In preparation for General Conference this weekend, I have updated my map identifying likely locations for future temple announcements. Likely stakes and districts serviced by potential temples in these locations are provided. Additional locations identified for possible temple announcements in this most recent update include Auckland, New Zealand; Benin City, Nigeria; and Bangkok, Thailand.
View Potential New Temples in a larger map
59 comments:
What are the prospects for a temple in Mongolia? The church members there seems to be especially faithful with a lot of missionaries.
Paul Lund
Augusta, Georgia
Fun Question for all: Since lately the announcements have been 5 at a time, what 5 Temples would you most like to see announced? Mine would be: Singapore, Nairobi, Edinburgh, Tacoma, and Athens.
I think that a Temple in Tooele is as or more likely than a Temple in Price. Tooele County has 9 fairly large stakes and would also include Elko. It also would not hurt the Salt Lake Temple as much as a temple in Price would hurt the Manti Temple. But if distance is the driving factor, then Price Is More likely.
I also think that Heber City Utah Is a possible location. It is a long established Mormon community like Star Valley and Gila Valley. It would Serve 7 Stakes. It would slightly lighten the Provo Temple and the people from Coalville to Heber would not have to Drive down Canyon Roads during the Winter.
One more thing, President Uchtdorf Flew to Iquitos After Dedicating the Manaus Temple. He Promised if they were faithful they would have a temple one day. It's probably a little out there, but Since you cannot easily get to Iquitos without flying, It seems like a Good future location.
Some thoughts.
If I were to chose 5 temples to be announced, I would chose:
1. Jacksonville, FL
2. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3. Richmond, VA
4. Singapore
5. Edinburgh, Scotland
If Utah temples - definitely Lehi or Layton. Cedar City and Price are likely to get one too, but right now Lehi is due to get a temple, especially with the population growth around the area including Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain.
As far as the map is concerned, I believe that a temple in Ventura, California is more likely to be announced than one in Bakersfield (although I believe Bakersfield will have CA's 9th Temple). The Ventura Temple would serve 8 stakes including those around Simi Valley, Thousands Oaks, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria.
I still do not see an Elko Nevada Temple likely. It's close enough to SLC and Twin Falls, ID and there's not enough members there to justify it.
I believe a Tacoma Washington Temple is very possible given the number of stakes around Seattle that would remain as part of Seattle temple district and the number of stakes that would be part of the Tacoma Temple district.
My five:
Puebla, Mexico
Rio De Janerio, Brazil
Singapore
Ceder City, UT, USA
Richmond, VA, USA
Wild Card:
Oslo, Norway
Maybe Helena, Montana
This temple would be able to serve the following stakes.
Great Falls Montana
Great Falls Montana East
Kalispell Montana
(Served by Cardston)
Missoula Montana
Stevensville Montana
(Served by Spokane)
Helena Montana
Bozeman Montana
Butte Montana
(served by Billings)
This would shorten the distance for all stakes listed above to within the 200 mile standard.
hey will probably keep announcing five per conference since the spike in baptisms needs to have temples ready to help. They could do more down the road,
so my 5:
1. Cedar City
2. Southern Africa
3. Quito Ecuador
4. Rio De Janeiro Brazil
5. California area--Bakersfield or perhaps Simi Valley
Coming soonish: Heber City or Lehi or both-- Provo is simply busy, and the missionary surge and subsequent RM surge will fill the second Provo Temple. Eagle Mountain will help fill Timp to be just as busy.
Having said that, Heber could be down the road a ways-- we don't usually split one temple district (Provo) three ways-- even Jordan River was only split two ways
What do think of a temple beside the new MTC in Mexico City? A similar setup as the Provo Temple.
On a side note, learned last night the the Raleigh Mission is loosing two stakes to the Chesapeake Mission, Kinston and Goldsboro. The Raleigh Mission will have 6 stakes after July 1.
1. Rio
2. Brazilia
3. Managua
4. Puebla
5. Richmond
Interesting point about a possible Heber City Temple. It would serve the same number of stakes and the same purpose as would a Price Utah Temple. Around 8 stakes and it would keep members from having to drive through windy mountain passes, especially in the winter months.
On a practical level, Price is actually closer to Provo than it is to Manti. Members have to drive north and then south around a stretch of mountains.
President Monson has announced 33 temples--26 in General Conference and 7 at different times:
Wednesday 23-May-2007: 1 temple announced: Manaus Brazil Temple
Wednesday 7-Nov-2007: 1 temple announced: San Salvador El Salvador Temple
Saturday 26-Apr-2008: 2 temples announced: The Gila Valley Arizona Temple, Gilbert Arizona Temple
Saturday 24-May-2008: 1 temple announced: Phoenix Arizona Temple
Saturday 4-Oct-2008: 5 temples announced: Kansas City Missouri Temple, Calgary Alberta Temple, Rome Italy Temple, Córdoba Argentina Temple, Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple
Saturday 13-Dec-2008: 1 temple announced: Trujillo Perú Temple
Saturday 3-Oct-2009: 5 temples announced: Brigham City Utah Temple, Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple, Sapporo Japan Temple, Fortaleza Brazil Temple, Concepción Chile Temple
Monday 25-Jan-2010: 1 temple announced: Payson Utah Temple
Saturday 2-Oct-2010: 5 temples announced: Tijuana México Temple, Indianapolis Indiana Temple, Lisbon Portugal Temple, Urdaneta Philippines Temple, Hartford Connecticut Temple
Saturday 2-Apr-2011: 3 temples announced: Fort Collins Colorado Temple, Meridian Idaho Temple, Winnipeg Manitoba Temple
Saturday 1-Oct-2011: 6 temples announced: Provo City Center Temple, Barranquilla Colombia Temple, Durban South Africa Temple, Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple, Star Valley Wyoming Temple, Paris France Temple
Saturday 6-Oct-2012: 2 temples announced: Tucson Arizona Temple, Arequipa Perú Temple
While I look forward each conference to new temple announcements, President Monson has announced temples in April conference only once--in 2011 with 3 temples. October conference seems more fruitful for temple announcements.
Guessing about temple announcements is a little like guessing where a missionary will be called. True, Matt has provided an educated list and I enjoy reading them and considering the possibilities. I personally hope for a temple in Richmond, VA. Virginia has been the state in the US with the largest LDS population--membership, stakes--without a temple. Virginia has a membership roughly equal to the next three temple-less states in size combined. That said, we are close to the large Washington DC temple (even if it takes a couple of hours fighting through metropolitan traffic to get there), which I think is the main reason a temple in Virginia has yet to be announced.
The Provo Temple was constructed as a "mass production" temple designed for high volume. That doesn't mean it isn't being overwhelmed. But, two temples--Provo City and Payson will soon take up some of the load. Of course, a temple in Lehi would primarily impact the Mount Timpanogos Temple and maybe the Draper and Oquirrh Mountain. I think a temple in Heber would be great.
I could see Pocatello and Cedar City temples. The Church has built paired temples north and south of Salt Lake: Logan and Manti, Cardston and Mesa, Ogden and Provo, Bountiful and Mount Timpanogos, and now Brigham City and Payson. Billings and Albuquerque, and Portland and Las Vegas are also paired temples north and south of Salt Lake. I could see that pattern continue with Pocatello and Cedar City. Unlike other pairs, Brigham City and Payson don’t resemble each other. Of course, Ogden’s facelift will make it look considerably different from Provo and I can’t help thinking that the rebuilt Ogden and Provo City temples—both right downtown one next to a pioneer tabernacle and the other a rebuilding of a pioneer tabernacle, might become a new pair—one being remodeled at the same time the other is being constructed, north and south of Salt Lake about a similar distance, city centers as opposed to up on a hill.
Wouldn't a temple in Cote d'Ivoire also service Liberia and Sierra Leone? And Bangkok is now listed twice.
hpiteHow about a temple in Jackson, MS; Jackson, MS, Hattiesburg, MS, Gulfport, MS, Monroe, LA, Shreveport, LA stakes.
Jackson is too close to Baton Rouge and there would be not enough stakes for another temple in the region.
@Mike Johnson,
The first two temples you listed were announced by Pres. Hinckley. (Manaus & San Salvador).
President Monson became President of the Church in Feb 2008.
Oooh - Do I get to guess?
1) Oregon
2) 2nd temple in Mexico City Area
3) Rio
4)Nicaragua
5)Scotland
Okay - My five picks
- Cedar City
- Rio de Janeiro
- Brazilia
- Caribbean
- Chile
Note that Rio is the second largest city in Brazil and will be hosting the 2016 Olympics. Massive police sweep and building projects is really making major infrastructure improvements there. It is probably the most famous city of South America.
Chile and the Caribbean has a strong LDS presense but only one temple each.
Thanks, Scott. I knew I should have just looked up the date. I wanted to go back far enough to cover President Monson's time.
It is still that only once has President Monson announced temples in April conference and that in 2011 was for 3 temples.
Jackson, Mississippi is 3 hour plus drive to Baton Rouge and four additional stakes that are at least three hours from Baton Rouge could be part of a temple district (they are part of the Jackson, MS coordinating council)
I like the idea of a temple in Jackson, but a few things would have to happen first: expand outreach north of Jackson, and the general approach of splitting wards and and establishing new branches. The main problem is that Memphis and Baton Rouge haven't added any stakes since those temples were dedicated. Only five stakes in the Memphis temple district, and seven in BR
Great comments everyone! It is always fun to see how many people comment when I post an updated prospective new temples map.
The announcement of the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple was the biggest surprise for me since I began following church growth in 2002. After an announcement like that - and one like Hartford Connecticut - I guess anything is possible.
However, I have made my predictions based on what appears most likely. For example, a temple in Jackson, Mississippi appears highly unlikely as no new stakes have been organized in the area and congregational growth has been stagnant (there were more units in Mississippi in 1987 than in 2012!).
I am thinking that we'll see some new temple announcements this weekend considering there were only two new temples announced last October; breaking the streak since 2008 of five temples announced every October. But we'll see...
My prediction is none. April announcements are not common, and there is such a huge backlog of announced temples as it is.
That said, it is fun to speculate!
1. Layton
2. Rio
3. Puebla
4. Cedar City
5. Abidjan
Does anyone know what's taking Rio so long? I mean 25 stakes is a lot!
I could see the new Mexico MTC having a temple one day. The area has horrible traffic and it's tucked back almost surround by mountains. The current Mexico City temple is really far away from it.
That area was my first in the mission and my wife graduated from Benemerito there. It wouldn't surprise me either to have a temple there someday, because that whole area is like lil Utah where there are Mormon chapels every couple of blocks and they have really high baptismal and retention rates because the members there really help and are really strong. Some of the most strongest stakes over there. Some people would just get baptized just to go to the Church school.
Finally there are a couple of prophecies as well in that area that there would be a temple there one day for the saints. By the way most of that whole area back in the day was owned by the Church before the government took it back because of population growth. Lots of history in that area. :)
Rio de Janeiro has serious issues with weak local leadership, plus low tithing rates.
A leader in another city told me that that is the reason why some places have not been announced yet even though the numbers are there.
Tithing and sacrament meeting attendance are two major indicators they look at before announcing a temple anywhere.
True, Rio is needed. Found Youtube video showing BR-116 and BR-101, two major highways that connect or make major connections with Sao Paulo, and both are very old roads with no significant upgrades since they were built in the late 40s and early 50s, 116 is not even at US-style freeway standards, especially over the mountains where it has very tight curves and is often clogged with truck traffic and other traffic making slow going. A five hour drive theoretically can take much longer on either road.
The stakes and districts mentioned for a potential Rio de Janeiro Temple are currently in the Campinas Brazil Temple District. They are in three states (Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, and Espírito Santo). It should noted that the "Lafaiete Brazil District" is actually a stake now, so if arranged as suggested the district would have as of now 26 stakes.
I would think Juiz de Fora, where one of the new missions is coming in (and currently part of the Rio de Janeiro Mission), would be more central to all the stakes and districts mentioned.
Missions are being reorganized to include a Mission Leadership Council, which will include the Mission President's wife and senior sister trainers.
The council structure implemented in the late 1970s as a result of the correlation process in the 1960s and 1970s at the general, stake and ward levels, is now being extended to missions.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-adjusts-mission-organization-implement-mission-leadership-council
Some critics and even some members of the church claim that this process was about placing women's organizations under priesthood quorums, I say that ward relief society, young women's, and primary presidents were always under bishops, just like other organizations in the ward. The difference is that the leaders of all organizations meet together in council about the issues effecting all. Women actually play more roles in ward, stake, and general church leadership than ever before and now in missions, women will play a bigger role as well.
I think Craig & Iris made a good case for a Mexico Benemerito Temple.
I think Rio might wait until after the big World Cup & Olympics boom is over and frees up contractors, engineers and construction workers.
Here is my speculation for the next 20 temples, with the first five my top five guesses. (I obviously think Matt did a good job and I shamelessly copied from his list)
Brasilia (due to distance from Campinas and national capital)
West Valley City Utah to serve also Tooele Valley
Mexico City Benemerito
Managua Nicaragua
Pocatello Idaho
Layton Utah
Cedar City Utah
Nairobi Kenya
San Pedro Sula Honduras
Quito Ecuador
Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Salvador Brazil
Mar del Plata Argentina
Benin City Nigeria
Harare Zimbabwe
Jacksonville Florida
Richmond Virginia
Cagayan de Oro Philippines
Port Moresby New Guinea
Lyman Wyoming (rather than Evanston)
After all our discussion about Rio de Janeiro, it is nice to see President Monson announce a temple there as well as Cedar City.
I am happy for the saints in those areas.
Rio de Janiero and Cedar City!
Oh cool! I think that Will and myselft are the only one's that both new temples were on our short list.
My congratulations to the saints in Cedar City and Rio. And Yes I have been to both cities!
I served my mission in Las Vegas and heard something about a General Authority telling the people of Elko that if they worked hard to build up the Church, especially in reactivating people, they would get a temple. However, the general sense I got was that a sign of this being done would be a third Elko Stake. They still only have two stakes, so I don't expect a temple there anytime soon. Once a third stake is formed, who knows, but not with just the same stakes.
Hey Will, you got two of your five. That is the highest possible with chosing five and the actual announced. Now we have to see if your other three are announced come October.
However I doubt Richmond any time soon. Elder Lansing, an area 70, was at our last stake conference. He is from the Richmond area, told us of his saga with his parents to get sealed when a child, going all the way to SLC. He told us that he had suggested to someone higher up they build a temple in Richmond and basically told "not in your lifetime". If they got another stake in the Virginia Beach area, another in Richmond, and another 2 in the DC area, maybe, but not right now.
Venezuela does have a temple.
John, thanks for reporting what Elder Lansing said.
I have drafted a couple of responses, but both have sounded very whiny, so having deleted them I am trying again. I get excited at all temple announcements. I am not trying to say that we deserve a temple more than anybody else. I am sure the Church feels the need for temples in places that go beyond Church resources and thus prioritization has to happen.
I understand the concern about the impact on the Washington DC Temple if more than half of Virginia were to go into a new temple district. When I am at the Washington DC Temple, it seems that most of the cars in the parking lot have Virginia plates.
But, your two comments juxtaposed together suggested that Elko--currently with 2 stakes totaling 13 wards and 5 branches--could get a temple with a 3rd stake, while Richmond with 12 stakes that would take advantage of the temple would not have a temple for some time seems to demand a response. Of course, the potential Richmond Temple District could get 3-4 new stakes before Elko could get a 3rd stake, so maybe no response is needed.
Many members in Virginia have to travel five hours or more to the temple, just like the Elko saints. I think I can demonstrate a case for Richmond that equals or exceeds the claims of most the rest on Matt's list.
But, ultimately, the impact on attendance at the Washington DC Temple has to be considered. As new temples in the eastern US have been built, they have taken away from attendance at the Washington DC Temple. The new Philadelphia temple will take a dozen stakes or so away from the Washington DC temple. I can see the Church hesitating to take away another dozen or so from Virginia, at least until they see the impact on the Washington DC Temple once the Philadelphia Temple is in operation.
Mike,
That's precisely the reason why I think the Church hasn't announced a Richmond Temple yet -- potential impact on the DC Temple. However, several of the Virginia stakes around DC are large enough to create two more stakes. Plus the Fredericksburg Stake looks large enough to split.
Eventually, I think a Richmond Temple is going to be announced sooner than we think. Two reasons (1) there are enough stakes in sub-DC Virginia to support it (around 13) and (2) traffic to DC on I-95 is an absolute nightmare, possible one the worst in the country. I would imagine a lot of the cars with Virginia license plates came from the Arlington/Alexandria/Fairfax areas, not so much from the Richmond or Virginia Beach areas.
I would say arguments about splitting stakes as justification to announce a new temple amount to a "slice and dice" argument. There are many reasons to hold off organizing a new stake out of existing ones (expensive of new meetinghouses, more auxillaries, etc.). Once the needs demand a stake creation, it will get done. Including that would be active Melchizedek PH and temple activity. It would all go hand in hand.
No surprise about Cedar City UT and Rio de Janerio. It's as much growth in St George area that justifies Cedar city having its own temple (plus nearby outlying small towns like Richfield..).
My predictions for future announcements (timing dependent upon inspiration which is not MY call, plus Church finances, etc.)
-- Second Sao Paolo Brazil Temple
-- Abidjan Cote D'Ivoire
-- Glasgow Scotland (which trouble is that it's full of Scots!)
-- Winston-Salem NC (will serve Charlotte, Western NC and Blue Ridge part of Virginia)
-- Williamsburg VA (best location to serve SE VA and Richmond)
-- Colorado Springs CO (obvious)
-- Eugene OR
-- Elko NV (reuse 'small' layout)
-- Bakersfield CA (could also be Simi Valley, but commute worse for latter choice, no pun intended)
-- Utah: Layton (overdue), West Valley City, Salt Lake Cottonwood (hope Property Reserve already has a primo spot up on the 'benches'), Saratoga Springs, and Price.
-- Davao, Phillipines
-- Bangkok Thailand
-- Hyderabad, India
However Provo is the busiest temple there is, and with Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs as well as Lehi growing, Mount Timp is quite busy.
With the new mission rules, practically all the students at BYU will be RMs. This will mean especially a lot more sisters going to the temple, which will probably mean more brethren going to the temple as well. I can see a need for a temple in Heber Valley. Of course where I really think it would be cool to see a temple is Kamas, since that is where my ancestors settled, but I am not holding my breath.
Manaus and San Salvador temples were actually announced while President Hinckley was still president of the Church. I am sure President Monson as 1st counselor in the 1st presidency had imput on those temples, but generally we would only count for President Monson announcements Gilbert and forward.
Considering that they are building a temple in Hartford, I would not rule out a Jackson Mississippi temple as possible. The Hartford Temple might have 5 stakes in its distict, at most, and that would be inclusind stakes a lot closer to NYC. However since Louisiana currently has fewer stakes then it did when it got its temple, I am not holding my breath for a new temple there.
MainTour,
You should have stopped with your first two and then you would be two for two.
Chile does have a second temple announced. A building permit for the temple was issued on January 25th, but no groundbreaking date has been announced. Still, in theory it might be worth building a temple in far north or far south Chile, but I do not know what the state of the Church is like in either of those areas enough to predict another temple being announced.
Well Mike,
For the record, I was mainly saying I don't expect Elko to get a temple any time soon. I have no indication that it will get a temple when it gets a third stake. However Ely, Battle Mountain and the Wendover district would also probably be assigned to that temple, so it would be more than just the two Elko stakes.
That said, I do see why you expect a temple in Richmond. I just know what Elder Lansing said about the matter. With Hartford getting a temple, there is hope for lots of places.
Still, I wonder if Charleston might seem a higher priority, since they are so much further from any temple. Of course, Oakland Temple had Fresno, Reno and Medford all draw away from it almost at the same time.
For what its worth, I would not be surprised if the next temple announced in the southern US is in Bentonville Arkansas area. The Church is growing there, and in Springfirled area, and they are a ways from any temple.
On the other hand, a temple between Richmond and Norfolk would not surprise me.
I predict the Orem Utah temple will be announced within the next 2-3 years to relieve stress on the mount tiponogos and provo temples. The provo temple will be swamped due to increased missionaries and staff at the larger mtc and all the endowed RM sisters in the area. The RM sisters will likely contribute to a significant increase in temple attendence where they live world wide and increase number of temple marriages. I think the heber stakes would be assighned to the orem temple as well.
Anonymous - I agree that an Orem temple near UVSC might not be a bad idea. Being in the Sacto area, I'm not aware of utilization rates of other temples, especially in UT. A matter of priorities, finances, and, of course, revelation, and we know who's in charge of that.
As the "Gospel according to Doug", I'd guess that the Boston temple was done at the time and place in order to "fight the good fight" against NIMBYism. Seeing as it's near the Mass Pike, I'm having a hard time figuring out where else it ought to have been located, and just how it intruded upon the neighborhood, if at all. Feedback that I've read has shown that it's well accepted. Likewise for the San Antonio temple. Five stakes in a greater metro "San-Tone" of about 1.7 million isn't all that thick with LDS, but it's nice to see an airport ad when I'm picking up my baggage (frequent TDY at my Agency's HQ) and seeing a ritzy restaurant referencing as next to the "Mormon Temple". If folks just knew they're more than monuments...
Thanks, John. Reno was my temple for a while. And the Sacramento temple was added back then. Battle Mountain dropped from 2 wards to 1 when I was there. They usually don't split up stakes for temple disticts, although I imagine the members in Battle Mountain would go to a temple in Elko rather than all the way to Reno if available. Kind of like the saints in Fredericksburg would likely go to a temple in Richmond, even if the Fredericksburg Stake were still part of the Washington DC Temple district.
I do recognize calls for more temples in Utah Valley, but they will go from 2 to 4 temples here soon enough when the Provo City Center and Payson temples are completed.
One forgotten about is an anticipated temple in Salt Lake County, in the Herriman area, which was announced 'sort of' at the same time as what would become the Oquirrh Mountain Temple. That is thought to be, based on a Deseret News article which showed a site, as being down 48th West a bit south of 134th South, it would clearly be on the east edge of 'Rosecrest'.
NW Utah County: Lots of people have said they are looking for a NW Utah County temple, likely Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs, but which could clearly take in Lehi west of the freeway and the other cities mentioned. New highways over to those cities make accessibility even better.
Mid-valley SLC temple. Could be useful. I wish they had some property near a TRAX station, which could make such a temple enormously accessible. Whereever they put it, it should be no further south than 72nd South and no further north than 33rd South.
There is some property they have near 'Knudsen's Corner' a big freeway interchange on I-215 east just north of 62nd South some rumors have put it as being at if they want to do one there.
Heber Valley and Tooele Valley. Both are growing somewhat, and have traffic and weather issues in the winter as far as getting down into the cities. Clearly possible.
And if priesthood leaders and members step up to the plate with reactivation and member-missionary work we could effectively double the number of temples between Payson and Brigham City. That won't come for years yet, but it is something to shoot for.
Brazil: SP State may see one eventaully at Ribeirao Preto. Would relieve Campinas somewhat, as Rio will supposedly do. Rio has its choice due to how the roads work of the two in SP State right now. ldschurchtemples.com says that at present, Campinas serves 90 stakes.
Other locations for temples in Brazil may be Belem and Brasilia, and if member growth is good, possibly something between Recife and Rio. Natal is not big enough yet, but that could be a good site, it's several hours drive north of Recife on roads that are less than ideal and are not in fact as well-maintained as SP state's roads are.
Reuters in fact is reporting now that Nigeria could be more populous than Brazil but not quite as populous as the US by 2050, so there's huge opportunities for missionary work there now already in the south. Anything in the south could be a potential temple site down the line.
Personally, I believe that when President Hinckley announced that temples would be built in the west and southwest parts of the Salt Lake valley and then announced a temple in Daybreak (the current Oquirrh Mountain Temple) that that was the southwest temple and not the west temple. The Deseret News reported that it was the west temple, but what President Hinckley said didn't require that. Why would a temple 84% of the way from the northern extreme to the southern extreme of the valley be considered west and not southwest is beyond me? Why put a third temple relatively close to each other, with significant areas of the valley much further away.
The Oquirrh Mountain Temple was built on land purchased from the Kinnecott Land Company, which is developing a huge tract of land it owns along a western strip of the valley with Daybreak being the southern end. There are other locations in the Kinnecott Land Company's master land development plan that could be used for a temple in the Magna area.
I think they were mentioned together because the Church also bought an option for a location further north in the west part of the valley in the Magna area at the same time.
But, until that temple is finally announced, I guess we will never know for sure.
Did turn up some news stories.
1. Just after the 'west' and 'southwest' announcement, it was still unclear whether the 'southwest' temple was the one now built in Daybreak for some time. It led to the '48th West' site story, and it caused no small stir in the area. So much so that there was a battle between two cities for some land east of 48th West.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635175700/Salt-Lake-County-temple-site-still-unknown.html?pg=all
A second story about the area, after the judge ruled on the matter mentioned in the first article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635191385/Ruling-buoys-landowners.html?pg=all
A third article that mentions the 'extreme southwest corner' of Salt Lake Valley' for another temple. Most of article refers to the Oquirrh Mountain Temple.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650211517/S-Jordan-planners-OK-temple.html?pg=all
Still looking for the one with the map showing both Oquirrh Mountain and this other one on a map.
James, thanks for the list of articles and descriptions of them. The Deseret News has been obsessed with the idea that Daybreak/Oquirrh Mountain was the "west" temple and that a "southwest" temple further south in Herriman or Riverton would be forth coming. But, that is not what President Hinckley said. He said nothing to indicate that the temple to be built in the Daybreak development would be the "west" or the "southwest" only that the Church is going to build two more temples in those parts of the valley and in a new sentence announced one of them in the Daybreak development
A majority of stakes in both the Jordan River and the Oquirrh Mountain temple districts are north of South Jordan where both temples are located.
The Oquirrh Mountain districts extends north-south across the westernmost part of the valley. It includes 16 stakes north of South Jordan--all the way to Magna, 6 stakes in South Jordan and 7 south of South Jordan.
The Jordan River district includes 53 stakes north of South Jordan including in West Valley, Taylorsville, Kearns, Murray, Midvale, and West Jordan. It also includes 6 stakes in South Jordan and 6 further south.
The overwhelming need is not south of these temples but north. Unless you include the Lehi-Eagle Mountain area in Utah County, but they are in the Mount Timpanogos Temple district and I would submit that a more appropriate place for a temple to support those stakes would be in Lehi.
A temple in the Magna area would not only help the northern parts of the Jordan River and Oquirrh Mountain temple districts, but also the western part of the Salt Lake Temple district.
Now, I should point out that I grew up and my family lives along the east side of valley and I don't have any personal interest in a temple on the west side of the valley. I would prefer one on the east side. But, it isn't hard to see that Oquirrh Mountain is in the southwest part of the valley and that it is more logical for a variety of reasons that the other temple was to the north and not to the south.
I have some good friends in Herriman who look forward to a temple closer than the few miles they have to drive to Oquirrh Mountain.
Mike, You are exactly right. This is the exact statement of President Hinckley:
"We have previously announced a new temple in the southeast quadrant of the Salt Lake Valley."
Okay, this is referring to the Draper Temple. Then he Goes on:
"We have two other excellent sites in the west and southwest areas of the valley through the kindness of the developers of these properties."
He refers to two other sites, then he said:
"The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that."
He said the "first one on which we will build", he didn't say that the first temple that will be constructed is the one of the first location of the order that he mentioned them.
It was not president Hinckley that said the unannounced temple was the southwest site, it was the official Church Press release that followed: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/new-salt-lake-valley-temple-announced
So it's possible the person that wrote the press release had inside information, but it is also possible the writer could have just inferred the information. If in fact the release is wrong, the church probably would not want to clear it up because they don't like to feed speculation of new temples.
To further confuse the matter, this SLTRIB article says the announcement was not part of his original prepared remarks: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3080682
Thanks, James. Makes sense. I agree, I think the Church would not want to fuel speculation. Thus why correct what may have been a public affairs error.
I also understand Kinecott Land Company's plans to the north ended up being delayed with the bad economy and that the Church has not yet taken advantage of that site until the surrounding development (and infrastructure) goes forward.
One other potential twist.
Reported on 13 September 2011, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52567975-90/kennecott-development-church-lake.html.csp
"The deal, in the works for two years and confirmed by both parties Monday, gives Kennecott more than 3,100 acres, long owned by the church's Property Reserve Inc., in exchange for an unspecified number of acres in southwestern Salt Lake County."
Hmmmh. Getting more land in the southwestern part of the valley in exchange for a lot of land on the western side of Salt Lake City, west of the airport.
Maybe this land is for a meetinghouses or other needs. But, the thought struck me that maybe the Church wants to go through with what is seen in the media as a commitment by President Hinckley.
If a temple is built in Herriman, it would have to have stakes in the district that are north of both the Jordan River and Oquirrh Mountain temples and those temples would have to be in stakes inside a Herriman Temple district. I hope this isn't what the Church exchanged land to get.
Post a Comment