Most Imminent Future Temple Announcements:
Africa Southeast: Nairobi Kenya
Africa West: Freetown Sierra Leone; Lagos Nigeria; Kumasi
Ghana
Central America: Managua Nicaragua
Pacific: Port Moresby Papua New Guinea
Europe: Budapest Hungary; Vienna Austria
Idaho: Pocatello Idaho
Mexico: Puebla Mexico
North America Central: Missoula Montana; Rapid City South
Dakota; Des Moines Iowa; Madison Wisconsin
North America Northeast: Richmond Viriginia; Augusta
Maine
North America Northwest: Salem Oregon
North America Southeast: Bentonville Arkansas; Jackson
Mississippi
North America Southwest: Fort Worth Texas
South America Northwest: Santa Cruz Bolivia
South America South: Neuquen Argentina; Valparaiso Chile
Utah North: Layton Utah
Utah South: Lehi Utah
NOTE: Temples in Brazil are usually a great possibility,
given the ongoing, extensive rate of growth there. However, with one currently
under construction (Fortaleza); one with construction pending (Rio de Janeiro);
and one announced (Belem Brazil), a new Brazilian temple doesn’t seem likely
for at least a couple of years. I won’t rule it out, but it seems others might
take precedence. When new Brazilian temples are next announced, the most likely
order for the next four or five temples are: Brasilia, Belo Horizonte,
Salvador; Valparaiso, and/or a second for Sao Paulo, which is the fastest
growing Brazilian city with the strongest Church presence. Additionally, a temple in Kampala Uganda
seems warranted at some point in the near future, but the temple in Nairobi
Kenya would serve the Saints in both countries for at least a few years. I
wouldn’t rule out a Ugandan temple by 2030 if not before, and I will keep an
eye out on things and make a determination on that later. I anticipate at least
one temple announcement in the United States, because we have one under
renovation in Utah, and two more US temples scheduled for renovation, but the
dedications that will happen later this year mean that we will have none in any
stage after the Cedar City Utah temple is dedicated in December.
OK. Let´s go by your list.
ReplyDeleteAfrica SE: Totally in agreement. In fact, I see Nairobi getting called rather short term (before 2020).
Africa West: In agreement with Lagos short term. I see that as a good chance it gets called this or next conference. Kumasi is a ways out I think (Ghana has half the members as Nigeria) but I see it as happening around 2020-2022. Freetown is a possibility though not before 2020.
Managua I definitely see getting called this or next conference. Look out for San Pedro Sula in Honduras in the next 5 years that will take up NW Honduras, Belize, and E Guatemala).
Pacific. Port Moresby is tempting but I don´t see it as more than a dark horse at least not for another 5 to 10 years. A more imminent one IMO is Pago Pago (American Samoa). There are 5 stakes there (vs 2 for Moresby).
Budapest OR Vienna are possibilities. I lean more towards Budapest as it is more centrally located towards the other members in the district (consider the entire Balkan region plus Greece and Istanbul Turkey). Vienna does have more stakes so I do consider it a possibility. But both will not get called, though one of them will get called, probably around 2022.
Puebla is a possibility, and I hope it happens (I live and work there!) There are 6 stakes in Puebla city, a stake in nearby Cholula, two stakes in Tlaxcala (30 minutes away), two stakes in Nealtican (45 minutes away), and a stake in Atlixco (30 minutes away). There are more stakes in the outlying areas and you could bring the Morelos stakes into the district so six more. This will get called before 2020. In the next two conferences? I doubt it, but definitely possible in 2018 or 2019.
There are other temples to consider for Mexico. Queretaro is an area that has had rapid growth lately. 3 stakes in the city, three more in neighboring Guanajuato state, seven more in Hidalgo, and 3 in SLP. You might even drag Toluca in as the Mexico City temple is on the other side of the city from where Toluca is located. So three more stakes in Toluca. This is my personal bet for the next temple in Mexico though I also like Puebla.
Dark horse candidate could be one of three cities: Torreon, Durango (in the middle), or Culiacan. Though Durango has two stakes to Torreon´s five and Culiacan´s 3, it is strategically placed on a freeway that connects Sinaloa State with Torreon and later Monterrey. If you add up the stakes affected you would get 16 within manageable distance there.
I see this happening: Queretaro 2018 Puebla 2019 T/D/C 2022.
Pocatello is another possibility that can´t be overlooked. Around 2020 for that one.
North American Central: I only see Missoula as a possible choice. The other areas don´t have enough members and stakes and would depress turnout at the existing temples.
North American NE: I would look more towards Norfolk than Richmond. There are a few more members there and it is more remote than Richmond is to DC or Raleigh.
Salem is possible in NA NW.
Bentonville is my pick for next American temple then Pokey ID. That probably gets called this or next conference.
Fort Worth is kind of a stretch though Dallas is getting kind of busy. I would really be looking more towards Austin first or even McAllen/Reynosa. San Antonio temple is fairly busy as is Monterrey MX.
A second temple for Bolivia is possible in any of three cities: Santa Cruz, La Paz, or Sucre, in that order.
Valpo is WAY too close to Santiago. I would move that north to La Serena or even Antofagasta (in fact Antofagasta is more likely--more equidistant than La Serena to Arequipa and Santiago). Neuquen maybe, and I couldn´t rule out Salta in the far north.
Layton, and Lehi are definite but don´t be too surprised if Eagle Mtn gets it for far north UT County. Not to mention the other site for a temple proposed by President Hinckley near Bluffdale.
Bryan, I want to address your thoughts as I am reading them here, so I am following along. Given how long I have worked on this response and how much there is to address, I will split this into at least two comments, possibly more.
DeleteNairobi has been on my list for a while. And now that I have eliminated Uganda for the moment, it seems even more of a sure thing. Add to that the facts that one has been publicly proposed there, and that the Church has seen tremendous growth in Africa, and the report by Matt, who does the LDS Church Growth blog, in a done last year, that Kenya ranks as #10 and Uganda as #8 in terms of the nations with the strongest LDS presence that are without a temple in some phase of construction, and the conclusion I reach is that a Kenyan temple will happen very shortly here, and that we could see one in Uganda within the next 15 years or so as well. But I would expect Kenya for sure within the next three years or less. And my gut feeling, because of what I've learned about it through my own study and the many comments of others, is that it might happen before the end of this year. Time will tell.
I also appreciate your agreement with my choice of Lagos. Kumasi seems like a long ways off to me as well, but as it was mentioned as a near-future possibility in the very early days when I started publishing my picks, I felt it warranted an official notice. When I have enough reason to do so and can verify it might not happen for a while, I have been known to remove selections from my list.
My main reason behind the choice of Sierra Leone's likelihood that same list of Matt's ranks Sierra Leone as the #6 of the top ten. And my own study supports the idea that it is likely sooner rather than later. The growth in Africa certainly warrants many more temples, in my opinion.
Managua is another one that was publicly proposed, and I have the word of someone who has done the research to back it up and who I would trust to know about such things that land has been purchased for such a temple, and that an official announcement will follow when unit growth and the level of temple activity within the district that a Nicaraguan temple would pull away from warrants that happening. When listed in priority order, Nicaragua has been my #1 choice for the last several conferences. So that is just a matter of time.
As to your opinion about Port Moresby, thanks for the insight. However, you should know that it holds the #2 spot on my list, that it is also #2 on Matt's list of the top ten, and that a site for such a temple has already been purchased. The official announcement will follow when the conditions I mentioned above for Nicaragua are also met for Papua New Guinea. So that is just a matter of time.
I also get the reasons why Pago Pago would be preferred to New Guinea, but American Samoa ranks at #7 on Matt's list, and since I have felt a more compelling case applies to the choice of New Guinea, I eliminated American Samoa from my list. And there are many more factors in play here than just the number of Church units. If you have followed any of the posts I have done or comments I have made on the factors that go into determining the likelihood of any possible future temple site, then you will know that there's so much more involved than just which location has more units. Matt has also addressed such things in previous posts that he has done. While I likely won't be able to do the research to point you to specific comments that Matt and I have made in our separate labors of love regarding temple site selection factors, they are fairly easy to find. I may make that a topic for another blog post at some point in the future, as I have not addressed that for a while. Just know that, of the two, there is much more evidence to support a temple in Papua New Guinea than American Samoa. Others, as is their right to do so, might disagree. But the fact that I know without question that an actual site has been purchased for the temple that will be built in Papua New Guinea when the conditions are met is significant. Hope that helps explain why I favor PNG.
DeleteIn a previous comment on my blog, someone mentioned that Budapest will be the next European temple, no argument. So I have no doubt that you are right. But I know some people who have said the same of Austria. At this point, I don't know what to believe. I see more evidence supporting the case for a Hugarian temple, but I know that sometimes surprises do happen, and my wife having served her mission in Austria leads me to favor Austria. So I will leave both on there for now. I'm sure that if neither are announced this conference, as might happen, then I will need to reevaluate and narrow it down to one or the other. I could see both happening before too long. Everything I have read about the two possibilities leads me to conclude that Hungary is the more imminent and preferable of the two, but the arguments for one in Austria are compelling. We will see what happens. If neither are announced this go-round, I could see possibly removing them both from my list and picking a completely different third location.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBefore I continue to address your feedback on my picks, which I always enjoy doing, I wanted to note a couple of other things. I have before used Matt's list of the top 10 countries with the strongest Church presence without a temple to rationalize some of my choices and to explain why I prefer those on that list to others suggested. But I did want to mention that I don't have every one of the top ten on my list. Here's a list of those I did not include on mine, and a brief explanation of my reasons for not doing so:
DeleteWhile I had each one of the top ten from Matt's list on my personal list at one time (that was back when my selections numbered 60+ strong), I realized that some of those listed were not as likely, so I eliminated them. I don't remember why it was exactly that I had determined to eliminate the #3 choice, which was Puerto Rico, but I imagine that I didn't see a strong enough case supporting the idea of one there to retain it. The next one on the list, #4, is Russia, and I eliminated that choice because Russia appears to be in somewhat of a bad place politically, which makes the idea of trying to find land, negotiate a purchase of it, and build a temple there not very supportable at the moment. I know that if the Lord wants a temple in Russia someday, it will happen. But I honestly don't see that as a very near future possibility, which is what I have been refining my list to include. With Kiribati, which is ranked at #5, someone pointed out that the Church does not yet have a solid enough foundation there to make a temple feasible in the near future. If and when that changes, I will be happy to add it to my list again. The next one not on my list is the #8 pick of Uganda. And, as stated above, I removed that when someone just within this last week made the point that it is a sister nation to Kenya, and that of the two, Kenya was more likely, for the reasons I outlined above. So while I hope to see a temple in Uganda someday, and while I personally concur with the person who suggested removing it when he expressed the opinion that we could see temples in both nations within the next 20 years or less, depending on when the one in Kenya is announced and how busy that Kenyan temple is kept by the Ugandan Saints. Cambodia is listed at the #9 spot. While I would love to see a temple in Cambodia someday (primarily because my brother-in-law served his mission there and speaks so warmly of the faith and testimony he observed in the Cambodian Saints and so hopefully about its prospects for future Church growth.
Now, as far as Mexico goes, both Matt and I have listed a Puebla temple as a possibility for the last several conferences. It seems to be the next most logical choice for a temple in Mexico. Given the precedent that was set last April by the announcement of a second temple for Lima Peru, another option for Mexico at some point is perhaps a second temple in Mexico City. That said, other temples are always an option, so I am keeping my eyes peeled. While Puebla seems like the best and most imminent choice for the next Mexican temple, I have still been blown away sometimes at how the Lord has been known to surprise us with some temple announcements. Case in point, as I have before mentioned, are the three announced almost two years ago. It is possible that one or two of those three announced then were on many people's lists. I for one did not see any of them coming. That said, Bryan, thank you for sharing the fact that you live in Mexico. Until you said that, I was not aware that I had any readers of my blog outside of the United States. I appreciate your insights into other Mexican possibilities. I have heard other people mention Queretaro, and nothing would please me more. Before settling nicely on Puebla, I had listed Queretaro as a possibility for at least one conference that I can rembmer, and possibly even two. But I see Puebla as the next most likely temple announced in Mexico, and time will tell how right (or wrong) I might be. I am constantly looking at reevaluating my selections, and that is never more true than it is in the weeks just prior to and shortly following each General Conference. So I will take another look at future Mexican temple candidates for sure after General Conference next month
DeleteI have monitored the growth of the Church in Idaho for a while now, and that has me convinced of the fact that Pocatello will be the next temple announced there. I personally feel it will be announced within the next year or two rather than three years from now, and the research I have done on the subject bears that out completely. If Pocatello is not one of those that are announced next month, then you can feel free to rub it in afterwards. Right now though, I think I will keep it on my list.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn the North America Central Area, I know that a temple was publicly proposed for Missoula Montana by Elder David A. Bednar when he attended a stake conference in the region about 2.5 years ago. But I haven't found a source to verify this. I found the next best thing, though: two of my blog readers are familiar with the area and not only confirmed the report of the temple proposal but also mentioned that an official temple site had been purchased there. The same conditions that will result in the announcement of the temples in Nicaragua and Papua New Guinea apply to Missoula as well. As to my other choices, I felt that one for South Dakota Rapid City was warranted, and not because i favor it in view of it being in the region where my dad served his mission. I am instead looking at it primarily because of the surrounding states it would also serve. I also don't see the fact that it would be on the "home turf" of a state that just has one stake to be a problem. Maybe it would have been a disqualifier for me in times past, but that was before the groundbreaking for the Winnipeg Manitoba temple last December.
DeleteThrough my research, I found out that the Winnipeg temple is being built in the one Canadian province to serve just the one stake in the area. And it will be a smaller temple. Construction on that temple, which is anticipated to begin in earnest in April or May of this year after the conditions imposed by a really bad Canadian winter are sufficiently cleared. So a temple being built to serve one stake is no longer a disqualifier.
As for the temples I have listed for Iowa and Wisconsin, I had not included either on previous versions of this list. They only appear on my list now because they were suggested to me as part of the discussion of these same predictions of mine by someone on the LDS Growth Forum. If you are wanting to read more about that conversation and the reasoning that led to my including these two, you will have to visit the thread about it at the link below. Also, since I am mentioning the forum here, I just want to put in a quick plug for it. Right now, the forum is in its infancy and is not generating a lot of discussion or feedback. But the comments provided there, which though few and far between, are still very insightful to read, are instructive. And in rereading that discussion, it appears that Madison Wisconsin was suggested to me as one that should be replacing Montpelier Vermont, since the Wisconsin choice had a lot more merit. And Des Moines Iowa was mentioned as a possibility simply because it made more sense than Vermont, and the rationale I had put forth in favor of Vermont above Iowa seemed to lend more merit to replacing the former with the latter. I wouldn't be broken up about losing those last two from my list. Building the two in Iowa and Wisconsin made more sense than the idea of building the one I had suggested for Vermont. If neither of them are announced this go-round, I will be revisiting the merits of retaining either or both of them. Hope that explains things. Here's the link to the relevant discussion. Feel free to add any additional thoughts you might have, if you have any interest in being part of the ongoing discussions on that forum. Enjoy!
http://ldsgrowth.proboards.com/thread/4/list-potential-temples
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor Virginia's first temple, I have heard many arguments from many previous blog discussions favoring a wide variety of cities. t the end of the day, I had three listed: Richmond, Buena Vista, and (I believe) Roanoke. The comments on the most likely of the cities I had worked off of were such that I felt a need to do research. And location or any other consideration aside, when weighed in the balance against the other cities, I came to the ultimate conclusion that Richmond makes the most logical sense for the site of Virginia's first temple. That said, I understand your reasons for arguing in favor of Norfolk. If I ever decide to reconsider my stance on where Virginia's first temple might be located, I promise to give Norfolk every due consideration. Until that time, I haven't heard a good enough argument to change it prior to General Conference next month.
DeleteI appreciate your agreement with my choices of Salem Oregon and Bentonville Arkansas. In regards to Arkansas, I have heard some (Matt included) who still seem to think that Arkansas's first temople will be located in Rogers. But Bentonville makes more sense. According to the information I have been given from someone who would know, that is the fourth location of which I spoke where land has already been procured for a temple. Once the same conditions mentioned previously for the temples in New Guinea, Nicaragua, and Missoula are met in Bentonville, that announcement is a sure thing. That is why, in terms of the United States temples that are based in the other 49 states aside from Utah, I see the three most likely possibilities as being, in order of likelihood: Bentonville Arkansas, Missoula Montana, and Pocatello Idaho. I will not be surprised in any way if other United States temples are announced before any of these three.
What will surprise me, however, is if we have no new temples announced within the United States at all this year. If that happens, then once the Cedar City Utah Temple is dedicated on December 10, for the first time in Church history of which I am aware, or at least the first time in a long time, we will not have any temples in the United States in any phase of construction. (NOTE: In saying this, I am not overlooking the renovations announced next year for the Oakland California and Washington DC temples. I am simply not "counting" them as being in the count of under construction temples because they are renovations, not new edifices. Hope that makes sense.)
On the LDS Growth Forum, my choice of Fort Worth Texas was discussed, and someone stated their case for Austin, just as you have. But then we had a comment from the forum administrator, who actually lives in or has some direct ties to Fort Worth. His comment that expressed support for my choice of Fort Worth over Austin also strengthened my argument in favor of that choice. Again, we welcome ongoing additions to the discussion of these things, so feel free to give the forum a visit, sign up for an account if you feel inclined to do so, and add to the discussion. We hope to see forum traffic increase as more people sign up to use it. Thanks.
DeleteAfter analyzing the two top contenders for Bolivia's second temple, Santa Cruz and La Paz, I realized something. Even though I favor La Paz because my former bishop and good friend in my parents ward served his mission there, I can't play personal favorites. Though the arguments for either seem equally compelling, Santa Cruz makes the most sense. That said, I fully anticipate that we will see a temple in La Paz, and I also see your point about Sucre. Maybe at some point 20-30 years down the road, there will be temples in all three cities.
I don't see the closeness of Valparaiso to Santiago to be an obstacle to having a temple there. After all, living in Utah County for as long as I have, I can tell you that we in Northern Utah County see Provo, Orem, and American Fork as sister cities. Provo now has two temples, American Fork has one, and I have heard from some who say that Orem is a strong contender for a temple as well. I am within driving distance of all three. So temples in neighboring cities cannot be seen as a problem if the temple activity of the Saints in the area warrant that happening. I will keep Valparaiso, but I thank you for your sound reasoning against it, and I would see your point. But it seems that, given the precedent set last April in Lima Peru, nothing will stop the Church from putting two temples in the same city if needed going forward. I can see a day when there will not only be a temple in Valparaiso, but a second temple in the capital city of Santiago as well. Thanks again for your thoughts on that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLayton and Lehi will be the next temples in Utah, mark my words. I have heard arguments in favor of having a temple in Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain as the preferred candidate over Lehi. But let's look at the facts I have assembled that led me to the preference of Lehi. These go much deeper than it just being my wife's hometown. That said, here's why it will be Lehi and I won't be budging on that belief:
Delete1. Aside from American Fork, where the Mount Timpanogos Temple is based, Lehi is the fastest growing city in the Mount Timpanogos Temple district. While Saratgo Springs and Eagle Mountain together have almost as many stakes as Lehi does on its own, there's no escaping that fact.
2. Out of all the cities in northern Utah County out of which the "home" of the YSA stake established in the region could be, Lehi was selected for that distinction.
3. Between SS/EM and Lehi, Lehi has a greater need of a temple than the other two. Its politicians are corrupt, and the citizens are always getting a raw deal. Some have said that an LDS temple is just about the only thing that will redeem Lehi from its "fallen" state.
4. Lehi has seen massive, explosive, and extensive growth, and is constantly engaged in the development of citywide parcels of property purchased by the city for development from the residents. One of those parcels of land was sold to the city by my father-in-law, whose family has owned that land going back any number of untold generations. And it is very likely that one or two of those plots of land could potentially be purchased by the Church from the city for such a temple.
5. By virtue of the fact of my six years of service as a temple worker at the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple (from 2006-2012), and combined with the fact that my mother is now serving there herself, I feel fully qualified to make this statement: Demographically, aside from the fact that the temple is in American Fork, the top three cities from which most of the temple attendees came were American Fork, Lehi, and Orem. Since Orem has subsequently been reassigned to the Provo Temple District following the dedication of the Provo City Center Temple almost a year ago, and through eliminating American Fork, as that is the temple's home city, the greatest number of attendees at the Mount Timpanogos Temple hailed from Lehi. Coincidence? I think not.
And here I am again, with my final point arguing in favor of Lehi above SS/EM.
Delete6. Now, the factor that, in comparison with the previous five, is relatively minor. There are 7 stakes in Eagle Mountain, 6 in Saratoga Springs, and a grand total of 14 in Lehi. In looking at the chronological order in which stakes have been created within the Mount Timpanogos Temple District since January 1, 2010, Eagle Mountain has had 4 stakes created, Saratoga Springs has had 3, and for Lehi, there have been
5. So technically, Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs together have had more stakes created in the last 7 years than Lehi, but Lehi still has the most stakes total by a very long shot.
Because of all of these factors, I hope it is evident why I favor Lehi above Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs.
I also believe that, aside from Lehi, Layton will be the next most likely candidate for a temple in Utah. And the studying I have done bears out that idea completely. As far as the yet-to-be-confirmed temple site in the Southwest Salt Lake Valley, I don't know where or how you got the idea that the site in question is near Bluffdale. That does not seem to be indicated by any of the sources I have been able
to find. And a careful reading of the announcement in question and the material from the Church about that yields the result that President Hinckley only spoke in generalities, never in specifics. And any subsequent follow-up stories are not any more specific. As far as I have been able to ascertain, nothing more specific has been revealed about where it is going to be located or how soon it might be official. If you have found something that indicates it is indeed going to be in the neighborhood of Bluffdale, please let me know.
For what it's worth, those are my responses to your reply about my temple site selections. Let me know if I can clariify anything.
@Bryan of a San Pedro Sula, Honduras Temple happens, I would bet Guatemala East and Belize would not be party of that due to border crossings, roads, and political issues Belize has with Guatemala.
ReplyDeleteYou make a fair point, coachodeeps. I am sure that any political considerations will be fully accounted for before any decision is made. That said, I can definitely see why San Pedro Sula is a clear favorite for the site of the next Honduran temple.
DeleteYou are quite right about Belize, Coach. But Guatemala and Honduras pretty much have open borders. It is part of the CA-4 treaty.
DeleteRegarding Belize, on a map it looks like they could go to NW Honduras by water and not even travel through Guatemala. Is that very likely? Besides, Belize is currently assigned to a Guatemala temple. I would think they would go to Merida or Tegucigalpa if the politicaL issues with Guatemala were that big a problem.
DeleteI appreciate those added insights. I still am of the opinion that San Pedro Sula will be the site of the next Honduran temple and that having one there would be great in terms of those it would serve. That said, however, I wanted to note that the selections I have listed above are those I have determined through personal study and research as well as through the kind comments of others to be the most imminent possibilities. San Pedro Sula was somewhere on my list of 60+, but in evaluating what I feel are the most imminent possibilities, I had to eliminate some of these choices that, though great arguments have presented in their favor, did not seem as imminent as those listed above. That said, I have also been convinced by the ongoing discussion that even if some people feel a certain temple is more imminent than another, I need to rely more and focus my predictions on things I can actually verify. In the case of a few of those I listed above, I have not had time to do thorough research, but my line of thinking was that I should put such temples on there until my research or other comments convinced me that there is a reason to eliminate those less likely and add others that are felt by more than one to be likely. I won't add San Pedro Sula to the list for this conference, but I will give serious thought to featuring it prominently on future lists. Hope that helps. Thanks.
DeleteWhen the Idaho Falls Temple is rededicated, I would imagine Elder Shane M Bowen will be there. He was Stake President in the Idaho Falls West Stake and lived in muy mother in laws ward. I know his assignment takes him around the world, but it is a special enough event to warrant allowing him to return.
ReplyDeletecoachodeeps, I would not count on it. Regardless of the perwsonal ties a General Authority Seventy has to any area, if he is on assignment elsewhere in the world, that assignment precludes his attendance at such events. Right now, Elder Bowen is serving as the president of the Philippines Area, an assignment he has had for the last couple of years. There is a possibility he could attend, if his release is included among the changes made in Area Leadership assignments that are usually announced in April or May and take effect in August. But I would not count on that as a sure thing, as he has only served as the Area President since last August, and such assignments almost always last 2-3 years at minimum. I wouldn't rule it out his attending entirely, but based on what I know about the usual rotation that happens with those assignments, he is more likely to maintain that assignment for at least the next year or two, if not more. And longer service in such assignments is not uncommon. Elder Claudio R. M. Costa became the President of the Brazil Area upon the completion of his assignment in the Presidency of the Seventy in August 2011. He has yet to be relased. My point is that just because a GA Seventy has ties to an area does not mean he will be in attendance at an event there. One thing we can count on is that Elder Neil L. Andersen will be in attendance there, and he is a native of Idaho Falls. The interesting thing will be to see who actually officiates at the dedication. President Eyring might be asked to return to Idaho, where he has ties as a result of his presidency over Ricks College, to preside. We might see Elder Bednar, a former Ricks College Pressident who oversaw the landmark transition of Ricks College to become BYU-Idaho. He has had one previous opportunity to preside at such an event, having been asked to officiate last year at the Star Valley Wyoming Temmple dedication, not just because he is a senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but more especially because his wife Susan grew up in the area. And it would surely mean a lot to Elder Andersen personally if, as a native son of the area, he was asked to be the one to preside at that dedication. Ordinarily, his status as still somewhat of a junior apostle would rule him out from a chance to preside, but the Star Valley precedent means that we cannot rule any apostle out from future opportunities to represent the First Presidency in officiating at such events. Does that make sense?
DeleteOf course it does. I fully understand your reasoning. I still think there is a possibility for Elder Bowen to be there. However, there could be needs in the Philippines that keep him from attending, also. I do know that Area Presidencies do leave their areas from time to time. We shall see.
DeleteI would never completely discount the idea of a general authority being in attendance at an event to which they might have a personal connection. The same rules that govern such things on a general level match up to those regulations that generally prevail for mission presidents. Having known several local mission presidents that returned home briefly during their active service period for family emergencies, including funerals and such, I'm sure that Elder Bowen would be given permission to be there if nothing going on with his assignment in the Philippines that would prevent that. That said, having extensively studied what has gone on with those men who serve in area presidencies, I feel that this qualifies me to state unequivocally that it will be most unlikely for Elder Bowen to be there simply because it is unheard of insofar as I have been able to ascertain for the president of an area to leave active service there just to be in attendance at a temple event to which he might be personally connnected. On the other hand, given that area presidency changes for this year will surely be announced before then, even though it would be irregular from the general pattern, it would not be completely unheard of for Elder Bowen to be released as Area President after this first year in that assignment to be reassigned to Church headquarters and thus be allowed to be at this dedication. If the Church decides he should be there, he will. That said, coachodeeps, I have given my thoughts concerning who might officiate at this dedication. Do you have any input on that? As I said, Elder Andersen was born and raised around that area, so the Church could ask him to represent the Brethren, as Elder Bednar's presiding at the dedication of Star Valley last year was the first time an apostle that junior (though still technically in the senior half of the Quorum) was asked to represent Church leadership there simply by virtue of his wife's connection to the area. So it would not be out of the question for Elder Andersen, junior as he is, or Elder Bednar to be there. My personal preference in that regard would be to see President Eyring, who has ties to Idaho from his days as president of Ricks College, to be there, but if he cannot, which may happen, either of the other two make sense. I could also potentially see Elder Soares. who, as the member of the Presidency of the Seventy presides over the Idaho area, being in attendance at this dedication,f or perhaps Elder Craig C. Christensen, another in the Presidency who has supervised Idaho in the receent past. It will be interesting to see how much is said regarding who of all the possible Brethren that might be at any of the temple events this year will actually be there. And if and when I learn of such things, you can completely be certain taht my report thereof will shortly follow just as soon as I am able to make it happen. Thanks again for the comment, and I certainly hope no offense was taken. I definitely did not intend to offend. Thanks again for the comment.
DeleteOh, also, one additional note about Elder Bowen in general. While not many people realize this (I know for sure that I wasn't aware of it until he was sustained and I found out shortly thereafter, for what it's worth), his first name often gets misspelled. It's actually Shayne (with a y). Not sure where his parents found that spelling, or why it was preferred, but I imagine that must have been interesting to get used to. Just another additional tidbit that intrigues me personally, so I thought it might be interesting to share. Thanks again.for your excellent comments. I hope you find my responses to you to be interesting and helpful. I appreciate you sharing your thoguhts with me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames, you've listed Valparaiso as one of the possible future temple sites for Brazil. Was that a typo for the city in Chile? I see a Valparaiso in extreme western Sao Paulo state (near Aracatuba) but it has no stakes in that city itself and not many nearby. If the goal is for another temple in the Campinas district (apart from Rio, Brasilia and Belo Horizonte) that a better location would be somewhere in the Riberao Preto/Sao Carlos area, or maybe Sao Jose do Rio Preto. Also I would think that would be after a 2nd Sao Paulo temple. (I also see Salvador as coming before Belo Horizonte though my prediction may be inaccurate.)
ReplyDeleteTypo. And I verified that because I have no temples predicted for Brazil at all. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching my error. You also make great points about the future prospects for temples in Brazil. Thanks.
DeleteAs far as a temple in Augusta Maine, there's probably a good case for distance (though not like for Winnipeg- Augusta is 3-4 hours and Bangor more like 4-5, from Boston) but it would have to be a pretty small temple, with only the 2+ Maine stakes (the + is for several units in the far north and east that are part of the Saint John New Brunswick Stake and are likely assigned to Halifax right now. I lived in several towns in the Maine portion of that stake, and the places I lived would definitely be closer to Augusta but still at least a 3 hour drive, still quite an improvement from either Boston or Halifax). I think the New Hampshire units would remain with Boston.
ReplyDeleteSaint John NB may be very slightly closer to Augusta than to Halifax but would probably stay there because of the border issue. If the temple were in Bangor instead, it would be even closer to Saint John and perhaps likely to take more units from Halifax. But it would also reduce the travel time for the outlying units in Bangor and Saint John stakes- while increasing the time for the Augusta stake. I'm really not sure which is a better location. Another note: Bangor is almost exactly in the middle of the state, geographically, but is considered "northern Maine" as it is the northernmost of the largest several cities in the states. That being said, (not sure how relevant this is) "city" in Maine is probably somewhat of a joke to those in other states (though we usually tried to avoid going to Portland if we could)- I once saw a list of the most populous city in each state, ranked in order of population. Not remembering the details I did a google search and found this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states%27_largest_cities_by_population):
Portland, ME (population 66k) is no. 47 on the list- only Cheyenne WY, Charleston WV and Burlington VT are smaller.
Excellent points. Thanks for all of that great information. I learned a lot. I appreciate the insights you've shared and will try to be more clear in future. Thanks again.
Delete