On this blog, I, James Stokes, share insights and analysis covering the latest news and developments reported about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My specific emphasis and focus is on the ministry of our current apostles, General Conference, and up-to-date temple information. This site is neither officially owned, operated, or endorsed by the Church, and I, as the autthor thereof, am solely responsible for this content.
Search This Blog
Top Leaderboard
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Temple Construction Progress Report Update
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
8 comments:
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.
My wife is from Mongolia. We hope for a temple there someday.
ReplyDeleteI never knew that your wife was from Mongolia, Chris. That's awesome! Thanks for sharing that with me. I too hope for a temple in Mongolia someday. I had a very good friend that was in my youth group in my parent's ward that served in the Church's Ulaanbaatar mission. Because of that indirect connection to Mongolia, I had a temple listed there among the many options back when my list of most likely temples was 60+ strong. I still hope that will happen sooner rather than later, but from what I know from my study of Church growth there, it may not be as imminent a possibility as those I have on my list for next general conference. But I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this point. I hope it will happen someday, and the Lord could surprise me on this. I will certainly hope for that. In the meantime, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Chris!
ReplyDeleteMy Mission prisdent was a mission prisdent in Mongolia befor he was mission prisdent in Montana, but he talked about Mongolia a handfulof times, one time he talked about how hard it was for the members to make it to the temple, but with the small number of stoung priesthood leadership, it maybe some time before we see one, but there is a need for one.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that additional insight, Bryce! I wasn't aware that your missionary service in Montana had been under a man who had served previously as the president of the Mongolian mission. As I have previously mentioned in comments elsewhere on this blog and the LDS Church Growth Blog, a lot of factors are taken into account when determining the feasibility and likelihood of temples worldwide. The number of active Melchizedek Priesthood holders is one such factor. That said, a limited number of such men is by no means a deal breaker. We do have the precedent of the temple that is being built in Winnipeg, which I have been told is being built to initially serve just the one stake, the first time this has happened in Church history in a while, if it indeed has ever happened previously. I know, for instance, that in the early days of the Church, the initial temples that were built that are now either nonexistent or the property of other faiths that trace their origins back to Joseph Smith were built to only serve the one or two stakes that were then in existence. So I could see a similar situation prevailing in Mongolia. Given that there are more Church units in Mongolia than there currently are in Winnipeg (in Mongolia there are 2 stakes and 1 district, which breaks down in individual units as 12 wards and 13 branches; while there is just the one stake in Winnipeg which breaks down into 7 wards and 6 branches), then I could see the Brethren making a decision to build a smaller temple in Mongolia (which would thus obviate the difficulty Mongolian Saints now face in getting to the nearest temple; as they fall under the Hong Kong China Temple district, they have to travel around 759 miles by air to reach it.
ReplyDeleteSome additional thoughts that would not fit in the comment above due to its length: If a small temple is determined to be right for Mongolia, it would be much more easily staffed than the temple in Winnipeg, as there are a fair few more Church units from which workers could be drawn in Mongolia. The priesthood leadership, if it was a problem when your mission president presided over the Mongolian mission, no longer appears to be a problem now. That makes it a better candidate in my mind for a temple than the one being built in Winnipeg. And since Winnipeg has had such a temple announced, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one in Mongolia very soon. I still don't believe such a temple is more imminently likely than the other sites I have on my more immediate possibilities list, but the Lord moves in mysterious ways and His plan for Mongolia may involve having a temple announced sooner than any of us could ever expect. I have before shared how I always felt there would be temples in Paris France and Payson Utah, but I never believed it would happen in my lifetime, and now the one in Payson has been in operation for almost a year, and the Paris dedication is coming up in less than four months. This is clear evidence from my own experience that temples can and will be announced in places where they are needed when the time is right, regardless of the fact that I might personally feel some places are more likely than others. The three temples announced in April 2015 came as a huge surprise to me, but they are needed where they will be built. We can thus see that just because a Mongolian Temple does not now appear imminent or likely, if the Lord wants one there, it will happen at the time it is needed. That said, I fully respect anyone's right to disagree with me on this point. I guess the shorter response to your comment would have been that I do see your point, but we have seen the Lord inspire the announcement of temples where they are needed and when, and there is a plan and a process He has in mind in allowing those temples to be built and utilized. Mongolia will get a temple at the right time. While I feel it is not as likely as other possibilities, I fully appreciate that others may disagree on this point. At the end of the day, though, that will be up to the Lord. Thanks for the comment. I hope that this reply, such as it is, has been helpful and informative to all who may read it. Those are just some additional thoughts about a Mongolian temple. Thanks for indulging me, and thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteSeveral of the small temples anounced by President Hinkley initially served only one stake or a stake and some districts. But most of them were on areas where the church was established for a long time. Another temple in Kiev Ukraine was announced before the stake was created. But I think the stake was created by the time of the ground breaking.
ReplyDeleteHey, Chris! Hope you don't mind, but the comment system here on my blog keeps duplicating comments I and others made. You had a comment below that was identical to this one to which I am responding. I went ahead and deleted the duplicate. If that's a problem for you, please do let me know. That said, you make a very valid point. I couldn't agree more. That's why I said that the temple in Winnipeg is being built to initially serve just the one stake in that province. There is always a potential for more stakes to be established within that temple district. But the precedent that the Winnipeg temple is establishing is that smaller temples may be initially built to serve a few stakes or less. And so, it is not hard to believe that Mongolia could get a temple soon in view of that precedent. I still feel as though it may be more of a far-distant possibility than one of near future likelihood. But I would love to be proven wrong on this point, and we have the precedent of that happening all too frequently as well. Thanks, Chris!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete