By this time last year, the First Presidency had announced several temples would close for renovation in 2018 (with some of those announcements even being made during 2017), so I would anticipate that more temple renovations are bound to be set for the near future, whether for temples on this list or others I have not considered. The updated list follows below. So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will end here and now as I always do:
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time, as long as such comments are made in accordance with the established guidelines. 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.
Preliminary Note: The list below is based on previous
statements by apostles and the Executive Directors of the Church’s Temple
Department to the effect that temples need to be renovated roughly every 30-40
years or so to keep them seismically and systemically up-to-date.
Temples which may be renovated in the near-future:
1.
Logan Utah (dedicated in 1884; first rededicated
in 1979)
2.
Manti Utah (dedicated in 1888; first rededicated
in 1985)
3.
Salt Lake (dedicated in 1893; is anticipated to
close for its’ first major renovation in the near future)
4.
Cardston Alberta (dedicated in 1923; addition
only rededicated in 1962; fully rededicated in 1991)
5.
Bern Switzerland (dedicated in 1955; first
rededicated in 1992)
6.
Los Angeles California (dedicated in 1956)
7.
London England (dedicated in 1958; first
rededicated in 1992)
8.
Provo Utah (dedicated in 1972)
9.
Seattle Washington (dedicated in 1980)
10. Sydney
Australia (dedicated in 1984; addition only rededicated in 1991)
11. Manila
Philippines (dedicated in 1984)
12. Dallas
Texas (dedicated in 1984; addition only rededicated in 1989)
13. Taipei
Taiwan (dedicated in 1984)
14. Guatemala
City Guatemala (dedicated in 1984)
15. Stockholm
Sweden (dedicated in 1985)
16. Chicago
Illinois (dedicated in 1985; addition only rededicated in 1989)
17. Johannesburg
South Africa (dedicated in 1985; renovation might be delayed until after the
Durban South Africa Temple is dedicated in mid-to-late 2019)
18. Seoul
Korea (dedicated in 1985)
19. Lima
Peru (dedicated in 1986)
20. Denver
Colorado (dedicated in 1986)
21. Portland
Oregon (dedicated in 1989)
22. Las
Vegas Nevada (dedicated in 1989)
23. Toronto
Ontario (dedicated in 1990)
Smaller temples built during the Hinckley-era boom (which
may be redesigned):
1.
Spokane Washington
2.
Columbus Ohio
3.
Bismarck North Dakota
4.
Columbia South Carolina
5.
Detroit Michigan
6.
Halifax Nova Scotia
7.
Regina Saskatchewan
8.
Edmonton Alberta
9.
St. Paul Minnesota
10. Kona
Hawaii
11. Ciudad
Juarez Mexico
12. Hermosillo
Sonora Mexico
13. Oaxaca
Mexico
14. Tuxtla
Gutierrez Mexico
15. Louisville
Kentucky
16. Palmyra
New York
17. Fresno
California
18. Medford
Oregon
19. Reno
Nevada
20. Tampico
Mexico
21. Nashville
Tennessee
22. Villahermosa
Mexico
23. San
Jose Costa Rica
24. Fukuoka
Japan
25. Adelaide
Australia
26. Melbourne
Australia
27. Merida
Mexico
28. Veracruz
Mexico
29. Birmingham
Alabama
30. Porto
Alegre Brazil
31. Montevideo
Uruguay
32. Guadalajara
Mexico
33. Perth
Australia
34. The
Hague Netherlands
35. Brisbane
Australia
I've seen the claim that Nelsons temple construction program will surpass that of Hinckley's and is rumored to reach over 1000 temples do I remember correctly James?
ReplyDeleteThe temple department plans and surveys locations worldwide to be approved by the Prophet who then approves the proposal and then he announces the temple-to-be.
So Nelson is the sole person who approves temples? If this is so I don't trust the rumors around here that the church will build 1000's of temples Nelson is 94 I have not met a 90 or 90+ year old in my life and I'm sure most people havn't either. Nelsons time is short this rumored temple building program sounds something that will at least take a decade to reach fruition.
Even if Nelson is thinking on a much smaller scale and just wanting to build at least 100 temples or about in his years as president time is ticking time is short for him.
If Nelson is the sole person who approves temples and not the Q15 or other church leaders I doubt the next church president will bother with taking up Nelsons plans we know each Prophet has individual legacies.
When in India Nelson expressed his desire to be back when the temple is complete to dedicate it that temple doesn't even have a rendering yet he said 'you better be quick' as he encouraged members to look forward to the temple construction he wished THEY (members) would hurry along and build it. I don't believe Nelson will be around in the next couple of years its sad.
Just all my opinion here
The most recent statement (implying a ten-fold increase) was made by Elder Quentin L. Cook at a stake conference when he was asked about President Nelson's plans in that regard. Since no elaboration was provided, different people interpret that in different ways. However, in light of the lack of elaboration, a ten-fold increase may be just that: adding a zero to the current number.
DeleteThe Church President has always had the final say in any decision affecting the worldwide Church. At times when the Church President has been unable to function as such, he has made his intentions clear to his counselors and senior members of the Twelve to a point where, if he is incapacitated, the work will move forward.
That is why President Hinckley, as First Counselor and right-hand man to President Ezra Taft Benson, and having been authorized by President Benson to do what he felt impressed to do, sought for and received inspiration about the design specifications for the Hong Kong China Temple as we know it today.
Just a question: What proof or verification do you have that President Nelson's time is short? In my blog post commemorating the one-year milestone of President Nelson's administration, I cited a Church News article that quoted his apostolic Brethren and his wife as saying that they could not keep up with him.
DeleteAnd during his two Global Ministry Tours last year, his companions and Sister Nelson observed that, when he is out in public among the Church members, he appears to be 20-30 years younger than his 94 years of age. If none of his colleagues can keep up with him, and if he appears as though he is 74 or even 64 when speaking to congregations, I have no reason to doubt that, as Elder Andersen shared in his April 2018 General Conference talk, President Nelson may be around for the next decade or two.
Additionally, maybe you have not known many older people, but my part-time missionary opportunities (in the temple and working with Welfare Services) put me in almost daily contact with older men in the Church who, if not for their faithfulness in living the gospel, would never have been able to perform necessary tasks (for the Humanitarian efforts) or remember temple ordinances.
But more than that, my local news station, KSL, recently ran an article about a dear family friend, George Sturt, in which they noted that, despite being 90, he was still taking frequent dancing lessons and living and acting with great energy.
The health of President Nelson and my Uncle George should not be seen as a fluke of any kind. In the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the Lord makes the following promise:
Delete"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies."
Perhaps you have not seen that promise come to fruition in the life of anyone you know. But over more than a six-year period of temple service, and as I have watched and reported on the ministry efforts of our apostles, I have seen sufficient proof that the Lord is fulfilling his promise to His faithful servants.
President Nelson was also a heart surgeon by trade, and in his decades of practice, he learned how to take care of his heart and other health-related aspects. And unlike some of his surgical colleagues who have since passed away (some from heart conditions they should have been trained to know how to prevent), President Nelson's testimony of the Word of Wisdom, combined with his knowledge as a physician, has given him the ability to take care of himself to such a point where living for the next decade or two may be only the tip of the iceberg.
DeleteBut additionally, someone reported elsewhere that President Nelson's two counselors had been overheard following a First Presidency meeting. The two were marveling at the fact that President Nelson had just outlined to them the changes the Church would be making over the period of the next 2-3 years. The gift of seership is thus evident in President Nelson's prophetic priorities, and if that is true, then even if his health should fail and he becomes incapacitated, his counselors have been informed of what needs to happen and when and in what manner that needs to occur for the future.
With all of this in mind, if you have any sources suggesting that President Nelson is not going to be around very long, please share them, because every source I have read regarding his ministry indicates to me that he may be around for the next decade or two at very minimum, and could be around much longer than that. But "[his] days are known [to the Lord], and [his] years shall not be numbered less."
Finally, in relation to the India Temple and his counsel to the members, if you read the full summary of his remarks, you will find that quote might have been taken out of context. While in India, the article actually notes that President Nelson first mentioned to the Saints in India that it is easier to build a temple for the people than it is to build a people ready for the temple. He went on to promise that if they would apply themselves to the task, they would be prepared when their temple was ready for dedication. And it was then that he mentioned his comment about how they "better hurry."
Another thought, if I may. Some temples (as recently seen with the San Juan Puerto Rico Temple) can very quickly go from announcement to groundbreaking, and on to construction and dedication. Other temples (with Rome Italy, Fortaleza Brazil, and Urdaneta Philippines being a few examples) take years to either get their construction started, for that process to unfold, and for the temple to be dedicated. In the case of the three temples I mentioned, that process will have taken over a decade before it concludes.
With that in mind, I am convinced that what President Nelson actually meant is that he didn't want the Saints to have to wait a similarly long period for their temple. One factor affecting the speed at which a temple is constructed is how faithfully the Saints may be working on their preparation for such temples. India is a challenging case where the Church is getting stronger but there is still room for improvement of faithfulness. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that President Nelson's comments to the Saints in India had anything to do with his belief he might not be alive to go back for that temple's dedication. Rather, he was suggesting that, if the members were faithful in their preparation for that temple, they would be ready for it when it is completed.
In India, Russia, and elsewhere, political and religious turmoil has resulted in delays in the spreading of the gospel. I was not anticipating temples in either location for the next decade or two, but I was proven wrong in that regard. With that in mind as well, I have no doubt the Lord will honor President Nelson's desire to get back to India for the dedication of the Bengaluru temple when it is finished.
Hope that addresses everything you wanted feedback on. Please let me know if you need further clarification on anything I have said here, and thanks for taking time to comment
Just one additional thought here, if I may. We have seen periods of time similar to or longer than the time it has taken for the Urdaneta Philippines Temple to have construction begin (with the Los Angeles California and Quito Ecuador Temples both taking more than 19 years between their announcements and subsequent groundbreakings; as many of you also know, the construction process for the Salt Lake Temple took more than 40 years to get from announcement to dedication. Given that the set of temples announced in April 2016 is the "oldest" group of those announced, the only temples that might possibly have an extended waiting period between their announcements and dedications are those for Bengaluru India and for the major city yet to be determined in Russia. That said, my research and analysis points to the idea that all currently announced temples (excluding those which may join the others in April 2019, since we have no idea of the number which may be announced, nor their locations) are likely to have a groundbreaking ceremony by sometime in 2021 or 2022 at latest.
DeleteBut given the fact that President Nelson seems to be very much ahead of the curve in all aspects of the work, it would not shock me to see almost all or entirely all of those announced temples have a groundbreaking by the end of next year.
Without knowing more specific information about how soon most of those will see a groundbreaking occur, that is just a guesstimate, but there it is, such as it is. Thanks again.
Hi James
ReplyDeleteI'll just explain myself here to a little further to be clear in my explanations. I don't have any sources to explain Nelson health or age expectancy I don't intend to have this anyway. I'm trying to view things with logic and sensibility in relation to facts of average life expectancy in the world which is common knowledge.
Don't get me wrong I'm hoping our Prophet does indeed live to the age of 100 or further we haven't had a church president reach this age of all 17 Hinckley is the closest at 97 but its only that a hope of mine. That's exactly where I'm coming from Its only been 3 Latter day prophets of all 17 who lived to ages older than 94 (Nelsons age). The average life expectancy in USA is 78.69 yrs worldwide is 71.5 yrs 90 yr olds make up only 4.7% of the US population over 65. I could go on explaining statistics here about how rare it is to reach 90+ and how unusual to be over 105 I could explain myself further but I do not wish to be tedious at this time. I do have links to articles I found which have greater detail if anybody should be interested.
That scripture you quote I wouldn't take as doctrine myself as we are not taught to expect our lives to be extended to great longevity by obedience to the gospel let alone priesthood.
I'm a fan of your blog and appreciate all the work you do for curious ones like myself in the church I've noticed you provide the extra juicy bits of info the church growth blog doesn't have Keep up the great work brother!
Thank you for your clarifications about what you've said in your previous comment. I will try to address what you said in the best way I can. In order to do so, I think quotes from two movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe would illustrate the point I hope to make. In Doctor Strange, the Ancient One is talking to the title character about control and the importance of surrendering that control (which, by the way, is an idea in full accord with gospel principles, since we have been frequently instructed to bend our wills in submission to that of our Father. This is what she tells him: "Your intellect has taken you far in life, but it will take you no further." That, to me, means that logic and reason are all well and good in and of themselves, but that there will be some things which defy logic in many ways, and that is as it should be. That idea is emphasized in Isaiah 58 wherein the Lord tells us that His ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts.
DeleteI would like to channel my inner Tony Stark from "The Avengers" movie and note that "I can't do an equation unless I have all the variables." Yes, there are many who do not live to even reach the average current life expectancy. But if the Church News reports on the number of centenarians in the Church are any indication (with 2-5 such individuals mentioned in each iteration), then living the gospel, especially the Word of Wisdom, ensures longevity of many lives beyond that average expectancy. So that must be a variable we account for in our equation here.
Another variable to consider here is that President Nelson has reportedly seemed to appear and act as though he were 20-30 years younger at very minimum than his biological age of 94. We also must consider the words of his colleagues, who describe his great energy and their own need to move swiftly to keep up with him. The one other factor that needs to be taken into account in this equation is his training as a heart surgeon, which, combined with his discipline from his testimony about adhering to gospel principles, has led to him outliving many of his colleagues who were not members of the Church, and who also failed to take the measures to keep their hearts healthy and going well.
But more than that, perhaps the most significant factor in this equation for which you may not have accounted in your calculated analysis (which would certainly be spot-on for most nonagenarians) is the health of the Church Presidents on the list above and below him in terms of their lifespan length. Two examples from below where he's at now. President Monson began scaling back his duties as Church President between late 2014 and early 2015, and he stepped back from an active role in overseeing the work roughly 8 months or so prior to his passing. President Spencer W. Kimball, whose lifespan was only roughly 3 months longer than that of President Monson, began scaling back his duties several years prior to his passing, and giving his final talk in General Conference as Church President roughly 3 years before his passing.
DeleteWith that noted, let's move on to those 4 in the list above President Nelson, from youngest to oldest. Ezra Taft Benson, whom President Nelson will pass in age in roughly 4.75 months, only actively served as Church President for the first two years of his tenure. For the next several years, his two counselors, Presidents Hinckley and Monson, and his personal secretary, at his request, read his prepared remarks. So he was not taking an active role in leading the Church for roughly 78% of his prophetic tenure.
If my memory is serving me correctly, Joseph Fielding Smith's health was ailing during his entire prophetic tenure, which means his counselors also took care of overseeing the work of the Church with his consent.
David O. McKay, who had a tenure of almost 19 years as Church President, got to a point where his health was sufficiently failing to the point where several additional counselors needed to be called to assist with the First Presidency's workload.
And as we saw more recently with President Hinckley, he was always actively involved in the day-to-day administration of the Church. At his 95th birthday celebration, he said, "Let's have another such party 5 years from now." Fast forward to October 2007, and he mentioned in that conference that he was 97, but hoped to be around when the following April conference convened. As we know, he died less than four months later, with his steep and rapid health declining only within the final two months he lived.
DeleteWith all of this in mind, it seems categorically unfair to factor in everything else except the variables I have mentioned here. If President Nelson's apostolic Brethren, and his wife, who observes him more frequently than anyone, are saying that his health is as good as (if not better than) the health of most people 2 or 3 decades younger than he is, then I have no doubt Elder Andersen's expressed hope that our current prophet will be around for a decade or two, will be filled, and may even be exceeded.
That said, curiosity compels me to ask why you would not take accepted scripture as the doctrine of the Church? I might perhaps be more inclined to believe that to be a prudent course of action if I had not seen that promise come to fruition from my personal observations, both of octagenarian and nonagenarian temple workers, and of how the Lord has kept, preserved, strengthened, and upheld His prophet according to that promise. To me, not taking scripture as doctrine may be the start of a slippery slope that I, for one, certainly would not like to slide down myself. Other scriptures supporting the truth of any doctrine, both in the scriptures and as revealed through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, have been cited numerous times to verify that idea.
Again, any of us is free to believe and think for ourselves, but unless you have concrete evidence in the form of a reliable source to the effect that that or any other scripture should not be taken literally, then I for one prefer to maintain my belief that every line of ancient or modern scripture is the word of the Lord, and that the only limits to the scope of such promises are those the Lord has set in place Himself. And since I have seen nothing to suggest that promise is no longer valid or effective (with quite the opposite appearing to be true), I take the Lord and His servants at their word.
DeleteAlso, where did you see the teaching that the great longevity of our lives is not to be expected by obedience to the gospel and the faithful obtaining and remaining worthy of the priesthood? Without a source specifically saying that, what you describe may have been said by someone who was speaking for himself or herself, and not for the Lord. The prophets are not infallible, but it is to their words that the Lord applies the promise that such have His seal of approval.
We have also been instructed recently to ensure that the information we absorb about the Church comes from reliable sources that are not skewing the doctrine to their own interpretation. Our prophets, seers, and revelators remain mortal men who can and do make mistakes just as easily as you and I do from time to time, but they have honed their obedience to the gospel principles in such a way that the tendencies of the natural man are not as prevalent in them. Other sources may say otherwise, but everything I have read indicates to me that the prophets and apostles have the seal of approval of the Lord for everything they say and do, and that obedience to gospel principles yield the promised blessings, full stop.
When we begin setting conditions or limits on the Lord's promises and doctrines that are not specified in the sources themselves, nor clarified by prophets, seers and revelators, as I previously noted, that can open us to the possibility that we may be prone to question such sources, which in turn can and does lead people to fall away from the Church.
DeleteI just want to close this comment by sharing with you now that I know, beyond doubt, that what I have shared herein is absolutely true. And much like the Book of Mormon says: "I lie not, God bearing witness of it." Thanks again for taking time to comment, and please let me know if you need more information from me. I am grateful we can have these discussions here and hope the insights I provide help address your questions adequately enough. But more than that, I feel I can echo Alma's sentiment in Alma 5:45-47:
"Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?
"Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.
"And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true, even so according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me, which is also by the manifestation of the Spirit of God."
His witness is mine as well, and seems to imply that, unless any prophet or apostles say specifically they are speaking for themselves personally rather than the Lord, we would be well served to take the Lord and His servants at their words. Hope these additional insights are similarly helpful to you.
I started to post further comments with additional thoughts earlier, but due to a technical issue, I lost the first version of those. It did occur to me to wonder why you say you say you wouldn't take the scripture I cited as doctrine. It comes from a book of scripture entitled "Doctrine and Covenants", which, by definition, is the book of scripture revealed by the Lord to the prophets of the restoration in order to illustrate doctrines and explain covenants the Lord has given to His people who follow Him and His commandments in this dispensation.
DeleteTwo verses from section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants may contribute to the further illustration and clarification of my points above. I am looking particularly at verses 20 and 21, wherein we read the following:
"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
"And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."
So what do these verses mean in the context of our discussion here? In the Word of Wisdom (as found in Doctrine and Covenants 89), which is, as it says in verse 3, "a principle with a promise", the Lord outlines in verses 18-21 what that promise is upon which the principle of the Word of Wisdom is predicated. Posed another way, if we fail to live the principles outlined in the Word of Wisdom, then we will not obtain the blessings upon which that law is predicated.
In a similar manner, the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood says in its' preamble that "whoso is faithful unto the obtaining of these two priesthoods" will be recipients of that promised blessings. If there were any constraints or conditions to those promises, the Lord (or His servants, representing Him), would have specified what those conditions and constraints are.
The absence of such clarifications seems to imply that that promise associated with that oath and covenant is the exact, immutable, and unrevoked promise of the Lord associated with obedience to the law (the oath and covenants) upon which the associated blessings (the renewal of the bodies of those who honor that oath and covenant) are predicated.
DeleteLet me take this a step further: In Doctrine and Covenants section 58, we read the following passage in verses 31-33: "Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
"I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
"Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above."
That passage suggests to me that unless and until the Lord revokes, retracts, repeals, or revises any command, covenant, or principle with a promise, the doctrine of the Church, as defined by the Lord and His chosen servants, along with the blessings associated with those doctrines, covenants, and principles remain fully in force.
I hope that these additional insights and clarifications on my part are helpful in addressing further the relevant topics we have discussed herein. Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions, on anything at all which I have said in these most recent comments. And I am grateful to hear that my taking time to answer and address previous questions you have had has been helpful to you. That is the intention I had when I shifted my blog from mostly personal updates to focus almost entirely on subjects near and dear to my heart as a lifelong member of the Church.
Part of the purpose for each of us here on the earth is to do what we can to help, encourage, uplift and inspire others we come across in our individual journeys. And if I can do that through more in-depth discussions of questions that any of my readers might have (whether I know the answer or need to do the research to find the sources which would enable me to give a good answer), then it never has been, is not, and never will be a problem for me to do so. Thanks again for taking time to open up this dialogue and ask for insights about it. I again hope my feedback has proven helpful in addressing your questions.
The Salt Lake Temple closed in 1962 for a major renovation.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.deseretnews.com/article/865676488/LDS-Church-not-just-temple-building-but-temple-renovating.html
Hello, Brett, and thanks for taking time to comment. You are correct in your statement about the prior renovation for the Salt Lake Temple in 1962. However, it appears that that particular closure enabled additions like that of the temple annex, to name just one thing, and that members provided the labor, after which a private rediedication (for just the additions) was held. So what I should perhaps have said is that the Salt Lake Temple has not yet closed for a full-scale renovation process which will subsequently require another open house & a public rediedication. Thanks for catching that, and for taking time to comment. I always appreciate hearing from you.
ReplyDelete