Stokes Sounds Off: The Announcement of the Layton Utah Temple Site Coincides With a Significant Anniversary

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Monday, July 15, 2019

The Announcement of the Layton Utah Temple Site Coincides With a Significant Anniversary

Hello again, everyone! By now, I'm sure many of you have seen the First Presidency's announcement confirming the location of the Layton Utah Temple site. This was a temple announcement I was not bargaining on occurring when it did, but I welcome the fact that the newest temple in Davis County Utah is now the fourth of the seven temples announced by President Nelson in his first General Conference as Church President to have information mentioned that gives some indication of when we can anticipate a groundbreaking.


Just by way of reminder, the other  are the Salta Argentina Temple, which had a site confirmed not long after its' announcement; the Bengaluru India Temple, for which Bishop Dean M. Davies, First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, said in mid-May 2019 that more information (including a site announcement and design) were anticipated to be announced before the end of this year; and the Richmond Virginia Temple, for which the Church announced on March 22, 2019 that preliminary plans had been filed with the city.

That brings me to a couple of additional points: First, given this announcement, and some information that has (and by extension, has not) been made public about this temple, and others among those that are announced, I will likely have to again revisit two sections of my temple construction progress report, including the estimated timing for temples that may, given the information currently known, be considered in a "Groundbreaking anticipated" section and those "Announced" temples for which more information is needed before the timing of a groundbreaking can be offered.

The second is that this announced confirmation of the site and preliminary details for the design of the Layton Utah Temple is coinciding with a significant anniversary. As many of you likely recall, just over 4 years ago, President Boyd K. Packer, who at that time was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and consequently the second most-senior apostle, became the second member of that Quorum to pass away that year. As a result of his passing, and the late May passing of Elder L. Tom Perry, who was the next most junior apostle, at the end of May, the passing of President Packer left President Russell M. Nelson as the second most senior apostle.

As a result, upon President Packer's passing, President Nelson became the de facto President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, overseeing the business of the Quorum in an informal role for the next 12 days. On Wednesday July 15, 2015, President Thomas S. Monson, who had begun that same year to scale back his participation in the administration of the Church, set apart President Nelson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  And, as we know, President Nelson, being almost 3 years older than the one apostle senior to him, filled a role in supporting President Eyring and then-President Uchtdorf as President Monson continued to scale back his responsibilties before fully stepping back from any active role in Church administration in mid-May 2017.

Upon President Monson's passing away on the second day of 2018, President Nelson served as Acting Church President for the intervening 12 days before the apostles met 18 months ago yesterday to formally designate, ordain, and set apart President Nelson as President Monson's rightful prophetic successor. So the significance of the Layton Utah Temple site being confirmed on the 4th anniversary of the course of events set in motion by President Monson formally setting President Nelson apart as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is not lost on me personally. I apologize for that lengthy ramble, but thought that was worth a mention.

In the meantime, although I will hope to redo the two sections of my temple construction progress report to which I referred earlier on in this post, and to have those revisions posted here within the next 36-48 hours (but hopefully sooner, if all goes well), before publishing this post, I wanted to mention a few other Church News stories which have been reported, including one covering the site announcement for this temple, one introducing and providing a biographical sketch for new Sunday School General President Mark L. Pace (who, much to my surprise, does not seem to be any direct relative of emeritus General Authority Glenn L. Pace), and some fun facts about the formation of the Young Women's general auxiliary.

Regarding that last article, it mentions that the "fun facts" in question may not be familiar to some members of the Church. Those facts were, however, more than familiar to me, as a result of that sequence of events having been portrayed in a movie released by the Church in 1969, entitled "Pioneers in Petticoats". That particular short movie was part of a collection of other short films rereleased by the Church as a first-time collection in the 1980s or 1990s, and I am familiar with it because it was one of the many Church-released videos owned by my parents.

With all of that noted, all that remains is to reiterate that I continue to monitor any and all Church news stories and temple developments, and will do my level best to bring word of those to you all here as I become aware of such things. That does it for now. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time, as long as such feedback is in compliance 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.

1 comment:

  1. While making a comment on the Church Growth Blog just a few minutes ago, I realized something I had overlooked before: The square footage and preliminary design description shared earlier today for the Layton Utah Temple is identical to that of the Saratoga Springs Utah Temple. For that reason, with the exception of some minor differences which may exist due to the cultural and naturally-different settings of the two temples, the two could be either perfectly similar or practiacally identical. It will be interesting to see what happens there. In the meantime, my thanks again to you all for your ongoing interest and support.

    ReplyDelete

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.