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

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yowzaa! I guess in places like with enough members you could do that but not here, you'd be in the temple every week. I was talking to the Temple President and he was wondering how many people will actually come after the initial push, what's the resting amount? guess we'll see

I used to a lot (once a week, usually), and if I counted up the number of times, it would be in the hundreds. I pretty much had the entire endowment memorized. Heck, I could probably recite much of it from memory even now. It makes me a little nostalgic for those times when my wife and I shared a purpose in that part of our lives. 

[Fair Dinkum]

I want to make clear that this thread is NOT intended as an Anti-Temple Building thread.  While I personally would not be spending money on temples that sit empty, I freely acknowledge that the church can spend it's money on whatever thing it wants to.  My values no longer a line with those of the church in several areas, for one, I would choose to spend the massive reserve funds on the needs of the living instead of those of the dead.

I want to also point out that one of the most wonderful and beneficial benefits the church brings to third world members is the access to a university education.  Through its BYU online services, so many lives are being changed for the better as they work to better their lives through higher education.  I wish that this was one program that could be expanded, and perhaps it is.  Its clearly a home run as far as I'm concerned.

[mgy401]

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I want to make clear that this thread is NOT intended as an Anti-Temple Building thread.  While I personally would not be spending money on temples that sit empty, I freely acknowledge that the church can spend it's money on whatever thing it wants to.  My values no longer a line with those of the church in several areas, for one, I would choose to spend the massive reserve funds on the needs of the living instead of those of the dead.

I want to also point out that one of the most wonderful and beneficial benefits the church brings to third world members is the access to a university education.  Through its BYU online services, so many lives are being changed for the better as they work to better their lives through higher education.  I wish that this was one program that could be expanded, and perhaps it is.  Its clearly a home run as far as I'm concerned.

Are people being turned away from BYU online programs due to capacity issues?  (Not trying to be argumentative; I honestly don’t know.)

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I want to make clear that this thread is NOT intended as an Anti-Temple Building thread.  While I personally would not be spending money on temples that sit empty, I freely acknowledge that the church can spend it's money on whatever thing it wants to.  My values no longer a line with those of the church in several areas, for one, I would choose to spend the massive reserve funds on the needs of the living instead of those of the dead.

I want to also point out that one of the most wonderful and beneficial benefits the church brings to third world members is the access to a university education.  Through its BYU online services, so many lives are being changed for the better as they work to better their lives through higher education.  I wish that this was one program that could be expanded, and perhaps it is.  Its clearly a home run as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. The Perpetual Education Fund is, in my view, quite visionary.

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I used to a lot (once a week, usually), and if I counted up the number of times, it would be in the hundreds. I pretty much had the entire endowment memorized. Heck, I could probably recite much of it from memory even now. It makes me a little nostalgic for those times when my wife and I shared a purpose in that part of our lives. 

yeah! one thing I love about it and like forget the temple aspect of it but figuring out who your relatives are and where they came from and how you came around and everything. Even if you never knew tickety-boo about the temple it's nice to know about your ancestors

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah! one thing I love about it and like forget the temple aspect of it but figuring out who your relatives are and where they came from and how you came around and everything. Even if you never knew tickety-boo about the temple it's nice to know about your ancestors

Yep. My sister (who is very active) and I are working together on my dad's stepfather's line right now. Kind of fun, though it's a challenge because she and her husband are on church assignment in Korea.

[california boy]

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.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think anyone is criticizing how the church spends its money on temples (at least I'm not), but clearly the reason to build a temple isn't necessarily "real growth."

I don't disagree. I think most of the temples which have been announced over the last couple of years are more about our ability to provide access to the temple in remote places than they are with anything relating to "real growth" in those areas.

I think that's a good thing though.

The temple isn't a prize you get for meeting a certain membership density; it's a blessing that ought to be available to all worthy members of the church, worldwide.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I don't disagree. I think most of the temples which have been announced over the last couple of years are more about our ability to provide access to the temple in remote places than they are with anything relating to "real growth" in those areas.

I think that's a good thing though.

The temple isn't a prize you get for meeting a certain membership density; it's a blessing that ought to be available to all worthy members of the church, worldwide.

 

Totally agree. I'm thrilled for my Bolivian friends that they are building a second temple there. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Any dollars spent in Europe on new temples, in my view, is strictly for PR and to serve the Mormon tourist crowd.

I've never been to Europe, but I would be willing to serve a senior mission with my wife as a temple missionary in any one of these Western European temples.

And if they're empty most of the time, so much the better. I would love to just kick it in the temple, quietly, all day every day.

My wife would possibly go nuts (she's the social one in the family), but I would definitely be down.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So in Europe, and let's tale Norway, you have 4600 members. And likely less than 30% are active and even less temple worthy.  This temple will sit empty most of the time. Other areas maybe your idea is correct. But not for a whole bunch of them.

I know a couple of Norwegian Saints. One stayed with me when she visited the US. Empty most of the time still allows for my friends and their friends and family to have access. Have other friends in Austria. The European Saints are just as hungry, if not more so, to go to the temple. It can be a real struggle at times when weddings are in other countries, for examples. I think it well worthwhile to have a temple easily accessible to all Saints, the happiness it will bring makes it ‘cost effective’ to me even if empty much of the time. At the very least, far flung members when they have a temple to anchor their smaller communities...they will know they are highly valued by our leaders and are as important to our faith community as anyone who has to wait for an hour or more in the temple because it is packed. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The temple isn't a prize you get for meeting a certain membership density; it's a blessing that ought to be available to all worthy members of the church, worldwide.

This....the day that any member willing to be worthy to go to the temple being able to go and refresh their spirit easily when they desire to, that is a joy I am eager to share with all our members. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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.

My ward chapel is so old it's falling apart, so yes I think it'd be nice.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

He did not tell the truth about local regulations being the hold-up to temple work resuming. Almost no places have capacity or other limits on church services. The minute he said that, we all looked at each other, and said, "They could all be open tomorrow" (or Tuesday, since the temples aren't open on Mondays  ), but it becomes increasingly obvious with the passing months as one monitors the "phases" that temples aren't even close to opening up to normal volume and capacity. And, this is increasingly not reflective of the Covid situation, either, and will be more so with each passing week/month. 

Lip service is paid to urgency, but nothing says "urgency" about the Church's actions with the temple. Unfortunately.  

Did he state that local regulations would be the only consideration (which is often more about politics and may not align with the church's intentions)? 

Opening up to "normal volume and capacity" would violate guidelines of social distancing, which is important to implement until vaccine numbers are at a sufficient level to attain herd immunity.

Announcing 80 temples in just a few years says "nothing' about urgency?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you are correct how do you explain the temples in Europe where the member count is abysmally low and the activity rate of those counts are even lower. In Norway my bet is you maybe have 500 TR holders if even. 4600 members, 30% or less activity rate leaves us 1380 active members. You need almost half those to be TR holders. I think that temple will sit empty most of the time but for temple missionaries who may spend their days doin ordinance work.

I’m just pointing out (in response to the OP) that it is simplistic thinking to expect that the rate of new temple construction will be dependent on the yearly rate of convert baptisms. The rise in the number of temple-worthy members and the continued faithfulness of those who are already members could be a metric unrelated to the sheer increase in new memberships. 
 

And as has already been pointed out, reducing or mitigating the travel time or other hardships impacting would-be temple-goers is a very real and justifiable consideration. 
 

I don’t claim to be privy to what considerations go into the decision to build a temple in a given locale and how the above plays into it, but I doubt you have any better insight into that than I do. 
 

A side note: I recall that when President Hinckley announced that the Nauvoo Temple would be rebuilt, he said it would have great historic and symbolic significance, but that he expected the temple would be unoccupied much of the time. It turned out his expectation was wrong: There was great demand for use of the temple, and it was open at a normal operating schedule. 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know a couple of Norwegian Saints. One stayed with me when she visited the US. Empty most of the time still allows for my friends and their friends and family to have access. Have other friends in Austria. The European Saints are just as hungry, if not more so, to go to the temple. It can be a real struggle at times when weddings are in other countries, for examples. I think it well worthwhile to have a temple easily accessible to all Saints, the happiness it will bring makes it ‘cost effective’ to me even if empty much of the time. At the very least, far flung members when they have a temple to anchor their smaller communities...they will know they are highly valued by our leaders and are as important to our faith community as anyone who has to wait for an hour or more in the temple because it is packed. 

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.

[Jamie]

18 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You get a temple and you get a temple and you get a temple in fact everybody gets a temple  

 

 

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/20/why-so-many-new-mormon-temples-when-lds-growth-is-flat/

Everybody should have a temple.  A temple is a good thing.

[Jamie]

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Modular building could make more temples available in a shorter amount of time. We have a temple in Dallas but I would love to have one in Ft. Worth.

How about Arlington too, the in-between town.  And Waco.  I spent most of my earlier years in Waco.

[Calm]

8 minutes 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.

From what I hear, it is less the cost and more than time involved in traveling that matters...especially if working. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Probably. I don't think anyone is criticizing how the church spends its money on temples (at least I'm not), but clearly the reason to build a temple isn't necessarily "real growth."

I never said it was the only reason, but it could be a consideration, one not so easily dismissed as you seem to imply here. 
 

Added later: The Church is sometimes criticized for building so many temples along Utah’s Wasatch Front, and the members are criticized for supposed complacency in living their religion or appreciating their advantages. But the fact is, there are so many temples here because they are needed to meet demand. We see it in the temple where I serve (Draper Utah). When one or the other of the nearby temples is closed for cleaning (Jordan River or Mount Timpanogas) the Draper Temple is strained at the seams. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Did he state that local regulations would be the only consideration (which is often more about politics and may not align with the church's intentions)? 

He said: "You may be wondering when you will be able to return to the temple. Answer: Your temple will be open when local government regulations allow it. When the incidence of COVID-19 in your area is within safe limits, your temple will be reopened."

He didn't define what "safe limits" is, but because he tied it to "local government regulations," it's reasonable to think that what "local government regulations" determine are "safe limits" would be the determinant. 

He's the one who chose to say "local government regulations." 

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Opening up to "normal volume and capacity" would violate guidelines of social distancing, which is important to implement until vaccine numbers are at a sufficient level to attain herd immunity

That isn't at all what he said, though. Had he said this, I wouldn't be frustrated, because it would have entailed entirely different expectations and reactions than "local government regulations." 

And which social distancing standard, the 6 ft. one or the 3 ft. one (CDC has been all over the map with this and everything else)? What vaccination level = herd immunity? We're nowhere near settling that number than we were before, but churches aren't restricted any more. If the Church wants to have a more stringent standard, fine, but then tell us that we are using a more stringent standard and don't play the psychological trick of using "local government regulations" to explain why temples are severely limited, indefinitely.

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Announcing 80 temples in just a few years says "nothing' about urgency?

No, it really doesn't, especially since they are many years from completion, some decades (if ever). We'll have 30 new temples announced next conference, and people will ooh and ahh, but as has been said, announcing is one thing, building is another. And lifting restrictions yet another. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

When we were about to move away from Houston, the area presidency started a "fill the temple" program where each ward in each stake was supposed to assign enough patrons to fill every session and perform every ordinance for 3 days (IIRC). The message was pretty clear: without direct assignments, the temple wasn't being used. 

It’s harder to encourage and motivate people to attend the temple if there’s not one nearby that they can attend. 
 

And what I have already cited about my observation of temple use along Utah’s Wasatch Front tends to bear out the belief that faithful members are more apt to attend the temple if there is one in their vicinity. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

He said: "You may be wondering when you will be able to return to the temple. Answer: Your temple will be open when local government regulations allow it. When the incidence of COVID-19 in your area is within safe limits, your temple will be reopened."

He didn't define what "safe limits" is, but because he tied it to "local government regulations," it's reasonable to think that what "local government regulations" determine are "safe limits" would be the determinant. 

He's the one who chose to say "local government regulations." 

That isn't at all what he said, though. Had he said this, I wouldn't be frustrated, because it would have entailed entirely different expectations and reactions than "local government regulations." 

And which social distancing standard, the 6 ft. one or the 3 ft. one (CDC has been all over the map with this and everything else)? What vaccination level = herd immunity? We're nowhere near settling that number than we were before, but churches aren't restricted any more. If the Church wants to have a more stringent standard, fine, but then tell us that we are using a more stringent standard and don't play the psychological trick of using "local government regulations" to explain why temples are severely limited, indefinitely.

No, it really doesn't, especially since they are many years from completion, some decades (if ever). We'll have 30 new temples announced next conference, and people will ooh and ahh, but as has been said, announcing is one thing, building is another. And lifting restrictions yet another. 

Given the context of the quoted remarks, I tend to go with Pogi’s interpretation thereof. 

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s harder to encourage and motivate people to attend the temple if there’s not one nearby that they can attend. 

According to a Pew survey, church members make up approximately 1% of the 7 million people in metropolitan Houston. Assuming half of them are adults, and 40% of those are active, that's approximately 14,000 active adults. Assuming 50% of active adults have a recommend, that means about 7,000 members. If members attended twice a year, that would be 14,000 visits each year, or roughly 50 patrons for each day the temple is open. I would be shocked if they got that many patrons a day. And this is Houston, where no one in Metro Houston lives more than 35-40 minutes away from the temple.

But you're right that convenience has an impact. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

According to a Pew survey, church members make up approximately 1% of the 7 million people in metropolitan Houston. Assuming half of them are adults, and 40% of those are active, that's approximately 14,000 active adults. Assuming 50% of active adults have a recommend, that means about 7,000 members. If members attended twice a year, that would be 14,000 visits each year, or roughly 50 patrons for each day the temple is open. I would be shocked if they got that many patrons a day. And this is Houston, where no one in Metro Houston lives more than 35-40 minutes away from the temple.

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 their homes.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd