My List of Potential Temples

[james]

Hello. I am grateful to be able to post on this forum. In this topic, I would like to discuss my personal list of potential temples. I have done the research and have felt that these are the most imminently likely possibilities. I have them listed in order of likelihood. Any feedback is welcome and appreciated. For each temple, I have a parenthetical expression indicating either why each site is important to me or my reasoning behind each site. Post here with any questions. I look forward to your feedback.

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, outside of Utah)



Missoula Montana (according to reports, Elder Bednar publicly proposed this temple during a stake conference; while the facts and details surrounding this proposal are unverifiable at best, this appears to be a very likely city for Montana’s second temple; this argument is strengthened by the report that such a site has been purchased, and an announcement seems imminent here once Church growth and activity warrants it)



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; such a temple was proposed in February 1998 by President Gordon B. Hinckley)



NOTE: The three above are very likely, given Church growth that has recently been reported in Africa. What is not as clear is how soon such announcements might happen or how imminent any of them might be above the other two.



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 and therefore makes the most sense as the home for the next temple in that state.)



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)



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 reports I have received, 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; of the two, Scotland seems 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)



What do you think of this list? Should any be added or removed? How soon do you think we might see temples in any or all of these cities? Let the discussion begin! Thanks!

[Michel Rothmund (miro)]

Hi James

I often hear Budapest mentioned for a future temple in Europe. I wonder why?
In my view a temple in Vienna Austria is more likely for following reasons:
1. Longer church presence
2. More active members
3. Many austrians have served as temple presidents or in temple presidencies in the past.

Also Scotland or Norway seem more likly to me.

[james]

Hey, miro! Budapest Hungary was mentioned to me by name on my blog by someone who would know as being the next most likely possibility for a temple in Europe. I would love to see a temple in Vienna Austria. My wife served her mission there, and she reports that it is a great setting for a temple there. When my list spanned 60+ possibilities, I had a temple for Vienna on my list. But when I had to narrow my choices, my research showed that it has a stronger Church presence in terms of the number of units and growth potential. I would be happy to do further research on the subject to find out if Austria is more likely than Hungary. A temple in either or both places would be good. And since it was on my more lengthy list, I can't rule out an Austrian temple. The Lord has been known to surprise us at times with the announced locations of temples. Cases in point: the three announced in April 2015 (which I hadn't anticipated but probably could have if I'd done more research), Paris France, and Payson Utah (these last two were both likely, but I felt they might not happen in my lifetime. I have never been more glad to be proven wrong. I spent several years as a Payson resident, and my lifelong love of France and the French language made me hopeful for it, even though I felt others were more likely.)

That said, I want to mention one other thing in relation to my predictions. When a young man with whom I had served in Aaronic Priesthood quorums served his mission in Rome, Italy, he often wrote to me of his discouragement about the lack of progress and growth in his area. As I pondered what to say that might comfort him, I was impressed to let him know that the Spirit had indicated to me that he would not only live to hear of people that had been personally influenced by his service, but that a temple was sure to be announced in Rome within the near future. That promise proved somewhat prophetic. The Rome Temple was announced within roughly 5 years following his release from his mission.

I don't know if I mentioned this in my post above, but I have done temple predictions for the last several conferences. While those announced in April 2015 blew me away with surprise, of the four announced a year later, I nailed the exact locations of Harare Zimbabwe and Quito Ecuador, and I had the right nations of Peru and Brazil, just the wrong cities (I had predicted Belo Horizonte Brazil, and Iquitos Peru). So I called my temple predictions 75% accurate, which is not bad.

That said, I recognize that I am far from infallible or prophetic in general. The element of surprise is part of what intrigues me most about my process. The Lord's ways are not ours. That is sure. So I have no problem with finding out I have been wrong in my predictions. They are just that, predictions, and the main reason I enjoy them so much is because it allows me to research likely areas, give my best estimates, and then, right or wrong, fine tune future predictions accordingly. I hope that explains my reasoning and process. Thanks for the feedback.

[Scott]

"Budapest Hungary was mentioned to me by name on my blog by someone who would know as being the next most likely possibility for a temple in Europe."

How would someone know? I would assume only the brethren and those who are in the Temple committee would know. Maybe the Temple department workers, but they shouldn't be saying anything.

[james]

Scott, great question. Even though temple developments are generally kept under wraps until they are officially announced, there have been exceptions. As mentioned repeatedly on this forum and the blog for which it is named, leaks have been known to happen. They shouldn't, but they do. And these leaks come from sources like local newspapers, who have done the research to verify that such events are imminent. One example: A French newspaper leaked news that the Church was looking at building a temple in France. Once the Church heard of that leaked information, President Monson gave a statement to Public Affairs for them to officially release. That statement confirmed what the French newspaper had leaked. It wasn't until the following October that the Church made it official. That is one example. Another is that MormonLeaks in 2012 had reportedly released a list of temples that the Church was allegedly looking to build. A comment about that on the LDS Church Growth blog noted that, with the exception of two sites, all of them have since been announced. I won't go into particulars. I couldn't care less about MormonLeaks, and on the comment thread where this had been discussed, I spoke out in opposition to MormonLeaks. It doesn't matter to me that this "secret" information has now been "made public and verified as being true." The deliberations of the Brethren should be kept from public scrutiny until a final decision is made. Doing otherwise becomes problematic. When I speak of "those who would know" about potential temple sites, I speak of those who have intimate familiarity and knowledge of the areas in which these temples will be built. And I trust those individuals because I have done extensive study of my own to arrive at my best predictions for future temples. I am pretty familiar with most of the major factors that determine which locations might have a temple announcement. And my subsequent study of these factors as they relate to the areas these temples will serve have led me to conclude that the people who share this information really know what they are talking about. For what it's worth, most of the information I share here comes from close personal friends whose dedication to study regarding this subject leaves no room for doubt that their information is above and beyond reproach. Would I love to see a temple in other European nations? Of course. But I absolutely trust the information given to me about Budapest, and my own study has verified this possibility. Does that answer your question?

[scotts]

Thanks James. It does. One other item for your list. As much as I would love to see a Temple in Tacoma, I don't see it happening in the near future due to its proximity to the Seattle Temple. (Which does not have the best attendance rates) If I were to guess as to a new Temple in Washington State I would think more along the lines of central Washington like Ellensburg or Yakima. The Church also owns a large campsite in nearby Cle Elum. But that would pull from the Columbia River Temple and I don't know how their attendance is.

[jamesanderson]

On Tacoma, first look at the temple's capacity up at Seattle, then project what member activity rates are in the area. They told Tucson priesthood leaders before 2008 that sacrament meeting attendance, tithe-payers, and temple attendance at the Mesa Temple (the only one at the time) had to be better than it was,

They start looking when an existing temple hits 80 percent of its design capacity regularly.

For areas well away from other temples, they probably go by the aforementioned items possibly alone and because of the distance, may not place as much weight on attendance at other temples

Seattle and Portland are only 150 miles apart, Tacoma would be quite close to Seattle, so if it is true that there is slow atttendance, maybe they are not looking just yet.

[james]

I did not know that about Tacoma. That was one someone else felt was imminent. While I had my reservations about it personally, that individual seemed sure enough about it that I said I would add it to the list. I had fully intended to do more research to verify the information I had received on Tacoma, and, had I done so, I would have surely seen that it was not likely. As it is, I have to rely on the information I receive until I can either correct it by my own study or have it disproved through the comments of others. I think I will hold off on removing Tacoma from my list just yet out of respect for the person who suggested it in the first place and in view of the fact that General Conference is about a month away, making last-minute changes to my predictions unwise unless there is a really good reason to change them. But my ultimate goal will be to remove it based on your excellent and valid observations. Thanks for the tip. I appreciate hearing your insight.

[james]

Actually, scratch that. I have determined that the excellent observations made above (backed by facts, figures, and actual research, rather than just a wild hope) give me more than enough reason to remove Tacoma as a possibility. I will do so. Thanks.

[brycen]

Thanks for making the list, James, and for all your analysis on this subject.

I have a few comments however.

With respect to your first location, in Nicaragua: While it is a country without a temple, and therefore seems likely to be the next temple to split the Tegucigalpa District, I would also consider a second temple for Honduras, in San Pedro Sula, to be almost as likely. What do you think?

Your information about where land has been bought seems useful. I'm curious as to the source of this information.

I don't know why you consider Vermont to be a likely location for a temple. With only 1 stake, and the entirety of the state within 3 hours of either the Boston or Montreal temples, it seems to be much less in need of a temple, geographically, than any of the existing temples with only 1, 2, or 3 stakes. It's true that there are some places with tiny temple districts (in terms of number of stakes), but they tend to be places that are much more distant from existing temples than is Vermont. Also, with respect to your comments about state capitals, I only could come up with 18 states that have a temple in their state capital, and North Dakota is the only one that doesn't have at least 2 stakes within a half hour of the temple. Most of them are a lot more than 2. North Dakota and three of the temples in Canada, the existing Halifax and Regina, and the under-construction Winnipeg all fall under the category of being a huge distance from other temples.

I know the Vermont location is at the bottom of your list, but I would think a temple in Maine would be much more likely than in Vermont, just considering the distances (though I don't think anywhere in New England is likely now that the Hartford Temple has been built. The Church is very small here - I live in New Hampshire - and not growing all that fast). Parts of Maine are 6 hours from a temple, and even if you just look at the areas that are in the stakes that are currently assigned to the Boston Temple, some branches in the Bangor Stake have to travel more than 5 hours to get there. Bangor itself is almost 4 hours from the Boston Temple.

The same arguments you made for Vermont would be even more true of Madison, Wisconsin. Though it is not far from Chicago, other parts of the state are, and it is a bigger state with more stakes. Same with Des Moines, Iowa, or Jackson, Mississippi, two other states not on your list. Just wondering how you came up with Vermont. Sorry to spend so long on the last one on your list.

I like most of your other suggestions, although I would add a few other points. First, while Uganda has more stakes, and more members, than Kenya currently, I would think that for geographic reasons, that Nairobi Kenya would be the more logical place to put the first temple in those two countries, since Kenya is much larger and also has 4 districts. I also wonder about the locations you picked in Texas and Bolivia. Do you really think Forth Worth will get a temple before Austin, given the distances from their closest temples? And unless there's a travel-related difficulty for part of Bolivia that doesn't carry across to the whole country, Santa Cruz looks equally likely as La Paz for the next temple there, based on distance from Cochabamba and the number of stakes in each city. They could actually both get one.

Other comments: I agree with your picks for Brazil, though I think Salvador is more likely than Belo Horizonte, mostly because of distance and because I have heard there is more poverty in Bahia state which would probably make it more difficult for people there to travel. I admit, I also want a temple in Salvador more because I had a missionary companion from Bahia (though we didn't get along very well). I also agree with the likelihood of Richmond Virginia. I don't think any other location in Virginia is likely, unless there is a small one for SVU.

With respect to the likely location for the 3rd temple in Argentina, I find it very difficult to figure out. What were the reasons given for thinking it will be Neuquen? I would almost consider a second Buenos Aires temple, or one very near it such as Rosario, to be the likely 3rd Argentina temple. Further south, Bahia Blanca might be more likely, despite the fact that there are only 2 stakes immediately nearby, because it is more central to the region south of Buenos Aires, and also because it is on the coast, and therefore people might travel there by boat. Neuquen might be more difficult to travel to for the cities that are further south, if so it would only have about 5 stakes in its district.

I may come up with some more comments later, but it's getting late and I already lost my comment once when I accidentally hit the back button. Don't want to do it again.

[brycen]

Never mind what I said about Texas. I just looked at the districts, and Austin area only has about 6 stakes. I'm wondering, though, if the Dallas Temple is near capacity. Is there a need to split the district, given that Dallas and Fort Worth are close enough to be considered twin cities?

[james]

Mar 6, 2017 5:07:59 GMT brycen said:

Thanks for making the list, James, and for all your analysis on this subject.

I have a few comments however.

With respect to your first location, in Nicaragua: While it is a country without a temple, and therefore seems likely to be the next temple to split the Tegucigalpa District, I would also consider a second temple for Honduras, in San Pedro Sula, to be almost as likely. What do you think?

Your information about where land has been bought seems useful. I'm curious as to the source of this information.

I don't know why you consider Vermont to be a likely location for a temple. With only 1 stake, and the entirety of the state within 3 hours of either the Boston or Montreal temples, it seems to be much less in need of a temple, geographically, than any of the existing temples with only 1, 2, or 3 stakes. It's true that there are some places with tiny temple districts (in terms of number of stakes), but they tend to be places that are much more distant from existing temples than is Vermont. Also, with respect to your comments about state capitals, I only could come up with 18 states that have a temple in their state capital, and North Dakota is the only one that doesn't have at least 2 stakes within a half hour of the temple. Most of them are a lot more than 2. North Dakota and three of the temples in Canada, the existing Halifax and Regina, and the under-construction Winnipeg all fall under the category of being a huge distance from other temples.

I know the Vermont location is at the bottom of your list, but I would think a temple in Maine would be much more likely than in Vermont, just considering the distances (though I don't think anywhere in New England is likely now that the Hartford Temple has been built. The Church is very small here - I live in New Hampshire - and not growing all that fast). Parts of Maine are 6 hours from a temple, and even if you just look at the areas that are in the stakes that are currently assigned to the Boston Temple, some branches in the Bangor Stake have to travel more than 5 hours to get there. Bangor itself is almost 4 hours from the Boston Temple.

The same arguments you made for Vermont would be even more true of Madison, Wisconsin. Though it is not far from Chicago, other parts of the state are, and it is a bigger state with more stakes. Same with Des Moines, Iowa, or Jackson, Mississippi, two other states not on your list. Just wondering how you came up with Vermont. Sorry to spend so long on the last one on your list.

I like most of your other suggestions, although I would add a few other points. First, while Uganda has more stakes, and more members, than Kenya currently, I would think that for geographic reasons, that Nairobi Kenya would be the more logical place to put the first temple in those two countries, since Kenya is much larger and also has 4 districts. I also wonder about the locations you picked in Texas and Bolivia. Do you really think Forth Worth will get a temple before Austin, given the distances from their closest temples? And unless there's a travel-related difficulty for part of Bolivia that doesn't carry across to the whole country, Santa Cruz looks equally likely as La Paz for the next temple there, based on distance from Cochabamba and the number of stakes in each city. They could actually both get one.

Other comments: I agree with your picks for Brazil, though I think Salvador is more likely than Belo Horizonte, mostly because of distance and because I have heard there is more poverty in Bahia state which would probably make it more difficult for people there to travel. I admit, I also want a temple in Salvador more because I had a missionary companion from Bahia (though we didn't get along very well). I also agree with the likelihood of Richmond Virginia. I don't think any other location in Virginia is likely, unless there is a small one for SVU.

With respect to the likely location for the 3rd temple in Argentina, I find it very difficult to figure out. What were the reasons given for thinking it will be Neuquen? I would almost consider a second Buenos Aires temple, or one very near it such as Rosario, to be the likely 3rd Argentina temple. Further south, Bahia Blanca might be more likely, despite the fact that there are only 2 stakes immediately nearby, because it is more central to the region south of Buenos Aires, and also because it is on the coast, and therefore people might travel there by boat. Neuquen might be more difficult to travel to for the cities that are further south, if so it would only have about 5 stakes in its district.

I may come up with some more comments later, but it's getting late and I already lost my comment once when I accidentally hit the back button. Don't want to do it again.

Thanks, brycen! I appreciate the chance to address your concerns. San Pedro Sula was on my list of temple possibilities when it was 60+ strong, and I would be happy to readd it to the list if I feel it is necessary. But my reasoning behind preferring Nicaragua is two-fold. Land has been purchased for such a temple, and it has been publicly proposed. Additionally, there has not been sufficient temple attendance, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, to warrant a temple in San Pedro Sula, while that has been the case in Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the #1 most likely candidate for a temple.  The research I have done and the reports I have received bear that out completely.

As to my sources, they are above reproach. They are from people with either a great familiarity with the subject of temples, or from people who are familiar with and keeping tabs on the areas such temples will serve. Above and beyond saying that these people are fully qualified to make these assertions, I cannot and will not divulge more particulars about that other than to say I would trust these reports with my very life if necessary. I feel it important to keep confidential who I am getting this information from, because I wouldn't want to subject them to any ridicule or censure of any kind. They are all good Church members whose integrity and information are above reproach. I am not privy to any discussions going on at Church headquarters regarding how imminent these might be, but I have been told that these first four are just a matter of time and will happen when the main conditions that drive and motivate a temple announcement are met. Hope that satisfies you. Unfortunately, that's all I can say in this regard. I have too much respect for these people to do otherwise. But I trust those reports with all my heart and energy.

With the Winnipeg temple, we have the precedent set of temples being built to serve only a handful of units. So that opens up the possibility that we might see more announcements in areas like that in the future. The main factors I use to determine this list order are unit growth, any public proposal by an apostle, what I can ascertain about temple attendance in the areas future temples might serve, and how busy temples that newly announced locations would pull from would be if other temples took away from them. I am perfectly open to revising my list if there is a good enough argument to eliminate or add a possibility. With the exception of Tacoma Washington, I have not heard a convincing enough argument to make changes as of yet. But I am trying to take everyone's feedback and feelings into account, as well as doing my own research to find out what I can about all the factors involved in the sacred work of temple site prediction.

I will look more at Maine as a future candidate as I am able to over the next little while. Thanks for the tip. If I feel it is warranted, I might either change a current location or add Maine. As to Vermont, it might be a similar case as Winnipeg. If there are sufficient grounds to remove Vermont as a possibility and change it, I will do so. I will also look at Madison Wisconsin. When I started this topic, it wasn't meant to tout my predictions as being superior to or more likely than anyone else's thoughts about other locations. So while I will do my best to address comments on my current list, if the information I get anywhere convinces me to make changes, additions, or corrections, it will be done. You can count on that. With that in mind, maybe you could give me more information on why you feel Maine and Wisconsin are likely, and why you feel Vermont is not. I will be happy to take that into account and make whatever changes I can to accommodate new information. As to Des Moines Iowa and Jackson Mississippi, I have not done research there, but your comments have convinced me that I should do so, and I will ASAP. You can count on that. Thanks for the input.

Additionally, I have tried to prioritize my selections in order of likelihood, but I am the first to admit that my knowledge and information is not perfect. So in addition to changing locations as needed, I would be more than happy to also look at reprioritizing if anyone feels that is warranted. Just let me know.

As to your other comments, in African nations, it is likely that one temple could serve two or three nations if centrally located between the three. My main reason for favoring Africa is the extensive growth I have observed there. And with a temple publicly proposed for Kenya, it may make more likely than one for Uganda. My main rationale behind putting the African nation temples where I have is the comments on the LDS Church Growth blog to the effect that the three nations in Africa that I have mentioned above rank in that order as the nations with the greatest LDS presence without a temple. I have heard many arguments for reprioritizing these nations, and I will keep my eyes and ears open for any other developments making any one of them more likely than another. I could see temples in all three nations by 2030, if not before. I appreciate the input there. Thanks.

As for your comments on Texas and Bolivia, I have heard from some that Austin and Santa Cruz are more favorable and more likely than Fort Worth and La Paz. But I have also heard that there is strong reason to believe that Fort Worth and La Paz might happen before the others. So it wasn't just a question of having people to whom I am personally connected motivating these selections. I personally think that it is likely that we could see temples in Fort Worth, Austin, La Paz, and Santa Cruz within 20 years or so. I am constantly reevaluating things and doing research as I can. Thanks for the comments there. With the three Brazilian cities, the reports I have received indicates that any of the three may be more likely than the other two. They seem to be neck-and-neck in terms of how likely they are in the future. I haven't felt confident enough yet to eliminate any of them, but I am aware that there are factors making any one of them more likely than the other two. I will happily refine that prediction if I feel it is warranted. As to Argentina, Neuquen was mentioned to me because it would be bordering two or three nearby nations and thus serve them all. I am open to taking another look at this. The precedent of a second temple for Lima Peru makes it more likely that some cities that now host a temple might get another one, and I had a second temple for a few nations at one time, but had to refine my predictions to more likely possibilities. I will be taking another look at that as well.

Thanks for all your great comments. I will take that into account and reevaluate as I can. Given that General Conference is a month away, I don't see many profound and significant changes to this list before then, but it is not unheard of. Hope that helps. Thanks, Brycen! Let me know when you can about any other questions.

[james]

Mar 6, 2017 5:36:05 GMT brycen said:

Never mind what I said about Texas. I just looked at the districts, and Austin area only has about 6 stakes. I'm wondering, though, if the Dallas Temple is near capacity. Is there a need to split the district, given that Dallas and Fort Worth are close enough to be considered twin cities?

I am no geography buff, so I was not aware that Dallas and Fort Worth were sister cities. But given the growth in Texas and the fact that there are two Utah cities with two temples (South Jordan and Provo), it is not unheard of to have two or even three temples within driving distance of one member. In addition to the two in Provo, I am close to the Mount Timpanogos Temple because I live in Orem. The American Fork temple is "my temple" because it's where I served part of my part-time mission, and where I met and married my wife. And there have been some excellent arguments put up for a possible temple being built to serve Orem. So "sister cities" do not seem to disqualify temples from being built in a "currently organized" temple district. Hope that helps.

[james]

Another thought I had. While I am doing more research into how likely a temple in Lehi might be, it seems more likely than one for Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain. I have heard arguments for both places. But I have no small familiarity with Lehi. My main reason for favoring it goes beyond the fact that Lehi is my wife's hometown. There have been many land developments there, the biggest of which is my father-in-law's property. And some of that land, located centrally as it is, and undergoing ongoing development, makes sense for a temple, if the Church determines to go that direction. As for me myself, I would love to have temples in both places eventually. But based on the unit growth, the population, the construction projects, and the fact that Lehi is spiritually more in need of a temple because of some difficult and even somewhat corrupt politicians, Lehi seems to be the best candidate for Utah County's next temple.

That said, based on the discussion here, I am in the process of doing further research into my current and future selections, and I will let you know if and when I make any changes. Thanks to you all for your input. I appreciate the feedback and the questions. Let the discussion continue!

[Admin]

I am actually from fort Worth. It is about a 45 minute drive with low traffic to an hour and a half drive with higher traffic to get to the Dallas temple from my house. For some parts of the temple district that could be an hour more. So just because the cities border, doesn't mean they are close. Don't forget the Dallas Fort Worth area has a population of about 7 million, twice the entire state of Utah. Being one of the fastest growing areas in the US, I think it is very likely to have a new temple in the near future. Austin is also a good candidate for a temple, but I think it will be at least 5 years before it would be announced. In that time there could be a few more stakes added to the district and the San Antonio mission could be split.