Comments on: Temples at Capacity? Temple Schedules, 1941

By: John

John — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:02:14 +0000

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

By: Mike Fisher

Mike Fisher — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:12:06 +0000

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!

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:45:30 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:42:07 +0000

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.

By: Maurine

Maurine — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:44:32 +0000

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.

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:23:43 +0000

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.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:13:07 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:28:42 +0000

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!

By: Hunter

Hunter — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:48:28 +0000

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!

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:34:49 +0000

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?