Sunday, March 15, 2009

Modification to Potential New Temple Scale

Two weeks ago I made a post about likely temple sites for future temples. These sites were determined by a quantitative method I developed which factors in the number of stakes and districts in the area, distance from the closest existing temple, stakes created before 1981, and Saturday endowment schedule.

I feel that a fifth element also contributes to the likelihood of a new temple. Out of the 76 temples outside of the United States, only six exist in cities which do not have a mission based in them. The presence of a mission of the Church in a city increases the likelihood a temple being announced in that city. I am not sure how I am going to factor this fifth variable in yet quantitatively, but I feel that it would improve the accuracy of the model developed.


Kim Siever said...

Cardston, Edmonton, and Regina don't have missions. What are the other three cities?

Matt said...

Edmonton does have a mission. It was organized 1 July 1998 from the Canada Calgary Mission.

The cities which have a temple and do not have a mission based in them outside the United States are

- Cardston, Alberta, Canada
- Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
- Colonia Juárez, Chihuahua, México
- Colonia Juárez, Chihuahua, México
- Preston, England
- Aba Nigeria

The Nigeria Port Harcourt Mission was originally based in Aba and named the Nigeria Aba Mission, but was relocated to Port Harcourt shortly after its creation.

Kim Siever said...

You're right. I forgot about Edmonton's mission for some reason even though I live in Alberta.

I was wondering if Preston was one of the cities.

Minchin Web said...

I know when they announced the Edmonton mission, there was a number of people who felt that one of the natural steps leading up to a temple. The Edmonton temple was announced in August 1998 and dedicated in December 1999, a year and a half after the mission opened.

I'm interested to see how your new 'Temple Potential Index' comes out.

Brandon Plewe said...

I'm not sure what weights you give the factors in your model, but they may need some adjustment; some of the numbers seem a little odd (relatively).

Also, did you take into account temples already being built nearby, which will take the load off existing temples?

And you ought to consider international borders as raising likelihood, especially in places like Tijuana.

Brandon Plewe said...

I'll go out on a limb with some predictions (no inside information, just educated guesses):

Kinshasa & Fortaleza announced in the next year; Arequipa maybe (but may have been delayed by Trujillo)

A Layton/Spanish Fork pair announced a year after the latest (the 4th) Utah pair is dedicated. The Spanish Fork one will be on the church farm in NE Payson, right on the freeway, and called the Mt. Nebo Utah Temple.

Matt said...

The way I developed the model I use is by looking at already existing temples of the Church and what factors contributed to their announcement. Believe it or not, the presence of old stakes is a big one. This is likely due to there being members who are more seasoned in the Gospel and able to support a temple. This in part is why I believe many of the temples in Northern Europe are there today even though several only serve a handful of stakes and districts.

As for taking into account new temples being built nearby cities without temples and how it effects the likelihood of a temple announcement in such cities, if anything it probably increases the likelihood of a temple announcement. For example, the first temple announced to lessen the demand of the Guatemala City Guatemala Temple was the Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple in June 2006. Later that year the Quetzaltenango Guatemala Temple was announced in December and the following year the San Salvador El Salvador Temple was announced. I think that a temple is Managua Nicaragua is one of the most likely temples to be announced in the coming few years, even though the score I gave it with the old model is only 23.

I have thought about factoring in international borders, but I do not know if we can say that it increases the likelihood of a temple announcement. I do think that if the country is an island nation it increases the likelihood of a temple announcement.

Gnesileah said...

As always, very good work on your analysis, Matt.

Of the 76 current international temples, 11 are not located in (or named after) cities with a mission headquarters. In addition to the six you identified earlier, the other five are:

- Bern, Switzerland
- Freiberg, Germany
- Hamilton, New Zealand
- The Hague, Netherlands
- Villahermosa, Tabasco, México

It should be noted that the Preston England Temple, located in Chorley, is within 25 miles (as the crow flies) of a mission based in Manchester. The other 10 temples are located more than 25 miles from a mission headquarters. This means 13% of the current international temples do not have missions based near them. Contrast that to the 58 proposed future international temples on your model; only 12 of them are not near mission headquarters, or 21% - a difference of only eight points. (Keep in mind that new missions are created more regularly than temples… well, except as of late, but you get the idea.)

Within the United States, 15 of the 70 current temples are not located within 25 miles of a mission headquarters, or 21% (ironically enough). Of the nine proposed future stateside temples, five are not located within 25 miles of a current mission headquarters, or 56%.

twinnumerouno said...

You mentioned that international boundaries might not increase the chance of an announcement. But could they not decrease the chance (the one I'm thinking of is your listing Reynosa Mexico- but with three of those stakes being in Texas they might not be included if there were difficulties with the border)?

twinnumerouno said...

Also if (and I don't know one way or the other) but if, say, DR Congo doesn't let people in from other countries, in general, or in specific, like Uganda or the Republic of Congo, then wouldn't that also be a factor?
Just wondering.

Matt said...

Difficult to say. We do not have very many temples that are in cities on the border between two countries and the ones that are on such borders are all in North America. I would say the temple would of course most likely be built on the side of the border where the Church is the strongest, but that might change to being built in the country in which members from other countries in the temple district would most easily be able to access the temple.