Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: North America Southwest Area, Part Two--Current Temples in Arizona

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Friday, December 15, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: North America Southwest Area, Part Two--Current Temples in Arizona

Hello again, everyone! I am back as I promised, with the second part of my series of posts about the North America Southwest Area, which in itself is part of my larger series of posts about such possibilities and prospects worldwide by Church area. In continuing our discussion of current temples within the North America Southwest Area of the Church, we first turn our focus in this post to the subject of the six temple that serve the Saints in Arizona and the surrounding areas.

As most, if not all, of you are probably aware, the Tucson Arizona Temple became the sixth temple in the state about four months ago. Additionally, the state's first temple, which was built in Mesa, is set to close for its second renovation on Sunday May 20, which will also be the day that the Jordan River Utah Temple is rededicated. The Church in Arizona has a rich history, with 6 missions currently serving the state. There have also been 114 stakes established in Arizona, which breaks down further into 810 wards and 85 branches, for a grand total of 895 congregations within the state. With six temples, the congregational average for each is right between 149 and 150.

With that background in place, let's talk about each temple. I will be addressing the breakdown of each district in the chronological order in which they have been dedicated, which will be as follows: Mesa (for which dedicatory sessions were held between October 23-26, 1927, and were presided over by 7th Church President Heber Grant; the temple was rededicated following its' first renovation on April 15-16, 1975 by 12th Church President Spencer W. Kimball); Snowflake (dedicated on March 3, 2002 by President Gordon B. Hinckley); The Gila Valley (dedicated on May 23, 2010 by President Thomas S. Monson) Gilbert (dedicated on March 2, 2014 with a prayer that was written by President Monson and read (at his request) by his First Counselor President Eyring in the first session); Phoenix (dedicated on November 16, 2014 by President Thomas S. Monson); and, most recently, the Tucson Arizona Temple (dedicated on August 13, 2017, by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency).

Now that we have discussed the history of temple dedications in Arizona, let us turn our attention to the discussion of the current districts of each temple. Following the dedication of the other 5 temples in the state, the Mesa Arizona Temple district covers 29 stakes from the Northeastern Phoenix Metro Area and Arizona's Rim Country.

While there are several of those stakes that do not fall within a well recognized area of Arizona, the major regions that this temple district covers are as follows: 21 stakes from Mesa, 1 from Phoenix, and two each in the Scottsdale and Tempe areas.

There may or may not be a strong case to have another temple that would break up this district somewhat, and I have considered the merits of suggesting one for the city of Payson, Arizona (which is 76.2 miles from Mesa, Scottsdale or Tempe might be other good locations, but the former is located 12.9 miles from Mesa, and the latter is 6.8 miles from Mesa. Let me know your thoughts on all of that

We turn next to the district of the Snowflake Arizona Temple, which is comprised of 13 stakes. The most notable thing about that district is that it covers two stakes in the city of Flagstaff, which is the one potential location in Arizona that I have on my list for the near future. The Saints in Flagstaff currently travel a distance of 118 miles, and even though that is somewhat below the 200 mile goal President Monson has set, I still think a temple in Flagstaff would serve the patrons in that part of Arizona very well.

Additionally, temples have been built in areas where only one or two stakes are established, so I don't see Flagstaff's two stakes as being a potential deterring factor in whether or not a temple is built in the region. I could see a temple there sooner rather than later. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Next, let's talk about The Gila Valley Arizona Temple (for which, as most of you know, the inclusion of "The", which is deliberately capitalized in the name of the temple, mirroring the way the locals see that part of Arizona). The temple that was dedicated there now serves 6 stakes, 5 from Eastern Arizona (including President Kimball's beloved city of Thatcher), and 1 from Southwestern New Mexico. That seems to be a very manageable district size.

Now we will talk about the Gilbert Arizona Temple district. Its current composition has it covering 34 stakes in the Southern Phoenix Metro and Cobra Valley areas of Arizona, which includes the Casa Grande stake, 4 stakes in Chandler, 12 in Gilbert, the Globe and Maricopa stakes, 4 stakes in the Mesa area, 7 more from the Queen Creek region, and two others each from San Tan and Tempe.

I could see that district being potentially split into one or two others, and in the long run, several others. Although I only have the one temple possibility for Arizona (in Flagstaff), I wanted to mention that I see the potential merits of another temple being announced for either the San Tan Valley (13.9 miles from Gilbert), Tempe (13.8 miles from Gilbert), or Queen Creek (16.2 miles from Gilbert). It wouldn't surprise me to have temples in each of these Arizona cities at some point. I also briefly considered Chandler, but that is 6.2 miles from Gilbert, so there might be one built there someday, but perhaps not for the near future. If any of you have any thoughts about where a temple could be built that would split the Gilbert district, let me  know.

Moving on now to the Phoenix Arizona Temple, I wanted to note one very significant thing about it before I talk about the size and composition of its district. The dedication of this temple was the last one over which President Monson personally presided. In his current situation, having stepped back from active service due to age- and health-related challenges, we likely will not see him participate in any other dedications, barring a miracle.

That said, let's get into the specifics on the Phoenix Arizona Temple District. The temple serves those Saints from 20 stakes in the Northwest Phoenix Metro and Yavapai County regions of Arizona, which includes two stakes each in Glendale, Peoria, the Prescott Valley and Surprise, in addition to the Buckeye, Cottonwood, and Goodyear stakes and 8 other stakes based in Phoenix. That is a good size district, so there may or may not be a good reason for a second temple somewhere in the region to break it up somewhat. Let me know your thoughts on that.

And rounding out the Arizona temples is the one in Tucson Arizona, which was just dedicated four months ago. That temple serves 9 stakes from Southern Arizona, 6 of which are within the city of Tucson.

That does it for this post, which has discussed the current temple districts covering Arizona, and has advanced the notion of a few possible future locations for temples in Arizona. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, especially in terms of if I have missed or overlooked anything or if there are some things I should reconsider. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post (which should be put up later today), I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

1 comment:

  1. Aside from the potential for a temple in Flagstaff, have I missed anything else in my coverage of Arizona? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

    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.