Stokes Sounds Off: My picks for the most likely temple sites that may be announced in the near future

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

My picks for the most likely temple sites that may be announced in the near future

Hello, everyone! I'm back, this time with a different type of post. As many of you know, I follow Matthew Martinich's LDS Church Growth Blog. I have his permission to share his posts on my blog. One thing he does regularly round about general conference time is give his top picks, be they ten or five or more or less, of cities around the world that may have a temple announced soon. Some comments on his latest blog post focus on potential temple sites that may be announced soon. Many of these sites are cities with a strong LDS presence. I had to get on board with that and give my top picks, based on the LDS presence and number of congregations reported in each city I picked. At the top of my list were temples that have been publicly proposed by apostles and Church presidents. I came up with a list of 30 that I think are the most likely ones, which I wanted to share with you in this post. Here's the list, provided with commentary about why I picked them:

1.      New Dehli India (proposed in 1992 by Elder Neal A. Maxwell; this temple may be a long time in coming)
2.      Vilnius Lithuania Temple (proposed in 1993 by Elder M. Russell Ballard: one of the newest ones listed on the LDS Church temples sites, though the proposal is more than 20 years old)
3.      Nairobi Kenya Temple (proposed in 1998 by President Gordon B. Hinckley; this temple is very likely to be announced soon because of extensive and explosive Church growth)
4.      Maracaibo Venezuela Temple (proposed in 1999 by President Gordon B. Hinckley; South America has been another region that has really grown in the Church, and I can foresee a day when every country in South America will have a temple.)
5.      Singapore Temple (proposed in 2000 by President Gordon B. Hinckley; the promise of a temple here is prophetic and will happen soon.)
6.      Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple (proposed in 2005 by President Gordon B. Hinckley; he stated at the time he mentioned it that a site had been purchased, but they were not ready for an announcement yet. Another temple in the Salt Lake Valley would help combat the heavy load of the temples currently there.)
7.      Managua Nicaragua Temple (proposed in 2012 by Elder Russell M. Nelson; as noted above, the Church in South America has been growing quite a bit, and I foresee a day when every South American country will have a temple.)
8.      Kasai Region Democratic Republic of the Congo (proposed in 2016 by Elder Neil L. Andersen; the Church in Africa has really grown, and another temple in the DR of the Congo may be needed very soon.)
9.      Lehi Utah (This is Amy's hometown. Not many cities "need" a temple. Lehi definitely does to combat everything that is going wrong there.)
10.  Layton Utah (This city has really expanded. It may very well be the property President Hinckley alluded to above.)
11. Toole, Utah (The Church membership is high there)
12.  Pocatello, Idaho (This is the only major Idaho city that doesn't currently have a temple, and having one here would be fabulous.)
13.  Tacoma, Washington (With a large number of LDS congregations and no temple within 200 miles, this city is a great candidate for a temple.)
14.  Benin City, Nigeria (The Church has grown a lot in Africa, and a second Nigerian temple would surely be a blessing to the Saints there.)
15.  Maracaibo, Venezuela (Again, I see a day when every South American country will have a temple.)
16.  Brasilia, Brazil (With a high Church presence, Brazil may be a good candidate for several more temples in the near future, especially since no progress has been made on the Fortaleza Brazil temple since its 2011 groundbreaking.)
17.  Salvador Brazil (see above)
18.  Harare, Zimbabwe (The Church has grown so much in Africa that a Zimbabwean temple makes sense.)
19.  Puebla, Mexico (Mexico Church membership has increased substantially.)
20.  Queretaro, Mexico (See above. Multiple new temples for Mexico makes sense.)
21.  Cagayan de Oro, Philippines (With the growth of the Church in the Philippines, another Filipino temple makes sense.)
22.  Santa Cruz, Bolivia (Again, I see a day when every South American nation will have at least one temple.)
23.  Quito, Ecuador (See above.)
24.  Auckland, New Zealand (The Church has grown a lot in the Pacific.)
25.  Bentonville, Arkansas (There's not a temple within 200 miles of this city, so having one there makes sense.)
26.  Jacksonville, Florida (Not sure how busy the other Florida temples are, but a third would surely be a blessing to the Saints there.)
27.  San Pedro Sula, Honduras (Honduras may be ready for a second temple.)
28.  Salem, Oregon (The one other temple in Oregon is busy enough, and the Church has grown enough in Oregon that another temple there makes sense.)
29.  Belem, Brazil (Brazil may be ready for several new temples, especially as no progress as been made on the Fortaleza Brazil temple.)
30.  Budapest, Hungary/Vienna, Austria (Of the two, I see a temple in Austria as the more likely possibility. In this, I am not affected by the fact that Amy served her mission there. It would be great to have a temple there.)

I should mention that it would only take 27 of these being announced to make it to the 200 temple mark.With the possibility of having 154 temples by the end of this year, with 160 by the end of 2017, and considering that there may be 3-6 more under construction by then, if an average of 3 temples were completed a year, with an average of 5 temples announced every year, 200 temples by Apirl 6, 2030 could become a reality.

Well, what do you think?

5 comments:

  1. I came over to your blog after reading Matt's. While there may be a day when every South American country has a temple, building one in Maracaibo does nothing to further your statement. Venezuela has a temple already in Caracas. The countries that are yet to have a temple are Guyana and Suriname. I did not include French Guiana in my list because it is still a dependent territory of France. Also, your statement that there is not a temple within 200 miles of Tacoma is incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the feedback. Sorry it's taken so long to respond. I'm not used to getting comments on my blog, so I don't regularly check for them unless someone notifies me that they have left a comment they'd like to make. My main reason for supporting the prediction of a temple in Maracaibo is because it was proposed with the apostolic promise that attending other temples in the area would soon necessitate one there. That promise was made by President Gordon B. Hinckley, and I can't honestly tell you whether that was before or after the building of the temple in Caracas. Thanks for letting me know about the incorrectness of the statement re: the Tacoma temple. Iwill be sure to correct both points, including your most excellent and valid observations, in another post at another time. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The "backlog" of temple announcements, as some have termed it, is completely gone with respect to temples located in the US. If no new temples are announced in this country, there will probably be none under construction here within two years. I would say the odds of some of your US location picks being announced next are very high. I think more locations in Utah are very probable. One slight correction: Oregon already has two temples, Portland and Medford. But Salem does seem a good location for the next one that is announced there. Also, in Florida, Pensacola may get one before Jacksonville, based on distance at least. If going by the 200 mile rule, there are at least three other states that need one or more new temples, not that I think these are likely: Maine, South Dakota, and Alaska (2 locations there). Other western states as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the comments. I won't be surprised if new temples are announced, but I won't be surprised either if no new temples were announced. Nearly every time temples are announced, at least one has been in the United States, with the obvious exception of those announced last April. I explained in a previous comment how I arrived at the inclusion of these potential temple sites. Time will tell just how right (or wrong) I am. Thanks for the additional comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about Richmond, VA? There is no temple in Virginia yet (although DC is on the northern edge) and a good population of LDS around the capital (4 stakes) as well as the many servicemen around the naval yards in Norfolk and Newport News not far away down the bay. I think this is a gap in the current east coast coverage that may be a likely spot ...

    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.