Stokes Sounds Off: April 2019 General Conference Predictions Results: Part Three—Temple Predictions Results/Overall Results

Search This Blog

Monday, May 6, 2019

April 2019 General Conference Predictions Results: Part Three—Temple Predictions Results/Overall Results

Hello again, everyone! I am back to share the final part of the results of my April 2019 General Conference predictions. All that remains is to pass along another copy of the list of locations I put together, those that were announced, how that compared to those that were actuallly announced, and the overal score and percentage of accuracy on the predictions overall. Let's get right into all of that. In order to not disturb the flow of that information, I will end here and now as I always do:

That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time, as long as such comments are made in accordance with the established guidelines. 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.


Temple predictions: At least 12 new temples announced for any of the following locations[1]:

Africa Southeast[2]: Antananarivo Madagascar; Second DR Congo Temple (in Mbuji-Mayi or Lubumbashi); Maputo Mozambique; Kampala Uganda; Cape Town South Africa
Africa West[3]: Freetown Sierra Leone; Kumasi Ghana; Monrovia Liberia; Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast; Benin City Nigeria
Asia[4]: Ulaanbaatar Mongolia; Jakarta Indonesia; Singapore; Taichung Taiwan; Hanoi Vietnam
Asia North[5]: Osaka Japan
Brazil[6]: Belo Horizonte, Florianopolis, João Pessoa, or Ribeirão Preto Brazil
Caribbean: Kingston Jamaica[7]
Central America[8]: Coban Guatemala; San Pedro Sula Honduras
Europe[9]: Budapest Hungary; Edinburgh Scotland; Vienna Austria; Oslo Norway
Europe East[10]: Vilnius Lithuania
Mexico: Torreon or Queretaro Mexico[11]
Middle East/Africa North: Dubai or Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates[12]
Pacific[13]: Port Moresby Papua New Guinea; Tarawa Kiribati; Pago Pago American Samoa; Neiafu Vava'u Tonga; Savaii Samoa; Christchurch New Zealand
Philippines[14]: Tacloban, Bacolod, or Angeles Philippines
South America Northwest[15]: Santa Cruz or La Paz Bolivia; Iquitos or Cusco Peru; Cali or Medellin Colombia
South America South[16]: Antofagasta or Valparaiso Chile; Santa Fe, Rosario, or Neuquen Argentina; Ciudad del Este Paraguay

North America (including the United States and Canada) [17]:
Canada[18]: Victoria British Columbia; Lethbridge Alberta
North America Central[19]: Missoula Montana; Pueblo or Colorado Springs Colorado; Wichita Kansas; Green Bay Wisconsin; Des Moines Iowa; Rapid City South Dakota
North America Northeast[20]: Cleveland Ohio; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; East Brunswick New Jersey; Augusta Maine; Montpelier Vermont
North America Northwest: Fairbanks Alaska[21]
North America Southeast[22]: Jackson Mississippi; Shreveport Louisiana; Jacksonville Florida; Knoxville Tennessee; Savannah Georgia; Charlotte North Carolina
North America Southwest[23]: Bentonville Arkansas; Fort Worth Texas; Las Cruces New Mexico; Flagstaff or Queen Creek Arizona; Elko or Ely Nevada
North America West: Bakersfield California[24]
Utah[25]: Herriman Utah; Evanston Wyoming or Preston Idaho; Tooele Utah; Heber City Utah; Washington County Utah (Third Temple)

Result: Temples were announced for the following locations: Pago Pago American Samoa; Okinawa City Okinawa (may be called the Okinawa Japan Temple); Neiafu Tonga; Tooele Valley Utah; Moses Lake Washington; San Pedro Sula Honduras; Antofagasta Chile; Budapest Hungary

Predictions Results:136 /198=68.69%




[1]Some have offered their opinion that, with 19 new temples announced last year alone (which has resulted in a current backlog of 27 temples, though 3 others have a groundbreaking scheduled to occur roughly one month after this conference), no new temples may be announced this go-round. While I understand (and appreciate) the rationale behind such comments, from what others and I myself have directly or indirectly heard, President Nelson may unveil his temple expansion plans during this conference. Whether he does or not, the locations below (grouped by area, then by likelihood within that area) represent the most likely locations in which I feel such temples may be announced during this conference.
[2]The Africa Southeast Area has experienced significant Church growth. With 1 dedicated temple in the area currently, there are 2 under construction (1 of which will be dedicated the week after conference, with the other anticipated to follow in 4-6 months), and 2 others announced (both of which have had sites procured, and could therefore have a groundbreaking either later this year or early next year), I have found 5 other potential locations which may get a temple in the near future. Most of these candidates are based on the mileage to the current temple(s), travel rigor, or oversized temple districts. Additionally, Uganda, Madagascar, and Mozambique are fifth, seventh, and ninth respectively on the list of top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that do not have a temple in any phase. Madagascar is my top pick for this area. And in reference to a second DR Congo Temple, I have personally favored Lubumbashi, but a recent report on the Church growth blog pointed to the idea that a temple in Mbuji-Mayi might be more imminently needed, so I have prioritized that pick.
[3]The same factors I referenced above in previously (about significant Church growth, the mileage and rigors involved, and temple district sizes) also applies to the Africa West Area, as reflected by the five candidate cities listed here. With only 2 temples currently operating, one more other construction, and one announced, the Church growth blog noted recently that West Africa could have at least 13 operating temples by 2030. There are a couple of big differences, though. Only two of the five candidates do not have a temple in any phase. The two are Sierra Leone and Liberia, which rank as the second and sixth respectively on the aforementioned top ten list.  Sierra Leone is my top pick for this area. And while it may be difficult to know how soon a second Ivory Coast temple and a third Nigerian temple may be announced, I have felt confident enough in my picks to justify their selection.
[4]The Asian Saints, whose ability to practice their faith has been somewhat limited at times by governmental regulations, are nonetheless very faithful, as evidenced by recent temple announcements for that continent. With the Hong Kong and Taipei temples serving the Saints currently, the one in Bangkok is under construction, and two others have been announced for Bengaluru and Phnom Penh. The factors first mentioned in previously above also apply to the Asia Area, which is the largest geographically in the Church. Of the locations listed, Mongolia is my favored pick, since that nation is eighth on the aforementioned top ten list. Also, President Hinckley publicly proposed a temple in Singapore, and Vietnam is a dark-horse pick that I included based on reports of Church growth in the area.
[5]The Asia North Area of the Church has seen some stagnated growth, to the point where some have suggested that that area could be merged with the Asia Area. While I understand the thinking behind that, and while I would not be surprised if such a merge occurs in the near future, I have evaluated the area and seen at least one prospective location where a temple could be built, with the main reasoning being the factors previously mentioned in previously.
[6]Brazil has been a Church stronghold for a while now. With six temples currently in operation, both the Fortaleza and Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temples will be dedicated within the next year, during which time the Brasilia Brazil Temple is likely to have a groundbreaking occur. With two other temples (Belem and Salvador) awaiting a site announcement and groundbreaking, some may feel that more Brazilian temples may be delayed. But my research indicates that, due to the factors mentioned in previously, these cities are the next most likely locations to have a temple announced. I personally favor Belo Horizonte, but would be happy if any or all of these cities have a temple announced this go-round.
[7]This city is another dark-horse pick, but is on the list due to the factors mentioned in previously, but also due to someone suggesting it elsewhere. And given what President Nelson has done in terms of the 19 temples he announced last year, Kingston could be another location for a smaller temple. 
[8]A Church member living and working in the Central America Area kindly informed me that a second temple to serve the current Guatemala City temple district is the most imminent prospect for the future in this area. As I studied that opinion, I concurred with him that Coban would likely be the next Central American city in which a temple will be announced. But I also feel (based on general consensus and according to my research) that a San Pedro Sula temple may be on the horizon sooner rather than later, so both cities are listed.
[9]The situation of Saints living on the European continent is somewhat interesting. Where there are centers of strength, significant growth has occurred. But in many European nations, the Church has experienced some stagnated growth, which has necessitated discontinuing some congregations in order to strengthen others within the last year or two. But due to the factors I mentioned previously, it appears likely that most (if not all) of the candidate cities that follow in this section could get a temple, even if only a smaller one.  
[10]This area of the Church has also experienced stagnated growth to the point that some have suggested that the Church could consolidate it into the Europe Area. Additionally, although President Nelson boldly announced a temple in April of last year for a major yet-to-be-determined city in Russia, the political and religious oppression existing in that nation makes it hard to know how soon that temple will be built. With that in mind, a temple in Vilnius makes a lot of sense. And that is especially true given the public proposal for such a temple which was made by then-Elder M. Russell Ballard in May 1993. Although Elder Ballard noted that prospect might not occur for 50 years or so, based on what has been said about President Nelson’s temple expansion plans, the prospect seems imminent enough to include it on my list for now.
[11]The relevant factors in notes 13 and 20 also apply in a way to Mexico (where centers of strength have seen excellent growth in some respects, but in others, massive congregational consolidates have also occurred within the last couple of years. Based on these facts, it may be difficult to know how soon another temple may be announced for Mexico, especially since one was announced for Puebla last October. But the cities of Queretaro and Torreon have been identified by a Church member living in Mexico as likely to get a temple in the near future, so both are on this list.  
[12]As recently as a year ago, if someone had suggested a temple for the Middle East/Africa North Area, I would have dismissed it as an impossibility. But within the last year, we have seen President Nelson announce temples for areas which I felt would not get a temple for 15-20 years, and with that in mind, a temple in this area seems feasible, if only a smaller one. Although the bulk of Church membership in this area is comprised of military personnel, the United Arab Emirates represent a stronghold of the Church in this area. And with that in mind, a smaller temple in either of the two most populous cities in the UAE (Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively), feels like it may be more practical than I would have believed this time last year.
[13]The Pacific area is another stronghold of Church growth. With 10 temples currently operating there (and one other announced), it seems logical to assume that other temples will be needed to serve the area. Most (if not all) of the factors I mentioned previously apply equally to this area. Additionally, New Guinea, Kiribati, and American Samoa are ranked first, third, and fourth respectively on the aforementioned top ten list of nations. So I have no doubt the Pacific Area will see temples announced in each of these cities within the next decade, if not sooner.
[14]The Church has two operating temples in the Philippines (Manila and Cebu City). The temple announced in October 2010 for Urdaneta had a groundbreaking ceremony in January. And with the last 3 sets of temple announcements, the Philippines has seen temples announced for the greater Manila area (which will be located in Muntinlupa City), Cagayan de Oro, and Davao. If that is any indication of what might happen in the future, then other temples may be needed for the Philippines, and the cities mentioned here seem to have the best likelihood.
[15]The entire South American continent has experienced massive Church growth. Having previously discussed Brazil, in reference to the South America Northwest Area, I wanted to observe that there are 7 operating temples there. 1 more is currently under construction in Arequipa Peru (for which a dedication is anticipated before the end of this year) Two others have been announced: the Lima Peru Los Olivos and Quito Ecuador Temples, both of which could have a groundbreaking within the next 2-3 years, though hopefully sooner if all goes well. And while I have personally-favored candidates here, a second temple in Bolivia may be the most imminent prospect. For Bolivia and Colombia, I have listed two potential locations each due to my inability to narrow those down to one.  
[16]The South America South Area has likewise seen very significant and rapidly expanding growth. So again, with President Nelson’s extensive temple-building plans in mind, I have considered the most imminent prospects for future temples in this area, and the factors mentioned in previous notes hold true here as well. Currently, this area of the Church is served by 6 operating temples (1 of which is closed for renovation), and there were 2 more announced for this area last year. With that in mind, the 5 locations listed in this section seem to have the strongest case in their favor of a temple announced in the near future. And for Argentina and Chile, I list two cities each because the sets for each nation are about even in terms of their likelihood.  
[17]Although the North American continent (primarily in the United States) has seen somewhat of a stagnating growth situation, in light of the recent increased mentions of President Nelson’s ambitious temple-building plans, the likelihood is extremely high that the US and Canada will be included in whatever the plans are to expand the number of temples worldwide. The locations listed below represent what I believe are the most imminent prospects for each of the now-8 North American areas of the Church.
[18]For purposes of simplification, I have chosen to list my temple candidates for Canada in a separate section from those elsewhere in the United States. So the North American areas listed below will not include these Canadian candidate cities. Of the two, Lethbridge may be more of a long shot. But Victoria has been mentioned to me as a prospect due to the cost and arduous nature of the journey to worship at the Vancouver British Columbia Temple.  
[19]As mentioned in previous notes, on the one hand, it may be difficult (if not impossible) to gauge the imminent likelihood of any locations. But as also mentioned, in view of some of the relevant factors, I can see the merits of each location listed here. Particularly, I heard a report of a public proposal of a temple for Missoula Montana. Pueblo made the list due to a report I received of high attendance numbers at the Denver Colorado Temple. For Kansas, Iowa, and South Dakota, mileage is the main factor driving my choices, and a temple (if only a smaller one) seems likely for all three states in the near future. A temple in Iowa could be named for Mount Pisgah, a significant landmark in the pioneer history of the Church.
[20]Given the steady growth of the Church in Ohio and Pennsylvania, second temples for each seem to be likely sooner rather than later. And New Jersey, Maine, and Vermont may each be eligible for a temple of their own given the distance factor, and the rigors of travel involved in getting to their currently assigned temples.
[21]The Saints in both Fairbanks and Juneau have an arduously lengthy journey to get to their assigned temple in Anchorage. While both may have equal merits in terms of their eligibility for a temple of their own, my research shows Fairbanks may be first in line for such a prospect. But I would anticipate temples in both cities within the next 5-15 years, if not sooner.
[22]Since the Saints in Jackson currently have an arduous journey to get to their assigned temple, it is my opinion that a temple will be announced in that city sooner rather than later. And an arduous journey also factors in to my reasoning for temples in Shreveport, Jacksonville, Knoxville, and Savannah. If, as I anticipate, President Nelson plans to prioritize the mileage factor and also filling in the gaps that exist in temple district coverage, then any or all of these may simply be a matter of time.
[23]Things are a little tricky for this area of the Church. Given that the Saints assigned to the districts of temples over the Mexican border might possibly have a harder time accessing those temples in the future, some have offered very specific opinions about the merits of some of the candidate cities which are listed here. But I am basing my theories on the potential location of an Arkansas temple on information from a friend indicating that land has been held in reserve in that city for a temple for several years now. And I am basing my picks for temples in Texas and New Mexico on the opinion of someone living within the current Dallas Texas Temple district. This individual noted that Fort Worth would almost certainly be the next Texas city to get a temple. So if border issues arise, those could be ameliorated by a temple in Las Cruces, which would likely also cover El Paso for the time being. Arizona and Nevada both fall under the “Mormon corridor”, and I have heard that Flagstaff may well be the most likely Arizona city to get a temple. Both Elko and Ely have arduous journeys to their assigned temples in Utah, so It seems to be just a matter of time before one (or both) of them get a temple of their own, and I feel the next Nevada temple location is too close to call.
[24]With a temple announced last October for Yuba City, a temple in Bakersfield might potentially be delayed, but however long it might take, I am reasonably confident that that city will be the next one in California to get a temple of its’ own, as I have been anticipating such a prospect for almost as long as I have been offering my thoughts on future temple locations.  
[25]A temple site was publicly mentioned as being held in reserve in April 2005 for a temple in the Southwest Salt Lake Valley. Though no official confirmation has occurred, if my research is correct, the land in question has been the subject of a border dispute between Herriman and Bluffdale cities, but is currently owned by the city of Herriman. For Heber City, Tooele, Preston, and Evanston, they all seem to have an equal likelihood of having a temple announced in the near future. And Elder Steven E. Snow, who was born in Washington County, recently told the Saints there at a stake conference that someone from the Temple Department had indicated to him that a third Washington County temple would be needed in the not-too-distant future. For these reasons, I couldn’t narrow any of these selections down, at least not for the moment.

9 comments:

  1. James,

    I'm curious as to what metrics you are using to calculate your success. I see that many were correct (American Samoa, Honduras, etc), but I'm curious as to how you are calculating the 136/198.

    Thanks!

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  2. A suggestion that may make the predictions pop out more in your blog - when one of your predictions is correct, bold that one so in the list we can see it? I had to compare what was actually announced vs. predictions by looking at actual and finding the prediction up above it. Bolding it will help it stand out. What do you think?

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Michael! Those are excellent questions. Let me explain how that works. For every conducting or speaking slot in General Conference, every change in Church leadership, every statistical factor on the annual report, and every temple location announced, I calculate accuracy on a 3-point scale. 3 points in the speaking order means I had the right speaker in the right slot in the right session (which also applies to those conducting each session, leading the sustaining, the audit report, etc..), that I was correct in prediction a Church leadership change or statistical number, or had the correct temple location exactly.

      I award myself 2 points for every time I had a speaker in the right session but the wrong position in that session, or if I was in the ballpark of accuracy in the Church leadership changes or statistical numbers, or if I had the right general location for a temple but the wrong specific one (a temple announced for Okinawa City would fall under that category, since that city is part of Japan, but I had Osaka on my list rather than Okinawa).

      Scoring any slot as a 1 occurs in cases where I correctly predicted that an individual would speak at all during General Conference, but I didn't have them in the correct session. If projected Church leadership changes or statistical numbers were not necessarily incorrect, but closer to incorrect than correct, or if I had an announced temple location on one of my other two lists but not included on my list for the General Conference in which it was announced. And complete surprises, such as someone I didn't anticipate speaking who actually did so, or where an unanticipated change in Church leadership or statistical figure was announced, or a temple was announced for a location which was not on any of the lists I keep, that would be a 0 score in such cases.

      So with 3 points possible per slot, I multiply the number of possible correct answers by 3, which becomes the maximum number of points I'd be eligible for on these predictions. After individually scoring each slot, I add the numbers up and divide it by the maximum total possible, which gives me my overall accuracy percentage. Typically, my predictions have hovered around 60-80% every time. This is the first time I found myself above that average. Hope that information is helpful to you.

      As to your suggestion of how to help differentiate between correct and incorrect results, I will give that some thought. Perhaps I could put my 3-point answers in bold text, 2 points in italics, and 1 point in underline, or use a color scheme to differentiate. Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, hope this explanation helped to explain my process, and, as always, thank you, Michael, for taking time to comment.

      Delete
  3. Just in, got this off a Facebook group for family history consultants, a news story about the plans being filed with the county for the Richmond Temple, it will be in the adjacent county since Richmond is an 'independent city' there. The rendering pictured is Pocatello since the Richmond one will be of a similar size.

    https://richmondbizsense.com/2019/03/27/plans-filed-52000-square-foot-mormon-temple-complex-henrico/?fbclid=IwAR0OLFg3MYcVatgnTO93E7rLlGDd6sXDCS_dkDg6CCDwqBtLA6SaxS4BtPQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, James Anderson. It was good to read the article you shared above. That provided a non-Church take on this news, which seems to be embraced by the community. I had learned of the submittal of those preliminary plans from the Church Temples site, which shared on that date the following official release from the Newsroom:

      https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/preliminary-plans-released-first-temple-virginia

      Since I am unsure of the timing of the newsroom release vs. the newspaper article publication, it may be a case of "which came first?" At any rate, what I know about the Richmond Virginia Temple currently has me convinced that it will be the second-to-next temple to have a groundbreaking announced. I am anticipating that the Brasilia Brazil Temple will be the very next one to have a groundbreaking announced. It would not surprise me at all if we saw both of those temples have a groundbreaking by or before the end of September. It will surely be interesting to see what happens there. Thank you again, James Anderson, for sharing that newspaper article and for taking time to comment. It is always wonderful to see how such news impacts people outside the Church, and I thought the article was very well-written.

      Delete
  4. Speaking of changes, and specifically relating to temples:

    Couples Married Civilly Now Authorized for Immediate Temple Marriage
    New policy sets single global standard
    https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multi...age-Letter.pdf

    The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Monday that a civil marriage between a man and a woman will no longer necessitate waiting a year for that couple to be to married (or sealed) in a temple. The change means Latter-day Saint couples can look forward to a temple marriage as soon as their circumstances permit.
    The new policy sets a single global standard for Latter-day Saints around the world. The Church has observed this practice for many years in more than half of the countries where the worldwide faith resides. In those countries, couples are required by law to marry civilly first.
    “Where possible, leaders should encourage couples to be both married and sealed in the temple,” says a First Presidency letter to Church leaders around the world. “Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized.” The First Presidency also stated, “This change in policy should not be interpreted as lessening the emphasis on the temple sealing. The sealing of a husband and wife in the temple is of eternal significance and a crowning experience on the covenant path.”

    Church spokeswoman Irene Caso, who is from Madrid, Spain, shared her excitement and personal experience related to this new policy. “In 2005, my husband and I were married. We had a beautiful civil ceremony on the afternoon of December 15 at a city hall. Later that day, in a more private setting, we were sealed in the Madrid Spain Temple. After going to the temple, we all celebrated with music and dance. Most of my immediate family and friends are not members of our faith, so it was especially meaningful for us to have them witness our civil union and help them feel included in the festivities of the day. These changes announced today will bring the same happy and memorable experience to many families throughout the Church.”
    The Church asks that these civil marriage ceremonies be simple and dignified. Couples may use chapels owned by the Church for these ceremonies. Regardless of location, the temple sealing should be the central focus of the marriage and provide the spiritual basis on which the couple begins life together.

    Newly baptized Latter-day Saints will continue to wait a year from the date of their confirmation to be married in a temple. This aligns with the Church’s long-standing policy of allowing new converts to gain a greater understanding of their faith which includes learning about the sacredness of a temple and the sacraments, or ordinances, that take place in temples.
    During that year, new members are encouraged to obtain a limited-use temple recommend that allows them to serve in a temple baptistry. The Church also encourages new members to learn about their ancestors and gather their names for temple service.

    https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...emple-marriage

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello again, Michael! I saw that news around an hour ago. If all goes well, I will plan on having full analysis of this news published at some point later today on this blog. I think it will be a very positive development. My mom, a South African native, particularly reiterated that that practice is common outside the US, so it makes sense the First Presidency would implement it on a worldwide scale. Thanks again.

      Delete
  5. This will align the policy with other countries and make it the same worldwide. I think it was the same in this country several decades ago. Where the couple would have to travel far to get to the nearest temple. In some cases several days drive. It is better to be married when traveling together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Chris! That is a well-taken observation. I received a text earlier today from my mom about this news, and as she observed, this mostly affects the United States, where a year's wait was necessary before today. I know that adjustments of this kind have previously been implemented in Africa, many areas of South America, and other nations around the world.

      With that in mind, perhaps the most significant thing about this change is that it is yet another step the Brethren have taken to unify, streamline, and standardize policies and pracitices on a Church-wide basis. I have referenced before how different nations of the world may be considered as being in different phases of Church history. But in the early days of the Church, which began with small numbers, it was easy to unify the Church, since it was only located in a few places in roughly close proximity. One of the challenges which I know we have heard the Brethren address before is how to make Church programs, policies, and procedures work worldwide based on the fact that there are different laws and regulations in various parts of the world that the Church has had to allow for.

      So such matters are clearly being extensively studied. Overall, I think that President Nelson's prophetic administration, and the decisions that have come therefrom since January 2018, can, in essence, be boiled down to three main focuses: emphasis on the importance of temple worship, reducing and simplifying the gospel to preserve it in its' purity, and for the purpose of unifying the Church on a global scale.

      But above and beyond that, we have had yet another manifestation of just how much the Lord is guiding the day-to-day decisions in the church. President Nelson continues to be fearless in declaring how much of the actions he has taken have been inspired by the Lord. And that is wonderful to see. With all of that in mind, I look forward to seeing what else may be ahead for the Church. Thanks, as always, for taking time to comment, Chris. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

      Delete

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.