There were a few things that molded these thoughts. The first is the knowledge that, although temples have just been announced once a year in April between 2017 and now, with the 80 potential locations mentioned by Elder Wilson as being on a list that will be considered for a subsequent announcement between now and the end of April 2032 (which marks 15 years from the time that statement was made), I don't think that President Nelson would pass up any potential opportunities to make such announcements.
The second is the fact that President Nelson is healthier now at 93 years of age than President Monson likely was for the last 5-7 years of his life, so anything that may have hindered President Monson's ability to obtain and relay the will of the Lord regarding such locations during that time will not be a factor in President Nelson's case.
The third thing is the fact that President Nelson and his counselors first spoke to Church members from a temple, and highlighted the importance of "begin[ning] with the end in mind." President Nelson also made a point of mentioning in both his closing address and all through his tour his desire to have every member within a reasonable distance from a temple.
And my final reason for believing and asserting here that temples could (and likely will) be announced in October is the fact that, even though President Nelson needed to call two new apostles,, discern the will of the Lord about subsequent changes in Church policy and practice that have since been announced and are going into effect, and do whatever else was needed to prepare for his first General Conference as Church president, he not only had time to discern the Lord's will on and announce six temple locations, but he followed through on what can only be termed as a last-minute impression to add an unexpected location to that list.
President Nelson is clearly a man who is committed to doing the will of the Lord for as long as he is able, and for that reason, I think we will not only see many of the currently-announced temples go on to a groundbreaking and start construction within the next 2-3 years and beyond, but I feel very safe in assuming and asserting that, unless there is another serious backlog of announced temples, President Nelson will almost surely announce a few during each of the General Conferences over which he presides, and that we may also see times when, as impressed to do so, he could announce a few between each April, October, and subsequent April.
So here is my list of those locations which, in my opinion, have the most likely prospect for a temple announcement in the near future. So as not to disturb the flow of the information I am presenting, I will end here as I always do.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, especially those that clue me in on anything I have missed, overlooked, or failed to consider.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.
Temple Predictions: 3+ temples announced, with the most likely locations (in my opinion), on the list below.
Preliminary note: With seven temples having been announced last April (the second-highest number of temples ever announced at once), it may be that President Nelson will opt to wait until April 2019 to announce any others. But in view of President Nelson’s expressed intention to continue to bring temples to the people, there may be at least a few announced during this conference. The locations listed below represent my best efforts to anticipate such announcements, and I have requested feedback on this list on my blog. The Lord can and does continue to inspire temple announcements in the right locations at the right time, and if any new temples are announced, I will be just as happy if none of them are for the locations listed below as I will be if any or all of the temples that are announced are for locations on this list. Also, as I prepared to request initial feedback for the locations on this list, it made more sense to me to once again group the locations on this list by the geographical area under which they fall, then by potential likelihood within those areas.
Asia: Phnom Penh Cambodia[vii]
Brazil: Belo Horizonte/Salvador[viii]
Caribbean: San Juan Puerto Rico[ix]
Mexico: Puebla Mexico[xvi]
United States[xxi]
North America Southwest: Bentonville Arkansas[xxvi]; Elko[xxvii]/Ely[xxviii] Nevada; Fort Worth Texas[xxix]; Las Cruces New Mexico[xxx]; Flagstaff Arizona[xxxi]
Utah Salt Lake City: Herriman[xxxii];
[i]The African continent is experiencing substantial and significant growth. That has proven particularly true for the this area of the Church, in which 1 temple is currently operating, but 4 others have been announced (2 of which are under construction, and the other 2 of which are anticipated to start construction at some point within the next 3 years or less.
[ii]Since Madagascar is disconnected from the rest of the African continent, anywhere in Africa to which the Saints might journey will be somewhat of a challenge for those in Madagascar. For that reason, I have added Antananarivo to this list for the first time. Madagascar is currently the last of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that does not have a temple in any phase, which adds to the rationale for building a temple there. The only other African nation within this area that is in the top ten is Uganda at #6 on that list. But since a temple has been announced for the neighboring nation of Kenya, Uganda may not get a temple until the one in Kenya is either under construction or dedicated, as the Church will probably want to gauge how busy the temple in Kenya is before announcing one for Uganda. Thus, Madagascar is the only prospect on this list for this area.
[iii]The Church in the Africa West Area has also experienced massive and rapid growth. The LDS Church Growth Blog recently reported that, if current growth trends in the Africa West Area continue as they have been, the Church could go from the 2 operating and 1 announced temple to 13 in operation by sometime during 2030. With that in mind, several possibilities have a lot of merit to the rationale behind my belief that they could each get a temple in the near future, as I will explain in the subsequent references for the locations I have listed for this area.
[iv]Sierra Leone is now the fourth of the top ten nations that have the strongest Church presence but do not yet have a temple in any phase. With the recent expanded growth in Sierra Leone (particularly with so many districts that have been upgraded to a stake), a temple there may simply be a matter of time.
[v]Since the dedication of the Accra Ghana temple in January 2004, Ghana has seen sufficient enough growth (in my opinion) to potentially get a second temple. And Kumasi has emerged as the most likely city for such a temple.
[vi]Since the dedication of the Aba Nigeria temple in August 2005, Nigeria has seen extensive Church growth. While many have offered their opinions that Benin City might be a more likely prospect, the elements I have studied leads me to conclude that when Nigeria gets a second temple, it will likely be in Lagos.
[vii]Cambodia is now the seventh of the top ten nations having the strongest Church presence without a temple in any phase. So the idea of a temple in Phnom Penh makes sense. But with the Bangkok Thailand Temple planned to be on the larger side, and with another temple announced for Bengaluru India, the question will be whether a temple might be needed in Cambodia as well in the near future. For now, I am confident enough to include it here, but that could change.
[viii]Brazil has also seen extensive Church growth, and rapid expansion. With temples currently under construction in Fortaleza (which is anticipated to be dedicated in 2019) and in Rio de Janeiro (which is anticipated to be dedicated in 2020), and with two others announced (for Brasilia and Belem, both of which may be under construction within the next few years), it is not hard to believe that additional Brazilian temples may be needed. Salvador and Belo Horizonte seem to be the cities most mentioned as having the best prospects for a temple announcement in the near future. Of the two, a temple in Salvador seems to be more imminently likely, but we have seen unexpected things occur, so for now, both locations are on my list.
[ix]Puerto Rico now ranks as the second of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that does not have a temple in any phase. And now that the construction of the Port-au-Prince Haiti Temple is underway, and since that temple is on the smaller side, it makes sense that the Church might opt to announce a temple for San Juan in the near future. Time will tell how safe it is to so assume, but for now, it has made my list.
[x]With a temple having been announced in April for Managua Nicaragua, it may be some time before we hear of other temples being announced for the Central America Area of the Church. The case in favor of the locations on my list being announced is a strong one, so for that reason, they have made the list, but it would not surprise me in any way if the Church waits on these potential locations until the temple in Managua is further along.
[xi]The Church in Honduras has seen extensive growth in recent years, so a third temple in that nation seems likely. And while there may be many good potential locations where one could be built, the consensus appears to be that San Pedro Sula is the most likely prospect, and that a temple for that city could be announced sooner rather than later.
[xii]As noted above in relation to Honduras, Guatemala has also seen significant Church growth in recent years. And there are likewise many potential locations where a third temple could be built to serve the Guatemalan Saints. But the city of Senahu has emerged as the most likely prospect for that honor, and the consensus seems to be that a temple there may simply be a matter of time.
[xiii]Europe, particularly in the eastern countries of its’ continent, has seen some stagnation in terms of the growth of the Church. With temples currently under construction in Rome Italy and Lisbon Portugal, and another announced for a major yet-to-be determined city in Russia, the Church may opt to wait to construct other temples on the European continent until those 3 are either dedicated or at least further along in the process. That said, on the off-chance the Church does not so opt, the cities in this section, for the reasons I will explain in the subsequent notes that will follow this one, have the greatest chance of being announced in the near future.
[xiv]When I began sharing my thoughts on potential future temple locations, someone who has knowledge of the growth of the Church in Europe indicated that Budapest would likely be the next European city to get a temple. My study on the matter confirms that opinion, so it has been on my list for a while.
[xv]Cape Verde now ranks as the eighth of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that does not have a temple. Based on that fact, a temple in Praia is likely just a matter of time.
[xvi]The growth of the Church in Mexico has somewhat stagnated to the point where Church leaders began last year to do a mass consolidation of the Church units there. That said, many people (including one of the readers of my blog who lives in Mexico) concur that the next temple in Mexico will likely be in Puebla, and that such a temple will likely be announced sooner rather than later.
[xvii]Papua New Guinea now ranks as the nation with the strongest Church presence that does not yet have a temple. I also learned several years ago that land has been held in reserve in Port Moresby for a temple for a while now. With that in mind, it may simply be a matter of time before a temple is announced there.
[xviii]As with Papua New Guinea, I had heard years ago that land has been held in reserve in Auckland for a temple. How soon that might actually occur will depend on if the renovation of the Hamilton New Zealand Temple involves any kind of expansion for that temple. If it does, that might potentially eliminate the immediate need to use the land in Auckland. I have felt confident enough to keep it on my list for now, but will be watching for any developments that could change my mind.
[xix]The entire South American continent has seen extensive growth, as manifested by the fact that, of the 19 temples currently announced, 5 of them are in South American nations. And of the 11 temples currently under construction, Brazil has 2 (with two others announced), this area (South America Northwest) has 2 under construction (1 of which has a dedication announced), and 2 others announced, and the South America South area has 1 temple announced, 1 with a dedication scheduled, and 1 that is currently closed for renovation. Based on these numbers, the Church may opt to wait until all temples under construction or being renovated are finished, or Church leaders could (and in my opinion, likely will) opt to announce more temples as they are needed. In a previous note above, I shared my rationale behind two temple locations that may be used for future Brazilian Temples. While the Church could surprise us and announce other temples for the South America South Area (which would not be unheard of by any means), it is my feeling that the most likely prospect for South American temples in the near future is this area, for the reasons I will explain in the notes below.
[xx]Since the dedication of Bolivia’s first temple in Cochabamba, the Church in Bolivia has seen significant growth and expansion. That has been especially true of regions that would be served by temples in Santa Cruz or La Paz. Of the two, although I favor La Paz (since a good friend served a mission there), my research indicates a Santa Cruz temple may be more imminent. But I fully anticipate temples in both cities within the next 15 years or less, thus both are on this list.
[xxi]While it has been repeatedly observed that the growth of the Church has stagnated somewhat here in the United States, 4 of the 19 temples that have currently not had a groundbreaking were for the United States. This gives me hope, however slight that hope might be, that other locations within the US that have a compelling case in their favor for a temple (as outlined in the remaining notes). While there are literally hundreds of these potential locations with a strong likelihood, the locations on this list are those that, in my opinion and for the reasons outlined, have the highest likelihood.
[xxii]According to reports I received through the comments on my blog, Elder David A. Bednar publicly proposed a Missoula Montana Temple while on assignment to a stake conference in that city. My subsequent research indicates that land has been held in reserve for such a temple for several years now, and that an official announcement will occur once the right conditions are met. For that reason, Missoula has been on my list for a while now, and I could see an official announcement in the near future.
[xxiii]Although South Dakota only has 2 stakes and one district, and although the districts of the Bismarck North Dakota and Winter Quarters Nebraska, which cover South Dakota, may not be inordinately large, the Saints in Rapid City travel almost 300 miles to worship at the Bismarck temple, so it seems likely that the Church will opt to build a temple there sooner rather than later.
[xxiv]Mississippi is one of the few states in the US that does not have a temple in any phase. My recent study points to the idea that a temple in Jackson may just be a matter of time.
[xxv]The Saints in Shreveport currently travel just under 200 miles to their assigned temple in Dallas, but I have still felt confident enough that this city could get a temple sooner rather than later.
[xxvi]A good friend with connections to Arkansas told me a while ago that the Church has held land in reserve for a temple in Bentonville for a while now, and that an official announcement was likely once the right conditions were met. For that reason, I believe we will see this temple announced sooner rather than later. Some have opined that Rogers might be a more likely location for the first temple in Arkansas, but my study confirms that a temple is likely in Bentonville sooner rather than later.
[xxvii]The Saints in Elko currently travel just over 200 miles to their assigned temple (Salt Lake). It is enough of a commute that a temple there may just be a matter of time.
[xxviii]The note above applies to the Saints in Ely as well, as they commute just over 200 miles, but their assigned temple is in Cedar City. A temple in Ely would cut the commute substantially. And I fully believe that temples in both Elko and Ely are possible in the near future, since the distance between the two is just under 200 miles.
[xxix]In sharing my thoughts about potential future temple locations, I learned from someone living in Texas that Fort Worth would likely be the best prospective city for the next temple in Texas, and a temple there would be the best way to break up the current Dallas Texas district.
[xxx]The Saints in Las Cruces currently travel 224.6 miles to the temple in Albuquerque, so a temple there may just be a matter of time. A temple in that city could also likely serve the Saints in El Paso Texas, if they are unable to access their currently assigned temple (in Ciudad Juarez Mexico).
[xxxi]At the dedication of the Tucson Arizona Temple, Elder Larry Y. Wilson, who serves as the Executive Director of the Temple Department, stated that that dedication had Arizona pretty well covered for temples. But I have heard from many sources that Flagstaff will likely be the next Arizona city to get a temple, and that this could happen sooner rather than later. Thus, I am confident enough to put it on my list.
[xxxii]In 2005, President Gordon B. Hinckley noted that land was being held in reserve for a temple in the Southwestern Salt Lake Valley, which would have an official announcement when that became necessary. Subsequent study on my part in late 2017 and early 2018 pointed me to the conclusion that the land in question was in Bluffdale, but that it has since been annexed into the city of Herriman, although it has been the subject of more than a few border disputes. I am confident enough to list it here, and since President Monson announced temples publicly proposed during President Hinckley’s tenure, I feel that President Nelson may likely do the same. Thus, a temple there may just be a matter of time.
[xxxiii]A temple in Heber City (the prospect of which has been suggested a few times) would help provide a closer option for Saints in the Heber Valley, and it would likely split the district of the Provo Utah Temple, which, by all reports, is still one of the busiest in the Church.
[xxxiv]Tooele has also been mentioned repeatedly as a potential prospective city for a temple. While the Saints in Tooele do not have to drive an inordinate distance to reach their assigned temple in Salt Lake City, I feel a temple there may simply be a matter of time. And since a temple in Herriman would still create a drive (along a U-shape) for those Saints, it seems safe to assume that Tooele could (and likely will) get a temple soon.
Elder Bednar was in Las Cruces last weekend. There was great training and mentions of taking away excuses to visit the temple more regularly, including the known fact that it is an all day event, but no mention or thought expressed about any future temple in the area to reduce the distance. Even the stake President mentioned the fact that it is a 3 hour drive one way, so that plus a session is a 8 hour experience, Elder Bednar just stated that temple attendance needs to increase.
ReplyDeleteI fear another temple in NM is not even on the horizon at the moment unless sudden new growth that has not been seen recently were to happen. It might just be a local dream more than any reality.
Hello, Kenny, and thanks so much for your feedback. I had not been aware of Elder Bednar's recent visit to Las Cruces. It is wonderful that, since President Nelson began his prophetic administration, there has been increased efforts by the apostles to encourage more Church members to focus on temples, both in being worthy for a recommend and in attending the temple as often as circumstances permit.
DeleteI also understand that, if a temple were potentially under consideration for Las Cruces, the members in that city most likely would have been advised of that fact, and a public proposal for such a temple would likely have been mentioned. So on that level, I understand why some may feel that is not a good prospective candidate for a temple in the near future.
Although I do not claim to be an expert on prospective temple locations, and although I have never once been to Las Cruces (the nearest I have ever come to doing so is visiting major Arizonan cities, where some family members currently live) and although I would understand if my lack of expertise in regards to either might disqualify me in the eyes of some from stating an opinion on the matter, here is what I know:
The distance between Las Cruces and Albuquerque, according to the calculations I have run, measures 222.9 miles. And although that is only slightly further than the 200-mile goal within which past Church presidents have desired to get each member, there is still reason to believe that that is a sufficient distance to warrant a temple there at some point, even if it is not as imminent a prospect as I noted above.
In adding that location, I also considered other things. During the time active discussion took place on the LDS Growth forum on many subjects, including temple prospects, the possibilities for future Texas temples was considered. While many people spoke in favor of the idea of a temple in El Paso as the next most likely temple for Texas, the user who established that forum noted that he lives in the current Dallas Texas temple district, and that it is sufficiently busy enough to give him reason to believe that that district could be split, and according to what he told me, Fort Worth is the most likely prospect to enable that to happen.
So that reinforced my reasons for believing that the next Texas temple will be built in Fort Worth. And since, with the exception of those states in the Mormon corridor, the Church has not been in the practice of having two temples under construction in the same state at the same time, by extension, that means that the Church would likely wait on a potential temple for El Paso at least until one in Fort worth is announced and further along in the construction process.
But that also means that the Las Cruces Saints would not have El Paso as a closer option to attend the temple, at least for a while. And if we consider that the Saints in El Paso may need a temple nearby in case they are unable for any reason to access the Mexico Temple to which they are currently assigned, a temple in Las Cruces would fill that need quite nicely.
DeleteAnd, if all that I have said here has not changed your mind on this subject, I also want to reiterate recent statements from President and Sister Nelson (which I will share in more detail in another post later today) that indicate that not only was he not planning on announcing a temple in India until the Friday night before General Conference, at which time he was impressed to add it to the other six he had planned on announcing, but both also report that, although he did so frequently before being ordained and set apart as Church president, the number of times he has unexpectedly been woken up during the night with important impressions about his current assignment has increased.
So, in considering all of that information, along with the knowledge that the Lord's ways and thoughts are higher than ours, even if the Saints in Las Cruces have not heard anything about the prospect of a temple in their city yet, I am confident enough, with all of this information in mind, that the idea of a temple in that city has enough merit for my personal list.
That said, I always appreciate hearing the opinions of others who may disagree with me on things I have said here. And perhaps a temple in that city may be nothing more than my own opinion or a local dream. I have no connections whatsoever to any members in the area that led me to include that location on this list.
The merits of the argument in favor of it speak for themselves, and I have no problem with the idea that I may be one of the few who see this city as a likely prospect. As always, thanks for taking time to comment, Kenny. I appreciate the insights you shared. Hope you are well, and thanks again.
I hope my responses above were not in any way misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued. I really do appreciate your insight into the fact that, as far as the Saints in Las Cruces have been advised, there is not currently a temple under consideration for their city.
DeleteBut as General Conference earlier this month has verified, not only are the ways and thoughts of the Lord higher than our ways and thoughts, but with the Brethren constantly seeking His will concerning how best to administer the affairs of His kingdom, surprises have been known to occur.
This last General Conference, I had the exact locations on my list for 3 of the 7 temples that were announced (Managua Nicaragua, Richmond Virginia, and Layton Utah), and I had the right nations but wrong cities for two others (namely, Davao instead of Cagayan de Oro Philippines and Neuquen rather than Salta Argentina). I had also expressed my opinion that temples in both Russia and India were likely in the more distant future, but that those prospects did not seem as imminently likely to me. And I was absolutely equally as elated to hear all 7 locations have a temple announced.
My main rationale for listing Las Cruces among other possibilities on the list above was the fact that the LDS Growth forum creator, who lives within the current Dallas Texas Temple district, has indicated that long waits to perform ordinances in that temple make it likely that another temple will be needed to split the district, with Fort Worth likely being the best location to accomplish such a split.
And with the exceptions of the states comprising the Mormon corridor or the temple-building boom the Church experienced in the late 1990s-early 2000s, we have rarely (if ever) had two temples under construction in the same state at the same time.
So if a temple is announced in Fort Worth, that would delay the construction of one in El Paso for a time. And in the unlikely event that President Trump is successful in having his border wall built, that would prevent the Saints in El Paso from being able to reach their currently-assigned temple over the Mexican border. So if a Fort Worth temple delays one in El Paso, and if President Trump is successful in getting a wall built on the Mexican border, the Saints in El Paso would have a hard time reaching the Mexican temple to which they are currently assigned. And that would be where a temple in Las Cruces would prove very useful.
I have no claim to any authority that would enable me to categorically state that the border wall will or will not be built, but what I do know is that the Church has constantly encouraged its' members to prepare for the worst-case scenario, a temple in Las Cruces would then become very necessary.
For that reason, I am confident enough to put that prospect on my list. That said, I fully believe that Fort Worth, Las Cruces, and El Paso will all eventually have temples someday. The question I have tried to resolve was how imminent each might be, and in what order those announcements may occur. It is my personal feeling that it could be Fort Worth, Las Cruces, then El Paso. But if and when any of these are announced, I will be overjoyed. Thanks again, Kenny, and sorry if I am flogging the proverbial dead horse or if I have unintentionally offended you, Kenny, or anyone else who might read these comments, Thanks again.
I lived in Roswell, NM through most of the 1980's. During a Stake conference in the early to mid 1980's a visiting General Authority said that a temple could be built in Roswell in the future if certain things happen such as increased temple attendance, paying tithes etc. I was a teenager at the time and do not recall if this was an apostle or 70. I will have to go back and look at my journals but i'm fairly certain that my journals were mostly filled with which girl I liked at the time.
DeleteThat is an interesting insight, Nephi. Thanks for letting me know. Many of the locations that are (or were previously) on the list above made that list primarily because of reports I heard of a public proposal for such a temple by a general Church leader, because land has (according to reports) been held in reserve for such a temple in other locations, or because the distance between such locations and the nearest temple is more distant than 200 miles, which is the goal that has been set by recent presidents of the Church.
DeleteBut in particular, if a promise of a temple has been given by a general authority (especially any apostles, which would, of course, include Church presidents, their counselors, or members of the Quorum of the Twelve), those promises later come to fruition.
This has been particularly true in recent years, when Presidents Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson have announced temples for locations that previously had a temple publicly proposed. I know for sure that President Hinckley, as part of a visit to Kenya in the 1990s, promised those listening to him that a temple would be announced there someday. He said, "Don't count on it for a few years, but it will be so." As we know, President Monson announced a temple for Nairobi during the April 2017 General Conference.
Of the temples announced this go-round, I know that Elder Maxwell had publicly proposed a temple for New Delhi India, and that the temple recently announced for Bengaluru will likely initially serve New Delhi. Then-Elder Nelson publicly proposed a temple for Managua, which, as we know, was one location now-President Nelson announced.
If you find more detail on the proposed temple for Roswell, let me know, as I may need to consider replacing Las Cruces with Roswell on the list above. Thank you, Nephi, for taking time to comment.
My mom said the Stake Conference was either in 1982 or 1983 and that Elder L. Tom Perry was the visiting apostle. My sister said she does recall that a temple was spoken of and she seems to think that Elder Perry said New Mexico in general and did not specify a city.
DeleteThank you for those additional details, Nephi. If the stake conference in question was held in either of those two years, then it is possible that Elder Perry's temple proposal for New Mexico may have been for the one that was dedicated in Albuquerque New Mexico amidst the temple-building boom of the late 1990s or early 2000s. But it might be difficult to conclusively determine if he was referring to that location or another city. I looked into the history of references available on the internet for Elder Perry's visit to New Mexico during that time, and didn't turn up anything one way or the other.
DeleteThat said, until something conclusive can be determined, I think I might leave Las Cruces on my list for now, especially since that possibility had been extensively discussed in earlier posts on this blog which have covered previous thoughts about future temple locations. If you find anything more concrete, please let me know. Thanks again, Nephi!
A temple in Heber City can also serve Park City. I also heard someone metion the possibility of a future temple in Price utah. I think a second temple in Cache Valley is not too far off. Either in Utah or the Idsho side. Maybe Smithfield or Preston. I hope for Missoula soon. I look forward to one in Lyberia, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Paupa New Guinea.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to comment, Chris, I didn't think of the fact that a temple in Heber City would likely also serve Park City. Thanks for that observation. Interesting that you heard about a prospective temple in Price. It is 110.7 miles between the stakes in Price and their assigned temple in Manti. Since there are other potential temples that might be more imminent, what I can do is keep Price in the back of my mind, perhaps on the list of locations I am saving for later, and do more studying on it. Thanks for the tip.
DeleteIf another temple is announced for the Cache Valley, I concur that it might be in either of the two locations you mentioned. That will be something else to watch for in the near future. But there again, I may put that on the list for later.
Missoula, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, and Papua New Guinea may all get temples soon as well, which is why they made my list above. I can also see a compelling case for temples to be built in Liberia and Mozambique at some point in the not-too-distant future, but again, I am concentrating the list above on the locations that seem most imminent for the reasons I mention in the notes that follow the list.
As I also mentioned above in my latest reply to the previous comment from Kenny, I was thrilled that the Lord proved me wrong in believing and asserting that temples in India and Russia might be more of a distant prospect. So the way I divide the locations I am considering between more imminent locations and those that might occur at some point in the future, but perhaps not as immediately may not reflect the Lord's higher ways and thoughts. But I will certainly keep all of those locations in mind. Thanks, Chris!