Hello again, everyone! Having discussed in the last post the specifics relating to the current temple districts within the South America South area, it is time now to turn our attention to the potential locations throughout this area for which I feel a future temple is an imminent possibility. I have found a few prospects that look very promising to me, and I will detail what they are and why I have them on my list over the next few posts.
First, if the Church decides to split the Buenos Aires Argentina district (and it would make a lot of sense to me that they likely will), I could see that happening in a few potential ways.
The most likely of those options, in my opinion, is one fhat I have had on my list for a while, after a comment on an initial version of that list alerted me to it. That is the city of Neuquen, which is located 724.5 miles from the temple in Buenos Aires. Since that is more than three times the distance of 200 miles within which President Monson has set a goal for each Church member, it certainly makes sense by that measure.
Since the Saints in the Bahia Blanca region currently have a journey of 406.2 miles to get to the Buenos Aires Argentina temple, that is just over twice the 200-mile distance within which President Monson has set a goal for every member to be. If the Church does build a temple. If and when the Church opts to build a temple in Neuquen, the Saints in Bahia Blanca would have a slightly shorter distance to travel, as the two are 331.8 miles apart.
Another potential candidate that would split this temple district is the city or Rosario, as the Saints in that city travel 485.2 miles to worship at the Buenos Aires temple. Again, that is more than twice the 200-mile goal of President Monson. A temple in Neuquen would be around 300 miles further away (the exact distance is 747.8 miles) A temple in Rosario, which is within the Santa Fe province, would likely also serve the Saints from the two stakes based in Santa Fe.
And a fourth potential candidate for how the Church could potentially split the Buenos Aires district is the city of Trelew which, because it is 861.7 miles from Buenos Aires, makes sense in terms of the distance factor. A temple in Neuquen would cut that distance to 451.9 miles, The Saints in Trelew would have an even shorter journey if a temple was announced in Bahia Blanca, which is 446.3 miles away. That said, if a temple were to be built in Rosario, that wouldn't help cut the distance the Saints in Trelew have to travel, as Trelew is more than twice as far from Rosario as it is from Buenos Aires (the exact distance between the two is 916.4 miles).
Whatever the Church might opt to do to split the temple district, it just seems a matter of time before that does happen (if only based on the distance factor). So that does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, especially any feedback you might have on the prospects I have suggested herein. 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.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities: South America South Area, Part Four--How the Church Could Potentially Divide the Buenos Aires Argentina Temple District
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is there anything I missed regarding what I said above about the potential ways the Church could split the Buenos Aires Temple district? I will continue to welcome any feedback until the week before the April General Conference, when I will need to finalize these selections. Just let me know. Thanks.
ReplyDelete