Hello again, everyone! I have two pieces of news to report which has me musing about temples again. So let's talk about that. The LDS Church Temples Facebook page noted today that work continues on the meetinghouse that is the first part of the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple project. It appears that the Church may be placing top priority on the meetinghouse because that is anticipated to be used while the temple proper is under construction.
But I also wanted to pass along new information of which I became aware a week or two ago, which indicated that, unless something unexpected occurs, the construction of that temple is not anticipated to take any longer than the 20-month estimate originally provided by the Church. With that in mind, if all goes well, construction may end in February or March 2020, with a dedication sometime between April and June.
The other development on which I wanted to report is this release from the Canadian Mormon Newsroom, in which it has been reported that President and Sister Nelson will be visiting Winnipeg Manitoba, Montreal Quebec, and Hamilton Ontario. Sister Nelson was born in Alberta, so this will be a homecoming of sorts for her. They will be accompanied by Elder Neil L. and Sister Kathy W. Andersen, and the stops will occur from August 17-19, 2018.
As some of you may recall, when the stops of the Global Ministry Tour taken by the Nelsons and the Hollands in April were announced, many commented that all of the stops but Bengaluru India and Jerusalem were home to announced temples of the Church. During the April General Conference, President Nelson announced a temple for Bengaluru, which no one (least of all he himself) had planned on occurring, though some had speculated about that prospect. The leaders spent some of their time in India scouting for a site for the future temple, which President Nelson indicated he hoped to return to dedicate.
As we also know, there are already temples in Winnipeg & Montreal, but not one in Hamilton Ontario. So I have two takeaway thoughts about this: First, what are the odds that President Nelson could (and possibly will) announce a temple for Hamilton Ontario? Even if they may not have the Church presence there, members in Hamilton currently travel just over 40 miles to attend the temple in Toronto, which may or may not be an arduous or challenging journey.
My reason for broaching that question is, given recent conversations on this blog about President Nelson's ambitious temple-building plans, he may be working towards having every member within 40 miles of a temple, which would be game-changing. It could be no more than coincidence, however.
My second thought is this: President Nelson seems to also want to do more about being out among the people. We saw that occur with his worldwide tour in April, and since he shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon, I am sure that he will be traveling extensively as long as he is able to do so.
And if I may also offer a third thought: As some of you may have realized, between the two lists of most likely prospects for a temple in the near future which I am considering merging for the October General Conference, there were no locations listed in Canada. I had wondered if any Canadian cities were likely to get a temple, but I didn't find any immediate prospects. So I put it to you, my readers: Are there any prospective temple locations in Canada which I should be considering? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, as your feedback is always most welcome and appreciated.
That does it for this post. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of new content (either posts or comments), please feel free to subscribe to receive e-mail updates. 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 23, 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.
3 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)
I wonder if another Cache Valley temple with be announced in the next few years. Maybe somewhere between Preston ID and Smithfield UT. Or Maybe in the South end of the Valley. My guess is the north end. But how busy is the Logan Temple? Doesn't the Logan temple have a similar number of stakes the St. George temple had before Cedar City was built? Also I hope for a temple in Arkansas, South Dakota, Delaware and Vermont (maybe as a historical temple like Nauvoo, Palmyra, and Winter Quarters). In addition to these there are nine other US states that don't have temples in any stage. Other states may be ready for thier second or third temple. I hope more remote nations get temples very soon. Nations like Kiribati, Mongolia, Cape Verde, Paupa New Guinea, and others need closer temples. I wonder what Canada has in store. It has several temples now, but it is also a large country by geographic size and could be a candidate for other temples some of which could serve both USA and Canada. I hope for the far southern Argentina or Chile gets one. Bolivia could use a second or third temple. More temples in the African continant will be needed with it's growth trends.
ReplyDeleteChris, I appreciate your ongoing enthusiasm for future temple prospects. For the answer to many of the questions you asked in your comment above, I would refer you to the list of posts in the top right corner of this blog. While I am only in the very preliminary stages of adding the labels to all posts on this blog, I believe I have been able to tag all those I have done this year that cover the subject of future temples. The conversation threads on those topics would likely answer your questions better than I could here. But if you look at those and your questions are not answered, I would be happy to address them at that time.
DeleteIn the meantime, I would also like to reiterate one common theme of those discussions: the timing, frequency, and locations which may have a temple announced may largely depend on the extent to which President Nelson will be expanding the number of temples. All that is presently known in that regard is that Church leaders who have been privy to that information have said that President Nelson's legacy as a temple-building prophet will outpace and overshadow that of President Hinckley. If that turns out to be true, we could be looking at the number of operating temples doubling again (or even tripling) within the years that remain of President Nelson's prophetic administration.
Once more is known about how extensive those plans are, I can and will most certainly expand my net of future prospects accordingly. In the meantime, the prospects of future temples in Canada in general (and in Hamilton Ontario specifically, given the announcement that President Nelson plans to visit there) was what I was specifically asking about in the post above.
In conclusion, I would like to again say that I appreciate your enthusiasm for future temple prospects, Chris, and add that I hope I did not offend you with this comment. But if your questions have been answered in the comment threads of previous posts on this blog, I think I would be doing both myself and you somewhat of a disservice by covering those answers again. I hope that is all right with you. Thanks again for taking time to comment.
I should perhaps also mention that, with the exception of the states within the Mormon corridor, and in areas of the Church where explosive growth is happening, such as Africa, Brazil, the other two South America areas, and the Philippines, it has generally been the practice of the Church to not announce temples in such areas while one or more are in various stages of construction. The only other exception to that was the temple-building boom we saw under President Hinckley's direction in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So if President Nelson's temple-building legacy will outpace and overshadow that of President Hinckley (and all indications seem to be that it will), that would be another exception.
DeleteThat said, until we know the extent of what that plan involves (which may unfold over the next year or two, but likely sooner rather than later), it has been my general practice to prioritize at least one likely prospect in each of the relevant areas of the Church (but more than one in the areas I mentioned where strong reasons dictate otherwise).
So the specific question is, would the Church place priority on another Cache Valley temple before the temple announced in Layton is completed? That may be something to watch in the days ahead. And again, the past discussions on this blog may more fully illuminate the answers to your questions above than I could in readdressing them here, which I hope is all right with you.
I also hope I am not flogging the proverbial dead horse. Thanks again, Chris, for taking time to comment.