Stokes Sounds Off: The Church is on track to have 200 temples in operation by the 200th anniversary of the Church

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Saturday, November 19, 2016

The Church is on track to have 200 temples in operation by the 200th anniversary of the Church

I tried just barely to post this comment on the LDS Church Growth Blog, but apparently it was too wordy for one comment. I reproduce it here in its entirety to announce that I believe the Church is well on track to have 200 temples in operation by the 200th anniversary of the Church.

According to Rick Satterfield's LDS Church Temples website (which, as I have previously said, I follow religiously), the original intention was the that groundbreaking for the Rio  de Janeiro Brazil temple would not take place nor even be scheduled until after this year's Olympics so as not to steal the thunder of that world-famous event. Over time, the website's estimated groundbreaking date shifted to late 2016, then was further adjusted to either late 2016 or early 2017. It has been just recently that the site's estimated groundbreaking date has been completely removed. It is still noted, as it was well before the Olympics even started, that the plans have been approved by the local government, and that it is in the construction preparation phase. But beyond that, no date, actual or estimated, is indicated.

The specific listing for that temple on his site simply notes that nothing has been officially announced. Obviously, with the inside information at his fingertips, he has seemed to feel less confident in firming up an estimated groundbreaking date. In point of fact, according to what I have been able to surmise from following his website so closely and from looking into specific listings for other temples, it appears that the Arequipa Peru temple has now taken the top spot in terms of how soon a groundbreaking might be announced. Without knowing for sure how dated the above-mentioned link is, I don't feel confident in making a guess at a potential groundbreaking date for either temple.

But I never would have guessed that the Winnipeg Manitoba temple would be the next one to have a groundbreaking scheduled. To me, this demonstrates the fact that estimating the readiness of announced temples for future groundbreakings is next to impossible and perhaps even highly speculative. That said, I felt fairly certain that the dedication of the Hartford Connecticut temple this Sunday would likely serve as the last temple-related event this year. I was blindsided by how fast things progressed and were scheduled in Winnipeg.

That said, from what I have been able to surmise, it appears most likely that the Arequipa Peru temple will be next, followed by Rio de Janeiro Brazil, Urdaneta Philippines, Port-au-Prince Haiti, Bangkok Thailand, (All of which are in the planning and approval phase and, depending factors of local approval and support, the availability of people to construct them, and how committed the construction process and those involved are, the order thereof may be altered.) and finally Abidjan Ivory Coast and the four temples announced this year. There is obviously a chance that this could change, but that seems to be the order in which these temples will commence construction. As to a specific date for any of these, as we have seen, even in the commencement of construction, there may be delays spanning several years.

For example, I know that though a groundbreaking was held in 2011 for the Fortaleza Brazil temple, due to government-imposed delays, construction on that temple did not begin in earnest until this year. Ground was broken for the Rome Italy temple in 2010. It has yet to be completed, though it is estimated that construction will only conclude in 2018. On the other hand, the Star Valley Wyoming temple construction spanned about a year and a half. Cedar City is expected to be completed in 2017, following two years of construction.

In following temple progress, I have noticed that Utah temples seem to go up the fastest, with construction ranging from 1-2 years. In the United States, the average seems to be 1-3 years. Construction of international temples can range from 1 to as many as 15 years. And I can never forget the 40 years it took to complete the construction of the Salt Lake Temple. Regardless of how long construction takes or when future groundbreakings may occur, one constant has been the massive and swift expansion of the number of operating temples.

It took the Church over 167 years to have its first 50 temples. About one year later, President Hinckley introduced his revelation to build smaller temples (with that fact alone completely debunking the false claim that there are no modern-day revelations), along with the goal of having 100 temples by the year 2000, doubling the number of those in operation. This goal was met and exceeded by two. Once we had 100 operating temples, it only took the Church 16 years to get the next 50, and, I can unequivocally state, because I've done the research and followed temple progress so closely, whether or not the Church makes it an official goal, we are well on track to have 200 temples by or before the 200th anniversary of the Church.

Six more temples will have been dedicated by the end of this year alone. In doing the math, which I have, we discover that if the Church only completes three or four temples during each of the following 13 years, whether an official goal is made to do so or not, we could have as many as 200 temples or more by or before the 200th anniversary of the Church. As any of you who regularly follow this blog know, I recently did a blog post on my feelings regarding temple progress. In fact, it seems that one of my main focuses on this blog has been keeping my readers updated on temple progress. In view of the responsibility which I feel to so report, you can depend on finding all the latest temple news and developments here. In this, I hope it has or will become one of many excellent resources for the latest temple-related developments. I hope in saying this that I'm not coming across as being too vain. Thanks, as always, for reading this post.

3 comments:

  1. I agree the possibilities of being at or above 200 temples within the next 13 years is high, as long as temples keep being announced. There are certainly plenty of places that I see could use a temple closer or could use another temple due to high demands at other temples. I love seeing so many more temples being built throughout the world and outside the US, but temples in the US seem to get built much faster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Kenny! I appreciate hearing of your agreement with my theory. I try to keep myself as informed as possible on all temple-related news. FWIW, I have already made my picks as to which temples I feel might possibly be announced in April General Conference. It wasn't hard to do so. There were no temples announced last conference, so I am of the opinion that any one of my major picks are highly probable and will happen at some point in the near future. Thanks for the comment.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.

I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.

And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.

Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.