Hello again, everyone! The LDS Church Temples Facebook page has provided another update on the Mesa Arizona Temple's renovation process. As demolition on the ground continues, the parking lot on the northwest side and the west reflecting pool have been removed. The retaining wall and the entrance stairs are being removed around three sides of the temple as well, although there is no indication as to what is occurring on the fourth (east) side of the temple, since the Arizona heat prevented the individual posting that update from inspecting that .area.
It is good to see the small but still significant progress that is being made on temples everywhere. In addition to studying future temple sites, my ongoing evaluation of the timing within which each temple event might occur in the future continues. I will do my level best to keep bringing such updates to you all as I become aware of them.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to do so, please feel free to subscribe to stay informed of newly-added content. 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.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Update Provided on the Renovation Process for the Mesa Arizona Temple
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)
Just wanted to add a general comment here: There have been several new Church news stories reported over the last 3-4 days which I am looking forward to passing along to you all. But I have had a few tough days health-wise, so I am giving myself a bit of time to recover. In the meantime, I am working on adding the list of additional locations which I shared in an earlier post to the main list of locations which may have a temple announced in the near future. You can look forward to my posting that in the next 2-4 days or so. In the meantime, thanks again to you all for your readership and expressions of appreciation and support. I likewise appreciate all of you taking time to read the thoughts I post here.
ReplyDeleteJust thought of yet another US city that may need a temple in either the near-term or mid-term, Houston Texas. The metro and surrounding region including Beaumont-Port Arthur is said to have 80k members according to both Church and outside media reports. The current temple is in the northwest of the area in an area bounded by US-290, SH-00, IH-45, and Beltway 8.
ReplyDeleteBut finding a suitable site may be an issue given how much flooded during Harvey, I might think east or southwest but if east it may need to be north of the ship channel, west would have to be west of Barker-Addicks dams but away from the drainage, and south or southeast was destroed not only by Harvey but Ike ten years ago.
Typo on one of the highway numbers, that should have been SH-99
DeleteJames Anderson, I appreciate hearing from you. But unless both I and my main available sources (including Wikipedia and the LDS Church News) are mistaken, a temple in Houston was originally dedicated by President Hinckley. That one got damaged by flood water last year, but reopened this year following its' rededication in April by President M. Russell Ballard. Was there perhaps another Texas city which you may be getting confused with Houston?
ReplyDeleteOn the LDS Growth Forum, the prospect of future temples (primarily those locations on my personal list) was discussed thoroughly. While many people have favored a temple in El Paso, as I observed, the case for a temple in Las Cruces New Mexico, which would serve the Saints in El Paso if that becomes necessary,
That said, I have on good authority from someone living in the current Dallas district that a temple in Fort Worth would be the most likely prospect for Texas, and I trust his opinion.
If there was another Texas city to which you are referring, I would love to hear your thoughts on that. But Houston Texas already does have a temple. Splitting the district may be necessary at some point, but I don't see any immediate likelihood for that prospect. Thanks, James Anderson!
Just reread your comment. If you weren't confused on the city, were you suggesting a second temple in the Houston area to serve the Saints there? Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteOne additional follow-up thought. The difficulty I run into is that, without knowing the extent to which President Nelson's temple-building plans go, it is basically a shot in the dark in terms of trying to determine how many temple projects the Church may undertake in a single state, nation, or area of the Church at the same time. There has been some precedent for such determinations, as it is often easier to mobilize crews to simultaneously work on several different projects in the same region than it might be to have such crews work on one at a time. But until I have a clear understanding of what you were actually suggesting, I am also shooting in the dark. So your clarification would be appreciated. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding on my part, but I want to be clear on what you are suggesting before I offer any additional commentary on it. Thanks again, James Anderson!
ReplyDeleteThat 80k figure indicates that there may be a point where that temple may be getting busy, during the restoration period everyone took a three hour trip or more to San Antonio. Have not heard evidence one way or the other on member usage, the seven county area has a number of stakes and Beaumont-Port Arthur and any stakes there would probably be included in the present district, and north as far as no further than halfway to Dallas, that will tell us a couple things and whether to put one in a more near-term list or mid-term,. Don't quite see it for at least a few years though
ReplyDeleteThanks for that clarification, James Anderson. As I mentioned above, there are a few Texas prospects I am keeping my eye on, one of which (Fort Worth Texas) has made my list for the immediate future. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am keeping other lists with distant-future, long-shot, and dark horse prospects. I will definitely keep my eyes open for when it might be beneficial for the Church to potentially split the Houston district.
ReplyDeleteThe unknowns with temples right now, as I have also observed, are the extent of President Nelson's plans to expand the number of temples, in addition to the time-frame within which he will accomplish those plans. If the plan involves doubling or tripling the number of temples during the remainder of his presidency (which could be anywhere from 4-10 years away), then the imminently-likely locations in which those temples could rise would again need to be expanded by all who share their thoughts on that subject, myself included. And if that happens, a temple to split the current Houston district might be more imminent than anyone (myself included) currently anticipates. Thanks for that clarification, James Anderson, and sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.