So as not to 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. 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.
October 2018 General Conference Predictions[1]
Session
|
Conducting
|
Speakers
|
Saturday Morning[2]
|
President Russell M. Nelson
[President Henry B. Eyring]
|
President Russell M. Nelson
|
[Elder Quentin L. Cook]
|
Elder Terence M. Vinson
|
|
[M. Joseph Brough]
|
Elder David A. Bednar
|
|
[Elder Steven R. Bangerter]
|
Elder Jack N. Gerard
|
|
[Elder Ronald A. Rasband]
|
Elder Gerrit W. Gong
|
|
[Elder David A. Bednar]
|
Elder Walter F. Gonzalez
|
|
[No one]
|
Elder Ronald A. Rasband
|
|
President Dallin H. Oaks
|
||
Saturday Afternoon
|
President Dallin H. Oaks
|
President Henry B. Eyring (Sustaining of Church
Officers)[3]
|
Elder D. Todd Christofferson
|
||
Bishop Dean M. Davies
|
||
Elder Ulisses Soares
|
||
[Elder Gerrit W. Gong]
|
Elder Craig A. Cardon
|
|
[Elder Paul B. Pieper]
|
Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf
|
|
[No one]
|
Elder Juan Pablo Villar
|
|
[Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf]
|
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
|
|
Women’s Session[4]
|
Joy D. Jones
[Jean B. Bingham]
|
Cristina B. Franco [Joy D. Jones]
|
Michelle D. Craig
|
||
[Cristina B. Franco]
|
Jean B. Bingham
|
|
President Henry B. Eyring
|
||
President Dallin H. Oaks
|
||
President Russell M. Nelson
|
||
Sunday Morning
|
President Russell M. Nelson
[President Henry B. Eyring]
|
President Henry B. Eyring
[President M. Russell Ballard]
|
Bonnie H. Cordon
|
||
[Elder Jeffrey R. Holland]
|
Elder Neil L. Andersen
|
|
[Elder Shayne M. Bowen]
|
Elder Robert C. Gay
|
|
[No one]
|
Elder Takashi Wada
|
|
[Elder Neil L. Andersen]
|
Elder Quentin L. Cook
|
|
President Russell M. Nelson
|
||
Sunday Afternoon
|
President Henry B. Eyring
[President Dallin H. Oaks]
|
President M. Russell Ballard
[President Henry B. Eyring]
|
Brian K. Ashton
|
||
[Elder Robert C. Gay]
|
Elder Mathias Held
|
|
[Elder Matthew L. Carpenter]
|
Elder Dale G. Renlund
|
|
[Elder Dale G. Renlund]
|
Elder Scott D. Whiting
|
|
[Elder Jack N. Gerard]
|
Elder Paul B. Pieper
|
|
Elder Gary E. Stevenson
|
||
President Russell M. Nelson
|
Predictions for
Changes in General Church Leadership
General
Authority Seventies: Elder Brook P. Hales sustained as a new General
Authority Seventy and Elders Mervyn B. Arnold, Craig A. Cardon, Larry J. Echo
Hawk, C. Scott Grow, Allan F. Packer, Gregory A. Schwitzer, and Claudio D.
Zivic released and granted emeritus status.
Note: On May 18, 2018,
the Church News reported that Brook P. Hales, who has been serving as
Secretary to the First Presidency, will continue that role, but has been
called to additionally serve as a General Authority Seventy. His call will
likely be presented for sustaining vote. Each of the other seven GA Seventies
mentioned above were born in 1948, and will all have their 70th birthdays
before the end of 2018. While the Church has at times delayed the release of
some GA Seventies for 1-4 years after their 70th birthdays, the last time
something like that occurred was in the early 2000s. It is therefore my
belief that each of the other men listed above will most likely be released.
Result: All of
these changes were presented for sustaining vote.
|
Area Seventies:
Some area seventies released, others called.
Note: In the
past, when some area seventies have been called as mission presidents, they
have retained their area seventy assignments for 1-3 General Conferences
after their assignments begin. In the meantime, those called as temple
presidents have almost always been released. And while area seventies have
been known to serve for longer periods, the general term of service for these
Brethren has been 5-8 years. With that in mind, the following area seventies
may or may not be released:
Newly-called mission presidents: Elders Daniel F. Dunnigan, Tasara Makasi,
Fred A. Parker, and Miguel A. Reyes.
Newly-called temple presidents: Elders B. Sergio Antunes, Joao R. Grahl,
Todd B. Hansen, Daniel W. Jones, Steven O. Laing, Katsuyuki Otahara, and
Wolfgang Pilz
Longest-tenured: Elders Sergio L. Krasnoselsky (who has
served since April 2009), Kevin J. Worthen* (who has served since April
2010), R. Randall Bluth, Hans T. Boom & David J. Thomson (who have served
since April 2011).
*With reference
to Kevin J. Worthen, he is currently serving as president of BYU-Provo, and
as such, may either serve as an area seventy until next April, then perhaps
be called as a General Authority Seventy while continuing his service at BYU,
or may remain an area seventy until the conclusion of his presidential
tenure, however long that may be.
Result: Several
area seventies were released; no new ones were sustained.
|
Temple Predictions: 3+ temples announced, with the most likely
locations (in my opinion), on the list below (grouped first by the geographical
areas of the Church under which these locations fall, then by imminent
likelihood within those areas.
Preliminary note:
With seven temples having been announced last April (the second-highest number
of temples ever announced at once), some have offered their opinion that
perhaps no new temples may be announced during this General Conference. While I
understand the rationale behind that opinion, there have been an increasing
number of references to the fact that President Nelson’s plans to expand the
number of temples worldwide will outpace and overshadow what we previously saw
under President Hinckley’s inspired leadership, which may involve doubling or
tripling the number of temples in the near future. Previous Church Presidents
have indicated that each Church member should be within 200 miles of their
assigned temples. If the plans involve halving or quartering that distance, or
if they are going to unfold within the next 5-10 years or less, no location may
be off the table. With all of that in mind, based on my personal research and
on feedback provided through the comments on my blog, the locations that seem
most likely to have a temple announced in the near future are listed below,
first by the geographical area of the Church under which they fall, then by the
degree of potential likelihood within those areas.
Asia: Ulaanbaatar
Mongolia[13]
Caribbean: San
Juan Puerto Rico[19]
Central America: Guatemala
City (2nd temple)[20]
Pacific: Port
Moresby Papua New Guinea[29];
Auckland New Zealand[30]; Tarawa
Kiribati[31];
Pago Pago American Samoa[32]; Neiafu
Vava'u Tonga[33]
North America[41]
(including the United States and Canada):
Idaho: Preston
Idaho[42]
North America
Central: Missoula Montana[43];
Rapid City South Dakota[44];
Wichita Kansas[45]; Green Bay Wisconsin[46];
Des Moines Iowa[47]; Pueblo Colorado[48]
North America
Northwest: Fairbanks Alaska[51]
North America
Southeast: Jackson Mississippi[52];
Shreveport Louisiana[53]; Jacksonville
Florida[54]; Knoxville
Tennessee[55]
North America
Southwest: Bentonville Arkansas[56];
Elko[57]/Ely[58]
Nevada; Fort Worth Texas[59];
Las Cruces New Mexico[60];
Flagstaff Arizona[61]
North America
West: Bakersfield California[62]
Utah Salt Lake
City: Herriman[63];
Result: The
following 12 new temples were announced, much to my great delight: Mendoza
Argentina; Salvador Brazil; Yuba City California; Phnom Penh Cambodia; Praia
Cape Verde; Yigo Guam; Puebla Mexico; Auckland New Zealand; Lagos Nigeria;
Davao Philippines; San Juan Puerto Rico; and Washington County Utah.
[1]While General Conferences
for the last decade and longer have typically conformed to a general pattern,
there have been at least half a dozen exceptions during that same time, with
the April 2018 General Conference being the most recent exception.
Additionally, last October, the Church announced that the Priesthood and
Women’s Sessions would each be held annually, with the former every April and
the latter every October. For that reason, for the next 2-4 General
Conferences, I will be giving myself a small margin of error while I try to get
a feel for what the new patterns might involve.
[2]As I will discuss in more
detail in “Note 4” below, an assumption is made with these predictions that no
members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will be speaking during the
Women’s Session. If that turns out to be the case, then the Quorum member that
would have otherwise spoken during the Saturday Evening Session will need to be
fit in somewhere else, and that could be done during either the Saturday
Morning or Sunday Afternoon Sessions. Since the previous two General
Conferences have seen 3 Quorum members speak during the Saturday Morning
Session, an assumption is made here that this will again be the case.
[3]Last April, in the first
two sessions of General Conference, President Nelson’s two counselors each led
a portion of what had traditionally been a one-session combined Solemn Assembly
and Sustaining of Church Officers, which makes it difficult to know which of
the two might lead the sustaining vote this go-round. An assumption is made
here that, since President Oaks did a tremendous job presenting the new area
seventies last April that he will continue to do so every April, which would,
by extension, mean that President Eyring will lead the sustaining vote each
October.
[4]It had been tradition for
one of the 3 presidents of the female-led auxiliaries to conduct the Women’s
Session when it rolled around every six months. I am assuming that will
continue to be the case. I am likewise assuming that, since that session is now
being held on General Conference weekend in October that the entire First
Presidency will speak, rather than just one member thereof, and that, aside
from the entire cvFirst Presidency and one representative from each of the
three female-led auxiliaries, no other Church leaders will speak during that
session.
[5]The Church has experienced
substantial growth throughout the African continent, and that applies to this
area of the Church as well. Right now, the only currently-operating temple is
in Johannesburg South Africa. There are 2 additional temples under construction
(in Kinshasa DR Congo and Durban South Africa, both of which will be dedicated
next year) and 2 others announced (in Harare Zimbabwe and Nairobi Kenya, both
of which may have a groundbreaking within the next 2-3 years or less). If the
growth in this area continues as it has, then several other temples may be
needed, with the most likely prospects (in my opinion) and the reasoning behind
each location following in the next several notes.
[6]Madagascar is currently the
last of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that does not
have a temple in any phase. Madagascar is separated by a body of water from the
rest of the African continent, which means that anywhere else an African temple
is now or will be built is difficult for the Madagascar Saints to get to.
Currently, the Saints in Madagascar have a journey of 1,338 miles from the
Johannesburg South Africa Temple. Once the Harare Zimbabwe Temple is built and
dedicated, that distance will be cut to 1,082 miles. Between the great distance
and the difficulty of travel, Madagascar is surely a top contender for a temple
of its’ own.
[7]Right now, the Saints in
Mozambique currently travel 341.5 miles to worship at the Johannesburg South
Africa Temple. No other temple under construction or announced will be any
closer than that. Mozambique already qualifies for a temple based on the
200-mile goal previously referenced. So if that goal is lowered at all, the
imminence of such a prospect may be just a matter of time.
[8]The Church in the Africa
West Area has also experienced massive and rapid growth. The LDS Church Growth
Blog recently reported that, if current growth trends in the Africa West Area
continue as they have been lately, the Church could go from the 2 operating and
1 announced temple to 13 in operation by sometime during 2030. With that in
mind, several temples may dot this area in the near future, and the locations
in this section seem to me to be the most imminently likely prospects.
[9]Sierra Leone is now the
fourth of the top ten nations that have the strongest Church presence but do
not yet have a temple in any phase. With the recent expanded growth in Sierra
Leone (particularly with so many districts that have been upgraded to stakes),
a temple there may simply be a matter of time. The Saints in Freetown currently
journey 1,243.2 miles to the Accra Ghana temple, a distance which will not be
cut until the temple in Abidjan Ivory Coast is built and dedicated, at which
point the Freetown Saints will be 911 miles away. Since that is still far
greater than the 200-mile distance, whether or not that mileage goal is
lowered, Sierra Leone is very likely to get a temple soon.
[10]Since the dedication of
the Accra Ghana temple in January 2004, Ghana has seen sufficient enough growth
(in my opinion) to potentially get a second temple. And Kumasi has emerged as the
most likely city for such a temple. Although the Saints in Kumasi currently
only have to travel 154.4 miles to the Accra temple, if the minimum mileage is
lowered, then a temple in Kumasi may just be a matter of time.
[11]Nigeria has likewise seen
extensive growth since the Aba temple was dedicated in August 2005. While many
have offered their opinions that Benin City would be the better prospect for
Nigeria’s second temple, the elements I have studied leads me to conclude that
Lagos, which is 291 miles away from Aba, is the more imminent prospect. That
said, I would fully anticipate that there will be temples in both Lagos and
Benin City at some point within the next 10-15 years or less.
[12]In the afore-mentioned
list on the LDS Church Growth Blog (which covered the 10 nations with the
strongest LDS presence that do not have a temple in any phase), Liberia comes
in at #9. The Saints in Liberia travel 946.5 miles to worship in the Accra
Ghana Temple. Once the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple is built and dedicated, that
distance will decrease to 616.5 miles. If, as observed in note 12 above, a
temple is built in Freetown, that distance gets almost cut in half to 338.8
miles, which is still well above the current mileage goal. So if the minimum
distance is lowered at all, Liberia may be a prime candidate for a temple in
the near future.
[13]Mongolia was one nation I
had on my list of more distant prospects, primarily because the Church presence
in that nation is not as strong as it seems to be in other Asian nations. The main
argument in favor of a temple being built in Mongolia seems to be the mileage
metric. The Saints in Mongolia currently travel 1,805 miles to the Hong Kong China
Temple. And my study shows that no other operating or announced temple will cut
that distance at all. With that in mind, a temple in Ulaanbaatar seems to be
just a matter of time.
[14]The nation of Brazil has
seen strong Church growth, perhaps the greatest amount Church-wide outside of
North America. With 6 temples in operation there currently, there are two
others under construction in Fortaleza (where a dedication is anticipated early
next year) and Rio de Janeiro (which is anticipated to be dedicated in early
2020). There are two others which have been announced in Belem and Brasilia.
With these four in different phases, it is difficult to know how soon other
temples might be announced for the nation. But the following locations, for the
reasons I will highlight below, have a strong case in favor of a temple.
[15]Up until recently, I had
had both Belo Horizonte and Salvador on my list for the immediate future, but
had prioritized them in the reverse order. But the Church News reported on June
14 of this year that Elder Cook, during a visit to Brazil, had spent some time
in Belo Horizonte. We have seen instances recently where members of the First
Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve will visit areas that have recently had a
temple announced, or where the Church is considering building a temple. Based
on Elder Cook’s visit to Belo Horizonte, I have prioritized that city for now.
If I see anything that would convince me to change the order of the two again,
I will do so.
[16]See note above on Belo
Horizonte. Although Elder Cook’s more recent visit to Belo Horizonte did lead
me to prioritize that city above Salvador, further digging on my part led me to
another Church News report (dated March 22, 2018) which highlighted an
apostolic visit by Elder Bednar to Recife, Sao Paulo, Salvador, and Brasilia. Two apostolic visits to the same nation within
a 3-month period is significant. Although there are temples in the first two
cities where Elder Bednar visited (and another temple has been announced for
Brasilia), there is no temple currently announced in Salvador. With that in mind,
a temple could be announced there shortly as well. What will be interesting to
see is whether either will be announced first, or both will be announced
simultaneously, or if one could be announced while the other is in its’
construction phase.
[17]While I had seen
Florianopolis as a feasible temple prospect at some point in the future, it was
not until I took the reports of President Nelson’s ambitious temple-building
plans into account that I felt comfortable including Florianopolis on this list
for the immediate future. Right now, the nearest temples to the Saints in
Florianopolis are the temple in Curitiba (which is 191.3 miles away) and Porto
Alegre (which is exactly 285 miles away). Because the distances involved
constitute undue hardship for the Saints in Florianopolis, a temple there may
just be a matter of time. That said, it may be some time before we know how
soon a temple might be announced there, if the temples in Salvador and Belo
Horizonte are more imminently needed. For now though, I am confident enough to
put it on this list.
[18]Up until 2016, the Church
had not been known to put a second temple in any city outside the US. In 2016
and 2017, second temples were announced for Lima Peru (which will be named for
and built in the Los Olivos region), and Manila Philippines (in the area of
Muntinlupa City, which has yet to receive an official name). Since Sao Paulo is
a strong area in terms of Church membership, a second temple there may be
needed sooner rather than later, though that prospect could potentially be
delayed until temples rise in Belo Horizonte, Salvador, and Florianopolis. But
if the initial word on President Nelson’s temple building plans are any
indication, then a second Sao Paulo temple, along with the other three
locations, may be announced much sooner than anticipated
[19]Puerto Rico now ranks as
the second of the top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that do
not have a temple in any phase. With the construction of the Port-au-Prince
Haiti Temple underway (which will be a very small temple) it makes sense that
the Church might opt to announce a temple for San Juan in the near future, as
the Puerto Rican Saints currently travel 251 miles to the Santo Domingo
Dominican Republic, which is just about the current minimum mileage goal, but
if that is lowered at all, the prospect certainly will become more imminent. The
one unknown is whether or not the recent natural disasters that have struck
Puerto Rico will impact how soon a temple is built there.
[20]As noted above, someone
who is familiar with the situation of the Church in Guatemala mentioned that a
temple in Senahu may be delayed until the presence of the Church increases
there. In the meantime, that same individual noted that a second temple to
split the current Guatemala City Guatemala Temple district may be a more likely
prospect. At this point, given the reasons I outlined in the note above, Senahu
remains on my list. I have also included the prospect of a second temple for
Guatemala City, but could see the merits of removing either of the two as more
information comes to light.
[21]Europe, particularly in
the eastern countries of its’ continent, has seen some stagnation in terms of
the growth of the Church. With temples currently under construction in Rome
Italy and Lisbon Portugal (both of which will be dedicated next year), and
another announced for a major yet-to-be determined city in Russia, the Church
may opt to wait to construct other temples on the European continent until
those 3 are either dedicated or at least further along in the process. That
said, on the off-chance the Church does not so opt, the cities in this section,
for the reasons I will explain in the subsequent notes that will follow this
one, have the greatest chance of being announced in the near future.
[22]When I began sharing my
thoughts on potential future temple locations, someone who has knowledge of the
growth of the Church in Europe indicated that Budapest would likely be the next
European city to get a temple. My study on the matter confirms that opinion, so
it has been on my list for a while. Right now, the Saints in Budapest travel
418 miles to worship at the Freiberg Germany Temple. And neither of the two
European temples under construction will be closer than that, so a temple in
Budapest seems likely.
[23]Although Cape Verde is
technically closer to the Africa North Area of the Church, it falls within the
boundaries of the Europe Area. The nation, which now ranks as the eighth of the
top ten nations with the strongest Church presence that does not have a temple,
will likely have a temple announced in its’ capital city of Praia in the near
future. This is because the Saints in Cape Verde currently travel 2,126 miles
to worship at the Madrid Spain Temple. Although that distance will be slightly
cut to 1,861 miles once the Lisbon Portugal Temple is dedicated, that is over 9
times further away than the mileage goal set by other prophets, and if that
goal is lowered at all, a Praia temple may simply be a matter of time.
[24]When expanding my list of
temple prospects, I knew I had to look at another temple in the UK. I had a
temple for Scotland or Ireland on my list for the distant future, but after
numerous comments on my blog and some additional research on my part, I
determined that Scotland would be the more likely location for the next temple
in the UK. The Saints in Edinburgh are 184.5 miles from their assigned temple
in Preston England. If President Nelson’s temple-building plans involve
lowering the minimum mileage from which any Saint should be from their assigned
temple, then Edinburgh would indeed qualify for a temple, which would likely
also serve Ireland, in addition to some parts of England that are nearest to
the two countries.
[25]Although the Saints in
Austria have seen a slight consolidation in the number of Church units in that
nation recently, their currently assigned temple in Frankfurt (which is closed
for renovation) is 444.3 miles away. If a temple is built in Budapest Hungary,
the Austria Saints may be reassigned to that temple, which would then be 151
miles away. But I would anticipate that a temple could be announced for Vienna
within the next few years, if not immediately, as long as all goes well.
[26]The growth of the Church
in Mexico has somewhat stagnated to the point where Church leaders began last
year to do a mass consolidation of the Church units there, primarily for the
purpose of strengthening the remaining units. With that in mind, it may be
difficult to gauge how soon other Mexican temples might be needed. But for the
locations in this section represent the most likely prospects I see for the
near future.
[27]One of the readers of my
blog (who lives in Mexico) shared feedback reiterating the idea that the next
temple in Mexico will likely be in Puebla, and that such a temple will likely
be announced sooner rather than later. This makes sense, because even though
Puebla is only 81.3 miles from the Mexico City temple, it may be the foremost
prospects to split the current district. The only question might be whether or
not that prospect is as imminent as it appears to be, since there is reportedly
an attendance problem in the Mexico City temple. If it has not been kept busy
enough, that prospect could potentially be delayed for a little while. That
said, I am confident enough to list it here for now, but will be watching for
anything that changes my mind.
[28]The Saints in Queretaro
Mexico currently travel 135.8 miles to worship at the Mexico City Mexico
Temple, and would actually be further away than that from a temple in Puebla,
unless the journey to Puebla would be less of a hardship to those Saints than
the journey to Mexico City. Again, the timing of the announcement(s) for the
next temple(s) will depend largely on whether or not a temple elsewhere would
make sense, given the apparent lack of sufficient activity within the Mexico
City temple. Until more is known about that, and about President Nelson’s plans
to expand the number of temples, I feel confident in keeping both cities on my
list.
[29]Papua New Guinea now ranks
as the nation with the strongest Church presence that does not yet have a
temple. I also learned several years ago that land has been held in reserve in
Port Moresby for a temple for a while now. With that in mind, it may simply be
a matter of time before a temple is announced there.
[30]As with Papua New Guinea,
I had heard years ago that land has been held in reserve in Auckland for a
temple. The Church has since announced and begun a renovation for the only
temple in that nation (which is located in Hamilton). Although the Auckland
Saints are merely 77.6 miles away from the Hamilton temple, if President
Nelson’s plans to expand the number of temples involves halving or quartering
the 200 mile maximum distance set by other Church presidents, Auckland would
certainly qualify for a temple by that metric as well.
[31]Kiribati currently ranks
as the third nation with the strongest LDS presence that does not have a temple
in any phase of construction. The Saints in Tarawa currently travel 1,402 miles
to worship at the Suva Fiji Temple, and no other currently-operating temple is
closer than that. With all of this in mind, a temple in that nation may simply
be a matter of time.
[32]American Samoa ranks fifth
on the list of nations with the strongest Church presence that do not have a
temple in any phase. The nearest temple to the Saints in the capital city of
Pago Pago is currently Apia Samoa, and the Pago Pago Saints currently travel
76.2 miles, which is not long distance-wise, but involves journeying over a
body of water, which may be inconvenient. Also, if the minimum mileage goal set
by previous Church presidents is halved or quartered, that will no doubt make
this prospect more imminent.
[33]Tonga has recently seen
impressive Church growth, which leads me to believe that a second temple may be
needed to serve the Saints there. The city of Neiafu Vava’u seems to be the
most likely location for a second Tongan temple, since the Saints in that city
currently travel 189 miles to the temple in Nuku’alofa. Although that is within
the current minimum mileage, if that minimum is halved or quartered, then that,
combined with the extensive growth in Tonga, leads me to believe that a Neiafu
Vava’u temple will be announced sooner rather than later.
[34]With two
currently-operating temples in Manila and Cebu, and three others announced for
Urdaneta, Muntinlupa City (which is the second for the Manila area) and Cagayan
de Oro, the Church could opt to wait to announce any other temples for the
Philippines until those 3 are further along. But I do see the imminent prospect
for one additional temple in this nation, for reasons I will explain in the
note below.
[35]Davao is currently
assigned to the Cebu City Temple District, from which it is 335.7 miles. That
distance will not decrease at all until the Cagayan de Oro Philippines Temple,
which was announced last April, is built and dedicated. But even then, the
Saints in Davao will still have a journey of 161.8 miles. If the minimum
distance set by previous Church presidents is halved or quartered, then Davao
will surely be the next city in the Philippines to get a temple. I have had
this city on lists like this for a long time, so I hope a temple will be
announced there sooner rather than later.
[36]The entire South American
continent has experienced massive Church growth. Having previously discussed
Brazil, I will focus my comments about South America on the two other areas of
the Church within this continent. Starting with the South America Northwest
Area, I wanted to observe that there are 6 operating temples there. 1 other (in
Barranquilla Colombia) is set to be dedicated in December of this year. 1 more
is currently under construction in Arequipa Peru (for which a dedication is
anticipated in early 2020). Two others have been announced (the Lima Peru Los
Olivos Temple, which may have a groundbreaking within the next year, if not
sooner, and the Quito Ecuador Temple, which could have a groundbreaking within
the next 2-3 years, though hopefully sooner if all goes well). With the South
America Northwest Area having experienced somewhat rapid growth, I have long
been of the opinion that several prospects were likely possibilities for this
area in the near future, and I expanded the number of those prospective
locations again with the increased comments about President Nelson’s ambitious
temple-building plans. For the reasons mentioned in the notes below, each of
the locations on this list have a strong case in their favor as prospects for
the near future.
[37]Since the dedication of
Bolivia’s first temple in Cochabamba, the Church in Bolivia has seen
significant growth and expansion. That has been especially true of regions that
would be served by temples in Santa Cruz or La Paz. Of the two, although I
favor La Paz,, my research indicates a Santa Cruz temple may be more imminent. But
I fully anticipate temples in both cities within the next 15 years or less,
thus both are on this list for now.
[38]The temple in Caracas was
announced during the October 1995 General Conference, with a groundbreaking
occurring in January 1999, and a dedication for it was held the following year
in August. One year prior to the dedication of the temple in Caracas, President
Hinckley publicly proposed another Venezuelan temple for the city of Maracaibo,
which is 432.5 miles from Caracas. Although Venezuela has political turbulence
at the moment, and although there has been some Church unit consolidation there
in recent years, when we combine the distance factor with the fact that temples
publicly proposed during the administrations of Presidents Hinckley and Monson
have gone on to be announced during the subsequent administrations of
Presidents Monson and Nelson, the case in favor of a temple in Maracaibo is
strong, so that prospect may be more imminent than many (myself included) might
anticipate.
[39]As noted above relating to
the South America Northwest Area, the South America South Area has likewise
seen extensive and significant 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, which, for the reasons outlined in
the notes below, have a strong case in their favor.
[40]In view of the need to
expand my list of prospects for this area, Ciudad del Este seems to be the most
likely prospect for a second temple in Paraguay, with the only question being
how imminently likely that might be. When the renovation process is complete
for the Asuncion temple, the Saints in Ciudad del Este will have a journey of
201.4 miles to worship there, which is already above the minimum goal other
prophets have set. If that minimum distance is lowered at all, then a temple in
that city may simply be a matter of time.
[41]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 the US and Canada in the
near future.
[42]Preston Idaho is a
relatively new addition to this list. Although the Church has not yet begun
full-scale construction on the temple in Pocatello (which was announced in
April 2017), since Idaho is part of the Mormon corridor, that opens the
prospect that both temples could be under construction at around the same time.
The main reason I added a temple for Preston this go-round is because it would
split the current Logan Utah Temple district. Right now, the Saints in Preston
travel 26.7 miles to worship at that temple. Although that may not be an
inordinate distance, at the same time, if the Logan temple is as busy as the
reports I have found seem to indicate, splitting the district would make a lot
of sense, and Preston seems to be the most effective location to accomplish
that.
[43]According to reports I
received through the comments on my blog, Elder David A. Bednar publicly
proposed a Missoula Montana Temple while on assignment to a stake conference in
that city. My subsequent research indicates that land has been held in reserve
for such a temple for several years n. ow, and that an official announcement
will occur once the right conditions are met. For that reason, Missoula has
been on my list for a while now, and I could see an official announcement in
the near future.
[44]Although South Dakota only
has 2 stakes and 1 district, and although the districts of the Bismarck North
Dakota and Winter Quarters Nebraska Temples,, which cover South Dakota, may not
be inordinately large, the Saints in Rapid City travel almost 300 miles to
worship at the Bismarck temple, so it seems likely that the Church will opt to
build a temple there sooner rather than later.
[45]Since Wichita Kansas was
on one of my other two lists, I simply moved it up to this one as a more
imminent prospect. The 7 stakes in Kansas currently are split between the
Kansas City Missouri Temple, the Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple, and the Denver
Colorado Temple, and almost all of those 7 have extensive distances involved.
So if the 200-mile goal set by previous Church presidents is lowered to any
degree, all of the distances may well be considered inordinate. For these
reason, a temple in Wichita seems likely to be announced sooner rather than
later
[46]When I was first
considering the most likely location for Wisconsin’s first temple, I had
prioritized Madison (the nation’s capital) or Milwaukee. But after a lot of
feedback and more research on my part, I determined Green Bay would be a more
preferable location. There are six stakes in Wisconsin, all of which are
assigned to the Chicago Illinois Temple District except one, which is assigned
to the St. Paul Minnesota Temple district. Each of these stakes involves a
journey between 90-200 miles to their assigned temple. So if the minimum
distance set by previous Church presidents is shortened at all, Wisconsin is a
prime candidate for a temple. And a temple in Green Bay would greatly shorten
the trip for most (if not all) of the stakes in Wisconsin.
[47] Although the Church has
previously built temples in sites which have historical significance, and
although Council Bluffs in Iowa is one such location, given that the Saints who
live in that area are less than 15 miles away from the temple in Winter Quarters
Nebraska, a temple in Iowa is more likely to rise in the capital city of Des
Moines. The 8 stakes in Iowa are currently divided between the Winter Quarters
Nebraska and Nauvoo Illinois Temples. Of those 8 stakes, only the Saints in
Council Bluffs are within 15 miles of their assigned temple. All other
established stakes in this state are between 90-180 miles away from their
assigned temple. With all of this in mind, Iowa would qualify for a temple, and
if one rises in Des Moines, it would not surprise me at all if that temple was
named for Mount Pisgah, which is another historically-significant site from
early Church history, and for which the second Des Moines stake is named.
[48]A comment on my blog
mentioned that the Saints in Pueblo and nearby Colorado Springs typically deal
with massive and significant traffic congestion to get to their
currently-assigned temple in Denver, which seems to be a very undue hardship.
Since that also involves a one-way journey of 115.8 miles, I can see why a
temple in Pueblo in the near future may be very likely.
[49]In view of all we have
heard about President Nelson’s plans to expand the number of temples, Maine
seems to be a prime candidate for such a temple. Although there are only two
stakes in that state, the two are between 160 and 240 miles away from their
currently-assigned temple in Boston. Whether or not the minimum mileage is
lowered, Augusta surely qualifies for a temple of its’ own.
[50]Vermont is the 5th
smallest of the 50 states, and has a Church presence that matches its’ size.
Members in Montpelier currently travel 180.4 miles one way to worship at the
Boston Massachusetts Temple. While New Hampshire may have a stronger Church
presence currently than Vermont does, Vermont has a connection to Church
history (as the Prophet Joseph Smith was born in Sharon), so it seems likely
the Church would favor Vermont for a temple. The temple could potentially be
built directly in Sharon (as the Church has a tradition of putting a temple in
historically-significant locations), but my current research on the subject
leads me to conclude that, unless a stake is established in Sharon before this
temple is announced, Montpelier may be a preferable location, as it would
provide such a temple with sufficient support from a nearby stake.
[51]The Saints residing in Fairbanks
Alaska currently travel 360.3 miles to worship at the temple in Anchorage.
Although the Saints in Juneau do have a longer journey to both Anchorage and
Fairbanks, the latter has emerged from my study as the best prospect for
Alaska’s second temple. That said, I can see a day when Juneau gets one as
well, which may happen sooner than expected, depending on the extent of
President Nelson’s temple-building plans.
[52]Mississippi is another
state that does not yet have a temple in any phase. The Saints in Jackson
currently travel 174.6 miles one way to worship at the Baton Rouge Louisiana
Temple, but with that temple closed for renovation, the trip is much longer to
get to the next nearest temple. That presents a compelling argument for the
idea that a temple in Jackson may simply be a matter of time.
[53]The Saints in Shreveport
currently travel 187.9 miles to their assigned temple in Dallas, so that city
would qualify for a temple of its’ own if the current 200-mile distance goal
set by previous church presidents is halved or quartered. Therefore, a temple
in Shreveport may simply be a matter of time.
[54]With temples operating in
Orlando and Fort Lauderdale, a third temple may be needed sooner rather than
later. Several people have shared their feeling that Tallahassee may be a more
likely location for the third temple in that state, but between my personal
research on the subject and the opinions of others who seem to know more about
Florida than I do, Jacksonville has made my list. That said, I can see a day
within the next 5-10 years or less when both cities will have a temple. The
Jacksonville Saints currently travel 140.7 miles to the temple in Orlando, so
if the 200-mile distance is halved or quartered, then this prospect may be a
very high priority in the near future.
[55]The Saints in Knoxville
Tennessee currently travel 180.1 miles to worship at the temple in Nashville.
That may also be an inordinate distance if the minimum mileage is lowered at
all, and if we also take into account the fact that a journey to Nashville may
be arduous, then a temple in Knoxville seems imminent.
[56]A good friend with
connections to Arkansas told me a while ago that the Church has held land in
reserve for a temple in Bentonville for a while now, and that an official
announcement was likely once the right conditions were met. For that reason, I
believe we will see this temple announced sooner rather than later. Some have
opined that Rogers might be a more likely location for the first temple in
Arkansas, but my study confirms that a temple is likely in Bentonville sooner
rather than later. And as observed by someone on my blog, when the first temple
in Arkansas is built, it could potentially be named for the Ozark Mountain
range, which is a major landmark in Arkansas
[57]The Saints in Elko
currently travel 229.6 miles to their assigned temple (Salt Lake). So Elko
already qualifies in terms of the within 200-mile distance. And if that mileage
goal is lowered, that prospect becomes more imminently likely.
[58]The note above applies to
the Saints in Ely as well, as they commute 201.1 miles to their assigned temple
in Cedar City. A temple in Ely would cut the commute substantially. And I fully
believe that temples in both Elko and Ely are possible in the near future,
since the distance between the two is just under 200 miles.
[59]In sharing my thoughts
about potential future temple locations, I learned from someone living in Texas
that Fort Worth would likely be the best prospective city to split the current
Dallas district. In addition, although some have offered their feedback that El
Paso may be a more likely location for that honor, and although I fully believe
both cities will have temples of their own at some future point, I have
prioritized Fort Worth for this list.
[60]The Saints in Las Cruces
currently travel 224.6 miles to the temple in Albuquerque, so a temple there
may just be a matter of time. A temple in that city could also likely serve the
Saints in El Paso Texas, as the two cities are 46.2 miles apart. The journey
between the two cities would be a fairly easy distance if for any reason the El
Paso Saints are unable to get to their currently-assigned temple in Ciudad
Juarez Mexico.
[61]Although Elder Larry Y.
Wilson, the Executive Director of the Church’s Temple Department, stated at
last year’s dedication of the Tucson Arizona Temple that Arizona was, for the
moment, well-stocked with temples. That said, my study indicates that the next Arizona
temple will be built in Flagstaff. Right now, the Saints in that city currently
travel 119 miles to worship at the Snowflake Arizona Temple. If the 200-mile
distance is decreased by President Nelson (either by halving or quartering it),
then Snowflake would be a prime candidate for a temple, and that may even help
to split some of the other temple districts in Arizona as well.
[62]Bakersfield California is
roughly halfway between Fresno (from which it is 109.1 miles away) and Los
Angeles (from which it is 113.3 miles away). Although there have been some
congregational consolidations in California in recent years, the distances
involved may be sufficient to warrant a temple in Bakersfield in the
not-too-distant future.
[63]In 2005, President Gordon
B. Hinckley noted that land was being held in reserve for a temple in the
Southwestern Salt Lake Valley, which would have an official announcement when
that became necessary. Subsequent study on my part in late 2017 and early 2018
pointed me to the conclusion that the land in question was in Bluffdale, but
that it has since been annexed into the city of Herriman, although it has been
the subject of more than a few border disputes. I am confident enough to list
it here, and since President Monson announced temples publicly proposed during
President Hinckley’s tenure, I feel that President Nelson may likely do the
same. Thus, a temple there may just be a matter of time.
[64]A temple in Heber City
(the prospect of which has been suggested a few times) would help provide a
closer option for Saints in the Heber Valley, and it would likely split the
district of the Provo Utah Temple, which, by all reports, is still one of the
busiest in the Church.
[65]Tooele has also been
mentioned repeatedly as a potential prospective city for a temple. While the
Saints in Tooele do not have to drive an inordinate distance to reach their
assigned temple in Salt Lake City, I feel a temple there may simply be a matter
of time. And since a temple in Herriman would still create a drive (along a
U-shape) for those Saints, it seems safe to assume that Tooele could (and
likely will) get a temple soon.
111/174=63.8% accuracy
on these predictions
