The Church organized a new district in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) on January 19th. The Kasumbalesa Democratic Republic of the Congo District was organized from four mission branches in the city of Kasumbalesa, which is located on the border with Zambia south of the large city of Lubumbashi. Branches assigned to the new district include the Bilanga, Golf, Kasumbalesa 1st, and Kasumbalesa 2nd Branches. The Church organized its first branch in Kasumbalesa in 2011. Branches in the area pertained to one of the stakes in Lubumbashi until 2-3 years ago when they were reassigned directly to the DR Congo Lubumbashi Mission.
There are now 23 stakes and two districts in the DR Congo.
61 comments:
This was of interest, a couple serving a humanitarian mission in Zambia was asked to travel to Kasungu, Malawi in December to organize a large group of people who want to join the church. According to their blog, there are about 150 people, all non-members, who have been meeting together for several years and have been converted to the restored gospel through online teaching and their own study of the the Book of Mormon and other available church materials. They were originally assigned to hold Church meetings and evaluate whether missionaries should be sent there to teach and baptize them and form a branch, which appears to be moving forward: http://pulsipherzambiamission.blogspot.com/?m=1
I am wondering how long it will be until a district is formed in the far west of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On another note I hope Malawi gets it's own mission in 2021.
Fantastic news, both on the DR Congo and Malawi. It seems like the Church doesn't organize districts in the Congo that don't have much of a chance to become stakes within the next five years or so (else there would be at least a couple more districts in the country by now).
On Malawi, readers of my occasional comments know I've been cheering for them and their own mission for a while now. Reading about this development is definitely exciting, and I hope it will convince the brethren to look into it more.
Also, General Conference is just a little over two months away, so I've been working on creating a list of potential temples in case the Church decides to announce 100 of them (just hypothetically). I could see them split it up if this happens, with a different part of the world receiving their announcements in one of the sessions (think North America during Saturday morning, Africa during Saturday afternoon, etc.). I think this would definitely qualify as a remarkable conference, and especially if the announcements are geared primarily towards cutting travel distance and increasing access to the temple, this would absolutely qualify as the first-in-history event we've been promised. If I had a blog, I would just drop my link here -- but I guess with not having one and no plans of starting one, either, I will just wait until Matt updates his prediction map and posts about it :)
I have a list of 170 temples needed to put every stake within 200 miles of a temple.
If they did announcements in multiple phases it would make sense to announce Australia and East Asia first and then move west.
I do not know if the logistics of 100 temples announced at once would be doable. There are indications the temple department is expanding. I would like to see that list of the 170 temples.
Would New Delhi need to be one the list?
I have doubts that President Nelson will announce more than 50 temples. I would not be shocked if 8 or even fewer were announced. President Monson never announced more than 7 at one. President Hinckley did announce plans for 32 temples in April 1998 general conference but did not announce locations for any at that point.
The big push then was building with speed. Many were dedicated within less than 2 years of that date.
We shall see. I really do not expect more than one time temples are announced and do not expect more than 20 to be announced but I could be very wrong.
I am wondering if this paragraph, the last one in a talk that up until the last two or three in it, was about Joseph Smith, may be beginning to come to pass at this time, and the work in all areas, not just temples, could be about to or has already begun to substantially increase?
Now, my brethren, “these are [your] days” (Hel. 7:9) in the history of the Church. Mark well what kind of days they will be, days when, with special visibility, the Lord will “make bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations.” (D&C 133:3.) God will also “hasten” His work. (D&C 88:73.) He will also “shorten” the last days “for the elect’s sake”; hence, there will be a compression of events. (Matt. 24:22; JS—M 1:20.) Furthermore, “all things shall be in commotion.” (D&C 88:91.) Only those in the process of becoming the men and women of Christ will be able to keep their spiritual balance. Brethren, may we “walk by faith,” and, if necessary, even on our knees! In the name of the Lord of the universe, even Jesus Christ, amen.
--Neal A Maxwell, 'My Servant Joseph', April 1992 (gc.lds.org)
Certainly the Hastening the Work of Salvation broadcast was a forerunner, and various other things, but it has picked up considerably on the general level and other things easily could be starting or are about to happen in the near future.
Hello again, everyone! Just a couple more thoughts from me here. First, I agree with JPL that I don't see the First Presidency announcing new temples next April in every session of General Conference, or even more than once. That said, I could easily see President Nelson explaining the preliminary or more specific details of his temple construction expansion plans and announcing a higher-than-normal number of temples. Based on my analysis of and predictions for the upcoming General Conference, I believe that those details and the location announcement could be shared by President Nelson at the top of the Sunday Morning Session of General Conference, and that Elder Badnar, who chairs the Temple and Family History Executive Council of the Church, could then explain the specifics more fully.
Think of that type of scenario being similar to the way in which President Nelson introduced changes in the last two October General Conferences of the Church, which were then detailed more fully by Elder Cook, who currently chairs the Priesthood and Family Executive Council. Based on that precedent, and on President Nelson's assertion about the April 2020 General Conference being different from any previous General Conference of the Church, which is meant to commemorate the bicentennial of the important events of the restoration, I could easily see 1-3 dozen temples being announced. But I also agree with JPL in what he said about being prepared for any number of temples (including a comparatively small one) to be announced, and that way, none of us will be disappointed. I too would be interested in seeing the lists anyone else here has put together of potential temple candidate cities. For anyone interested in my own list for that General Conference, you can find it at the following web address:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hHjnnmwcr16z8FHZUc7PZtFRImAGEl4kXGU10UXlgyY/edit?usp=sharing
My thanks once again to you all.
What has happened the last two years and will be for the forseeable future is more in line with Elder Maxwell (above) than any big drastic thing, there could easily be another proclamation issued, the last of those was the Proclamation on the Family, only five have been issued so far.
The Church does have a temple construction fund that anyone can donate to over and above tithing and fast offerings. Find it under Other in the online form, or write Temple Construction in the Other space on the paper form. Some may not have ever known or have been told that the fund is there, seems the other fund for distributing copies of the Book of Mormon is known more about than that since it is on both versions of the donation slips.
Here is my current temple prediction list for April 2020 (FWIW):
1) Antananarivo, Madagascar
2) Singapore
3) Prague, Czech Republic
4) Monrovia, Liberia
5) Lubumbashi, DR Congo
6) Maputo or Beira, Mozambique
7) Jakarta, Indonesia
8) Tarawa, Kiribati
9) Charleston, WV
10) Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
11) Pittsburgh, PA (north end towards Harmony; Franklin Park area)
12) Kumasi, Ghana
13) Kampala, Uganda
14) Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
The joint all members 11 and older session is where I expect to see the biggest announcements.
I could see something significant done with missionary work. We need to see a way to push the Book of Mormon on its own terms better. Lots of other potential changes could be there.
I am most sure I have no real clue what will happen at general conference.
If there is any shred of truth in the Nielson's numbers money is probably not the thing limiting temple construction. Except EPA administers trusts given to the Church, and the nature of some of these may mean not having full access till the holder dies, so who knows what is going on really.
I would love a 1950s level detailed financial report in general conference, but will be ok if we don't get one and I will donate to the temple fund if I ever get to where I can pay more than tithing.
Fortaleza and Urdeneta were not delayed due to not enough money, although I did once get the impression that some temples may have been delayed by refusals to pay bribes. I have been told that the chapel I attended may have had its completion delayed by the same refusal.
The Harmony, Pennsylvania where the priesthood restoration cite is far east of Pittsburgh. It is closer to Philadelphia and closer still to New York City. I still would not be surprised if it had a temple announced.
The one thing known is the multicultural choir, shared the story on that on another thread a couple weeks back.
Callings have been trimmed back, other things have been done to allow more to serve and do work in the temple more often, thus another reason for more temples. 34 years ago, once a month if you were near a temple was deemed enough, now with the surge of technology, finding family names and taking them is far easier, but that old 'once a month' mentality, even when the temple might be down the street in some places here in Utah, is a hard one to let go and go there more frequenly than that.
In the early 90s, 80% of names done in the temples were extracted names, 20% were all that members submitted. Today, all names are submitted by members, and the backlog is substantial, so if no names were submitted from right now, which it will not, but only increase, we would still have enough to do for yearsto come just from the member submission backlog.
Church growth, wherever it is growing, will mean more temples. We don't know how many or how fast, 'Fill this temple up, we'll build another' should give you an idea where all this is going.
I wonder what dialects or languages beyond French are spoken in the Kasumbalesa District. I also wonder how much Church materials are translated into non-French languages.
It would be cool to see the break down of languages per stake and district in Congo former Zaire.
Interesting how Beira is competing with Maputo in Mozambique as a possible temple location.
JPL, I did not realize that I was looking at the wrong "Harmony, PA". Thanks for the clarification!
I still think a temple near Pittsburgh makes sense. The closest temple to them is Columbus, Ohio which is three hours (190 miles) away. We'll see what President Nelson announces though. It's always exciting!
@JMR
How many stakes in the Pittsburgh area?
Jonathan, according to Cumorah.com there are three Pittsburgh stakes and one in Altoona. Altoona is closer to Pittsburgh than to Philadelphia. The Youngstown, OH Stake is also pretty close to Pittsburgh and would probably be in the temple district. So, that would be a total of five stakes. I could see a temple of roughly 16,000-20,000 square feet being adequate for that area.
Steven, is it possible to get a copy of that list.
the curveball that could surface here is that one could be announced for Cleveland or close by,
Also look at those stakes inside I-76 in Cleveland, they would use that to get to Pittsburgh, are they closer to Columbus? Columbus probably has Cleveland and Wheeling within its district.
New rules male it possible for lots more people to be temple workers. I've known missionaries who were temple workers for a month before they left on mission. Now no one is excluded due to marital status, recent divorce, calling or age of children. Although wisdom is urged.
They actually recommended that in some things I saw when they made those changes last year, why not call them as workers for a short time like that before they go into the MTC, and apparently as you state some have, is probably happening in a lot of places.
I still believe Bakersfield, California should be on the temple list. Currently has 3 stakes, soon 4 stakes, and can support a temple district of 8 or 9 stakes. Currently Bakersfield is in the Los Angeles Temple District, 2 hours away without traffic, 3-4 hours away with traffic.
Although it is not too close to the nearest stake, I would like to see a temple in Sharon Vermont on or near the birth place site of Joseph Smith. It can serve parts of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. And could be a historical site temple such as Nauvoo, Winter Quarters, and Palmyra. It can serve local members in the region and could have increased hours during the summer to support church history tourists. Another place could be Harmony PA. Since this is the anniversary of the begining of the restoration, I would be excited see that it happen.
I would love temples in even more remote hard to travel from places such Vanuatu and Kirabati. As well as as Mongolia and others.
Saints book 2 wil be released in 14 languages on February 12th. They have been releasing a chapter every few weeks. 7 chapters have been released and an 8th chapter will be soon.
The church may not build temples in Vanuatu or Kiribati because of rising sea levels and mass emmigration from those countries. Just a thought
Unknown, you could be right. However, if the Lord can part the Red Sea for the children of Israel, he can protect one of his temples. Not saying we'll build one there, but miracles do happen.
Whenever I hear comments about how weather conditions might impact temples, it evokes for me the memory of a favorite saying utilized frequently by one of my seminary teachers: "Who was right, Noah, or the weather man?" And that saying almost cerrtainly has merit today. Above and beyond that saying, however, if one were to do further research into the atmospheric conditions that meterologists are forecasting for both Kiribati and Vanuatu, one would soon discover that those conditions are not anticipated to impact the islands to a degree rendering them uninhabitably unsafe for at least the next 100 years or so.
When we combine that information with the promises of element tempering that accompanies the site dedication and eventual temple dedications in such locations, I have no doubt that temples in either or both locations would delay or eliminate those conditions that are predicted to occur roughly a century or so from now. Stranger things have happened. For myself, I am not personally comfortable eliminating potentially viablec candidates from my own list simply because conventional wisdom or certain worldly conditions would, without consideration of divine intervention or intercedence, raise serious questions about the feasibility of such prospects. I never would be comforbable with limiting the Lord's potential power to bless His people in defiance of what conventional wisdom suggests.
Is not the very nature of the announcements made by President Nelson thus far an ample demonstration that conventional wisdom is nothing compared against the Lord's inspiration? Who among us, when the temples in India and Cambodia were announced in 2018, would have said having site locations and renderings for those temples within two years of their announcements was an impossibility? I know at times, I was guilty of that in my own assertions. And yet, within the last 2 months, renderings and site locations have been confirmed for both. So I think that there will be many more Nelonian announcements for which the timing or specifics thereof, especially for temples, may be unexpected or based on reasoning that defies normal wisdom or judgement.
The Lord surely knows more and has more of an impact on wather conditions and natural disasters and where temples will be built than does any weather man. If the Lord wants temples in Kiribati and/or Vanuatu, those prospects will happen in His due time. But personally, I see no scearnio in which both Vanuatu and Kiribati are passed over for a temple.
I just received word from a friend of mine that this Sunday (Feb 2nd) will be the first Sunday Church services for Filipino members in Anchorage.
New handbook
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-01-30/new-handbook-church-leaders-members-173085
Church Newsroom story on the new handbook, probably referenced in the Church News link:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/new-general-handbook-coming-in-february-2020
From what I know Kiribati is worse off with sea level rise than Vanuatu. Plus, maybe significantly less people?
A couple years ago someone discussed a mobile ship temple. That would be nice! Call it the "Goodship Zion of Nephi". A mobile train or truck would be nice. Why not a plane?
Like the bookmobile of youth from the library, we could bring the ordinances to the people.
I believe President Hinckley mentioned something of a temple ship years ago. Members in my stake were also throwing that rumor around last conference, although I have no idea how credible it is or where they heard it.
An idea for a temple ship was considered under President McKay and vetoed. If we can build a temple on Okinawa with 1 stake there is no reason for a temple ship.
With a temple ship 25 islands in the Caribbean alone would have thousands of people inspired to go to their ordinances regularly. Poverty is very real all over the world. Unless you suggest to subsidize or pay our members to travel to the temple 3 to 7 conveyances away.
I've always loved the idea of a 'temple ship'. What a blessing to so many people. Perhaps it is too expensive to be practical? That would be an interesting temple mission! And for totally self interested reasons, I would love to see a temple built in Grand Junction, Colorado. It would serve the 2 stakes (possibly soon to be 3)in Grand Junction proper, and could also draw the Montrose and Rifle stakes into it's district. The Monticello Temple would thereby lose 3 stakes from it's district, but they could be replaced with the 3 stakes in the Farmington/Kirkland area of northwestern New Mexico that currently go to the Albuquerque Temple. Monticello is actually closer for them. Thus 4 current stakes (with a possibility of 5 in the near future) would be MUCH closer to a temple. Drive time to Monticello for Grand Junction and Montrose Stake members is anywhere from 2 1/2 to 4 hours, and can be dangerous and prohibitive in the winter. Likewise, the Rifle Stake drive time would be much reduced from their current temple in Vernal. I know there are many locations in the world that are much farther away from a temple, and with much less financial resources to be able to travel. However, it WOULD be such a blessing, as I believe it would greatly increase temple attendance in these 4 stakes. It would also bring Western Colorado closer into parity with the density of temples next door in Utah.
Nancy, I agree that there is a case for a temple in Grand Junction. In addition to the 4 stakes you mention, it would also have benefits for those in the NW corner of the state, Dinosaur where I live and Rangely where there are 2 wards, including mine. (Vernal is closer to both communities, but it seems like I'm always hearing about people making trips to Grand Junction for shopping, hospitals, or to visit family, etc., and some of the members, at least during longer stays, might want to take advantage of a temple there.)
With regard to Rifle stake, I believe they are assigned to Vernal, but the eastern portion of that stake is much closer to Denver, and that would probably remain the same with a Grand Junction temple. Last week when I attended a session in Vernal, the officiator for the session was a former president of the Meeker stake (before it was split)- as far as I know he still lives in Rifle.
Twin, you're right that Rifle Stake is currently assigned to the Vernal Temple, but all units in that stake would be closer to GJ than Vernal. Frisco members probably currently go to the Denver temple (11/2 hour trip, unless I-70 is closed!)as a matter of convenience, even though they are in the Vernal district. I agree that some of your neighbors would probably take advantage of the GJ temple when they were visiting/shopping. It is definitely not out of the question for there to be a temple in Western Colorado. I'm praying! The Moses Lake Temple announcement gives me hope. I see that 4 stakes would be assigned to that temple with possible future growth forming another stake in the region. And there are 2 (!) temples already in that part of the state of Washington, within 1 1/2 hours drive. See me jumping up and down, and waving to get Pres. Nelson's attention for Grand Junction!
Hopefully no one will mind if I throw in my two cents here on the latest comments about future temples. I don't see any scenario where a "temple ship" would even be a consideration for the Church, and I say that for a couple of reasons: First of all, if a temple ship were to be built, it would have to include provisions for a trained group of worthy Church members to serve as both the crew of the ship and the temple staff, and there may not ever be enough sea-faring Church members that could give sufficient time to make that possible. If a non-Church member crew operated the ship, it would need to be cleaned and rededicated everywhere it docked. Not an effective strategy, IMHO.
Which begs the question: Is such a prospect even necessary anywhere? President Nelson has been very clear about what he'd like to see happen with the temple construction program of the Church, with more of a new "smaller-temple" generation coming down the pike for isolated areas that can more easily be approved, built and dedicated. Those temples would be in the mold of what we are seeing for Yigo Guam, Praia Cabo Verde, and San Juan Puerto Rico. And if enough smaller temples are announced (whether at a continued average rate of 35 temples every two years or whether another massive number of temples is going to be announced either next conference or over the next several General Conferences), I see a scenario where, over the next 5 years, many of the isolated areas that would have otherwise been served by a larger temple or something smaller and closer in more remote areas where the Church is established will cut extensive travel anywhere the Church is established. That much of President Nelson's intentions has been confirmed by him, his wife, and many of his apostolic colleagues, including a few public comments by Elders Bednar, Stevenson, and Renlund, who, at least as of this time last year, served together on the Temple and Family History Executive Council.
My next point is that, with the temples already under construction or announced, the restructuring of existing temple districts over the next 2-3 years alone as those currently in that queue are built and dedicated may mean many of the cities mentioned, including isolated ones, could potentially have a temple much closer than is currently the case. And that also applies to any temples that will be announced within that same period of time.
Specifically, though, given what is currently known about the temples that are under construction or announced, the fact that a temple has been announced in McAllen may delay other Texas temple prospects for the time being (though I personally have one or two Texas cities on my list for this April's General Conference in order to not leave anything out of consideration) So then the target areas for those next temples that may be announced in the North America Southwest Areas could involve any of the following states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Although previous statements from those involved in the temple construction program of the Church indicated very recently (within the last few years) that Arizona was well stocked up for temples for the moment, I have two cities in that state that are on my list for the near future. The same is true for Nevada, where the two cities in question are more than 200 miles one-way from their currently-assigned temples. New Mexico is an interesting case to study. I have heard arguments in favor of one or two other locations, but my personal study has led me to prioritize Las Cruces, which, if announced, would be announced under the same rationale as many of the other Nelsonian-era smaller temples.
I have two Colorado cities on my watchlist for the near future as well, one of which made my list for April, but I prioritized different cities there than what has been mentioned here. And the unpredictable nature of Nelsonian announcements makes it hard to conjecture what possible patterns (if any) might prevail in the next 2-4 sets of temple announcements, which are almost certain to come down the pike this year and next year, given that the prophet is not slowing down on such announcements as of yet. These are just my own thoughts for now, based on what I know. Anyone wanting more specific insight from me on any specific temple prospects is more than welcome to check my list and the relevant accompanying notes, which can be found on my blog at the following web address:
https://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2019/11/initial-predictions-for-april-2020_32.html
THe one thing I would note in relation to that list is that, since publishing it, I have increased my estimate for the number of temples that could be announced to bbetween 1-3 dozen, but I am prepared for any number of temples to be announced, in any locations, whether those locations are on my list or not. Such as they are, these are my thoughts on that subject. I hope they might prove helpful to someone who reads them.
McAllen probably will have little to no influence on the prospects of a temple in Austin or Fort Worth. Austin is over 300 miles from McAllen and Fort Worth is 500 miles. To put that in perspective, Fort Worth is actually more than 100 miles closer to the newly announced temple in northwest Arkansas than it is to McAllen.
A possible members-to-temple ratio in a given area is 1 temple to each 20-25000 membeers in more regularly populated areas and one temple for every three-five stakes where those are closer together in more widely spaced areas. Islandd nations and areas quite distant are likely to get temples with one stake, we have seen that with Hungary and probably Okinawa, although traffic and expressway tolls factored in on that one.
David Todd, thanks for that comment. You are, of course, correct, that, on its' own merits, the announcement of a temple in one Texas city would not, in and of itself, delay the need for another temple in that state. It appears that the point I was trying to make there got lost in translation, so I'll try again. There have been 5 sets of temple announcements since April 2017 that have included locations in the United States. Those announcements broke down as follows:
April 2017: Pocatello Idaho and Saratoga Springs Utah
April 2018: Layton Utah and Richmond Virginia
October 2018: Yuba City (now Feather River) California and Washington County Utah (Technically, if Puerto Rico's status as a US territory is considered, that would be a third temple for the United States in this conference, but since it is part of the Caribbean Area, for my purposes, I am excluding Puerto Rico due to the point I'm trying to make here.)
April 2019: Tooele Valley Utah and Moses Lake Washington
October 2019: Orem Utah, Bentonville Arkansas, McAllen Texas, and Taylorsville Utah
From these announcements, with the exception of the October 2019 General Conference, each of the other most recent sets of temple announcements I mentioned included two US cities among them, and with the exception of Utah, which has had 1 new temple announced each time (with 2 being last October), there has been no other state within the US to have more than one temple announced within these latest 5 sets of announcements. That could change within the next year or two, but I haven't found anything to indicate that will be the case for this next General Conference.
Sorry. THere was an error with the second part of my reply to David Todd above, so I had to delete that one and repost it here. In fact, from April 2017 through October 2018, having two temples announced in a single area had not been done within that time. We have since seen 2 announced in the Pacific Area of the Church last April, and two each in both the North America Southwest and Utah Areas. With that in mind, outside of the "Mormon corridor", it doesn't seem likely that more than one temple will be announced for any US state at the same time. Above and beyond that, however, further study on my part has led me to conclude that, again with the exception of Utah, no other state in the US will have more than one temple in more than one status (announced or under construction) at one time. I admit that, even in the best of times, my research is just as far from perfect as I am, if not farther than that,
So what I meant to convey was the idea that, until the McAllen temple is further along in the construction process (which, given its' anticipated size and the details that have already been announced), I am not at all confident that another Texas temple will be announced until the McAllen temple is either well under construction (or perhaps not until it is dedicated). Honesty also compells me to admit that I have literally lost track of the many things I have been wrong about in relation to Nelsonian temple announcements, so that could be the case here.
And from what I hear, the next Texas temples could be built in any order in the following locations: Fort Worth, El Paso, and Austin. My research has led me to prioritize Fort Worth on my list (which I had done even before McAllen was announced). On the one hand, I cannot in good conscience absolutely rule out another Texas Temple being announced between now and the end of 2021 or sooner, including while the McAllen Temple may be under construction. But based on the reasoning I have laid out here, the more likely scenario appears to me to be that the Church would perhaps announce one temple in any of the 3 states I mentioned in my prior comment (Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico). But that is only what my research and personal analysis on what I found has led me to conclude, and I would be absolutely elated for any temples to be announced for anywhere, whether or not such locations happen to be on my list or in line with my research and analysis.
President Nelson has surprised most (if not all) of us in one way or another with quite a few of the 35 temples he has announced, so it is likely unwise of me in some ways to rule out anything from surprising me again as relating to future announcements. So the best I can do in this case is what I have done: explain more of the reasoning behind my offered assesments and include massive disclaimers in that regard. I have been dead wrong in many ways in the past, and I have no doubt that will be the case in the immediate and more distant future.
But either way, I always appreciate the chance to explain my reasoning in such cases, and I hope that this latest explanation has been helpful to all who read it in general, and to you, David Todd, in particular. I look forward to seeing what all President Nelson has planned in terms of the April General Conference and specifically regarding temple announcements. One thing is clear, though, and that is that we continue to enter uncharted territory in terms of Nelsonian temple announcements, so it will be amazingly wonderful to see what is on the next horizon in that respect. Thanks to all of you who may read this comment for your willingness to wade through it. I am grateful we can dialogue about such things to the extent that we do so here.
James Anderson, what you proposed seems to be a good rule of thumb. The Port-au-Prince Haiti, Yigo Guam, Praia Cabo Verde, and San Juan Puerto Rico Temples are all recent examples of the smaller size (under 10,000 square feet). There are also other Nelsonian temples that are anticipated to be less than 20,000 square feet in area. And as President Nelson noted in early September of last year, the Church will be announcing other smaller temples fore the foreseeable future because approval and construction are easily approved and completed. And the smaller temples he himself has announced thus far can certainly clue us in on the parameters that may be used to determine future locations as well.j
Yes that does help me understand your point, thank you.
I must admit- I think that there is less patterns going on to these announcements than any of us want to realize because we love to analyze and predict. It seems to me that temples are being built in the places that the brethren feel have the numbers and spiritual strength to support one, where distance places a hardship on those who otherwise would travel to their assigned district, or where the existing temple districts are crowded. It makes sense that so far within the US and outside of Utah, these have mostly been spread out in different states, because it would be hard to have multiple places close to each other that meet these criteria. That said, I don't think state boundaries will be a deterrent when determining if a city would be a good fit for a temple. (National borders might though)
David Todd, I am glad my explanation sufficiently clarified what I intended to say. And as I noted, the first 3 sets of Nelsonian temple announcements seemed to hold to very general patterns for the most part. The announcements made last October threw the proverbial monkey wrench into any patterns I had previously observed in temple announcements made by President Nelson. Again, in all honesty, sometimes I am not sure what to make of Nelsonian temple announcements thus far. I have encouraged people to prepare for any number of temples that may be announced in April on the one hand, and on the other hand, recent information I have come across in my ongoing research related to the temple construction program of the Church appears to indicate that the upcoming General Conference, celebrating the bicentennial of major important events that ushered in the restoration of the gospel, may be the perfect time for President Nelson to detail his temple construction plans and announce anywhere from 1-3 dozen new temples. Of course, I could also see the focus being on that bicentennial, with less than a dozen temples announced as well. Either way, I am prepared for any scenario in that particular respect.
As far as specific temple locations, I could easily see more than one temple announced in one or more of the 21 areas of the Church, but whether or not those announcements would involve one or more temples being announced in 1 or more US states outside of Utah is another question. It is entirely possible, in my opinion, that another Texas temple could be coming down the pike sooner than my research has led me to currently believe and assert as I did above. The timing, extent, and location of temple announcements remains the prerogative of the Lord as He reveals His will to President Nelson. But I'd be very much surprised if another Texas temple were to be announced before the McAllen temple is under construction. I can't rule anything out, but that's my assessment, based on very imperfect research at only a very rudimentary level.
McAllen is so far from San Antonio I do not think it being built will much affect San Antonio attendance rates. Those may affect Austin getting a temple. Fort Worth is just a function of if Dallas is over capacity.
I always think the members to temple size ratio is also worth considering. Dallas and Las Vegas have about the same number of stakes but Las Vegas is twice as big.
That is the Las Vegas Temple is twice as big as the Dallas Temple.
When Montana first got a temple they assigned the whole state to it even though that never made sense for the west part of the district.
International borders do effect temple placement.
I also wonder how much pre-announcement work is done.
On the other hand Arizona had 3 temple announced in one months time, and both of Tennessee's temples were underway at the same time. In the southern US this is partly because the large Nashville Temple was then replaced by several smaller temples.
JPL, I am not sure to whom you were replying with your comment about how the McAllen Texas Temple won't impact attendance rates at San Antonio. I don't recall mentioning that temple by name myself, and unless I msised something, no other comments relating dto Texas temples in this thread referred to that temple specifically. That said, it may be more correct to say that the future dedication of the McAllen temple will not directly impact the numbers of Saints served by the San Antonio Temple. Once McAllen is built and dedicated, one or two of the temple districts from which congregations may be transferred to McAllen will in turn have the boundaries of their temple districts subsequently realigned as well, which could indirectly have some impact on the number and location of stakes served by the San Antonio Temple. The same is true for every new temple that is built, because the closest districts to it will have their boundaries realigned. I have spoken before of how, once the Saratoga Springs Utah Temple is dedicated, many of the Orem stakes now assigned to the Provo Utah Temple could be transferred to the Mount Timpanogs Utah Temple district, to which they would belong until the Orem Utah Temple is dedicated. But that's just a feeling I have. By these two examples alone, we see that those temples will have some impact on the current makeup of other temple districts. So with the McAllen Texas Temple's dedication, I have every confidence that the districts of the previously-4 temples will all be impacted in one way or another as the existing districts are realigned.
@JPL
I can back that up.
I was living in Western Montana when the Billings Temple became our temple.
We went from driving 4 hours to the Idaho Falls Temple to driving 5 to get to Billings, though that changed when Spokane was built, cutting our time down to 3 & 1/2 once we got assigned to it.
However, even though Billings was farther, having us all assigned to our "own" Montana Temple gave us a feeling of solidarity. There aren't many of us Montanans (about a million or so population), and the members are a minority (5-7% of the population), so we felt pretty united there for awhile.
I'm still holding out for a Missoula Temple, though - hopefully within the next few years.
Johnathan Whiting, IMHO, the prospect of a Missoula Temple may be more imminent than it seems. In fact, the announcement of the 4 US temples last October has propelled Missoula to (almost) the very top of my list of prospective US cities that might get a temple in the near future. Just wanted to share that here, FWIW.
I certainly hope so, James. :) I wouldn't complain if it happened sooner, rather than later.
Post a Comment