Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: Utah North Area

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: Utah North Area

Hello again, everyone! I am back once again to continue discussing the three areas in Utah, and the second part of that discussion will  focus on the Utah North Area. Because there is comparatively so little to discuss in terms of this area, its' current temples, and the one location in which I have felt we could see a new temple within it, I believe I can handle the entire area with a single post. If that changes, I will be sure to let you know.

So let's dive right in to that discussion. In addition to the cities in Northern Utah, this area takes in a small portion of Idaho, and the southwest corner of Wyoming. As such, it takes in 5 temples currently, including 4 from Utah (in Bountiful, Brigham City, Logan, and Ogden) and also the Star Valley temple in Wyoming.

Having listed these temples, we now turn to an exploration of their history and the size and composition of their districts. We will discuss those in the same order listed above. First, I wanted to note that the Bountiful Utah Temple, which was dedicated as the 47th operating temple of the Church during January 8-14, 1995. The unique fact about this temple is that it was one of only two (unless I have missed any others) dedicated by President Howard W. Hunter during his prophetic tenure, which was just a few days short of 9 months.

Because other temples operate in this area, the composition of its current district includes 49 stakes of the Church in Davis County. I have long felt that the Bountiful district could and should probably be split, and I have previously ventured my thoughts that a temple in the city of Layton might be the best way to do that. While the Saints in Layton only have a 14 mile drive to Bountiful, since the Bountiful Temple is by all reports kept fairly busy, a temple in Layton would ease that somewhat. And if a temple were to be built in Layton at any point in the future, then the stakes covered by the other temple districts could shift somewhat.

Moving on to discuss Brigham City, the dedication of that temple on September 23, 2012 gave the Church its' 139th such edifice to be dedicated. President Boyd K. Packer, who had been consulted by President Monson about the prospect of a temple in that spot, because it was where he grew up, was asked by President Monson to represent the Church in presiding at this temple's dedication. As for its district, the Brigham City temple serves 12 stakes from Box Elder County and the Malad Idaho Stake. Seems fairly manageable for the moment.

Turning now to Logan, that temple was the 2nd temple dedicated in this dispensation to which the Church still has ownership. Originally dedicated between May 17-19 in 1884 by President John Taylor, following a renovation process, President Spencer W. Kimball presided over its rededication between March 13-15, 1979. As to its' current district, it covers 39 stakes in Cache Valley and Southeastern Idaho.

There may or may not be a good reason to split this district, and if that happens, I could potentially see new temples in either Smithfield Utah (which is 7 miles from Logan) or else in Preston Idaho (which is 26.7 miles from Logan). But, as I said above, if a temple is built in Layton, and the units in the Utah North are redistributed as a result, the makeup of this dstrict could change, as could the distance the stakes within it would travel.

We now move on to Ogden, as most of you are probably aware, the temple in that city was dedicated originally between January 18-20, 1972, by President Joseph Fielding Smith. Its original exterior was similar in design to that of the Provo Temple.

But because the city's architectural style changed in the interim, part of its renovation process gave it a completely different exterior look, which some appreciated and others did not, and there are still some people I come across periodically who are not happy about it today.

Following that renovation process, the temple was rededicated by President Thomas S. Monson (one of the last such events in which he would participate) on September 21, 2014.

As for its district, that comprises 59 from Northern Utah and 4 others from Southeastern Wyoming. There may or may not be a reason to split this district, and that could happen by either building a temple in Syracuse or perhaps one in Evanston Wyoming. But again, if and when a temple is built in Layton, the stakes in all of these other districts will likely be redistributed as a result.

So that brings us to the final temple in this area, which is the one in Star Valley Wyoming.  As I'm sure we all know, the Star Valley temple became the 154th in operation in the Church when it was dedicated on October 30, 2016. Because his wife grew up in the Afton area, the First Presidency asked Elder David A. Bednar to preside at that event.

The Star Valley district is another very small one, as the temple was built to serve six stakes of the Church, three from Southeast Idaho, and 3 others from Southwest Wyoming. Not much need to split there.

Now, you may have noticed a strange anomaly. I have not given any distances in this post between the cities in these districts and each of  these temples. That is because, aside from a temple for Layton, I have no other options on my personal list for the near future, so there is no need to examine the reasoning behind any others. But I would like to hear from you.

Would Layton be the most likely location for the next temple in this area, and would that result in a redistribution of the stakes within these districts? And are there any other possibilities within this area which I should look at more seriously within the near future?

I look forward to your comments, which are always welcome and appreciated. That does it for this post. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

1 comment:

  1. Have I overlooked anything in my coverage of this area? Feel free to let me know, as I will be accepting such feedback until the week before the April General Conference, when I will need to fine-tune this list. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.

I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.

And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.

Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.