Stokes Sounds Off: BREAKING TEMPLE NEWS: Anchorage Alaska Temple Location to Be Moved and Reconstructed; Current Temple Site Will Have Meetinghouse

Search This Blog

Top Leaderboard

Monday, January 23, 2023

BREAKING TEMPLE NEWS: Anchorage Alaska Temple Location to Be Moved and Reconstructed; Current Temple Site Will Have Meetinghouse

Hello again, everyone! As I mentioned previously, the Church has established a home page on the Newsroom website to keep track of major temple news for 2023. That page was updated a short time ago with the latest development: the Anchorage Alaska Temple will be reconstructed. Let's dive right into the details:

First, the Church announced that the existing Anchorage Alaska Temple will remain in operation through the reconstruction of that temple. How will that work? The Church will demolish the existing meetinghouse adjacent to the temple, and a new 30,000-square-foot temple will be built on the former meetinghouse site at 3111 Brayton Drive, Anchorage, AK. Construction on the new temple is anticipated to begin early next year, and the Church is hoping to complete the new temple by the summer of 2026.

Once the new temple is dedicated, the existing 11,900-square-foot Anchorage Alaska Temple will be decommissioned and demolished to make way for a mew meetinghouse. I'd have to check, but I think that this is the first time ever that the Church has built a new larger temple while keeping the existing one in operation, then demolishing the existing one to make way for a new meetinghouse. 

I'd assume that the current plot on which the temple now stands is smaller than the plot occupied by the meetinghouse. It's also worth noting that this announcement wasn't anywhere on my radar. I had thought for sure we'd be getting an announcement of one or more temple dedications, groundbreakings, exterior renderings, or additional temple site locations confirmed. Clearly, I was wrong. But this is a most intriguing development, and I am grateful to have been able to find out about it and pass that along to you all. 

I continue to monitor all temple construction developments and Church News reports and will keep sharing those here as time and circumstances allow. In the meantime, that does it for now. All comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated on any post at any time, as long as the offered feedback is made per the established guidelines. 

I hope any of you who would like to share anything will take your opportunity to “sound off” in the comments below. Please subscribe if you liked what you read here and would like to be informed of newly-added posts and comments. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

20 comments:

  1. This is interesting. With this wording, it appears that when construction begins in 2024, the Anchorage Temple will not be listed as closed for renovation. Would the new temple still count among the temples under construction even though the existing structure will be decommissioned afterwards?

    I do think when the dedication is announced around 2026, that the wording will be dedication, and not rededication, but it would show up as a rededication on the temple's page, similar to the Apia Samoa Temple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noah, I believe this scenario might call for the creation of a new category "Under Reconstruction", and the temple's page on the Church website would still show it as operating under that caveat. As far as a dedication, the Church uses that wording in announcing the plans for all temple renovations, but that in announcing the reopening arrangements, they will term that as a rededication. When the Apia Samoa temple was rebuilt, it kept its same numbering and was rededicated. That seems to be the likely case here.

      Incidentally, that new "Reconstruction" category could probably be applied to the Provo, Kona, and Stockholm temples as well, even though their demolitions and reconstructions will necessitate the closure of all three temples.

      I could, of course, be wrong here, but that's what I gather from the wording in the release here. Thanks, Noah, for taking time to comment. I appreciate you!

      Delete
    2. As far as I'm aware the Kona and Stockholm renovations are not reconstructions. Stockholm appears to be getting a 2nd floor, and Kona's main update is an altered exterior, while the frame and floorplan remains the same with exception of the 2,500 sq ft expansion.

      Delete
    3. The Church seems to use several temple terms interchangeably, including renovation, reconstruction, expansion, upgrade, etc. The announcement on Kona does so:

      https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/renovations-are-coming-to-the-kona-hawaii-temple

      And the announcement on Stockholm used some of those terms interchangably, including reconstruction specifically:

      https://news-uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/renovations-are-coming-to-the-stockholm-sweden-temple

      My point was more the fact that this arrangement with Anchorage will likely necessitate a new category for the unique situation. And insofar as I've been able to ascertain, the Church wouldn't just put a single temple in a unique category. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

      Delete
    4. I understand that reconstruction and renovation are often used interchangably, but even with that taken into account, the new Anchorage Temple certainly fits into its own category largely because the structure will be built in a location other than the original - albeit on the same site.

      The Nauvoo Illinois Temple is a reconstruction of the original 150 years later, but the Church doesn't list its dedication as a rededication like it does for Apia Samoa. Ogden's reconstruction saw the demolition of the entire structure excepting some of the frames on the first floor, and Provo's reconstruction description alludes to complete demolition. All other temples that closed for renovation never underwent total demolition.

      One thing is for certain. This reconstruction, although might be categorized as a rededication upon completion, is not a renovation of the current structure.

      The Church may be planning to do this for the other 2 early standard temples (Monticello and Colonia Juarez). This is definitely a first though.

      Delete
    5. Noah, thanks for these additional thoughts. I think the only reason why the Church used a number for the Nauvoo rebuild is because the original one never had one and was destroyed. The rebuilt Apia Samoa Temple retained the dedication number of the original (unless I am mistaken), but a temple relocation has never occurred.

      We are in uncharted territory here. So the Church probably knows what the plan is. My guess would be that the rebuild on Anchorage will probably retain the number of the original, but because this hasn't ever been done before by the Church, anyone else's guess is as good as if not better than mine.

      That said, I seem to recall Monticello being renovated or expanded once already, but today's announcement brings the prospect that the Church could do this for other temples. Exciting times! Thanks again, Noah!

      Delete
  2. The temple will probably keep it's same number and be a rededication. It is on the same "greater" lot as the current structure. At the dedication of this and most temples, the adjoining buildings on the same land are often dedicated at the same time. In the 7th paragraph of the dedicatory prayer it says: "We pray that all who enter these portals may recognize that we come here as Thy guests. May no evil thing, or influence, cross the threshold of this Thy house. We dedicate all of the elements of its structure from the foundation to the figure of Moroni. We dedicate every facility found herein, together with the land on which it stands." I think that the words "every facility herin together the land," includes the existing chapel and the whole property. The new building will be built on land that is already currently sanctified. Although other temple renovations or rebuilds have been built up on the same foundation, this one is still on the same property.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The rebuilt Tempe will be more prominent and in front closer to the road rather than tucked into the back of the property.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate your observations, Chris! Excellent points! Incidentally, am I the only one that noticed this in the dedicatory prayer for the San Juan Puerto Rico Temple:

    “And now, Beloved Father, acting in the authority of the holy Melchizedek Priesthood and under the keys of the President of the Church, we dedicate to Thee this structure, the San Juan Puerto Rico Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We dedicate the foundation, the walls and windows, the roof and tower and all other elements of the temple building. We include the arrivals center building adjacent to the temple. We dedicate the rooms, furnishings, implements and equipment to be used in the administration of the temple and its holy ordinances. We dedicate and bless the temple grounds that they may contribute a sense of worship and reverence to honor this holy house and Thy name.”

    I believe this may be the first time any apostle has referenced the keys of the President of the Church instead of the keys of the apostleship. I found that fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Before the current renovation, I think that the Salt Lake Temple has had some additions (anexes) and demolitions (of the additions) while keeping the existing main structure operating. In fact only the additions were dedicated or decommissioned at the time. One of anexes became one of the visitors centers. There has never been a rededication for the Salt Lake Temple until the current renovation is complete. But I wonder if that could that be due to having only endowed members involved in the constitution of the anexes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Chris! I looked back and didn't find anything indicating that any part of the renovation got underway before the formal closure of the Salt Lake Temple in December 2019. It appears the additions weren't demolished until early 2920, unless the Church Temples site is in error on that point.

      Delete
    2. I was talking about original anexes of the Salt Lake Temple. Including demolitions in the 1960's. One of the original anexes had a unique architecture. https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/425 and https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/424

      Delete
    3. That makes more sense, Chris. Thanks again.

      Delete
  6. Aside from today's major temple construction news, the following 2 reports speak for themselves:

    https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2023/1/23/23564459/new-school-supplies-donated-democratic-republic-congo-lubumbashi

    https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2023/1/23/23567189/elder-gong-worldwide-youth-devotional-recording-salt-lake-city

    And here is one more additional report from the Newsroom:

    https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-donation-reduce-infant-mortality-in-mexico

    Any other new temple construction updates will follow later tonight. For now, my thanks once again to you all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Status updates were noted today for the Urdaneta Philippines and Phnom Pehn Cambodia Temples:

      https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/urdaneta-philippines-temple/

      https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/phnom-penh-cambodia-temple/

      My thanks once again to you all.

      Delete
  7. I am wondering what year will be on the cornerstone. Does anyone know if the year changed on the Apia or Ogden stones? They are the closest thing to this situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ogden's cornerstone still says "Erected 1969-1971, Dedicated 1972"
      https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/ogden-utah-temple-rededicated-during-several-sunday-sessions#:~:text=Monson,-%2C%20%2C&text=The%20Ogden%20Utah%20Temple%20was,and%20art%20glass%20were%20added.

      I can't seem to find an article with images for the Apia Samoa Temple's rededication.

      Delete
    2. Nauvoo's cornerstone says "Originally Built 1846, Rebuilt 2002" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/president-hinckley-nauvoo-cornerstone-cea6af8?lang=eng

      Delete
    3. Scott Shipley and Noah, thanks for these additional questions and details. I'm sure this unprecedented announcement will contine to bring a lot of questions, which will most likely be answered as we get closer to the start of the construction of the relocated Anchorage Temple and again as it gets closer to completion and rededication. It will be interesting to see what happens in that regard. My thanks once again to you both.

      Delete

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.