Hello again, everyone! Though news of updates on our current temples has slowed in recent days, I wanted to post right now to share an update on the status of the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple, interspersed with additional musings I have had about temple progress in general. So without further ado, let's get right into all of that.
First, there has been increased discussion on this blog in recent days, both by me and by many of you, regarding the ambitious temple-building plans that, by all reports, President Nelson is frequently discussing with other leaders. In summary of those discussions, those who have talked to him about that are reporting that his prophetic legacy as a temple-builder will by far outshine and overshadow that of President Gordon B. Hinckley. As we know, President Hinckley announced an ambitious plan in the late 1990s that would more than double the number of temples within the following 10 years.
If President Nelson's plans will truly outpace President Hinckley's ambitious vision, then there is every likelihood that the number of operating temples could more than double again within the next few years, which would be amazing to think about. I will speak more of that plan later on.
But the reason I mentioned it at the outset is to provide an update on what I have shared before: my belief that the Church will almost certainly have 200 operating temples by Saturday April 6, 2030, which will mark the Church's bicentennial anniversary. With 30 total temples in various stages of the construction process currently, the Church would merely need to complete each of those and announce and complete 11 others.
As of today, 11.74 years remain until that 200th anniversary, so the Church would just need to dedicate roughly 3.49 temples per year. As I have also noted, the two set for dedication this year means 2018 will fall below that average in this regard, but for next year, 1 such dedication has already been set, with 5 others that are also anticipated to be dedicated during 2019. And there are already 3 that we know of which are currently anticipated to be dedicated in the first half of 2020.
As we also know, there are currently two temples that we know of that are very close to a groundbreaking, and there are several others that may also have a groundbreaking within the next year or two. If President Nelson does start announcing temples en masse, then he will also surely want to do anything he can to quickly move the temples that are currently or will shortly be announced into the construction process.
In the earlier posts I have done, I noted that 2018 and 2019 were anticipated to be big years for temple groundbreakings, and while it is rare to get to early July without any occurring, that does not rule out the possibility that the last 5 months of this year may see several groundbreakings take place, especially if the October General Conference results in another massive and significant amount of new temple announcements.
That said, I am also pleased to provide an update I just learned of relating to progress that has been made on the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple. A report shared less than 2 hours ago via the LDS Church Temples Facebook page indicates that work continues to advance on driveways, walkways, and lampposts on the grounds of the temple, and that interior work is also progressing at a steady rate.
With that being the case, depending on what's left to be done on this temple, the Church could (and possibly will) announce the open house and dedication information before the October General Conference, and I have previously offered my opinion that that dedication could take place within the month or two following the already-scheduled 8-day dedication of the Rome Italy Temple. There are also other new temples and those undergoing renovation that could similarly have their dedications or rededications announced soon and set for the first 6-8 months of 2019.
All these things considered, it is apparent that the next two 2+ years are shaping up to be full of temple events. I continue to monitor all such developments and am committed to continuing to bring those to you ASAP. That does it for this post. If you enjoyed this content and would like to stay informed of new content, please feel free to subscribe. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Additional Temple Musings
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for all temple updates. We are living in exciting times.
ReplyDeleteWe certainly are, Chris! I was curious a short while ago, so I looked at search results relating to the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple. My research reminded me that that temple was not designed to include the typical angel Moroni statue. With that in mind, perhaps the finishing touches are being added to that temple, and a dedication could be announced within the next 1-3 months. A thought did occur to me. I would have to do the research, but since the latest report I have shows that the Church is anticipated to complete this temple in early 2018, would it be possible that that temple could have its' dedication scheduled to occur before the already set dedication of the Rome Italy Temple in March? I am not sure whether or not we have ever had an unexpected temple dedication sandwiched between those that were previously announced. There is a lot of news to follow on temples, to be sure, and it is my honor to write about those here. Thanks, Chris!
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the temple was designed to support a Moroni statue, but in an effort to not appear ostentatious it was not included at this time- as we've seen many times before, the statue will most likely be added at another time, perhaps during a renovation. DRC is a very poor country and gold statue would not be great PR for the Church.
ReplyDeleteI also, foresee many smaller temples- similar to the one under construction in Winnipeg, being built.
Hello, Nik. Thanks for taking time to comment. While I don't know whether or not the temple was designed to support an angel Moroni statue, I did look back at the original design late last night. The things you mentioned may only be part of the explanation as to why that temple does not have that statue. You are also correct in saying that it could potentially be added later. I hadn't thought of the fact that a gold statue would be bad PR for the Church.
ReplyDeleteAs to what you said about many smaller temples being built, I concur with that assessment as well. In earlier threads on this blog, several comments were made about how President Nelson's plans to bring temples to the people will outpace the ambitious smaller design initiated by President Hinckley, which allowed the number of temples to more than double in a period of just 3-5 years.
There have also been several comments recently which indicate that President Nelson has frequently mentioned temples as a crucial focus of his administration, so we are almost sure to see a windfall of announcements in the near future. I have offered preliminary thoughts about some locations that may get a temple. Between mid-October 2017 and late March 2018, I had offered my thoughts about those locations that might potentially get a temple in a series of posts on this blog organized by each of the areas of the Church. I intend to revisit that series as soon as I can assemble the information I need to put those posts together.
But as recently as last night, I took a look at my current list of locations and started working on locations that I may need to add, based on what has been said in the comments on this blog recently. While I am only in the very preliminary stages of assembling those posts, I am committed to bringing that coverage to you and all my other readers ASAP. Thank you, Nik, for taking time to comment.
Glad I can join the conversation. I know that when the Church started expanding into west Africa that large American SUVs were seen by the local folks as pretentious and was somewhat reflective of colonialism/imperialism that had occurred in that area of the world. Consequently the Church now uses vehicles that better reflect the community. I assume similar thinking was used when designing the temple. I like the minimalist design of the Kinshasa temple- it spartan design is appreciated. At the end of the day a temple is just stone, drywall, and concrete. Its what occurs inside the temple that makes it a sacred space. '
ReplyDeleteLastly, I think we will see more US temples in mid size cities with 2-3 stakes- Wichita, KS; Jacksonville, FL; Jackson, MI; Rogers, AR; Santa Fe, NM kind of places. I believe that the focus in going to be on the temple. With the recent adjustments with the ward organizations, and the recent major announcement of the "home" based gospel learning material- Come Follow Me for adult Sunday School and Primary. My guess is that a 2 hour block will be announced in October which will free up more people for temple service.
I agree that what occurs inside a temple is far more important than its' design or specifications. I also agree that more US temples are possible in mid-size cities. I also agree that Jacksonville and Jackson may get temples soon.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have different feelings on the rest of what you said. Several people have advanced Rogers as the most likely candidate city for the first temple in Arkansas. But I have a good friend that served his mission in that region, and according to information he shared with me, the Church actually has land set aside in Bentonville for a future temple when the growth in that area makes that prospect necessary. I know that the two cities are not too far apart, but in this case, I would certainly defer to my friend's firsthand knowledge on this matter.
Similarly, New Mexico is a tricky case. Many Saints served by the Albuquerque Temple have a long journey to worship there. I have a potential temple for Las Cruces on my radar, but I could see the case for a temple in Santa Fe. In response to an earlier post I did on this blog, it was mentioned in the comments that Elder L. Tom Perry had mentioned the prospect of a New Mexico temple in the early 1980s, but may not have specified a city. That could mean the temple Elder Perry referenced was the one built around a decade or two later in Albuquerque, but unless that can be verified, that may or may not be the case.
I also disagree on the 2-hour block idea. That is for a couple of reasons. A lot of people have advanced the idea for one reason or another, but unless something really unusual happens, the 3-hour block will remain.
I say that because the First Presidency announced the curriculum for 2019 just recently, and in addition to the home course you mentioned, they specified curriculum for the Sunday School, Primary, and Priesthood/Relief Society which will take effect next year. So that brings to mind the question of why the Church would plan for the traditional 3-hour block if there were plans to shorten it to 2. While the Church will someday reach the point where temples worldwide will operate day and night, currently, almost all temples are closed on Sunday, and there are several that are closed an additional day a week. Could the 2-hour block be a possibility at some point? Maybe. But it might not be as imminent as many people think.
The intent of adding a "home course" appears to be more about emphasizing individual and familial preparation for the current 3-hour block than it might be about preparing the Church for a shortened Church block schedule. I could be wrong, but it has seemed that the changes the Church continues to make is for the purpose of emphasizing greater Churchwide unity, and to put more responsibility on individual members for what each of us are getting out of Church every week. Hope these additional insights are helpful to you. Thanks again, Nik.
Santa Fe is a little close to Albuquerque, with good freeway access between the two. A more likely one is Pueblo CO which could take in Colorado Springs and the members in 'the Springs' would not have to deal with what I heard is regular congestion between that and Denver.
ReplyDeleteEither Rogers AR or Bentonville will likely be for there.
The dropping of Sunday School is a persistent rumor that has been out there for decades. But it fits a pattern of Church instruction, sacrament is specific doctrines as needede, Sunday School is sequential scripture teaching, and Priesthood/RS is for studying general doctrines, and has emerged as a time to teach the teachings of Church leaders, particularly the prophets and apostles, and give emphasis to specific needs they identify.
Elder Hallstrom said this last year to Seminary teachers:
When children are raised by converted parents who have established a pattern of family worship, they are more likely to feel the influence of the Holy Spirit while they are young and then follow this righteous example forever. Then our teaching in Church settings takes its proper place as a support system to the teaching that occurs in the family.
Thanks for sharing these additional insights, James Anderson. The distance between the two is around 64 miles. While that would be a distance that might potentially warrant a temple within the "Mormon corridor", for other areas in the US (where growth continues to be somewhat stagnant outside that corridor), there are certainly other locations that may be in more imminent need of a temple. I have not necessarily looked at Pueblo, Colorado as a temple prospect, but you make a good point. If a temple in that city would serve Saints in that part of Colorado and other nearby states, I could see the merits of it. I will have to do more research on that location. Thanks for the heads-up.
ReplyDeleteI know that a lot of people have felt that Rogers would be the most likely prospect for the first temple in Arkansas. I also know that Rogers and Bentonville are not that far apart. My biggest rationale for supporting Bentonville as the most likely prospect for a temple is simply that a good friend who served his mission in Arkansas indicated to me that land has been held in reserve in Bentonville by the Church for a temple once the right conditions necessitate an official announcement of that prospect.
While I also know that there have been times when the Church winds up not opting to use such land for a temple prospect, and while I recognize that many people (including Matthew Martinich) have Rogers on the list they have shared, I would certainly defer to my friend's firsthand knowledge on this point.
I know that many people (including my own sweet wife) have said it would be awesome if the Church were to drop Sunday School, but that prospect may not be as imminently likely as some people might think or hope, assuming it would ever happen at all. The Church seems to be wanting individuals and families to be better prepared for Church. I have often heard it said that you get out of Church what you put into it, so by placing more responsibility on us to prepare for Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society, the Brethren are giving us more of an opportunity to be accountable for how well we are benefited by the weekly block of Church meetings. Could the Church adopt a two-hour block? We have seen unexpected things occur in recent months and years, so it is possible. That said, I don't see it occurring as soon as some people might believe.
That is a great quote from Elder Hallstrom. The Church has been doing more lately to emphasize that the home should be the primary learning place, supplemented by Church, rather than the other way around. So it is no surprise that the Church is now implementing measures that are placing more responsibility on us as individuals to be prepared for the Church block each week. Thanks so much for taking time to comment, James Anderson. I always appreciate hearing from you.