|
Post by james on Mar 7, 2017 22:57:22 GMT
Well, that settles my mind, at least on the subject of Texas. What more do I need than a first-hand account of someone who lives in the area? This solidifies my opinion that Fort Worth might be a better candidate than Austin in terms of a future temple. I would love to see a temple in both cities, and I believe that will happen sooner rather than later, but at least now my preference for Fort Worth as a potential temple site has actual fact behind it. Thanks for taking time to comment. I appreciate your insight.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 8, 2017 1:54:22 GMT
Based on the excellent feedback provided here and further study, I have revised and regrouped my predictions. Now, instead of a long list outlining each likely location and the rationale behind my choice for each one, they are grouped by world region, then by likelihood within that region. I will share this new list and would welcome any feedback. Thanks.
South America (Managua Nicaragua; Santa Cruz Bolivia; Neuquen Argentina; Valparaiso Chile; Puebla Mexico); Ocenia (Port Moresby Papua New Guinea); United States (Bentonville Arkansas, Missoula Montana; Lehi/Layton Utah; Pocatello Idaho; Richmond Viriginia; Fort Worth Texas; Augusta Maine; Madison Wisconsin; Des Moines Iowa; Jackson Mississippi; Rapid City South Dakota; Salem Oregon); Africa (Nairobi Kenya; Freetown Sierra Leone; Lagos Nigeria)
NOTE: Temples in Brazil are always a possibility, given growth there. However, with one currently under construction (Fortaleza); one with construction pending (Rio de Janeiro); and one announced (Belem Brazil), a new Brazilian temple doesn’t seem likely for at least a couple of years. I won’t rule it out, but it seems others might take precedence. When Brazilian temples are next announced in a year or two, they would likely be in this order: Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, Salvador; Valparaiso, and/or a second for the capital, Sao Paulo. Additionally, a temple in Kampala Uganda seems warranted at some point in the near future, but the temple in Nairobi Kenya would serve the Saints in both countries. I wouldn’t rule out a Ugandan temple by 2030 or before, and I will keep an eye out on things and make a determination on that later. I anticipate at least one temple announcement in the United States, because we have one under renovation in Utah, and two more US temples scheduled for renovation, but the dedications that will happen later this year mean that we will have none in any stage after the Cedar City Utah temple is dedicated in December.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 10, 2017 3:37:53 GMT
Based on the feedback that is presently being provided between this forum and on my blog, I have revised yet again my list of most imminent future temple sites. This new list will be sorted by the likelihood of temples within the alphabetical ordering of the Church's geographical areas. Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
3+ temples announced in any of the following locations (first in alphabetical order of the Church’s geographical areas under which they fall, then by city and country):
Africa Southeast: Nairobi Kenya Africa West: Freetown Sierra Leone; Lagos Nigeria; Kumasi Ghana Central America: Managua Nicaragua Pacific: Port Moresby Papua New Guinea Europe: Budapest Hungary; Vienna Austria Idaho: Pocatello Idaho Mexico: Puebla Mexico North America Central: Missoula Montana; Rapid City South Dakota; Des Moines Iowa; Madison Wisconsin; North America Northeast: Richmond Viriginia; Augusta Maine North America Northwest: Salem Oregon North America Southeast: Bentonville Arkansas; Jackson Mississippi North America Southwest: Fort Worth Texas; South America Northwest: Santa Cruz Bolivia; South America South: Neuquen Argentina; Valparaiso Chile Utah North: Layton Utah Utah South: Lehi Utah
NOTE: Temples in Brazil are usually a great possibility, given the ongoing, extensive rate of growth there. However, with one currently under construction (Fortaleza); one with construction pending (Rio de Janeiro); and one announced (Belem Brazil), a new Brazilian temple doesn’t seem likely for at least a couple of years. I won’t rule it out, but it seems others might take precedence. When new Brazilian temples are next announced, the most likely order for the next four or five temples are: Brasilia; Belo Horizonte; Salvador; and/or a second for Sao Paulo, which is the fastest growing Brazilian city with the strongest Church presence. Additionally, a temple in Kampala Uganda seems warranted at some point in the near future, but the temple in Nairobi Kenya would serve the Saints in both countries for at least a few years. I wouldn’t rule out a Ugandan temple by 2030 if not before, and I will keep an eye out on things and make a determination on that later. I anticipate at least one temple announcement in the United States, because we have one under renovation in Utah, and two more US temples scheduled for renovation, but the dedications that will happen later this year mean that we will have no US temples in any stage of construction after the Cedar City Utah temple is dedicated in December. And that would be a first in a very long time, assuming it has happened at all previously.
|
|
|
Post by brycen on Mar 13, 2017 1:22:45 GMT
Admin, you bring up a couple of good points. Traffic congestion in Dallas Fort Worth area make travel times a lot longer than they appear on paper. And there is a lot of population growth in Texas, including LDS activity, I'm sure. Based on the fact of growth, more temples for Texas appear more likely than for some of the other states I mentioned, including Wisconsin, Mississippi, Maine, and Vermont. Utah is also growing a lot.
What are the fastest growing states in terms of LDS population, not overall population? Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by brycen on Mar 13, 2017 3:16:29 GMT
James, have you decided not to include any potential locations in Asia? I didn't see those areas listed (you mentioned the Pacific Area which may include part of Asia, I'm not sure). You have locations for 16 of the 24 areas. Or is it 25? I know there's an Area for the Middle East, which has only one Stake, in the United Arab Emirates, but the Area apparently doesn't have any Area Seventies. According to the church website it is not listed in Seventy quorum assignments at www.lds.org/church/leaders/additional-quorums-of-the-seventy?lang=engI wasn't trying to say you "should" add those states to your list. I merely wondered why you had Vermont on your list and not those states. I'm still not sure I understand why Vermont was on your list of likely temple locations in the first place, and adding the states I listed doesn't resolve that question. What I'm trying to get at is, what are your criteria for deciding where temples are likely to be announced in the near future, and are you applying those criteria equally to all the locations you consider? I really appreciate all the work you've put into this discussion board and your blog, I don't mean this as criticism. I have seen other predictions where there was a mathematical score given to the likelihood (seems like Matt did that at one point). I didn't necessarily mean to suggest that only something that precise could be useful. I guess I'm just trying to raise the topic of analyzing these predictions at a deeper level. I wish I could say I've done this myself, but it's just something I'm figuring out now about how I think about things. Maybe I should start a new topic about my own thoughts on temple prediction (whether or not I come up with a formal list).
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 13, 2017 23:16:06 GMT
Admin, you bring up a couple of good points. Traffic congestion in Dallas Fort Worth area make travel times a lot longer than they appear on paper. And there is a lot of population growth in Texas, including LDS activity, I'm sure. Based on the fact of growth, more temples for Texas appear more likely than for some of the other states I mentioned, including Wisconsin, Mississippi, Maine, and Vermont. Utah is also growing a lot. What are the fastest growing states in terms of LDS population, not overall population? Anyone know? Hey, brycen! Thanks for your excellent ongoing thoughts about my list. I have been out of commission this weekend continuing to fight my battle with two very vicious infections. I have been absolutely miserable for the last two days and not able to do much. That said, where a temple might feasibly be built seems to be a smaller consideration than unit growth and how busy the temples in the area from which new temples would draw. And in that regard, Texas should be higher on the priority list than some of your other excellent considerations. That said, I know Utah continues to be one of the fastest growing states in terms of LDS population, if not the very fastest. Someone like Matt who has done studies on Church growth might be more qualified to answer this question than I am. That said, from what research I have been able to do, it appears that, by 2012, the fastest growing states, Utah aside, were Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. Don't know how that has changed in the 5 years since the article was published. So that would be the place to start research. And that would be an excellent topic to discuss in the general category on this forum. I might look at doing that myself soon if no one beats me to the punch. Let me just publish this and address your other excellent comments. Thanks, brycen!
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 13, 2017 23:47:08 GMT
James, have you decided not to include any potential locations in Asia? I didn't see those areas listed (you mentioned the Pacific Area which may include part of Asia, I'm not sure). You have locations for 16 of the 24 areas. Or is it 25? I know there's an Area for the Middle East, which has only one Stake, in the United Arab Emirates, but the Area apparently doesn't have any Area Seventies. According to the church website it is not listed in Seventy quorum assignments at www.lds.org/church/leaders/additional-quorums-of-the-seventy?lang=engI wasn't trying to say you "should" add those states to your list. I merely wondered why you had Vermont on your list and not those states. I'm still not sure I understand why Vermont was on your list of likely temple locations in the first place, and adding the states I listed doesn't resolve that question. What I'm trying to get at is, what are your criteria for deciding where temples are likely to be announced in the near future, and are you applying those criteria equally to all the locations you consider? I really appreciate all the work you've put into this discussion board and your blog, I don't mean this as criticism. I have seen other predictions where there was a mathematical score given to the likelihood (seems like Matt did that at one point). I didn't necessarily mean to suggest that only something that precise could be useful. I guess I'm just trying to raise the topic of analyzing these predictions at a deeper level. I wish I could say I've done this myself, but it's just something I'm figuring out now about how I think about things. Maybe I should start a new topic about my own thoughts on temple prediction (whether or not I come up with a formal list). Hey, brycen! Thanks for your additional excellent questions. Here are your answers: 1. The Asia areas have had some growth, but not enough to warrant another temple right now. Last year, the Sapporo Japan temple was dedicated, and, based on the study I have done, it seems safe to assume that the Church will wait to see how that temple might affect attendance at neighboring temples, and how it might promote further growth in Asia. The Asia areas are separate from the Pacific Area of the Church, And there is no location I have found in all my searching that might be good for another temple, as there has not been sufficient growth, and as the political climate and general religious persuasion of some of the people there might not be conducive to a temple for a while. I know one was proposed in India by Elder Maxwell in 1992, but that seems to be a long ways away from happening. 2. The Church has 25 geographical areas, and the Pacific Area is comprised of Australia and those island nations of the Pacific. Papua New Guinea, where a temple site has been purchased, falls under that area. 3. The Middle East/Africa North Area has 1 Area Seventy currently, Gary S. Price. I have tried to do some research about him, but it hasn't turned up much yet. And I have found personally that the official list of area seventies as maintained by the Church might not be fully accurate. This is because they do not list anyone as representing the above-mentioned area in question, and because they have been known to have people on there who have been released and to not have included people that have been sustained. I faithfully kept such a list until sometime next year. But some major crises with my health and personal circumstances have led me to let that list go until I get some other things in order. For now, I can assure you that Gary S. Price is still listed by the Church as being an area seventy, and his home city is located in the Middle East/Africa North Area. Does that help? 4. I base my criteria of future temple lists on several things: locations I have had confirmed as having a temple site purchased (I have some very good sources for that information, and it is beyond reproach because it comes from those who have confirmed the information for me based on their familiarity with the areas); unit growth; distance from other temples; how feasible a site would be over any others; what I can ascertain about how such a temple would pull from existing temple district; temple attendance in the area; and (least importantly) those suggested by other sites. As with all of my general conference predictions, these are not just off-the-cuff suggestions that I make due to personal preference, but add after extensive study of my own and by others from whom I can gain information. You didn't "force" me in any way to remove Vermont and add the others you mentioned. Vermont had been mentioned to me a while back as a possibility, and my study at the time seemed to bear out the idea that this would be likely, although I felt it was the least likely of any of my other choices. Based on your excellent feedback, after further study, I determined that some of the sites you mentioned would better serve the area than would one temple in Vermont. While I was originally led to believe that Vermont had at least a slight chance, further study revealed that your suggestions were better and more likely. And I never add a temple to my list unless and until I am satisfied it would meet the criteria above, which I'm sure is only a small portion of the factors taken into account when such decisions are made by the Church. I have to be sure that it is likely before I change my list at all. And my study verified your theory that these options are more likely and more feasible than the one I suggested in Vermont. Thanks for the tip. I hope that answers your questions. Let me know if you need anything more.
|
|
|
Post by brycen on Mar 14, 2017 12:07:05 GMT
Thanks for your responses. My only follow-up question right now is with respect to the possibility of a temple in India. Why do you feel that it is unlikely to happen for a while? It looks like it has 3 stakes and 4 districts, but 2 of the districts, in Coimbatore and New Delhi, have enough branches to become stakes as well. I would agree that New Delhi is unlikely to get one for quite a while, but it seems to me that one in southern India is imminent, either in Bengaluru or Hyderabad. I would be surprised if one is not announced there sometime in the next 5 years. Perhaps they will wait until completing the Bangkok Temple, but our church leaders don't always do that.
India is a large country, and travel distances even between southern cities must be very large. If they wait until one of the cities has 2 stakes, then I could see why they would wait longer. I just looked it up, from Coimbatore to Bengaluru is about 6 hours to drive, 1 hour by plane. And they look fairly close on the map of India. But they're all currently flying to Hong Kong, which is much further away. The question is: does one of the stakes have the strength to provide most of the ordinance workers for a temple? I guess on reflection, I can see why they would wait longer.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 14, 2017 22:43:00 GMT
Thanks for your responses. My only follow-up question right now is with respect to the possibility of a temple in India. Why do you feel that it is unlikely to happen for a while? It looks like it has 3 stakes and 4 districts, but 2 of the districts, in Coimbatore and New Delhi, have enough branches to become stakes as well. I would agree that New Delhi is unlikely to get one for quite a while, but it seems to me that one in southern India is imminent, either in Bengaluru or Hyderabad. I would be surprised if one is not announced there sometime in the next 5 years. Perhaps they will wait until completing the Bangkok Temple, but our church leaders don't always do that. India is a large country, and travel distances even between southern cities must be very large. If they wait until one of the cities has 2 stakes, then I could see why they would wait longer. I just looked it up, from Coimbatore to Bengaluru is about 6 hours to drive, 1 hour by plane. And they look fairly close on the map of India. But they're all currently flying to Hong Kong, which is much further away. The question is: does one of the stakes have the strength to provide most of the ordinance workers for a temple? I guess on reflection, I can see why they would wait longer. Well, brycen, you raise a very excellent question. In regards to India, as I have before observed, a temple was publicly proposed there by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in June 1992, and Elder Maxwell, as you might recall, was well loved for his always-insightful remarks that made people think. I have heard from some who have seen things Elder Maxwell said as being quite prophetic in nature at times. And as one who has met Elder Maxwell previously (as a young boy at a regional conference; his wife knew me from her work with Primary Children's Medical Center), I can attest that there is power in his persona and words. I always loved listening to Elder Maxwell, and I have no doubt that his prophecy and proposal of a temple for India was prophetic, as was almost everything else he said. But that aside, what I know and have read about India and how they are not politically or spiritually ready for a temple leads me to believe that, if it happens, it is not as imminent a prospect as some might think. Would I love to be proven wrong on this point? Absolutely. I am always the first to recognize that when the Lord wants doors open, they will be open. And if the Lord wills that a temple in India be announced and built sooner than many, myself included, expect, then it will be so. But it has been almost 25 years since this proposed temple, and, based on what I've observed about the political and religious hangups that currently exist in relation to attitudes about the Church and clinging to the predominant and widely prevalent tenets that are so far distant from Christianity in general and Mormonism in particular, I don't see it happening for perhaps another 15-20 years at least. That said, I do believe it is an ideal candidate in almost every other respect, and, as noted, I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong, but that's my gut impression, for what it's worth. Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 16, 2017 0:55:08 GMT
brycen, I hope that what I said above regarding why I don't feel that a temple in India is likely for the foreseeable future did not offend you in any way or limit your desire to continue to contribute to the continuing discussions here. I would hate it if any conduct of mine caused anyone to feel driven away. I hope you know that I appreciate your feedback on my selections, and especially your insights regarding the temple sites you mentioned as possibilities that I determined were feasible. Thanks for all your contributions.
|
|
|
Post by James Anderson on Mar 16, 2017 4:13:37 GMT
The issues with India are major, and it does not have so much to do with missionary work although in a way it does.
The biggest issue is the 'caqste system' is still adhered to in many areas and those that adhere to it apparently are in languages other than English, so proselyting is only largely done in English and usually in and near the large cities.
So it is largely cultural traditions thaqt have slowed up the work. India recognizes 14 official languages, and as it is, we may not have basic materials translated into all of them yet although I know some, like Telugu, are.
|
|
|
Post by scotts on Mar 16, 2017 19:25:40 GMT
I love looking at the various thoughts as to where temples could be built, and I have my own wishes as to where it would be cool to see new ones. (Although, realistically everywhere is cool to see new temples. My one area of concern is when I see people using phrases like "mark my words" or "proven wrong". Nobody here has any actual knowledge of anything from any source because when it comes down to it only the Lord and his ordained prophet knows where and when he will have his temples announced. There is nothing imminent accept the fact that one day temples will dot the earth. None of us should pretend to have any real knowledge even with "sources." The only people who would have any sort of knowledge about future temples would be those in the temple department who are working for the church in the preliminary planning stages in preparation for an official announcement. It saddens me that any of them would share the information with somebody who is not working directly in the department and has the need to know that information.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 16, 2017 20:21:20 GMT
I love looking at the various thoughts as to where temples could be built, and I have my own wishes as to where it would be cool to see new ones. (Although, realistically everywhere is cool to see new temples. My one area of concern is when I see people using phrases like "mark my words" or "proven wrong". Nobody here has any actual knowledge of anything from any source because when it comes down to it only the Lord and his ordained prophet knows where and when he will have his temples announced. There is nothing imminent accept the fact that one day temples will dot the earth. None of us should pretend to have any real knowledge even with "sources." The only people who would have any sort of knowledge about future temples would be those in the temple department who are working for the church in the preliminary planning stages in preparation for an official announcement. It saddens me that any of them would share the information with somebody who is not working directly in the department and has the need to know that information. Scott, I appreciate your efforts to caution everyone about being too certain about temple site selection. However, my widespread interest in all temple-related developments has led to my blog being one of the top Google search results for such developments. As such, I have been getting more and more feedback on my work on the subject of future temple sites, coming both publicly and privately. Most of the feedback comes from faithful Church members who either have firsthand knowledge of a temple site purchase and the conditions under which such an announcement will subsequently be made. Two of the four sites mentioned above as being nearly certain come directly from a well-respected temple expert (who has no small familiarity with the subject and who has made it his life's mission to keep the world updated on temple developments). From that, you can guess who it might be, but I cannot bring his name into it as I would do anything to avoid embarrassing him, and nothing to jeopardize the trust placed in me. I was told I could consider those two as top contenders for temple sites in the near future. I was also told I could put those two at the top of my list of possibilities. The other two are verified by people familiar with the areas, have stayed in contact with missionaries in the areas, and who have heard that the conditions that usually determine how ideal a temple site might be are very close to being met, if they have not indeed been met already. Those are the four sites I have made mention of above. And I have also asked for and received feedback on my selections from the same expert on temple matters. Again, his insights have led to many of my current selections. But I know that I am not infallible, and the Lord has been known to surprise us with where He puts temples. The selections announced in 2015 came as a complete surprise to me. By contrast, the four temples announced last year were not a surprise at all. Of those four, I nailed the exact location for two of them, and got the right nation but the wrong city for the other two. That works out to roughly 75% accuracy for 4 of the last 7 announced. Any way you slice it, that is not a bad average. I receive feedback from people all around the world on my blog posts, with that feedback coming both publicly and privately. And that awesome feedback has led to other selections on the list which could be debated by others. As with my other General Conference predictions, these are not just off-the-cuff randomly thrown together guesses. I have come to these selections after extensive study of past patterns and as many of the factors involved as I am able to work around. I have also prayed extensively so that I can make all my predictions the very best they can be. I know the Lord does not care a lot about how accurately I analyze past patterns and successfully predict what goes on in General Conferences, but as it's important to me, I know He has definitely inspired me in so many ways with those in the past. So I have no doubt that I will surely have some of these sites pegged, even if the Lord does surprise me with some of the other selections. I fully expect we might have a mass of announcements. I anticipate 3 minimum but am hoping for more. Some of those will surely be within the United States, as the dedications that will happen later this year will mean no temples in any phase of construction after the dedication in Cedar City Utah. In so saying, I do not in any way think that the ongoing renovation for the temple in Jordan River Utah "counts", nor do the announced renovations in California and the US capital city, as they are not new temples. I recognize the need for caution, but I trust my sources, and I have found that at times, I have been very inspired to list certain locations. With that in mind, I thank you for the reminder. Hope that explains my reasoning better. As for your comment about a leak in the Temple Department, that does not exist, to my knowledge. I have before spoken of my disdain for information "leaked" from Church headquarters by any source. Such actions would be grievous and would indeed not be a good source. I hate the thought that MormonLeaks "leaked" out several years ago a list of potential future temples and are making such a big deal of the fact that now all but two of those sites have been officially verified. I have always voiced the opinion that the deliberations and pending decisions of the Brethren should and ought to be kept under wraps until a final decision is made. If that were not the case, then if something was "leaked" at any time and then subsequently proven to be inaccurate and outdated, it would throw the credibility of the source behind the leak into being subjected to serious question and doubt. But the familiarity of experts who have dedicated their spare time to extensive and exclusive study on the subject of future temple sites as well as those who have enough familiarity with what is going on in terms of Church growth, temples that have publicly been proposed by apostles, certain areas of the world where such temples might rise, where sites have been purchased and are immient, and the prevailing conditions that are usually necessary to be met before such an announcement takes place, as well as receiving reports from missionaries who advise people with such ties of any such site purchases cannot and should not be disregarded. I am sorry if I have offended you in anything I have said, just as I am sorry if I am off-base or out of line for trusting such reports. But when it comes to such things, I prefer to err on the side of believing that information, which comes from people I would literally trust with my life if the need arose. That said, if you have more specific questions, concerns, or qualms about any of my selections, please let me know. I always appreciate the feedback, however it comes, and whatever it entails. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 20, 2017 7:27:09 GMT
James, I'm afraid that Scotts has a very valid point that you should not just brush aside so lightly. This forum is meant to be enjoyed by all as a place to have intellectual discussion about growth trends and make predictions. I feel there is a bit of arrogance in your frequent posts that is taking away the fun from others who wish to give their thoughts on this subject. You have referred more than a dozen times to your blog being one of the top Google searches on this subject and having great sources of information, but I'm sorry to say that none of that gives you a right to state you have definitive knowledge about anything. I, too have heard from reliable sources of many sites being purchased by the church that would be ideal temple locations. These sites are all over the world and are not unique to your predictions. I welcome your enthusiasm on the topic and am glad that you are excited to respond to others predictions, but I ask that you make sure your comments are contributing to the conversation and not just restating the same thing that you have posted several times about your source of knowledge and surety of your guesses.
|
|
|
Post by brycen on Mar 20, 2017 11:22:00 GMT
James, what do you think of Matt Martinich's recent post, about a week ago, announcing his top ten picks for new temple locations? He listed the following 10 locations, in alphabetical order: Auckland, New Zealand Belo Horizonte, Brazil Brasília, Brazil Davao, Philippines OR Cagayan del Oro, Philippines Tarawa, Kiribati Lagos, Nigeria OR Benin City, Nigeria Managua, Nicaragua Nairobi, Kenya Praia, Cape Verde Rogers, Arkansas
Most if not all of these are on your list as well, if you substitute Rogers with Bentonville. I think it is interesting that only one of Matt's Top Ten is in the United States. Do you agree that these locations are more likely to occur this year than some of the other ones you have identified? He also does a lot of research on his picks and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion.
Personally I consider if two more temples are announced for Brazil, that Brasilia would be one but I would expect the second to be Salvador, as it is much more distant from its existing temple. The two in Cape Verde and Kiribati would only be likely if distance is the primary consideration, as both would have small districts. I can't really find any problem with the other picks.
On the other topic, I would not call you, James, arrogant. But I do find it a bit difficult to read through the long posts in which you feel a need to remind people of something you have said dozens of times before, if we include your blog and your comments on ldschurchgrowth. I've even seen you make the exact same points 3 times in comments to the same blog post, and it gets a little hard to read through it over and over. I'm just wondering if it's really necessary to you to repeat the same points over and over. When those points concern how you have a track record of making accurate predictions, I can see how that would come across on the internet as arrogance, especially since online discussions don't allow for a person to judge a person's intent based on the tone of voice they use. But I don't think you're repeating yourself out of arrogance, but because that's just a part of how you express yourself. I've heard another person do the same thing as a frequent caller to a couple of radio shows. Although in his case, I think he really didn't understand the points the other person was trying to make, and would just repeat himself instead of responding to what they said. This online forum is a different sort of thing than a 2-person voice conversation, so I wouldn't put you in the same category, but it can be annoying.
I hope you don't take offense, I want to help you get more people to participate in this discussion and it seems like some of your commenting style might be discouraging people from participating.
Anyway, now that I've put in my two cents, can we get back to discussing potential temple locations?
Do your sources that say the Church owns land for a temple in four locations, have information on when the land was acquired? It seems to me I've heard of some examples where other temples were built on land the Church had owned for a long time (and I'm not even talking about the ones built out of existing buildings or where they tore down an old building).
|
|