That does it for now. 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.
Africa Southeast7: Antananarivo Madagascar; Second DR Congo Temple (in Mbuji-Mayi or
Lubumbashi); Maputo Mozambique; Kampala Uganda; Cape Town South Africa
Lubumbashi); Maputo Mozambique; Kampala Uganda; Cape Town South Africa
Africa West8: Bo/Freetown Sierra Leone; Kumasi Ghana; Monrovia Liberia; Benin City Nigeria;
Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast
Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast
Caribbean: Kingston Jamaica12
North America Central23: Missoula Montana; Green Bay Wisconsin; Wichita Kansas; Des Moines Iowa; Pueblo Colorado; Rapid City South Dakota
Augusta Maine
North America Southeast25: Jackson Mississippi; Knoxville Tennessee; Savannah Georgia;
Jacksonville Florida; Charlotte North Carolina Shreveport Louisiana
Jacksonville Florida; Charlotte North Carolina Shreveport Louisiana
North America Southwest26: Bentonville Arkansas; Fort Worth Texas; Las Cruces New Mexico;
Queen Creek Arizona; Elko Nevada
Utah28: Herriman Utah; Evanston Wyoming or Preston Idaho; Heber City Utah; Washington County Utah (Third Temple)Queen Creek Arizona; Elko Nevada
I strongly believe that one of the new temples will be in Cobán, Guatemala. If two were to be announced for Central America the next would be southeast of Guatemala City in Villa Nueva. Patzicia.
ReplyDeletePatzicia, thanks for taking time to comment. I know you have spoken about the likelihood of temples in Coban and Villa Nueva. Given what we have seen from President Nelson in terms of Central American temple prospects thus far, Guatemala will almost certainly be the next nation to have a temple announced. I had hoped that part of President Nelson's time in Guatemala in late August would be spent looking into the next temple prospect there, especially given the size of the current Guatemala City Temple district, but I am unsure whether he may have had time to do so, given the fact that Guatemala was his first stop made on the day that tour began, and that he had left the nation less than 24 hours after arriving there. But I agree that both Coban and Villa Nueva will receive new temples at some point sooner rather than later, and that one or the other will have a temple announced this weekend. I look forward to seeing what happens there and with other temple announcements and anything else which may be coming down the pipeline this weekend. Thanks again, Patzicia, for taking time to comment.
DeleteUlaanbaatar and Tarawa will be excellent temple locations. They are remote and far from the nearest temples.
ReplyDeleteChris, thank you for taking time to comment here as well. I have little to no doubt that Mongolia will be one of the next (if not the very next) Asian nations to have a temple announced, and the fact that that nation was transferred in August from the Asia to the Asia North Area of the Church no doubt added to the rationale for a temple there, since it may now be the single nation in that area with the strongest Church presence that does not yet have a temple in any phase.
DeleteAs for a temple in Kiribati, that too may simply be a matter of time. The biggest questions there are whether a temple in Tarawa would be announced before one is announced in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea (which seems unlikely, given that land has been reportedly held in reserve for the latter for around the last decade or two at least) and whether the fact that Kiribati is reportedly sinking might have an impact on the feasible rationale for building a temple in Tarawa.
That said, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, and Mongolia are now first, third, and eighth on Matt's latest list of the top 10 nations with the strongest Church presence without a temple in any phase. Given that last October, 3 of the temples announced were for nations on the April 2018 version of that top ten list, I think we can count on at least 3 of the temples that will be announced being for nations on the latest edition of that top ten list. I suppose depending on the total number of temples that may be announced, there could be 1-2 more nations on the current top 10 list that will have a temple announced. I am also hoping for temples to be announced in Sierra Leone and Madagascar.
And I have to admit that it may not be out-of-the-question for more than one temple to be announced in a single area of the Church, like we saw last April when two temples were announced for the Pacific Area of the Church. It will be interesting to see what happens there. As always, Chris, thanks again for taking time to comment.
One of my reasons for Mongolia is selfish. That is where my wife is from.
DeleteChris, I believe I recall you mentioning your wife's connections to Mongolia previously. I don't think that's selfish at all. There are several locations on my list due to personal connections I have to members who either live in those cities or who have served missions there. Personal connections may not have much of an impact on how soon temples are announced in such areas, but I do know that President Nelson, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles travel as much as they do so that they can personally witness firsthand the challenges members around the world are facing, and that they in some cases have been commissioned by the prophet to scope out the feasibility of prospective temple candidates and report back to him on whatever they find there. It would not surprise me at all to find out that any of the places visited by any of our apostles within the last several months wind up having a temple announced this weekend.
DeleteMongolia is special to me indirectly as a temple prospect due to a friend from my youth group in my parents' ward having served his mission there around a decade ago. Although we haven't had much occasion or opportunity to chat at any length in recent years, I know that whenever he is asked about Mongolia, he speaks warmly and highly of the faithful Saints there, the friendly people of other faiths, and how much native Mongolian members value the temple. So hopefully that prospect can and will be announced. Thanks again, Chris!
Chris, I believe El Paso, Texas is more like likely than Las Cruces to get a temple given that 1. the City has three stakes whereas Las Cruces has one. 2. El Paso is a larger city and is more of a commercial hub. most members in El Paso, even though in the Ciudad Juarez temple district would not even go but instead they would go to the Gila Valley Albuquerque temples. I see no reason why El Paso can't get one given the fact that Tijauana isn't far from San Diego or that the temples along the Wasatch Front are close to each other, such as Provo, Provo City Center, Mt. Timpanogos. etc. so from what I see, El Paso seems more qualified since it has three stakes.
ReplyDeleteBird-man Pratt, thank you for this comment as well. Although you addressed your above comment to Chris, I will go ahead and reply to it here because it has to do with the candidate cities from my list above. My reasoning for including Las Cruces New Mexico has a lot more to it than just whether El Paso would be more imminent. In a head-to-head contest considering only those two cities for thee most feasible prospect for a temple, the logical choice would be Las Cruces.
DeleteBut this list was also for the purpose of analyzing the most likely prospects in each area, and weighing each such candidate against the other feasible prospects. I have heard a definitive statement from someone living in the current boundaries of the Dallas Texas Temple district. This individual is also familiar with the level of activity in at least 2 of the other 3 temple districts which currently serve Texas. Based on his observations about the level of activity at the Dallas Texas Temple, the next Texas temple that is announced will need to be one to break up that district. And of the prospects for splitting that district, Fort Worth seems to be the logical place for a temple that would accomplish that purpose.
So if that information is correct and Fort Worth is the next Texas city to have a temple announced, that begs the question, what happens if political or safety issues at the Mexican border make it impossible for the El Paso Saints to attend their assigned temple across that border? If I am correct in my theory that no single US state will see two temples announced at once for the foreseeable future (though I anticipate that occurring at some point), then the announcement of a Las Cruces temple would serve the El Paso Saints quite well until they have a temple of their own.
Above and beyond that, however, there are two other elements involved in my choices of Fort Worth and Las Cruces: the public statements about President Nelson's plans indicate that he has used and will continue to use out-of-the-box, unconventional, and even unprecedented reasoning and rationales for the temple prospects he looks at. We have literally dozens of examples of how that kind of thinking has molded the choice of the 27 new temples he has announced in his first 3 General Conferences.
DeleteConnected to that kind of unconventional thinking and reasoning, there have been a few specific examples where a temple was announced in a place that could not have been anticipated. When President Nelson announced a temple in Bengaluru India, many were surprised it was not going to be built in New Delhi, a city in India for which one of the prophet's deceased apostolic colleagues (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) had publicly proposed a temple. Then last October, when Guam's first temple was announced, it was not announced in Guam's capital city (Hagåtña) or in the only city in that nation where the Church has established a stake (Barrigada). In fact, only a single Church congregation operates out of Yigo, where the Guam temple is headquartered. So based on just these two examples (though others could be cited), neither normal lines of logic and reasoning, which might otherwise be sound on their own merits, nor more logically-expected candidate cities which may have a larger number of congregations, may be the best metrics nowadays to use in considering the likely temple prospects.
Of course, I only say this based on my analysis of what has been said by President Nelson, his apostolic colleagues, and his wife about what the Church can expect in terms of future temple announcements. I do not have any connection whatsoever to anyone in the temple department or to any apostles that would give me special qualifications to say with absolute certainty that Las Cruces will be the choice over El Paso for now due to Fort Worth.
What I do know, however, is that my own list for last April's General Conference included the correct exact locations for 6 of the 8 temples that were announced, while I had 1 other with the correct nation but the wrong city, and 1 more location that caught me off guard. And several others who had used normal logic and reasoning seemed to be surprised by most or all of the locations that had a temple announced.
DeleteHaving noted alll of this, I would never try to convince anyone to alter their perceptions on this matter based on my rationales. All I hope is that in this case, my reasoning for prioritizing Fort Worth and Las Cruces over El Paso makes sense with this explanation. I will be just as happy, if not more so, when the Lord proves that His ways and thoughts are higher than mine in this case by prompting President Nelson to announce temples in locations that are not on my personal radar or list of considered candidates as I will be if and when however many are on my list do go on to have a temple announced.
Either way, until I have reason to believe otherwise, I continue to stick to my conclusion that unconventional, out-of-the-box reasoning needs to be a consideration when evaluating temple prospects for the future. And I believe there will come a day when more than one temple will be announced for a single US state in the same set of announcements. But given what has been rightly observed about stagnant (albeit gradually improving) Church growth in the United States in general, I am going on the assumption that only one temple per North American area will be announced at a time for the near future, with multiples only llikely within the "Mormon corridor" (for which some people either exclude or include Texas). And at the end of the day, US temples are going to be in the minority of the total number of temples announced any given General Conference anyways, and if I had to personally prioritize my US picks as a group, both Fort Worth and Las Cruces would be lucky to be in the top 20.
That said, I hope you forgive my lengthy response here, but also that that explains my line of reasoning on those two particular candidates. If the Lord has told President Nelson to announce a temple in El Paso this go-round, I will be just as happy as I will be if temples are annnounced in Forth Worth/Las Cruces. Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts on this. One thing is certain: we will know in less than 48 hours just how inspired (or not) my list this go-round was. Thanks again.
Sorry. In my first reply above about a head-to-head comparison solely between Las Cruces and El Paso, I said the former would be the clear winner. What I meant was that when considering Las Cruces vs. El Paso alone, El Paso would be the clear winner. Just between those two, the rationale supporting the choice of Las Cruces would be slim indeed. But due to the other factors I set out in that first comment and the subsequent ones, if Fort Worth is the next Texas city to get a temple, I'd put the likelihood of Las Cruces getting a temple before one is announced for El Paso. I apologize for any confusion caused by my poor way of wording that previously. Thanks again, Bird-Man Pratt.
DeleteI apologise for the more than one postings, sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteHello, Bird-man Pratt. Thanks for taking time to comment. Please don't worry about the comment duplication. It happens. I have gone ahead and deleted your duplicate comments, along with the ones you deleted yourself, as a housekeeping measure on this blog. I will have more insight into your other comments in another reply in just a few moments. For now, thanks for taking time to comment.
DeleteKirtland, Ohio temple to be restored??
ReplyDeleteButterfly and Bones, the only problem as far as the Kirtland Temple is concerned, is that that temple is no longer owned by the Church. The Community of Christ currently owns it, and doesn't use it solely as a temple. If the Church were able to reacquire ownership of that temple, that would be fabulous, but time alone will tell whether/how soon/if that might be possible. So the Kirtland temple is not one that would need to be "restored", unless that restoration involved transferring that property to the ownership of the Church from the Community of Christ. Could another temple that is owned by the Church and built on Church property rise there? That would depend on whether or not the Church has any land holdings there, which may be information not easily found. Just my two cents on the matter, for what they may be worth. Thanks again, Butterfly and Bones, for taking time to comment.
Delete