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
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities: South America South Area, Part Seven--Analysis of Likely Split For Asuncion Paraguay and Montevideo Uruguay Temple Districts and Area Wrap-Up
First, it makes sense that the temples in both nations are located in their capital cities. The Church has, as I previously observed, seemed to prefer doing things that way. That said, in looking at the two districts, I can see a couple of possibilities that might work if a determination was made to split these two districts. Please note that while there appear to be several candidates that will likely get their own temple at some point, I am focusing only on the most imminently likely possibilities.
The Saints from the Artigas region of Uruguay have a journey of 373.1 miles to visit the Montevideo temple. So that city could get one. And since it is also 496.6 miles from the Asuncion temple, it makes sense that the Church would not only have that city fall under the Montevideo district for the moment, but that Artigas could easily get a temple, if the Church feels one is needed there.
If a temple is announced for Artigas Uruguay, then the only other city that may need one at some point (at least for now) is Treinta y Tres Uruguay, which is 182 miles from Montevideo (slightly less than President Monson's target goal of 200 miles, but still close enough to qualify), and if a temple were built in Artigas, since that city is 318.5 miles from there, so that city would likely remain in the Montevideo district if a temple was announced for Artigas.
So there are some possible locations for other Uruguayan temples at some point, although how soon they might happen is anyone's guess. Moving on now to Asuncion Paraguay's district, let's next explore if, when, and how that district could potentially be split.
First, I have considered a potential second temple in Paraguay for a while, and in previous discussions about that possibility, someone mentioned that Ciudad del Este might be the best location for such a temple. And my subsequent research has shown the merits of that assertion.
The Saints in that city have a journey of 201.1 miles to worship at the Asuncion Paraguay Temple, and with it closed, the Saints are travelling even further than that to do so. For that reason, we could see a temple there at some point, perhaps sooner rather than later. And that seems to be the only feasible location to split the Asuncion Paraguay Temple district.
This brings to a close my thoughts on potential future temples to break up the Montevideo and Asuncion temple districts. I look forward to hearing yours. That does it for this post, and that also does it for my coverage of the South America South Area. My focus this next week as I can do so will be to report any new Church and temple-related news of which I hear, and also to hopefully finish my series of posts about potential temple locations in the final three areas I have yet to cover: Utah North, Utah Salt Lake City, and Utah South.
So stay tuned for that. 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:
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.
As I have previously noted, I will be accepting comments on the likelihood of future temple possibilities until the week before the April General Conference, when I will need to finalize this list. So if I have missed anything at all in my analysis above, please feel free to let me know. Thanks.
ReplyDelete