Hello again, everyone! Before I post a birthday tribute to President Eyring (which should be published on this blog at some point within the next 12 hours, but hopefully sooner if all goes well), I wanted to note the completion of my revision to the list of prospective locations for which a temple may be announced during the next General Conference, and in sharing this revised list, I have also completed my mini-series of posts on the alterations I have made to my predictions for the October 2019 General Conference.
I have made the adjustments to this list after additional extensive research on my part which has enabled me to trim down the prospects somewhat. While there are many areas of the Church for which I could not narrow down my picks to the single most-likely location, where I could narrow that down, I have done so. I have also eliminated prospects which, upon further research, do not seem as imminently likely as they appeared to be when I posted the
initial version of this list 10 days ago.
So the updated version of this list includes all the revisions and adjustments I felt I could make, which included updating the relevant notes, where applicable. I have mentioned before that since we sustain each current apostle as prophets, seers, and revelators, and particularly since we additionally sustain the prophet as President of the Church, those 15 men deliberate and plan for the more distant future of the Church, as well as for the immediate future.
And if we take the accounts of President Nelson's energy, stamina, and capabilities in a lteral sense (with all reports indicating he is planning, deliberating, acting, and ministering as one who is biologically 20-30 years younger than his almost-95 years of age), then it seems to be all but certain that President Nelson will, as Elder Andersen expressed during the April 2018 General Conference, be around for the next decade or two.
If that winds up happening, then, as I also noted before, the ten-fold increase may more than likely be accomplished over a more extended period of time, and may be the end result, rather than an immediate destination on the way to something even more significant. But that thought should not dampen or temper our enthusiasm for however many new temples are announced every six months.
With that in mind, I stand by my feeling that President Nelson will continue to announce temples every six months in General Conference for the foreseeable future, but I also now believe that the announcement of temples outside of General Conference may be temporarily deferred, so that the focus can be on clearing the backlog and keeping it at around roughly 30 temples, as that intent has previously been indicated. I also fully believe that the number of temples which may be announced in October will be a total of somewhere between 12 and 16.
Having noted all of this, the updated list of locations and the appropriate annotated references follows below. An open commenting period continues to be in effect until the Monday prior to General Conference, unless there is a large number of changes which I wind up making, in which case it will be extended to 36 hours prior to the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference (exactly 10:00 PM MDT on the Thursday night prior to General Conference weekend).
In order to not disturb the flow of this list and the subsequent notes that follow, 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: 12-16 new temples announced for any of
the f1ollowing 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; Benin City Nigeria;
Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast
Asia[4]:
Ulaanbaatar Mongolia; Jakarta Indonesia; Singapore; Taichung Taiwan
Brazil[5]:
Belo Horizonte, Florianopolis, Ribeirão Preto Brazil
Caribbean: Kingston
Jamaica[6]
Central America[7]:
Coban Guatemala
Europe[8]:
Edinburgh Scotland; Oslo Norway; Vienna Austria
Mexico: Torreon Mexico[9]
Middle East/Africa North: Abu
Dhabi United Arab Emirates[10]
Pacific[11]:
Port Moresby Papua New Guinea; Tarawa Kiribati; Savaii Samoa
Philippines[12]:
Tacloban Philippines
South America Northwest[13]:
Santa Cruz Bolivia; Iquitos Peru; Cali Colombia
South America South[14]: Bahia
Blanca Argentina; Viña del Mar Chile; Ciudad del Este Paraguay
North America (including
the United States and Canada) [15]:
North America Central[16]:
Missoula Montana; Wichita Kansas; Green Bay Wisconsin; Des Moines Iowa; Colorado
Springs Colorado
North America Northeast[17]: East
Brunswick New Jersey; Cleveland Ohio; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; Augusta Maine
North America Southeast[18]:
Jackson Mississippi; Shreveport Louisiana; Savannah Georgia; Charlotte North
Carolina; Jacksonville Florida; Knoxville Tennessee
North America Southwest[19]:
Bentonville Arkansas; Fort Worth Texas; Las Cruces New Mexico; Queen Creek
Arizona; Elko Nevada
North America West[20]: Victoria
British Columbia; Fairbanks Alaska; Bakersfield California
Utah[21]:
Herriman Utah; Evanston Wyoming or Preston Idaho; Heber Valley Utah; Washington
County Utah (Third Temple)
[1]Although some have offered
their opinions that the record-breaking 27 new temples announced by President
Nelson within his first 3 General Conferences as Church Pres
`ident will result in no new temples
being announced during this General Conference, much more has been said
recently by apostles, other Church leaders, and those privy to such information
regarding President Nelson’s plans to expand the number of temples. With that
in mind, I believe at least as many temples as I have suggested here may be
announced, though it could be more. I also believe that the expansion of the
number of temples will be done with wisdom, order, and common sense, which may
mean that President Nelson might not explain his plans for the near future, and
instead focus on gradually implementing them with the end result in mind that
the number of temples will include a ten-fold increase. The locations named
below seem to be the most likely to be announced during this conference, based
on the reasons I will detail in subsequent notes.
[2]The Africa Southeast Area
has experienced significant Church growth. With 2 dedicated temples in the area
currently, there is 1 other under construction, and 2 more announced (both of
which have had sites procured, and could therefore have a groundbreaking within
the next year), I have found 6 other potential locations which may get a temple
in the near future. Most of these candidates are on the list based on either the
mileage to the current temple(s), travel rigor, or oversized temple districts.
Additionally, Uganda, Mozambique, and Madagascar are fourth, sixth, and seventh
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 both are on
this list. For some of these locations which are in political, moral, or other
turmoil, the temples mentioned could provide a welcome refuge.
[3]The
same factors I referenced in note #6 above (about significant Church growth,
the mileage and rigors involved, and temple district sizes) also applies to the
Africa West Area, as reflected by the 5 candidate cities listed here. With only
2 temples currently operating, 1 more other construction, and 1 which has been 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, however,
between this area and the Africa Southeast Area. Only two of the five candidate
locations in this area do not have a temple in any phase. The two are Sierra
Leone and Liberia, which rank as the second and fifth 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 these picks to include them here..
[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 previous notes 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]Brazil
has been a Church stronghold for a while now. With seven temples currently in
operation, the Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temple will be dedicated within the next
4-8 months, 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
prior notes (primarily the distances involved), 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 in the
near future.
[6]This city is another
dark-horse pick, but is on the list due to the factors mentioned previously,
and also because someone suggested it elsewhere. And given what President Nelson
has done in terms of the 27 temples he has announced thus far, Kingston could
be another location for a smaller temple. I say that because the Kingston
Jamaica Saints travel 298 miles one-way overseas to worship at their assigned
temple (in Port-au-Prince Haiti, which was dedicated 5 weeks before this
General Conference). Given President Nelson’s attention to remote areas, it
seems more likely than not that a temple in Jamaica may be in the works for
either the immediate or near future.
[7]I have previously
referenced information on the prospect of a temple for Coban Guatemala which I
received from someone living and working in that area. And given that President
Nelson visited Guatemala around 5 weeks before this General Conference, I feel
more convinced than ever that a temple there is merely a matter of time.
[8]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.
[9]Mexico presents an
interesting anomaly. With some significant growth in areas of strength, the
mass consolidation of units in that nation continues. A temple was announced in
Puebla last October, and it is difficult to know how soon another temple may be
announced for that nation. 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 were on this list. But due to the announcement last
October of a temple in Puebla, which will take away from the current Mexico
City district, I have chosen to prioritize Torreon this go-round.
[10]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 3 General
Conferences, 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 or Abu Dhabi respectively), feels like it may be more practical than I
would have believed this time last year.
[11]The Pacific area is
another stronghold of Church growth. With 10 temples currently operating there
(and 3 others 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, and Kiribati are
ranked first and third 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.
[12]The Church has two
operating temples in the Philippines (Manila and Cebu City). The temple
announced in October 2010 for Urdaneta is now under construction, with three
more announced for 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. Of the three prospects I had previously considered,
further study on my part led me to prioritize Tacloban Philippines.
[13]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 will be
held in December). Two others, the Lima Peru Los Olivos and Quito Ecuador
Temples, are both now under construction. And while I have personally-favored
candidates here, a second temple in Bolivia may be the most imminent prospect.
Having previously listed two locations each for Bolivia and Colombia, I have
narrowed things down to the single most likely city in each nation.
[14]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, and President Nelson’s recent Latin American ministry in
mind, I have narrowed the prospects in this area down to the top 3 most likely
locations.
[15]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-6 North
American areas of the Church.
[16]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. Colorado Springs made the list due to a report I received of high
attendance numbers at the Denver Colorado Temple. For Kansas, Wisconsin, and
Iowa, 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. And a temple
in Iowa could be named for Mount Pisgah, a significant landmark in the pioneer
history of the Church.
[17]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 and Maine 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.
[18]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.
[19]For this area of the
Church, the Saints in some cities currently assigned to temples across the
Mexican border may, depending on what happens in the future, have a hard time
reaching those temples. With that said, 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 for a temple in Bentonville 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 city in Texas 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 prioritized Queen Creek due to recent growth in that city. And based
on my analysis of the arduous journies the Saints in Elko and Ely undergo to
their assigned temples in Utah, I have prioritized Elko this go-round, though
it would also not surprise me if another Las Vegas area temple were to be
announced soon.
[20]With this area having been
consolidated in August of this year with the North America Northwest Area,
there are a total of 3 locations for which I feel a temple announcement is most
likely. Victoria was mentioned by name to me by someone living there, who
reports the hardship of rigorous travel and the expense involved, which makes a
temple a feasible prospect. Fairbanks is one of two Alaskan cities for which I
anticipate a temple will be announced in the near future (the other being
Juneau), but my research shows the former as being the more imminent prospect.
And although there has recently been some stagnant growth in California,
Bakersfield has been on my radar for a variety of reasons, many of which have
been explained in previous notes.
[21]Since one new temple has
been announced in the Utah Area of the Church within each of the last four sets
of announcements, more are surely in the works. Particularly, 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, 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.
Gracias por tus informes siempre tan dedicados, completos y de interés.
ReplyDeletePara aquellos que aún tienen fé y un testimonio en la Iglesia es vital tener templos más cerca, en el caso puntual de mi país Chile, en Viña del Mar sería ideal como más al norte de Chile en Antofagasta o Iquique y más al sur en Valdivia o Punta Arenas.
Omar Valenzuela E
Santiago de Chile
Omar, thank you for taking time to share your thoughts. For those of us who aren't familiar with or fluent in Spanish, I have run Omar's comment through Google Translate. The rough translation of that comment is as follows:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your reports, always so dedicated, complete and interesting. For those who still have faith and a testimony in the Church it is vital to have temples closer, in the specific case of my country Chile, in Viña del Mar it would be ideal as more to the north of Chile in Antofagasta or Iquique and further south in Valdivia or Punta Arenas."
And in response to that comment, I wanted to mention that i will be interested to see which Chilean cities are covered by the newest Chilean temple, which is going to be built in Antofagasta, as President Nelson mentioned in General Conference around 7 weeks or so ago. I have heard Punta Arenas mentioned a time or two as a solid Chilean propsect, but the metrics I have used on the list above point to the notion that Vina del Mar is likely going to be the next Chilean city to get a temple. I believe there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of locations which may, in due course, have a temple in their midst. My task was to use the metrics I had found to be most helpful to determine the most likely locations that could or will have a temple announced in the very next General Conference (October 1019.) So I will keep the other cities mentioned by name in your comment on one of my other two lists for the near or more distant future, Omar. And in the meantime, thank you so much for taking time to comment. It is wonderful to know there is someone in Chile who is interested in what I have to say here. Thanks again.
There is only one stake in Las Cruces, New Mexico. There are three stakes in El Paso, Texas. There will be a temple in El Paso long before one is built in Las Cruces.
ReplyDeleteMany members in El Paso serve in the military at Fort Bliss. There is even a Fort Bliss military ward. Service members are not allowed to cross the border to attend the Ciudad Juarez Temple. The closest temple for them is Albuquerque, an eight-hour round trip journey.
We need a temple in El Paso.
Hello, David, and thank you for taking time to comment. I had a couple of thoughts on your observations above. First of all, given the precedent set by the announcement of temples in Winnipeg Manitoba and Yigo Guam (both of which will be built to serve just one stake each for now, and both of which are smaller), any city having one stake doesn't automatically make it ineligible for a temple, especially perhaps a smaller one in the molds of what we saw recently for Yigo Guam, Praia Cabo Verde, and San Juan Puerto Rico.
DeleteSecondly, as I observed in my footnotes above, someone living in the current Dallas Texas Temple district and has familiarity with the levels of activity in at least two of the three other temples in Texas due to his connections mentioned to me that the Dallas Texas Temple is the busiest one in the state at this point, that another temple to split that current district would be needed, and that the best spot for it would be Fort Worth. He further noted that based on the information he had, a temple in Fort Worth would be the priority above and beyond any other candidate.
So going off of those assertions, if the next Texas Temple is built in Fort Worth, the question of what to do in terms of border issues, particularly for the military personnel, comes into play. And Las Cruces, due to that city's ability to serve nearby communities as well, would serve El Paso for the time being. Based on these facts, I have prioritized Fort Worth and Las Cruces.
I know why some are saying that prioritizing Fort Worth and Las Cruces may not be the best or most prudent choice, but I also know that Matt noted recently that not one of the 8 locations for which President Nelson announced a temple were on his list that he published prior to General Conference. I had the good fortune of having roughly 6 out of the 8 announced locations pinned down to the exact city, and I had predicted a temple for Japan, just not for Okinawa City.
Based on my analysis of the 27 new temples announced by President Nelson between his ordination and now, it is plain that some degree of unconventional or non-traditional thinking may be needed in terms of temple location projections. That said, I am not dismissing El Paso as a temple prospect. I fully believe that once a Fort Worth Texas Temple is announced, the next priority for Texas will be El Paso. In the interim, I hope this explanation has helped explain my rationale relating to Texas and New Mexico. Thank you for taking time to make this comment. I will pass along additional feedback on your thoughts below.
I should also perhaps have mentioned in my comment above that, while the Church could see instances within the next 3-5 years or so where more than one temple is simultaneously announced for any state within the United States or any nation, territory or province outside the United States, I have not seen anything to indicate that such will be the case for the more immediate future. With that in mind, I have restricted my US choices (except within the "Mormon corridor") to one per state, especially since, within the last 4 sets of temple announcements, there have only been 2-3 US cities among those announced. So if Fort Worth winds up being given priority within the next 2-3 General Conferences, if that means a temple in El Paso is deferred for the moment, one in Las Cruces could be the best way to resolve the issues you described. Of course, that is just my own imperfect view on this matter, for what it may be worth to you. My answer to your other comment will be posted in a few minutes. In the meantime, thanks again for the feedback.
DeleteHi, James. Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed replies regarding my proposal for an El Paso Texas Temple. Here are a few more thoughts in return:
Delete• Winnipeg Manitoba, Yigo Guam, Praia Cabo Verde, and San Juan Puerto Rico are hundreds, if not thousands of miles, away from the next closest temple. They are receiving temples to ameliorate the hardships and expense of travel, not based on number of stakes or number of active members.
• Las Cruces New Mexico is only 52 miles from the Ciudad Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple and 233 miles from the Albuquerque New Mexico Temple, to which temple district the Las Cruces New Mexico Stake is assigned. A new temple will not be built in such close proximity to other temples without the local branches, wards, and stakes to support it and to justify it. In my opinion, a temple in Las Cruces New Mexico is decades away.
• While one stake is headquartered in Las Cruces New Mexico and three stakes are headquartered in El Paso Texas, there are only four wards in Las Cruces, but 19 wards and two branches in El Paso, more than five times as many congregations. The next temple in west Texas needs to go in El Paso. We certainly have the membership to run it and to support it.
• Fort Bliss is located in El Paso. There are hundreds of Church members who serve in the military. None of them are allowed to cross the U.S.-Mexico border to work in or attend the temple in Juárez. The closest temple for them is in Albuquerque, an eight-hour roundtrip drive that consumes an entire day. There is no such military base or similar need in Las Cruces.
• Many members of the Church do not feel comfortable driving to Juárez to attend the temple due to safety reasons. When we do drive to the temple in Juárez, it can take anywhere from one to four hours to cross back into the U.S. due to the shortage of immigration and customs agents at the border. Some in El Paso cannot go to the temple in Juárez due to lack of passport or due to residency and/or visa issues. A member of my elders' quorum presidency falls into this category, as do many others.
• While El Paso is in the same state as Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio; we are far removed from all those cities. Here are the respective mileages from El Paso: Fort Worth, 594 miles; Dallas Temple, 641 miles; Austin, 576 miles; Houston Temple, 753 miles; San Antonio Temple, 546 miles. You can see that the number of temples in Texas (four so far) is not relevant to El Paso's distant location in the most western corner of the state.
For these reasons, El Paso is desperate for a new temple; Las Cruces not so much. Surely, you would not have 21 congregations of members drive an hour north from El Paso to Las Cruces. It would be better for the wards and branches of the Las Cruces stake to drive the hour to El Paso.
Hello, David. I saw your most recent comments not longer after they were made, but was not able to respond before now. Thank you for dialouging with me on these questions. I hope my responses continue to be helpful. This go-round, right off the bat, I wanted to note that I appreciate the points you shared, which were all well-taken and extremely valid. And if I were to weigh the merits of a temple in El Paso vs. one in Las Cruces solely on their own, the clearly logical choice would, as you noted, be El Paso, not just for the reasons you stated, but for a variety of others as well.
DeleteHaving said that, when I share a list like the one above, for most areas of the Church within which I have multiple candidates listed, I have to weigh a variety of factors against what I know and what I don't know, include allowances for any insights shared by others that cast a different light on the thoughts I offer, and also factor in anything unexpected.
It was through that process that I come up with these lists in every prior General Conference. And my results speak for themselves. When I first started keeping a list of temple prospects, my thought process, analysis, and resulting predictions did not account for as much as the more recent lists do. I was more than a little surprised that, for the first time that I can recall, none of the 8 locations which had a temple announced last April were on Matt's list, while I correctly predicted 6 of the 8 exact locations (which is actually 6.5 or 7 out of 8 if counting my correct theory that another Japanese temple would be announced, although I had the specific city incorrect.)
Another thing I considered specifically in relation to my US picks is something I may have mentioned before: Out of the total number of temples announced in each of the last 4 sets of temple announcements, a very small percentage have been for cities within the United States. In April 2017, 2 of the 5 were for US cities. The following April, 2 out of 7 were for US cities. Last October, only another 2 (or 3, if Puerto Rico's status as a US territory is considered) of the 12 were for US cities. And there were only 2 others announced within the United States this last go-round.
What that means for my list is that I have to strike the best possible balance between giving all of the most immiently-likely US candidate cities every due consideration on the one hand with not allowing my list of US prospects to get too cumbersome. As Matt noted recently on his blog, the US is starting to resume a normalization of Church growth after that was stagnant for the last few years or so. But the US still has a long way to go to permanently reverse that stagnation and to see a normal growth rate come back into play.
DeleteWith that in mind, I believe that US temple candidate cities will continue to be in the minority of those announced, at least for the next half-dozen or so sets of temple announcements. So that led me to conclude that I needed to draw the line somewhere particularly in relation to my personal picks. I know that some have conjeuctured the Church could start simultaneously announcing more than one temple per every state within the US, or nation, territory, province, island, or international Church area outside of it, but I think for the time being, the more prudent approach would be gradually and methodically increasing the overall number of temples in each area.
What that means for my personal analysis of United States possibilities is that I am not comfortable at this time listing more than one prospect per state. So for Texas, I have to weigh in the balance your report of El Paso's need for a temple against the information I received from that individual currently living within the Dallas Texas Temple district, who has also shared insights into the level of activity of 1 or 2 of the other 3 temples currently operating in Texas.
Based on that, my choice is Fort Worth, as there is not only a matter of the level of activity in Dallas, but also of the waiting time involved, in addition to the sacrifices some have reportedly made to make it to Dallas on a semi-regular basis. Such sacrifices, if experienced to the degree I have heard, would not be so much of a factor with a Fort Worth Temple.
At the same time, I cannot ignore the merits of what you said about El Paso. And based on that, I will keep El Paso in mind for a solid second Texas choice, one which could see an announcement within the next 2-3 years maximum, but certainly sooner, if President Nelson continues the way he has. And in reference to Las Cruces, that is more of a dark-horse candidate, which, when solely compared to the merits of an El Paso Temple, would come out losing, except perhaps in regards to the mileage metric. With that said, if I had to narrow my picks in that area of the Church to the final 3, in comparision with the merits of other cities in that same area, Las Cruces likely would not make the cut.
And all of this is, of course, assuming the prospect that the next temples in Texas and New Mexico were even announced at the same time, which would likely not be the case anyways. Additionally, a lot of the long-shot prospects on my list which some may feel are not as meritorious as other locations might be are on the list simply due to the unexpected nature of many of the temples announced by President Nelson so far. Unconvential announcements warrant some degree of unconvetional thinking, so there is that to consider as well.
That said, I would welcome a temple in El Paso if the Lord inspires President Nelson to announce one sooner than I expect might happen, and I would also not be surprised if a second New Mexican temple was built in another city. I compile my thoughts and supporting material to the best of my ability, and welcome the announcement of any new temples anywhere, whether they are on my list or not. Hope these additional thoughts are helpful to you, David, and to all others who read them. Thanks again for dialoguing with me on Texas temple prospects. I appreciate hearing from you.
Your proposed Missoula Montana Temple needs to be built in Butte, Montana. Butte is the crossroads of Interstates 90 and 15. More wards and branches in a new temple district would be closer to Butte than Missoula.
ReplyDeleteHello again, David, and thanks for this additional comment. With my first reply to your last comment, I mentioned that a smaller cluster of congregations may not necessarily eliminate any city from consideration for a temple prospect. In Yigo Guam, only a single ward operates, as part of the larger Barrigada Guam Stake. So I don't think one city having more congregations than another would necessarily result in the city with a higher number of congregations being given preference for a new temple.
DeleteI know that some have considered Butte to be the most llikely candidate city for Montana's second temple. But I have some information which has led me to prioritize Missoula. In 2016, in response to a list of candidate cities for future temples, one of the comments made indicated that Elder Bednar had been the presiding authority at a stake conference in Missoula, and that, while there on assignment, he had publicly proposed a temple for that city. I was subsequently pleased to learn later on of a report from someone familiar with the area that land has been held in reserve for a temple in Missoula for the last several years, if not longer than that. While it is true that land in reserve and/or a public proposal does not necessarily indicate the imminent likelihood that a temple will be built there (as some plots of Church-owned land have been held in reserve for a decade or mroe), given that I have not received word of either land in reserve, a public proposal, or both, for a Butte temple, I am prioritizing Missoula for now. Again, I have been proven wrong before, but based on what I presently know, I am giving priority to Missoula. But based on your excellent feedback, I will put Butte on one of my other two lists. Hope that is satisfactory, and thanks again for stopping by to share your thoughts.
I just checked the Montana map on Cumorah.com. Things have changed since I last researched it. It appears that Missoula Montana is, indeed, a logical place for the next temple in that state.
DeleteDavid, I appreciate you letting me know that. As i said, I heard about Elder Bednar's proposal of a temple in that city in 2016, not long after the stake conference I referenced above. And it was not long after that that I heard about land being held in reserve for a temple there. Perhaps those two factors, among others, are what led Matt and David Stewart to give the priority to Missoula on cumorah.com. But based on those factors, Missoula is my second of the most likely US locations for which a temple may be announced in the near future. The most likely, in my opinion, is Bentonville Arkansas. I know that for the first temple in that particular state, some (incuding Matt) have given Rogers preference, but I have a good friend who, around a decade or so ago, served his mission in Bentonville. During that time, members adivsed him of land having been held in reserve by the Church for several years for a temple in that city, once all the right conditions warranted such an announcement. So if I had to narrow my overall US picks to the top 5, Bentonville would be first, followed by Missoula. Just some additional insights for your consideration, for what they may be worth to you. Thank you again, David, for being willing to dialogue with me on these issues. If you have any other comments on any of the other picks on my list, I'd welcome the chance to chat with you about those as well. Just let me know, and thanks again.
Delete16 next temples:
ReplyDeleteIslands:
Tarawa Atoll 2s,
New Guinea 2s,
Madagascar 2s,
Java 2s.
Drive Times:
193h2m 10s Mbuji-Mayi,
179h57m 9s Freetown,
No Road Access 3s Iquitos,
107h15m 11s Santa Cruz,
101h 2s Abu Dhabi,
83h49m 3s Punta Arenas,
75h52m 2s Ulaanbaatar,
72h14m 9s Maracaibo,
61h4m 9s La Paz.
Capacity:
Sao Paulo 30s Sao Bernardo do Campo,
Buenos Aires 21s N(Pilar),
Guatemala City 18s Central.
Hello, Steven, and thank you for taking time to comment. I apologize for my delay in addressing a response to you. I have not been feeling well within the last few days and have needed to take time to recover. That being said, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on new temples. I had a couple of comments on questions in response. First of all, if 12-16 new temples are announced as I have suggested above, what leads you to believe that none of those announced temples will be for cities within the United States? I know that US temple candidate cities have been in the minority within the last 4 sets of temple announcements, but there have been 2 United States candidates in 3 of the last 4 sets of temple announcements, and there were 3 new US candidates announced last October if Puerto Rico's status as a US territory is considered. So I am somewhat curious as to your reasoning in that respect.
DeleteAlso, I am not able to decipher your abbreviations, which you may have given without context. I am assuming that a single "s" stands for stakes that would be served by a temple, and that a collective listing of abbreviated drive times has "h" standing for "hour", and "m" for "minute", followed by the minimum number of stakes that would be served by a temple, but I wanted to clarify.
Also, if the "Java" to which you are referring is the Indonesian island, it seems more likely to me that a first Indonesian temple would go to the capital city of Jakarta, but that that would occur only after a temple is announced for Mongolia, since any current or future temple to which Mongolia is or will yet be assigned would still present an arduous journey of undue hardship in terms of mileage, travel expense, and accessibility.
Other than that, you seem to have some pretty solid choices, though I might prioritize some of them differently than you have. It may also be worth noting that I have many of these locations on my list above. I also think there are a few different candidates which are feasible for temple candidates that would split the Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Guatemala City Temple districts. Regarding Brazil, there is a high likelihood that the dedication of the Rio de Janeiro Temple and the construction of the Belem, Brasilia, and Salvador Temples will alter the current composition of several of the other 7 currently-operating temples in Brazil, which would only be further divided by any of the 3 locations I have mentioned in my list above, but also through the construction of other temples, including one in the area you suggested. Also, in case you missed this from earlier discussions, I had an earlier comment from a Church member living and working in Guatemala, who mentioned that the next Guatemlan temple would likely be built in Coban, which would help split the current Guatemala City district. And when I was first advised in another comment about the preliminary arrangements for President Nelson's next Ministry Tour, I was advised that the Saints in Bahia Blanca have been lobbying for a temple of their own, and if President Nelson checks out that prospect during the time he is in the Buenos Aires region as part of his tour, a temple announced in that city on October would help split the current district in the capital city.
These are just some insights and questions from me regarding your suggested locations, for what they may be worth. Thank you for both taking time to comment and for providing any insight you may be able to offer on the questions I asked. It is apparent that we are entering new territory in terms of future temple construction, and I have a feeling there is much more to come. Thanks again, Steven.