I should also note that, unlike the locations currently on my list for a potential announcement in October, I am not yet going to add any contextual reasoning behind the inclusion of these sites for the moment, but that if any or all of these prospects do wind up on the list for October's General Conference, I will then be adding my rationale behind their inclusion.
A list of those prospects follows below, again organized first by the area of the Church under which those cities fall, then by potential likelihood within that area. So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will end here as I always do. That does it for this post. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed on new content as it is posted, please feel free to subscribe. 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.
Africa Southeast: Kampala Uganda; Maputo Mozambique; Lubumbashi
DR Congo; Cape Town South Africa
Africa West: Monrovia Liberia
Asia: Ulaanbaatar Mongolia
Asia North: Kobe/Osaka/Nagoya Japan
Brazil: Florianopolis Brazil
Europe: Edinburgh Scotland; Vienna Austria
North America Central: Wichita Kansas; Green Bay
Wisconsin; Council Bluffs Iowa
North America Northeast: Augusta Maine; Morristown/East
Brunswick New Jersey; Concord New Hampshire; Montpelier Vermont
North America Southeast: Jacksonville Florida
Pacific: Tarawa Kiribati; Pago Pago American Samoa
I have most of those locations on.my lists as well. I didn't have Vermont, New Hampshire, or New Jersey, but I can see the thinking behind those of travel time and smaller temples being taken to the people where growth is not expected to build much more but members are established.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I also leaned more towards Green Bay than Milwaukee, but I could see a temple build in either of those two cities though probably not both.
A while ago when I had discussed a Las Cruces NM temple I had forgotten to also include many members in the next stake to the West in Deeming. Some might continue to go to Gila Valley but the majority would be closer to Las Cruces and then also any members in El Paso who have issues crossing the boarder into Mexico.
I often wonder if Oslo Norway would get a temple or another temple.on the other end of Taiwan like in Kaohsiung City area.
I enjoy your lists and looking at why. I am highly anticipating the ldschurchtemples web site coming back online again. It surely makes information gathering and research easier.
Council Bluffs is already covered, Winter Quarters Nebraska is in the same metro area, Omaha. One possible down the road might be Des Moines but not in the early days of this
ReplyDeleteThanks for those thoughts, Kenny! I agree that Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jersey may be excellent candidates for smaller temples, if the Church is looking to do a series of those in larger quantities.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion for Green Bay comes directly from conversations on this blog earlier, and particularly, those conversations have led me to conclude that, while both cities may someday get a temple, the first one in Wisconsin will be built in Green Bay.
When I put both the previous list and this additional one together, since I am not a geography expert, I am not great at determining which areas might be covered by temples in the locations on my list. That said, I am grateful for what you said about Deeming.
Oslo Norway may be a candidate to look into in the near future as well. And there could be a few options for a second temple in Taiwan. I am wondering about the odds of one in Taichung, where the Church's other mission is located. I have not done much research as of yet, but perhaps Kaohsiung City may be a better option.
You are correct as well that with the LDS Church Temples site being down still, the ability to get information that might be needed to enable informed conversation about these prospects, which is why I have not yet made progress in that series as of yet. Hopefully soon that site will be back up, in the next 4-6 weeks. Otherwise, my ability to do this next iteration of that series may be affected. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kenny!
Apparently I was composing my response to Kenny while you were commenting as well, James Anderson. Thanks for taking time to comment. I had not realized that Council Bluffs was so close to Winter Quarters. That makes sense. I agree that Des Moines may be a possibility at some point, since the Church has enjoyed putting temples in capital cities, but, as you said, that would likely be in the more-distant future. Thanks again, James Anderson, for taking time to comment.
ReplyDeleteWith Richmond VA, there are only 13 U.S. states left without temples in any stage. Many of them however have temples in areas near their borders. I'm not sure how many, but Manhattan, New York, Kansas City MO, Winter Quarters NB, are a few of the temples in Metro areas near state borders that don't have temples.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see a temple in Vermont maybe on site or near the Joseph Smith birthplace monument. This could be a smaller temple and historic site temple like we have in Palmyra or Winter Quarters and Nauvoo.
ReplyDeleteUS states without temples include Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode island, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas. Others will be candidates for additional temples. In addition US Territories such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa (Pago Pago), and Guam need temples. We are otherwise blessed in this country. I want to see more remote countries get their first temples soon such as Mongolia, Cape Verde, Kirabati, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Norway, Cambodia, Paupa New Guinea and others.
ReplyDeleteHi, Chris! Thanks for taking time to share these additional thoughts. I know that when I was putting together the above list, one thing I looked at was the latest information posted on the LDS Church Growth Blog about US states without a temple in any phase.
ReplyDeleteI know that, with my being geographically challenged, I have not done much research in terms of states with temples near their borders. I am sure there are a number of them.
I also understand why the Church might favor Sharon over Montpelier for a temple in Vermont, since historically significant locations have had temples announced before. I don't know quite how that would work in the case of Vermont, primarily because the Church likes to establish temples in cities where there is a stake. And unless something has changed recently, the only stake the Church currently has in Vermont is named for the capital city. So the question is, would a Church history connection related to Sharon be more of a consideration than building the temple in the main stronghold of the Church in that state? I am not entirely sure, but may do some research on that question as more time allows.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI just looked up the distance between Sharon and Montpelier. It's about 42 miles. That's relatively close at least outside of the Wasatch Front. Also, Many temples are actually named after a nearby major City even up to 30 miles away.
DeleteThanks for this additional comment, Chris, and sorry it took me so long to address it. I may have been aware of the distance between Sharon and Montpelier. My point was more that the Church generally likes to build temples where there is at least one stake to support the edifice, and insofar as I have been able to ascertain, there is not even a ward in the Sharon area, let alone a stake. Vermont's one and only stake is named for the capital city, and as near as I can tell, there are no wards near the city of Sharon. With that in mind, while the Church might favor Sharon for its' Church historical prominence, if there is not sufficient support in that area for a temple, the Church would likely opt to build one in proximity to where the current Church stronghold exists in Vermont. Again, the prospect cannot be ruled out completely, but unless something changes in the near future, Montpelier may be the best option for Vermont's first temple. That said, I could see a second in Sharon once the Church's presence in that area improves enough to warrant it. As you rightly observed, the Church has been known for favoring cities of importance in Church history. It will certainly be interesting to see how soon Vermont will get its' first temple, and where that will be located. Thanks again, Chris!
DeleteI was also aware (if only vaguely) of which states do not have a temple. Vermont is perhaps my favorite among those. The very kind temple worker who first took me under his wings and trained me in my new responsibilities moved away from the Mount Timpanogos Temple district to live with one of his children in Vermont following the passing of his wife. I have not spoken with him since that time, but I know that he was one of the most dedicated workers during my initial time in that assignment, so I am sure he misses having access to a temple nearby.
ReplyDeleteBetween the two lists I posted on this blog, Delaware, Rhode Island, West Virginia are the only states for which I do not have a prospective temple. While those may be prospects at some point in the future, the case in favor of the other prospects I mentioned seems to be stronger. I also wanted to note that, until West Virginia does get a temple of its' own, the temple announced for Richmond will be a slightly closer option. Not by much, but it will still be closer. And it is pretty much a guarantee that while the Church is renovating the Washington D. C. Temple and constructing the one in Richmond Virginia, the Church may defer the announcement of another temple in that area cluster until both are closer to completion. I could be wrong, but that's just my feeling.
Between the two lists I have recently shared here, pretty much all of the locations you referenced are listed. The one exception is Guam, which, unless the information I have is incorrect, only has 4 congregations total. So the Church might need to double, triple, or quadruple that number before a temple is built there.
We have seen some unusual things happen lately, so technically, it may not be possible or reasonable to rule anything out. Since we have heard more in the last six months about President Nelson's plans to leave a lasting temple-building legacy on the Church than we have heard previously, there are sure to be several unexpected announcements in unanticipated locations that are not on anyone's radar.
That said, I am also sure that part of President Nelson's plans will involve exploring ways and means to expedite the process of announcing and building temples. At the same time, with almost 20 temples that are waiting on a groundbreaking, unless something really significant happens to reduce that number, there will almost certainly be a point where another hiatus is observed in terms of temple announcements to allow the Church to clear any backlog that may exist regarding temples that are under construction or announced.
One other element that may be interesting to consider in terms of all of this is however much longer President Nelson's life will last. I have heard on many occasions from a few different sources that President Nelson could live long enough to become the Church's first centenarian prophet.
With his 94th birthday coming up just less than two months from now, he would only need to live another 6 years. And since we saw, during President Hinckley's administration, the number of temples more than double in a matter of 3 years, it is not unreasonable to believe that could occur again in double that time.
There is certainly a lot to consider in terms of the Church's temple-building efforts, and it is wonderful to be part of the dialogue on that subject. Thanks again for taking time to share these additional comments, Chris!
In the `980s, the goal was to have at least one temple within the borders of each US state as the membership grew. So we are now down to 13 states left 30 years after I heard that, and the mid-Atlantic/New England/I-95 corridor has a lot of states packed close together. Some of those 13 will get temples sooner than others.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I heard is they want temples to be close to majorfreeway access, maybe not right beside one but reasonably near either a major one or one of an areas network. Even the announced one in Saratoga Spring will have a freeway built near it in coming years when U-85 and the U-145 spur are built, the feeder roads are largely built already.
Both parameters should only be a weight, not a hard and fast rule. We know what could happen, something could happen that causes a sudden growth surge in either membership in an area or temple attendance or other factors with the membership in a given area that might prompt the need for another temple.
Interesting information, James Anderson. Thanks for sharing these additional details. As I have noted previously, it is almost impossible for one person (myself or anyone else) to account for every relevant factor that may drive temple announcements in certain areas. At the same time, it is obvious that, to a certain point, the methods I have used are working at least to a certain degree. Thanks for taking time to comment.
DeleteWhere did you hear that 1980 statement or wish?
ReplyDeleteWith the rapid temple building in 1999 and 2000, many temples were built next to church buildings with extra property. Many of those are not very close to any major road or freeway as I can attest to as In have travelled and visited many US temples.
It certainly helps though when they are easy to get to.
I too was thinking that Des Moines would be a great Iowa locations since it is smack in the middle of the state and at the intersection of both interstate freeways run through Iowa.
I've thought about Guam as one of those locations where growth is not expected to increase much and being one of those temples taken to the people but I think. Other islands might be a better choice and still bring the temple closer to Guam. I do maintain Guam on my possible surprise locations lists.
The East coast is tricky because cities and states are so close to each other. Having grown up in a large city, LA, I can see how with traffic problems and even tolls on the East coast could lead to more temples in or near the big cities would make attendance much more possible. Traffic issues make looking on a map difficult because it truly squews the closeness of a temple and really how long it takes to get there. It might not be far by mileage but time wise can be over an hour or two depending on the time of day.
Even with the Manhatten temple, I wish the church would continue with the temple outside the city in Harrison.
Hello, Kenny! Thanks for taking time to comment. I have been considering the merits of changing my Iowa choice to Des Moines. It will certainly be something to look into. Guam is surely more of a long-shot location, at least for now. And again, there may be several dozen factors the Church looks into when considering a temple. But since those of us not privy to such information, there are certainly several factors that may play into those selections which will be easily discerned. Thanks, ax always, for taking time to comment, Kenny!
DeleteThe temple in Harrison, NY may still happen. Look what happened with Hartford CT. It was announced then suspended for about 15 years before it was reanounced.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Chris! You make a good point as well. The Church did wind up announcing the Hartford temple after having to suspend the original announcement. But I was curious, so I dug into the history of both that temple and the Harrison New York Temple. Although the LDS Church Temples site is still undergoing restoration, I found the next best thing in the following resources:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_New_York_Temple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Connecticut_Temple
Based on the information in those articles, it appears that the Hartford temple had obstacles the first time it was announced that were no longer a factor when the Church again looked at that prospect. By contrast, the Harrison New York Temple was originally planned to be larger, but was eventually replaced with 2-3 smaller temples that serve the same areas just as well. Could the Harrison New York temple be announced again? Anything is possible, but given the difference between that temple and the case of the one in Hartford, it would be understandable if the Church opts to leave the Harrison prospect as a suspended announcement. Again, that is just a personal feeling, and I could be wrong. Time will tell. Thanks, Chris!
I know there were so many issues with the Harrison temple. The city council kept pitting so many restrictions into place. Size, no other buildings for 10 years, restrictions on lighting and then no permit until the sewer was extended to the property. It was originally going to be a large regional temple but now could be a smaller local temple. I just remember driving in that area and it was still a long commute into NYC and the temple doesn't have a parking lot. So many reasons the Harrison temple would still be useful.
ReplyDeleteThe Hartford temple was partly an issue with finding a location and that it was going to be a larger regional temple but was replaced with two area temples instead. Once build in Hartford, it is much smaller than originally would have been for a regional temple. Though Harrison was going to be one of those to replace Hartfort but ended up in Manhattan due to the earlier outlined issues.
The other difference with Harrison is that there was no official announcement to stop but it simply fell off the announced temple list. Hartford was officially announced in conference of the change in location.
The only other temples suspended and still not built are Pago Pago and the pioneer temples in Missouri (Far West, Springhill which is Adam-doni-Ahman, and Independence.
The Pago Pago temple was going to be more regional for several island countries due to an airport. However it was changed to Apia Samoa because other island nations got temples announced and there are more members on Apia than in Pago pago.
ReplyDeleteThanks for these additional insights, Kenny! I was going off of the information I could find through Wikipedia, which may not have had all the details you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to observe the reactions to the Church announcing a temple in any area. Most are welcomed by the Saints and friends of other faiths, but for some temples, the opposition certainly seems to be fierce. And it doesn't stop with building a temple in any location. I had reported earlier on this blog how the citizens in the Mesa Arizona area had expressed concerns about the Church's plans to renovate the temple in that city and also the plans to redevelop the surrounding property. Clearly, since the Church has been able to proceed with the plans, that opposition has been cleared up, but I know it was a problem for a while.
I also was aware that the Church hoped to build several temples in Missouri, but were thwarted in those efforts. Interesting that a temple was announced but plans were suspended in Pago Pago. I may not have been aware of that. But the odds seem to be in the Church's favor to get a temple built in American Samoa in the near future. And the Lord has been known to surprise us with some announced temple locations and many temples being able to be expedited in their construction process. It will be interesting to see what happens there.
Perhaps the biggest unknown in all of this is the extent of President Nelson's plans to leave a more lasting legacy as a temple-building prophet than President Hinckley. While we do know and hear frequently how committed he is to being a temple-building prophet, it may be anyone's guess what might happen exactly.
I have previously suggested that he may take action to again more than double the number of temples within the next few years, which would be awesome. But the exact plan is unclear. Would we be looking at an even smaller temple design plan that would allow the number of temples to increase? Would the Church tweak the current design to make future temples of that model easier to build? Would currently announced temples be more quickly moved towards a groundbreaking and construction process? Are we in for another windfall of temple announcements?
So much to consider here. That is why I first shared my thoughts above about additional locations that I might need to add in the near future depending on the strength of the arguments in favor of or opposition to their merits.
We did see President Nelson announce the second-highest number of temples in his first General Conference as Church President, which may be an indicator that the timing and number of temple announcements made at once may continue to see record-breaking occur. The extent of the plans aside, it is abundantly clear to me that President Nelson is definitely committed to continuing to bring temples closer to the Saints throughout the world, and I have no doubts he will continue to focus on locations that are 200 miles or more from their assigned temples, as his predecessors have done. It will be interesting to see. Thanks for this additional comment, Kenny!
Apparently, Chris, you shared your additional comment while I was working on my reply to Kenny above. I was not aware of what had factored in to the Church changing their minds on a Pago Pago temple. That said, if what I have heard is any indication, any factors that would have previously been an obstacle to American Samoa getting a temple may have since cleared. With that in mind, a temple there may happen sooner than many (myself included) might have thought even as recently as a few months ago. Thanks again, Chris!
ReplyDeleteI learned about Pago Pago from Rick's ldschurchtemples.org site when it was working. He had a section for suspended temples. He even had an picture of what that proposed temple design.
ReplyDeleteYes. The Pago Pago temple was.going to be a regional temple along a road with airport access but instead of one temple for the islands that got changed with other island temples being announced in Tahiti and Tonga. So the temple got moved to Samoa where more saints are located. So 3 temples instead of 1 temple.
ReplyDeleteI was aware of that suspended section. But I don't recall seeing the entry for Pago Pago, which doesn't mean it wasn't there, but rather that I don't remember seeing it. Either way, a temple in Pago Pago is now more of a possibility than it may have been when it was originally announced and then suspended. According to Matt's latest post on the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that do not have a temple in any phase (which was published on April 12 of this year), American Samoa comes in at #5. During the April General Conference (again, according to Matt), the Church announced temples in the nations that had come in at first and fourth (Nicaragua and Russia respectively). So if the Church continues that trend, then at least two of the current top ten may have temples announced. In looking over both of my lists, I have all ten listed between the two.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the last time the Church had two back-to-bakc sets of temple announcements in consecutive General Conferences was when the two announced in October 2012 were followed by two other temples being announced in April 2013. The Church then had the two-year hiatus on temple announcements, after which the last four April General Conferences (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018) saw 3, 4, 5, and 7 temples respectively announced.
It is obvious that President Monson's health struggles during the last 3-5 years of his life likely factored into his ability to get things done during that time period.
So with President Nelson not having any of those kinds of issues, it is more likely than not that he will both be announcing new temples at every General Conference and with some in between as needed.
And if what has been said lately in the comments here on this blog is any indication, then President Nelson's plans to build temples in unprecedented numbers may result in a significant number of temple announcements every time any are announced. What will be interesting to see is what might be done to clear the current backlog of 19 temples that have not gone beyond an announcement.
As was observed on this and other threads, there is every possibility that several temples might still have a groundbreaking ceremony before the end of this year. Depending on the extent of President Nelson's plans to expand the number of temples, we may be entering an era when something significant happens temple-wise nearly every month of the next few years. It will be interesting to see what happens and how it happens going forward. Thanks again, Chris!
Kenny, apparently I was replying to Chris above when you commented. I know that the Church has often opted to build several smaller temples instead of one regional one.
ReplyDeleteAnd the decision to do so may be more layered and faceted than any of us might realize. That said, there has been a pretty clear indication recently that President Nelson is going to initiate something that will make his legacy as a temple-building Church president outshine that of President Hinckley, which means that we are indeed entering an era when anything is possible in terms of where the temple-building program of the Church can and will likely be sure to go. It will be amazing to see. Thanks for this additional comment, Kenny!
Nashville was also going to be a larger regional temple and had oposition due to its size. When President Hinkley announced his smaller temple plan, Nashville was changed to a smaller temple and along with it, several smaller temples were also built throughout the south in what would have been it's original district
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It appears that the reason that occurred was due to zoning laws that the commissioners had concerns about.But apparently those same zoning concerns did not apply to a bunch of smaller temples scattered through that region. I have also previously spoken about how the Nashville Temple was announced first, but the dedication for the temple in Memphis was held first.
DeleteWith all of this in mind, I can definitely see President Nelson potentially ushering in an era when several additional temples, either smaller than we now have or else with an altered design that can be built quickly. It will be interesting to see what occurs there. Thanks, as always, for taking time to comment, Chris!