Hello again, everyone! I am back with a look at the final five temples which I have not covered yet in my discussion of those that are within the North America Southwest Area. Those five temples are those the Church identifies as Las Vegas and Reno Nevada, Albuquerque New Mexico, Monticello Utah, and Oklahoma City Oklahoma. Let's talk now about each of these temples.
First, a word about Nevada as a whole. There are 3 missions in the state, two in Las Vegas and the third in Reno. The Church in Nevada also has 42 stakes, which in turn break down into 310 wards and 27 branches, for a grand total of 337 congregations. If we divide those equally between the two temples, that means the average number of congregations for the two is right between 168 and 169.
That said, let's talk briefly about the history of the two temples. The first will be marking the 28th anniversary of its dedication tomorrow, as it was dedicated between December 16-18, 1989. President Gordon B. Hinckley officiated at the dedication of that temple. Meanwhile, the second Nevada temple was dedicated in Reno on April 23, 2000, by President Thomas S. Monson, who was serving as First Counselor in the First Presidency to President Hinckley.
As far as their districts, that of the Las Vegas Nevada Temple is comprised of 28 stakes in southern Nevada and 2 others (the Kingman and Lake Havasu City stakes) from northwestern Arizona, which includes 7 stakes in Henderson. As the city of Henderson is 435.4 miles from Las Vegas, I feel certain that the Church will announce a temple in Henderson at some point. The only question is how soon that might happen. I welcome thoughts on that subject in the comments below.
In the meantime, the Reno Nevada temple district is comprised of those 9 stakes in western Nevada and 1 other (the Quincy stake) from northeastern California. One of those stakes, located in Winnemucca, is 166.1 miles from Reno. For that reason, I am thinking that a temple might be possible in that city as well.
We now move on to Albuquerque New Mexico. That temple was dedicated on March 5, 2000 by President Gordon B. Hinckley. Its current district takes in 14 stakes, 12 of which are in New Mexico, and the other 2 (Alamosa and Manassa) are found in the San Luis Valley in Colorado state. Again, not a substantially sized district.
Turning our attention now to the only Utah temple that falls within this area instead of one of the three areas with the Utah name, the Monticello Utah Temple was dedicated on July 26 and 27, 1998 (yet another temple dedicated during the traditional July recess for the General Authorities), by President Gordon B. Hinckley, who came back to rededicate that same temple on November 17, 2002 following the completion of its renovation process.
The stakes within this temple's district total 7, 4 of which are in Western Colorado, with the final 3 based in Southeastern Utah. Again, with so few stakes right now, that district is not likely to split any time soon.
And the last temple within this area that I want to discuss in this post is the one located in Oklahoma City Oklahoma, which closed in mid-October for extensive renovation. Originally dedicated on the second-to-last day of July by President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, its exterior is being altered to match other temples originally dedicated between 1998 and 2002 or so that have undergone an overhaul of their exterior look. During the closure, patrons assigned to this temple are being rerouted to other operating temples near them, one of which is the Dallas Texas Temple. When the temple is rededicated in 2019 following the renovation's conclusion, it will continue to serve the 14 stakes within its boundaries, which currently include 8 stakes in Oklahoma, 4 others from Northwest Arkansas, and the Derby and Wichita Stakes from South Central Kansas.
That brings me to my next point. Since I have relatives on my dad's side of the family that live (or lived) in Oklahoma, I have often heard them reference not only Oklahoma City, but also Norman and Tulsa as well. Norman is exactly 20 miles from the capital Oklahoma City, and Tulsa is 106.5 miles away from Oklahoma City. I could therefore perhaps see a reason for a second temple in Oklahoma that would be built in Tulsa. But I do have one reason to suppose and believe that might be a more distant prospect than the near future.
That reason is because, as I mentioned in my post(s) about the prospects for temples in the North America Southeast Area, I believe that a temple will be announced to serve the Saints in Arkansas, and that it will be located in Bentonville. If that does happen, the three stakes in Arkansas that now fall under the Oklahoma City Oklahoma temple district will no longer be a part of that district, leaving it with 10 stakes. But if the Church sees that the Bentonville temple is not sufficient on its own to divide the Oklahoma City temple district, I could see the merits of the Church announcing a temple for the city of Tulsa.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. 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.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities: North America Southwest Area, Part Four--Other Operating Temples Within This Area
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.
10 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)
With a temple just South of the boarder in Mexico it might be a far stretch to have a temple in El Paso other than the fact that it is so dangerous to cross that boarder, making the next closes temples all 3+ hours away.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kenny! You raise a fair point. Crossing the Mexican border for temple worship might not be an ideal situation for the Saints in Texas that have to do so. I cannot rule out completely the possibility that a temple could be announced for El Paso, and probably for one or two other cities in Texas. What I said above was more to point out that, of all the possibilities in Texas where its next temple could likely be built, the feedback I received from someone within the current boundaries of the Dallas temple that if and when another temple is built to split that district, the most likely location for it would be Fort Worth. That is why I don't have any other possibilities for that city, even though others might and possibly will be announced at some point. Forth Worth seems like the most likely candidate, but it is not by any means the only one. Thanks, Kenny!
DeleteI hear that many people in El Paso travel to Gila Valley AZ, because it is dangerous and more time consuming to cross the boarder. But they built a temple in Tijuana, just across the border from San Dieago, so it is possible the same could be done in El Paso, Texas. However it would probably only have 4 stakes. Three in El Paso TX and one in Rosewell, New Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that comment, Chris! As I mentioned in my response to Kenny above, El Paso is likely a very good potential temple candidate. But as it is almost unheard of for the Church to have two temples built in the same state at the same time. So for Texas, I have to go back to the most likely city for the next temple. And since my research and a comment from someone within the current Dallas district confirmed that Fort Worth would likely be the most likely location, I have that on my list. El Paso could (and probably will) get a temple at some point, but unless the Lord surprises us, I feel confident that Fort Worth will be the next city in Texas to get a temple. There are literally dozens of potential locations that could and probably will get a temple at some point. But what I have been trying to do with this post series is to pinpoint locations that are the most likely in their area to get such a temple. That said, I could see El Paso getting its own temple at some point following the dedication of a temple in Fort Worth. I am keeping an eye on this, along with all other potential locations, and will be sure to post any updates I make to such prospects in any area. Thanks for your comment, Chris!
DeleteFor Nevada, I think a second temple will be announced in the Las Vegas area in maybe the next 5 to ten years. I wonder if Nevada could have another temple elsewhere. By the way Henderson is more like 15 miles not 435 miles from Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Temple is on the East side of the Valley and Henderson is South East side. Of the 30 stakes in the current district I think Henderson could take 12 stakes in the south side of the valley,including the AZ stakes.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this comment as well, Chris! I fully believe that a second temple could be announced to serve the Saints in the Las Vegas area, and Henderson seems to be the strongest candidate for that second temple. Secondly, I don't know where I got the 435 mile figure I cited for the distance between Henderson and Las Vegas. The distance is actually only 15.8 miles. It's possible that I was looking at the distance between Henderson and the other Nevada Temple, which is Reno. The distance between those two cities is 453.7 miles, so I think I just mixed up Las Vegas and Reno when I cited that distance. Sorry about that. In the meantime, at any distance, Henderson makes sense as a temple prospect because the Las Vegas district covers 30 stakes, which makes for a pretty big temple districts. It is interesting to consider if and how temple districts might be split, and where an additional temple could be built to accomplish such a split. And while I advance potential locations I feel are most likely, as I have said before, there are likely dozens of others that have a strong case in favor of a temple as well. My goal is to try and determine those that seem more imminent, but I have found that if locations are presented with a strong enough case, I wind up putting them on a list for the future, either for within 1-2 years or within the more distant future. Thanks for the correction on the mileage and for your comments. I appreciate the feedback.
DeleteA temple in El Paso would also serve the Las Cruces NM stake, at least the majority of it since it is large geographically but the Stake center is in Las Cruces.
ReplyDeleteHey, Kenny! Thanks for this additional comment. Funny you should mention Las Cruces New Mexico. I have referenced this before, but it bears repeating. When I started sharing my thoughts about potential future temples on this blog a couple of years ago. someone had mentioned the possibility of a temple in Las Cruces, which would be the second for New Mexico. In my mind, a temple in either Las Cruces or El Paso would likely serve both cities, at least initially. But perhaps if the Church built a temple in Las Cruces as a starting point, another could be built in El Paso if and when the activity in the Las Cruces district proved sufficient. That said, I honestly don't know how likely it might be for the Church to announce two temples for the same state at the same time. If the Church does announce a temple in Fort Worth in the near future, that may push back the time frame for if and when a temple might be announced for El Paso. It will be interesting to see what the Lord has in store for this region in terms of future temples. Thanks again for you comment, Kenny!
DeleteJames, Your first paragraph lists Elko as a current temple in Nevada when you meant to say Las Vegas.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that. You are absolutely correct in that regard. That was a mistake on my part (primarily because I was sharing a lot of information in the post above and didn't check it for accuracy or typos), I have fixed it now. Thanks again for letting me know about it. I appreciate you!
Delete