Let's jump right in. First, the Church could (and likely will soon) confirm the November 8, 2018 groundbreaking for the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple. If we do not soon hear an announcement on the groundbreaking fro the Urdaneta Philippines Temple, that temple could begin full-scale construction without a formal groundbreaking (although the last temple for which that happened was the Paris France Temple, the contractor and his equipment are already on site for the Urdaneta Philippines Temple, where a construction barrier has been erected. So either there is a lot of preliminary work to do before the temple has a formal groundbreaking, or there will be no groundbreaking, and construction will merely commence.
The Pocatello Idaho and Saratoga Springs Utah Temples both seem to be a lock to have groundbreakings occur within the first six months of next year, if not sooner. We may not hear anything about a groundbreaking for the Bangkok Thailand Temple for the next little while, unless and until the one building remaining on site is both vacated and razed.
I additionally am anticipating that, within the next 15 months, as we learn more, the Lima Peru Los Olivos, Nairobi Kenya, Brasilia Brazil, Greater Manila Philippines, Harare Zimbabwe, Layton Utah, and Richmond Virginia temples could each have a groundbreaking as well. If that occurs for each of these temples, that trims the list of those that have not had construction begin yet from 31 down to 19.
And if reports (which indicate that the Church has hired and will continue to hire additional personnel for the temple department), then the Church could very easily go from a current backlog of 31 down to 7 or less within the course of the next couple of years. Within that same time, I would also anticipate that other massive series of additional new temples could be announced as well.
As I observed in my previous post, there are now 201 temples of the Church in various stages of the construction process. If all but one of those were to be operating by that time (which would enable the Church to reach the milestone of 200 operating temples), since 159 are currently in operation, only 41 others would need to be completed in the 11.5 years between today and the bicentennial anniversary of the Church's reestablishment (which is set to occur on Saturday April 6, 2030).
Of those 41, 11 are currently under construction, and 1 soon will be (if the Church confirms the information about the planned groundbreaking for the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple). So if we subtract that total of 12, only 19 more would need to begin and finish with the construction process during that 11.5 years.That means, as long as 2-3 temples begin construction each year, there is no scenario in which the Church would be unlikely to have 200 operating temples by that date. And I would personally anticipate that there will likely be far more than that around that time, if all continues to go well.
In the meantime, I also wanted to pass along some information I have drawn up about the most likely location for the Washington County Utah Temple, which is 1 of the 12 temples that were announced today. I am figuring that the Church would want to build it in a main city (rather than one of the more urban or rural locales). I first measured the distance from Cedar City to St. George, cut that distance roughly in half, and used the resulting mileage (26.1) to try and find the most likely prospect. Here's the information I compiled:
Potential locations for Washington County Temple (optimal
goal is half-way between St. George and Cedar City, which would be a distance
of 26.1 miles)
Hurricane (18.4 miles from St. George; 36.9 miles from
Cedar City)
La Verkin (20.7 miles from St. George; 38.1 miles from
Cedar City)
Toquerville (23.2 miles from St. George; 34.6 miles from
Cedar City)
I can see each of these locations as a worthy prospect. The biggest merit of the first (Hurricane), in my mind, is that, if memory serves me correctly, some of my more-distant-but-still-extended family members live there. The Church has also periodically built a temple in places that are hard to pronounce (along the lines of Quetzeltenango Guatemala, a city of which President Monson, in talking of the planned dedication for that temple, quipped "Don't spell it!"
But of the three major cities, Toquerville comes in as nearest to the average mileage distance between the temples in Cedar City and St. George, which may make that city a shoo-in. Perhaps, however, the Church would look to a smaller or less prominent locality as the prospective place for this temple.
Either way, if the announcement of 19 temples during 2018 tells us anything, it is that President Nelson will get right down to business in terms of new temple announcements, and that if the currently-announced temples are, in a similar vein, able to have construction begin and progress swiftly, we are indeed in for a windfall or landslide of temple announcements, perhaps on more than one occasion, in the near future.
Whatever happens in that regard, you can certainly count on my passing such news along as I become aware of it. Stay tuned for those developments, which I continue to monitor on an ongoing basis. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time.
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.
I have not lived there there in many years but I grew up I St. George Utah. My parents still live in Washington county (now in LaVerkin). I feel you are not far off. I think the temple will be in the LaVerkin or Hurricane area. Also Toquerville is ajacent to LaVerkin. Howeve, I also wonder if the temple may be built on the other side of the county over in Santa Clara or Ivins. I think Hurricane is most likely. I'm excited for this announcement.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Chris, for taking time to comment. I know you have previously mentioned your ties to the St. George area. My dad grew up there as well. There are a great many places within the boundaries of the Washington County area within which this temple could be built with plenty of sufficient support for it. I have picked the three most likely locations in my personal considerations, but they are by no means the only three locations. As long as the Church is sufficiently established to support such temples, that is the important factor. I look forward to seeing where this temple will go as well. Thank you, Chris, for taking time to comment, as always.
ReplyDeleteHow about the city of Washington? There has been an awful lot of residential development and new stakes organized in that part of the county. The Church may want to get a foothold in one the new subdivisions to serve the growing membership there. It would also place a temple east of the freeway and closer to the Saints in Hurricane and La Verkin. Just another option to consider!
ReplyDeleteI could see it being constructed on this field across from two meetinghouses on a four-lane road surrounded by two beautiful bluffs.
ReplyDeleteWashington City makes sense as it would split the district almost in half using the freeway as sort of a dividing point. I imagine Saratoga Springs will do a similar thing with the Mount Timpanogas district.
ReplyDeleteThe Meridian temple split the Boise district in half. If I remember right Boise had close to 30 stakes when it split which is where St. George is at (above) even after Cedar City being built. With the big growth in that area the past several years I imagine there will be several more stakes created in that region by the time the new temple is built.
Building a second temple in the same city or in a somewhat close city to an existing temple is becoming more common and something to consider in future predictions. Lima, Manila, Provo, Meridian, South Jordan, and now Washington County #2 are some examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other similar cases. Auckland, Puebla, and even Yuba City could be seen as an example. It makes me wonder what others could be coming. Las Vegas and Dallas have seen growth in recent years and are close to or at the 30 stake range. Sao Paulo may be another possibilty.
Of course temple attendance and use and temple size are important factors which I am not too familiar with. Fun to think about though.
Thank you, Rick and Eric, for your comments above. I am particularly grateful to you, Rick, for doing the work to get your site restored (which will be a great resource again for me in future thoughts I share about temples here and elsewhere) and that you are again able to offer feedback here and on other resources.
ReplyDeleteHonesty compels me to admit that, although my dad grew up (and spent the first 25 years or so of his life) in St. George, except for times when we traveled as a family to see extended family still living there, I didn't pay too much attention to the geography of Southern Utah.
Therefore, I didn't even consider Washington City. I centered my thoughts on looking for a halfway point between St. George and Cedar City. But as we've learned recently, halfway points and even booming growth do not always equate with where a temple is most likely to be built.
I have a specific example of that in mind, based on what happened last year. As some of you long-time readers may recall, prior to the April 2017 General Conference, I was very adamant about advancing the idea that Utah County's next temple would be in my wife's hometown, where, particularly in the area in which her dad owned a large piece of land, that had been sold over to the city and a boom of newly-constructed houses were put on the subdivided plots of land. Others saw Saratoga Springs as a more favorable location, and those who did turned out to be right.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. Did I just try to prove myself right on a point by citing an example in which one of my many theories was proven wrong? I think that's what just happened. Oops! Sorry about that. That said, Washington City may be a better candidate than I may have believed. That city has 3 stakes, as opposed to the 1 or 2 which each of the candidates I mentioned above has. (Just confirmed that via your site, Rick. Thanks again!)
Rick, I had no idea about the plot of land to which you referred above. A picturesque location such as that would surely be a prime spot for the temple. That makes a lot of sense.
Eric, to what you said about how Washington City would split the current St. George district almost in half, I know that a lot of the discussion surrounding the locations which were on my list of prospects for this last General Conference centered on which locations would split the existing current districts in half. I believe Salvador did that same thing with two of the existing Brazilian temples, but I'd have to refer back to previous comments or my notes on that to be sure.
The argument that a second temple built in the same city or general locale can split a temple district in half was part of my rationale for downsizing the prospects I listed for the Central America Area to just a second temple for Guatemala City Guatemala. Someone living and working in Guatemala who was familiar with the situation of the Church in Central America said that a second Guatemala City Temple was more likely than the other locations I had previously listed for that area.
And of course, given that so many of the 12 announced temple locations were on my list, that means that, for next April, I may have to transfer locations from my other two lists to the main list. There are certainly a wide variety of factors going into the likelihood and imminence whereby any location will get a temple, and I am not sure that the factors I use in determining the locations that make my list are the most significant ones. That said, it appears that some part of my process must be working, because I definitely had more success this last General Conference with the locations on my list vs. what was announced than I previously had.
Of course, the credit for that goes mostly to the thoughtful feedback shared here on this blog by those who read (and respond to) such thoughts. More often than not, someone points out something I have overlooked, failed to consider, or have not taken as seriously as I probably should. That is one of many reasons why I share my thoughts here: If someone does mention something that turns out to change my thinking or the process whereby I mold what I share here, it is always worth the time and effort taken to go back and redo previous analysis.
To that end, I want to thank you both again for your comments on the Washington County Temple. Given what you both said above, Washington City does make sense, and should have been considered in my analysis above. I am perfectly content to adapt what I said above and concur that Washington City does seem to be a viable and really likely prospect, and that it may even be the top candidate city for that temple. Thanks again to you both for the insights. I appreciate hearing from you.