Post by james on Mar 21, 2017 9:24:32 GMT
Mar 20, 2017 11:22:00 GMT brycen said:
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).
1. Auckland New Zealand--I have before mentioned the fact that when I first started making my own predictions about temple sites, an earlier version contained 60+ possibilities. Auckland was one of those. I am absolutely convinced that New Zealand's next temple will indeed be in Auckland. The one thing I question is the timing. While I recognize that Matt has been doing temple site predictions much longer than I have, and while his predictions have always been pretty accurate in terms of future likelihood, my quandry was to try and narrow those 60+ possibilities to those that I not only felt were most imminent, but for which such sites made the most sense in view of the general criteria that is taken under consideration in such things. I would not ever attempt to underplay, discredit, or disregard Matt's research, but as I personally did some studying on the latest growth trends in that region of the world, Auckland did not appear to be as likely as some of the others which, according to that same research I did, were more imminent. That said, Matt is very good at what he does. And I would not be surprised or displeased in any way if it turns out his choice of Auckland is spot-on this time. The beauty of the process that goes into my personal selections is that I never resent it when the Lord or someone else proves that they were right on a certain point where I was mistaken, or where I may have underplayed or underestimated how much certain locations actually needed and were ready for a temple. At the end of the day, I am only one man, and, as such, my research never yields 100% accuracy. My personal feeling is that Auckland might be a year or two down the road. I know others who disagree with me on that, but that's just what my research indicates to me. Would it be a deal-breaker or disappoint me if Auckland gets a temple this go-round? Of course not. But for me, unless something pops out to me as being indicative that it might happen sooner, Auckland feels more like a possibility within the next three years. As with everything else, time will tell. I would welcome it if it happens, and, if it does not, I would definitely be open to the idea of adding it to my list for October. Right now, my focus is on fixing any issues with my list as is. But it was high on my list at one time, so I could see giving it a greater priority in the future, if it is not one of those announced in 11 or 12 days.
2. As far as the two possibilities mentioned in Brazil, I personally noted Brazil's prospects for yet another temple in the near future at the bottom of this very list of most imminent near future possibilities. When considering possible future temple sites for Brazil, the two mentioned by Matt are at the top of my list of potential Brazilian temple sites, along with Salvador and Valparaiso, which, though I didn't realize it until just barely, happens to be a subregion of Sao Paulo, where I have before mentioned we might see a second temple based on the past precedent of the temple announced for the Los Olivos region of Lima Peru. But my line of reasoning as far as future Brazilian temples go is this: Right now, we have three temples in widely differing construction phases in Brazil, which, when completed, will not only bring the number of operating temples in Brazil up, but will also substantially diminish the travel time many Brazilian Latter-day Saints have to get to the closest temple. As far as how soon those three might be completed, here's a quick update: The Fortaleza Brazil Temple began construction in earnest last year, which was almost 5 years following its 2011 groundbreaking. Even though there was that lengthy delay in the commencement of construction, by all reports, that construction is on track to be completed around two years from now, in the early or middle part of 2019. The next temple on the list is the one for Rio de Janeiro, for which a groundbreaking was held just over two weeks ago. Construction there had been expected to begin in earnest the week following that groundbreaking, but it has been temporarily delayed for reasons yet unknown. In spite of that, with what is known, it is very probable that construction will begin there in earnest before too much longer, and will be finished at some point during mid-2019. What will be interesting to find out is if the construction in Fortaleza and Rio will wrap up at around the same time, and if their subsequent dedications might then coincide in some way or another. The most recent temple for Brazil was announced just last year, and while it is unclear just how soon construction might be underway there, the studying I have done in that regard has led me to believe that we could see construction start for that temple somewhere within a similar time frame as the other two are on track to be completed. While, as noted above, I would never rule out any location completely at any time for a future temple, I know enough about the process of temple announcements from the study I have done to say with reasonable certainty that the next Brazilian temple might not be announced until the other three are a bit further along in the construction process. At least, that is the impression I got when considering the question of how soon and for what location Brazil's next temple will be announced. I know that past precedents have been known to be broken, especially if the Lord indicates to President Monson that another Brazilian temple is indeed needed this go-round. So it won't surprise or displease me in any way if I am wrong about this. As mentioned for the previous location, I wouldn't rule additional Brazilian temples out entirely as near-future possibilities. But I do know that it is almost unheard of for one nation (except perhaps the United States) to have several temples in various stages of construction in general, and for a nation that has had a temple announced in the last year to have another announced in such a short period of time. It is always possible, but I don't see it as probable.
3. It is most exciting to consider the possibility that the Philippines might get another temple. As I have studied the options there, I have had two strong impressions: First, the last time a temple was announced in the Philippines was 6.5 years ago next month. Given the growth that has been and continues to be reportedly ongoing in the Philippines, it is almost unheard of to have such a significant amount of time pass between temple announcements, and the Philippines is on the top of many individuals' lists of near future possibilities. The candidates Matt has on his list are two of which I have often heard as having potential to be the next Filipino city to get a temple. Of the two, I see Davao as the more likely option. Admittedly, I don't have much knowledge about Cagayan del Oro, but it sounds like a great option as well. Other possibilities I have heard recently are Quezon City or perhaps even a second temple in the city of Manila. Again, I feel that no site can be absolutely ruled out. That said, the fact that the last Filipino temple to be announced has been indefinitely stalled in the planning and approval phase may be an indicator that the announcement for the next Filipino temple could be further down the road than most people realize. As noted above about Brazil, it is irregular for the Church to have multiple temples in various phases of construction in a single nation. Would I rule it out entirely? Never. But it does not seem likely at least until the temple in Urdaneta makes some kind of progress. That said, another Filipino temple might be needed, and if it is, I could see it happening.
4. As far as the prospects for a temple in Kiribati, I know that Matt has listed that as a possibility for the last several conference. And it does make sense in so many ways. In addition to the temple prediction posts Matt has done, he also has done several updates to his list of the top ten countries with the strongest LDS presence without a temple in any phase of construction. On his latest version of that list, which he put together just under a year ago, Kiribati ranked at the #5 spot. Many of the potential future temple sites on my own list are pulled from that list of top ten. Again, when my list numbered 60+ strong, among the most likely possibilities I listed were each of those ten Matt mentioned. But when I was working on narrowing that list down, I eliminated some that seemed less likely than others. Just a general comment on those top ten: I have personally received information from one of my many sources that sites have already been purchased in Managua and Papua New Guinea, so I have no doubt those two are among the most imminent possibilities. I also eliminated from my list the next three of the top ten for the following reasons: Puerto Rico's LDS presence is strong enough to warrant the consideration of a temple, but it is still relatively in its infancy in terms of gospel progression and expansion. The last time a stake was created there was just over 11 years ago. That aside, I haven't seen any evidence that the level by which the Puerto Rican Saints keep their currently assigned temple, the one in the Dominican Republic, busy enough to warrant having one in their own nation. As for Russia, there are some issues there relating to its governmental and political attitudes about the Church and its members that may take a while to resolve, so the present political climate is not conducive to the idea of a temple. As for Kiribati, while some could argue that a temple is needed there and would make sense in the near future, the fact that it currently only has two stakes and two districts, coupled with the fact that the Saints in Kiribati are assigned to either the Laie Hawaii or Suva Fiji Temple District, does not in my mind present a strong enough argument in favor of a temple there. Again, the Lord might prove me wrong, but it doesn't seem likely. Rounding out the current top ten very nicely are Sierra Leone (which I have on my list of possibilities), American Samoa (on my list at one point but having similar factors in play that would seem to strengthen the argument against it for the near future), Uganda (was on my list until as recently as the last couple of weeks to a month, but which proved upon further study to not be as likely as its sister nation, Kenya, though I still see it happening perhaps within the next 10 years or so), Cambodia (which I would love to see because my brother-in-law served his mission there and speaks fondly of his experiences, the faithfulness of the members, the growth he has continued to follow, and its future prospects, and which, on further study, did not seem as likely as some of the others) and Kenya (which has, as noted above, been verified as being more likely, has had a site publicly proposed, that would be more centrally located, and that is getting closer to meeting the general conditions under which a temple is likely to be announced). And I know that my reasoning behind which of these top ten I have included and which ones I have not might not make sense to everyone, but the studying I have done on these possibilities seems to bear out the idea that the ones that make the most sense to me have the best chance of happening. But again, I have never once resented or been bothered by the idea of being wrong. If and when the Lord wants temples in any or all of these 10 nations, they will happen.
5. In considering Cape Verde's likelihood of having a temple announced, I always begin my study of such a question on the same preliminary information, which is, as noted above: the number of current units, how far away the assigned temple is, and if it would make sense to have one there and thus pull away attendance from the temple to which it is currently assigned. Right now, Cape Verde has 3 stakes and 2 districts, and falls within the Madrid Spain Temple District. While my limited sense of geographical matters prevents me form being able to venture any opinion on how feasible a Cape Verde temple might logistically be, I will say that the third stake in Cape Verde was created just over 13 years ago. While the most recent Cape Verde units, the two districts, have been created within the last 3 years, the lack of unit growth there, combined with the fact that the Madrid Spain Temple District in general and Cape Verde in particular has not seen significant growth makes that possibility appear unlikely to me. But as before, I won't rule anything out completely, and I can guarantee that if it is needed, it will happen.
6. As for the possibility Matt mentioned of a temple for Rogers, Arkansas, I know he has had Rogers on his list for a long time. And I would be the very last person to try and induce him to change it to Bentonville or to take it off altogether. That said, I have no doubt that Matt has a very good reason for listing Rogers as a possibility for as long as he has done so. My one and only reason for asserting that the first temple in Arkansas will be built in Bentonville is that I have heard from someone who has a strong connection to that city that land has been purchased there and that an official announcement for that site will follow once the general requirements that govern the timing of such announcements are met. And that same source let me know just recently that Bentonville is almost there. Because I know that this person has kept tabs on the area since he last visited there, and because I can personally attest to the absolute integrity of that individual, I do not doubt that report in any way. That said, as was recently observed as part of the ongoing discussion of future temple sites on the LDS Church Growth Blog, Rogers and Bentonville are essentially sister cities. I could very easily get on board with the notion that the first temple in Arkansas will be built in Rogers if I did not have the absolute assurance that a site has been purchased and held in reserve in Bentonville awaiting the day when all the factors that go into the timing and likelihood of a temple announcement are met. So I am very sure that we will see a temple in Bentonvillle announced within the next five years, if not before.
Now, I would like to respond to the issues you raised aside from your request for my take on Matt's selections. As I said, I can certainly see the merits of most, if not all, of his selections. I might not be equally on board with every one of his selections, but I have grown to greatly appreciate his thoughts. He has before shared the process by which he has determined his selections. While it is uniquely different compared to the method I generally use (which is as it should be; since we are all different, each one of us would approach such a process in markedly different ways, which would yield vastly different results for everyone that does so in their own way), I would never be so pompous or puffed up as to assume and assert that my selections are the only feasible options and that anyone else's thoughts and observations in this regard are moot or not nearly as well reasoned as i have attempted to make mine. If there are two things I'm not, they would be omniscient and infallible. And I am delighted to recognize and acknowledge that it is primarily because of reading Matt's previously posted thoughts on the subject that I have felt emboldened to do my own research and share my own thoughts in this regard. As you have noted, I have commented repeatedly on my history of finding that I have at times been inspired regarding particular selections, while at the same time being completely blown away so many other times in the past by not only the location but the timing of other site announcements that have been made. And that demonstrates to me that the Lord needs temples in certain places at certain times, whether or not any such locations have been anticipated and publicly discussed by myself or by anyone else. I have always felt grateful for the inspiration when the Lord and I are on the same page, but no less grateful and touched when the Lord surprises me with others while at the same time confirming to me that the announced locations are inspired, timely, and needed. Since Matt and I use different methods of research and determining criteria, while there is a certain degree of overlap in terms of some locations, obviously there will be differences. And I am not the one to judge which of the two of us are more likely to be right in this case. I will say that Matt knows his stuff. He has successfully predicted a good majority of the temples that have been announced during President Monson's presidency, and perhaps even longer than that. His predictions inspired me to make mine. So I am not bothered by the differences in opinion we have. I will admit that many of Matt's possibilities which I do not see as very likely might indeed have a better chance of being announced well before some of the less likely possibilities I might have on my list. I am fully supportive of his reasoning, even if I might have minor reasons to disagree with some of his selections, and I hope he would say the same thing about my list.
I do largely agree with many of your other comments, particularly your statements regarding the next most likely temple sites for Brazil being Brasilia and Salvador. I have heard from some who also see Belo Horizonte as another very likely one. I also agree with your assessment of Cape Verde and Kiribati's chances for a temple. Aside from what I have said about Matt's selections above, I don't have any strong feelings generally about how likely or unlikely his picks might be. As I said, he is a well respected Church growth expert. As such, he is very good at what he does. And just as I have reasons for favoring some of my own selections, the reasons that lead him to his selections are no less valid or unworthy of consideration. In general, unless I have particular knowledge about a selection, which did apply to some of those sites he mentioned, I am more inclined to defer to his opinion.
I would like to thank you for sharing your continued questions about my picks. I would also like to apologize if the repetitive nature of some of my comments are too obnoxious and annoying, too difficult to read through, or if they tend to come close to portraying me as self-absorbed, arrogant, or prideful in any degree. I share my picks, such as they are, for others to discuss freely. And I bear no ill will against any who disagree or find fault with my reasoning. If I have in any way portrayed myself as believing anything to the contrary, I apologize.
That said, some of my health conditions, particularly those affecting my ability to think and to express myself clearly enough, sometimes lead me to belabor a point to exhaustion, or to harp on excessively about my own life experiences and whatever qualifications and life experiences I have had that would lend merit to my expressed opinion. However, I have never once been afraid of having those opinions or my perspective questioned. When others give me a chance to explain my experiences and my line of reasoning about things, it emboldens me to say more about such things, and at times, I have been known to say too much. But I never mean anything by it. I hope no one is offended by things I post or by any perspective or experience I feel impressed to share. My hope is to always be able to inspire someone who reads what I have to say, and any time I can do so means a great deal to me. And I have found the attention that my temple selections have garnered through discussions that have been taking place on my blog, Matt's blog, and this forum have served to help me refine these selections in my efforts to make them the best they can possibly be. I'm not here just to dominate every conversation in which I participate, but to learn whatever I can from other participants, and to take the knowledge I gain from such things to fine-tune my thoughts and reasoning. It is that mutual give-and-take that I find satisfying and refreshing. And I would certainly hope that anyone who might have a problem with what I say, how I say it, or even how much I say would let me know about it. As long as such corrections and comments are kindly meant and not made spitefully or with the intention of being disagreeable or hurtful, I would always prefer to know about such issues. I am sorry if I have personally offend you, Bryce, or anyone else, and I will watch myself in the future. I have rambled on long enough now. I will address the other questions you asked at another time. I have said so much more than I meant to for the moment. Sorry about that.