New LDS temple agenda?

Question

I've noticed that since Gordon B. Hinckley passed, and Thomas S. Monson has become president, there have been less "smaller" temples. (i.e. Spokane Temple, Medford Temple, Palmyra...). Each with about 10,000 sq ft. I have seen a trend with the modern single spire design like the Twin Falls and Draper temples. I personally like the larger temples. The smaller ones are less ornate. I was just wondering if anyone noticed this or had some insight into it.

Answer 1

I think I heard once that at any given time there are 6 or 7 "approved" temple designs on the table when a new temple is approved for a location. Remember that back in the 80's there was a particular "look" of most temples. And in the early years of the new small/smaller temples there was a particular look as well. As time passes, the architects and draftsmen change and new designs are submitted.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. They are all beautiful. And each one has enough unique features that despite a similarity with another, it's not a carbon copy.

Answer 2

I am not certain that this has had anything to do with President Monson. Those temples you mention, Twin Falls, Draper, and even the newest, the Oquirrh Mountain Temple, were all announced and begun when President Hinckley was still president.



I think President Monson will continue the same plan as did President Hinckley

Answer 3

Well each President of the church is guided by God, and whatever it is, it is of God.

With President Hinckley his whole term as prophet of the Church was all about temple building, beautiful marvelous temples. In Thomas S. Monsons presidency, he's done well, but he's still only been prophet for about 2 years :) Wel'l see as time goes

Answer 4

That trend started before President Hinckley passed.

Answer 5

If I had to guess, and that's all it really is,

I'd say that each temple is built based on the need and the zoning of the community in which it is built. I doubt that the church has any paticular agenda with each temple being built how it is, I would say it is most likely

a result of what each community can man, and support. And how much use

it is likely to get in a paticular area.



But, that's just a guess.

Answer 6

probably does not matter much about the size or decore--after all, the first temple built by the people of Isreal, in the wilderness, was a tent--a fancy tent--but a tent. What happen inside the temple is what matters--that is, communication and direction from God, and solemn worship of Him..



I was married and sealed in Raleigh NC temple--one of the tiniest and less ornate of all the temples--and it was no less wonderful. What mattered was that it was in the presence of God

Answer 7

I dunno. I'm also thinking that all these temples we have now were certainly directly influenced by President Hinckley.



Give Pres. Monson some more time and we'll see what happens.



Interesting to think about though. I'm sure Pres. Monson will do the right thing in regards to this.

Answer 8

Smaller temples are more economical. With more of them, they can be more accessible to more people.

Answer 9

The mini temples came about when Hinckley, the consumate bureaucrat, noticed that temples are profit centers. People who can go tend to pay more tithing. So he decided to build small ones so more people could go/pay.



Times are tough all over right now. One of the church's wholly owned subsidiaries, Beneficial Life Insurance, just went bankrupt. Tithes are down as people lose jobs. The 2 billion dollar shopping mall they are financing in SLC is bogging down as commercial real estate flounders.



There just isn't money for splendor right now.

Answer 10

zoning and need I think -

but realize too that most of these were in the planning stages under Hinckley's guidance.

Answer 11

Whether to build large and opulent or somewhat more modest facilities is a business decision. Temples don't come cheap, the economy is off, donations are down and LDS has a whole universe of competition for the religious dollar. Fabulous temples are, after all, a non-essential extravagance.

Answer 12

judging from their recent political activism (money poured into prop8 in california for example), they apparantly have more disposable income.

Answer 13

I think the Disneyland castle is more tasteful