Monday, September 25, 2017

Potential New Temples - September 2017 Edition

I have updated my temple prediction map in preparation for General Conference this weekend. No new temple sites were added to the map of most likely locations for new temples to be announced within the foreseeable future. I think it is unlikely that new temples will be announced this conference since five new temples were announced last April. If any announcements are made, my top 10 picks for the most likely temple announcements are as follows:
  • Auckland, New Zealand 
  • Bengaluru, India OR Hyderabad, India, OR New Delhi, India
  • Benin City, Nigeria
  • Davao, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines
  • Tarawa, Kiribati
  • Lagos, Nigeria
  • Managua, Nicaragua 
  • Praia, Cape Verde
  • Rogers, Arkansas
  • Salvador, Brazil 
As part of the semi-annual tradition, your lists of top picks are always appreciated :) 


Eduardo Clinch said...

Good talk about the 14 US states with no temples yet. How about the Brazilian states with none? Or Mexican? I think they both have around 18 with no temples yet.

The South Pacific needs more temples.

99 said...

I see you've removed Edinburgh.
You mentioned that there will probably not be any announced this time but for my list (for if they do) I'll go with:

Tooele, Utah
Jacksonville, Florida
Richmond, Virginia
Eugene, Oregon
[Unlisted] Missoula, Montana

Lagos, Nigeria
Salvador, Brazil
Managua, Nicaragua
Puebla, Mexico
[Unlisted] Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia

99 said...

Edit: I'll add Davao, Philippines on my International picks

Tom said...

My first prediction is no temple announcements this conference, but since that's absolutely no fun at all I'll put my money on Managua, Nicaragua. That country just seems primed for a temple in so many ways; recent stake creations within the country, as well as multiple stakes created this year within the broader temple districts covering Nicaragua,..a Nicaraguan temple could relieve pressure of other nearby temples in a big way.

David Todd said...

I agree that Managua nicaragua seems the most likely. I think the tegucigalpa temple will be split in the next few years into a San Pedro sula and managua temple, but managua seems more likely to be the first one as it is in a different country. After that, I would go with a new Nigerian temple, most likely lagos, but Benin city is a great candidate too.

James said...

I can see Matt's point when he says that it is likely no new temples will be announced next weekend, especially in light of the 5 that were announced last April. But on the comment threads of other blog posts on this site, I have also shared Elder Wilson's statement about how 80 temples are under active consideration to be announced within the next 15 years. And I know that others have (quite rightly) also observed that not all of those 80 currently on that list will make it to an official announcement, and could either have a change in site or location or be dropped from the list. I have no doubt in my mind that this will be the case.

But I ran the numbers, and if we assume that 80 temples will be announced in that 15 year period (which started when that statement was made last April), that works out to an average of 5 per year, and that is not including the 5 that were announced last April. So while I know there will more than likely be stretches of time when no new temple announcements occur, I personally do not think that this weekend's General Conference will be one of them. I could see 2-4 new temples announced in General Conference every April and October, and even a few in between each General Conference.

James said...

I have also shared previously, in great detail, those locations that made my personal list of future temple site possibilities. In consideration of my desire to not monopolize Matt's threads with comments on my personal picks, I would ask any of you interested in reading my list of those picks to do so at the link below. And if you feel a desire and need to comment, please do so at the location of that post, not here.

In the meantime, regarding the topic of Matt's picks, I would like to make a few comments on his picks. I fully concur with Auckland New Zealand, Lagos/Benin City Nigeria, Davao or Cagayan de Oro Philippines, Managua Nicaragua, Praia Cape Verde, and Salvador Brazil. Each of those cities made my list. I do wonder how likely another temple might be for the Philippines until we have the two currently announced for that nation under construction. The same could be true for Salvador Brazil, as Brazil has two temples under construction and two more announced. I wouldn't rule anything out, but I did wonder.

I have also expressed before my belief that Lagos may be the best location for Nigeria's second temple, but I know some how disagree on that point. A couple of cities in India have made my list, but as I and others have observed, it may be a while yet before India is read for a temple. I can see the argument for Praia, which made my own list for the first time this go-round. The Nicaraguan Saints have waited a long time for a temple, and I hope that they get one this time, especially since then-Elder Nelson publicly proposed one in 2012, and since land has been held in reserve for a temple there for quite some time.

With Brazil, I have heard from some that Salvador and Belo Horizonte may be the next best sites for new temples. We have seen as many as three Brazilian temples being constructed at the same time, and it would be great to see that happen again. Because I have been so busy studying many areas for possible temple candidates, I have not been able to do any personal research on how likely a temple might be for Kiribati, though it has been ranked as one of the top ten cities with the greatest LDS presence but without a temple.

As far as Arkansas' first temple, I know that Matt has had Rogers on his list of top possibilities for the last several years, but, as I have before stated, a friend of mine who served his mission in Arkansas has told me that a site is being held in reserve in nearby Bentonville for an official announcement once the proper conditions are met to show that area is ready for a temple. I know that the two are just over 7 miles apart. What I could see the Church doing is using the Bentonville site but calling it the Rogers Arkansas Temple.

All of that aside, I know how happy I am when any new temples are announced, whether or not I have correctly predicted that possibility. I am so very grateful to simply be part of the conversation about such things. Any temple anywhere is a blessing. I personally hope to not only see 200 operating temples, but perhaps as many as 300 or more in my lifetime. In the meantime, thanks to all of you for allowing me to be part of the ongoing conversations about potential sites. And thanks to you, Matt, for your tireless efforts to keep us informed on all elements of Church growth.

Michael Worley said...

No temple announcements is the default, but if there are announcements, Nigeria for sure. In fact, I suspect Nigeria will be important enough it will be announced before April 2018-- you have one small temple serving 578 units, on pace to serve 600 units by conference.

So that's my bold prediction-- Nigeria temple announced either this weekend or before April 2018.

randall said...

I would add Austin, Texas to the list. The Austin metro is growing very rapidly, and the drive to San Antonio is getting harder with major traffic issues. An Austin Temple district would cover the Austin, Austin Oak Hills, Cedar Park, Round Rock, Round Rock East, Killeen, Waco, and possibly Kyle Stakes. By the time a Temple is completed, there will likely be at least two more stakes in the Temple District.

Hal Bright said...

No temple announcements, I agree.

Nigeria (Let's say Lagos, for kicks)
My dark horse is Southern Virginia

james anderson said...

Haven't seen the traffic issues between Austin and San Antonio but that doesn't mean they are not there, six-lane freeway with three-lane feeders either side. But IH-35 traffic is bad even during the day since it goes right up the middle. Austin almost has what Tucson had when it was announced so it is a real possibility.

Paul said...

Does anyone know what will need to be done to repair the Houston Temple? Will the inside need to be completely re-done?

james anderson said...

Houston could see some refinishing work in the basement as well as replacement of an machinery associated with the physical plant, and the first floor will need to have the carpets, furniture, and the lowest part of some wall coverings replaced. It may take a couple of months to get things coordinated, materials ordered, and final repairs made.

Cory Ward said...

I overheard a conversation of a couple who is planning to get married in the Houston Temple the week after Christmas. He said he talked to the Temple president and he told him there was a chance that the upper floors of the temple could be open once they replace the carpets,ect. but the baptistery would remain closed to allow more time for repairs. However I don't think it was certain. They scheduled at date in San Antonio just in case it is still closed. He also made it sound like the Temple would be completely open the week after for the new year. The schedule on says it is closed until Dec. 31:

But this is just hearsay and things could change. So it's just speculation.

BYULAW said...

What is the church's status in Cuba? I understand a district was formed there but I don't know if the church was granted legal recognition. I don't know how easy it is to visit the Dominican Republic, but putting a temple in Cuba sooner rather than later might have a lot of benefits for growth. Probably not in the next 5-10 years but maybe 15-20?

L. Chris Jones said...

Someone in my ward last Sunday mentioned how they see the Houston temple flooding as a blessing. All non flooded buildings in the area are needed as emergency shelters. To keep the temple from being desecrated by others, it was allowed to be flooded. Ot reminds me of how the backlash that Joel Olstean got for not opening his church right away.

John Pack Lambert said...

The sgortest time from the Church entering a nation to its first temple is for the Dominican Republic at about 17 years. I would be surprised if Cuba beats that record.

James said...

I don't know whether or not we will see new temples this weekend, but I hope for one or two. Of course, I hope I'm always the first to admit that the timing of such announcements is up to the Lord. And, in the current situation (where President Monson has stepped back from active service), up to when Presidents Eyring and Uchtdorf can get consent from President Monson to announce new locations. I have given my top pick before and will continue to do so, but I am grateful that the Lord controls the timing of such announcements.

Ben Hunt said...

I served my mission in Montana. With the Frenchtown Montana stake recently created, I think a temple in Western Montana could be added to the list. There are 4 stakes in Western Montana (Missoula, Frenchtown, Stevensville and Kalispell) that are in the Spokane Temple District. There are also 2 Great Falls stakes that travel to Cardston, Alberta. Missoula is about 200 miles from Spokane. A temple in Missoula could also include the Helena and Butte stakes.

Eduardo Clinch said...

I hope it works out in western Montana! We will miss the presence of President Monson and Elder Hale.
Other parts of Florida seem to be doing all right economically; is the panhandle suffering with the surrounding region?
The hurricanes' paths may push more tourists to the central Gulf Coast this season, maybe that will help some jobs and subsequently some wards.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

When were you in Montana I sarved my Mission there in 2013-2015

Bryce .Gillespie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryce .Gillespie said...

The panhandle is doing good economically but not great. There's a lot of jobs but the pay has never been great.
The church has a had time with keeping stoung family's most move away to Idaho or Utha. And the ysa that are active ether move away for school or other things and the ones that don't go lies Active so there is a growing age Gap in the church and a older membership of the church. I. My ward we have more active members over the age of 70 then we do under 25. Anther thing is that one ward would have a lot of stoung priesthood leadership and great family's and the ward next to it will have little pristhood and no stoung family's. But a lot of the members in general are ether older retired members who of age can't do a whole lot or are ysa. But the YSA pregame needs a lot of improving and work. In my ward there's 70 ysa but only 4 of us are active and it's true all over. And we all hold callings that keep us apart at church so it makes it hard to build friendship with each other. As a ysa in the panhandle find it hard to be around anyone my age. the only members of the church that I associate with are ether 40 years older then me or the young men in my ward.
But there had been talk that the phanhandle will be the place of the next Florida Temple.
But with the Orlando temple at 30-40 % capacity it may be sometime for anther Temple anywhere in Florida is announced.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

The next few years will be interesting to see what becomes of the panhandle. Because I think we are going to see wards moved around and stack changes. I believe that it maybe time for a rework of the bounders in north Florida and South Alabama.
We have seen a lot of it with in the last year I think ever stack has changed some ward bounder this year alone.

Johnathan Whiting said...

Where and when did you serve, Ben? I grew up in Montana, in the Bitterroot Valley. I suspect that a temple in Missoula is only a matter of time, due to it's central location in regard to the surrounding temples. I do question how soon it will happen, but I wouldn't mind sooner, rather than later.

Bryce .Gillespie said...

Johnathan I sarved in Corvallis ward in June and July of 15.

R.J.Phillips said...

I live in Rogers, Arkansas and have been tracking the growth in this OKC Temple district for years. After deep calculations of unit growth and unit distances throughout the OKC, Kansas City and Memphis Temple districts my original conclusion was that Rogers would at the earliest be eligible for a temple in the fall of 2016. There is acreage that the church already owns adjacent to the Bentonville stake center. It's large enough for a temple. (I know of no other lands held in reserve for a temple, unless they are privately owned and have only been handshaked to the church). However, at the moment there can be no new units created easily because all the buildings are currently totally full. So I figured the church might acquire some new land along the freeway and master plan a new stake center and temple complex (we at least need a new stake center fairly urgently). I check the county records for property ownership every few weeks for years. Nothing new. And now, the OKC and Memphis temples are being shut down for 2 years for major renovations. I imagine the capacity of those temples will be increased, perhaps even the footprint will increase too. So, that increased temple capacity will probably delay a new temple in Rogers for perhaps 10 years.

James said...

Hey, RJ! Thanks for your comment about the possibility of a temple in Arkansas. One of my good friends served his mission there, and he was the one who told me about the land that has been held in reserve for a temple there for a while. I don't know to what extent the Memphis and Oklahoma City temples will be renovated, other than what I have found through my research on the subject, which shows that the Memphis renovation will involve changing the interior and exterior look of the temple, and that, of the two, there seems to be more room for an expansion on the Oklahoma City temple. That said, expanding the square footage doesn't seem likely, though it wouldn't surprise me to see both of them alter their floor plans in such a way that it will appear bigger, even if the area or square footage is not changed. Just wanted to share that, FWIW.

James said...

Additionally, it was just reported that the Oklahoma City temple renovation is going to be more to alter the exterior appearance of the temple (and perhaps the layout inside also to give it a more roomy feel even if the square footage is not altered). I am doing my best to monitor all of this, and I will have the latest information in the coming days on my blog, to which I include a link for any who have missed the previous times I have done so.

James said...

In the meantime, it appears that while no new temples were announced during the October General Conference (and while the Church is likely going to focus on filling the apostolic vacancy either before or just prior to the next General Conference), it would not surprise me to see a minimum of 5 temples announced next April. If Elder Wilson's statement (made last April, to the effect that the Church has 80 temples or so under active consideration for a subsequent announcement within the next 15 years) is taken as literal, that works out to an average of 5 temples announced per year between April 2017 and April 2032 (which, sometime after the April 2032 General Conference, would mark the 15 years he referenced).

And if we assume that no new temples might be announced until General Conference next April, that raises the potential average number of announcements to just under 6 per year, or roughly 3 per conference between April 2018 and April 2032, if we take Elder Wilson's statement literally. As previously observed, it is sure that, as the next 12-15 years pass, some of those temples will be announced, while others will replace some of those potential sites, and new possibilities will be added, some of which could go on to an announcement prior to any that were on the list before them.

The process by which temple sites are selected and announced is intriguing. I remember well the story behind the selection of the Brigham City Utah Temple site. President Monson invited President Packer to accompany him to inspect the proposed site. He asked President Packer what he thought about the prospect of a temple there, to which President Packer responded it would be a great location for such a temple. President Monson reportedly raised both hands and said, "So be it."

Then of course, we have the story of Pocatello Idaho, where the citizens of the temple had long hoped and prayed for a temple. It was placed on a long list of possibilities which were presented to President Monson at some point prior to the April 2017 General Conference. When the presenters mentioned Pocatello, the prophet stopped them and said, "Pocatello will get a temple. The Saints there are well prepared, and it is time for them to have one."

So I am sure the next several years will be full indeed of temple announcements, both in long-anticipated and unexpected locations. I for one cannot wait to see what happens there. And for my part, I will do my level best to continue to bring all such developments on my blog to any who care to visit it.

Jeff Steed said...

My top 20 future temple sites. (It is too difficult to narrow down to 10 at this point.)

Auckland, New Zealand
Layton OR Northern Davis County, Utah
Puebla, Mexico OR Greater Mexico City Area, Mexico (2nd Temple)
Bengaluru, India OR Hyderabad, India, OR New Delhi, India
Benin City, Nigeria OR Lagos, Nigeria
Davao City, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines
Managua, Nicaragua
Freetown, Sierra Leone
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
West Valley City, Utah
Richmond, Virginia
Buenos Aries, Argentina (2nd Temple)
Salvador, Brazil
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Tooele County, Utah
Vina Del Mar, Chile
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Vienna, Austria OR Budapest, Hungary
San Juan, Puerto Rico

James said...

Thanks for sharing that list, Jeff. If I may, I'd like to comment on your choices.

1. For Auckland New Zealand, I know the Church has land set aside for such a temple when Church membership and temple attendance warrants that announcement.
2. I have heard from several people that the next temple in the Greater Salt Lake City area (which includes Salt Lake and Davis counties) will likely be built in Layton, so that is a solid choice. We also have that unidentified site mentioned by President Hinckley in 2005 that will be built in the Southwest Salt Lake Valley when the time is right. Some have said that temple has been announced, but my study has verified that this is not the case.
3. I know that some have said Puebla will be the location of the next temple built in Mexico, but some others (including a couple of people currently residing in Mexico) have mentioned that Mexico City has some attendance problems that make a second temple there unlikely.
4. A temple in India seems imminent at some point but unlikely in the near future (for at least the next 15-20 years). This is partly because of the political climate that exists there, and partly because the Church is not yet strong enough to support a temple. It will happen, but perhaps not for a while.
5. I have studied the Nigerian area for temple possibilities, and both Benin City and Lagos seem likely sooner rather than later. Of the two, Lagos seems more likely to be the second Nigerian temple, but we will have to see what happens.
6. In the Philippines, I have heard both cities mentioned as candidates for the 5th temple in that nation. But it is likely to be one or the other, not both, at least not for now. And with the Urdaneta temple not progressing beyond an announcement in the seven years since it was announced in 2010, and with the second temple announced in the capital city, the Church may wait for the announcement of a 5th temple until both are further along in the construction process.
7. Managua is another that has had land held in reserve for quite a while. Additionally, a temple was proposed for that city by Elder Nelson in 2012, and it is the #1 city with the strongest Church presence but without a temple. It is sure to be announced within the next 5 years or less.
8. I hope for a temple in Sierra Leone. That nation ranks as #6 in the top ten nations with the strongest LDS presence without a temple. That said, the Ivory Coast temple, announced in 2015, is in the Africa West Area, and has not progressed beyond its 2015 announcement. The Church may wait to announce another temple in that region until Abidjan is further along. That said, Matt has previously mentioned that West Africa could have as many as 12 temples in operation by 2030 or 2035. That being the case, then we could see a temple for Sierra Leone very soon.

James said...

9. Honduras may need a second temple soon, and I see San Pedro Sula as the top candidate city for that honor. That said, I am not sure what other factors (if any) may impact that happening.
10. I mentioned earlier the potential for new temples in the Salt Lake Valley. West Valley may be eligible for a temple soon, certainly within the next 30 years or so, but how imminently likely that might be will be determined by any other temples announced in that region between now and then.
11. In exploring temple possibilities for Virginia, several cities were mentioned to me, all of which had very compelling arguments in their favor. But my study showed overwhelmingly that with the current situation of the Church in Virginia, Richmond came out as the clear top contender. The only question is, how might the stagnated growth in the US impact future temple announcements? It has been well observed that states within the Mormon corridor (Arizona, Utah and Idaho) will continue to see regular temple announcements. While it is unknown how the growth issues in the US might affect temples elsewhere, Richmond is surely a contender that cannot and should not be overlooked.
12. In terms of Argentina's next temple, I know that Buenos Aires might be a great candidate for a second temple, and second temples in Manila and Lima have made that more likely. But in terms of Argentina, my study shows that Neuquen might be a good alternative, and also that Rosario may also be a great candidate. Argentina may be another city (like Mexico) where the Saints might be better served with a temple elsewhere than in a city where one already exists.
13. With two Brazilian temples under construction (Fortaleza and Rio de Janeiro, both of which are anticipated to be completed in 2019), and with two more announced (in Belem and Brasilia, both of which could have a groundbreaking in 2019, if not next year), the Church may wait on other temples in that nation until all four are further along. But I should also note I said that before the Brasilia announcement was made last April. I cannot therefore say for certain that no other temples will be announced in the near future. And of the many possibilities, Salvador and Belo Horizonte have seemed most likely. Someone mentioned on my blog that both temples could be announced simultaneously, as we have had 2-3 Brazilian temples under construction before. So I see both happening sooner rather than later. The only question in my mind is which temple might be announced first. I lean towards Salvador, but I can also see Belo Horizonte. Both are solid options.
14. Tooele is another Utah city that has been widely mentioned as a great candidate for a temple. I see Layton being announced first, but see Tooele as a close second. And, as observed above, there are several other Utah possibilities that may be announced just in the next 15-30 years. I see Tooele as another solid choice.

James said...

15. I have taken a good look at Chilean cities too. Vina del Mar is a solid option, to be sure, but I see it as a close second to Valparaiso, which many have said has a better chance. That said, I could see both being announced within close proximity of each other, and being under construction at once. I can also see the Church holding off construction on another Chilean temple until it is seen how the new Concepcion temple (which will be dedicated next year) and others in that nation are affected. Valparaiso and Vina del Mar could happen in the next 15-30 years. And I would be elated with either or both possibilities.
16. Papua New Guinea ranks as the #2 city with the greatest LDS presence, and is high on most people's lists. In the conversations about temple site possibilities, I learned that most people feel that Auckland will be announced first, but Port Moresby runs a close second.
17. In terms of Taiwan temple sites, while the one you mentioned may be a possibility, my study shows that a temple in Taichung might be more likely. I could see both happening in the near future. Taichung may be more imminent. Based on your inclusion of the other possibility, I may have to do more studying on it.
18. I have previously spoken of how a comment on my blog pointed to Budapest Hungary as being the most likely candidate for Europe's next temple. And because my wife served her mission in Austria, I would love to see a temple in Vienna. But Austria has seen at least 1 (and possibly more) stakes discontinued since she served there. Both Hungary and Austria make sense in terms of President Monson's goal of having every member within 200 miles of a temple. I look forward to seeing where the next European temple will be built. I could see temples in both locations perhaps within the next 15 years.
19. San Juan has been mentioned as a great possibility by several on my blog. And in spite of the fact that Puerto Rico is more than 200 miles away from both San Juan and Haiti, there may be weather conditions that, for the moment, may disqualify Puerto Rico as an immediate candidate for a temple. I cannot rule it out completely, and I do have it on my list for the moment, but the Church may hold off on any other Caribbean temples for the next little while. It's just a feeling I have.

Again, I hope no offense is taken at my response to your list. It has been awesome to exchange ideas with people both here and on my blog about future temple possibilities. That is a topic close to my heart. In light of Elder Wilson's statement that 80 or so sites are under active consideration for an announcement between now and 2032, I am sure we will see several on every list built, and also many in unexpected locations. It will be awesome to see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this with all of us.

Jeff Steed said...

No offense at all, James. I appreciate your insight. My studies on this matter take into consideration broad factors including the following:

12 Factor Test -- Factors:
1. Number of Units Served (with Stakes having higher priority) (the more units, the higher score – this factor is fairly simple)
2. LDS Growth Rate Trends Per Capita (the faster the growth of the Church per capita, the higher score)
3. Potential for New Growth (the larger the population as a as a “population center,” the greater the potential for visibility and new growth)
4. Population growth rate (the greater the total population area is growing, the higher the potential for new growth and the higher the score)
5. Potential future population growth rate, including economy (the greater the population in an area could likely grow, the score is higher)
6. Closeness in proximity to at least one additional temple (the closer an area is to at least one temple, the lower the score)
7. Proximity to more than one temple (the closer an area is to more than one temple, the lower the score).
8. Overburdened Temple in Area (the closer an area is to at least one temple that is clearly “bursting” at the seams due to number of units and the overall size of the temple, the higher the score – if it is close to two or more overburdened temples, the score is higher. Again, “overburdened temples are ones that serve a large number of units per temple square foot. If the only temple in the area is small and the unit number is high, the more likely the area will get a temple.)
9. First Temple in a Nation or State (if it is the first temple in the country, the higher the score).
10. Older temple likely due for renovation in near future is only temple in area (if the area only has one temple and that temple is older and is likely due for renovation and it would be reasonably difficult for members in the area to travel to another temple location for economic, language and especially cultural reasons, then the score is higher)
11. Political reasons – Political stability of a nation needs to be considered. On the flip side, the Church may also want to build a temple in the nation just to “prove a point.” The Church may also be loath to put a temple in a location where religious liberty is on the decline. (Hard to Determine -- varies depending on a variety of factors.)
12. Average Household Income (the wealthier an area is, the slightly higher the score)
13. Number of Missions (the more missions in the area, the more likely it will get a temple)
14. Remoteness – In addition to proximity to another a temple, are there other logistical, cultural, economic or technological barriers to travel (the greater the total remoteness, the higher the score)

I am fairly confident based on the foregoing criteria that my estimated guesses are pretty sound. (Though this is really all just for fun and these are all just that...estimated guesses.)

Based on recent events, I might have to rethink my selection on San Juan, Puerto Rico. And, I really like your insights as well.

Jeff Steed said...

My selection on Vienna, Austria or Budapest, Hungary remains firm simply because of the reasons you stated. Temples are often placed in areas of the world where missionary work needs to be revitalized; they are not just establishments indicating significant growth. The Church recently stated at the Paris, France Temple dedication that this temple would pave the way for many more temples across Europe. For the same reasons, we have a temple in locations like Paris, France; Sapporo, Japan or Kiev, Ukraine (i.e., which are largely missionary temples), I think we will see one soon in Vienna, Austria or Budapest, Hungary.

The same is true for a new temple in India. India has huge potential in that it is the second largest populated nation on Earth. India is home to two missions and several stakes and districts that are thousands and thousands of miles from the nearest temple. The population of India alone (and the potential PR effect) in my opinion justifies it for a new temple in the very near future.

A second temple in or around Mexico City is all but necessary simply given the size of the temple district. One could argue that poor temple attendance could, in part, be caused by an overburdened temple with too large of a district. For example, I live in the Bountiful Temple district. I know of several members in our stake that have, sadly, attended the temple increasingly less simply because it takes them too much time and, on some nights, is almost impossible to even find a place to park.

James said...

I'm sorry, Jeff. I hope you know I meant no offense and I hope none was taken. I would love to see temples in both places, and I think we will one day. Of the two, as I observed, Budapest has been suggested to me as the most likely candidate. The only question is when that might happen. I could also see one in Austria at some point due to the distances involved. Austria remains on my list, despite the fact that that nation has seen units consolidated and no new units created. The only question is, which might be first, and how soon might either or both happen? I see Budapest in the next 5-10 years, and perhaps Austria in the next 15-30 years. Just wanted to clarify that.

And I agree India will get a temple at some point. I just don't think it will be as imminent as anyone thinks. Matt has previously offered his opinion that, because of the political climate in India, and the governmental regulations involved, that could be 15+ years out, and I agree with that assessment.

I didn't know you lived in the Bountiful Temple district. I expect to see a temple in the Layton area before too much longer, since I know Bountiful is overloaded in many ways. As to the possibility of a temple in Mexico city, I have opened a dialogue of discussion on my temple list. I had temples listed as possibilities in Puebla, Queretaro, and Mexico City (a second temple). Someone who lives in Mexico (and who has commented on both this blog and mine) said that Mexico City would likely not get a second temple, since people within the Mexico Temple district have been exiting and fleeing to the US. And there have been unit consolidations in Mexico that make it unlikely as well. Could it be possible to have a second temple there? Absolutely. How likely is that to happen? That is anyone's guess. We may see it someday. But on this, I have to side with the person who told me it was unlikely and is in a unique position to know that.

I hope you and everyone else knows that I am not an expert on temple site selections. I never claimed to be such. But I have taken more time in the last couple of years to study more about temple site possibilities, and that has paid off. Though I did not expect the three temples announced in 2015, of the four announced the following year, I got the exact location for 2 and the right nation but the wrong city for the other two. And last April, I got the right location for two of them (Pocatello Idaho and Nairobi Kenya), the right state/nation but wrong city for two others (Saratoga Springs Utah and Greater Manila Philippines). I had also noted that the next Brazilian temple would likely be in Brasilia, though I didn't anticipate its announcement happening when it did.

By saying this, I wanted to note that I am not perfect in my thoughts about such things, but I am getting better at it every time I revisit my list of potential sites. I am working on potential changes to that list for next conference. That is an ongoing process. What I am saying is that with the 60-80% accuracy that has generally attended my temple predictions in the last couple of years, and with the expert opinions I am constantly getting has enabled me to get better at studying the elements that make certain sites more imminent or more likely than others. I hope to see several temples on everyone's list announced, and I hope you will find your selections justified. I was merely trying to offer my opinion based on how much study I have devoted to the subject. I have not yet achieved perfection in that, but I am getting better all the time. And I hope that by sharing my thoughts, any who take them as no more or no less than what they are will be benefited thereby. That's all I was trying to say. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Jeff Steed said...

Thanks, James. Interesting insights.