Hello again, everyone! I wanted to post now to report two temple developments that have come to my attention within the last few hours. First, the unofficial site for information about temples (which can be found at its' new URL here shows that the new projected estimate within which the site might be finished with its' restoration work has changed to September 30 of this year.
If this estimate has changed to be more specific, hopefully that means all is going with with the restoration work. But hopefully it also means that this is the latest anticipated date whereby that site might again be up and running. As those of us who enjoy the site continue to pray for those involved in that restoration process, hopefully it can be completed sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, the Facebook page for the site has noted that unanticipated repairs will be done for the Rexburg Idaho Temple. As some of you may recall, the dedication for that temple had been set to occur on February 3, 2008, but the unexpected passing of President Gordon B. Hinckley one week earlier meant that the following Sunday would mark the reorganization of the First Presidency. Therefore, one major action President Monson took as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was to announce that the dedication would be delayed for a week.
Although the temple is just over 10 years old, it appears that the extreme heat on one end and the extreme cold on the other has resulted in somewhat significant damage to a few of the most prominent exterior elements of the temple. With a closure of that temple having gone into effect last Monday (August 27), the temple will be closed until Monday September 17, a period of three weeks. The reason that I did not mention that temple among those closing for an extended period at some point this year was that I felt a need to restrict that list to temples which would close for more than a month.
That said, though no other source is tracking this information, I continue to monitor the Church's progress towards having 200 operating temples by or before the 200th anniversary of the Church (which will, as previously noted, be marked on Saturday April 6, 2030). I have run the numbers that will be effective for tomorrow, at which time there will be 11.59 years remaining until said anniversary. The Church will easily have 200 operating temples at that time if roughly 3.54 temples are dedicated each year between now and then.
As also previously noted, the 2 temple dedications set to occur before the end of this year will be below that average, but next year, with 1 temple dedication already scheduled and 5 others anticipated to be announced within the next year or so, a total of 6 temples will make 2019 fall above that average. 3 other temples already anticipated to be dedicated during 2020 will put that year almost at that average by the time we get between June and August.
And if, as anticipated, we learn more in around a month in General Conference about the specific extent to which President Nelson's plans to expand the number of temples might go, then the number of temple events held during the remainder of 2020 and the years that follow could very well increase exponentially.
For that reason, I have no doubts whatsoever that the Church could easily construct and dedicate a minimum of 30 temples between mid-2020 and the date of that 200th anniversary, and I would not in any way be surprised if there are many more than that by that date. Whatever might occur in that regard, you can depend on my bringing word of it to you all here as I become aware of such developments.
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 stay informed of newly-added content, please feel free to subscribe. 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.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
A Couple of Updates Provided on Temples
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.
4 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 think smaller temples have several benefits. One they will staff few stakes but be closer to them and thus several smaller temples could be built in an area where a larger regional temple would have been. They cost less to build and maintain. Local zoning laws and neighborhoods may have less oposition to a smaller building than a large one. They are quicker to build. Many of the late 1990 era Hinkley announced temples took about a year or two to complete from announcement to dedication. Most now take 2-5 years plus just to get to a groundbreaking. I remember hearing about opposition to the size of Nashville and Monterey temples. But later they were changed to smaller temples and several more small temples were added to what would have been the original planned temple district. The temples also got the permit to build much quicker and oposition died down.
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points, Chris, which are all well taken. I have heard (but have not yet personally confirmed) that either the "new design" being used for the Hinckley-era smaller temples may be utilized in whatever President Nelson has planned or that another design (featuring an even smaller but more easily constructed design) could be utilized as well. Additionally, I also heard somewhere that if the Church ever gets to the point where this might be needed, the newer chapels the Church has built are designed in such a way that each could easily be repurposed into temples. It is interesting to think about. I am sure that local and political circumstances have certainly been taken into consideration in whatever the plans might entail. Thanks, as always, Chris, for taking time to comment.
ReplyDeleteHello James, I posted on the LDS Church Growth blog about making a prediction about where exactly in Russia would the temple be located in (given that we have the land but not the city yet).
ReplyDeleteHello, Bryan! Thanks for commenting. As I understand it (due to comments from Matt and others), there are three potential cities that could fit that defiition, cities in which the Church has a sufficiently-established base to support the temple there. The three cities are Moscow (the capital city), St. Petersburg, and Saratov. I believe all three have missions within their city boundaries.
ReplyDeleteAs to the particular merits of each city, each has exactly one stake, so it is likely that the temple in Russia was announced in preparation for future anticipated growth, if all goes well.
I know that the Church generally favors building the first temple in any nation, island, or state in the capital city. Each of the three cities also has a fairly rich Church history.
If I had to trim it down to the two most likely prospects, it would be Moscow or St. Petersburg. And of the two, I would personally prioritize Moscow. But one thing is certain: With the temple in Russia being announced last April, the Lord has verified that His ways, thoughts, and timing are higher than ours. I have no doubt that will apply in equal or greater measure to where the temple actually winds up. I might comment on this on the LDS Church Growth Blog tomorrow, but these are a few preliminary thoughts from me, for what they might be worth to you. Thanks for letting me know.