Unknown, with some temples beginning phase 2, it makes sense that the Church would note that changes have been made. That way, once normal operations resume for all temples, no one will be surprised thereby. And although there is technically no harm in wondering what the changes might be, the First Presidency statement in question provides the following guidance in the final sentence: "Given the sacredness of the temple ceremonies, we ask our members and friends not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes. Rather, we invite Church members to continue to look forward to the day when they may return and fully participate in sacred temple work prayerfully and gratefully."
That instruction is on par with prior Church declarations about temple rites being sacred, rather than secret. Anyone who is worthy to enter any temple once normal operations resume can find out what the changes are. In the interim, the statement on the changes indicates that members of the Church and friends of other faiths should not engage in speculation or public discussion about these changes. That strongly-worded caution is necessary due to the fact that, with the last recent change, a less strongly-worded statement led to a Church member "leaking" the changes in question to the Salt Lake Tribune here in Utah. The Brethren clearly don't want that scenario repeated. With that in mind, I think we'd all be well-served to follow the Brethren's counsel on this matter to avoid speculation or public discussion on this further.
In cases like this, to adhere or not to adhere to such a request comes down to one question: Do you, or do you not, sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators? For those that do so, we should be willing to honor that request, full stop. No disrespect intended, but this is just the kind of situation that the Brethren were trying to prevent with the sentence in question from that statement. I will leave my comments on this matter at that, and I strongly encourage all who read your comment or mine here to do the same.
Hello I received my endowments in 1996 when I went on mission, and at that time there were changes in the temple ordinances, those that continue and will continue, of that there is no doubt. There is always someone who talks about it and one even if he is excommunicated, ends up finding out. This pandemic will have consequences for baptisms, withholding, payment of tithes and offerings, and temple attendance. The church and the world will never be the same, hopefully this helps the Church to make changes thinking of all its members in the world, To stay strong and growing, the Church must readjust and learn from mistakes, or it will continue to decrease.
There is that, and it will happen again despite all the precautions the First Presidency takes to try to forestall it. Thankfully most endowed members and easily the vast majority, will not do anything other than just attend the temple as normal, notice the changes, and go about things as they normally have.
But since the crash in mid-March, some false doctrines have begun circulating, started with Youtube videos, and some of you already heard about the first one. Won't go into any detail as it would be counterproductive. But there are now 4 or more such videos about various aspects of the last days, some say, counter to what we have heard from the prophets and apostles, that certain events are happening now that are mentioned in the scriptures, and some of it is of things the prophets have not said anything about aside from some unofficial writings of one who died decades ago.
There are also 'Zoramites' among us, saying to people they are not 'Mormon', twisting the new direction not to use that with the exception of some historical contexts such as 'Mormon Trail', 'Mmormon Battalion', etc. There is what I heard once soon after the correct name of the Church emphasis this: Someone was asked 'Are you mormon? The answer, 'No, Mormon died a long time ago but would you like to read his book?
So this time is also becoming a time of 'sifting', Elder Packer said something about that in 1994 after some major things involving so-called 'intellectuals', and I was there when he said it, and while the manual this is in is retired, it is on the Church website. He said he received this impression after asking why that and maybe similar other things had happened: 'It is permitted to be so now so that the sifting can take place'
I thought we as a church were trying to be less uptight about things that don't actually need to be secret. The only part of the endowment we actually covenant not to disclose are the specific signs and tokens. And it's rarely a great experience for anyone to go through it for the first time having no idea what to expect.
I am from Chile and I think that the church is very different in the US than in other parts of the world, despite the fact that it tries I am from Chile and I think that the church is very different in the US than in other parts of the world, despite the fact that it tries.
Christopher, I hope you understand the distinction between "being less uptight about things that don't actually need to be secret" and the relevant sentence of counsel in this particular case from the Brethren about these changes: "Given the sacredness of the temple ceremonies, we ask our members and friends not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes. Rather, we invite Church members to continue to look forward to the day when they may return and fully participate in sacred temple work prayerfully and gratefully."
From a lifetime in which I have observed the careful wording of any official statement coming from the Church, it may seem to some to be an unusual request in this particular case. And that's why that part of this statement may be yet another way for the Lord to sift the wheat from the chaff. Those who accept the counsel of the Brethren exactly as it is given, particuarly in official statements such as this one, will be blessed for following it.
There will be others who will reject this and other counsel and may eventually be cursed as a result of that poor choice. Where each of us lands depends on where we choose to stand, and on our answer to the question: "Where will this lead?" Each of us have a choice anytime anything official like this comes down the pike to follow the relevant counsel offered or not.
Based on my life experiences, my choice is to follow that counsel, and I advise all of you who read this to do the same. But the choice has to be individually made. I just hope enough of us are choosing the right decision in this and all other matters. I'll leave this comment on that note.
Yesterday I heard a story teller on NPR discussing garments of the temple, but not in those terms and in a derogatory fashion, and I find it interesting how the covenants and endowments of the holy temple are an influence for good but yet can be an increasing point of curiousity, rumor, and even scorn and derision. We as faithful members continually strive to make the influence and virtues of the temples and the outward symbols of it grow and help be a strenghtening factor in our love for God and Jesus, adherence to the commandments, loving our neighbor and bolstering the human family. Some of the values and principles seem antiquated in the 21st century, which brings an interesting dynamic in the Latter days. The narrative plays out daily; each temple and member has his and her part.
I don't want this to be perceived as speculation, but for the reason Christopher mentioned, I believe that the changes may be (temporary) changes to the presentation of the signs and tokens, and the operations at the veil. It is not hard to see those adjusted to be safer during a pandemic, if only for phase 2 and 3 of reopening. In fact, while I still believe that Phase 3 is most likely going to be primarily different from Phase 4 because of hygiene matters (such as reservation requirements, masks, and generally fewer patrons in the temple), it's entirely possible in my opinion that those changes to the endowment presentation are the main difference between both phases.
With that in mind, Unknown, I appreciate your question about the resumption of meetings. Here in Utah, the area presidency directed stake presidents to consult with their local area seventies, and then to get the recommendations back to the bishops of each congregation. The area seventy to whom my stake presidency reports apparently provided general recommendations, which were passed along to the bishoprics of each ward, who obtained approval for their specific plans to resume Church meetings. Up until some point last year, one other congregation was meeting in our ward building. That ward was then discontinued, with roughly half of its' membership joining our ward, and half joining one of the neighboring wards in the stake.
So we have been the only ward in our building for the last several months. As a result, with COVID-19 recommendations from the Utah Area presidency, and in coordination with our stake leaders and the approval of the area seventy assigned to our stake and others in the nearby region, what our ward has done is this: the membership of the ward is divided alphabetically into four roughly equal segments. For each ward subdivision, they are assigned to attend Sacrament Meeting once per month. With our last name towards the end of the alphabet, we would be attending Sacrament Meeting on the fourth Sunday of each month.
However, the bishop also gave continuing authorization for home worship (including the administration of the Sacrament) to take place on the other weeks in which any alphabetical segment is not attending Sacrament Meeting at the ward building. Further, the bishop has also authorized those among the vulnerable population to continue to worship at home until pandemic conditions ease enough to make personal attendance at Church safe. As I've mentioned on previous threads, due to my history of respiratory conditions (having had childhood pneumonia and bronchitis which has led to asthma being part of my daily health issues), I am among the more vulnerable population susceptible to COVID-19. As a result of that, until COVID-19 is under better control, my wife and I may, as long as the bishop continues to authorize us to do so, keep our home worship on Sunday as the status quo. Great question, Unknown. Thanks for asking about it.
I think we should respect the request of The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and avoid speculating on changes.
Do not get me started on how some biographers of George Romney gave in depth overviews of the initiatory ceremony. Also do not get me started on the ways they treated lightly his fasting and praying.
There were false notions and unauthorized prophecies circulating on the fringes long before Narch. Chad Daybell and others have been around a long time. I remember talks against extremism and the path to apostasy in the 1990s in general conference.
There have been people lead away after new false prophets basically since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored.
My home branch did its first live meetings today. My parents ward does not resume until Aug 2nd, and I had a facebook friend tell me their ward does not resume until Aug 2nd.
My branch we are on the any given person comes only every other Sunday, and 5th Sundays we just do zoom schedule. My brother's ward alternates which Sunday they use with the other ward in his building and only half the ward comes every other Subday. They have 6 cohorts since they are limited to 25 people at once. I am a little surprised but it may be a Michigan policy. I though my branch was at 25 because we have a small chaple. My brother meets in a large stake center with a full sized basketball court plus I believe an overflow plus a large chaple.
I think this was a decision for all meetings in Michigan. Non-religious meetings indoors in Michigan are limited to 1p people, although my work did one with 11 on Friday.
Religious meetings are limit exempt, and outdoor gathers are limited to 100.
We had 100% mask compliance in my branch's meeting. We had only 15 actually there.
The original plan was to do 4 meetings each Sunday.
On Tuesday the youth will meet for the first time since March. They are limited to 15 youths and adults total in the building, for my branch that is no change. For my parents ward 6 years ago that would have meant the deacons could only all come if they can with no adult leaders.
Missionaries in my area can now visit members homes but are not allowed to have meals with members.
My branch the split was non-alphabetical. This was so members of the branch council and priesthood holders would be more evenly distributed.
As it was at the meeting I was in the one person there under 18 blessed the sacrament, I passed and the 1st counselor in the branch presidency carried the cup collection tray. We did not utilize the two full-time missionaries, the branch president, or the member of the high council who spoke. I believe only the branch president and the speaker were at both sacrament meetings. I listened to the zoom broadcast of the 10 o'clock meeting with my wife and tried to involve my grandkids. The grandkids were not willing to sit for the meeting. My wife would have considered bringing the two older grandkids, but the 1 and 2 year olds would have been too much. I wish we had just brought them all.
It looks like the second half of my last comment was published twice, with the first half not being published at all. Let me reiterate what I said in that first comment. I agree with Unknown here completely. As I previously mentioned, the Brethren have asked very little of us specifically during this COVID-19 period. So if, in this particular case, they have requested that no speculation or public discussion about the changes should take place between Church members and their friends of other faiths, I fully believe that request should be honored. And while I can't and won't speak for Matt, due to the fact that he cited the statement on these changes when noting them in this blog post, and because he has made a clear distinction between his thoughts and analysis and what has been officially confirmed by the Church, I'm sure he would appreciate us confining our discussion on this matter in accordance with that request from the Brethren.
That being said, Eduardo, glad to hear NPR has offered a respectful look at Church topics such as the temple. And Pascal, the fact that you don't want to come across as speculating about the changes is commendable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if you were right about the changes being partially due to COVID-19 and just for the time being. But there could also be permanent changes that will remain the status quo once normal temple operations fully resume.
Aside from these additional general comments on the statement, like Unknown and others on this thread, I'm not comfortable with the conversation going further than it already has. There are other issues to discuss here, and there will be other things coming down the pike in the weeks ahead on which appropriate focus can and should be placed here. Can we please comply with the Brethren's respectful request in this case and leave the discussion of this matter on that note? I'm sure I'm not the only one that would appreciate that at this time.
John Pack Lambert, Columbus Ohio will close for renovation on August 15, and is anticipated to be rededicated sometime in late 2022, with the overhaul of its' exterior look anticipated to be similar or identical to that of the changes made most recently to Memphis Tennessee, Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Raleigh North Carolina, and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Additionally, from what i can gather on my end, it seems possible that the Church could announce the plans for the renovations of the Logan Utah and Manti Utah Temples before the end of this year, and that one or both temples could close prior to the end of this year, or early next year. Other Hinckley-era temples and older temples of the Church may soon be renovated as well. Great question. Hope this information helps.
In Phoenix, we have sporadic openings of wards, all as described above. My stake is Scottsdale is on the cautious side and we have not heard any reopening date as of yet. We have started regular Zoom SundaySchool and Priest/RS meetings though.
I hadn't realized until recently that only couples who had both been endowed before the temples closed could actually get sealed anyway. Less of an issue than it would have been before we had so many returned sister missionaries, but undoubtedly still a roadblock for some.
Speaking of the Logan and Manti renovations, as a fun exercise, I was looking at some of the important dates from those two temple's histories (from Rick's Temple site).
Logan:
Announcement: 25 June 1875 Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 25 April 1877 by Brigham Young Private Dedication: 17 May 1888 by Wilford Woodruff Dedication: 21–23 May 1888 by Lorenzo Snow Public Open House: 6–8 June 1985 Rededication: 14–16 June 1985 by Gordon B. Hinckley
Just doing some personal speculation as to when a potential rededication might occur (assuming that a renovation is announced in the next few years, and that said rededication lasts between 2-4 years).
2025 - 150 year anniversary of the temple's announcement and 40 year anniversary of its last rededication 2027 - 150 year anniversary of the groundbreaking 2028 - 140 year anniversary of original dedication
Announcement: 6 October 1876 (2026 - 150 year anniversary) Site Dedication: 18 May 1877 by Orson Pratt Groundbreaking: 18 May 1877 by John W. Young (2027 - 150 year anniversary) Dedication: 17–19 May 1884 by John Taylor (2024 - 140 year anniversary) Public Open House: 5 February–3 March 1979 Rededication: 13–15 March 1979 by Spencer W. Kimball (2029 - 50 year anniversary)
Announcement: 25 June 1875 (2025 - 150 years) Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 25 April 1877 by Brigham Young (2027 - 150 years) Private Dedication: 17 May 1888 by Wilford Woodruff Dedication: 21–23 May 1888 by Lorenzo Snow (2028 - 140 years) Public Open House: 6–8 June 1985 Rededication: 14–16 June 1985 by Gordon B. Hinckley (2025 - 40 years)
James, I think you misunderstood my post. NPR's show, maybe called Story Teller's Hour or something like that, had a guy telling his story regarding his garments where the holy symbols and the intent of them were derided and mocked. Plus, even the opening reference to them was disrespectful, taking the mocking view of their existence, more or less. I did not finish the presentation but the audience was sympathetic of this derision towards temple garments and the principles behind them, including their significance as far as bolstering traditional marriage and moral virtue. Perhaps I was not clear when I mentioned it. Anyway, a moral minority understand the importance and sacred nature of the temple ceremonies.
It will be exciting to see the new renovation plans for Logan and Manti. I assume it will be much like Salt Lake and St. George, in regards to how they are renovating the interior to match the original pioneer-era architecture and craftsmanship, and to restore previously taken away features of the temple.
Some comments seem to be off, published perhaps randomly. I submitted a response to James about temple endowments days ago but I do not see it. Vaccines may be a few short months away. Temple work will continue, let's work on it...
Johnathan Reese Whiting, sorry about my delayed response to your comments here. Since President Nelson first mentioned the planned renovations for these pioneer-era temples, for the last year or so, on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site, the pages for Logan and Manti have noted that renovations were being planned. Within the last couple of weeks, it appears that any reference to those plans have been removed from both pages:
I'm assuming that until there is a more official confirmation of the status of those plans, or the timing that is anticipated to be involved therewith, the information has been removed for the time being. What we do know is that for the St. George Utah Temple, the renovation process was anticipated to take roughly 3 years. Since almost 4.5 decades elapsed between when that temple was rededicated for the first time and when it closed again for renovation, my personal theory is that the renovation process might wrap up closer to early 2023 than sometime before the end of 2022.
We also know that the Salt Lake Temple, which is having its' first full-scale massive renovation project that has required a formal closure thereof and will result in its' very first reopening to the public and public rededication, is anticipated to have that process wrapped up sometime in 2024. Based on that, because roughly 3.5 decades have passed between the Manti Utah Temple's first rededication (which occurred in 1985) and now, it seems likely that renovation efforts on that temple could take anywhere from 3-4 years once that process is underway.
Similarly, a little over 4 decades have passed between the first rededication of the Logan Utah Temple and now, so it seems likely that, whenever that temple closes, the renovation thereof could take roughly 3-4 years as well. So if I am correct in my assessment that St. George will be rededicated in 2023, with Salt Lake following in 2024, I could see a scenario where Manti might be rededicated in 2025, with Logan's rededication following in 2026.
I'd also anticipate that a few other temples, both older ones and some from the Hinckley-era (of a smaller design) might soon have renovations as well. But I imagine that the COVID-19 conditions worldwide are making it more difficult to plan for temple renovations in some areas. So the Columbus Ohio Temple may be the only one that closes for renovations this year. It will be interesting to see what happens there. Thanks, Johnathan.
Johnathan, it appears that my previous comment wasn't published for some reason. I will try again. Based on the fact that the Salt Lake Temple is undergoing its' first renovation, and that the St. George Utah Temple's last renovation was between 3-4 decades ago, with the same being true for Logan and Manti, it's not surprising renovation plans are pending for both temples. That said, it appears that the Church Temples site has removed any reference to the renovation plans being underway for both temples. Based on what I've observed on the progress of the St. George renovation, although it was originally anticipated to wrap up in 2022, I am personally predicting it will be rededicated in 2023, and with the Salt Lake Temple rededication anticipated to occur in 2024, it would make sense to me if Manti were to be rededicated in 2025, with Logan following in 2026, assuming we hear about the official plans for both projects within the next 12-18 months or so. Hope these additional thoughts are helpful.
It was a roadblock for my cousin - her bishop wanted her to wait to be endowed until just before the wedding, and then the temples closed. So she and her husband were married by her stake president a few weeks ago.
I don't think they will, but it would be interesting if they decided to add back in the stone stairs and levels on the hill that were included in the original design of Manti, as can be seen in this Brian Olson 3D Temple video:
"...it appears that the Church Temples site has removed any reference to the renovation plans being underway for both temples."
I wonder if the pandemic caused them to reconsider their original time-frames for Manti and Logan?
I further wonder if the newly revised renovation plans for those two will be announced at Conference, just on the Church's website, by letter to the local authorities, or in some other way/some other special occasion?
My guess is probably at Conference like they did with Salt Lake, but was the St. George renovation announced that way?
I found my answer about the St. George renovation on Rick's temple site:
"At a news conference held in the St. George Temple Visitors' Center on May 22, 2019, plans for the renovation of the St. George Utah Temple were unveiled including detailed renderings of the interior and exterior."
Well, actually, with both Salt Lake and St. George, the Church made an official announcement regarding when the specific plOans would be detailed, and the plans were detailed as arranged on those dates through press conferences. If you'll recall, President Nelson didn't actually specify plans for the Salt Lake renovation during the April 2019 General Conference. This is wwhat he actually said:
"Details for the St. George Utah Temple have already been released. Plans for the renovation of the Salt Lake Temple, Temple Square, and the adjoining plaza near the Church Office Building will be announced on Friday, April 19, 2019.
The Manti and Logan Utah Temples will also be renovated in coming years. When those plans are prepared, they too will be announced."
That statement was made towards the end of the following talk from that conference:
38 comments:
Oh good to hear they will be starting phase 2. I wonder what the changes to the endowment are.
Unknown, with some temples beginning phase 2, it makes sense that the Church would note that changes have been made. That way, once normal operations resume for all temples, no one will be surprised thereby. And although there is technically no harm in wondering what the changes might be, the First Presidency statement in question provides the following guidance in the final sentence: "Given the sacredness of the temple ceremonies, we ask our members and friends not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes. Rather, we invite Church members to continue to look forward to the day when they may return and fully participate in sacred temple work prayerfully and gratefully."
That instruction is on par with prior Church declarations about temple rites being sacred, rather than secret. Anyone who is worthy to enter any temple once normal operations resume can find out what the changes are. In the interim, the statement on the changes indicates that members of the Church and friends of other faiths should not engage in speculation or public discussion about these changes. That strongly-worded caution is necessary due to the fact that, with the last recent change, a less strongly-worded statement led to a Church member "leaking" the changes in question to the Salt Lake Tribune here in Utah. The Brethren clearly don't want that scenario repeated. With that in mind, I think we'd all be well-served to follow the Brethren's counsel on this matter to avoid speculation or public discussion on this further.
In cases like this, to adhere or not to adhere to such a request comes down to one question: Do you, or do you not, sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators? For those that do so, we should be willing to honor that request, full stop. No disrespect intended, but this is just the kind of situation that the Brethren were trying to prevent with the sentence in question from that statement. I will leave my comments on this matter at that, and I strongly encourage all who read your comment or mine here to do the same.
Well as long as we don't have to start singing 'Father Abraham who had many sons', I think we'll be okay.
Hello
I received my endowments in 1996 when I went on mission, and at that time there were changes in the temple ordinances, those that continue and will continue, of that there is no doubt. There is always someone who talks about it and one even if he is excommunicated, ends up finding out.
This pandemic will have consequences for baptisms, withholding, payment of tithes and offerings, and temple attendance. The church and the world will never be the same, hopefully this helps the Church to make changes thinking of all its members in the world, To stay strong and growing, the Church must readjust and learn from mistakes, or it will continue to decrease.
Omar Valenzuela E
Santiago de Chile
There is that, and it will happen again despite all the precautions the First Presidency takes to try to forestall it. Thankfully most endowed members and easily the vast majority, will not do anything other than just attend the temple as normal, notice the changes, and go about things as they normally have.
But since the crash in mid-March, some false doctrines have begun circulating, started with Youtube videos, and some of you already heard about the first one. Won't go into any detail as it would be counterproductive. But there are now 4 or more such videos about various aspects of the last days, some say, counter to what we have heard from the prophets and apostles, that certain events are happening now that are mentioned in the scriptures, and some of it is of things the prophets have not said anything about aside from some unofficial writings of one who died decades ago.
There are also 'Zoramites' among us, saying to people they are not 'Mormon', twisting the new direction not to use that with the exception of some historical contexts such as 'Mormon Trail', 'Mmormon Battalion', etc. There is what I heard once soon after the correct name of the Church emphasis this: Someone was asked 'Are you mormon? The answer, 'No, Mormon died a long time ago but would you like to read his book?
So this time is also becoming a time of 'sifting', Elder Packer said something about that in 1994 after some major things involving so-called 'intellectuals', and I was there when he said it, and while the manual this is in is retired, it is on the Church website. He said he received this impression after asking why that and maybe similar other things had happened: 'It is permitted to be so now so that the sifting can take place'
I thought we as a church were trying to be less uptight about things that don't actually need to be secret. The only part of the endowment we actually covenant not to disclose are the specific signs and tokens. And it's rarely a great experience for anyone to go through it for the first time having no idea what to expect.
Christopher
I am from Chile and I think that the church is very different in the US than in other parts of the world, despite the fact that it tries I am from Chile and I think that the church is very different in the US than in other parts of the world, despite the fact that it tries.
Omar Valenzuela E
Santiago de Chile
Christopher, I hope you understand the distinction between "being less uptight about things that don't actually need to be secret" and the relevant sentence of counsel in this particular case from the Brethren about these changes: "Given the sacredness of the temple ceremonies, we ask our members and friends not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes. Rather, we invite Church members to continue to look forward to the day when they may return and fully participate in sacred temple work prayerfully and gratefully."
From a lifetime in which I have observed the careful wording of any official statement coming from the Church, it may seem to some to be an unusual request in this particular case. And that's why that part of this statement may be yet another way for the Lord to sift the wheat from the chaff. Those who accept the counsel of the Brethren exactly as it is given, particuarly in official statements such as this one, will be blessed for following it.
There will be others who will reject this and other counsel and may eventually be cursed as a result of that poor choice. Where each of us lands depends on where we choose to stand, and on our answer to the question: "Where will this lead?" Each of us have a choice anytime anything official like this comes down the pike to follow the relevant counsel offered or not.
Based on my life experiences, my choice is to follow that counsel, and I advise all of you who read this to do the same. But the choice has to be individually made. I just hope enough of us are choosing the right decision in this and all other matters. I'll leave this comment on that note.
The First Presidency has asked us not to discuss or speculate this further. I recommend the discussion ending here.
On a different note - has anyone's ward or branch not gone back for some sort of sacrament meeting yet?
Yesterday I heard a story teller on NPR discussing garments of the temple, but not in those terms and in a derogatory fashion, and I find it interesting how the covenants and endowments of the holy temple are an influence for good but yet can be an increasing point of curiousity, rumor, and even scorn and derision.
We as faithful members continually strive to make the influence and virtues of the temples and the outward symbols of it grow and help be a strenghtening factor in our love for God and Jesus, adherence to the commandments, loving our neighbor and bolstering the human family. Some of the values and principles seem antiquated in the 21st century, which brings an interesting dynamic in the Latter days. The narrative plays out daily; each temple and member has his and her part.
I don't want this to be perceived as speculation, but for the reason Christopher mentioned, I believe that the changes may be (temporary) changes to the presentation of the signs and tokens, and the operations at the veil. It is not hard to see those adjusted to be safer during a pandemic, if only for phase 2 and 3 of reopening. In fact, while I still believe that Phase 3 is most likely going to be primarily different from Phase 4 because of hygiene matters (such as reservation requirements, masks, and generally fewer patrons in the temple), it's entirely possible in my opinion that those changes to the endowment presentation are the main difference between both phases.
With that in mind, Unknown, I appreciate your question about the resumption of meetings. Here in Utah, the area presidency directed stake presidents to consult with their local area seventies, and then to get the recommendations back to the bishops of each congregation. The area seventy to whom my stake presidency reports apparently provided general recommendations, which were passed along to the bishoprics of each ward, who obtained approval for their specific plans to resume Church meetings. Up until some point last year, one other congregation was meeting in our ward building. That ward was then discontinued, with roughly half of its' membership joining our ward, and half joining one of the neighboring wards in the stake.
So we have been the only ward in our building for the last several months. As a result, with COVID-19 recommendations from the Utah Area presidency, and in coordination with our stake leaders and the approval of the area seventy assigned to our stake and others in the nearby region, what our ward has done is this: the membership of the ward is divided alphabetically into four roughly equal segments. For each ward subdivision, they are assigned to attend Sacrament Meeting once per month. With our last name towards the end of the alphabet, we would be attending Sacrament Meeting on the fourth Sunday of each month.
However, the bishop also gave continuing authorization for home worship (including the administration of the Sacrament) to take place on the other weeks in which any alphabetical segment is not attending Sacrament Meeting at the ward building. Further, the bishop has also authorized those among the vulnerable population to continue to worship at home until pandemic conditions ease enough to make personal attendance at Church safe. As I've mentioned on previous threads, due to my history of respiratory conditions (having had childhood pneumonia and bronchitis which has led to asthma being part of my daily health issues), I am among the more vulnerable population susceptible to COVID-19. As a result of that, until COVID-19 is under better control, my wife and I may, as long as the bishop continues to authorize us to do so, keep our home worship on Sunday as the status quo. Great question, Unknown. Thanks for asking about it.
Isn't Columbus Ohio scheduled to close for renovation soon?
I think we should respect the request of The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and avoid speculating on changes.
Do not get me started on how some biographers of George Romney gave in depth overviews of the initiatory ceremony. Also do not get me started on the ways they treated lightly his fasting and praying.
There were false notions and unauthorized prophecies circulating on the fringes long before Narch. Chad Daybell and others have been around a long time. I remember talks against extremism and the path to apostasy in the 1990s in general conference.
There have been people lead away after new false prophets basically since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored.
Nothing is really new on this front today.
My home branch did its first live meetings today. My parents ward does not resume until Aug 2nd, and I had a facebook friend tell me their ward does not resume until Aug 2nd.
My branch we are on the any given person comes only every other Sunday, and 5th Sundays we just do zoom schedule. My brother's ward alternates which Sunday they use with the other ward in his building and only half the ward comes every other Subday. They have 6 cohorts since they are limited to 25 people at once. I am a little surprised but it may be a Michigan policy. I though my branch was at 25 because we have a small chaple. My brother meets in a large stake center with a full sized basketball court plus I believe an overflow plus a large chaple.
I think this was a decision for all meetings in Michigan. Non-religious meetings indoors in Michigan are limited to 1p people, although my work did one with 11 on Friday.
Religious meetings are limit exempt, and outdoor gathers are limited to 100.
We had 100% mask compliance in my branch's meeting. We had only 15 actually there.
The original plan was to do 4 meetings each Sunday.
On Tuesday the youth will meet for the first time since March. They are limited to 15 youths and adults total in the building, for my branch that is no change. For my parents ward 6 years ago that would have meant the deacons could only all come if they can with no adult leaders.
Missionaries in my area can now visit members homes but are not allowed to have meals with members.
My branch the split was non-alphabetical. This was so members of the branch council and priesthood holders would be more evenly distributed.
As it was at the meeting I was in the one person there under 18 blessed the sacrament, I passed and the 1st counselor in the branch presidency carried the cup collection tray. We did not utilize the two full-time missionaries, the branch president, or the member of the high council who spoke. I believe only the branch president and the speaker were at both sacrament meetings. I listened to the zoom broadcast of the 10 o'clock meeting with my wife and tried to involve my grandkids. The grandkids were not willing to sit for the meeting. My wife would have considered bringing the two older grandkids, but the 1 and 2 year olds would have been too much. I wish we had just brought them all.
It looks like the second half of my last comment was published twice, with the first half not being published at all. Let me reiterate what I said in that first comment. I agree with Unknown here completely. As I previously mentioned, the Brethren have asked very little of us specifically during this COVID-19 period. So if, in this particular case, they have requested that no speculation or public discussion about the changes should take place between Church members and their friends of other faiths, I fully believe that request should be honored. And while I can't and won't speak for Matt, due to the fact that he cited the statement on these changes when noting them in this blog post, and because he has made a clear distinction between his thoughts and analysis and what has been officially confirmed by the Church, I'm sure he would appreciate us confining our discussion on this matter in accordance with that request from the Brethren.
That being said, Eduardo, glad to hear NPR has offered a respectful look at Church topics such as the temple. And Pascal, the fact that you don't want to come across as speculating about the changes is commendable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if you were right about the changes being partially due to COVID-19 and just for the time being. But there could also be permanent changes that will remain the status quo once normal temple operations fully resume.
Aside from these additional general comments on the statement, like Unknown and others on this thread, I'm not comfortable with the conversation going further than it already has. There are other issues to discuss here, and there will be other things coming down the pike in the weeks ahead on which appropriate focus can and should be placed here. Can we please comply with the Brethren's respectful request in this case and leave the discussion of this matter on that note? I'm sure I'm not the only one that would appreciate that at this time.
John Pack Lambert, Columbus Ohio will close for renovation on August 15, and is anticipated to be rededicated sometime in late 2022, with the overhaul of its' exterior look anticipated to be similar or identical to that of the changes made most recently to Memphis Tennessee, Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Raleigh North Carolina, and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Additionally, from what i can gather on my end, it seems possible that the Church could announce the plans for the renovations of the Logan Utah and Manti Utah Temples before the end of this year, and that one or both temples could close prior to the end of this year, or early next year. Other Hinckley-era temples and older temples of the Church may soon be renovated as well. Great question. Hope this information helps.
Our ward has resumed young men's and young women's. Girl's camp is happening in two weeks, and a young men's camp sometime next month.
In Phoenix, we have sporadic openings of wards, all as described above. My stake is Scottsdale is on the cautious side and we have not heard any reopening date as of yet. We have started regular Zoom SundaySchool and Priest/RS meetings though.
I have not heard anything newynew for my stake. We had a planned opening for July 5th and they decided to extend the closure/home church.
I hadn't realized until recently that only couples who had both been endowed before the temples closed could actually get sealed anyway. Less of an issue than it would have been before we had so many returned sister missionaries, but undoubtedly still a roadblock for some.
@James
Speaking of the Logan and Manti renovations, as a fun exercise, I was looking at some of the important dates from those two temple's histories (from Rick's Temple site).
Logan:
Announcement: 25 June 1875
Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 25 April 1877 by Brigham Young
Private Dedication: 17 May 1888 by Wilford Woodruff
Dedication: 21–23 May 1888 by Lorenzo Snow
Public Open House: 6–8 June 1985
Rededication: 14–16 June 1985 by Gordon B. Hinckley
Just doing some personal speculation as to when a potential rededication might occur (assuming that a renovation is announced in the next few years, and that said rededication lasts between 2-4 years).
2025 - 150 year anniversary of the temple's announcement and 40 year anniversary of its last rededication
2027 - 150 year anniversary of the groundbreaking
2028 - 140 year anniversary of original dedication
Whoops
Made a mistake. Trying again for Logan:
Announcement: 6 October 1876 (2026 - 150 year anniversary)
Site Dedication: 18 May 1877 by Orson Pratt
Groundbreaking: 18 May 1877 by John W. Young (2027 - 150 year anniversary)
Dedication: 17–19 May 1884 by John Taylor
(2024 - 140 year anniversary)
Public Open House: 5 February–3 March 1979
Rededication: 13–15 March 1979 by Spencer W. Kimball (2029 - 50 year anniversary)
Applying the same math to Manti:
Announcement: 25 June 1875 (2025 - 150 years)
Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 25 April 1877 by Brigham Young
(2027 - 150 years)
Private Dedication: 17 May 1888 by Wilford Woodruff
Dedication: 21–23 May 1888 by Lorenzo Snow
(2028 - 140 years)
Public Open House: 6–8 June 1985
Rededication: 14–16 June 1985 by Gordon B. Hinckley
(2025 - 40 years)
James, I think you misunderstood my post. NPR's show, maybe called Story Teller's Hour or something like that, had a guy telling his story regarding his garments where the holy symbols and the intent of them were derided and mocked. Plus, even the opening reference to them was disrespectful, taking the mocking view of their existence, more or less. I did not finish the presentation but the audience was sympathetic of this derision towards temple garments and the principles behind them, including their significance as far as bolstering traditional marriage and moral virtue.
Perhaps I was not clear when I mentioned it. Anyway, a moral minority understand the importance and sacred nature of the temple ceremonies.
It will be exciting to see the new renovation plans for Logan and Manti. I assume it will be much like Salt Lake and St. George, in regards to how they are renovating the interior to match the original pioneer-era architecture and craftsmanship, and to restore previously taken away features of the temple.
Some comments seem to be off, published perhaps randomly. I submitted a response to James about temple endowments days ago but I do not see it.
Vaccines may be a few short months away. Temple work will continue, let's work on it...
Johnathan Reese Whiting, sorry about my delayed response to your comments here. Since President Nelson first mentioned the planned renovations for these pioneer-era temples, for the last year or so, on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site, the pages for Logan and Manti have noted that renovations were being planned. Within the last couple of weeks, it appears that any reference to those plans have been removed from both pages:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/logan-utah-temple/
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/manti-utah-temple/
I'm assuming that until there is a more official confirmation of the status of those plans, or the timing that is anticipated to be involved therewith, the information has been removed for the time being. What we do know is that for the St. George Utah Temple, the renovation process was anticipated to take roughly 3 years. Since almost 4.5 decades elapsed between when that temple was rededicated for the first time and when it closed again for renovation, my personal theory is that the renovation process might wrap up closer to early 2023 than sometime before the end of 2022.
We also know that the Salt Lake Temple, which is having its' first full-scale massive renovation project that has required a formal closure thereof and will result in its' very first reopening to the public and public rededication, is anticipated to have that process wrapped up sometime in 2024. Based on that, because roughly 3.5 decades have passed between the Manti Utah Temple's first rededication (which occurred in 1985) and now, it seems likely that renovation efforts on that temple could take anywhere from 3-4 years once that process is underway.
Similarly, a little over 4 decades have passed between the first rededication of the Logan Utah Temple and now, so it seems likely that, whenever that temple closes, the renovation thereof could take roughly 3-4 years as well. So if I am correct in my assessment that St. George will be rededicated in 2023, with Salt Lake following in 2024, I could see a scenario where Manti might be rededicated in 2025, with Logan's rededication following in 2026.
I'd also anticipate that a few other temples, both older ones and some from the Hinckley-era (of a smaller design) might soon have renovations as well. But I imagine that the COVID-19 conditions worldwide are making it more difficult to plan for temple renovations in some areas. So the Columbus Ohio Temple may be the only one that closes for renovations this year. It will be interesting to see what happens there. Thanks, Johnathan.
Johnathan, it appears that my previous comment wasn't published for some reason. I will try again. Based on the fact that the Salt Lake Temple is undergoing its' first renovation, and that the St. George Utah Temple's last renovation was between 3-4 decades ago, with the same being true for Logan and Manti, it's not surprising renovation plans are pending for both temples. That said, it appears that the Church Temples site has removed any reference to the renovation plans being underway for both temples. Based on what I've observed on the progress of the St. George renovation, although it was originally anticipated to wrap up in 2022, I am personally predicting it will be rededicated in 2023, and with the Salt Lake Temple rededication anticipated to occur in 2024, it would make sense to me if Manti were to be rededicated in 2025, with Logan following in 2026, assuming we hear about the official plans for both projects within the next 12-18 months or so. Hope these additional thoughts are helpful.
It was a roadblock for my cousin - her bishop wanted her to wait to be endowed until just before the wedding, and then the temples closed. So she and her husband were married by her stake president a few weeks ago.
@Unknown
I don't think they will, but it would be interesting if they decided to add back in the stone stairs and levels on the hill that were included in the original design of Manti, as can be seen in this Brian Olson 3D Temple video:
https://youtu.be/bvDyfJBQGXE
@James
So, possible Rededication dates:
2023 - St. George?
2024 - Salt Lake?
2025 - Manti?
2026 - Logan?
I could live with that. :)
@James
"...it appears that the Church Temples site has removed any reference to the renovation plans being underway for both temples."
I wonder if the pandemic caused them to reconsider their original time-frames for Manti and Logan?
I further wonder if the newly revised renovation plans for those two will be announced at Conference, just on the Church's website, by letter to the local authorities, or in some other way/some other special occasion?
My guess is probably at Conference like they did with Salt Lake, but was the St. George renovation announced that way?
I found my answer about the St. George renovation on Rick's temple site:
"At a news conference held in the St. George Temple Visitors' Center on May 22, 2019, plans for the renovation of the St. George Utah Temple were unveiled including detailed renderings of the interior and exterior."
Well, actually, with both Salt Lake and St. George, the Church made an official announcement regarding when the specific plOans would be detailed, and the plans were detailed as arranged on those dates through press conferences. If you'll recall, President Nelson didn't actually specify plans for the Salt Lake renovation during the April 2019 General Conference. This is wwhat he actually said:
"Details for the St. George Utah Temple have already been released. Plans for the renovation of the Salt Lake Temple, Temple Square, and the adjoining plaza near the Church Office Building will be announced on Friday, April 19, 2019.
The Manti and Logan Utah Temples will also be renovated in coming years. When those plans are prepared, they too will be announced."
That statement was made towards the end of the following talk from that conference:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/57nelson?lang=eng
Relative to the St. George Utah Temple Renovation, I'd refer you to the following page:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/st.-george-utah-temple/news/
I'd draw your attention specifically to the updates dated Wednesday May 22, 2019, and to the following article, also linked on that page:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2019/11/01/mgk-st-george-temple-set-to-close-3-years-for-extensive-renovation-efforts/#.Xyu_56jYqL9
HOpe these clarifications are helpful. Thanks.
Post a Comment