He llo again, everyone! While I had hoped to move on in my series of posts about potential future temples and talk next about the Pacific area (covering current temples and also those future possibilities I see), in addition to needing to settle the question of the most likely prospect for Nevada's third temple, I also wanted to give due consideration to the state of Texas, as possibilities for that state did yield quite a bit of discussion from all of you.
The way I see it, there are two possibilities mentioned extensively as being likely for Texas's fifth temple: Fort Worth and El Paso. Fort Worth, located 32.4 miles from its currently assigned temple in Dallas, has been mentioned to me by someone familiar with the Dallas district. In the meantime, the most compelling case for El Paso's chances of getting a temple is that the Saints in that city do have to cross the Mexican border to get to their assigned temple in Ciudad Juarez Mexico. That said, it is not an inordinate distance by any means, requiring a journey of only 7.1 miles. So about the only way a temple in El Paso would make sense is if President Trump is successful in building a wall along the Mexican border, which would prevent the El Paso Saints from accessing their assigned temple. It doesn't seem likely or feasible that this will happen.
There may be another option for a temple, which is unrelated to the discussion of future temples in Texas. When the discussion about El Paso's chances for a temple were mentioned, a comment mentioning Las Cruces New Mexico triggered my memory of how, when I had put together my initial list of 60 or so locations worldwide, someone had mentioned Las Cruces as a potential candidate for a temple. And the possibility intrigues me. The Saints in Las Cruces currently travel a distance of 224.5 miles to get to their assigned temple in Albuquerque. If a second temple for New Mexico is announced sometime soon, perhaps Las Cruces would be the most likely candidate for that honor.
These are just some additional thoughts that I wanted to put out there. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, especially any commentary on these thoughts. 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.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
An Additional Word Regarding Potential Future Temples in Texas & New Mexico
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
8 comments:
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)
Even for Las Cruces, going to Cuidad Juarez would be closer than Alburquerque or The Gila Valley, but it is just simple too dangerous. Cuidad Juarez is one of the most dangerous boarder cities in Mexico. So even though it is close, only over 7 miles, El Paso has more stakes and a better case for a temple than Las Cruces though either city would still make sense.
ReplyDeleteThanks for those thoughts, Kenny. While what you said above is true (that for the Saints in Las Cruces, the temple in Ciudad Juarez is closer than Albuquerque, (with the Mexico temple being 57.3 miles away, and the temple in Albuquerque being 224.5 miles away), it would appear that the Saints in Las Cruces have primarily been assigned to Albuquerque's temple district in view of the dangers associated with Ciudad Juarez. With all of that in mind, I have been weighing the possibilties of adding either El Paso or Las Cruces to my list. With the two cities being 46.7 miles apart, a temple built in either would likely serve both cities, though both may eventually have a temple. Going back to the information I received from someone living within the Dallas Texas district (that Fort Worth would likely be the best city to build the next Texas temple, since it would split the district), and since the Church generally doesn't have two temples under construction in the same state at the same time (with the Mormon corridor being the one exception to that process), I think what I might do is retain the selection of Fort Worth, and add a potential temple for Las Cruces. I cannot in good conscience rule out the possibility that a temple in El Paso could happen sooner than I anticipate, but for now, I think that's what I might do. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, Kenny! It is appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI hope I am not belaboring the point, but I wanted to reference something I have said previously. If Trump successfully builds a wall along the Mexican border, that would block the way of the Saints in El Paso from being able to access their assigned temple in Ciudad Juarez. While I hope that would not happen, it would make sense in such a case to have temples in both cities at some point. Of the two, however, I can see Las Cruces happening first. I know that you, Kenny, have made a fair point about El Paso having the stronger Church presence than both Fort Worth and Las Cruces (with El Paso having three stakes, Fort Worth having 2, and Las Cruces only having 1), but we have seen Winnipeg Manitoba get a temple to serve the one stake in Winnipeg, so that tells me that a smaller number of stakes in a city may not eliminate its prospects for a temple. Additionally, in looking at other factors, El Paso does not have its own mission, but Fort Worth does. And while neither of the two missions in New Mexico are based out of Las Cruces, if Fort Worth gets a temple, then it would make the most sense to me if Las Cruces gets a temple before El Paso. I see one in both places likely within the next 15-30 years, but of the two, Las Cruces does seem more imminent to me, especially if a temple is announced at some point between now and then for the Fort Worth area. That said, I again wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your input, Kenny. Thanks for your always insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteJames, a couple comments about the El Paso / Las Cruces thing. First, it seems to me that given 2 cities within an hour drive, the one with 3 stakes (El Paso) would be more likely than the one with 1 to have the temple put there, just in terms of the accessibility to the temple workers. Saying that, I realize that other temples have been built in places with 1 or 2 stakes, but it seems to me a practical necessity rather than a preference for doing it that way. It seems to me the church would still prefer having more than 1 stake for a new temple and where possible will pick a place with several stakes over a city with 1, even if the 1 is a greater distance. This is my opinion but I could be wrong, but I wonder if you are using the Winnipeg example for places where it is not the best model. (As a side note, Dallas / Fort Worth is an interesting example because of the traffic issues causing apparent distance to be greater than real distance- which would be another interesting study- namely trying to calculate apparent mileages that reflect local traffic patterns for larger cities.)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it seems to me that the danger in Ciudad Juarez is a more likely reason than the proposed border wall for a temple in El Paso. Frankly, James, I'm puzzled by your suggestion that people will not be able to cross the border, as nothing I have heard about the proposed border wall has indicated that there would not be openings for citizens and legal residents to cross back and forth. Where did you read that? I would like more information on this point. I am willing to change my opinion based on evidence, but that has not even been suggested in anything else I have read. (I will concede that the situation in Juarez could perhaps make it more likely than most other border cities not to have an opening created if a decision is made to seal some of the legal crossings, though I don't have any reason to think that would happen.) Regardless of what you may think of President Trump or his proposed policy, his stated intention is to control the flow of people, for safety purposes, not to completely stop it. I also would not discount his ability to get it done, as he has had a fairly successful year at implementing his policies.
Look, you're entitled to your opinion, and I realize this is your blog- so I will drop the subject of politics if you would rather. But I would suggest you at least keep an open mind about this issue, keeping in mind that a LOT of people in the border states agree with him and have been wanting a wall for a long time--including many church members--and it seems like we should at least respect the opinions of those who have been most negatively impacted by the out-of-control immigration policies of the last several decades, in states like Arizona and Texas. I have read that there have been a LOT of problems in these states caused by poorly controlled/illegal immigration.) Sorry for getting into politics but I felt like you were saying something factually incorrect- again, please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I have not offended you here, and if I have I'm sorry.
First of all, as always, thanks so much for stopping by to comment and share your thoughts. Let me try and address the very excellent questions you posed in your comment above. As I may or may not have tried to state clearly above, I have been able to get feedback on some of these selections I have on my personal list. One such opportunity to do so was on the short-lived extensive discussions of those locations on the LDS Growth forum. Particularly in relation to the most likely location that would split the Dallas district, I had a comment on that subject from someone currently residing in the Dallas district, and he concurred with my assessment that if and when Texas's next temple is announced, Fort Worth would likely be the best location for that, and he cited some information about the distance and traffic involved in the commute of the Fort Worth Saints to the Dallas temple. So I think I would take that opinion over and above that of anyone (myself included) that has not had first-hand experience in Texas.
ReplyDeleteSo if this member living in the Dallas district is correct in his assessment (and without knowing what the extent of your experience may have involved the study of Texas), it appears that Fort Worth will be the most likely candidate city for the next temple in Texas.
Now, in saying that, I want to be clear about something: It has previously been mentioned to me by a couple of people that not all of the 80 sites referenced by Elder Wilson in late April this year as being under active consideration for a potential announcement within the next 15 years will go on to an announcement during that time. Some will be replaced with either one or two other locations. Without knowing the locations on the current list that Elder Wilson referenced, it is a bit of a guessing game in some ways to try and determine the merits of any potential location. That is one of many reasons which I have opened up my list of potential future locations to public comment.
So with that in mind, I also wanted to note that, unless I have missed something, with the exception of the period during the late 1990s and early 200s, and also with the exception of the states within the region of the "Mormon corridor", in recent years, at least within the US, the Church has generally not announced temples in states where others are in various stages (either announced, having a groundbreaking, or under construction). There may be exceptions to that, but that has seemed to be the case.
So that raises an interesting question: If we take Elder Wilson at his word, would the Church opt to announce 2 temples at once in any US state? My answer to that is that I cannot dismiss that prospect, but it seems unlikely. Church growth experts have spoken of how the US is in a general state of stagnated growth, except within the Mormon corridor, which makes it unlikely that the Saints in Texas would have a temple announced in the city of El Paso until a temple in Fort Worth is dedicated. No one will be more pleased than I am if at any point temples are announced in both places, and I am sure we will see that. But of the two, Fort Worth seems more likely.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, if the Church keeps to its current tradition of not having two temples in the same state under construction at the same time, then until a temple is announced in EL Paso,, which I believe will occur eventually, a temple in Las Cruces could be constructed to serve the El Paso Saints. Of course, no one will be more surprised and pleased than I will if, at any point, a temple is announced in all three locations. So my task here is to explore the possibilities that seem most imminent, and in that regard, I think we would likely see the three built in the following order: Fort Worth, Las Cruces, and El Paso.
Now, if I may, I would just like to say that I am not in any way offended by your questions regarding the border wall. While I have tried to avoid political talk here on my blog, if I mention a political issue myself in one of my posts, I have no problem with comments that ask about those things I have mentioned. So it is not a problem that you asked. I am perfectly happy to address your questions. It may take me a while to find it, but if my memory serves me correctly (which I can't count on at the moment since my wife and I have been stuck at home with illness for the better part of this month), when Trump first talked about his border wall, both as a candidate and subsequently as president, my main source for Utah news (KSL) ran a story about the proposed design for such a wall. I might look for it later if needed, but the specifications seemed to imply that its design, in addition to being costly, would also need to comprise a completely solid structure to prevent the people of Mexico from entering the country illegally. I might try to double check that later today in case I am not remembering those details correctly. That news story aside, my point was more that, if, in the unlikely event that wall is successfully built (which doesn't seem probable at the moment, as Mexico has refused to pay for it, and as the US does not, to my knowledge, have the surplus revenue to make it happen, especially as a result of the newly passed tax bill.
ReplyDeleteSo if the estimates of experts on the design and cost of the wall are to be believed), then the El Paso Saints would need to be rerouted to another temple. But I see the wall as an unlikely possibility, and I am hopeful that Trump will be only a one-term president, assuming he lasts the full term,
But the wall aside, that is the reason why I have suggested above that the Church could first announce a temple in Fort Worth, followed by Las Cruces, and, if and when it is needed, a temple in El Paso as well. In regards to the Church's 80 temple sites for the next 15 years, it is not hard to believe that all three locations could be on that list.
I hope that clarifies my assertions in the post above. I for one hope and believe that we will likely see temples in all three locations at some point, but if I had to prioritize them, I would, as noted, start with Fort Worth, then do one for Las Cruces, and build the third in El Paso.
That said, the Lord has shown us repeatedly that His ways and thoughts are higher than those of the human family. So no one will be more surprised (not to mention pleased) than I will be if the Lord through his servants announces these three either simultaneously or in any other order. While I have tried to use my best logic and reason for the thoughts I have shared in this regard, I am just as pleased (if not more so) when the Lord proves me wrong on something I have said as I am if He verifies that my thoughts have agreed with His will, timing, and purposes.
What I have tried to do here is offer the best suggestions and lines of reasoning that I presently have based on a few specific metrics I use (which have mainly been the size of each current district and the distance the Saints in the furthest regions of such districts have to travel). But as has been pointed out so well, there are others that could be used more accurately. I hope that you and anyone else who reads these thoughts from me will take them as nothing more and nothing less than my own thoughts on the subject, which have been formulated after a process of studying the options that at times is just as imperfect as I myself am. I also hope I have adequately addressed your questions. If I have not, please let me know. Thanks again for your great comment. I appreciate you!
If I may make an additional comment, I want to return briefly to the subject of the order in which these three could be announced. As mentioned in a previous comment above this and the other one, I mainly use the measures of distance and the size of current districts. So in addition to the information about Fort Worth's potential from someone in the current Dallas district (with part of his support for that assertion being that between high attendance and issues of traffic, Fort Worth seems the logical next choice, not just to him personally, but to others within that district with whom he has spoken), I wanted to run some distance calculations. Though the Fort Worth Saints have a journey of only 32 miles, as noted, the main support for the idea of a Fort Worth Temple is mainly that it would pull away from the Dallas temple, which by his report seems to be fairly busy, whether or not it is one of the most busy in the US right now.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the Saints within the El Paso stakes, which are currently assigned to the Ciudad Mexico Temple district, have a much smaller journey, only having to cross the border to get to that temple, which is a journey of only 11.1 miles. While I have not heard anything regarding how busy the Ciudad Juarez Mexico temple is currently, that distance doesn't seem to warrant El Paso getting a temple anytime soon, unless Trump is successful in building that border wall. So it might be less of a priority. And for the Saints in New Mexico, since all of the 14 stakes in the state are served by the one temple in Albuquerque, I also fall back on the distance issue. While there is only one stake based in Las Cruces, the stakes in the surrounding region would also be served by a temple in that city, which gives support to the idea. Additionally, the Las Cruces Saints have a much further distance to travel than the Saints in El Paso do to Ciudad Juarez. For the Las Cruces Saints (and their counterparts in surrounding stakes), the journey to Albuquerque involves a journey of 224.5 miles, a distance that would likely play a role in how soon a temple might be built there, since it is beyond the 200-mile distance specified by President Monson. As a final observation, I would like to note that Las Cruces and El Paso are 46.7 miles apart. So even with a temple in Las Cruces, the El Paso Saints would likely be retained in the Ciudad Juarez temple district, unless and until Trump is successful in building that border wall. I hope I am not belaboring the point, and I also hope that all three locations will get temples at some point. The question is when each might occur. For me, the answer is to list options first for Fort Worth and Las Cruces, but other people using other factors may come to another conclusion. Whenever temples are announced in any or all of these three locations, or anywhere else for that matter, I will be overjoyed. Thanks again for your great questions. Hope that helps to address some of the reasoning behind my answers to them.