- Jonathan Green on Selling Temples: “Our temple is open two days a week, and it’s fantastic – it’s only a 2.5 hour drive for us, instead of 4 hours to the next nearest temple. I don’t know what the minimum number of operating hours and members served are, but it seems like they could be fairly low and still workable. That being said, how about letting at least one temple turn into a ruin? Because castle ruins off in the middle of a forest are cool and all, but church ruins are next level. We should have one of those. Ruined LDS temple in the middle of a teutonic forest in winter in the style of Caspar David Friedrich.jpg ” Jun 11, 12:56
- on Selling Temples: “On the subject there being too many temples to patrons, it is to my understanding, and I am not sure where I heard this, the it is a goal of president Nelson to have a temple within at least 200 miles of every member, so it would seem by that logic that it would be worth it at least to him to build a temple even if it only served so little as one family.” Jun 11, 12:10
- on Selling Temples: “Interesting, RL. I know some people voiced that changing the Provo Tabernacle into a temple felt like a loss of the community role the Provo Tabernacle played. It would be interesting if the DC and LA temples could reverse that and act for those communities like the Provo Tabernacle did for Provo. But I’m guessing the church probably won’t do that.” Jun 11, 09:55
- on Selling Temples: “This had me thinking about the LA temple. Demographics and new temples elsewhere have made it less used, much like DC. At the same time DC is iconic and LA might be reaching that status. Both campuses would likely do better with a smaller temple on the side. I like the idea of in the future an option that at least some Temple buildings still existing but being decommissioned and perhaps used for the community or Church for another purpose.” Jun 11, 09:45
- on Selling Temples: “Thanks for posting this, Stephen. My sense is that long before any temples are sold or demolished (and not rebuilt) increased underutilization will be painful to go through. No doubt GAs and local leaders with turn up the demands for attendance and volunteer work, which will likely lead to some grumbling if members feel we have more temples than we need. Temples cutting down their days of operation will likely feel sad. A lonely seldom-used temple in a remote place like John describes could feel quaint, but such a structure in a well-populated area may look like a symbol of decline or poor planning.” Jun 11, 08:36
- on Selling Temples: “There are three temples that were demolished last year, and a fourth will be soon. In each case the purpose is to replace an existing temple with a new temple. According to the (non-Church) Church of Jesus Christ Temples website, for the Kona Hawaii temple, “only a handful of structural posts and trusses [were to] remain before the work of rebuilding commences.” The Stockholm temple is being replaced by a building almost twice as large. The Provo temple was also completely demolished before erection of the Provo Rock Canyon temple began. The Anchorage temple was dedicated in 1999, then expanded and rededicated five years later. Now the stake center next door has been demolished, and a bigger temple is being built where the stake center was. When the new temple is ready for dedication, the old temple will be demolished and a new meetinghouse will go up. (This one reminds me of the several old high schools I have seen replaced by a new building constructed atop the athletic fields, then demolished to make way for new fields.) I suggest looking at the photos of demolition at the Church of Jesus Christ Temples website. This recent history suggests to me that the dreams of temple apocalypse are premature, but there is something appealing to me in those dreams to find a half dozen senior couples keeping vigil in a seldom visited shrine, ready for the those who will come. Probably not today, maybe not this week, but eventually an individual or small party will open the door, walk in with a recommend to enter, and find the temple ready for them. A bit like those currently staffing isolated church historical sites, a bit like a remote monastery.” Jun 11, 07:26
- on Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia: “I just thought of the funniest instance of “anti-Mormon” bias I experienced in academia, but it was from a student. It was back when Mitt Romney was running for President, before he had the nomination, and we were discussing each candidate in the primaries for each party, and what stereotypes people use for them (like McCain being a “Maverick” or whatever). When we got to Mitt, everyone was “he’s Mormon.” And then a student just blurted out “Mormons scare me.” I just said “there might be Mormons in the class for all you know.” And he was all “I doubt that.” I just said I knew there were some, and he could talk to me about it after class. Turned out he thought all Mormons were basically Amish-esque polygamists.” Jun 10, 19:17
- on Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia: “I did my MA at USU and my PhD at ASU. As a graduate student in history at USU, I encountered a lot of prejudice (throughout the College of Humanities and Social Sciences). Most people were very respectful and friendly, but there were definitely some who were not, and there were plenty of jabs, swipes, and slights. I didn’t realize how bad it was at USU until I moved to ASU. At ASU, some people would find out that you were a Mormon, and they would say, “Oh, you’re a Mormon – that’s weird,” and then it was on to the next topic. No big deal. This was a kind of general response. Many were more respectful than that and some were much less respectful than that. But overall it was much better at ASU than at USU. All of this was around the turn of the century. I don’t know what it is like nowadays.” Jun 10, 18:39
- on Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia: “JG, I’ve never said that there aren’t LDS scholars in those fields. I am saying that those who are the most successful are not THAT kind of Mormon. I am also saying that many of those who want to be seen in those fields are not seen because they do not want to play by the rules of the game by being THAT kind of Mormon. But really, if you think there are LDSs that deserve more attention in the academy, let’s hear who these folks are. I’m willing to bet I know the pool far more deeply than you do. Look at the way that Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, David Holland, Taylor’s Petrey, and Ben Park wear their Mormonism vs Daniel Peterson, John Gee, and Don Parry. There are good reasons why the latter group are not more widely respected in the academy, and it has far more to do with their unwillingness to hold academic to standards than it does with anti-LDS bias, despite what they’ll probably tell you. We can also do a comparison with scholars of other Faith communities if you’d like. One question to ask is whether their work supports the same kind of exclusive claims to truth that LDS might make or whether they are closer to what Grant Hardy and others just listed do. Regarding the small list of questions members are required to affirm, nearly every example I mentioned relates to those questions. The initial set of exclusive claims I list practically comes from the temple recommend questions. But of course those aren’t the only relevant issues. I double dog dare you to pray to heavenly mother in church on Sunday or bear your testimony about how a gay couple should be sealed in the temple. In the grand scheme of things the list is short, which is why I’ve said repeatedly that this comes to bear on a small number of fields, but you’re out here pretending like it shouldn’t matter to any of them. I’ve provided many examples of how it’s does matter and plenty of analogous examples, which you seem to think you’ve dealt with by waving your hand. I’ve already acknowledged the possibility of true anti-LDS bias in the academy, but you seem blind to your own biases.” Jun 10, 16:22
- on Anti-Latter-day Saint Stigma in Academia: “I spent many years in academia in the Midwest and can verify that the stigma against us is not only strong, it’s largely unrecognized. As a female LDS academic, I’ve faced it alone. I sacrificed for my academic career. I was never supported by YW leaders, bishops, or fellow sisters. Only a few family members stood by me. In fact, Church leaders actively discouraged me from this path, telling me it was an expensive and unnecessary for someone planning to be a homemaker. In every ward, I’ve been the only LDS sister in my RS working in academia. There were often sisters who were office professionals, and of course students, but I’ve always been the lone faculty. As you can guess, I’m usually the only female LDS faculty on campus as well. And I can’t help but feel envious when I see: Jewish women faculty supporting and mentoring one another Black and Hispanic sororities and academic clubs building community LGBTQ+ faculty, staff, and student groups advocating together Each of these groups actively mentors, promotes, and networks within their circles. We LDS sisters in academia have nothing like that. I’m not included in the male LDS faculty “clique.” The brethren in mortarboards don’t socialize with women and often don’t support working women, especially not ones who should be their professional equal or *gasp* their administrator. Are we a threat? They serve together in bishoprics and high councils, support each other’s promotion and tenure (P&T) processes, co-author publications, sit on each other’s PhD review and P&T committees, collaborate on grants, and validate each other’s community (church) service. There has never been a place for a woman at that patriarchal table. If there are LDS sisters who’ve found a way into that club, I’d love to know how they did it. And even though I believe deeply in removing barriers and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, I was never fully integrated into DEI spaces either. As a white, heterosexual woman, I was seen as someone who couldn’t possibly understand real discrimination or the minority experience. It’s a hard, lonely journey. Maybe my experience would be different in the Jell-O Belt. I’m sure sisters at Church schools face a different set of challenges. I wish professional groups for LDS academics, students, and scholars were more robust. The J. Reuben Clark Law Society is a heavy hitter—but it’s the exception, not the rule. At the end of the day- it’s a lonely business for LDS female faculty.” Jun 10, 15:31
