Hello again, everyone! I am back to share an update on the series
I had hoped to do covering the most imminently-likely future temple prospects
that could have a temple announced in General Conference in 2.5 months. Unless
I can find a way within the next 4-6 weeks to put together the information I
need for that series, it may not happen. I am still very much committed to
getting it done if I can.
But if not, what I will be
doing is simply taking into account the feedback I have received on my first
and second lists, adding any additional notes, and calling it good enough.
Hopefully within the next 2-3 months, the information I need will become
available, at which point I will again revisit that series in preparation for
the April 2019 General Conference.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always,
welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you
enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly-added
content, please feel free to subscribe. 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.
Other things that are considered when decisions are made regarding where a new temple should go.
ReplyDeleteAre existing temples near the location at or near design capacity on a regular basis. I have heard that when any temple hits a usage level of 80% of its design capacity, that is when they start looking for other sites. Observing attendance trends based on anecdotal evidence from descriptions given by those who went such as lines, wait times to get into a session, etc., play into this.
2. Right now, another threshhold is 200 miles or more. But going forward, that number could go lower.
3. Tithe paying faithfulness and sacrament meeting attendance also play into this, they said that four years before Tucson was announced, so leaders worked like dogs to get everyone on board. The bonus was two more stakes were formed there, the district has nine now, something I heard in 1987 was they wanted that many then but that number has never been a hard rule. They also said then they thought Skyline and Campbell would be one place they would like to build, it was built about 1 mile west--but still on Skyline.
4. Active members in a given region, besides the overall faithfulness and growth, there will be an ongoing need for called temple workers. They want as many closer in as possible although most have them from al over.
That's all I can think of for now.
Hello, James Anderson! Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts. I freely admit that I am not aware of every nuance and consideration that may factor in to where temples are built and how soon that happens.
ReplyDeleteBut I also know that, since no one outside of general Church leadership who are involved in those deliberations has the full list of those factors, there is only so much that I can take into account for the lists I can share.
I honestly wouldn't know how to begin to collect data on whether or not temples are at 80% capacity. But I do agree that the current threshhold of 200 miles will likely get lower. Any city where the Saints have an inordinate travel distance (including difficulty getting to their currently assigned temple) would likewise factor in to such considerations.
I know also that tithe-paying faithfulness and sacrament meeting attendance may likewise factor in to such decisions, but again, I do not have access to that kind of information, and at present would be unable to do further research to find that data.
But I also know that the number of active members does play an important role as well. One common problem we encountered during my years as a temple worker was ensuring that all shifts were adequately staffed.
I know there was more than one occasion where the temple presidency had asked those of us doing only one or two shifts a week if it would be possible to contribute to one or two additional shifts. Also, depending on the work schedule in locations across the world, there would be some consideration of whether or not staffing could be sufficiently done at peak times.
It is interesting to think of what all goes into the consideration for building a temple anywhere. One of the main reasons I started sharing my thoughts on the subject was simply because I knew that my own ability to research all the relevant factors would not be perfect, so the insights of others in that regard have helped me consider certain aspects that I may have overlooked. In the future, if you particularly notice anything I have overlooked, please let me know. Thanks for taking time to comment, James Anderson! I always appreciate hearing from you.
I agree, knowing when a temple is st 80% would be impossible for us to know for sure, there are some factors that help indicate a temple getting busy. Number of sessions offered in a day is one such indicator.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that influence a temple announcement I've heard in the past, which again we would be able to collect, is faithfulness and full tithe payers as indicated by recommend holders even where those members never get to go to a temple, and submission of family history names for temple work.
Articles years ago about India in the Church News did indicate the fact that many had a recommend even though they could not afford to get to one. Some were able to get their own ordinances when they went abroad when they could afford to. Also there was one article that mentioned praying for a temple, in something said by a RS president in the country, I don't remember where that person was, specifically, but the members were preparing for years as it was.
DeleteI know that the Church has been encouraging all members for years to have a recommend even if they could not necessarily get to a temple. With the ongoing health issues that my wife and I have had for the last 2-3 years, we have not been able to go to the temple at all since we moved to Orem in October 2015. But I know the Church News has carried numerous stories of people who have had a temple recommend for most, if not all of their adult lives, even if they have no hope of actually getting to one in their lifetimes. I have learned firsthand that the Lord often takes worthiness to have a temple recommend at times when the ability to get to a temple may be problematic, for whatever that reason may be.
DeleteMy mom enjoys telling the story of how she, her parents, and siblings, journeyed from South Africa (years before the temple in Johannesburg was dedicated) to the nearest temple, which at that time was in England. Now we are seeing a day where temples are dotting the African continent, and that will certainly continue.
As I observed in a previous post, 2 of the 3 current temples in Africa are currently closed for extensive repairs and fixes, with the third temple on that continent set to close later this year. For most of that time, African Saints who are wanting to worship at the temple will have to travel to the nearest one in Africa or outside it.
But it will surely be interesting to see the extent of President Nelson's temple-building plans coming to fruition over the next little while. As we learn more about that process, I will do my best to pass the specifics along. Thanks, James Anderson, for this additional comment.
But the good news is that
Thank you, Kenny, for stopping by to comment. While I appreciate the wide-spread interest and amount of feedback I get when I do posts covering future temple prospects, because I am also keeping tabs on many other general Church news items and temple developments, that does make it a little harder to widen my focus in terms of the factors on which I base my list of near-future prospective cities for a temple. That is one reason why I continue to invite ongoing comments on the subject from others here. If there is anything that suggests a location I have not considered may get a temple sooner than anticipated, I appreciate hearing of it.
ReplyDeleteI have mainly used the mileage metric, the size of current districts, and personal research that shows which locations have the most arduous journey to their currently assigned temples/ And I have also prioritized areas in which I have heard land has been purchased, and also have given priority to locations which, according to Matthew Martinich's posts on the LDS Church Growth blog, are the top states in the US or nations of the world which have the strongest Church presence but do not have a temple.
Based on information I found on these factors, I have prioritized the locations I mentioned on the two different lists I have posted here. That is by no means meant to be a full and complete list of all prospects that may someday get a temple, but seems to be a fairly good indicator of which locations may potentially be prioritized.
Another unknown in all of this, as I noted, is the extent of President Nelson's plans to both increase the number of temples worldwide and potentially expedite the process whereby temples that have not progressed beyond an announcement as of yet, along with those that may be announced in the near future, have their construction processes begin. While we do know his legacy as a temple-building Church president has been implied to overshadow what we saw under President Hinckley's temple-building boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it is surely unknown to all but a few how that will occur.
While knowing as much as we do may make it hard to figure out exactly how frequently, under what circumstances, and in which locations the temples may be announced, it has been my feeling that, at minimum, we will be seeing 3-5 announced per conference for the foreseeable future, along with 2-3 here and there in between each General Conference.
What would be really amazing is to learn that his plans are to again more than double the number of temples within the next 3-5 years. If that turns out to be the case, then not only are we likely to see the Church dedicate 200 temples by the 200th anniversary of the Church, but we may perhaps see 300 or 400 in operation by that time. It will be interesting to see for sure.
The one other unknown (which may only be known to the Lord) is how long President Nelson will have to implement whatever plans he has in that regard. I have mentioned previously that President Nelson is the second-oldest man to ever come to the Church presidency, but may be the most healthy Church president we have had in 20 years or longer.
Many have said he will likely live to become the Church's first centenarian Church president, and might perhaps live several years beyond that milestone. As a heart surgeon, he knows how to take care of himself. If we are looking at a decade or so of service from him (which may be more possible than I previously indicated), that would be plenty of time to put into effect whatever plans he has in that regard.
It will surely be interesting to see all of that unfold, and whatever occurs in that regard, I will do my level best to continue to bring word of it to you and everyone else who reads this blog as I become aware of developments. In the meantime, I hope that anyone who notices anything I have missed in such reports will continue to bring it to my attention. Thank you, Kenny!