Hello again, everyone! As I mentioned almost 2 weeks ago, when the First Presidency announced the Women's Session for the April 2022 General Conference, my initial predictions were blown out of the water. Since then, I have reasoned that, if my theory is correct, the determination to hold a women's session was made because this General Conference will come just over two weeks after the 180th anniversary of the establishement of the Relief Society organization. So what might that mean for this General Conference?
I'm not entirely sure. Any patterns that previously prevailed in the process of rotating speakers in General Conference have literally been blown to smithereens by each of the now-8 markedly-different General Conferences held under President Nelson's dynamic leadership. While there are some patterns, there is also a high degree of unpredictability for each one going forward.
As I've mentioned in other settings, the different focus of each Saturday Evening Session of General Conference adds even further to the complex process. But for me, admittedly, that also makes it all the more exciting to try and analyze, theorize, and present something even close to what actually happens every six months. Where possible, I have picked up on some factors that have been of assistance to me in crafting the last few versions of those predictions.
With just under 6 weeks remaining until the April 2022 General Conference, I am pleased to present for your perusal my updated predictions for that conference. Those predictions consist of 3 parts: the potential speaker lineup, the potential changes in general Church leadership (which includes my estimated figures for the Statistical Report), and the usual extensive list of the most likely locations for which a temple could be announced in April.
As I metnioned recently on the Church Growth Blog, Elder Kevin S. Hamilton, who serves as the Executive Director of the Family History Department, presided at my stake conference in December, where he noted that the Church has over 300 temples in various phases. With a total of 265 now, that means the Church could be looking at announcing at least 35 new temples this year.
I consider it more likely that we will see a smaller number of temples in April, with a larger number announced in October, to give us that total of at least 35 new ones. As a final note on these revised predictions, I am not including footnotes or endnotes on them this time around.If there is anything in these predictions about which any of you have questions, I'd be happy to address those as they come.
The commenting period on them remains active through 10:00 PM on Wednesday March 30, which I hope will give me enough time to update and post a final version before the conference officially starts. I look forward to hearing your feedback. In the meantime, 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.
I hope any of you who would like to share anything will take your opportunity to “sound off” in the comments below. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly added content, please feel free to subscribe. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
I would have to say my top picks are:
ReplyDeleteUlaanbaatar, Mongolia
Trelew, Argentina
Punta Arenas, Peru
Wellington, New Zealand
Glasgow, Scotland
Abuja, Nigeria
Durango, Mexico
Curaba, Brazil
Prince George, Alberta
Bakersfield, CA
Evanston, WY
Wichita, KS
Flagstaff, AZ
El Paso, TX or Las Cruces, NM
Spanish Fork, UT
Hurricane, UT
Tremonton, UT
Fairbanks, AK
With this going on, there won't be any forward movement on the Russia temple any time soon.
Kenny, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Curiosity question for you on your list: Did you mean Punta Arenas Chile rather than Peru? There is a Punta Arenas planned community in the city of Talara Peru, but since you specified Punta Arenas as the location for the temple, I was wondering if you were referring to the Chilean city.
DeleteAlso, what is the rationale behind your prioritizing Glasgow over the capital city of Edinburgh for Scotland's first temple? With the possible current exception of Russia, for which no specific city has been named yet, the other 5 European nations which have had temples annnounced (Cape Verde, Hungary, Norway, Belgium, and Austria) have all had their first temples announced in each of their capital cities. If there is a reason that Glasgow should be prioritized over Edinburgh, I''d like to know about that. My understanding was that the Church acquired land for such a prospect in Edinburgh, and I've not heard anything similar about Glasgow, so I'm curious.
Thanks for your mention of Durango. That Mexican city was on my list for the last 2-3 General Conferences. I eliminated it from my cuurrent list for reasons I can''t remember at the moment. But based on the distance involved, I never should have removed that. Back on my list it goes. Was your prediction for Curaba Brazil based on the unanticipated announcement of a temple for Vitoria last time? Is Curaba a region that could be well-served by one of the smaller temples?
Similarly, I'm curious as to your reasoning about Prince George Alberta. Insofar as I have been able to ascertain, there is only one chapel in that area, wherein only 2 wards meet. With the Lethbridge area now having four independently-operating stakes, I'd think that's far more likely. Unless you meant Prince George British Columbia, which would make sense distance-wise.
Prince George BC may get a temple, but I've prioritized Victoria based on feedback from someone who lives in that area, who demostrated to me that the horseshoe-shaped drive required to get from Victoria to Vancouver presented an undue hardship for the Saints in that area. That said, I'd welcome any insight you have on this as well.
And of course, I agree with most of your US choices. I might prioritize Mapleton over Spanish Fork. Based on what I'm hearing, it might not be too long before both Herriman and Lehi have temples announced, so I gave them priority this time around. Hurricane's a solid pick, and might be the best location for the third temple in Washington County. I'd be interested in your reasoning on Tremonton. I'd not heard anything about that prospect before you noted it. Thanks for any additional details you might be able to give me on these questions, and for weighing in to begin with.
It's also worth noting that I'm not entirely convinced the current situation between Russia and Ukraine will have an impact on the timing or manner in which the Russia temple will move forward. Joseph Smith prophesied of this day when he said: "The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."
DeleteAs the Lord also reminds us in D&C 121: "How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down dknowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints."
It has occurred to me in recent days as I've watched the coverage of the Ukraine invasion by Russian troops that perhaps the temple could not move forward until this happened, and that whatever the outcome might be, the current sitation may lead in far shorter order towards the approvals occurring for the Russia temple. I'm not sure why that thought occurred to me, but it's been on my mind a lot this week.
Flagstaff seems unlikely. Although Arizona has a large LDS population, Flagstaff does not and is 2 hours to Snowflake or 2 hours to North Phoenix. Prescott has more stakes including Cottonwood and would take burden from North Phoenix temple which is not as big as Gilbert. Prescott has a larger population base, more growth and more central for the 3 stakes there plus 2 in Flag. That's still a small district. Maybe in 10 years when Prescott Valley adds 2 more stakes. Flagstaff limits growth because of the city government. Lake Havasu probably stay in LasVegas district.
DeleteThank you for weighing in with your thoughts here. I know that on paper, a lot of locations on my list might not make sense. But given the fact that we have a prophet who has done the unexpected with temples, I feel relatively confident in saying that Flagstaff and Queen Creek are the two most likely Arizona cities to have temples announced next. I am fully aware there are literally hundreds of candidates worldwide, and that not everyone sees eye-to-eye on whether one prospect is more likely than the other. I guess in 72 hours, we'll know how accurate my suggestions were or were not this time around. That being said, I have Prescott on my watchlist for the near future (5 years or less), and I've been known to be wrong about quite a few temple prospects in the past. That being said, thanks for weighing in. I wish I knew who left that comment above so I could thank them personally.
DeleteOne thing that surprised me on your list was a 3rd temple for Taiwan. The 2nd temple just got announced last conference.
ReplyDeleteThe comment about the church had 300 temples in different phases makes me wonder, COVID and construction and announcement phases, so 35 more than we know of or a different thought? 300 temples in announcement and construction phases, or not dedicated yet phases, which would mean 300-95=205 temples they are working on? Just a thought.
Kenny, thanks for weighing in on that question as well here. We know that President Nelson has announced temples for similar regions elsewhere in the world in back-to-back General Conferences. Examples of this are Salta and Mendoza Argentina and Cagayan de Oro and Davao Philippines. Similar regions, but announced in back-to-back General Conferences. With Taichung, it is about equally distant from its' currently-assigned Taipei temple as it will be from kaohsiung, so the main rationale there is the arduous journey either way. It could be that Taichung will get a temple, but not as immediately as I currently feel it might happen. But for someone who has made clear he wants to remove undue hardship from the Saints' ability to get to the temple, Taichung seems to be a logical location.
DeleteI believe, though I can't swear to it, that when Elder Hamilton referenced "more than 300 temples in various phaxes", he meant those in planning, under construction, or in operation. But we do know that, from other threads on the Church Growth Blog, the Church may be looking to dedicate 70 temples in the next 5 years or so. In either case, we are in unprecedented circumstances. Thanks again, Kenny.
I finally had time to go back and look at things. Yes, BC for Prince George, I didn't follow the state line correctly.
ReplyDeletePunta Arenas is in Chile, Southern tip, a distance issue. It could serve that city and Rio Grande in Argentina.
Glasgow has two stakes closer together (Paisley), Edinburgh has one.
Tremonton is on the other side of the mountains, along I15. There are 5 stakes there. I realize, it's not that far from Brigham City, but still separated.
I was looking more at areas that are separated from local temples. I don't have access to details about how busy certain temples are, so saying an area needs a second or third temple is not my forte.
I think I covered all your questions. If not, let me know. I was trying to limit my numbers, that was 18 temples. I have other thoughts as well.
Hobart, Australia
Osaka, Japan
Las Palmas, Spain
Barcelona, Spain
East London, South Africa
Lome, Togo
Lehi, Utah
San Jose, CA
Kingston, Jamaica
Acapulco, Mexico
Kenny, I apologize for my delayed acknowledgement of your comment here. I had a situation this week that needed to be addressed on this blog, so this is the first opportunity I have today to respond to your comment. Thanks for clarifying your previous mention of Prince George and Punta Arenas. The earlier comment from that Canadian Church member leads me to continue to support Victoria over Prince George, but I'd encourage you to keep your preferred city on your list this time. I think Chile is likely due for 2-3 temples in the next 3-5 General Conferences or so.
DeleteI wasn't aware that Glasgow had two stakes to Edinburgh's 1. As I noted, the last several European temples have been announced for a nation's capital city, and I believe I heard the Church has land in Edinburgh, but I'd have to find out if I'm correct on that. But I know that Beira was prioritized over capital city Maputo for Mozambique's first temple, so the Church could opt to prioritize Glasgow. I'll stick with Edinburgh myself, but would be elated wherever the first temple in Scotland is built. Thanks for explaining more about Tremonton. I'll keep my eyes open on that prospect.
As far as the "smaller temple" locations you shared, I've had a temple for Ipswich Australia on my watchlist for a while, but Hobart might make sense. I agree on Osaka and Barcelona and may have to do more study on Las Palmas. Might be a little too early for a fourth South African temple, but East London is as good a place as any. Lome Togo is one on my radar for the future, whether sooner or more distant, which also applies to San Jose. I think temples in Lehi, Kingston, and Acapulco are also highly probable and can't wait to see how soon that might happen. Thanks again, Kenny. I appreciate hearing from you.