Hello again, everyone! As I have waited for other comments to come in this weekend on my coverage of potential temple locations, I wound up doing some additional research about a few locations I have referenced in passing. One of the most intriguing ones that required a fair amount of research was the location of the temple for which President Hinckley had stated in 2005 that land was being held in reserve to serve the Saints of the Salt Lake Valley.
As some of you may know from following the thread of comments on the post I did about the Salt Lake Valley particularly, one comment pointed to the idea that this land could be located in Bluffdale or Riverton. On the basis of that general location, I dug a little deeper and found this article, which stated that the location of the land was within the boundaries of Bluffdale city.
While the Church has yet to issue a statement on that identification, in digging a little more deeply into the history of the site referenced in that article, it appears that the land in question, which was part of Bluffdale, was the subject of an ownership dispute between Bluffdale and nearby Herriman (as the distance between the two is a mere 6.5 miles). Although the door remains open for Bluffdale to challenge that decision, the result has been that the land in question is now part of Herriman city.
So that means that, if my research is correct, the land referenced in 2005 is now part of Herriman. A temple there does make a lot of sense. Friends of my family relocated to Herriman when the land on which their home in Alpine sat was sold to make room for a housing development. And while I don't know whether or not this was the case in between the years when Herriman was incorporated and when these friends moved there, I do know that in the years since they made the move, Herriman has experienced a boom in its' growth.
With that said, I want to make one thing absolutely clear: In all the research I did to try and figure out the probable location for that temple site that was referenced by President Hinckley almost 13 years ago, even after I discovered the information pointing to Herriman as the likely location of that site, I never once found information from the Church that officially confirms that the site in question is in Herriman, or that such a site is the one President Hinckley referenced. In every article I have found on the subject, the Church has declined to comment on this issue.
So while the site may indeed be in Herriman, until the intent of the Brethren to build a temple in that city is officially announced, the confirmation of the site is only as good as can logically be concluded, and based on information on which the Church has declined to comment in the 11 or so years since the publication of the sources I have explored for this information. With all of that said, I will be watching the Herriman/Bluffdale/Riverton area with great interest, and I will try to pass along anything I discover further that may substantiate this.
In the meantime, this new information does raise some important questions: Is there enough to go on from sources not sanctioned or verified by the Church to put a potential temple for Herriman in the section I have for the Salt Lake Valley? And if the Church confirms at any point that the site in Herriman is the one referenced by President Hinckley 12 years ago and an announcement is made for a temple there, will that in turn impact the likelihood that Tooele will get a temple? It appears the two cities are roughly 38.7 miles apart, so I cannot rule out both getting a temple at some point. Of the two, which might be a more imminent possibility? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
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.
Monday, January 1, 2018
Some Additional Thoughts Regarding the Location of the Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple Referenced by President Hinckley
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.
5 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)
Keep these numbers in your head for now.
ReplyDeleteAs of Dec 31 2017 according to LDSTEMPLES.ORG
Stakes 3341
Districts 540
Wards 23224
Branches 7182
Total congregations (wards and branches) 30406.
When April conference rolls around, you will be able to ascertain the number of sensitive units by subtracting the numbers for wards and branches above, from the one announced in conference. Likewise for districts.
As far as I know there are no stakes in sensitive areas and at least four wards pertaining to the Manama Bahrain Stake that are in a sensitive area (KSA). The remainder would be districts and branches, probably in PR China and Pakistan among others.
Thank you for stopping by to comment. At the end of each year, I look to the source you cited above in assembling my thoughts about the potential numbers that could be in the Church's end-of-year statistical report as presented every April. So I do check that regularly. That said, it would appear since you posted your above comment earlier today, the report of a few other congregations has been reported as having been created earlier in December. I also know from the LDS CHurch growth Blog that there are around 100 sensitive units, whether or not that is an exact number. With that in mind, I use a combination of the data available and a formula for the number of sensitive units (which is variable based on the official information, but still comes close to the actual number). In my mock-ups for what the statistical report has looked like in previous years, for a while, I did not take these "sensitive units" into account. But I have since used the formula, however imperfect it may be, to allow not only for a certain number of sensitive units, but also for any new congregations that may have been created each December but may not have been reported on those sources until after the first of the year.I am still in the process of ensuring that the numbers I have put together for the 2017 Statistical Report are as close as I can get them, and I will be posting a sample of that report once I can do some additional checks for accuracy. Look for that in the coming days. In the meantime, thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteTooele and Harriman are not geographicly far apart but to drive from one to the other requires going either up and around the mountain near the great salt lake or down and around through Lego and Eagle Mountain for major roads, so I don't think the one would affect the other greatly.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing affecting Harriman is that there are currently 3 temples close by that need to be very busy to warrant another temple in the southern part of the county.
Through Lehi not lego. Sometimes I really hate the spell correct.
ReplyDeleteHey, Kenny! Thanks for your response. You raise a couple of really great points. The two cities are less than 40 miles apart, but to get between one and the other requires driving in a u-shaped loop, So it is not impossible to believe that both could use temples. The one question I saw in your replies above was if the 3 temples close to Herriman are being kept busy enough to warrant a temple there. While I have personally attended wedding ceremonies at the temples in Draper and Oquirrh Mountain, that attendance is hardly the basis for a solid conclusion about the level to which both stay busy. So for a look at that, I would defer to some family friends living in the Salt Lake Valley, one of whom is serving at the moment as president of the Salt Lake Cottonwood Stake, He is approaching 7 years since the time of his call to be the president of that stake. And when I have had a chance to see him and ask how his service is going, he often mentions a few particular things: He understood that a huge part of his calling would be to ensure that all worthy members have a current temple recommend, and so that has been a big focus of his tenure. Additionally, he and members of his family often take the opportunity to visit one of the three or four temples in that valley, and even for those that may operate on more of an appointment basis (which I believe applies to one or two of the four), it is sometimes a very long wait to get in. That report is analogous to what I saw firsthand during my time working in the Mount Timpanogos Temple. The Utah Saints, perhaps particularly those living in the Utah and Salt Lake Valleys, not only value the temples that serve them, but keep them very busy. So I have no doubts that temples in both Tooele and Herriman (if the Church confirms that as the site in question) could help substantially in cutting how busy the other four in that valley seem to be. Again, I have no firsthand experience on this matter, and I could have misinterpreted or misrepresented what this family friend has said on the subject, but I don't see temples in both locations as potentially problematic. The only questions would, as already noted, be which one would be announced first, and if they could be announced at around the same time or perhaps be in differing construction phases at around the same time. To me, as noted, it would make sense if the Church confirms Herriman as the site in question and gets that temple underway, then starts looking at Tooele. But the Lord has been known to surprise us. Thanks again for taking time to comment, Kenny. I appreciate it!
ReplyDelete