First Presidency will happen this week, probably on Thursday. I'm sure they want to focus on the funeral before they move to do that, so Thursday seems the most logical day for it. Hope this additional context and information is helpful.
The rude mocking of those of us who spent the time and energy to develop temple prediction lists is very uncalled for. Elder Stevenson urged us to be kind and considerate of others when we post online. That has clearly not been done by some here. What was posted was very rude and offensive. People should be kind when they make posts and not mock others.
I'm going to believe that this indiscreet comment wasn't directed at me. Does this mean that, from now on, all the predictions we used to make for the conferences are now considered rude, just because the general leadership doesn't plan on making any announcements for a while? So, everything we usually do here in the days leading up to the conference, including the accuser himself, is wrong? What's wrong with imagining a well-anticipated list for the next conference, already imagining a scenario with fewer announcements? It's a harmless joke; don't take life so seriously...
JPL.. I guess That I missed where people were mocking those who had made temple predictions. Personally, I always saw them just as that, predictions are a wish list and not anything that would officially come from the mouth of the profit. I just saw it as many of our number on here, following growth, being excited about it, and with all their hearts, like me, praying that all of these areas had access to the immediate blessings of a temple that they could attend, travel of less than an hour. I know that they will come, and I would pray sincerely that we would be opened up somehow, for these announced temples to be built faster than has ever been done, but yet of the highest quality so that we can move back to being announced in all parts of the world without having to wait for many many years , and I appreciate the comments from James Stokes from anonymous on what it was required to dedicate a temple. I guess the final thing is that any general authority can do it, but all must be under the direction in the assignment of the profit and thank heaven, the Lord revealed , all these great blessings all over the world
And why final comment/question for this morning… I still wonder if the day isn’t gonna come when the church doesn’t build one big massive building that will serve both as a temple and is a stake center in chapel, as is currently the case with Hong Kong, and Manhattan, New York, and I believe that Bangkok is also in that category. If that were to happen, the church could increase stake centers and temples at the same amount in the same time period.
I admit that I was wrong in my prediction that the First Presidency would be organized at conference. I should be more humble in listening to the other participants in this space.
I don’t think that fewer temple announcements indicates any slowing in the hastening of the work of salvation. The increase in baptisms as referenced by Elder Cook multiple times and the large number of stakes being created this year indicates to me that the Church is entering a new phase of growth.
I actually think this makes a lot of sense. Making a worldwide announcement about temple locations at very early stages gives those looking to oppose new temples time to plan their efforts to block, thwart, or slow down the approval process, at least here in the US.
As has been mentioned on this blog, the reasons for slowdowns and opposition in other countries is due to a completely different set of factors, mainly with the governments of those countries.
I agree, Scooter. The increase in baptisms is staggering stunning, and the strength and number of stakes both "old and new" are huge milestones of Church growth that shouldn't be ignored.
And if I may say so, I never took your opinion that the First Presidency would be reorganized during conference as your not being humble enough on the issue. The reorganization of the First Presidency being sustained at the next conference had almost always been done after the Prophet's death, so it was a natural conclusion on your part.
I think the Church just needed time to grieve President Nelson's passing l, and the viewing today and funeral tomorrow will afford that opportunity. If, as I suspect, the First Presidency is reorganized a few days after the funeral, the end of the apostolic interregnum will make the period since the prophet's passing about as long as the last interregnum was. That's all. Nothing to regret on your part. I appreciate your willingness to engage with me on this.
This was a wonderful conference with truly ground breaking talks. We never had a conference before with 4 speakers of African-descent. Let alone 4 speakers of African descent who all have been at times permanent residents of the United States. Elder Kevin G. Brown is the only one of the 4 who some might debate if he was an African-American, but a year ago he was an area seventy in the Utah Area, so there is an argument on both sides.
Elder Brown's talk was very good. If the rule for choosing the next apostle was "who has given a super powerful talk among the non-apostles lately", then I think Elder Brown would be the next apostle. That is not how this is done. I have come to the point where I see all my predictions as futile, so I have no idea what the future holds.
Elder Amos may be the American general authority with the deepest connections to the North America Souteast Area. Yes, there are others who lived there, like Elder Christopherson, Elder Andersen and some others. Stil I think Elder Amos' links are unique deep. He was born and raised in Louisiana. He went to college at Southern University, an HBCU in Baton Rouge. His wife was riaised in Baton Rouge and baptized with 17 other relatives in 1979 in that city, that story is told in Saints Vol. 4 although Michelle Wright is not named in the telling of it.
John Amos was introduced to the church by his wife who he met in a college engineering class. He was bpatized in 1989 and they married in the Atlanta Georgia Temple in 1990. They lived much of their married lives in the Orlando Florida area. He worked as an enineer at least part of the time for Siemens, was in the naval reserves and may have also taught classes at the University of Central Florida. Sister Amos was the head engineer on the mars rover. There is a Wikiepedia article on Michelle Amos, but as of a week ago it still said that she was one of the leaders of the Louisiana Baton Rouge Mission. They ended their leadership of the Baton Rouge Mission in 2023.
Elder Peter M. Johnson may have said the most and the most in-depth about the past priesthood and temple restriction in a talk ever in general conference. That may be the most watershed event of this coference.
What the plan going forward with temples will be is hard to say. I am not actually convinced that money is the issue in either temple or chapel building. I think it is more a structural issue of having enough staff to oversee everything. It may well be that we either have to majorly increase the central staff, restructure how such projects are coordinated, slow down temple building, or a combination of those. I expect that it will be a combination.
We have 110 temples awaiting ground breaking and 75 more awaiting dedication. Some of those have ground breaking or dedication announced.
President Hinckley announced the 32+ temples that allowed us to get past 100 by 2000 not at general conference but when the site was ready and other factors were right. So there is a possibility that they could go back to that model.
I think there is no actual scriptural mandate that only apostles can dedicate temples, but it has been how things are done. I think having area seventies do it would not be the next move. I actually think they will keep with the apostles doing it for a while, that is giving more options than in the past.
Until 1999 every temple was dedicated by the president of the Church unless he was not phyisically able. Until at least 1974 the goal was to have all the First Presidency and the 12 who were able to come at almost every temple dedication.
In 2000 there were so many temples being dedicated President Hinckley could not do it all. So his counselors helped with some. There was 1 temple in 1999 dedicated by President Packer acting president of the 12, but every other temple was dedicated by a member of the 1st presidency. At some point in President Monson's presidency members of the 12 started dedicating more temples. However most were still dedicated by the 1st presidency. Under President Nelson we reached the point where all 15 living apostles had been involved in temple dedications, although I think Elder Holland has not yet dedicated a temple, only redidicated them. He is scheduled to dedicate Grand Junction Colorado Temple this month.
Under President Nelson 200 temples were announced, 100 had ground breakings and 49 were dedicated. However 10 of those groundbreakings and 22 of those dedications were temples announced by President Monson.
I have no clear idea what the future will hold, but in theory we need to get to a place where we are doing 35 or so groundbreakings a year. In 2024 there were only 14 groundbreakings.
The reasons for these delays in temple progress I think are complex and place specific.
I also have an idea that no only do we need more chapels (especially in the Africa South Area based on what Elder Godoy said in his talk, but there are lots of other places where the need is great), and I think we need to be more willing to build a chapel for 1 ward or branch in places where the closest chapel is not close, the existing announced temples are not enough to meet the actual need, the exiting announced temples need to move forward faster. There is also a large number of older buildings and temples that will need costly renovations and repairs. Lastly, there are a bunch of temples like Detroit, Oklahoma City, Nashville and more that are much serving metro areas with more stakes than the planned bigger temples in their same state.
I keep wondering if there are other temples that can be expanded along the same lines as the Anchorage plan.
This all will require strategic increasing our ability to build at scale. Which at this point may require focus on increasing the size and resources of some key departments before we commit to more programs.
Lastly, on one hand technically a temple can be announced without a First Presidency. Brigham Young announced the Salt Lake Temple as president of the Quorum of the 12. However since before 1890 the twelve have not made major decisions during an interregnum and have waited until after it was over to make significant decisions.
With no temple announcements, I think (emphasis on think) we need to keep three things in mind:
1. The conference went on as planned except as noted.
2. Elder Eyring mention in the tribute for President Nelson that he and President Oakes would continue with what has been decided.
3. When President Nelson became Prophet, it was stated that the changes were being discussed by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles before President Monson passed away. I can be humble enough to be fact checked especially on this last point.
Although many have said that the prophets are here at their time for reason. That is true. The Lord has his Prophets, as us, here for a reason.
@Gary C Williams
"Personally, I always saw them just as that, predictions are a wish list and not anything that would officially come from the mouth of the prophet. I just saw it as many of our number on here, following growth, being excited about it, and with all their hearts, like me, praying that all of these areas had access to the immediate blessings of a temple that they could attend, travel of less than an hour."
I like what you said, and I have felt a similar sentiment.
@Ohhappydane33
I think it's important to remember that these are "predictions" (essentially “guesses”) and not “prophecies” that we are making here, made with the spirit of hope and excitement.
Many of us are excited to see the work progress around the world and to see others receive temples close to them, as well as hoping that more temples will be announced in our own neck of the woods (particularly for those, like me, who have to travel hours (and cross international borders) to get to their assigned temple).
Many of us also have personal connections to other areas where we'd like to see temples announced (I hope to see more in places I used to live, or in cities I served in on my mission).
I, like others, was a bit disappointed that there were no temples announced at this conference, but I can see the reasoning as explained generally by President Oaks, and guessed at by others here in the comments.
It'll be interesting to see what changes happen over the next few weeks and months and years with this new administration...
Post a Comment