- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Beginning in 2010, the Church began a pattern of announcing temples in General Conference. As of April, 2014, the last 18 temples have all been announced in GC. However, it has now been a full year since the last announcement of a new temple. This marks the first time since the above pattern emerged that no new temple has been announced in GC two times in a row.
The Church had a burst of small temples at the end of the 1990’s, but even since then, there has been at least one temple announcement per calendar year. The following shows the number of temples announced, going back to the banner year of 1998. There was a slowdown after that burst, and also coinciding with the worldwide recession and US invasion of Iraq. But after TSM became president, there was a resurgence. He announced 29 temples in his first for years (beginning in 2008), but has slowed in the two years since, announcing only four more.
1998: 27
1999: 17
2000: 6
2001: 4
2002: 3
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 2
2006: 4
2007: 2
2008: 9
2009: 5
2010: 6
2011: 9
2012: 2
2013: 2 (both in April)
2014: None so far
As I understand it, the temple closest to us (Chicago) is under utilized. We went yesterday & our session had (10) people in it.
I don’t know if this is typical or not.
I remember SWK saying at the dedication of the Washington DC temple that it wouldn’t
be long before we would be working around the clock to get the work done for our ancestors.
I don’t think we’re there yet.
Most, if not all, of the temples in Utah run non-stop, daily, from about 6:00am-10:00pm. People who complain about the number of temples in Utah generally don’t understand how heavy the use is. It’s the other temples that are slower paced – and I actually like that they are slower paced. Yes, many sessions are small (too small if looked at from a business efficiency model), but I prefer that over having to drive all day or fly in order to get there – or attend only once in a lifetime. I prefer smaller temples closer to the people than only larger ones much, much farther from the people – even if that means most temples are not running at full capacity.
Old-Timer wrote:Most, if not all, of the temples in Utah run non-stop, daily, from about 6:00am-10:00pm. People who complain about the number of temples in Utah generally don’t understand how heavy the use is.
It’s the other temples that are slower paced – and I actually like that they are slower paced. Yes, many sessions are small (too small if looked at from a business efficiency model), but I prefer that over having to drive all day or fly in order to get there – or attend only once in a lifetime. I prefer smaller temples closer to the people than only larger ones much, much farther from the people – even if that means most temples are not running at full capacity.
Yes I enjoy the temple much more when it’s more intimate and a lot less crowded and rushed. It’s simply to hard to think or feel the spirit or be comfortable when crowded.
I like that the temples are closer to the people as well. I hadn’t realized before it was mentioned today that most of the membership lives within 200 miles of a temple. When I first returned to the east in the mid 1980s we really could not have dreamed of that – there was Washington and Atlanta east of the Mississippi in those days. I actually recall GBH saying that the smaller temples made it possible to bring temples to the people. Maybe we have reached the point where we are doing what needs to be done – the temples are close enough to the people are are appropriately utilized for the most part. It wouldn’t make sense to build temples we don’t need. On the other hand, if we need more (like in Utah), then we should build more. I think they should build one in East Africa somewhere – Kenya probably, it’s crying out for one. Possibly one in Caucasus too. There are even swathes of Europe, the Pacific islands and Canada which are ill provided. The last temple session I went to, they had to bring in chairs, it was
that busy. But I would have got more out of it, if the return journey
didn’t take all day.
I don’t live in the USA and think Americans are well provided for, though some modern temples are ugly.
It is inevitable that we would slow down or even stop building temples. It is not like we should have one on every corner. At some point you hit saturation and they would sit mostly empty all day. Actually IMHO temples are about the most colossal waste of money I can think of a church could do. An entire building with limited access that serves one function. And to boot it is all high end stuff that goes into it. Of course I do not buy the whole work for the dead thing so I am cynical.
Cadence wrote:Actually IMHO temples are about the most colossal waste of money I can think of a church could do. An entire building with limited access that serves one function. And to boot it is all high end stuff that goes into it.
I was amazed at how cheap feeling the (modern) temple buildings are behind the mostly pretty stone facade and expensive looking (sure is a lot of veneer) interior trim work. Once you pass the ‘staff only’ doors it’s just like the underpinnings of any modern commercial building. Pipes and dirt and vinyl floors. Sort of a metaphor of the modern church I guess.
Lots of veneer. Surprising amounts of veneer. But they look nice from a distance.
Why wouldn’t the stuff behind the “Staff Only” doors be regular, fairly cheap stuff? It’s not part of the worship portion of the building. It’s offices and operational stuff. I know I don’t want gold-plated toilets – or luxury desks in the Temple President’s office.
There are craftsmen out there, just not enough, and mostly not in the church. Too dear as well. I personally wish we made better use of the gardens. We could use them for better public relations – rather than just the “you’re not allowed in there” attitude.
Cadence wrote:Modern construction is all veneer.
I’ve climbed the dome of St. Peter’s Basillica in the Vatican. That construction is all veneer, too. As soon as you disappear from view of the inside of the Church, it is all very practical and un-beautiful.Cadence wrote:There are no craftsmen left to build a temple from scratch.
I agree. I lament it. The Church does better with what it has than most other entities that build buildings.Old-Timer wrote:Why wouldn’t the stuff behind the “Staff Only” doors be regular, fairly cheap stuff? It’s not part of the worship portion of the building. It’s offices and operational stuff.
I know I don’t want gold-plated toilets – or luxury desks in the Temple President’s office.
Well I don’t expect it to be all shining in the backup generator room, but it certainly takes away the mystery. I guess I can liken it to a movie set or Disney World, a carefully crafted illusion of reality.
Behind the neo-classical and gothic, ornate exteriors lurks a brutalists, cold interior. You all pretend you want Michelangelo and the Nauvoo temple, but in your heart of hearts, you are a disciple of Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus.
Just wait til Jeff Koons influenced artwork is commissioned for the temple, and Finnish/Scandinavian furniture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.