Hello again, everyone! In this second post covering the Utah South Area, I will be focusing on the following for temples: Cedar City, Monticello, Manti, and Vernal, which are located respectively in Iron, San Juan, Sanpete, and Sevier counties. Subsequent posts will focus on Utah County (which is home to 4 temples (which will be five when the Saratoga Springs Utah Temple is built and dedicated, so Utah County will likely get its own post), and a final post discussing the two temples in Washington and Weber Counties. In addition to the history, my remaining posts for this area will be addressing the composition of current (or, in the case of the Saratoga Springs Utah Temple, future) temple districts, and will go into where and when other temples could be built be in each region.
That said, let's get right to the discussion of the first four. We start with the Cedar City Utah Temple. As we know, that temple was just dedicated just over 2 weeks ago, on December 10, 2017, and President Henry B. Eyring presided at that dedication. The purpose of building this temple was to reduce the size of the St. George Temple district.
The Cedar City Temple serves the Saints from 15 stakes in southern Utah, and 2 others (the Ely and Panaca stakes) from Nevada's eastern portion. I have before ventured my opinion that the Church could build a temple in Ely at some point. But I am not sure how else the Church might opt to split the district in the future. Right now, it seems fairly manageable.
Moving on to Monticello, that temple was dedicated as the 53rd operating temple of the Church by President Gordon B. Hinckley on November 17, 2002. Its' district takes in 7 stakes, 4 from Western Colorado (2 from Grand Junction, and 1 each in Durango and Montrose Colorado) along with 3 others from southeastern Utah (namely Blanding, Moab, and Monticello). So that district is also very manageable.
The Saints in Utah's Sanpete County are currently served by the Manti Utah Temple, which became the 3rd operating temple of the Church when it was dedicated between May 21-23, 1888 by 5th Church President Lorenzo Snow.
Its district currently serves those Saints from 22 stakes in Central Utah. If and when the Church opts to split this district, a temple could be announced in either Ephraim or Richfield. While that possibility does not seem to be imminent at the moment, I will keep an eye on this district as I am able to do so, and will pass along anything that would point to either possibility.
I would now like to finish this post by talking about the Vernal Utah Temple, which, as already noted, is based in Uintah County. Dedicated between November 2-4, 1997 by President Gordon B. Hinckley, it became the 51st operating temple of the Church. Its' district is comprised of 10 stakes located in northeastern Utah, and 2 each from northwestern Colorado (the Craig and Rife stakes) and southwestern Wyoming (Green River and Rock Springs). Again, not a huge district, so I don't see much potential for it to split.
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.
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities--Utah South Area, Part Two: Temples in Iron, San Juan, Sanpete, and Uintah Counties
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.
3 comments:
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)
The biggest reason and possible roadblock from getting another temple near Manti is that the temple requires a larger group of temple workers to run the temple because it is the other temple (besides Salt Lake) that does live action sessions. That means more workers per session, needing more stakes to draw from.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good point, Kenny, which I had not considered. In that regard, it would make complete sense that the Manti Temple district would not split until there is either enough support for the live action endowment sessions without the stakes that would fall within the new district, or unless and until the Church opts make a change there. And I wasn't really too attached to the idea of that district being split. I just figured it would be good to observe that the number of stakes in the current district might potentially warrant a split. So I am glad to hear confirmation that it is unlikely in view of the live-action endowment. Thanks for the comment, Kenny!
DeleteAside from the fact that the Manti Temple district will likely not split until either the Church shifts away from live endowment performances, in my post above, have I overlooked anything else in my coverage of the four counties in Utah? And how likely is it that the Church could build other temples in any of those four counties to split those districts? Let me know if I have missed anything else.
ReplyDelete