Hello again, everyone! As was anticipated, President Russell M. Nelson closed the conference by announcing his plans to rapidly increase and expand the number of temples (which will be done by , and, that in order to do so, pioneer-generation temples would be renovated. 12 new temples were announced for Mendoza Argentina; Salvador Brazil; Yuba City, California; Phnom Pehn, Cambodia; Praia Cape Verde; Yigo Guam; Puebla Mexico; Auckland New Zealand; Lagos Nigeria; Davao Philippines; San Juan Puerto Rico; and Washington County Utah. This brings the total number of temples in any phase to a whopping 201.
Let me just interject a couple of personal observations here: I had Salvador Brazil, Phnom Pehn Cambodia, Praia Cape Verde, Puebla Mexico, Auckland New Zealand, Lagos Nigeria, Davao Philippines, and San Juan Puerto Rico as exact locations for temples on one of my three lists (Cambodia was my top pick for Asia before I replaced it with one for Mongolia, but I am glad the Lord confirmed my justification of the original choice). I had long felt that Lagos was the top pick for the second Nigerian temple, and I am grateful the Lord verified that. Similarly, Salvador Brazil, Praia Cape Verde, Puebla Mexico, Auckland New Zealand, and Davao Philippines have all been on my list for a while.
He also mentioned that many "Pioneer-generation temples", including the one in Salt Lake City, will be closing for significant upgrades, repairs, and renovations, with details to be announced soon. That means that the weekly Thursday meeting of the apostles will need to take place in another temple nearby. And we will hopefully learn more about which particular temples will be renovated soon, and about the specifics relating to But the announcement of the 12 temples was wonderful. It means that, unless something happens to stall any of these temples, each of them could be under construction within the next 4-5 years. And it also means that, unless there are massive delays in clearing the backlog of the now 31 announced temples, the Church will almost definitely have at least 200 temples in operation by April 6, 2030, as there are 201 in various phases as of today.
With all of that in mind, the next several years will surely be full of temple events. To the best of my ability, I will continue to monitor all such news and will pass word of it along to you all as I receive it. In the meantime, we are sure to hear more details about future temple renovations in the near future, including that for the Salt Lake Temple. I was likewise intrigued today by the fact that President Henry B. Eyring only addressed the general Church membership at the beginning of the Sunday Afternoon Session. This marked the first time (insofar as I am aware) in which a counselor in the First Presidency spoke during the Sunday Afternoon Session. Could that also be a new tradition? We will have to see.
I hope that these thoughts, such as they have been, are helpful to you. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time. 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.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
BREAKING NEWS: President Nelson Announces A Record 12 New 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.
11 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 was excited to hear about Guam because of the distance it is from there to Manila. I had Guam on my list even though there is only one stake there. I had the capital city, not knowing exactly where to stake was located, which is also not in Yigo so I never would have guessed the right city.
ReplyDeleteAfter Winnipeg, with one stake, could get a temple, any remote area is wide open, especially where future growth is not ever expected but the church is strong with what is there, little as it may be. This is especially the case with islands, like Cape Verde, and I see other island nations getting temples in the future. This announcement makes three islands with Puerto Rico being on the list.
I was surprised to see I had 10 out of the 12. No idea on Yuba City or Washington County. I was also surprised on a few that did not make the list, but 12 temples at once with location names, I believe that is a record. 32 announced at once is the biggest record, but the names were not given, so this is huge. I hope it is only going to continue with future conferences.
With Salt Lake under going renovations some time soon, I was expecting Tooele. I had a friend say she would scream if another UT temple was announced, but I explained how busy those temples are, even though they are large. Once I had to wait in the hallway to get into the chapel, then once in the chapel I had to wait for the next session, and they were large companies in each session. That's why UT seems to maintain a 10% average of all temples.
After Cedar City was dedicated, I did not think Southern Utah would get one this soon. I would have guessed Toole, Heber city, or another in the Wasatch Front becuase those temples are so busy. After Cagayan Del Oro, I did not think Davao would get one this soon. It is on the same island. However, I just checked the distance between them and they are about 163 miles apart.
ReplyDeleteHello, Kenny! Thanks for your comment. I was surprised by Guam, but I know others have talked about it, and so I wasn't disappointed by that. I know that any remote area where travel is difficult, expensive, or creates an undue hardship is a prime candidate for a temple, so Guam is a good fit that way.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what you said about remote areas. Given that President Nelson has announced 19 new temples in the first year of his presidency, no location may be off the table.
Of the 12 new temples announced today, only 3 (Puebla, Auckland, and Yuma City) are less than 200 miles away from their assigned temples. And for most (if not all) of these new ones, it seems they were announced for either reasons of distance, ease of travel, or because the temple districts which they will help divide have gotten too big.
Since 19 new temples were announced this year alone, I have no doubt that the next several years will see several other new locations having a temple announced. In a similar manner, I am sure that there is a plan in place to more rapidly get each temple from announcement to groundbreaking, and to expedite the process of construction and dedication.
St. George is within 200 miles of anything in Washington County.
DeleteThanks for this comment, coach! I was aware of the geographical proximity of cities in Washington County to St. George. I should have said "only 4" above instead of "only 3". The rate at which I churned out content over the weekend was such that I didn't really have time to proofread. I will try to do that more often. Thanks again, coach! I appreciate you.
Delete12 temples at once is indeed the new record, as evidenced by an article on the Church's Newsroom website about the announcement of these temples.
ReplyDeleteI am sure things will continue at the same pace. As I mentioned previously, in late April 2017, in conjunction with a media interview featuring Temple Department Executive Director Elder Larry Y. Wilson, it was noted that there was a list of 80 potential locations which were under active consideration for an announcement within 15 years from the time that statement was made. Since we know that, at minimum, the Bengaluru India Temple was not on that list (which is true because President Nelson was only impressed the night before the April 2018 General Conference that he needed to announce a temple in that city), if we assume that all of the other 18 temple locations (which includes the remaining 6 from last April and the 12 from today's announcement) were on that list, that means there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 62 temples left on the list, and in April 2019, the Church would then have roughly 13 years within which to announce those 62 locations. That could easily be done if 5-6 temples were announced per year. I am convinced, however, that since President Nelson announced 19 temples this year alone, we are certain to see far more temples than that actually announced in the coming years, and that, for a while, we will see those announcements occur every six months. Perhaps future sets of temple announcements won't be as extensive as what we saw this year, where the 19 temples over two General Conferences means that 9.5 temples have been announced per conference. I would say we might see anywhere from 2-6 announced per conference.
But that will, of course, largely depend on how quickly the Church can get each temple under construction after they are announced. I know I was also anticipating that Tooele would get a temple soon, but if the St. George and Cedar City Temples are as busy as I've generally heard, another temple in the Washington County area makes sense.
You are also correct Utah is home to almost always roughly 10% of the total number of temples. Of the 201 temples in any phase, Utah now has 20. There are 30 or 31 temples announced currently, and 3 of those are in Utah. Utah has also had a temple announced in each one of the last 3 batches of temple announcements. There are many locations that have a high number of temples. Brazil has had 3 temples announced between the beginning of 2016 and now. And the Philippines has 4 temples announced currently.
The Lord is truly hastening His work, and that is remarkable and most wonderful to see. With 31 temples that have not yet had a groundbreaking, there is a lot of work to be done. Hopefully the next couple of years can see that number quartered, since there will be other temples announced in the interim. Thanks, as always, Kenny, for stopping by to comment.
Hey, Chris, you must have been working on your comment above while I was replying to Kenny. Sorry I din't see your comment sooner. As I mentioned to Kenny above, I have heard (but have not personally verified) that the St. George and Cedar City Temples are kept pretty busy. If that is true, then a third temple to serve the Southern Utah Saints makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as we have seen with the last three sets of temple announcements, a temple having been announced in any region would not prohibit, prevent, or delay another city in such regions from getting temples. Think of the 2 temples announced this year for Argentina, 3 that have been announced within the last couple of years for Brazil, 3 new temples have been announced for the Philippines (1 with each of the most recent sets of temple announcements, and Guam falls under the specific responsibility of 1 of the current 2 temple districts, while another Philippines Temple has been stalled in its' progress in the 8 years since it was announced), and there has been an African city to have a temple announced in 3 of the last 5 sets of announced temples. If we talk South American Temples (which, by definition, includes Brazil), 5 of the 30 for which a groundbreaking has not yet been set have been announced on that continent.
And I have a feeling that this is only the beginning in a huge uptick in temple announcement, construction, and dedication. When President Monson became Church President, there were 124 dedicated temples. Less than a year into President Nelson's administration (and only a decade later) there are now 201 in various stages. This is an exciting season for new temples. Thank you, Chris, for taking time to comment.
I worked for Manukau City Council (South Auckland) in 2010 whilst the MTC and Stake Centre was completed. I had access to the resource consents and saw the original consent from 2006 that also included a future temple between the two buildings. The plans called for significant earthworks to be completed in readiness for the foundation of the future temple. This was completed at the same as the other two buildings and consisted of removing a significant portion of the rise, grading, creation of water holding ponds and then the return of the removed dirt.
ReplyDeleteThe location is highly visible as it overlooks a major highway that connects Auckland to the rest of the North Island, the city centre, the only theme park in New Zealand and looks out to the main international gateway into the country.
Another interesting fact is part of the Church property abuts a military redoubt from the mid 19th century land wars. Part of that historic site intrudes in a semi circle behind the land set aside for the temple. The temple must also accommodate clear site lines from the redoubt past the temple.
Also, you can see another stake centre from the site as there is one 5 minutes down the road.
Given the new Auckland temple is 12 almost 13 years in the planning, it begs the question, how many more are in the pipeline and how long have they been in waiting? Also how many do they add every year?
ReplyDeleteHello, Brett, and thank you for taking time to comment, and for continuing to provide additional insight about the temple just announced for Auckland. Let me answer your questions to the best of my ability. First, I was advised some years ago through personal research and experts from whom I solicited opinions that the Church regularly holds land in reserve for temples to subsequently be built when the proper conditions are met. With the announcement of the Auckland Temple, I know of at least three other locations where land is being held in reserve currently: Bentonville Arkansas, Missoula Montana, and Port Moresby Papua New Guinea.
ReplyDeleteIf you go on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site and take a look at the entries for the temples which have not gone beyond an announcement, you will find that many of them also had land held in reserve for a while before the temples were announced. Off the top of my head, that applies at least to Richmond Virginia and Auckland New Zealand. I also know that the Church purchased land for some temples recently announced merely a few days before those announcements occurred.
And to your final question, there is no hard and fast rule about how many temples are announced per year. That varies based on need and circumstance. For example, President Monson announced 2 temples each in back-to-back General Conferences (October 2012 and April 2013). Then there was a two-year hiatus on the announcement of new temples so the Church could clear a backlog. By the time temple announcements resumed in April 2015, President Monson's health was rapidly nosediving. He announced 3 temples that April, 4 one year later, and 5 during the last General Conference in which he was able to attend and participate.
His declining health no doubt impacted his ability to announce temples, even though Elder Larry Y. Wilson, the Executive Director of the Temple Department, said in late April 2017 (after those 5 temples were announced) that there was a list of 80 potential locations under consideration to have a temple announced within 15 years following that statement (by late April 2032).
Fast forward to this year. With the passing of President Monson, President Nelson (who, despite being the second-oldest man to ever come to the Church presidency, is, by comparison, more healthy than any Church President has been for the last 20 years, if not longer). He made it clear right out of the gate that temples would be an important focus of his presidency. Last April, he announced 7 temples, which was the second-highest number of temples ever announced (the record at that time was 9). Then, just yesterday, he announced the 12 new locations in which other temples will be built. This means that he now holds the distinction of announcing both the highest and third-highest number of temples at one time in Church history. With 19 temples announced just this year, that is a record, any way it's considered. And, as noted, with 13 others which had not progressed beyond an announcement, that means there is a backlog of 32 current temples.
That said, I do not anticipate a slowing of new temple announcements. Instead, given the increased number of new employees the Church's Temple Department has hired and for which applications are still being accepted, I would anticipate that something big is in the works to accelerate the process of taking all announced temples to a groundbreaking, and getting them constructed more swiftly.
If that happens, not only will the number of operating temples rapidly increase in the coming years, but, by extension, that will leave more room for temples to continue to be announced. If what I have heard from people who have talked to general Church leaders is any indication, we are in for an unprecedented season of temple milestones, at a scale and to a degree which we have never before seen. It will be exciting and intriguing to see it all unfold. Thank you again, Brett, for taking time to comment.
Hello again, everyone! This may be the best place to share this for now, but if necessary, I will also include it in a future post. It first came to my attention yesterday, but with all I had going on, I forgot to pass it along: The Church News swiftly gathered reaction from local members to the announcement of the 12 temples yesterday, and the address at which that article can be found follows below. Enjoy, and thanks again to you all for your excellent contributions to the topics covered here.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ldschurchnews.com/temples/2018-10-07/president-nelson-announces-plans-to-build-12-new-temples-48211