Stokes Sounds Off: Temple Site Possibilities: South America Northwest Area, Part Four--Overview of Potential Temple Locations & Exploring the Most Likely Candidate for Bolivia's Second Temple

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Temple Site Possibilities: South America Northwest Area, Part Four--Overview of Potential Temple Locations & Exploring the Most Likely Candidate for Bolivia's Second Temple

Hello again, everyone! I am back yet again, with what I intended to be the final post covering the South America Northwest Area, and in this one, we will explore my personal list of those candidate cities which I have felt could potentially get a temple, and the exploration of factors relating specifically to the likely location of Bolivia's second temple. Because of the volume of detail involved, I will need to defer discussion of the merits of other locations in subsequent posts about this area.

I have felt that the following cities could have a temple announced in the near future: Santa Cruz or La Paz Bolivia;; Cali or Medellin Colombia, Cusco or Iquitos Peru. and possibly  Maracaibo Venezuela. As I mentioned above, I will take the rest of this post to explore the two Bolivian candidates, then do other posts about those in Colombia, another for Peru, and a final post for Venezuela/ 

So, could Bolivia get a second (and possibly a third) temple in the near future? As noted in the previous post, the Cochabamba temple district takes in 32 stakes and 8 districts in Bolivia, along with 3 additional stakes located in Southeastern Peru. As I looked into the options, Santa Cruz and La Paz made the most sense as candidates for Bolivia's next two temples. Why is that, which might be announced first, could they be announced at the same time, and, if one of them is announced first, how soon might the other be? All of those questions are interesting to consider. Before exploring the answers I have found, as I noted previously, the two cities each have two missions within their boundaries.

Let's look at Santa Cruz first. The Saints in Santa Cruz currently travel 295.7 miles to reach the Cochabamba temple. A temple in that city would, at minimum, serve the 9 stakes headquartered there, drawing away at least the 54 wards and 3 branches, for a total of 57 congregations which are based in that city. Even though I am not familiar with Bolivian geography, I would imagine that other nearby Church units would also benefit from a temple in Santa Cruz.

Turning now to the merits of a temple in La Paz, that city is located 235.4 miles from Cochabamba, and would be almost double that distance from a Santa Cruz temple (with the exact mileage being 528.1). A temple in La Paz would, at minimum, take in the 5 stakes based in the city, which would serve, at minimum, the 31 wards and 8 branches, or 39 congregations, to say nothing of any of the surrounding congregations.

So my first question for any who would like to comment is, which of the two seems more imminently likely? And if both have an equal likelihood, do you think the Church might opt to announce them at the same time, or construct one and announce the other while the construction of the first continues? I could easily see any scenario for these cities, and I look forward to your feedback.

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.

1 comment:

  1. In light of the information I shared above, if and when Bolivia gets its' second temple, would its location more likely be in Santa Cruz or La Paz? Could the two be announced or under construction at the same time? If so, which would likely be first? Let me know your thoughts on these questions. 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.