Stokes Sounds Off: Reprioritized list of cities most imminently likely for a future temple

Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Reprioritized list of cities most imminently likely for a future temple

In the comment thread on the LDS Church Growth blog, the discussion has recently turned to what cities might be most imminently likely for a temple announcement in the near future. I took the opportunity with that discussion to reprioritize my list of possible cities and am posting the results of my labor. I have tried to list them in the order I feel they are most likely to be announced. As always, if I am in error on any of these locations, please let me know. I appreciate the feedback.

Managua Nicaragua (publicly proManagua Nicaragua (publicly proposed by Elder Russell M. Nelson in 2012; land has been purchased for such a temple there when Church membership and activity warrants it; it is the #1 country with the most LDS members without a temple)

Port Moresby Papua New Guinea (again, such a site has already been purchased and is awaiting the need for it; it is the #2 country with the most LDS members without a temple)

Bentonville Arkansas (site purchased and awaiting till Church membership and activity warrants it; appears to be the #1 contender for the next temple in the United States)

Freetown Sierra Leone (the #6 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Kampala Uganda (the #8 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Nairobi Kenya (the #10 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Lehi/Layton Utah (we have not had a new temple announced in Utah since 2015; among the many possibilities, Lehi and Layton seem to be the most imminent)

Budapest Hungary (according to a comment on my blog, this will be the next temple announced in Europe; seems to be the most imminent possibility)

Pocatello Idaho (this is the largest Idaho city without a temple; Rick Satterfield’s home city)

La Paz Bolivia (I favor this location because my former bishop and good friend served his mission there)

Fort Worth Texas (this is the city in Texas with the largest LDS presence without a temple)

Puebla Mexico (according to a comment on my blog, this is the most likely city for the next temple in Mexico)

Missoula Montana (according to reports, Elder Bednar publicly proposed this temple during a stake conference; while the nature of that proposal is questionable, this appears to be a very likely city for Montana’s second temple)

Brasilia/Belo Horizonte/Salvador Brazil (in the order listed, they are the top three Brazilian cities with the strongest Church presence without a temple)

Jacksonville Florida (this is, according to Rick Satterfield, the most likely location for Florida’s third temple)

Benin City/Lagos/Port Harcourt Nigeria (in no particular order, they are the top three Nigerian cities that may be considered good candidates for temples)

Richmond Virginia (on my blog, three cities in Virginia were mentioned as possibilities to host a temple, and of the three, Richmond appears to be the best option, in addition to being the capital city)

Chile (Antofagasta/Valparaiso/Santiago (2nd temple), any of which may be excellent candidates for the next Chilean temple)

Kumasi Ghana (#1 Ghana city with the strongest LDS presence without a temple)

Neuquen Argentina (mentioned as a possibility on my blog)

Edinburgh Scotland (someone mentioned on my blog that a temple was likely in the near future for either Scotland or Ireland, and Rick Satterfield said on my blog that, of the two, Scotland was more likely)

Rapid City South Dakota (while a possible temple might serve only one or two stakes at best, the temple in Winnipeg makes this a very likely possibility; I personally favor this city for a temple because my dad served his mission there)

Salem Oregon (mentioned as a near-future possibility through a comment on my blog; also is the capital city, which makes a great center for a future temple)

Tacoma Washington (the same comment that mentioned the previous city mentioned this one as well, which appears to be as good as any other possibility)

Montpelier Vermont (as the capital city, seems to be the best place for Vermont’s first temple)
By at

6 comments:

  1. AnonymousDecember 20, 2016 at 1:40 PM

    I would like one in Vermont, but it has only one stake. However the new Winepeg temple has only one stake and is more spread out. The temple in Kiev Ukrainewas announced before the stake there was even created. With Vermont being the birthplace of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it could add to the list of temples built on or near historic sites, such as Palmyra, Nouvoo, and Winter Quarters. The Kansas City temple was built in the same region of the propsed historic temple sites of Far West, Independence, and Adam-Ondi-Ahamen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James G. StokesDecember 20, 2016 at 9:16 PM

      Thanks, Chris, as always, for your thoughtful feedback. I feel the same way about Vermont, but the situation in Winnipeg, when added to the surprising and in some ways unexpected announcements we have had lately makes exceptions to what has been the general rule to be more likely. I understand that in the case of Vermont, there is just the one stake, and that would ordinarily disqualify it from being a possibility, but with past precedent on the matter, I don't feel we can rule anywhere out from a future temple shot. I can see the case of a temple in Vermont, but I also understand the arguments against it. I have felt confident enough to include it on this list, but have no idea how imminent or likely it might be, which is why I posted this yesterday and why I am once again submitting my choices, such as they are, for feedback. I feel confident enough to include it as a near-future possibility, but I can understand why others don't share that confidence. If I hear enough arguments against it, I would have no objections to removing it from this list. Thanks, as always, for the comments.

      Delete
  2. UnknownDecember 20, 2016 at 2:03 PM

    I would say the 3rd fl temple would be in Tallahassee but there is also good reason for Jacksonville I wonder because I have seen with some other temple like Billings MT and others the a city in the middle ends up with the temple so I wonder if some were like lake-city FL would get the 3 Rd temple in 3-4 hour's for most of North Florida.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James G. StokesDecember 20, 2016 at 10:46 PM

      I definitely see the case for a temple in Tallahassee, but Rick Satterfield always seems to be in the know about these things, and he has told me in a previous comment on a previous version of the list that Florida's third temple is most likely to be built in Jacksonville. And since he knows so much more about any of this than I do, I trust his judgement and opinion in this matter. I could see a day when a temple is in both cities, and in fact, in every major city in Florida and everywhere else, but the next most likely temple site is Jacksonville, and I fully concur with that idea. For what it's worth, that's my feelings on the matter. Thanks, Bryce, as always, for the great comment.

      Delete
    2. James G. StokesDecember 20, 2016 at 10:48 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. UnknownDecember 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    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.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)