A Bit From the Corners of the Blogosphere

First, a disclaimer. I tend to avoid what some have called the “bloggernacle,“ that online space in which LDS folks like myself (you know, young, smart, a bit smarmy, and, of course, humble) blog about topics related to church doctrine, Mormon culture, politics vis-à-vis Mormonism, and, only occasionally, the truths of the gospel. It seems a bit of a navel-gazing world in which motes are dissected while beams are ignored, or, to paraphrase another New Testament passage, the weightier matters of the law get short shrift.

But yesterday I found this entry on By Common Consent (you can read my comment here), in which the author explores the relationship between the housing bubble and the rapid temple construction of the 1990s and the first part of the current decade. Wondering if the church engaged in an over-reaching akin to that of homebuyers who took on irresponsible mortgage, the entry sets out some interesting--but ultimately inconclusive--data. What I find is interesting here is how the analysis of the data assumes that the 1990 status quo was somehow right, and that a period of disproportionate temple-building was anomalous.

I think about this at times when I go to the temple here and find a party of 10 or so for a session. This is certainly a far cry from the experience of temple worship in Provo, but it’s disingenuous to think that one experience is somehow better than the other. There’s something very personal about attending the temple here that is lost in a place like Salt Lake or Los Angeles (pre-Newport Beach and Redlands--LA might be less busy now).

The other thing the BCC author neglects--either intentionally or incidentally--is the simple belief that prophets of God, who ultimately make the decision to build a temple in a certain place at a certain time, enjoy a sense of perspective that we typically miss out on. I wonder to what extent the 128 temples we have today are a groundwork for future growth. I agree with the basic premise that temple building has accelerated beyond the rate of conversion or retention during my adult life, but I don’t see that as being a problem; instead, I find great hope in that fact.

For example, the announcement of a temple in Rome--news that I received with great emotion--seems to me to be less a questionable move, based on the current strength of the church in Italy, than an indicator that something big is afoot there. I don’t delude myself into anticipating huge exponential increases in convert baptisms the day after the dedication, but I see the presence of a temple as a commitment by the church, an investment in the future of the church in a community.

In ABQ, for example, the youth in our ward are able to attend the temple every 6 weeks or so, which is much more frequently than I was able to go on temple trips as a teenager. The simple logistics of a 30-minute (versus 2+ hour) drive makes a difference. And this sort of regular, consistent temple attendance among youth has to make a difference long-term. Not only are these young people more likely to remain active, but the sense of dedication to the gospel will permeate their experience and worldview, making them better member-missionaries, better full-time missionaries, and better parents. And while there is value to the idea of great sacrifice in traveling long distances to attend the temple, proximity has its rewards too.