Hello again, everyone! Before moving on to the subject of this post (which will be the four temple districts that serve the Saints in Texas), I wanted to issue an apology. I had posted a couple of hours ago regarding the current and potential future temples in Arizona, but I didn't check for errors or omissions, and I found that I had neglected to discuss one of the six districts.
Rather than keeping the post up and adding the relevant information, I opted to revert the original version of the post back into its' draft form so I could edit what I needed to and post the corrected version. If any of you made comments on the original post that were lost when I took that action, I hope you will forgive me and post such comments again. I continue to appreciate the dialogue we have been able to have take place regarding my thoughts on future temples, and I hope that comes across in what I say in these posts and in any replies I offer to your shared insightful comments. That said, let's talk about Texas.
Before talking about the 4 temple districts that serve the Saints in Texas, I wanted to note a couple of indirect personal connections which I have to that state. My mom, a South African native who came to the US on a "short vacation" in the late 70's, had prior to that time asked the Lord if she should serve a mission. The answer she received at the time was what she perceived as "no", but turned out to be "not just yet".
After she had been in Utah for a while visiting with friends she had in the area, through an unusual set of circumstances, she was stunned to find out that the Lord wanted her on a mission at that time. She served in Texas, where she had experiences in Austin, Dallas, and Houston.
Additionally, I had a friend in my graduating class in high school who served in the Fort Worth mission. Through the experiences both my mom and this friend have shared with me regarding their service, and from what I have observed in the Church News about the state, the Saints there are faithful, and the Lord's work is moving along well there.
That is even more evident because of the four temples within that state. I will discuss them chronologically, which is also their alphabetical order. I will devote a paragraph each to the history of those 4, which are as follows:
The first one dedicated was Dallas. That occurred between October 19-24, 1984 and was done by President Hinckley, who was then Second Counselor in the First Presidency to Spencer W. Kimball; following a process that added on to that temple, President Hinckley dedicated just that added portion on March 5, 1989).
The next one to be dedicated was Houston, with that dedication taking place on August 26 & 27, 2000 and with President Hinckley presiding at that dedication as well. As we know, that temple sustained weather-related damage earlier this year and was closed to allow what began as a restoration process that the First Presidency subsequently announced would be a renovation. Following a private rededication sometime during mid-2018, the temple will reopen.
Texas's third operating temple was dedicated in the city of Lubbock, which occurred on April 21, 2002, and President Hinckley presided at that event as well. The final and most recent temple to be dedicated in Texas was built in San Antonio, and its dedication occurred on May 22, 2005. Once again, President Hinckley presided at that event.
So, having discussed the history of the current temples in Texas, it is time now for us to turn our attention to the composition of each of those districts and those future locations that may get a temple in the near future. Let's dive right in to all of that.
Following the dedication of the other temples, the Dallas temple district now covers 26 stakes in Northern Texas, and also the Shreveport stake in northern Louisiana. There may be a reason to split that district. How could that be done? Following the brief discussion of my temple picks on the now-defunct LDS Growth Forum, in which the most likely location for Texas's next temple was discussed, I heard some feedback from someone who lives within the Dallas Texas Temple district.
This individual confirmed an idea I had already considered, that the most likely location for a temple that would divide the Dallas district is Fort Worth, which is exact 32 miles from Dallas. I am glad to have the possibility of a Fort Worth Texas Temple confirmed as being very likely. Others might not feel the same way, but for me, I would defer to the opinion of someone who is familiar with the current district.
As for the Houston temple district, it covers 22 stakes in the southeastern portion of Texas. Among them is the Beaumont stake, whose members are 84.9 miles from the Houston temple. I welcome any thoughts about if and when Beaumont might potentially get a temple.
We now move on to the Lubbock Texas Temple, which has 5 stakes and 1 district from West Texas, and also the Roswell Stake from the southeastern part of New Mexico. And finally, the San Antonio Texas temple district is comprised of the 18 stakes and two districts within the south and central portions of Texas that include not only the 7 stakes based in San Antonio, but also the two stakes each that are based in Austin, McAllen, and Round Rock.
It may be possible for Austin to get its own temple at some point (since the Saints in that city have 79.7 miles to travel to get to San Antonio), but I have no idea how imminent that possibility might be. Let me know your thoughts in that regard in the comments below.
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.
On this blog, I, James Stokes, share insights and analysis covering the latest news and developments reported about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My specific emphasis and focus is on the ministry of our current apostles, General Conference, and up-to-date temple information. This site is neither officially owned, operated, or endorsed by the Church, and I, as the autthor thereof, am solely responsible for this content.
Search This Blog
Friday, December 15, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities: North America Southwest Area, Part Three--Current Temple Districts in Texas
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
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.