Why so many new temples, up 70 under pres nelson 3.5 year tenure when membership flat. Why?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, this hardly argues against my point that you can scarcely expect or encourage people to attend the temple more regularly if there is not one provided within a reasonable distance from there homes.

I guess it depends on how you define a reasonable distance. We used to drive 70 miles each way every Tuesday to attend the temple. It didn't seem unreasonable to me. I guess I don't see a 30-minute drive as unreasonable.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess it depends on how you define a reasonable distance. We used to drive 70 miles each way every Tuesday to attend the temple. It didn't seem unreasonable to me. I guess I don't see a 30-minute drive as unreasonable.

Maybe not unreasonable, but certainly less convenient than the 10 minutes or so that it takes me to get to one of the temples near my house. As an ordinance worker, I’m grateful not to have an hour of travel time tacked onto the six hours it takes to do my shift. It’s not extravagant for the Church leaders to be cognizant of the demands upon faithful members of the Church and to try to make their lives easier by providing temples closer to home. 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess it depends on how you define a reasonable distance. We used to drive 70 miles each way every Tuesday to attend the temple. It didn't seem unreasonable to me. I guess I don't see a 30-minute drive as unreasonable.

It is all relative. After the initial bump after a dedication, attendance usually goes way down for most temples (intermountain west may have some exceptions to this, but it holds true for almost all others). We were told when the Gilbert temple was built that often those closest to temples who have to expend the least effort to go attend the least over time. I know that Snowflake provided a disproportionate number of temple workers in Mesa for decades, which was directly why they got their own (in the "reward temple" days). That is quite a distance from Mesa. 

I think there are psychological analogues to this: when there is a high cost, things are appreciated more. I think that we see (or are starting to see) that when you "take the temple to the people" and put small ones everywhere, intensity drops. 

Seemingly counterintuitve: making it "easier" to attend the temple can have the effect of lessening commitment and interest. 

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe not unreasonable, but certainly less convenient than the 10 minutes or so that it takes me to get to one of the temples near my house. As an ordinance worker, I’m grateful not to have an hour of travel time tacked onto the six hours it takes to do my shift. It’s not extravagant for the Church leaders to be cognizant of the demands upon faithful members of the Church and to try to make their lives easier by providing temples closer to home. 

I’m aware of that. And I’m happy for people who are getting a local temple. When we actually lived in Houston, we lived 4 miles from the temple, yet our ward’s temple attendance statistics were abysmal. I’m just saying I don’t think convenience explains everything. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is all relative. After the initial bump after a dedication, attendance usually goes way down for most temples (intermountain west may have some exceptions to this, but it holds true for almost all others). We were told when the Gilbert temple was built that often those closest to temples who have to expend the least effort to go attend the least over time. I know that Snowflake provided a disproportionate number of temple workers in Mesa for decades, which was directly why they got their own (in the "reward temple" days). That is quite a distance from Mesa. 

I think there are psychological analogues to this: when there is a high cost, things are appreciated more. I think that we see (or are starting to see) that when you "take the temple to the people" and put small ones everywhere, intensity drops. 

Seemingly counterintuitve: making it "easier" to attend the temple can have the effect of lessening commitment and interest. 

Do you have figures to back up your assertion that attendance goes way down for “almost all” temples outside the Intermountain West after the dedication? 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m aware of that. And I’m happy for people who are getting a local temple. When we actually lived in Houston, we lived 4 miles from the temple, yet our ward’s temple attendance statistics were abysmal. I’m just saying I don’t think convenience explains everything. 

I guess all most of us have is anecdotal experience. But having been a youth growing up where I now live, I can recall one, maybe two, occasions when we went to the temple in my youth to do baptisms for the dead. The Salt Lake Temple was our only option then. By contrast, when we got our Draper temple about 10 years ago, youth excursions to the temple for baptisms became a regular and frequent thing, maybe bi-monthly, and constantly holding a “conditional-use” recommend began to be expected for youth who were active in the Church. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have figures to back up your assertion that attendance goes way down for “almost all” temples outside the Intermountain West after the dedication? 

No. It's an opinion.

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't disagree with you AT ALL.  But one thing you might keep in mind, airfares to nearby countries in Europe are extremely cheap between countries.  Some as low as 20 euros.  You can usually fly to most big cities in Europe for about 50 euro.  I have been living in Europe 6 months of the year for the past 14 years.  I often will look at one of the low cost airlines and fly to some other city in Europe for the weekend.  And the flights are usually so frequent you can easily go for just the day.  The air fare is often less than the cab ride to the airport.

That said, for someone who goes to the temple regularly, it could get quite expensive.  I don't think the Church is looking for ways to save money, but maybe some kind of airline voucher might be at least an idea where temples are not easily available as an alternative.  

Not related, but just a tip when traveling.  When we fly to Europe, we don't necessarily look for tickets to the city we are going to visit.  We look for the least expensive flight to Europe and not worry about what country it is in.  Then we catch one of these discount airlines to get to our destination.  You can save big bucks doing that.  For example a flight to Rome might be $1500.  But a flight to Munich might be $800.  Fly to Munich and then catch a cheap flight to Rome.  We have saved thousands of dollars doing this for years.  However in recent years, flights to Europe have dropped significantly, so not as big of deal as it once was.

This is an intriguing thought.  On the other hand, will air travel remain an option as western nations are required to take increasingly stringent measures to combat global climate change?  I fly less than once a year, and I’ve already had people tell me I’m an environmental monster . . . 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I doubt anyone has a problem with the Church building more temples.  I would rather have a temple in my neighborhood than a ugly strip mall. They are beautiful buildings.  Doesn't sound like they cause any traffic issues.  Building them employ a bunch of people.  And members feel like it enhances their spiritual lives. And hey, if they don't work out as temples, maybe they will be repurposed as meeting houses.  Tell me that isn't a ward you wouldn't love to attend.

Unfortunately temples don't have basketball courts.

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

This is an intriguing thought.  On the other hand, will air travel remain an option as western nations are required to take increasingly stringent measures to combat global climate change?  I fly less than once a year, and I’ve already had people tell me I’m an environmental monster . . . 

That seems a bit extreme to me.  

[Duncan]

if costs are too high, people won't buy or go or go once and then that's it. If you lived outside of Alberta, Canada up until 1974 the only temple you could get to was the Cardston Temple. Washington, D.C. was built in '74. I couldn't even imagine driving or flying from Halifax or anywhere on the Eastern seabord to Cardston-now, that's a drive or flight even. Washington was closer but still a long drive. I just checked, Halifax to Cardston is 48 hours driving. I can only imagine how often people even went.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

This is an intriguing thought.  On the other hand, will air travel remain an option as western nations are required to take increasingly stringent measures to combat global climate change?  I fly less than once a year, and I’ve already had people tell me I’m an environmental monster . . . 

 

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

That seems a bit extreme to me.  

A red-letter day! You and I agree on something. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately temples don't have basketball courts.

Do you think that the church could work on the older church ward buildings that look very shabby or dirty? I wonder why the church couldn't put some money into the ward houses that are in need.

It's like the temples are a reward or something. Or are they putting a carrot in front of people?

I do know that there are plenty newer ward houses that are good enough, but until I moved to my neighborhood a couple of years ago, I'd never been in such an old building like this one.

I've never seen dirtier carpets and older shabby furniture like I have in this one. I don't mean to be a snob. Maybe I shouldn't have cleaned the church and seen it up close while vacuuming, stains galore.

I feel bad for the visitors that may visit and I have to wonder if they are probably surprised it's an LDS ward building. 

But maybe since covid they've updated, I guess I need to go and see. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Tacenda

[mgy401]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

That seems a bit extreme to me.  

Agreed.

On the other hand, asking a few hundred people hop on a plane to another country twelve times a year in perpetuity because a church with liquid holdings in the tens of billions of dollars doesn’t want to shell out $20 million for a temple in-country, itself seems a rather extraordinary solution.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the church couldn't put some money into the ward houses that are in need.

They have been renovating churches around here. They may be waiting in some areas so they have a place to put the wards currently in the building so it doesn’t disrupt too much. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Agreed.

On the other hand, asking a few hundred people hop on a plane to another country twelve times a year in perpetuity because a church with liquid holdings in the tens of billions of dollars doesn’t want to shell out $20 million for a temple in-country, itself seems a rather extraordinary solution.  

Is that what happens, though? 
 

When I served in Sweden in the mid-‘70s and the members were in the Swiss Temple district, the norm was to drive or charter a bus, less than once a year, if that. 
 

And since then, the Church has built temples in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and soon Norway. So it has not been reluctant to build in-country temples. I don’t know where you’re getting that idea. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[mgy401]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is that what happens, though? 
 

When I served in Sweden in the mid-‘70s and the members were in the Swiss Temple district, the norm was to drive or charter a bus, less than once a year, if that. 
 

And since then, the Church has built temples in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and soon Norway. So it has not been reluctant to build in-country temples. I don’t know where you’re getting that idea. 

I’m not saying the Church is doing it; I’m responding to @california boy’s idea (as I understood it) that rather than building in Oslo, perhaps the Church should simply fly Norwegian would-be temple patrons to the locations of existing temples elsewhere in Europe.

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I’m not saying the Church is doing it; I’m responding to @california boy’s idea (as I understood it) that rather than building in Oslo, perhaps the Church should simply fly Norwegian would-be temple patrons to the locations of existing temples elsewhere in Europe.

if you did that for Norway you would have to do that for literally every community in the world. it would just be cheaper to build a temple in Norway

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I’m not saying the Church is doing it; I’m responding to @california boy’s idea (as I understood it) that rather than building in Oslo, perhaps the Church should simply fly Norwegian would-be temple patrons to the locations of existing temples elsewhere in Europe.

Oh. Then I agree with you. Constructing a temple to bless the Saints in a country is a worthy use of Church funds. 

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m aware of that. And I’m happy for people who are getting a local temple. When we actually lived in Houston, we lived 4 miles from the temple, yet our ward’s temple attendance statistics were abysmal. I’m just saying I don’t think convenience explains everything. 

I think the reason will become apparent during the Great Tribulation.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you did that for Norway you would have to do that for literally every community in the world. it would just be cheaper to build a temple in Norway

I think building a temple for every community in the world is the long-range goal. I recall Boyd K. Packer hinting that every stake in the Church would one day have its own temple. 

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I think building a temple for every community in the world is the long-range goal. I recall Boyd K. Packer hinting that every stake in the Church would one day have its own temple. 

I think that would be a very long range goal! I 'd be happy to see that day

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think that would be a very long range goal! I 'd be happy to see that day

Elder Packer pointed out that often the newer temples are built adjacent to stake centers. He saw significance in that fact. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have figures to back up your assertion that attendance goes way down for “almost all” temples outside the Intermountain West after the dedication? 

Back in 2019, patronage at our temple was the highest it had ever been. Just one anecdote, but certainly better than my opinion!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Back in 2019, patronage at our temple was the highest it had ever been. Just one anecdote, but certainly better than my opinion!

I take it that was quite a while after its  dedication.