It might just be the conspiracy theorist in me, but I am left wondering…
To what extent did the successful bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics contribute to the decision to put a temple in Vancouver?
Before you jump down my throat, I think it’s an honest question given the drive to the Seattle temple is not really that terrible, and other locations with equal populations of LDS commute much farther to attend the temple.
it’s been in the planning for awhile. well before the olympics.
the drive isn’t so bad for those in the lower mainland, but when you look at people in central BC or on the Island, it’s a whole other story. It is a very long trip.
don’t worry no jumping down your throat. they’ve had the olympics in other places without putting temples there.
Only three of the seven stakes who will be using the temple are near enough to Seattle that the distance to travel isn’t an issue. Unfortunately, the changes at the border in recent years makes it more of a hassle to get there.
I’m with Kim on this, it is the border changes and the length of time no required to get through.
I grew up on VI and the temple trip was an all day deal with great cost for ferry and gas. I wonder if they’ll run some type of shuttle from the ferry terminals to the temple.
I now live in Utah and hit the temple early and still make it to work by 8:15 AM. I’m very grateful to live in such a place. I’m also excited for those in Vancouver to have an opportunity to have a temple so close.
My Dad made a pitch to have one of the mini temples placed on VI, but it didn’t pass – not enough memebers.
Yeah, I understand the whole border issue being a concern, but if they were looking for just *one* more good reason, is it unlikely that someone didn’t include,”…and the Olympics are coming to Van shortly too – think of what a wonderful opporunity it would be to spread the good word if we had a sparkly new temple for people to see there.”?
That’s the thing, rick. No one will see it. It will be hidden in some trees, away from the highway, away from transit, away from all the venues. Only people coming from the east will see it when flying over it.
I thought it was on a hill?
In Langley. Langley is kind of off the beaten path.
It’s not on a hill per se. It’s on the highest point of elevation in Langley (according to local misionaries).
Well then my theories are completely unfounded then.
I guess.
For now.
lol
Maybe they’ll give it a tall spire.
I hardly think that the Olympics was a selling feature for Church headquarters when deciding on the temple. I would like to think the decision was due to fasting, temple attendance, and missionary work. The drive is not the issue being only 2 hours give or take from Surrey where I live to the temple. It’s the several hours wait in line up that is time consuming. Plus with the increased security at the border now, many of our Saints are no longer able to cross the border even for things that happened in their youth or pre-membership days. Now if you have been charged with ANY criminal offense you no longer can cross the border no matter how minor the offense was.
People that will be coming here to watch and or participate in the Olmpics will be concentrating their time and efforts on the actual events and trying to maneuver through the highways and traffic snarls to get from point A to point B to want to go to some temple.
Regardless of what reasons there are beyond the stated reasons (# of tithe-payers, # of TR holders, frequency and # of people in the subject area who actually attend existing temples, percentage of capacity that’s actually utilized in the surrounding temples) I’m sure the first presidency takes the matter to the Lord, and they get a yeah/nay from Him before any announcements of a new temple.
I can’t fathom the first presidency authorizing construction of a temple without getting approval or confirmation from Him whose house it is.
I’m also confident that, as in the days of Joseph and Brigham, the Lord is still capable of initiating a conversation and telling the first presidency where to build a temple, without them having to ask first.
Alas, poor Indianapolis. We are surrounded by five temples (Louisville KY, Columbus OH, Detroit MI, Chicago IL, Nauvoo IL), so we won’t get a temple of our own until all five of those are operating at capacity, and we have enough TR-holders and temple-attenders in our own region to support one.
“…if you have been charged with ANY criminal offense you no longer can cross the border…”
You mean to tell me that criminals are going to Mormon temples? I knew there was something fishy going on there!
(Sally, I’m joking please don’t throw me to hell-fires for the above comment)
Just how fast is the church growing in that area, that they would require the new temple? This would be news to me.
I think to say that it will be hidden is a bit of a stretch. When the stake president, who drove President Hinkley around that day the choice for land was made, he told us “…the temple will be extrememly well lit. And will be so that all will be able to see it. It is meant to be seen…”, and I believe it will be. I take his statement literally.
In relation to the temple bieng built becaues of, or in part, because of the Olympics is a ‘no issue’ to me. The temple was in planning before the Bids. The temple comes through revelation.
There is a population increase in the lower mainland, and from what I’ve heard from the stake pres, there is going to be spiritual growth in this area within the coming years. I’m greatful for the foresight of the leaders and the temple is in preperation for the great missionary work that will be coming forth.
Considering the temple will be only two storeys tall and only somewhat larger than Edmonton’s, I do not see how this will be anywhere visible enough to be seen from any prominent vantage point. Given the zoning bylaw limitations on light pollution, I doubt President Hinckely’s statement that it will be seen by all can in any way be taken literally. I certainly will not be able to see it from my house in Lethbridge.
I find it difficult to believe that the winter olympics would be reason enough to build a temple. Salt Lake had their run with the olympics and would probably find more success in the missionary work department by sending the Mormy Tabs to town for a concert than building a temple only worthy LDS members can enter.
I don’t doubt the prophets statement at all. And I can’t wait to see it accomplished. :)
“…the winter olympics would be reason enough to build a temple”
As do I Nikki, hence my asking if it *contributed* to the decision.
The winter olympics might have had a little bit to do with the TIMING, but they’re not that long an event, so I can’t see a decision being based on that factor. Seems like a stretch to me. I think it’s 80-90% coincidence.
Matt,
So you honestly believe that persons in Shanghai or Aba will be able to see the Langley temple from where they live? Do you believe that Awá—who have never been outside of the Amazon—will ever see the Vancouver temple?
I was at GM place when President Hinkley spoke I think it was in 1995 and he said that one day Vancouver will have a temple. As it has been stated earlier there are many who have problems crossing the border. It took my Mom a long time to get permission to cross the border to be able to see my baby! I am going to BYU-Idaho but I’m from BC.
I think the Lord has a bigger vision than we can comprehend. Yes, there are some border issues BUT our stake president told our ward that the prophet sees great things (i.e missionary work) happening in our area and the temple will help with this. There are fast tracking the temple process here and the temple committee is in daily communication with our stake president. The prophet wants this temple fast tracked so he can dedicate it! The prophet’s words. It is a very exciting time to be in BC!
As for whether EVERYBODY” can see it. Of course not, Kim, don’t be silly. But this temple is being built to be seen and noticed and will not be hidden behind bushes/hedges!
I wasn’t being silly, Michelle. I was responding to Matt’s interpretation of President Hinckley’s words.
“The prophet wants this temple fast tracked so he can dedicate it!”
Is this some sort of a comment on the (un)healthiness of the prophet?
Well, didn’t the prophet just turn 96? Correct me if I’m wrong! Of course, we all heard he had some surgery a bit ago as well. Not speculating on his health though.
I drive down Hwy 1 alot, and it seems that with a steeple, the new temple will be visible from the freeway right before you get to the 204 st overpass going westbound. It will be cool to see.
It still involves a ferry ride for people to attend either the temple in Seattle or the proposed one in Vancouver. However, if going to Seattle you can leave right from downtown Victoria’s Inner Harbour, get off in Port Angeles and drive the short ways to the Seattle temple. Much less time consuming than driving from Victoria to Swartz Bay then traveling to Tswassen and then into Vancouver. Then again who wants to have to bother with customs and the worlds longest and most stringently defended border. I say that actually travel either way is 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of t’other.
Actually, Langley is not that far from Surrey, directly accesible off the HWY # and is fast becoming a satellite suburb of Vancouver and area.
Not only is it not far from Surrey, it borders Surrey. It’s been a satellite suburb for years.
Yes, so I guess we can agree that the temple will not be situated in some out of the way back water area. Probably fit in nicely with all the Jehovahs Witnesses and Sikh temples that are in BC
Hey Rick, when you say “the Seattle temple” that is the one that is actually in Spokane, is it not? Also is prospective numbers of attendees not an issue when temple building? If so, why did Cardston get one before Edmonton? It certainle wasn’t on the basis of population density. Two more questions: 1) how many mormons do you suppose are in BC, and separately for AB. 2) What percentage of people identifying as Christian do you believe are mormon?
Anyone can answer these for me. In fact the more responses the better.
There is one in Spokane and one in Seattle.
The Cardston one was built first because that’s where all the Alberta Mormons lived after WWI, when the temple was announced. Any population criteria would be based on existing Mormons more than prospective Mormons.
Most recent published internal data suggests there are 28,492 Mormons in BC and 71,205 Mormons in Alberta.
Interesting! Do you suspect the mormon faithful are growing in numbers, or declining in Canada? Can you save me time and direct me to where I might find statistics to verify growth? I would also like to determine where mormonism ranks amongst all other Christian faiths, for growth.
I know of nowhere online that shows membership growth in Canada. I know of only where one can read the most recent statistics.
In my opinion, I think there is very little national growth, if any at all. For example, to my knowledge, there has not been a new stake created in Canada since the 1990s.
Much like myself, you seem to be a studious man blessed with an inquisitive nature so why do you figure that there is very little, to no growth, nationally in the mormon faith? Also, please tell me where I might review these latest stats.
Because Canada has been at around 170,000 for several years now.
Here is where you can find membership information for Canada.
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Thank you for the link. Just as soon as I have the time, I will try to also identify another, non-partisan, link to compare and contrast this information against that of an independent (not LDS) source. Unfortunately, I doubt I will get to it today as I have a contract to deliver on at the MHC (Medicine Hat College) at 2:00 pm today.
Thanks again!
Oops! I forgot to ask, do you, or anyone else on this site, posses any rationale for why it is that the number of mormons in Canada has stalled at 170,000?
If it has been at this number for as you say “number of years now”, why decide to build a temple in Vancouver. It doesn’t seem warranted since, if there has been no growth, people are still being well served by their stakes?!
Maybe there is something to Rick’s theory regarding the timing of temple building and the 2010 Olympics in Whistler after all. I’ll bet Coca-Cola will be the biggest sponsor as well.
John,
There could be a lot of reasons. Perhaps many LDS from the east have moved out west to the Vancouver area, so while the country demographic hasn’t changed, perhaps the regional demographics have.
Does it really matter why Vancouver is getting a temple? It should only matter that we are. As for the membership not changing in Canada, how often is that site that was mentioned updated? A ward out here was just split yesterday (Sunday) into 2 wards now. We had 4 baptisms in our ward alone in last 2 months so the membership IS changing just maybe not being recorded.
The temple was decided on being built here long before it was voted to have the Olympics here and to say that is the only reason that we are getting it is very immature and pure envy/jealousy on your parts. Many of our members here are made up of immigrants who can not travel into the US to attend a temple session making it difficult to travel to Alberta to go to the temple. And now with having to get passports to cross the border it will restrict even those who go now.
And by the way John 2010 Olympics was given to Vancouver NOT Whistler as you mentioned and I wonder what does it matter if Coco-Cola is a sponsor of the Olympics? What does that have to do with Vancouver getting the temple or hosting the Olympics?
Bravo, Mum. You are right. Being a British Columbian by birth and nature, I was absolutely thrilled and ecstatic that Vancouver is getting a temple. It has nothing to do with the Olympics. It has to do with the Lord’s will. And perhaps as well, to make it easier for members to attend, since with the new rules for travelling to the States will probably diminish the ability for members to get to Bellevue as regularly.
I just checked out the link. (#36)
I find it interesting that they are listing the number of ‘congregations’ rather than the number of wards or stakes.
Subtle mainstreaming of terminology.
Watch out. Soon you’ll be calling your bishop a minister…
:P
“Watch out. Soon you’ll be calling your bishop a minister…”
Or perhaps pastors:
From The Articles of Faith #6:
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
Well, come time for General Conference and we can watch some T.V. Evangelists too!
Come to think of it, perhaps the temple is being built because of the increased faith of the LDS in the area (I mean, they really do beileve that they will finally get a Stanley Cup this year!)
And elsewhere in Canada, wards are combined and branches are disbanded. Hence, very little, if any national growth. JM may be right that it’s just a matter of simply transient demographics.
But Vancouver still deserves a temple. I am so glad there will be one there.
JM
LOL, ok, could be. :) Stanley Cup? I can’t even recall the last time we got it! (Yes I still think in terms of being a British Columbian). I do remember when it was close though!
This may be applicable to this line of thought:
Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.
~ (Romans 5:3-4).
Good scripture. Though I don’t know how much the BCers have suffered. Ok, well the flooding, yes.
Mary,
I don’t think Vancouver has ever won a cup. If Calgary doesn’t make the playoffs or gets booted out, I’ll be hoping the Canucks finally get theirs! They’ve been playing pretty good this year. Perhaps on account of the increased faith of the fans :-)