Were will the new temples be?

[creekster]

You are welcome.

You know, Mormons have got to figure out some way to direct the church in a more democratic way. I'm not saying that there would be a popular vote, or anything really different than the current leadership organization, but there has got to be some kind of way for the rank and file to be able to look at the obviously ridiculous and wasteful temple location process, which can only be understood as the fulfillment of some kind of inner political obligation list, and voice serious concern without it being interpreted as an affront to God.

Wow. You are really on a roll here tonight. Keep 'em coming!

[Commando]

So you don't think they do it based on population of temple worthy/active members in certain areas?

[RobinFinderson]

Wow. You are really on a roll here tonight. Keep 'em coming!

It isn't mean criticism. It is just an observation. Can you offer a more reasonable explanation for why the church keeps packing temples into Utah so that people will only have to drive ten minutes instead of 20 minutes to get to the nearest one? Are you going to say that they do it because the temples are busy enough to justify the expansion? Then the church is really terrible at estimating its own growth in its own back yard. The efficient solution to this problem would be to build temples with more session rooms dumping into a larger celestial room. Density is the norm for every other non-tax-exempt entity. The church wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for the exemption, and certainly the exemption doesn't exist to encourage this kind of wasteful expansion. This has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the doctrine of the church. I has to do with the church's management. That seems like a reasonable territory for member citizens to be able to offer some critical insight without the assumption of apostasy.

[creekster]

It isn't mean criticism. It is just an observation. Can you offer a more reasonable explanation for why the church keeps packing temples into Utah so that people will only have to drive ten minutes instead of 20 minutes to get to the nearest one? Are you going to say that they do it because the temples are busy enough to justify the expansion? Then the church is really terrible at estimating its own growth in its own back yard. The efficient solution to this problem would be to build temples with more session rooms dumping into a larger celestial room. Density is the norm for every other non-tax-exempt entity. The church wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for the exemption, and certainly the exemption doesn't exist to encourage this kind of wasteful expansion. This has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the doctrine of the church. I has to do with the church's management. That seems like a reasonable territory for member citizens to be able to offer some critical insight without the assumption of apostasy.

Another excellent point! Fantastic!

[RobinFinderson]

So you don't think they do it based on population of temple worthy/active members in certain areas?

I sort of address this in the post I just finished. Of course they base it on this, but that isn't what I am criticizing. There are obvious more dense solutions to this problem that do not require such vast material investment.

[Commando]

I sort of address this in the post I just finished. Of course they base it on this, but that isn't what I am criticizing. There are obvious more dense solutions to this problem that do not require such vast material investment.

I think the fact they haven't redone the outside of the Ogden temple 30 years ago demonstrates considerable thrift and fiscal discipline...

[RobinFinderson]

I think the fact they haven't redone the outside of the Ogden temple 30 years ago demonstrates considerable thrift and fiscal discipline...

True that... or maybe politics explains this one -- someone in Ogden pissed off someone. No just God would want the people of Ogden to suffer in the shadow of that monstrosity.

[creekster]

True that... or maybe politics explains this one -- someone in Ogden pissed off someone. No just God would want the people of Ogden to suffer in the shadow of that monstrosity.

Yes, I am quite sure you must be spot on. Your insights are amazing!

[RobinFinderson]

Yes, I am quite sure you must be spot on. Your insights are amazing!

I checked in over at MikeWaters blog the other day, and he wrote something about one of his few pet criticisms of the church -- how he wished that the church would invest more money in ward activities as a way of fostering a better sense of community. I think it is a nice idea, and I'm glad to see an example of someone who feels comfortable openly criticizing the church for a point of management where things could definitely stand to be improved.

Now I've offered a possible explanation, one that fits the facts. There are other explanations for why the church expands its temples the way it chooses to do so (mostly in a small geographic region... small buildings on large plots of land, totally inefficient), but you haven't offered one. You can say why my explanation doesn't fit the facts, or you can offer a more compelling alternative, but this thing you are doing?

[DrumNFeather]

the problem is that it's in the most inconvenient place in the world to get to, which makes it less than desirable to go.

We have the Russians to blame for that!

[myboynoah]

the problem is that it's in the most inconvenient place in the world to get to, which makes it less than desirable to go.

Because it's off the beltway?

[Moliere]

I checked in over at MikeWaters blog the other day, and he wrote something about one of his few pet criticisms of the church -- how he wished that the church would invest more money in ward activities as a way of fostering a better sense of community. I think it is a nice idea, and I'm glad to see an example of someone who feels comfortable openly criticizing the church for a point of management where things could definitely stand to be improved.

Now I've offered a possible explanation, one that fits the facts. There are other explanations for why the church expands its temples the way it chooses to do so (mostly in a small geographic region... small buildings on large plots of land, totally inefficient), but you haven't offered one. You can say why my explanation doesn't fit the facts, or you can offer a more compelling alternative, but this thing you are doing?

Maybe the church isn't concerned with efficiency. In fact, I know they aren't given that sessions still take over an hour and a half. Maybe there are other factors to consider, but I'd rather not spoil your drum beating by give you a whole drum set.

[TheBYUGuy]

It isn't mean criticism. It is just an observation. Can you offer a more reasonable explanation for why the church keeps packing temples into Utah so that people will only have to drive ten minutes instead of 20 minutes to get to the nearest one? Are you going to say that they do it because the temples are busy enough to justify the expansion? Then the church is really terrible at estimating its own growth in its own back yard. The efficient solution to this problem would be to build temples with more session rooms dumping into a larger celestial room. Density is the norm for every other non-tax-exempt entity. The church wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for the exemption, and certainly the exemption doesn't exist to encourage this kind of wasteful expansion. This has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the doctrine of the church. I has to do with the church's management. That seems like a reasonable territory for member citizens to be able to offer some critical insight without the assumption of apostasy.

For someone who hasn't tried to squeeze into an endowment session (read: wait 1.5 hours and still not get into a session) in Utah's packed temples in quite awhile, you sure seem to have a firm grasp of the situation. Thank you for your invaluable insight.

[RobinFinderson]

For someone who hasn't tried to squeeze into an endowment session (read: wait 1.5 hours and still not get into a session) in Utah's packed temples in quite awhile, you sure seem to have a firm grasp of the situation. Thank you for your invaluable insight.

I'm not saying the temples aren't busy enough to justify building temples. I'm saying that the way they are built and located is wasteful. Temple lots are big. The temples are small.

Alternatively, the celestial rooms could be bigger with more session rooms dumping into them to accommodate the demand. The building:lot ratio could become more efficient too. I'm putting on my architect hat for a moment here, and commenting on the management that produces this wasteful approach. It wouldn't be economically feasible if the church had to pay property taxes like every other non-exempt entity. This is an example of unintended harmful consequences to a government handout.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

For someone who hasn't tried to squeeze into an endowment session (read: wait 1.5 hours and still not get into a session) in Utah's packed temples in quite awhile, you sure seem to have a firm grasp of the situation. Thank you for your invaluable insight.

I haven't tried to go to a Utah based temple in probably 8 years, you are telling me that they are running at 100%+ capacity all day? When I was a missionary other missionaries used to make up stories about how that is what was going on in South America, and the church was thinking about keeping them open 24 hours a day to allow more people to receive the blessings. Maybe that will be the big announcement this conference, Utah temples going to 7-11 hours to meet demand.