Hello again, everyone! As the title of this post implies, this will be the first post in a miniseries which I will do to share my thoughts about content recently posted on the LDS Church Growth Blog. As an introduction to this series, I just want to establish right off the bat that I have a profound respect and appreciation for the work Matthew Martinich does on that blog, and for those who take time to comment on the things he posts there. That said, there have been a few times (which will likely not be the last) when something that is said by either Matt or those who comment on the topics about which he posts which I feel warrants further analysis from me here on this blog.
Matt recently put up this post, which continues his intermittent series on the top 10 nations or dependencies in the world that have the strongest Church presence but have not yet had a temple announced. I appreciate the work he does to frequently post those, especially when one or two locations previously on his list of the top 10 have a temple subsequently announced in General Conference, which makes it necessary to revisit that list.
While he has done very well to consider the current composition of temple districts and to share unit information that backs up his rationale for each nation's place on the list, I wanted to get more into the numbers behind those picks. So I ran distance calculations between each of those nations and their currently-assigned temple (or, where applicable, those temples announced or under construction that would cover those locations when they are dedicated).
I grouped them in that order, and then, in a note below that list, shared my feelings regarding the order in which those locations might potentially have a temple announced, along with any pertinent information I had available that has led me conclude that any of them could be announced in a different order. The results of that research follows below.
In order to not interrupt the flow of that information, I want to end now as I always do. 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.
1. Papua New Guinea. Members in Port Moresby travel 2,178 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, which is more than 10½ times further than the 200 mile distance specified by President Monson. And although the Sydney Australia Temple is slightly closer (at 1,704 miles, which is still 8½ times further than that 200 mile distance), it appears that, for whatever reason, the determination was made to assign the Saints in Papua New Guinea to the more distant temple. It is therefore likely that a temple will be announced in Port Moresby in the near future, especially since land has reportedly been held in reserve for that purpose for a while now.
2. Puerto Rico: Members in San Juan travel 251 miles to reach their assigned temple in Santo Domingo Dominican Republic, which is just above the 200-mile goal. Although there have been significant natural disasters there within the last year, a temple in that nation may just be a matter of time.
3. Kiribati: Members in Tarawa currently travel 1,402 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, and no other current or potential future temple is closer than that. Since that is over 7 times further than the 200-mile goal that has been set by other Church presidents, a temple in Tarawa could just be a matter of time.
4. Sierra Leone: Members in Freetown currently travel 1,272.4 miles to reach their assigned temple in Accra Ghana (which is a little over 6 times further than the 200-mile goal). Once the temple in the Ivory Coast is built, that distance will be cut to 942.1 miles (which is still over 4½ times further than that 200-mile goal). So a temple in Freetown may just be a matter of time.
5. American Samoa: Members in Pago Pago currently travel 101 miles to their assigned temple in Apia Samoa. Although that temple is within an easy distance (101 miles, which is half as far as the 200-mile goal), it is not impossible to believe that a temple could be built in Pago Pago at some point, with the one question being how soon that might occur.
6. Uganda: Members in Kampala currently travel 2,565.6 miles to their assigned temple in Johannesburg South Africa. That distance will be cut to 1,882.2 miles once the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple is dedicated, and will be cut further to 1,795.5 miles once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated. But the significant distance cut will occur when the Nairobi Kenya Temple is built and dedicated, which will cut the distance to 404.5 miles. While that is only slightly more than double the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that Kampala could (and likely will) get a temple in the not-too-distant future.
7. Cambodia: Members in Phnom Pehn currently travel 963 miles to their assigned temple in Hong Kong China. Once the Bangkok Thailand Temple is dedicated, that will cut the distance to 413.7 miles, which is just over twice the 200-mile goal. Since the only other announced temple in Asia (for Bengaluru India) will not cut that distance further (as it will be over 10 times further from Phnom Pehn), a temple for Cambodia may simply be a matter of time.
8. Cape Verde: Members in Praia currently travel over 10 times further than the 200 mile goal (2,125 miles, to be exact) to attend the temple in Madrid Spain. When the Lisbon Portugal Temple is dedicated, that distance will be cut to 1,861 miles, which is still more than 9 times further away than the mileage goal that has been set. For that reason, a temple in Praia may just be a matter of time.
9. Liberia: Saints in Monrovia currently travel almost 5 times further than the 200 mile goal (the exact distance is 973.8 miles) to attend the Accra Ghana Temple. That distance will be cut to 643.5 miles when the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple is dedicated. If the Church announces and builds a temple in Sierra Leone, that distance would additionally be cut just about in half to 338 miles. While that distance is not even 1.5 times the 200-mile goal, there may be enough reason to believe that a temple in Monrovia could happen sooner rather than later.
10. Madagascar: Saints in Anatananarivo currently travel 3,658 miles to their currently assigned temple in Accra Ghana. That would be cut to 2,390 once the temple in Kinshasa is dedicated (assuming Madagascar would then fall under that district), and it would be cut further once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated (with that distance being 1,082 miles). But since even that distance is 5 times further than the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that a temple in Madagascar might be announced sooner rather than later.
Final note: Based on the factors mentioned above, and other elements I have studied on my own time, if I had to pick a potential likely order in which any of these nations might have a temple announced, I would do so as follows: Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Cape Verde, Kiribati, Madagascar, , Liberia, and. It is also interesting to consider that, among these 10 nations, 3 (Kiribati, American Samoa, and Papua New Guinea) are in the Church’s Pacific Area, 2 more are in the Africa Southeast Area (Madagascar and Uganda), 2 are in the Africa West Area (Sierra Leone and Liberia) 1 is in the Caribbean Area (Puerto Rico), 1 other is in the Asia Area (Cambodia), and the remaining 1 is in the Europe Area (Cape Verde). It is also worth noting that Church growth experts have stated that the trends of such growth in Africa is such that the number of current temples within the African continent could potentially double (if not triple or quadruple) within the next 20-30 years or so. It continues to amaze me how the Lord moves his work forward in unexpected ways. Since two of the previous top ten from 2017 saw a temple announced this year (Nicaragua at #1 and Russia at #4), it is not hard to believe that the top ten list will continue to change based on future announcements. And I believe that many (if not all) of these current top ten could potentially have a temple announced within the next 15-30 years, although some will obviously be more imminent.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Response to Content Posted Recently on the LDS Church Growth Blog--Part One: The Top 10 Dependencies With the Strongest Church Presence Without a Temple in Any Phase
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.
4 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)
Wouldn't Madagascar be closer to one of the two South Africa temples? I wonder if flights are cheaper and easier for some countries that are further. Or Visas are easier to get and that is why some countries go to a further temple.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that question, Chris. If my research is correct, then Johannesburg is 1,338 miles from Antananarivo, the capital of Madagascar, while Durban is 1,282 miles from Madagascar. The problem lies in the fact that, although Madagascar is considered to be a part of the African continent, it is separated by a pretty substantial amount of water, and is off by itself. For that reason, until a temple is built closer (or in Madagascar itself), wherever the Madagascar Saints are assigned to the temple will be a bit of a journey. Hope that answers your question. Thanks, Chris!
ReplyDeleteAlso Paupa New Guinea use to be aligned to Sydney. Any idea why it changed?
ReplyDeleteThat I don't know, Chris. But I can hazard a guess. As a former temple worker who observed the boundaries of my temple district and a few others change, I can hazard a guess. The goal of the Church is not just to bring temples closer to the people, but also to ensure that the temple districts of the Church are as evenly dispersed as possible. It seems to be an ongoing process. Part of that process sees stakes assigned to one district when they might be closer in terms of mileage to a different temple. When that happens, it generally appears to be because the most convenient way to get to the temple to which they are assigned may be a less arduous and expensive journey than would be involved in getting to a temple that is closer in terms of its mileage but might not be as easy for Saints in such nations to access.
ReplyDeleteIf we apply that idea to the question you asked, then perhaps the Church determined that it would be easier, more convenient, and cheaper for the members in Papua New Guinea to travel to Suva Fiji than it would be for them to continue to attend the temple in Sydney.
That said, we have also seen certain areas reassigned to temple districts to which they previously belonged as a result of temples being dedicated in other areas that took several stakes away from such districts. The last time that occurred was with the stakes here in Orem. As you might be aware, stakes as far south as Payson Utah once fell under the Provo Utah Temple district. With the dedications of the Mount Timpanogos and Payson Utah Temples, the determination was made to have the Church's stakes in Orem assigned to the Moutn Timpanogos Utah Temple District. Then two years ago, when the dedication of the Provo City Center Temple occurred, stakes in Provo and Springville were transferred from their current temples to the PCC Temple. As a result of how busy the Mount Timpanogos Temple generally was, in addition to the reports I heard of the Provo Utah Temple not being as busy with those stakes removed from its' district, the First Presidency determined that the stakes here in Orem would again be assigned to the Provo Utah Temple district. With where my wife and I are living in Orem, we are in a very easy distance of the Provo, Provo City Center, and Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple. Technically the Provo City Center Temple is closest to where we are living. But since the Mount Timpanogos Temple is where my wife and I met and were later married, we have determined we will continue to go there.
These, of course, are merely my own observations on the subject. I am sure that there are elements of which we are not aware that led the First Presidency to reassign the Orem stakes to the Provo Utah Temple District, and that this was likewise the case for Papua New Guinea Saints being reassigned from the district of the Sydney Australia Temple to that of the SUva Fiji Temple. Unless something is officially announced by the Church that specifically notes the reasons for such changes, there is no real way to tell for sure. That said, I hope that these additional thoughts are helpful to you. As always, thanks for your great question, Chris!