Thursday, December 15, 2016

November 2016 Newsletter

I forgot to post a link to the November 2016 edition of our newsletter for cumorah.com. The newsletter can be accessed here.

64 comments:

Eduardo Clinch said...

It is good to see new LDS outreach in Manitoba; I understand that numbers in the Canadian central plains provinces can be difficult, especially east of Alberta. I throw in vast parts of western Ontario in with that assessment. Temple activity must be challenging, and even missionary placement and access to all those rural inhabitants.
That town of 11 plus thousand is probably a good sized town for that province. I wonder how many towns of that size in my native state of Indiana do not have an organized branch or ward. I have mentioned the rural Brown County between Bloomington and Columbus that does not have a unit. Maybe the whole county has about 10,000 or so residents, with a total of 30 churches?
It would be interesting to see how many churches and congregations there are per population, per county.
Also, the same stat in other countries and divisions.

Good to see growth in Botswana. I understand they have good naturally endowed wealth, which if used for good for them and their society, good be an oasis in a continent where too many millions struggle for everyday needs.

Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Johnson said...

Steinbach Manitoba is the third largest city in population in Manitoba (after Winnipeg and Brandon) with 13,524 in the 2011 Census and 11,066 in the 2006 Census.

The new branch covers most of the area southeast of Winnipeg--south to the US and east to Ontario except the very southeast corner of Manitoba that is in the Warroad Branch of the Fort Frances Ontario District.

Steinbach is the economic hub of its region and is mostly a market town for the surrounding area.

The ten cities of Manitoba with the 2011 census populations;

Winnipeg (663,617) Stake, temple under construction, 4 meeting houses, 6 wards--some of which extend to great distances from Winnipeg.
Brandon (46,061) Brandon Ward, which covers much of southwest Manitoba
Steinbach (13,524) Steinbach Branch--no meeting house identified in LDS maps yet, covers much of the area southeast of Winnipeg
Thompson (13,123) Thompson Branch--covers pretty much the northern 1/2 of the province.
Portage la Prairie (12,996) Portage la Prairie Branch--covers the area between the Brandon Ward to the west and Winnipeg based wards running south from Winnipeg to the US border (also includes Winkler and Morden)
Winkler (10,670) --near the southern end of the Portage la Prairie Branch
Selkirk (9,834) -- Branch covering a large area northeast of Winnipeg to Ontario.
Dauphin (8,251) -- Branch in western Manitoba covering a large area between the Brandon Ward to the south and the Thompson and Fln Flon branches to the north.
Morden (7,812) -- very close to Winkler near the southern end of the Portage la Prairie Branch
Flin Flon (part) (5,405) --city is split between Manitoba and Saskatchewan--the population given is the Manitoba part. Flin Flon Branch covers a large surrounding area in both provinces (including The Pas--Manitoba's largest town) and is part of of the Saskatoon Saskatchewan Stake.
Portions of Manitoba are also in the Warroad Branch (based in Minnesota) and the Kenora Branch (based in Ontario) both of the Fort Francis Ontario District.

Every congregation in Manitoba is based on one of these cities. It is good news that there is a Steinbach branch. Given the distance Winkler and Morden are from Portage la Prairie, I would suspect that the Church would like to create a branch for them at some point in the near future.

With the exception of Winnipeg, these cities are tiny in area compared to the surrounding rural municipalities.

Mike Johnson said...

I didn't name the Selkirk and Dauphin branches--each named for the city in the branch is based.

Deivisas said...

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/utah-salt-lake-city-headquarters-mission-announced

Downtownchrisbrown said...

I think the announcement of the new mission in Salt Lake has some real potential for good. To be honest, I always thought that the missionaries called to headquarters did what other senior missionaries around the world did in terms of outreach/proselytizing/less-active work, etc. Hopefully with this added force spread throughout the area, we may be able to see a change in the congregational decline. I know that most of the decline can be attributed to demographics, but improving family history involvement, and improving attendance is a real possibility. If each companionship helps reactivate on average one family each per year, we would see increases from two wards/year to as much as a stake. The effect of this change should be fairly easy to quantify as far as congregational decline goes since the area affected is so small and there aren't really any other changes happening. Pretty unique opportunity for those who are good with stats and trend lines.

John Pack Lambert said...

Warren G. Tate president of the Salt Lake City headquarters mission was my mission president in Las Vedas back in 2000-2002. My grandparents served in an assignment with the Church History Department in that mission. I like the revisions. I think the missionaries in that mission have been underutilized. It was also interesting to learn the mission works with military relations and other headquarters functions. I knew they had young service m8ssionaries assigned but had no clue they had single sisters called on full time missions.

James said...

When I was excused from full-time missionary service because my health wouldn't allow it, several people urged me to consider serving in Salt Lake. But the Lord called me elsewhere, which worked out well since, in retaining my temple service after my "mission" ended, I was able to meet my wife. But it was no less thrilling to me to find out about this announcement. No less significant in my mind is the fact that TempleRick has confirmed the official organization of the third stake in India, which brings the number of stakes created just this year alone to the 100 Matt was predicting. Strangely enough, according to the LDS Church Temples website, the new stake in India contains no wards, just five branches. I guess it was done to centralize leadership and in the hopes that the branches might soon be able to be upgraded to wards. I am assuming Matt will give the most proper focus to this landmark and milestone creation in a post within the next couple of days. In the meantime, I personally marked two milestones in the last 72 hours: my 30th birthday on Friday, and my 6th wedding anniversary today. I have blogged today about all of these significant events. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

I've been listening to a very interesting book on the Church in the City and the opportunities and pitfalls of work to spread the gospel in urban settings.
https://www.amazon.com/Center-Church-Balanced-Gospel-Centered-Ministry/dp/0310494184
https://www.redeemercitytocity.com/

The Accountant said...

The Indianapolis West Stake announced yesterday the creation of the Mooresville ward. This is the second ward in 6 months to be created in the Indy West Stake. With the creation of this ward all buildings will be at full capacity and they can now apply for a stake center to be built in Avon, IN. They initially applied when the stake was created 10 years ago built were told that the buildings needed to be at full capacity before being considered.

Deivisas said...

With a 3rd Stake formed in India yesterday. What are the odds of a Temple for India being announced possibly in April now?

David Todd said...

James, it is most likely that the information that templerick needs to fill out the ward information for the new stake in India is not there yet. There will be wards created.

I'm not sure about the temple, I'm not a source of great knowledge on that behalf, but I think it is a good possibility and would be a significant landmark for the church.

Deivisas said...

Looking at the map of currently announced and constructed Temples, India would be a great place to set a Temple as it is so far from other Temples and closer to members in places like Pakistan:
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/maps/

John Pack Lambert said...

A temple for India is possible. Still most temples cover areas with at least 4 stakes alrhough there are exceptions. New Delhi might get a stake soon. That would be 4 stakes in India. They are not close though. I think the distance from New Delhi to Bangalore is more than from Phenom Penn to Bangkock.

James said...

Interestingly enough, among the proposed temples TempleRick has listed, there is one for India. A temple for New Delhi was proposed by Elder Neal A. Maxwell back in June of 1992. As someone wisely observed when I had my list of 60+ possible temple sites, the fact that a temple has been publicly proposed by an apostle does not automatically mean it is an imminent possibility. I have always felt that a temple in India would be possible. But given what little I know from the studying I have done on the subject of Church growth there, to say nothing of the political and social climate that exists in India, I am reasonably certain that a temple in India is not likely during my lifetime. That being said, as I myself have repeatedly observed, I always felt that temples in Payson Utah and Paris France were a possibility, but not likely during my lifetime. I have been wrong on both counts, and I couldn't be happier to have been proven wrong on both counts. As I have also mentioned before, on my blog and in other places, in an effort to encourage a young man with whom I had grown up regarding the lack of growth and his personal success during his mission in Italy, I felt impressed to tell him that he would not only live to see the fruits of his personal labor in that nation, but that I felt sure there would be a temple announced in Italy in the near future. And several years later, such a temple was announced for the very area in which my friend had served. While the process of actually getting that temple built has spanned one of the most lengthy periods in recent Church history, it is still amazing to see what can happen in terms of temples in unexpected areas and taking various periods of time to complete. I could definitely see the logistical appeal of a temple in India, and I will be sure and keep an eye on all developments there, but from what little I do know, I don't see it happening any time soon. I've been wrong before, though, so nothing would surprise me at this point. FWIW, that's my take on this. I absolutely love the idea of a temple in India, though, and I look forward to the day when the time will be right for that to happen, whether that is within my lifetime or not. As always, it's been a most intriguing discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed and will yet contribute.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

Thallasah FL is getting anew meeting house the stake has 8 wards and 5 branches with 1 ward and 1 branch being created this year.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

The stack prisdent of the Panama city stack yesterday in sacrament meeting talked about how we are getting close to having a temple in Northwest FL.

James said...

Thanks for that information, Bryce! That is one of the many reasons why, among the locations I am predicting a temple for in the near future is for Jacksonville Florida. I got feedback on my personal list that Jacksonville is the most likely location for Florida's 3rd temple. It appears that this is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

Mike Johnson said...

I note this blog post by a Sister missionary in Mongolia. It is about a month old and was posted just before Thanksgiving:

http://jenniferhansenmongolia.blogspot.com/2016/11/i-am-grateful-for-traffic-laws.html

She starts: "I am grateful for traffic laws
You know those days where everything just flows perfectly and all goes exactly as planned?
Yeah, me neither. Like the time I went on a split with Sister Nelson and she got ran over by a bus."

There is then a picture of two sister missionaries captioned by "On splits with Sister Nelson (just before she got ran over by a bus)"

A moving story follows of slipping on the ice and having the rear tires of a bus running over her legs. And lots of trials and then testimony of a miracle and God's love for His missionaries.

Mike Johnson said...

James, Bryce was talking about northwest Florida and not northeast Florida. The Panama City Florida Stake is in the Orlando Temple District (5.5 hours from the temple). Two other temples--Birmingham and Atlanta--are somewhat closer to the stake than Orlando.

I believe he was talking about a possible temple in the Pensacola area--perhaps as far east as Tallahassee. This isn't to say that the Saints around Jacksonville aren't also worthy of a temple in their midst.

Of course, I believe that the saints across southern Virginia are as worthy of a temple as anywhere.

Cory Ward said...

Looking at the map of places in the US that are outside of the 200 mile radius of a temple:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1h14Vj6lHHFVttxbM_8HQsmuD1IM&ll=38.54346623801669%2C-96.49360656738281&z=5
the two most likely places for a temple, outside of a radius, are probably:
Rogers/Springdale, Arkansas
Florida Panhandle
Then there are 3 other stakes that are not headquartered in a 200 mile radius:
Rapid City, South Dakota
Bangor, Maine
Garden City, Kansas
That leaves nearly all of the US in a 200 radius except for only a few small areas.
Northern peninsula, Michigan;El Dorado, Arkansas; North Platte, Nebraska; Kingsport Tennissee, and a rural part of southern Texas.

James said...

@Mike Johnson: I offer a disclaimer right here and now: I don't claim to be a geography buff. I am geographically challenged and get easily lost and disoriented. In fact, I like to joke that I earned my orienteering merit badge in the Boy Scouts on accident, and it wasn't the usual sort of accident either. So I am not able to differentiate between the regions of Florida. All I know is what I have been told, and that is that of all the many good possibilities for Florida's next temple, Jacksonville is the most likely and most imminent in terms of Church growth. As for Virginia, that too has been on my radar for a future temple for a while now. I have gotten feedback about three main possibilities, and after studying the options, have come to the conclusion that Richmond is the most likely for Virginia's first temple. However, I recognize that I am just one person making the best predictions I can with the information I have, and as such, I am prone to be fallible. If I am in error on this prediction, do let me know.

James said...

@Cory Ward: As far as temples within a 200 mile radius, you make a valid and excellent point. But I am able to confirm, because my former TL at work has ties to Arkansas, that land has been purchased for a future temple in Bentonville, and an official announcement is expected when Church growth and activity in the area and the temple district it would cover warrants that. TempleRick has told me that he only puts on his list of publicly proposed temples those that appear in official Church publications, and I get that.

As far as the other locations you mentioned, I know of the growth of the Church in South Dakota primarily because my dad served his mission in Rapid City, which at the time he served covered multiple state boundaries. I haven't been able to talk to him about growth in his mission area for a while, but, in my mind, if and when a temple is built in South Dakota, Rapid City would be a great base.

I would absolutely love to see temples everywhere that do not have one within a 200 mile radius, and President Monson has repeatedly made it clear that is what we are working towards. We have seen some surprising announcements in unexpected places just within the last 8 years that he's been Church president, and, for that reason alone, we cannot rule out any city anywhere as a possible host city for a future temple, even those that already have one or cities that are within less than that 200 mile radius.

I have analyzed, to the best of my ability, Church growth worldwide, and, when I originally began considering possible future temple sites, my personal list was 60+ strong. Over time, as Church growth has been brought to my attention, I have fine-tuned my list of most imminent future temple sites to around 20 or 25. In so doing, I have always recognized that, being just one person with limited geographical knowledge, and basing my guesses on what I can ascertain through feedback and my observation of Church growth, I am prone to fallibility, and, because of that, I have continually asked for feedback about my list each time I have made any changes to it. My most recent such list was posted about 8 days ago, and, as always, I welcome feedback on my work.

Such feedback and input, above and beyond the research I have done and what I have been told about future possibilities, have made my list what it is today. With thanks to Matt for allowing me to share links to such posts through the comment thread here, I will post the link to that particular blog post below. Any continued feedback is welcomed through either this blog or through the comment thread on the links I share. Thanks. Let the discussion continue, however that comes about. Thanks again.

http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2016/12/revised-list-of-cities-for-which-i-feel.html

L. Chris Jones said...

As far as temple work is concerned. It is important that records are available and searchable for family history work. I encourage as many people as possible to participate in indexing. Much of it is easy and takes very little time. There are several types of records you can index and there are several levels of easy to more difficult. You can spend as little or as much time as you want. You get to choose. Please help in this great and important work. My stake is very close to our goal of one million records for the year. Also, family search indexing has goals as part of the "Light the World" campaign for the holiday season. Please help even if its only a little.

Mike Johnson said...

200 miles, although mentioned in some discussions, is little more than a guide and is not really a good measure. It some areas it takes 3 hours to cross that distance and some 6 hours and in some areas much longer.

All three temples being built in the US right now are within 105 miles of another temple. Almost all of the temples announced or under construction overseas are well beyond 200 miles (322 km) many by several times that factor. Port-au-Prince, Haiti at 317 km (197 miles) from the Santo Domingo temple is an exception, but it takes over 6 hours to drive.

Lots of potential metrics get used in determining whether a temple will be built. 200 miles doesn't appear to be all that useful of a metric or one the Church actually uses.

The Church does use metrics that we can't readily see, like endowed members and family history work.

coachodeeps said...

Thanks for sharing the 200 mile radius map! This is great. Interesting to see how this coverage reaches down into South America, also. Thanks for keeping it updated, using colors and even showering a few predictions.

James said...

Mike Johnson, thank you for that clarification. I have also noticed how some of the temples announced since President Monson became Church president were well within a 200 mile radius of another temple already in operation. The point I was trying to make is that President Monson's goal is to have at least one temple within a 200 mile radius of the members that temple will serve. Is it a major factor in determining future sites? Most certainly, but that is not to say that it is the only such factor. I haven't done the math, so I honestly don't know how the possible temple picks I have done do fit the mold of any qualifications and considerations, which is why I am continually asking for input. Many who have commented on such lists I have personally done in the past based on their knowledge of the geographical side of things, which I don't have. There have also been temples that I felt were possible when I had my list of 60+ that, for personal reasons, I have felt were not as imminent or likely as some of the others that might happen sooner. As I have always stated, I recognize just how little I know about the logistics involved in selecting temple sites and discerning whether any site would be more preferable or more imminent than any others. Many people have commented particularly in this discussion and many others that they see several more temples in Utah's future. I agree fully with that assessment, but from what I have been able to find out from the research I have done, the most imminent possibilities for near future Utah temples are Layton and Lehi.Tooele has been mentioned to me a few times, but I am not as confident on that idea as others seem to be. I think what I will do, since the discussion of my picks has seemed to spread to here, is to finish this comment, then post again in a minute with my personal list, such as it is, and allow others who might be interested in my thoughts on the matter to discuss that here as well as, if they so choose, on the blog post to which I posted a link above. I would welcome any feedback on that. Thanks for all the great discussion on this point. My list will follow in just a minute.

James said...

Had to split this comment into two parts, thanks to the word limit. What follows is the list I promised, a few minutes later than promised. I have posted this list, which I have taken time to reprioritize, on my blog, and comments on my work are welcome either here (as long as Matt continues to tolerate such discussion) or on my blog itself. Let me know if I am in error on the order or listed cities, or the facts I have listed regarding the question of why each choice is in the order in which these potential temples appear. I look forward to the feedback in either forum.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

Managua Nicaragua (publicly proposed by Elder Russell M. Nelson in 2012; land has been purchased for such a temple there when Church membership and activity warrants it; it is the #1 country with the most LDS members without a temple)

Port Moresby Papua New Guinea (again, such a site has already been purchased and is awaiting the need for it; it is the #2 country with the most LDS members without a temple)

Bentonville Arkansas (site purchased and awaiting till Church membership and activity warrants it; appears to be the #1 contender for the next temple in the United States)

Freetown Sierra Leone (the #6 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Kampala Uganda (the #8 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Nairobi Kenya (the #10 country with the most LDS members without a temple; may be needed due to extensive Church growth)

Lehi/Layton Utah (we have not had a new temple announced in Utah since 2015; among the many possibilities, Lehi and Layton seem to be the most imminent)

Budapest Hungary (according to a comment on my blog, this will be the next temple announced in Europe; seems to be the most imminent possibility)

Pocatello Idaho (this is the largest Idaho city without a temple; Rick Satterfield’s home city)

La Paz Bolivia (I favor this location because my former bishop and good friend served his mission there)

Fort Worth Texas (this is the city in Texas with the largest LDS presence without a temple)

Puebla Mexico (according to a comment on my blog, this is the most likely city for the next temple in Mexico)

Missoula Montana (according to reports, Elder Bednar publicly proposed this temple during a stake conference; while the nature of that proposal is questionable, this appears to be a very likely city for Montana’s second temple)

Brasilia/Belo Horizonte/Salvador Brazil (in the order listed, they are the top three Brazilian cities with the strongest Church presence without a temple)

Jacksonville Florida (this is, according to Rick Satterfield, the most likely location for Florida’s third temple)

Benin City/Lagos/Port Harcourt Nigeria (in no particular order, they are the top three Nigerian cities that may be considered good candidates for temples)

Richmond Virginia (on my blog, three cities in Virginia were mentioned as possibilities to host a temple, and of the three, Richmond appears to be the best option, in addition to being the capital city)

Chile (Antofagasta/Valparaiso/Santiago (2nd temple), any of which may be excellent candidates for the next Chilean temple)

Kumasi Ghana (#1 Ghana city with the strongest LDS presence without a temple)

Neuquen Argentina (mentioned as a possibility on my blog)

Edinburgh Scotland (someone mentioned on my blog that a temple was likely in the near future for either Scotland or Ireland, and Rick Satterfield said on my blog that, of the two, Scotland was more likely)

Rapid City South Dakota (while a possible temple might serve only one or two stakes at best, the temple in Winnipeg makes this a very likely possibility; I personally favor this city for a temple because my dad served his mission there)

Salem Oregon (mentioned as a near-future possibility through a comment on my blog; also is the capital city, which makes a great center for a future temple)

Tacoma Washington (the same comment that mentioned the previous city mentioned this one as well, which appears to be as good as any other possibility)

Montpelier Vermont (as the capital city, seems to be the best place for Vermont’s first temple)

Levi said...

From the LDS church Temples website there is two ward creations and one ward realignment in the Indianapolis area. What's the likelihood of another Stake being created in the area in the near future?

Christopher Nicholson said...

Some years ago an Indian friend told me that the Church had already purchased a temple site in India (I don't remember if she specifically said it was in Delhi) because land would be far more expensive if they waited. Personally I wouldn't expect to see a temple there for several years, after the Bangkok temple has been in operation for a while and there are a lot more members in India a lot closer together. None of the three current stakes in India are even within 200 miles of *each other*, and of course the anticipated stake in Delhi will be even farther away, so it would still be difficult for them to get to the temple regularly and it would probably be pretty empty most of the time. I wonder if we might see a temple in Bengaluru or Hyderabad before Delhi. The one in Delhi is the one that's been publicly proposed, of course, but it would be just about as far away as possible from where the current majority of membership is actually concentrated, and with India being so vast and populated there's no reason to think in terms of only getting one temple. It would be much closer to Pakistan, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be for Pakistani members to cross the border, since India and Pakistan hate each other more than a little bit.

Fredrick said...

I can say with certainty that a temple for both Kampala Uganda and Nairobi Kenya will be not be announced any time soon, perhaps not even in our lifetime, due the proximity of both countries. I expect that a Nairobi temple will be annouced within the next decade that will serve the saints in Uganda once it is completed, or vice versa, but not both.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

Jacksonville is good the poldom that for most of the stacks in Northwest Florida and south Alabama it will be just as far as all the other temples the long hald idea is that the next temple will be mere by Tallahassee. But Jacksonville does make since for the same reason for that part of the state.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

Tallahassee is believed by most on having the next temple just because of i10 a temple there would only take about 2- 3 hours for 6 stacks to attend.

Fredrick said...

I thought about Tallahassee getting the next Florida temple over Jacksonville because of its central location (halfway between Pensacola and Jax). However, there's only a single stake near Tallahasse versus 3 stakes near Jacksonville (four if you count Kingland, GA). Lake City and Gainsville are about one hour from Jacksonville. The next nearest stakes to Tallahassee are in Panama City and Dothan, AL - 2 hours away. Jax and Pensacola are nearly 3 hours away. Not exactly close.

The Church will probably build a temple near Jacksonville, which will serve 9 stakes, and then later Pensacola, which would serve about five or six stakes if it were built today.



Bryce .Gillespie said...

Good point but I do thank Tallahassee just because Jacksonville is not to far from Orlando being lest then 200 miles will, were all the stacks in the Tallahassee area have lunger drive,but as Fredrick has said mere stakes can go to Jacksonville, Pensacola or Dothen would be the next place for a temple if Jacksonville does get a Temple. Ether temple I thank will be soon.

John Pack Lambert said...

With a new ward created this last Sunday and a branch upgraded to a ward in the Indianapolis Indiana North Stake I wonder if that stake is ready to be split in the next year. Cammerron (I probably spelled it wrong) got its second district on Sunday. Hopefully they get a stake there next year. I am also thinking Angola, Malaysia and Malawi will see their first stakes nexy year.

John Pack Lambert said...

Would a temple in Green Bay Wisconsin put most of the UP within 200 miles of a temple? I could see Green Bay getting a temple at some point. Is McAllen Texas more than 200 miles from a temple. My understanding is this area is urban bot rural. There are 3 stakes in the deep south of Texas. If Laredo is upgraded from a district to a stake I can see them getting a temple in McAllen.

John Pack Lambert said...

In some areas roads are so bad that travel time can go way up. I kbow this is true for going from Cameroon to the Aba Nigeria Temple. I still find it odd Camerroon is assigned to South Africa when Aba is so much closer.

John Pack Lambert said...

With 5 new stakes in Honduras this year the Tegucigalpa Temple is probably getting more use. Also a new ward was formed in Nicaragua recently.

John Pack Lambert said...

It is only 40 miles from Port Harcourt to Aba. I hope to live to see the day both cities have temples and since I am only 36 I might but I expect Lagos, Benin City and probably a few more plces in Nigeria to get temples before Port Harcourt.

Mike Johnson said...

James, I hear you. I do believe that how far away operating temples are is a factor, but I don't believe linear distance is relatively important for the reasons I stated earlier. Time to temple is undoubtedly better as a measure of the effort and sacrifice required to get to the temple and an arbitrary 200 miles is not supported by what the Church has done. 200 miles imposes an unrealistic screen, largely unnecessary overseas (although there are plenty of places where I envision multiple temples well within 200 miles of each other overseas, and rarely used in the US, at least not recently.

But, time to temple isn't the most important factor, either. Philadelphia to the Washington DC temple and Richmond to that temple are very close to the same distance both in miles and in time. So why Philadelphia and not Richmond? Who knows. Not a greater LDS population to serve, but a larger overall population and perhaps the potential effect on missionary work.

Concentration of saints, I believe is important. It takes members to run the temple. Although it is not as defined as the relationship between stakes and wards (wards can only be in stakes and stakes must have wards and should have at least five when created), there is a strong relationship between temples and stakes. They seem to grow together. The first temples overseas came about the same time as stakes were created in the same areas. I can't push the analogy too far, because temples aren't the LDS counterparts to Catholic cathedrals and they don't own stakes, but stakes are critical to the running of temples.

Not only are all three of the US temples currently under construction well within 200 miles of an operating temple (and in fact within 105 miles), 18 of the last 20 temples in the US to be dedicated are also within 200 miles of a then operating temple--temple (dedication date) distance to nearest operating temple, sorted by distance.

Provo City Center Temple (20-Mar-2016): 3 miles (Provo)
Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple (21-Aug-2009): 4 miles (Jordan River)
Draper Utah Temple (20-Mar-2009): 9 miles (Jordan River)
Gilbert Arizona Temple (02-Mar-2014): 14 miles (Mesa)
Payson Utah Temple (07-Jun-2015): 21 miles (Provo)
Brigham City Utah Temple (23-Sep-2012): 23 miles (Ogden)
Rexburg Idaho Temple (10-Feb-2008): 27 miles (Idaho Falls)
Phoenix Arizona Temple (16-Nov-2014): 39 miles (Mesa)
Newport Beach California Temple (28-Aug-2005): 51 miles (Los Angeles)
Fort Collins Colorado Temple (16-Oct-2016): 77 miles (Denver)
Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple (18-Sep-2016): 95 miles (Manhattan)
Sacramento California Temple (03-Sep-2006): 103 miles (Oakland)
Star Valley Wyoming Temple (30-Oct-2016): 106 miles (Idaho Falls)
Hartford Connecticut Temple (20-Nov-2016): 110 miles (Boston)
Twin Falls Idaho Temple (24-Aug-2008): 129 miles (Boise)
Indianapolis Indiana Temple (23-Aug-2015): 137 miles (Louisville)
The Gila Valley Arizona Temple (23-May-2010): 144 miles (Mesa)
Kansas City Missouri Temple (06-May-2012): 188 miles (Omaha)
San Antonio Texas Temple (22-May-2005): 210 miles (Houston)
Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple (04-May-2014): 228 miles (Orlando)

John Pack Lambert said...

Some have attacked the LDS Church in Africa as too much a missionary controlled Church which is too world wode unified and does not allow for local customs. A Wikipedia article on black Latter-day Saints relies heavily on such arguments from an article in the journal of Mormon history published some 7 years ago. The problem is that these arguments ignore the main braks in most Christian Churches between their parts in say Nigeria and the US. These differences are most often over moral issues. However another ignored fact is that Latter-day Saints embrace visions, inspired dreams and revelations in a way long rejected by much of the Protestant World. I was just reading a review by Louis Midgley in the Interpretor of two works on the rise of Mormonism among the Maori that point out the visions and inspired dreams angle as a key ro Mormon success among the Maori. This probably plays out to some extent in other parts of Polynesia. However I think it can also be a key to movjng the Church forward in Africa. We need to reach out and build on the faith in the true power of God among those who have not accepted modernist ideas against things like personal revelation.

John Pack Lambert said...

The first stake in New Zealand was organized at the same time the temple was dedicated there. However the level of Maori dev9tion to the Church makes New Zealand a special case. Hawaii had a temple for 17 years before it got a stske. The Swiss Temple predates the 1st Swiss stake by 6 years and the 1st stake in continental Europe by 5 and a half. On the other hand it is 30 years after the Eastern US got its first stake that it got its 1st temple. That temple came 19 years after the Swiss Temple in fact.

Christopher said...

John Pack Lambert, a second cousin of mine is in the temple presidency in Honduras and he says the temple is incredibly busy right now. They recently had record numbers, and I think the temple is only going to get busier. I wonder if a second temple in the next ten years or so will be built in the Northern coast where there has been so much growth.

James said...

Thanks to you all for the mammoth and most extensive response to my list of temples that may soon be announced. One of the many hang-ups I encounter in my personal selections is the fact that I am not a geography buff at all. I easily get lost and disoriented even in navigating around in my own neighborhood. And I so very much appreciate the comments on this very important topic. Where to start to respond? I think I will start at the top and go down. Far less confusing that way. First, to Christopher: New Delhi India has been the proposed site, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a temple in India either did not happen for years or was not in New Delhi where it has been publicly proposed. I have often commented on the fact that a publicly proposed temple says nothing in particular about its future imminence or likelihood. India is one of those countries with such a bad political climate that it would greatly surprise me to have a temple built in India at any point within my lifetime. But then, while I believed a temple would someday be built in both Payson Utah and Paris France, I also didn't think that would happen in my lifetime. But now, Payson has been dedicated, and France will be dedicated next May. So from just that we see that even if we believe that a temple is not possible, likely, or imminent for any location, sometimes the Lord in His wisdom announces temples for reasons that don't make logical sense. The three announced in 2015 are such examples. As a comment on my personal list, among those I was predicting for April 2016, I got two of the four locations dead on among my predictions, and got the right country but the wrong city for the third. Additionally, for what it's worth, I expressed to a friend of mine when he was serving his mission in Italy among some turbulence and a climate not conducive to a house of the Lord that I felt certain a temple would be built in the area his mission served. Within three years of that statement, which proved to be prophetic in so many ways, much to my surprise, such a temple was announced for the area his mission covered. And though the Rome Italy temple will have been under construction for 8+ years by the time of its completion, the announcement of it didn't surprise me. I tend to be, at different periods of my life, very in tune about future developments. But, as I also continue to acknowledge, I don't know everything about what might make one site preferable over another, and I do at least therefore have enough sense to request feedback on what I do. For what it's worth, that's my first comment.

James said...

Frederick, I certainly appreciate your statement about how Kampala Uganda and Nairobi Kenya may not get temples anytime in the near future. But they are both among the top ten cities with the greatest LDS presence and activity without a temple, which does make the idea of a temple possible, even if there may be grounds in other respects to rule them out for the near future. I am confident enough to have them on my list, but I understand that people may not agree with me in this respect. But the fact is, we are entering a period of unprecedented Church growth, and a majority of the growth trends appear to be in South America and Africa. And since we have seen surprise announcements in the past for places that might have traditionally been ruled out or disqualified, I feel confident enough to keep them as near-future possibilities. Anyone is free to disagree with me, but, while I freely admit that I am not geographically inclined, and while there is much I do not know, what I know has convinced me that temples are likely enough in both nations in the near future. Unless there is a strong enough argument that changes my perspective, I think I feel best about leaving them both on my near future list for now.

James said...

Bryce, as I stated on my blog post itself, I can see a day when temples will be in both Tallahassee and Jacksonville, but in this, as with everything temple-related I have ever dabbled in, I feel confident in TempleRick's statement to me that Jacksonville will be the next Florida temple. He's done the research to back that statement up. I get the argument in favor of Tallahassee over Jacksonville, but I will defer to his stated opinion, since he has done all the necessary research about growth in Florida to make that statement.

Frederick, I again appreciate your statement about the host city most likely for Florida's next temple, but, as I stated above, I will always defer to TempleRick's excellent research and knowledge on this. I wouldn't rule out a temple for Tallahassee someday, as well as for Pensacola, but I am confident enough in TempleRick's research to ultimately defer to his expressed opinion on the matter, unless something comes up that changes my mind. Given my extreme faith in his perspective on this, unless he someday concurs with the notion of Tallahassee or Pensacola for Florida's next temple, I think I will stay with his researched opinion.

Bryce, again, I'm trusting TempleRick's judgement because he's done the research to back up his opinion. Unless he states otherwise, or unless the Lord proves that He needs Florida's next temple(s) elsewhere, I will stick with my prediction for Jacksonville. Thanks for the added opinion, though.

John Pack Lambert, as far as the near future imminence of a temple in Green Bay Wisconsin or McAllen Texas, I agree, there may be some merit to the idea of either location, but, based on my research and the comments I have received, Fort Worth appears to be the next most likely possibility for Texas's next temple.

Thanks also so much for your comments on Church growth in Cameroon, Honduras, and Nicaragua. I was not aware of those factors, and I might add future temples for Cameroon or Honduras (which already has one temple) at a later date. Another temple in Honduras was on my list when it spanned 60+ options, but I had to narrow down my personal list to the most likely possibilities. As for Nicaragua, then-Elder Nelson publicly proposed a temple for Managua years ago, and I have learned since that time that land has been purchased for such a temple, which will be announced with Church membership, activity, and the activity level of the temple a Nicaragua temple would take from, warrants such an edifice.

Thanks additionally for your comment on Nigeria. The three cities I have listed are the ones that have the most significant Church presence. I can see arguments for or against any of these three cities. That is one of many reasons why I have not felt comfortable or confident enough to narrow it down any further. I will keep an eye on Nigeria as I can and make a more informed choice about which city might host that nation's second temple.

James said...

Mike Johnson, thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. Thanks also for the most interesting trivia, which I had always known in the back of my mind, but for some reason had not internalized. How interesting those facts are to contemplate!

John Pack Lambert, thanks for your musings on temples worldwide and some of the factors that have been used to determine some previous sites. I have tried my best to take all that into account with my choices, such as they are.

Christopher, thank you for your most interesting additional comment regarding Honduras and the possibility of a second temple there. A second temple for Honduras was on my personal list when it was 60+ strong, but, as I studied things further there, I had to focus on what I felt were the more imminent possibilities, which I have listed above. I would love to add a second temple for Honduras to my more imminent possibilities list, and will be sure to do so once I have information that backs up that idea.

James said...

For those who may be interested, I did another blog post late yesterday (the 20th) highlighting the fact that I have a job opportunity lined up, assuming I am able to make it work. I welcome any and all comments about that, and also any continued comments on any of my previous posts. For the moment, I include a link to the most recent post to which I have referred in this comment. Any and all comments are welcome, whether those come on my blog posts themselves or, if Matt is willing to continue to allow it, here. Thanks to all who have expressed interest, concern, and support.

http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2016/12/i-may-have-job-by-end-of-week-assuming.html

R. Jofre said...

Christopher, I think that building a temple in northern Honduras because the Tegucigalpa temple is very busy is not the right way to go per se. First you need to know where people come from, and then build where they live, even if it is right there in the metro area. Now if they come from northern Honduras build it there. Of course you can still build a temple anywhere and expect people to attend.

Christopher said...

I am talking about the long term, 10-20 years. Travel is still difficult for regular temple attendance from up North, and another temple in Honduras would be well-used by the growing member population in the San Pedro area. As Honduras grows and matures in the gospel, I can definitely see another temple in Honduras, just as Guatemala received its second temple. I would still guess Nicaragua would get a temple long before Honduras gets its second, though. I don't know if a temple in Nicaragua would decrease numbers in the Honduras temple significantly.

Interestingly, Honduras actually has two dedicated temple sites already. The one where the temple is built, and the first site in a different part of the city where initial approval was given by the city, and then rescinded after construction began. My understanding from the mission president there is that it remains a dedicated temple site, though I don't know what the Church's plans are now.

James said...

Thanks, Christopher, for that most interesting information about Honduras. I was not aware of that fact. As to the rest of your comment, I will say that I could personally see Honduras's second temple being announced for San Pedro Sula in the not-too-distant future. After all, when my list of possible future temple locations was 60+ strong, San Pedro was on there as a possibility. But when I narrowed the list down, I felt I had to confine myself to those that are most imminently likely near-future possibilities. That is how I arrived at the list above. And I again recognize that, being just one person who is prone to fallibility, and with an admittedly limited amount of information I have been able to ascertain for my list, I may be overlooking sites that may be more possible than some of those I have listed, or I may have temples on my list that are not as likely as others. I may even be downplaying the likelihood of sites that could be built sooner than any I have on my list as it is. It is primarily for those reasons that I have been asking for input on my selections. I want to make the list the best it can possibly be.

That being said, to my credit, I have correctly identified future temples in the past. As I may have mentioned on more than one occasion, I always felt that temples would someday be built in Payson Utah and in Paris France, but I never believed they would happen during my lifetime. And in giving a friend who served his mission in Italy some encouragement, I felt impressed to tell him that he would live to be a firsthand witness of the fruits of his labor, and that he would find within a few years that a temple would be announced in the area in which he served. Three years or so later, the Rome temple was announced.

And, while I never would have guess nor could have predicted the temples that were announced in 2015, as April General Conference rolled around this year, I wrote down a list of temples that was most likely to be announced. Much to my amazement and delight, I had the right nation but the wrong city for the temples in Brazil and Peru, and I nailed exactly the locations of Quito Ecuador and Harare Zimbabwe.

So, while I wouldn't rule out any future announcements that are unexpected, when I have taken the time to study possible temple sites, I do pretty well to get at least the right nations, even if I am off as far as the particular city, especially given the unpredictable element of temple announcements.

As always, this has been a most illuminating and inspiring discussion. Thanks to all who have participated and to all who may continue to offer insight and feedback on such an intriguing and important topic.

L. Chris Jones said...

I think the new barcode recommends give a reference where the patrons are comeing from and make it easier to track what areas need a closer temple.

Mike Johnson said...

John, thanks for the examples given about temples and stakes. Like I said it isn't a requirement like wards and stakes, just that there are very many correlations. I had a stake president state that while it is true to consider the stakes holding up the Church and the gospel overall, the stakes come from holding up the tabernacle--a temple. Stakes in the temple district hold up the temple and are strengthened by the temple. He then mentioned cords mentioned in Isaiah running from the stakes to the tabernacle. This stake president said that after much pondering and prayer he believed the cords were the saints going from the stakes to the temple. This talk in a stake conference coalesced for me the idea that temples and stakes go together, if not always set up that way on a short time frame, but it is always short on the Lord's time.

These examples might be called the exceptions that largely prove the rule, but they are also examples of getting things started in areas of the world. We see this in mission districts in areas well away from temples about to be created as stakes, where large numbers go to the temple just before the stake is created often with great effort by the saints. The endowment and living covenants help power the stake.

It wasn't just New Zealand, but Sydney and Brisbane Australia quickly had stakes as well in the then temple district; and soon in Samoa and Tonga.

I do think the Swiss temple was needed for the creation of stakes in Europe that came in some numbers starting in 1960. Very few European saints had been endowed--it being too expensive to travel to the western US or Canada or to Hawaii. Getting members endowed from various parts of Europe directly led to to new stakes in the area (and the London temple). Switzerland was chosen because of its privacy laws and relative ease for most Europeans to go there.

Hawaii is an interesting case to be sure. As early as 1865, much of Laie was LDS and LDS members ran a sugar production facility there. The mission was headquartered there. It was the designated gathering point for the saints in Hawaii. By the 1870s, some Hawaiians emigrated to Utah for temple blessings and they wanted to enjoy temple blessings as well as their cultural customs. They settled Iosepa in Tooele county (named for Joseph F Smith) to be close to the Salt Lake Temple. After Hawaii became a US territory in 1898, the Hawaiian saints in Iosepa began longing to return to Hawaii but also longing to continue with the temple. The Church having Leia as the designated gathering point and a large number of endowed Hawaiians living on Iosepa longing to go back to Hawaii, but wanting to continue serving in the temple led to the announcement in 1915 that a temple would be built in Laie. By 1917, Iosepa (of several hundred members in 1915) was completely abandoned. In 1919, with the temple dedicated in Laie, the Hawaiian mission moved to Honolulu. It wasn't until 1935 that a stake was created in Laie, but the Lord had prepared a cadre of endowed temple patrons (and workers) that were ready for the temple. So, yes an exception to the idea of stakes and temples going together, but I think there were compelling reasons and a prepared people for it. And it can be thought of as the mother temple for the Pacific and east Asia.

The Eastern US does make me wonder. BTW, it was 40 years from the creation of the New York Stake in 1934 to the dedication of the Washington DC Temple in 1974. And there were 72 stakes east of the Mississippi in the Eastern US by the time the Washington DC Temple was dedicated. The saints had to go west to be endowed. There are now 18 more temples east of the Mississippi in the US (and 3 in eastern Canada) and

James said...

That is very intriguing information, Mike, and I thank you for sharing it. More and more, especially lately, I have loved seeing things progress for the Church in all areas of the world and in all facets of the Lord's work. The growth milestones of late have been most astonishing and wonderful to behold. I know that, for me, the main factor I have used to determine the favorability and likelihood of a temple has been the number of stakes in the area in which a temple might serve. I have tried to keep that in the forefront of my mind when making my selections. Obviously, being just one person, I have been prone to error in the past. But I have also been equally amazed, surprised, and gratified by how many temple sites I have predicted correctly, especially lately. As with all general conference predictions I have loved making, there is always a certain element of unpredictability. But even so, there are patterns in most things that have happened, especially lately, so, with a knowledge of those patterns in mind, I feel confident in continuing to do as I have done in the past. The whole process of site selection, announcements, groundbreaking, and the temple construction and completion process has been awesome and most humbling to behold. I can't wait to see what will develop in the future.

James said...

I have had a cycle of personal crises lately. They have, most happily, reached some resolution recently, as I have been able to acquire a job just by virtue of having previously worked with the man who is now the boss of what will be my new workplace. I have found out, much to my surprise and delight, that the job is mine for the taking, and that getting the paperwork filled out tomorrow is a mere formality. Things are getting back on track for us in a major way, and I would like to sincerely and most heartily thank all those of you who have offered expressions of sympathy, compassion, support, well-wishes, and promises to pray for us. We have weathered the worst of our circumstances, and things are looking up. Please feel free to get caught up on the latest about our situation by visiting my blog at the address below. Thanks.

http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com

Mike Johnson said...

James, best wishes on the new job.

John Pack Lambert said...

Latin America got its first stake only 5 years after the first stake in continental Europe, but would not see a temple dedicated for 12 years after that. I think the emergence of stakes outside the the US and Canada (with the lone exception of Colonia Juarez, Mexico) from 1958-1970 is as much about a different vision for what the Church could be than changes in what the Church was.

In the case of the emergence of stakes in the US they are as much propelled by economic motivated out-migration from Utah as by Church growth through conversions, especially with the Washington DC, New York and Chicago stakes before World War II. The Florida and South Carolina Stakes formed just after World War II are more a result of local convert build-up and less outmigration from Utah. In the 1970s the Church really starts growing due to local conversions throughout the US, somewhat an pick up of pace from the 1950s on. Still in about 2000 people could write that most stake presidents in the US had been born in Utah or Idaho. This has changed somewhat and at least in 2008 half the stake presidents in Michigan were converts born either in Michigan or in the greater mid-west, and it may have been a higher number were converts.

James said...

Thank you, Mike Johnson, for the always sincere concern and well-wishes. I appreciate your kindness. John Pack Lambert, interesting thoughts, as always, regarding Church growth. Your insights always make my day. I look forward to continuing this conversation in all the relevant places.

James said...

During this Christmas season, contrary to what I had originally believed and planned for, I have had lots of reasons for several blog posts. You can get caught up on things by visiting my blog at the address below. In the meantime, for reasons I explain on my latest blog post, my wife, myself, and L. Chris Jones, who regularly comments on this blog and and on mine, are all in need of your continued prayers as Christmas comes and goes. You can read about that on my blog. Thanks in advance.

http://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com