Help Needed: Determining the Order in Which the Apostles will Speak Next Conference

Hello. Since my blog is getting more traffic now, I wanted to enlist the help of my readers in deciding something: my prediction for the order in which the apostles will speak. Ordinarily, it's an easy choice for me. But I have come up with two possibilities, and I can't decide which would be better.

Some preliminary information. I will include two copies of the table I use to track when each apostle last spoke in each of the five general sessions.

Key to abbreviations used in the charts:
SAM=Saturday Morning
SAA=Saturday Afternoon
SPH=Priesthood
SUM=Sunday Morning
SUA=Sunday Afternoon
70 Pres=Presidency of the Seventy
PB=Presiding Bishopric
1stQof70=First Quorum of the Seventy

In the charts below, the month and year each apostle spoke in each session is listed, if known. When it happens that one of the three new apostles have not spoken as an apostle in that session of general conference, the month and year of when they last did so, along with the position held at the time, will be listed. The prediction shows simple addition as well, which I also like to do. When the numerical order of each apostle matches the number order they are, that notation will have an asterisk next to it. I have also added the apostolic order number to the speaking order number and have listed each time the result is odd or even. I will now post each individual chart, along with some brief commentary.

Scenario #1

	SAM	SAA	SPH	SUM	SUA
Nelson	Oct 2012	Apr 2014*	Apr 2016	Oct 2015	Apr 2015
Oaks	Apr 2015	Oct 2015	Apr 2014	Oct 2013*	Apr 2016
Ballard	Oct 2015	Apr 2016	Apr 2015	Apr 2014	Oct 2014*
Hales	Oct 2013*	Oct 2015	Apr 2013	Oct 2014	Apr 2016
Holland	Apr 2014*	Oct 2015	Oct 2011	Apr 2015	Apr 2016
Bednar	Oct 2013	Apr 2016	Apr 2012	Apr 2014*	Oct 2015
Cook	Oct 2015	Apr 2015*	Oct 2014	Apr 2016	Oct 2013
Christofferson	Oct 2014	Apr 2015*	Oct 2012	Apr 2016	Oct 2015
Andersen	Apr 2014	Apr 2016	Oct 2015	Apr 2013	Apr 2015*
Rasband	Apr 2014 (70 Pres)	Apr 2016	Apr 2010 (70 Pres)	Oct 2015	Oct 2000 (1stQof70)*
Stevenson	Apr 2016	N/A*	Oct 2012 (PB)	Oct 2015	Apr 2009 (1stQof70)
Renlund	Apr 2016	Apr 2015 (1stQof70)	N/A*	Oct 2015	Oct 2009 (1stQof70)

Scenario #1 Results

Nelson	SAA1	SAM	Hales (4 is 1)
Oaks	SUM2		Holland (5 is 2)
Ballard	SUA3	SAA	Nelson (1 is 3)
Hales	SAM1		Stevenson (11 is 4)
Holland	SAM2		Cook (7 is 5)
Bednar	SUM1		Christofferson (8 is 6)
Cook	SAA3	SPH	Renlund (12 is 7)
Christofferson	SAA4	SUM	Bednar (6 is 8)
Andersen	SUA2		Oaks (2 is 9)
Rasband	SUA1	SUA	Rasband (10 is 10)*
Stevenson	SAA2		Andersen (9 is 11)
Renlund	SPH		Ballard (3 is 12)

When adding the number of the apostle who spoke to the apostolic number they are (seniority order) they are, is the resulting figure odd or even?

Odd: 6

Even: 6

I favor this scenario for a variety of reasons: It is very unusual to have someone go more than 2 years without speaking in the Saturday Afternoon Session, which is Nelson's situation. I think it would also be good to have the new apostles begin speaking in the Priesthood Session, as none of them have done so since they were called in October 2015. I love that with this one, it isn't hard to picture it happening. And I love that this one has the three new apsotles spread out. Note also on the Sunday Morning session: Last time Elder Oaks spoke in that session, he was the first apostle to do so. When Elder Bednar last spoke in the Sunday Morning session, he was the second speaker. I also love in this one that the odd and even numbers are equal. Note for above: It is not necessary for more senior apostles speaking in a session to be assigned before their junior counterparts. That will become important for the next scenario.

Scenario #2

	SAM	SAA	SPH	SUM	SUA
Nelson	Oct 2012*	Apr 2014	Apr 2016	Oct 2015	Apr 2015
Oaks	Apr 2015	Oct 2015	Apr 2014	Oct 2013*	Apr 2016
Ballard	Oct 2015	Apr 2016	Apr 2015	Apr 2014	Oct 2014*
Hales	Oct 2013*	Oct 2015	Apr 2013	Oct 2014	Apr 2016
Holland	Apr 2014	Oct 2015	Oct 2011*	Apr 2015	Apr 2016
Bednar	Oct 2013	Apr 2016	Apr 2012	Apr 2014*	Oct 2015
Cook	Oct 2015	Apr 2015*	Oct 2014	Apr 2016	Oct 2013
Christofferson	Oct 2014	Apr 2015*	Oct 2012	Apr 2016	Oct 2015
Andersen	Apr 2014	Apr 2016	Oct 2015	Apr 2013	Apr 2015*
Rasband	Apr 2014 (70 Pres)	Apr 2016	Apr 2010 (70 Pres)	Oct 2015	Oct 2000 (1stQof70)*
Stevenson	Apr 2016	N/A*	Oct 2012 (PB)	Oct 2015	Apr 2009 (1stQof70)
Renlund	Apr 2016	Apr 2015 (1stQof70)*	N/A	Oct 2015	Oct 2009 (1stQof70)

Scenario #2 Results

Nelson	SAM2	SAM	Hales (4 is 1)
Oaks	SUM1		Nelson (1 is 2)
Ballard	SUA2	SAA	Stevenson (11 is 3)
Hales	SAM1		Renlund (12 is 4)
Holland	SPH		Cook (7 is 5)
Bednar	SUM2		Christofferson (8 is 6)
Cook	SAA3	SPH	Holland (5 is 3)
Christofferson	SAA4	SUM	Oaks (2 is 8)
Andersen	SUA3		Bednar (6 is 9)
Rasband	SUA1	SUA	Rasband (10 is 10)*
Stevenson	SAA1		Ballard (3 is 11)
Renlund	SAA2		Andersen (9 is 12)

When adding the number of the apostle who spoke to the number representing the order in which they are, is the resulting figure odd or even?       
Odd: 4

Even: 8

It is not unusual to have such a disparity between the even and odd numbered speakers. I favor this one because it allows apostles who have not spoken recently tin a session to do so. It would make sense if Elders Stevenson and Renlund both spoke in the Saturday Afternoon Session. I like that President Nelson, who hasn't spoken in the Saturday Morning Session for four years, will get a chance to do so sooner this way. On the Sunday morning session, I like that they are speaking in seniority order. As we saw last Sunday afternoon session, that wasn't in order (Hales, Oaks, Holland), so I like how this one breaks up Rasband and Andersen. Plus, last time Andersen spoke in the Sunday afternoon session, he was the second speaker, and things rarely happen the same way twice. It would also be good to have some more time before any of the new apostles speak in the priesthood session. As you can see, most apostles (Oaks, Ballard, Hales, Bednar, Cook, Christofferson, Andersen, Rasband, Stevenson) only changed slightly from where they were in either prediction.

Note for above on the Saturday morning session: In both scenarios, I have Hales speaking first. Ordinarily, when a President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speaks, he is the first in the session to do so. Obviously there are exceptions. But with Hales's health reportedly not well, it would give Hales a reason for speaking before his quorum president, as it is also not uncommon for a quorum president to be the last apostolic speaker in a session.

Finally, I could see either prediction as a very feasible option. But I've babbled on enough. What do you guys think? Any and all comments are welcome.

Nations and cities which seem ripe for a temple announcement--Part 3

There has been so much good feedback on this list that I have revisited it for a third time. I'm finding that with each edit, my list gets better. And of course, I would never want to stop anyone from contributing feedback that would help me make this list even better. I give thanks to those attentive readers for sharing knowledge that I didn't have. This feedback has helped me fine-tune this list over the last several days. That being said, here's the newest version of this list. Let me know what you think.

1. Managua Nicaragua Temple (proposed in 2012 by Elder Russell M. Nelson; note that Nicaragua is the nation with the strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)
2. Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby; note that Papua New Guinea is the nation with the second strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)
3. Puerto Rico (San Juan; note that Puerto Rico is the nation with the third strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase
4. Russia (Moscow or St. Petersburg; the Church seems to really be expanding in Russia; note that Russia is the nation with the fourth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)
5. Kiribati (Tarawa; note that Kiribati is the nation with the fifth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)
6. Sierra Leone (Freetown; may be announced soon due to extensive Church growth in Africa; note that Sierra Leone is the nation with the sixth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)
7. American Samoa (Pago Pago; note that American Samoa is the nation with the seventh strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)

8. Uganda (Kampala; may be announced soon due to extensive Church growth in Africa; note that Uganda is the nation with the eighth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)

9. Cambodia (Phnom Penh; please note that Cambodia is the nation with the ninth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase; I favor this location because my brother-in-law served his mission there)
10. Nairobi Kenya Temple (proposed in 1998 by President Gordon B. Hinckley; note that Kenya is the nation with the tenth strongest LDS presence that doesn't have a temple in any phase)

11. Bentonville Arkansas (According to my team leader at work who served a mission in that region and who follows Church milestones there religiously (pun intended), a lot for a temple has already been purchased there and an announcement of that temple will happen when Church growth warrants it. How soon that will be remains to be seen.)
12. Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple (proposed in 2005 by President Gordon B. Hinckley)

13. Czech Republic (Ostrava; I’m sure President Uchtdorf would love to see a temple in his homeland)
14. Montana (Missoula; identified by Elder David A. Bednar as a potential temple site)
15. Lehi Utah (I favor this location because my wife grew up there and it seems to be expanding at an astonishing rate, including the LDS presence)

16. Austria (Vienna; I favor this location because my wife served her mission there)
17. South Dakota (Rapid City; I favor this location because my dad served his mission there)

18. Bolivia (La Paz; I favor La Paz because my favorite bishop, a close friend, served his mission there. He shared a little bit of Bolivian culture with our ward during his service as bishop because, in addition to giving each returning missionary their plaque, at the conclusion of their service, he also gave them a Bolivian abrasso)

19. Spain (Malaga; I favor this site because a good friend served her mission there)
20. Indonesia (Jakarta; a site I favor because a good friend served his mission there)
21. Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar; a site I favor because a good friend served his mission there)
22 Wyoming (Cody or Gillette; as either one makes more sense for a potential temple than Cheyenne)

23. Nigeria (Lagos; may be announced soon due to extensive Church growth in Africa)  

24. Idaho (Pocatello; the one major city in Idaho that does not already have a temple)
25. Tooele Utah (a somewhat overlooked site that makes sense)

26. Heber Utah  (could be a dark horse choice, as it would be unexpected but needed)

27. Ireland (It was brought to my attention that Ireland or Scotland would be a good location for a temple. Of the two, I think Ireland is more likely, though it's another dark horse candidate.)

28. New Zealand (Auckland; another dark horse candidate)
29. Norway (Oslo; another dark horse choice)

30. Guatemala (Guatemala City)

31. Mexico (Mexico City)

32. Chile (Santiago)

33. Argentina (Buenos Aires)
34. Brazil (Sao Paulo)

Please note that the last five temples listed above would come about if and when the need arose for a second temple in any or all of these cities. These may be more or less likely than some of the other temples above, but a second temple in the same city has only occurred 3 times: twice in Utah and once in Peru. That being said, it could be something we see more of as time goes on.

As always, feedback is welcome, appreciated, and needed, with future edits to come as necessary in the future. In the meantime, if at any point any other possibilities are made apparent and I haven't acknowledged them, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Thanks.

Redone List of cities that are most likely to get a temple in the near future (based on data from the LDS Church Growth Blog and the LDS Church Temples Website)

Because I'm somewhat of a perfectionist (but only in certain ways; also slightly obsessive/compulsive, but that's a detail better discussed at a later time) and there were so many problems with the formatting of the list I previously posted, and because new information has come to light, I am redoing the list of locations that are most likely to get either a first or, in several cases, a second temple. To revisit the comments on the previous list, please see this link,

1.      New Dehli India (proposed in 1992 by Elder Neal A. Maxwell)

2.      Vilnius Lithuania Temple (proposed in 1993 by Elder M. Russell Ballard

3.      Nairobi Kenya Temple (proposed in 1998 by President Gordon B. Hinckley

4.      Maracaibo Venezuela Temple (proposed in 1999 by President Gordon B. Hinckley)

5.      Singapore Temple (proposed in 2000 by President Gordon B. Hinckley)

6.      Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple (proposed in 2005 by President Gordon B. Hinckley)

7.      Managua Nicaragua Temple (proposed in 2012 by Elder Russell M. Nelson)

8.      Kasai Region Democratic Republic of the Congo (proposed in 2016 by Elder Neil L. Andersen)

9.      Lehi Utah (I favor this location because my wife grew up there and it seems to be expanding at an astonishing rate, including the LDS presence)

10.  Layton Utah

11.  Orem Utah (I favor this location because it's my current city of residence)

12.  Taylorsville Utah

13.  Sandy Utah

14.  Tooele, Utah

15.  Bentonville Arkansas (According to my team leader at work, such a temple lot has already been purchased and an announcement of that temple seems to be imminent)

16.  Virginia (Richmond or Buena Vista)

17.  Kansas (Wichita or Topeka)

18.  Sierra Leone (Freetown; may be announced due to extreme Church growth in Africa)

19.  Uganda (Kampala; may be announced due to extreme growth in Africa)

20.  Cambodia (Phnom Penh; I favor this location because my brother-in-law served his mission there)

21.  Wyoming (Cheyenne or Evanson)

22.  South Dakota (Rapid City; I favor this location because my dad served his mission there)

23.  Bolivia (Santa Cruz or La Paz; of the two, I favor La Paz because my favorite bishop, a close friend, served his mission there. He brought a little bit of Bolivia with him during his service as bishop because, in addition to giving each returning missionary their plaque, at the conclusion of their service, he also gave them a Bolivian abrasso )

24.  Arizona (Safford or Thatcher)

25.  Texas (Katy or Austin)

26.  Nigeria (Lagos or Benin City; is likely due to growth in Africa)

27.  Idaho (Pocatello)

28.  Philippines (Quezon City)

29.  England (Birmingham)

30.  Spain (Barcelona or Malaga)

31.  California (San Bernardino)

32.  Guatemala (Guatemala City; 2nd temple; very likely due to growth in Guatemala and the reported temple activity)

33.  Mexico (Mexico City; 2nd temple; very likely due to growth in Mexico and the reported temple activity)

34.  Chile (Santiago; 2nd temple; very likely due to growth in Chile and the reported temple activity)

35.  Argentina (Buenos Aires; 2nd temple; very likely due to growth in Argentina and the reported temple activity)
NOTE: The following potential temples were added to my list after it was brought to my attention that I missed some important information.
36. Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby or Daru)
37. Puerto Rico (San Juan)
38. Russia (Moscow or St. Petersburg)
39. Kiribati (Tarawa)
40. American Samoa (Pago Pago)
41. Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar)
42. Czech Republic (Ostrava)
43. Brazil (Belo Horizonte or Brasillia)
44. Austria (Vienna; I favor this location because my wife served her mission there)
45. Samoa (Savaii or Upolu)
46. Scotland or Ireland

More may be added to this list over the weekend as I search more diligently. Then if I feel the list is too cumbersome, I will cut back the less likely.
Thoughts?