Hello again, everyone! I am back to start my coverage of the final Church area, the Utah South Area. This area is the one with which I am most familiar, as I have been born and raised within its boundaries. Therefore, while all of the areas have been a lot of fun to cover, this area is the one for which I have the greatest anticipation for temples. Every important event in my life has occurred in Utah County, including and especially my six-year service as a temple worker that led me to meet, fall in love with, and marry the woman who has stood by faithfully beside me through our now 7 years of marriage (our anniversary was on the 18th).
The Utah South Area is comprised of regions south of the Salt Lake Valley, and small portions of both Arizona and Nevada. The Saints in this area are served by 8 temples in operation within its' boundaries, and will also have the Saratoga Springs area better covered once that temple is built and dedicated.
The 8 temples, by name, are the Cedar City Manti, Mount Timpanogos (built in American Fork City, a place I proudly claim as my hometown, not by birth, but rather by virtue of spending most of my now 31 years as a resident of that city, and to which I feel I have the greatest personal ties), Payson, Provo City Center and Provo Utah, St. George, and Vernal.
In subsequent posts, I will share a more particular history of these temples, the size of their districts, and the potential I see for future temples within the Utah South Area. I will be approaching that subject by the counties of Utah within which each of the counties that fall within this area of the Church
But 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.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Temple Site Possibilities--Utah South Area, Part One: Area Overview and Current Temples
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: Utah Salt Lake City Area--Part Two: The Three Other Temples In This Area/Other Future Possibilities
Hello again, everyone! I am back with my second post about the Utah Salt Lake City Area, and will focus this post on the other three temples that serve the Saints within that area. That will include the history of those three, an exploration of the makeup of their current districts, and if, when, and where other new temples might be built to serve the Saints in this area.
So the second temple that was built to serve these Saints was the Jordan River Utah Temple. At the time of its' dedication (which was held between November 16-20, 1981; it is significant to me that this is the only temple of the Church that was originally dedicated by President Marion G. Romney), it became the Church's 20th in operation worldwide.
As we know, it has been closed for renovation since February 15 of last year, and has had its rededication set for May 20 of next year. While it may be too early to tell who might preside at this temple dedication, since this a Salt Lake Valley temple, I am anticipating high attendance from Church leadership.
That said, I had thought the same thing about every Utah temple dedication and rededication that has occurred for the last 3 years, and I always find out later that there weren't as many Church leaders in attendance as I was anticipating. So I am honestly not sure what to expect for this rededication.
When the temple is up and running again, it will continue to serve the Saints in the 66 stakes that comprise its district. There is a chance that this temple district could split at some point, but I am not at all sure if, when, and how that might occur.
I might venture Murray, Riverton, or Taylorsville as potential candidates, but if the Salt Lake district is split at any point, several stakes within this district may also be redistributed at surrounding temples.
That said, I would be interested in hearing any thoughts any of you have about the most likely prospect to effect such a split, and how soon you feel that might occur. Let me know in the comments below.
In addition to the Jordan River and Salt Lake Temples, Saints in the Utah Salt Lake City area are also served by two other temples: Draper and Oquirrh Mountain. I will start with the latter, since that is also located in South Jordan.
As most of you are aware, the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple was announced because of how busy the Jordan River Temple was. At the time of its dedication (which occurred between August 21-23, 2009, with President Thomas S. Monson, who celebrated his 82nd birthday on the first day of that dedication, presiding. That temple brought the number of those in operation to 130.
As for its district, it takes in 35 stakes from the Western Salt Lake Valley. Some have said that this district could be split as well. Because I have friends of my family who relocated a few years ago from Alpine in Utah County to Herriman in the Salt Lake Valley, I know from their reports that Herriman is growing speedily. For that reason, if and when another temple is built to divide this district, I feel confident Herriman will be selected for that honor.
Before moving on to Draper, the final temple in this area, I also wanted to note that President Gordon B. Hinckley announced in General Conference in April 2005 that the Church was holding land in reserve for a temple in the Southwestern part of Salt Lake Valley, and that an official announcement of its location would be made once a temple was needed there.
Some have contended that either the Draper or Oquirrh Mountain temples were likely the location to which President Hinckley referred, but since most sources I have available for such information still list that temple as only being publicly proposed, we know that an official announcement of that location is still pending.
That said, since many of the temples announced by President Monson were publicly proposed and/or referenced by President Hinckley, I feel we could see that location announced fairly soon, wherever it turns out to be.
I'd like to now conclude my discussion of the temple sites in this area by talking about the Draper Utah Temple, which was dedicated from March 20-22, 2009. President Monson presided at this event that gave the Church its' 129th operating temple.
The current composition of the Draper temple district is 29 stakes in the Southeastern Salt Lake Valley. If the Salt Lake Valley continues to grow, I could see a temple announced in the Sandy area, which would take stakes from this district, and also some other from the Jordan River district. Let me know your thoughts on that prospect in the comments below.
Sorry for the length of this post. That does it for the moment. 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.
So the second temple that was built to serve these Saints was the Jordan River Utah Temple. At the time of its' dedication (which was held between November 16-20, 1981; it is significant to me that this is the only temple of the Church that was originally dedicated by President Marion G. Romney), it became the Church's 20th in operation worldwide.
As we know, it has been closed for renovation since February 15 of last year, and has had its rededication set for May 20 of next year. While it may be too early to tell who might preside at this temple dedication, since this a Salt Lake Valley temple, I am anticipating high attendance from Church leadership.
That said, I had thought the same thing about every Utah temple dedication and rededication that has occurred for the last 3 years, and I always find out later that there weren't as many Church leaders in attendance as I was anticipating. So I am honestly not sure what to expect for this rededication.
When the temple is up and running again, it will continue to serve the Saints in the 66 stakes that comprise its district. There is a chance that this temple district could split at some point, but I am not at all sure if, when, and how that might occur.
I might venture Murray, Riverton, or Taylorsville as potential candidates, but if the Salt Lake district is split at any point, several stakes within this district may also be redistributed at surrounding temples.
That said, I would be interested in hearing any thoughts any of you have about the most likely prospect to effect such a split, and how soon you feel that might occur. Let me know in the comments below.
In addition to the Jordan River and Salt Lake Temples, Saints in the Utah Salt Lake City area are also served by two other temples: Draper and Oquirrh Mountain. I will start with the latter, since that is also located in South Jordan.
As most of you are aware, the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple was announced because of how busy the Jordan River Temple was. At the time of its dedication (which occurred between August 21-23, 2009, with President Thomas S. Monson, who celebrated his 82nd birthday on the first day of that dedication, presiding. That temple brought the number of those in operation to 130.
As for its district, it takes in 35 stakes from the Western Salt Lake Valley. Some have said that this district could be split as well. Because I have friends of my family who relocated a few years ago from Alpine in Utah County to Herriman in the Salt Lake Valley, I know from their reports that Herriman is growing speedily. For that reason, if and when another temple is built to divide this district, I feel confident Herriman will be selected for that honor.
Before moving on to Draper, the final temple in this area, I also wanted to note that President Gordon B. Hinckley announced in General Conference in April 2005 that the Church was holding land in reserve for a temple in the Southwestern part of Salt Lake Valley, and that an official announcement of its location would be made once a temple was needed there.
Some have contended that either the Draper or Oquirrh Mountain temples were likely the location to which President Hinckley referred, but since most sources I have available for such information still list that temple as only being publicly proposed, we know that an official announcement of that location is still pending.
That said, since many of the temples announced by President Monson were publicly proposed and/or referenced by President Hinckley, I feel we could see that location announced fairly soon, wherever it turns out to be.
I'd like to now conclude my discussion of the temple sites in this area by talking about the Draper Utah Temple, which was dedicated from March 20-22, 2009. President Monson presided at this event that gave the Church its' 129th operating temple.
The current composition of the Draper temple district is 29 stakes in the Southeastern Salt Lake Valley. If the Salt Lake Valley continues to grow, I could see a temple announced in the Sandy area, which would take stakes from this district, and also some other from the Jordan River district. Let me know your thoughts on that prospect in the comments below.
Sorry for the length of this post. That does it for the moment. 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.
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: Utah Salt Lake City Area--Part One: Area and Temple Overview and Details About the Salt Lake Temple
Hello again, everyone! I am back tonight yet again with my post focusing on the Utah Salt Lake City Area of the Church. This area takes in those cities with the Greater Salt Lake geographical area, in addition to a very small part of Nevada. There are also 4 temples of the Church within that area to serve the Saints who reside in the region. They are as follows: the Draper Jordan River, Oquirrh Mountain and Salt Lake Temples. And the number of stakes served within each district may warrant a couple of new temples, though I only have one such location on my list for now.
The oldest of these is, of course, the Salt Lake Temple, which became the Church's 4th in operation at the time of its dedication, which was held during an 18-day period spanning April 6-24, 1893, more than 40 years after its groundbreaking, which is the longest such period in Church history.
When Brigham Young announced this temple (just 4 days after the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, and during the groundbreaking ceremony for the temple, President Young indicated his intention to build an edifice that would stand through the 1,000 years of Christ's millennial reign on earth.
For that reason, though there have been minor adjustments to its exterior and interior look when that has been needed, there will be no need to ever close it long-term for a complete renovation process and rededication.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a popular Mormon myth was that the temple would be closed for several years for a complete overhaul. The Church put that rumor to rest with an official statement on that matter, and that statement has been reiterated at times since when the rumor has resurfaced. Unless and until it is officially announced, we can safely reject any such rumors in our time when we hear them.
Additionally, as I am sure most of you are aware, since Salt Lake City is the global headquarters of the Church, the Salt Lake Temple has special rooms on its top floors reserved for the weekly meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as well as monthly meetings for all General Authorities that are assigned to Church headquarters.
I could go on about what an icon that temple is in Church history, but I will exercise restraint, and merely note that the Salt Lake temple is one of only two or three in the Church where temple workers perform the narration for endowment sessions live rather than running a video.
In the meantime, let me move on to talk about the temple district. The Salt Lake Temple currently serves those 59 stakes and 1 district located in the Salt Lake Valley and 2 other stakes in Nevada (based in the city of Elko). I wanted to pause here to note that I have added a potential temple for Elko to my list, which I covered in an earlier post.
If and when a temple is built in Elko, it may take away a few stakes from this district. But another popular option which I have heard floated around is the city of Tooele, which is the one potential candidate on my list for this area. I guess I should techincally put Elko in this area, since the Elko Stakes fall within this district. Let me know your thoughts on that in the comments below.
Because I spent so much time talking in this post about the Salt Lake Temple, I don't want it to become overly long, so I will follow this post up with a second post about the history of the other three temples in this area and any prospects I see for future temples there.
So 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.
The oldest of these is, of course, the Salt Lake Temple, which became the Church's 4th in operation at the time of its dedication, which was held during an 18-day period spanning April 6-24, 1893, more than 40 years after its groundbreaking, which is the longest such period in Church history.
When Brigham Young announced this temple (just 4 days after the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, and during the groundbreaking ceremony for the temple, President Young indicated his intention to build an edifice that would stand through the 1,000 years of Christ's millennial reign on earth.
For that reason, though there have been minor adjustments to its exterior and interior look when that has been needed, there will be no need to ever close it long-term for a complete renovation process and rededication.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a popular Mormon myth was that the temple would be closed for several years for a complete overhaul. The Church put that rumor to rest with an official statement on that matter, and that statement has been reiterated at times since when the rumor has resurfaced. Unless and until it is officially announced, we can safely reject any such rumors in our time when we hear them.
Additionally, as I am sure most of you are aware, since Salt Lake City is the global headquarters of the Church, the Salt Lake Temple has special rooms on its top floors reserved for the weekly meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as well as monthly meetings for all General Authorities that are assigned to Church headquarters.
I could go on about what an icon that temple is in Church history, but I will exercise restraint, and merely note that the Salt Lake temple is one of only two or three in the Church where temple workers perform the narration for endowment sessions live rather than running a video.
In the meantime, let me move on to talk about the temple district. The Salt Lake Temple currently serves those 59 stakes and 1 district located in the Salt Lake Valley and 2 other stakes in Nevada (based in the city of Elko). I wanted to pause here to note that I have added a potential temple for Elko to my list, which I covered in an earlier post.
If and when a temple is built in Elko, it may take away a few stakes from this district. But another popular option which I have heard floated around is the city of Tooele, which is the one potential candidate on my list for this area. I guess I should techincally put Elko in this area, since the Elko Stakes fall within this district. Let me know your thoughts on that in the comments below.
Because I spent so much time talking in this post about the Salt Lake Temple, I don't want it to become overly long, so I will follow this post up with a second post about the history of the other three temples in this area and any prospects I see for future temples there.
So 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.
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: Utah North Area
Hello again, everyone! I am back once again to continue discussing the three areas in Utah, and the second part of that discussion will focus on the Utah North Area. Because there is comparatively so little to discuss in terms of this area, its' current temples, and the one location in which I have felt we could see a new temple within it, I believe I can handle the entire area with a single post. If that changes, I will be sure to let you know.
So let's dive right in to that discussion. In addition to the cities in Northern Utah, this area takes in a small portion of Idaho, and the southwest corner of Wyoming. As such, it takes in 5 temples currently, including 4 from Utah (in Bountiful, Brigham City, Logan, and Ogden) and also the Star Valley temple in Wyoming.
Having listed these temples, we now turn to an exploration of their history and the size and composition of their districts. We will discuss those in the same order listed above. First, I wanted to note that the Bountiful Utah Temple, which was dedicated as the 47th operating temple of the Church during January 8-14, 1995. The unique fact about this temple is that it was one of only two (unless I have missed any others) dedicated by President Howard W. Hunter during his prophetic tenure, which was just a few days short of 9 months.
Because other temples operate in this area, the composition of its current district includes 49 stakes of the Church in Davis County. I have long felt that the Bountiful district could and should probably be split, and I have previously ventured my thoughts that a temple in the city of Layton might be the best way to do that. While the Saints in Layton only have a 14 mile drive to Bountiful, since the Bountiful Temple is by all reports kept fairly busy, a temple in Layton would ease that somewhat. And if a temple were to be built in Layton at any point in the future, then the stakes covered by the other temple districts could shift somewhat.
Moving on to discuss Brigham City, the dedication of that temple on September 23, 2012 gave the Church its' 139th such edifice to be dedicated. President Boyd K. Packer, who had been consulted by President Monson about the prospect of a temple in that spot, because it was where he grew up, was asked by President Monson to represent the Church in presiding at this temple's dedication. As for its district, the Brigham City temple serves 12 stakes from Box Elder County and the Malad Idaho Stake. Seems fairly manageable for the moment.
Turning now to Logan, that temple was the 2nd temple dedicated in this dispensation to which the Church still has ownership. Originally dedicated between May 17-19 in 1884 by President John Taylor, following a renovation process, President Spencer W. Kimball presided over its rededication between March 13-15, 1979. As to its' current district, it covers 39 stakes in Cache Valley and Southeastern Idaho.
There may or may not be a good reason to split this district, and if that happens, I could potentially see new temples in either Smithfield Utah (which is 7 miles from Logan) or else in Preston Idaho (which is 26.7 miles from Logan). But, as I said above, if a temple is built in Layton, and the units in the Utah North are redistributed as a result, the makeup of this dstrict could change, as could the distance the stakes within it would travel.
We now move on to Ogden, as most of you are probably aware, the temple in that city was dedicated originally between January 18-20, 1972, by President Joseph Fielding Smith. Its original exterior was similar in design to that of the Provo Temple.
But because the city's architectural style changed in the interim, part of its renovation process gave it a completely different exterior look, which some appreciated and others did not, and there are still some people I come across periodically who are not happy about it today.
Following that renovation process, the temple was rededicated by President Thomas S. Monson (one of the last such events in which he would participate) on September 21, 2014.
As for its district, that comprises 59 from Northern Utah and 4 others from Southeastern Wyoming. There may or may not be a reason to split this district, and that could happen by either building a temple in Syracuse or perhaps one in Evanston Wyoming. But again, if and when a temple is built in Layton, the stakes in all of these other districts will likely be redistributed as a result.
So that brings us to the final temple in this area, which is the one in Star Valley Wyoming. As I'm sure we all know, the Star Valley temple became the 154th in operation in the Church when it was dedicated on October 30, 2016. Because his wife grew up in the Afton area, the First Presidency asked Elder David A. Bednar to preside at that event.
The Star Valley district is another very small one, as the temple was built to serve six stakes of the Church, three from Southeast Idaho, and 3 others from Southwest Wyoming. Not much need to split there.
Now, you may have noticed a strange anomaly. I have not given any distances in this post between the cities in these districts and each of these temples. That is because, aside from a temple for Layton, I have no other options on my personal list for the near future, so there is no need to examine the reasoning behind any others. But I would like to hear from you.
Would Layton be the most likely location for the next temple in this area, and would that result in a redistribution of the stakes within these districts? And are there any other possibilities within this area which I should look at more seriously within the near future?
I look forward to your comments, which are always welcome and appreciated. That does it for this post. 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.
So let's dive right in to that discussion. In addition to the cities in Northern Utah, this area takes in a small portion of Idaho, and the southwest corner of Wyoming. As such, it takes in 5 temples currently, including 4 from Utah (in Bountiful, Brigham City, Logan, and Ogden) and also the Star Valley temple in Wyoming.
Having listed these temples, we now turn to an exploration of their history and the size and composition of their districts. We will discuss those in the same order listed above. First, I wanted to note that the Bountiful Utah Temple, which was dedicated as the 47th operating temple of the Church during January 8-14, 1995. The unique fact about this temple is that it was one of only two (unless I have missed any others) dedicated by President Howard W. Hunter during his prophetic tenure, which was just a few days short of 9 months.
Because other temples operate in this area, the composition of its current district includes 49 stakes of the Church in Davis County. I have long felt that the Bountiful district could and should probably be split, and I have previously ventured my thoughts that a temple in the city of Layton might be the best way to do that. While the Saints in Layton only have a 14 mile drive to Bountiful, since the Bountiful Temple is by all reports kept fairly busy, a temple in Layton would ease that somewhat. And if a temple were to be built in Layton at any point in the future, then the stakes covered by the other temple districts could shift somewhat.
Moving on to discuss Brigham City, the dedication of that temple on September 23, 2012 gave the Church its' 139th such edifice to be dedicated. President Boyd K. Packer, who had been consulted by President Monson about the prospect of a temple in that spot, because it was where he grew up, was asked by President Monson to represent the Church in presiding at this temple's dedication. As for its district, the Brigham City temple serves 12 stakes from Box Elder County and the Malad Idaho Stake. Seems fairly manageable for the moment.
Turning now to Logan, that temple was the 2nd temple dedicated in this dispensation to which the Church still has ownership. Originally dedicated between May 17-19 in 1884 by President John Taylor, following a renovation process, President Spencer W. Kimball presided over its rededication between March 13-15, 1979. As to its' current district, it covers 39 stakes in Cache Valley and Southeastern Idaho.
There may or may not be a good reason to split this district, and if that happens, I could potentially see new temples in either Smithfield Utah (which is 7 miles from Logan) or else in Preston Idaho (which is 26.7 miles from Logan). But, as I said above, if a temple is built in Layton, and the units in the Utah North are redistributed as a result, the makeup of this dstrict could change, as could the distance the stakes within it would travel.
We now move on to Ogden, as most of you are probably aware, the temple in that city was dedicated originally between January 18-20, 1972, by President Joseph Fielding Smith. Its original exterior was similar in design to that of the Provo Temple.
But because the city's architectural style changed in the interim, part of its renovation process gave it a completely different exterior look, which some appreciated and others did not, and there are still some people I come across periodically who are not happy about it today.
Following that renovation process, the temple was rededicated by President Thomas S. Monson (one of the last such events in which he would participate) on September 21, 2014.
As for its district, that comprises 59 from Northern Utah and 4 others from Southeastern Wyoming. There may or may not be a reason to split this district, and that could happen by either building a temple in Syracuse or perhaps one in Evanston Wyoming. But again, if and when a temple is built in Layton, the stakes in all of these other districts will likely be redistributed as a result.
So that brings us to the final temple in this area, which is the one in Star Valley Wyoming. As I'm sure we all know, the Star Valley temple became the 154th in operation in the Church when it was dedicated on October 30, 2016. Because his wife grew up in the Afton area, the First Presidency asked Elder David A. Bednar to preside at that event.
The Star Valley district is another very small one, as the temple was built to serve six stakes of the Church, three from Southeast Idaho, and 3 others from Southwest Wyoming. Not much need to split there.
Now, you may have noticed a strange anomaly. I have not given any distances in this post between the cities in these districts and each of these temples. That is because, aside from a temple for Layton, I have no other options on my personal list for the near future, so there is no need to examine the reasoning behind any others. But I would like to hear from you.
Would Layton be the most likely location for the next temple in this area, and would that result in a redistribution of the stakes within these districts? And are there any other possibilities within this area which I should look at more seriously within the near future?
I look forward to your comments, which are always welcome and appreciated. That does it for this post. 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.
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.
Introductory Information About the Three Utah Areas
Hello again, everyone! While I had said as recently as 12-15 hours ago when doing my final post covering the South America South Area that I would be stepping back a bit before moving on to the three Utah areas to allow sufficient time for you all to read and make any comments on the other posts in this series, since I am in the groove for it now and and since my wife and I continue to be stuck at home with illness, I thought I would at least get started on my posts about the three Utah Areas. The one thing I wanted to note about the boundaries of those areas is that they are somewhat oddly drawn, and that is reflected by the fact that some small portions of other states are considered part of those three areas.
Next, I wanted to make a general comment about the state. As a Utah citizen, I am grateful to live in the state that is the worldwide headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord is at work in prospering His Church here. And nowhere is that more evident than in the fact that the current data about Utah is quite extensive. With 18 temples (17 of which are in operation, and 1, for the northern Utah County city of Saratoga Springs, which was just announced last April), the Church in this state has 11 missions currently (though that may change somewhat based on the announced intention of the Church to consolidate missions worldwide).
Additionally, the Saints in Utah are served by 592 stakes and only 1 district, which are further divided into 4,785 wards and 326 branches, or a total of 5,111 congregations. Divided evenly among those 18 temples, the congregational average served by each works out to between 283-284 congregations for each temple. While some of Utah's 29 counties are pretty well stocked in terms of temples to serve the Church members here, there are options I can definitely see the Church announcing in both the near and more distant future.
With that background information out of the way, I can now focus on the particulars of each of the three areas of the Church within this state. So 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 nest post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Next, I wanted to make a general comment about the state. As a Utah citizen, I am grateful to live in the state that is the worldwide headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord is at work in prospering His Church here. And nowhere is that more evident than in the fact that the current data about Utah is quite extensive. With 18 temples (17 of which are in operation, and 1, for the northern Utah County city of Saratoga Springs, which was just announced last April), the Church in this state has 11 missions currently (though that may change somewhat based on the announced intention of the Church to consolidate missions worldwide).
Additionally, the Saints in Utah are served by 592 stakes and only 1 district, which are further divided into 4,785 wards and 326 branches, or a total of 5,111 congregations. Divided evenly among those 18 temples, the congregational average served by each works out to between 283-284 congregations for each temple. While some of Utah's 29 counties are pretty well stocked in terms of temples to serve the Church members here, there are options I can definitely see the Church announcing in both the near and more distant future.
With that background information out of the way, I can now focus on the particulars of each of the three areas of the Church within this state. So 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 nest post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
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.
Yet Another Status Update for the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple
Hello again, everyone! As many of you have likely noticed, I went a little crazy in posting new content over the last 3-4 days because there was not much else for me to do while my wife and I have been stuck at home not feeling well over the Christmas holiday. So it is understandable, I hope, that I am opting to give you all a bit of time to continue to read those new posts (and to comment on any of them, if you so desire). As I mentioned in many of those posts, not only has doing so many over the last several days brought me closer to my goal of having 1,000 posts on this blog by the time 2017 ends, but I also hope that by the time we ring in New Year 2018 here in Utah that I will have also been able to provide those final posts in my series examining the likely potential locations in which new temples could be announced in the near future. Look for those later this week.
In the meantime, in addition to allowing a bit of time for you all to continue to read (and/or provide feedback about) the newest posts that have been put up during that time, I also promised in the last post I published early this morning to keep my eyes open for any news and updates regarding the Church in general or temples in particular. So in this post, I will be passing along some promising progress which I have heard has been made on the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple.
When I looked back at the last time progress had been reported on that temple, I found out that that had occurred 10 days ago (on December 16). So, on this day after celebrating Christmas, it was wonderful to learn that several of the sources I use for temple-related updates I share here have again updated the status of that temple.
So, what has changed? Well, 10 days ago, I had reported that the exterior walls of this temple were being plastered, and that a moisture barrier was being applied to the eaves of its roof. New information received just a few moments ago indicates that, while the plastering continues for the exterior walls of the temple, hardscaping is underway (which involves the addition of concrete planter boxes and curbing, while the path of the driveway for this temple has been compacted). In addition to that, it would appear that the process of adding that moisture barrier to the eaves has been completed.
To put these developments into context, the fact that we have had two very significant updates for this temple within the last 10 days seems to be a clear indication that this temple will more than likely be dedicated before the end of 2018, rather than during the early months of the following year.
As to a more specific time-frame in which that dedication might occur, if it does happen before the end of next year, my research on the climate in Kinshasa seems to point to either Sunday December 9 or 16 as being the most likely window for this event.
But if whatever remains to be done in this process is delayed for any reason, then that would, of course, push that dedication back into 2019. It doesn't seem likely at this point that will be the case, but since we have seen a couple of unexpected delays on several temples (in terms of either getting their construction started or seeing those that are under construction have their estimates pushed back), I wanted to note that possibility.
As with everything else, I am doing my level best to keep an eye out for any and all temple-related developments, and I will do everything in my power to bring you those updates as I become aware of them.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments (either on this post, or any of the previous ones I have done on this blog) 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.
In the meantime, in addition to allowing a bit of time for you all to continue to read (and/or provide feedback about) the newest posts that have been put up during that time, I also promised in the last post I published early this morning to keep my eyes open for any news and updates regarding the Church in general or temples in particular. So in this post, I will be passing along some promising progress which I have heard has been made on the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple.
When I looked back at the last time progress had been reported on that temple, I found out that that had occurred 10 days ago (on December 16). So, on this day after celebrating Christmas, it was wonderful to learn that several of the sources I use for temple-related updates I share here have again updated the status of that temple.
So, what has changed? Well, 10 days ago, I had reported that the exterior walls of this temple were being plastered, and that a moisture barrier was being applied to the eaves of its roof. New information received just a few moments ago indicates that, while the plastering continues for the exterior walls of the temple, hardscaping is underway (which involves the addition of concrete planter boxes and curbing, while the path of the driveway for this temple has been compacted). In addition to that, it would appear that the process of adding that moisture barrier to the eaves has been completed.
To put these developments into context, the fact that we have had two very significant updates for this temple within the last 10 days seems to be a clear indication that this temple will more than likely be dedicated before the end of 2018, rather than during the early months of the following year.
As to a more specific time-frame in which that dedication might occur, if it does happen before the end of next year, my research on the climate in Kinshasa seems to point to either Sunday December 9 or 16 as being the most likely window for this event.
But if whatever remains to be done in this process is delayed for any reason, then that would, of course, push that dedication back into 2019. It doesn't seem likely at this point that will be the case, but since we have seen a couple of unexpected delays on several temples (in terms of either getting their construction started or seeing those that are under construction have their estimates pushed back), I wanted to note that possibility.
As with everything else, I am doing my level best to keep an eye out for any and all temple-related developments, and I will do everything in my power to bring you those updates as I become aware of them.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments (either on this post, or any of the previous ones I have done on this blog) 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.
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.
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
Hello again, everyone! I know I indicated at the end of my last post that the last one that would cover this area (and would serve to wrap up that coverage), but as it turns out, I needed to do one first to examine the likelihood of other temples potentially being announced to split the other two current temple districts within this area in Asuncion Paraguay and Montevideo Uruguay. So how likely is such a possibility, and where might such a temple be built? Let's get right into all of that.
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.
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.
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: South America South Area, Part Six--Potential Future Temples in Chile
Hello again, everyone! In continuing to discuss the potential future temples that could be built to help serve the Saints within the South America South Area, we now turn our attention to Chile. Until we see which of Chile's 77 stakes and 16 districts are going to be part of the Concepcion Chile Temple district, it will be difficult to tell if and how soon another temple might potentially be needed. That said, it would appear that the driving force behind the Concepcion Chile temple is the fact that the Concepcion Saints currently have a journey of 310.5 miles, which is over 100 miles further than President Monson's 200-mile goal.
That said, I do want to explore the likelihood of potential future Chilean locations I can see in which the Church could build other temples. The first is the city of Antofagasta. The Saints in that city currently travel 847.7 miles to the Santiago temple. And the Saints in Antofagasta are even further away from Concepcion, as the distance between the two is 1,156,2 miles. So a temple there makes sense.
There may also be a chance that the Church could opt to announce a temple for the Chilean city of Los Angeles. Saints in that city currently travel 319.4 miles to get to Santiago, and that distance will be cut down to 79 miles once the Concepcion temple is dedicated. While that dedication could very well push back the time-frame in which a temple could be built in Los Angeles Chile, it still seems potentially possible, if not immediately, then perhaps at some point.
But perhaps my favorite option for Chile's third temple is the city of Valpaiaiso, which has been on my list for a while now. While it is only 71.6 miles from the temple in Santiago, it will stay with that temple district once the temple in Concepcion is dedicated, since Concepcion is 375,8 miles from Valparaiso.
Again, in examining these options, we see that the Church has a few for potential future temples in Chile. So 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 (which should come at some point tomorrow afternoon to wrap up my coverage of this area, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
That said, I do want to explore the likelihood of potential future Chilean locations I can see in which the Church could build other temples. The first is the city of Antofagasta. The Saints in that city currently travel 847.7 miles to the Santiago temple. And the Saints in Antofagasta are even further away from Concepcion, as the distance between the two is 1,156,2 miles. So a temple there makes sense.
There may also be a chance that the Church could opt to announce a temple for the Chilean city of Los Angeles. Saints in that city currently travel 319.4 miles to get to Santiago, and that distance will be cut down to 79 miles once the Concepcion temple is dedicated. While that dedication could very well push back the time-frame in which a temple could be built in Los Angeles Chile, it still seems potentially possible, if not immediately, then perhaps at some point.
But perhaps my favorite option for Chile's third temple is the city of Valpaiaiso, which has been on my list for a while now. While it is only 71.6 miles from the temple in Santiago, it will stay with that temple district once the temple in Concepcion is dedicated, since Concepcion is 375,8 miles from Valparaiso.
Again, in examining these options, we see that the Church has a few for potential future temples in Chile. So 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 (which should come at some point tomorrow afternoon to wrap up my coverage of this area, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: South America South Area, Part Five--How the Church Could Potentially Divide the Cordoba Argentina Temple District
Hello again, everyone! I am back in the early morning hours of the 26th to continue my coverage on potential future temples that could be built to help serve the Saints in the South America South Area. Having explored in my last post how the Church could potential divide the current Buenos Aires Argentina district we now turn our attention to how, when, and in what way the Church could potentially divide the district of the other Argentine temple, which is located in Cordoba. We have set the background for this topic in one of the previous posts about this area which discussed the current composition of that district. So let's discuss some possible ways that district could potentially be split.
The Saints from the Bell Ville stake currently travel 129.4 miles to worship at the temple in Cordoba. While that is 70.6 miles less than the 200-mile goal set by President Monson, if it would save the Bell Ville Saints a journey, it would make sense if they got their own temple, which could also potentially serve other stakes and districts in that region as well.
Another potential option that could work is the Argentine city of San Juan, which is 362.8 miles from Cordoba and would be a prime candidate based on the 200-mile goal. If a temple is built in Bell Ville, then San Juan would likely remain part of the Cordoba distrct, and vice versa, since the two are 475.9 miles apart.
The Church could also announce a temple for the San Luis area, as the Saints in that region have aa journey of 266.1 miles to the Cordoba. Since those Saints are even further away from Bell Ville (with a distance of 276.4 miles), they would likely remain with the Cordoba district until the time a temple is announced in San Juan, which would only be slightly closer than Cordoba (with that distance spanning 202.2 miles, which is still a little much).
The final option I'd like to present that could split the Cordoba temple district would be a potential temple in San Rafael. Since the Saints in that region travel more than twice the 200-mile goal set by President Monson (with the exact distance being 433.9 miles), a temple there might be useful to those Saints,
If a temple is built in Bell Ville, the San Rafael Saints would likely still attend the temple in Cordoba, since Bell Ville and San Rafael are slightly farther apart (the exact distance between the two is 444.2 miles). But if either San Rafael or San Luis gets a temple, then the city that did not will likely be within that district, since the two are a distance of exactly 169 miles apart, which is considerably closer. That said, I would anticipate that both cities will be getting a temple at some point.
But these are just my thoughts on how the Cordoba Argentina Temple district could potentially be 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,
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.
Temple Site Possibilities: South America South Area, Part Four--How the Church Could Potentially Divide the Buenos Aires Argentina Temple District
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.
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)