Keepapitchinin, the Mormon History blog » Temples at Capacity? Temple Schedules, 1941

Temples at Capacity? Temple Schedules, 1941

By: Ardis E. Parshall - October 03, 2009

Some of the online chatter during the Saturday morning session of General Conference concerned the five newly announced temples, and questions about how locations for new temples are selected. One question was whether the existing temples in Utah and Idaho were operating at capacity, perhaps in reference to whether yet another Utah temple was needed at Brigham City.

Our concern for use-at-capacity, or at least capacity as a factor in building a new temple, may be a relatively recent one. We would hardly consider our grandparents’ use of the temples to have been anywhere near capacity.

Below is the schedule of temple sessions for the seven (seven!) temples in existence in 1941. Note that this schedule was published early in the year, months before rationing or other wartime considerations could have played a role. (My apologies for the kludgy look of the chart. I tried several formats that worked even less well than this one does.)

….. Baptisms:
………. Tuesday
….. Endowment/sealing sessions:
….. Wednesday, 9:00 a.m., 2:30 p.m., 7:00 p.m.
………. Thursday 9:00 a.m., 2:30 p.m.
….. Closed:
………. July 31-September 9; Thanksgiving Day; December 18-January 6, 1942

….. Baptisms:
………. Saturday
….. Endowment/sealing sessions:
………. Tuesday, 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., (also, 7:00 p.m., June only)
………. Wednesday, 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 6:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m.
………. Thursday, 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 7:00 p.m.
………. Friday, 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 7:00 p.m.
….. Closed:
………. May 30; June 28-September 16; November 20; December 2-January 6, 1942.

….. Baptisms:
………. Monday
….. Endowment/sealing sessions:
………. Monday, 6:00 p.m.
………. Friday, 6:00 p.m.
………. Special sessions by previous arrangement
….. Closed:
………. September; December 21-January 2, 1942

….. Baptisms:
………. Saturday
………. Monday by appointment
….. Endowments:
………. Tuesday, 8:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
………. Wednesday, 8:00 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
………. Thursday, 8:00 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
………. Friday, 8:00 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
….. Sealings:
………. By appointment
….. Closed:
………. April and October Conferences; May 30; July 4; July 24; August 4-September 8; November 27; December 21-January 5, 1942

….. Baptisms:
………. Saturday
………. Other days by appointment
….. Endowment/sealing sessions:
………. Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
………. Saturday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m.
….. Closed:
………. April 2-5; May 30; July 4; July 24; August 2-September 1; October 1-4; November 27; December 23-January 2, 1942

St. George
….. Baptisms:
………. Saturdays, and other days by special appointment
….. Endowment/sealing sessions:
………. Tuesday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m.
………. Wednesday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00, 6:30 p.m.
………. Thursday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
………. Friday, 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m.
………. Saturday, 11:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m.
….. Closed:
………. July 4; July 24; August 2-September 16; November 27; December 23-December 30

Salt Lake
….. Baptisms:
………. Daily by appointment
….. Endowments/sealings for the living:
………. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, 9:15 a.m.
………. Wednesday, 8:45 a.m.
….. Endowments for the dead:
………. Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m., 9:15 a.m., 11:45 a.m., 1:45 p.m., 3:45 p.m., 5:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.
….. Sealings for the dead:
………. Immediately following first two daily endowment sessions for the dead
….. Evening sessions:
………. By ward and stake appointments only
….. Closed:
………. February 22; April 4-5; May 30; July 2-August 4; September 1; October 3-4; November 11; November 27; December 20-January 5, 1942



  1. I love stuff like this. The schedules that I have seen before the temple reformation in the 1920s are even more sparse. Granted, things took a bit longer back then as well.

    [Feel free to delete this – but I just tried to send you an email (twice actually) and it was returned saying your email address was broken or something.]

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 3, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

  2. Number of Stakes in several Temple Districts around Brigham City:

    Ogden – 77
    Logan – 43
    Bountiful – 32
    Salt Lake – 66
    Jordan River – 65
    Oquirrh Mnt – 26
    Draper – 25

    Idaho Falls – 45
    Rexburg – 19
    Twin Falls – 15

    A temple in the south-west portion of Weber County would do more to lessen the burden on the Ogden Temple than a Brigham City temple. I don’t know if people would drive over from Cache Valley either.

    If the Brigham City Temple district is drawn up according to distance from a temple, there might be 11 stakes in that district, maybe (Brigham City Utah Stk, Brigham City Box Elder, Brigham City North, Brigham City South, Brigham City West, Perry, Willard, Garland, Tremonton, Tremonton South, and Malad). Some of those might still be closer to Logan and Ogden. Have I missed a stake or two (or more)?

    What a surprise announcement! It shows that the location of a temple can not be predicted by a simple formula.

    Comment by Alan — October 3, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

  3. Congratulations on your temple announcement — you are of course the first one I thought of when I heard that.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 3, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

  4. I think it’s very interesting that the evening sessions at the Salt Lake temple were by appointment only. What? No date nights?!

    Comment by Hunter — October 3, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

  5. Hunter, If I remember correctly, the first evening session in the Salt Lake Temple was in the early 1920s.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 3, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

  6. Those schedules look much like the schedules at the Nashville Temple. You can’t just show up and expect someone to be there to officiate a session.

    Comment by Bruce Crow — October 3, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

  7. If that’s true of many of the world’s temples, Bruce, then that’s a justification right there for the Brigham City temple. I can’t speak to every one of them, but the Utah temples I’m familiar with are busy enough that as long as you know the opening and closing hours, you can count on never having to wait long for the next session to begin. Also, there are so many youth groups anxious to go *as* groups that unless you bring your own names, some of the temples won’t let you do baptisms at all — they can’t keep enough names on hand to suit demand.

    (I’m occasionally very popular as a source for large numbers of baptism names. Beyond that, it can be hard to get help because so many people have so many of their own family names to do that we’re in competition for volunteer help. Temples here are busy!)

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 3, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

  8. The Kona, HI, temple only has three stakes in its district.

    How long was the endowment ceremony in 1941?

    [Fixed. :) ]

    Comment by kew — October 3, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  9. Just a thought, but the Brethren might very well be considering remodelling the Brigham City Tabernacle into a mini-Temple as was done in Vernal, Utah. If the Church is looking at the future demographics of growth in northern Utah, this could very well be an excellent choice. From before the birth of the ‘baby boom’ generation, young college educated Utahns had to move away from the state for graduate school or to begin a career. Now those people are starting to retire and those of the Mormon diaspora want to come home to live out the last of their days in Zion. That area has an enormous potential for growth since there are still vast tracts of farm and range land available for developers to swallow up at comparatively cheap prices. Already a substantial portion of the best agricultural land in the state has been bulldozed into subdivisions, what remains just poses a challenge to them. As the economy starts to recover, the building boom will start up just to make the quick and easy money of selling retirement homes to the returning Saints. What will be of interest to me is to see if the “McMansion” pattern is followed or if the new homes will start to reflect the ever increasing need for more energy efficient residences.
    Finally, before we trouble ourselves too much about the levels of Temple usage, let us redouble our efforts to maximize our own Temple attendance so we can encourage others in our ward family to attend with us.

    Comment by Velikiye Kniaz — October 3, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

  10. Wow. I hope they’re not thinking of remodeling the tabernacle into a temple. It’s a beautiful and useful building as it is.

    I’m always a bit annoyed when people try to use empty seats at temple sessions as a guilt trip for trying to get us to the temple. If there are empty seats, that just means that the temple president has scheduled enough sessions so that there is space for everyone who wants to attend. Yeah, it’s nice if we can go and fill up those empty seats, but then they’ll just schedule a few more sessions so that there will be seats available again.

    Comment by Left Field — October 3, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

  11. We have just a little over 1000 years to do temple work for approximately 60 billion people. (A common estimate among Christians both LDS and non-LDS for number of souls born since Adam and Eve.) Given the average size temple (number of endowment seats), time of endowment session, and capacity (assume a full 24 hrs/day except Sunday, and Monday night off, plus standard annual holidays off) how many temples will be needed? Assume a constant number of temples to be constructed between now and the end of the millennium. Assume Millennium starts in 2025.

    (Assume there will be sufficient workers/patrons volunteering to match any given temple capacity. And since baptisms, initiatory and sealings can be done concurrently with endowments by other patrons/workers, and take less time, assume endowment sessions are the cricital and only factor needed to calculate capacity.)

    I lost my notes, but I came up with 1500 temples to be constructed by the midpoint of the Millennium.

    Comment by Bookslinger — October 3, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

  12. With that general statistical work-up, Bookslinger, I think that we can look forward to a new revelation being received fairly soon upping tithing to 25 percent! One qualifier on your statistics; did you figure in the amount of people the earth will lose, not to mention the 50 percent minimum of the LDS to apostatize, during the times of tribulation? Let’s hope that through all that we can still manage to keep the lights on. Manual record keeping for all those vicarious ordinances and in candle light no less!

    Left field: The Church has done this adaptive re-use of an existing building before. However, the Brigham City Tabernacle is very small and that might save it. Of course, they might tear off the back and add on. I’m with you about keeping the Tabernacle as it is. It is a pioneer era historic jewel. But don’t forget the fate of the Coalville Tabernacle. The emotional scars from that catastrophe still haven’t completely healed up there. We have come a long way from that era, but I don’t think that enough honor is paid to the Church’s architectural treasures, most of which are one of a kind. Note: The Coalville Tabernacle was built from the plans of the Assembly Hall on Temple Square. And the powers that be in the building department evidently thought, “Well, we have 2 of them. Let’s tear one down!” What was built in it’s place? A “cookie cutter” stake center of which we must have hundreds, using the approved color brick, the approved pews, the approved carpeting, etc. There are some indications that Temple building is also headed for the “cookie cutter” planning approach. Gone are the days when the Lord showed the Prophet Joseph what the Kirtland and Nauvoo Temples were to look like or Brother Brigham having seen the Salt Lake Temple in a vision. A friend of mine attributes this to the former temporal vocations of the Church leaders. He calls them the Quorum of the Twelve Corporate Executives. Considering the current economic situation, he opines, “How much vision can you really expect from American businessmen?”

    Comment by Velikiye Kniaz — October 4, 2009 @ 2:49 am

  13. Velikiye, I don’t know you personally but from your statement “Gone are the days when the Lord showed the Prophet” temple plans, I’m assuming you work either in the Office of the First Presidency or the Temple Department…

    Comment by Alison — October 4, 2009 @ 4:45 am

  14. The schedule was for during the war years, so would that have made a difference if the males of the population were away at war? I have no idea, just wondering how the schedule compared to years of peace.

    Since it was I who asked the question last night, I’ll provide some background now by explaining I’m not the only commenter on this thread who has been at the Preston Temple to find they didn’t have enough priesthood holders in the building to perform a sealing… nor am I the only poster here who has participated in a session there with three patrons! Evidently the situation in Brigham City is very different, although all I know of the area is the film :-)

    Comment by Anne (U.K) — October 4, 2009 @ 4:55 am

  15. I keep telling you, Ardis, you need to write that book about the evolution of day-to-day and week-to-week LDS practices in the 20th Century. A lot of this information is going to simply vanish with the death of the Intermountain Saints born in the first half of the 20th Century. Frankly, I’m willing to bet that Elder Jensen would work to get your interviews with the oldest GAs to capture some of that oral history. Imagine talking with Pres. Monson about how a SLC ward actually functioned on a weekly basis in 1950. :-) ..bruce..

    Comment by bfwebster — October 4, 2009 @ 6:58 am

  16. My parents used to live in Brigham City, but I’m really not up on the current use and status of the Box Elder Tabernacle. Does it really need to be “saved”? Is there really talk of tearing it down? The thought horrifies me almost as much as the thought of having it converted into a temple. My understanding is that it was restored and refurbished not long ago and that it is still used for stake conferences.

    It surely would be more economical to build a new temple from the ground up.

    Comment by Left Field — October 4, 2009 @ 7:19 am

  17. Brigham City has lost at least two (three?) of its historic buildings in the last year to arson, and I think everybody in the neighborhood is sensitive to protecting anything that’s left. That, an awareness of what was done in Vernal to save another pioneer gem, and a preference for distinctive architecture, is probably behind Velikye’s comments.

    Nevertheless, I prefer not to host comments denigrating church leaders and their inspiration. We could as easily diss them by saying that gone are the days when prophets were instructed by the Lord in smelting ore to make plates for recording history, or that they’ve lost their direct channel to heaven’s ark-building department. I am not delighted by the architecture of our chapels or temples, either — but I’m delighted that they are going up at such a rapid rate, that we can afford to build them and that there is demand to justify them. Those, and other concerns that are beyond my knowing, may be of more importance than the uniqueness of the architecture, much as I would appreciate that as frosting on the cake.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 4, 2009 @ 7:53 am

  18. Anne (14), while Europe was already at war, America, for the most part, was blithely going about its merry way in 1941 with only the smallest of disruptions due to the earliest beginnings of a military build-up. It wasn’t until Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7 that conditions changed — including the church’s schedule. General conferences were canceled for the duration, auxiliary activities were curtailed when they involved travel, and the long-planned gala celebration of the 1942 Relief Society Centennial was cancelled (strangely enough, the bronze panels for the RS memorial belltower on Temple Square were still cast, because the orders had been made before wartime rationing went into effect, but the tower itself was not built at that time because it would have looked like the church wasn’t cutting back as much as everyone else).

    So while 1941 was well into the war period in Europe, the war probably did not have any effect on temple schedules in 1941.

    I’m certainly verbose this morning, but I’ll yield the floor to you-all and to the gentlemen in the Conference Center now …

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 4, 2009 @ 8:10 am

  19. The difference in Vernal is that the Uintah Tabernacle had been shuttered for years and was facing demolition. Last I knew, the Box Elder Tabernacle had been beautifully restored, renovated with all new physical facilities, was structurally sound, met all modern codes, and was still very much in use.

    I am shocked to think that the Box Elder Tabernacle is facing demolition if it’s not converted into a temple. Say it ain’t so!

    Comment by Left Field — October 4, 2009 @ 8:12 am

  20. The 1941 Manti schedule actually doesn’t look much different from what it was a few decades ago, when I first attended that temple. I just checked the current schedule, and saw that they now have a lot more sessions. I really hope that doesn’t mean they’ve gone over to the filmed endowment.

    Comment by Left Field — October 4, 2009 @ 8:22 am

  21. Left Field, I haven’t heard any rumor whatsoever that the Box Elder Tabernacle is in any danger at all.

    I think Velikye’s fears are based on knowledge that such jewels have been torn down in the past — but the Coalville Tabernacle seems to have been the sacrificial lamb that has saved countless other buildings, with the uproar surrounding its demolition — just as the vicious interior remodeling of the Logan Temple was the last straw that has resulted in restoring, not eviscerating, other pioneer temples.

    I know of nothing that threatens the tabernacle in Brigham City.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 4, 2009 @ 8:31 am

  22. Because of the great emphasis that we place on the Temple as being the literal House of The Lord in our missionary efforts throughout the world, I would think that it would behoove us to sanctify the concept of the House of the Lord by a unique and individual design for each one. There is some truth to the cliche that “familiarity breeds contempt”. If Temples are to be distilled down to a plan book of six (or less) designs, they will soon become as awe-inspiring as a fast food franchise restaurant. Anyone who wishes to take the time can go to the official Church website, select the “Purposes of Temples”, then select “Individual Temples”, and begin with Aba, Nigeria. Compare that edifice with the Temple in Asuncion, Paraguay. Then continue on down the list and count the number of Temples of the exact (or very near exact) design. A variation on the floor plan is the ‘corner/right angle’ design of the Anchorage, Alaska Temple. You can start a count of that design as well. It is my belief that the Church is sufficiently large that we must now have a significant reservoir of talented architects who would be honored to assist in building the Kingdom by designing a Temple within the parameters given them by the First Presidency. No, Alison, I have never worked for the “Office of the First Presidency” nor the “Temple Department”, but I do know good architecture when I see it. (I have studied both the history of architecture and architectural design at the university level.) I also have worked for a corporation which the general contractors hired to build church buildings have had to deal with over an 8 state area in the Rocky Mountain west. In discussions with those contractors, it is apparent to them that the future of Church Temple Design is the “tract” or “cookie cutter” Temple. (The ward and stake buildings are already deeply entrenched in that program.) Of course, I suppose there is an obtuse upside to this concept. We would no longer need to have such long open houses for our new Temples. Sooner or later the general populace will be able to say, “No, I don’t want to take a tour. If you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all!”

    Comment by Velikiye Kniaz — October 4, 2009 @ 8:43 am

  23. H’okay … we’re getting rather far from the original post and from comment policy … can we reign it in, please?

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 4, 2009 @ 8:58 am

  24. I think Alan on Comment #2 gave a good example of why there is another temple going up in Brigham City. If you notice, Ogden has 77 stakes in that district. If you put another temple in Brigham City that will help ease the burden of those 77 stakes going to Ogden.

    Comment by ama — October 4, 2009 @ 11:30 am

  25. back to capacity and schedules:

    Velikiye, the 60 billion figure is considered by some to represent those who have been born from Adam up to now, and doesn’t even include those yet to be born from now to the end of the Millennium. Without wars and disease, the population of planet earth will likely increase exponentially during the Millennium.

    Yes, there may be a 50% loss of membership in the years leading up to the 2nd Coming, but also, (IMHO) many more will join the church between now and the 2nd Coming. Then, the day after the 2nd Coming, it’s a whole new ball-game.

    There could literally be millions of people who join the church in the 1st year after the 2nd Coming, and they will be ready for their own endowments between 1 and 2 years after the 2nd Coming (or sooner.)

    We’re told that there will still be other religions and other churches in the Millennium, so I’m not saying everyone will join. But the prohecy of “thousands” of temples should be seen as literal, in my view. I think there will be 1500 temples by the midpoint of the Millennium, and at least 2000, maybe 3000 by the end of the Millennium. Again, depending on how big they are and what percent of the time they are utilized.

    If it takes 20,000 active members (adults + children) to populate a temple district, then 20,000 * 3000 temples = 60 million members. I would think that’s a do-able figure for the millennium.

    Comment by Bookslinger — October 4, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

  26. Are there currently any temples in the world operating past, say 9 or 10pm ? London has a regular schedule that includes temple sessions starting at 8pm, 9pm on Fridays.
    Preston England goes as late as an 8pm starting time.

    Comment by Bookslinger — October 4, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

  27. Bookslinger, I don’t know if they still do, but several years ago London used to have all-night sessions Friday-Saturday. Breakfast was provided in the cafeteria, of course.

    Comment by Alison — October 4, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

  28. Before the advent of smaller, local temples the DC temple would have sessions going past 10:00. And then people would be there til almost midnight cleaning. The next day started at 4:00 am to get ready for the first session so it was getting close to a 24 hour operation. Nowadays, not so much.

    Comment by Bruce Crow — October 4, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

  29. In earlier comments the issue of war-time conditions was brought up. As was pointed out, the United States was not involved directly in World War II at this point. However, Canada was which would have affected the Cardston, Alberta temple. Would that account for long periods of closure? Also, the Mesa, Arizona temple was closed during a large part of the summer. Did they have air conditioning in the temples then and would it have been so terribly hot that they really could not be open? What say ye?

    Comment by Steve C. — October 5, 2009 @ 7:29 am

  30. You’d think for all the years I lived in Las Vegas that I would have noticed that detail about the Arizona temple, but I didn’t. Nice catch, Steve. I’m sure you’re right.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 5, 2009 @ 7:45 am

  31. Durring WWII was Conference totally cancelled, or just much curtailed. I remember seeing a photo I thought was from the war years of a policeman checking tickets to ensure those in attendance at Conference were legit.

    Comment by Eric Boysen — October 5, 2009 @ 7:50 am

  32. Oops. I missed the question mark at the end of my first sentence. Here it is: “?”

    Comment by Eric Boysen — October 5, 2009 @ 7:52 am

  33. You’re right, Eric, conference wasn’t *entirely* cancelled, but it was reserved for church leaders only, no admittance to the public, and the auxiliary sessions and all the extras were eliminated. If I’ve ever read how they determined who would be invited, I don’t recall that at the moment.

    Thanks for the question mark. I could have supplied one from my reserve stock, but now I can save that one for a real emergency.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 5, 2009 @ 8:19 am

  34. Looking at the schedules for 1941, several other thoughts pop into my head. By today’s standards, it seems like the temples were barely in operation. Remember, though, that people were less mobile then we are today. Even if you lived in the Salt Lake valley, it would have taken longer to get to the temple–fewers cars, no Interstate, etc. Also remember that getting names ready to take to the temple was so complicated and bothersome. I’m sure that people then attended less regularly since they probably had fewer names to take.

    Yes, in the “small” temples you have to make session appointments as Bruce Crow mentioned–i.e. Nashville, Memphis, etc. Although, the larger temples are quite easy to get into. We’re half way between Dallas and Memphis (in the Memphis district). When we go on a branch temple trip we always weigh going to Memphis and having to make an appointment months in advance OR just saying we’ll meet at Dallas at noon.

    Comment by Steve C. — October 5, 2009 @ 9:05 am

  35. All these variables point to my thought in posting this in the first place: There must be many, many considerations involved in selecting the site of a new temple. Some of the immediate reaction to the Brigham City announcement focused on how near BC is to Logan and Ogden (with the implied complaint of “so why do they get one instead of us?”). It isn’t just proximity or whether the temples are running at full capacity, is it?

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 5, 2009 @ 9:34 am

  36. You’re right, Ardis. I think some of the initial assumption that a temple gets built in a particular area when that area has reached a critical mass of members is based on many comments by Church leaders through the years intimating as much. The assumption must also be based, in part, on the fact that the “critical mass” model is followed when creating a new stake.

    However, you’re right that there must be lots of other considerations involved in the decision to build a temple. And the happy announcement of a temple in a less-than-prominent place reminds us that inspiration might be one of those “other considerations.” Hooray for a little surprise now and again!

    Comment by Hunter — October 5, 2009 @ 9:48 am

  37. A few comments:
    1) Church leaders have said that another major factor in deciding where to build temples is the faithfulness of members in the area paying their tithing. Pres. Hinckley mentioned this several times in General Conference.

    2) The Box Elder Tabernacle is not going to be converted to a temple. The Vernal experiment was so costly (about triple what a new building would cost) that it only works when real estate prices are astronomical. (Which is why remodeling into a temple has only been done in two other locations, Manhattan and Copenhagen). Land prices in Brigham City are not the same as Manhattan.

    3) I think Brigham’s going to get a full-size temple, not a mini-temple. Too many members and population growth potential.

    4) I also bemoan the cookie-cutter temple architecture that began with Pres. Kimball (compare Boise and Buenos Aires, for instance). I recognize, however, that it’s the ceremony inside the building that counts. (The Endowment house would never win awards! for architecture) That said, the Church is moving back towards unique, beautiful temples. Draper and Oquirrh Mountian both feature beautiful murals, and wall-sized paintes were added to the Anchorage temple when it was enlarged and remodeled. In all cases, the paintings reflect the beauty of the local landscape.

    5) The historic temple schedules appear modest because they all used live actors and moved from room to room. An “every 30 minutes” schedule isn’t practical without film and multiple entrances to the Celestial Room.

    6) The Idaho Falls temple was nearing completion in 1941, but would shortly be put on hold (along with all other civilian construction projects) for four years during the war.

    Sorry for the long comment!

    Comment by Clark — October 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am

  38. Enjoyed your comments, Clark. I would argue that the cookie-cutter was already at work with the Swiss, London and New Zealand temples in the 1950s. I tend to think that the issue of cookie-cutter temples has influenced some of the newer temples. They built so many of the “small” temples using the exact same plans in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (I’ve been in the Memphis and Oklahoma City temples–exactly the same but the floor plan was flipped over). Since the early 2000s there has been an effort to get away from that design.

    On locations: Growing up in the midwest, I always thought that Kansas City would be a great place for a temple. Of late temples have been built around KC (Omaha–I mean “Winter Quarters” and St. Louis). I have felt that the reason they didn’t build a temple in KC was that it was too close to Independence and that this would start a stampede. I noticed when they did announce the temple in KC last year they were vague about the exact location (greater Kansas City area) and then without taking a breath announced Rome, Italy. Which makes me think that they were downplaying a temple just a few miles from Indepencence, Jackson County. Just my thoughts.

    Comment by Steve C. — October 5, 2009 @ 11:13 am

  39. If anyone’s been to the Oquirrh Mountain Temple, you’ll have seen what it’s like to be at the Preston England Temple. Or vice versa. So the larger temples are perhaps just as likely to have been built from an existing plan as the small ones.

    Comment by Alison — October 5, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

  40. In 1953, the Logan Temple president made the decision that women should not come to the temple at all unless they had their own family names with them. This information is found in the Hyrum Stake Miscellaneous minutes in the Church History Library. If this were in place today, maybe more people would be involved in genealogy work.

    Comment by Maurine — October 5, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

  41. Steve, I thought the same thing when I heard “greater Kansas City area.” I’ve heard, but not confirmed, that the chosen temple site is very near the Liberty Jail.

    Comment by Clark — October 6, 2009 @ 10:42 am

  42. Clark: I’ve read something similar regarding the temple site–that it’s not far from Liberty in a sub-division the Church is developing. I have a brother in the greater KC area but I don’t think he’s heard much more.

    Comment by Steve C. — October 6, 2009 @ 10:45 am

  43. Comment by Anne (U.K) — October 4, 2009 @ 4:55 am

    To Anne, my wife and I were workers in the Preston Temple when there were only ‘two’ patrons on an endownment session!

    Comment by Mike Fisher — October 19, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

  44. I am just waiting for a temple announcement in Cedar City!

    Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 12:02 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI