1. Managua Nicaragua: Proposed in 2012 by Elder Russell M. Nelson; land has already been purchased for it and an announcement is imminent there when membership warrants it. Please also note that it is the #1 city in terms of church presence that does not have a temple in some phase.
2. Port Moresby Papua New Guinea: Land has been purchased for it and an announcement is imminent there when membership warrants it. Please also note that it is the #2 city in terms of church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some phase.
3. Bentonville Arkansas: Land has been purchased for it and an announcement is imminent there when membership warrants it; please also note it is the strongest contender for a temple in the United States. I favor this location because a good friend served his mission there.
4. 2nd Southwest Salt Lake Valley Utah: Proposed in 2005 by Gordon B. Hinckley; more than likely because land has already been purchased for it.
5. San Juan Puerto Rico: Please note that this is the #3 world city in terms of church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some phase.
6. Tarawa Kiribati: Please note that this is the #5 world city in terms of Church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some phase.
7. Freetown Sierra Leone: Please note that this is the #6 world city in terms of Church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some phase. May be needed due to extensive growth in Africa
8. Kampala Uganda: Please note that this is the #7 world city in terms of Church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some phase. May be needed due to extensive growth in Africa.
9. Nairobi Kenya: Publicly proposed by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1999; please note that this is the #10 world city in terms of Church presence that does not have a temple in any phase. May be needed due to extensive growth in Africa.
10. Phnom Penh Cambodia: Please note that this is the #9 world city in terms of Church presence that doesn’t have a temple in any phase; I favor this location because my brother-in-law served a mission there.
11. Missoula Montana: Publicly proposed in 2016 by Elder David A. Bednar.
12. Lehi Utah: I favor this location because it is my wife's hometown.
13. Layton Utah
14. Budapest Hungary
15. Pocatello Idaho
16. Auckland New Zealand
17. La Paz Bolivia: I favor this location because my favorite bishop and good friend served a mission there.
18. Rapid City South Dakota: I favor this location because my dad served his mission there.
19. Richmond Virginia
20. Lagos Nigeria (may be needed due to extensive Church growth in Africa)
21. Pago Pago American Samoa: Please note that this is the #9 city in the world in terms of Church presence that doesn’t have a temple in some stage.
22. Tacoma Washington
23. El Paso Texas
24. Ulaanbaatar Mongolia: I favor this location because a good friend served his mission there.
25. Barcelona Spain
26. Puebla Mexico
27. Valparaiso Chile
28. Davao Philippines
29. Maracaibo Venezuela: Publicly proposed in 1999 by Gordon B. Hinckley.
30. Singapore: Publicly proposed in 2000 by Gordon B. Hinckley,
31. Edinburgh Scotland
32. Cody Wyoming
33. Jacksonville Florida
34. Brasilia/Belo Horizonte Brazil
35. Ghana (Kumasi).
36. Neuquen Argentina
37. Ivory Coast (2nd and possibly 3rd temples; may be needed due to extreme growth in the area
38. Kasai DR Congo (temple proposed in 2016 by Neil L. Andersen, may be needed due to extensive growth in the area.
39. Fairbanks/Juneau Alaska
40. Ipswich Australia
Dark horse candidates:
1. Kaysville Utah
2. Sandy Utah
3. Orem Utah (I favor this location because it’s where I’m living now, and when I worked at then Mount Timpanogos Temple for six years, a majority of my colleagues were from Orem. The LDS presence is strong here.
5. Heber Utah
6. Pago Pago American Samoa: Please note that this is the #9 world city in terms of Church presence that does not have a temple in any phase.
7. Singapore (proposed in 2000 by President Gordon B. Hinckley).
8. Maputo Mozambique
9. Oslo Norway
10. Antananarivo Madagascar
No comments:
Post a Comment
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.