Stokes Sounds Off: Yet another update to the list of temples that may be announced soon.

Search This Blog

Friday, August 19, 2016

Yet another update to the list of temples that may be announced soon.

After receiving some more feedback, I have come upon my newest edition of cities that may get a temple soon. I have included 40 that are more certain and 10 dark horse candidates. Any feedback would be welcome and appreciated.

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



6 comments:

  1. In an article about the new temple in Hartford it mentioned the importance of Farmington since Wilford Woodruff was born there. It made me think about other places prophets were born withou temples nearby. There aren't many.

    Vermont. Sharon for Joseph Smith and Whitington for Brigham Young.

    England. Milnthorpe for John Taylor.
    Though Preston is fairly close.

    Ohio. Mantua for Lorenzo Snow.

    Missouri. Far West for Joseph F. Smith. Eventually to be built one day I'm sure.

    Utah. Huntsville for David O McKay. Again close by is Ogden.

    Idaho. Then close to a prediction of Pocatello are both Clifton for Harold B. Lee and Whitney for Ezra Taft Benson.

    As far as current apostles the only two are New Jersey, Princeton for Pres Eyring and Czechoslovakia, Ostrava for Pres Uchtdorf.

    Just some thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I could see a temple in Vermont someday, but it would be more likely to be in the Montpelier area, and likely not for a while. In England, Birmingham may be a better possibility. In Ohio, I would likely say a temple in Columbus is a better option. Far West will likely be built someday, but not for a while, I'd wager. Huntsville is not, in my mind, nearly as much of a priority for a Utah temple above and beyond cities that have more of an LDS presence. Pocatello is the most likely possibility for a temple in Idaho. I could see a temple in New Jersey someday, but it is not as imminent in my mind as some other locations. A temple in Prague is a dark-horse possibility. I see Bentonville as the most likely place for a temple that has ties to a current apostle, as land has been purchased there already and such an announcement is only a matter of time. For the moment, I don't see any other temples mentioned as immediate possibilities. But I have no doubt they will each make the list at some point when the time is ripe for that. Thanks, as always, for the comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Columbus already has a temple, but I'd like to see one in the Cleveland area. They'd probably put it in Kirtland, which would be pretty cool.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a source for this, but I heard a rumor once to the effect that the Church is attempting to negotiate the purchase of the Kirtland Temple from the Community of Christ. It would be great if those negotiations were successful. The CofC has given the Church the option of buying major historical sites from them in the past.If there is any truth to that, it would be fantastic! Thanks for the comment.

      Delete
  3. James, there are a lot of excellent candidate cities listed here. Well done. I'll just make a comment about Florida. You may consider Jacksonville over Tallahassee for Florida's third temple. Although Tallahassee offers a nice central location for members in North Florida, including the panhandle, the highest concentration of membership is in the Jacksonville area where the Church continues to steadily grow. It is generally preferred to have temples in cities with multiple stakes, not only for the convenience of patrons but also for the practicality of staffing the temple without requiring temple workers to drive long distances. There are currently three stakes in Jacksonville, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a fourth in the next few years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that feedback, Brother Satterfield! I agree, based on what you've observed, that that Jacksonville is the superior of the two candidates. I will make that change. Thanks again.

      Delete

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.