Well guys, I am posting under a different name today. Actually I haven't posted under my normal name for a few years and I rarely come to RFM anymore. Neverthless, I want to say something about this post.
Today I spoke with a dear friend of mine who is very active and works in the Oakland temple (OT) each week. He was told recently by the OT president that there would be many new temple announcements at conference this weekend. The OT will eventually service a very small regional population zone, even though it is a very large edifice. The new ones are going to be placed closer to the people to bless their lives. How many times do we have to hear that explanation? (sarcasm)
In my mind I can only think that is to spur on members to pay tithing so they can work inside, clean it and do all the other stuff that keeps changing every 20 years or so. Maybe it's because TSCC wants hundreds more as real estate structures to advertise itself to the non-mormon public? I don't know.
Being that I have left TSCC long ago I wanted to know my friend's impression of a SJ temple. He spoke with mixed feelings because of the huge down turn in activity in SJ church attendance and membership. The area lost 2 stakes by 2010 due to a large exodus when folks made big bucks on their homes and moved to Idaho, Utah, Arizona and Texas.
In the past 10 years the dwindling has continued. The SJ Mission office moved out of the SJ McLaughlin building that had two wards in it. It is now empty with no services.
The SJ Mission moved into the iconic stake center building on Cherry Ave. That was the first stake center built here in the late 1950's and it is still a huge unique building. It is no longer used as a stake center for the San Jose Stake which moved to a smaller building across town.
There used to be two wards in the Almaden Valley but so many moved out cashing in on their homes that there is one small ward in that area.
The most recently built meetinghouse is called the Yerba Buena building in east San Jose. It was built similar to the one in Fremont, CA -- but with improvements. It has two chapels, and two cultural halls -- and is two stories. It was designed to house 6 wards meeting in one building with 3 hour long meeting schedules. Today there are TWO wards in the entire large complex with only 2 hour long schedules.
So I ask why build a temple in San Jose when things are shrinking? Certainly TSCC knows the second or third largest city in California isn't growing in mormon population!
There are very few new converts to my knowledge.
This is a very pricey area to live especially if you plan to purchase a home. For example, my house cost $38K in 1970 and it would sell today for $1.7 million with a new appraised property tax for the new buyer (calculated to 1.25% per year -- or $21K).
San Jose is not mormon friendly.
My friend told me today that the OT president said these new temples would be very small. Well how small? Like the ones Hinkley built in the late 90's and early 2000's? Or will they be smaller?
I think TSCC is trying the failed Hinkley program again because they are desperate to get tithing $$$. We on RFM know it's not about anything more than that, but try telling that to a believer.
My friend thinks the new edifice might be built on the Yerba Buena property. Maybe so? If that be the case then 99+% of the population will never see it since it will be over the hill from the valley. Wouldn't that be nice for those of us who don't want to be reminded of what TSCC is really all about.
I was near sick to my stomach today when a sibling from out of state emailed me with the news since I never watch conference anymore. I responded back with one word in my email reply and I got rebuked rather quickly for being disrespectful of what she thought I would be exited to know.
No --- San Jose does not need this. I just hope it never happens. But if it does, I hope it's not next to a major freeway and in your face.
If only the believers would read everything on MormonThink. I did and that did it for me. "Adieu" -- if you know what that references.
Thanks for the report. You could be right that the temple boom is the return of the Hinkley era way of thinking. I've also read something that confused me -- that the Mormon church is going to be putting more emphasis on temples as opposed to ward buildings. It was something about how the TBMs find temple attendance rewarding, but ward attendance not so much. As I said, confusing.
I think it is a financial decision. Turn some of the cash glut into a tangible asset. Development can be put off to, well, forever. Plus, someone has to develop and build them. A lot of money floating around... I am sure there are tax reasons as well.
The backlog is rather large right now. I think it's more than 70 temples announced that have not even been started yet. Why continue with so many announcements with such a backlog? The only reasons I can see for that are to keep the members excited, and the tithing money flowing in.
Right. They can buy the land now and hold it, knowing that they picked areas anticipated to grow. Then they can sell the land as the area gets developed and steer the area around their land to be profitable too.
If they never get around to building a temple, well ka-ching on the land deals they can make.
I'm so disgusted that religion can do this kind of thing and still get the tax perks and protections of religion.
If they ever build that temple, they can temporarily close the Oakland one for " earthquake retrofitting" as that's what happened when the Irvine/Newport Beach temple was opened, the LA temple was temporarily closed for earthquake retrofitting.
Thank you jc and summer for this information. The ward on San Felipe can be seen from our local park. I often drive by the building. The Catholic Church next door is very busy. The Mormon one not so much. I take it that this is the Yerba Buena building?
It is an expensive area. Recent real estate prices are still high. I don’t know of any Mormons in this area.
I'll give you all some background about the Oakland Temple when I went there on these monthly church mandated youth temple trips. Back in the 1980s, the ETB church presidency began pushing all members to go to the temple and this was a change because the Seventies (remember them?) and the High Priests had a monthly competition to see which group could do the most sessions. Most members did not regularly attend the temple during this time frame. As an Aaronic priesthood holder, I was attending a lot more than my parents- neither of them held a TR at the time.
The Oakland temple became a Mormon hotspot every Saturday there were youth groups from all over Northern California waiting in line to access the font. I still remember groups from Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding, Sacramento, Ukiah, Eureka (this group had travelled the farthest and they got priority to cut in front of everyone else). The groups from San Jose, Hayward and Fremont were asked to come back after 2pm~ I don't know if they did or not. I remember that my Foothill ward was still waiting at 2pm.
I'm in the greater Sacramento area and I remember going to the Oakland temple as a youth in the early 1990's. I only went once or twice. It was a long drive. Now we have one really close by and I have to see it every time I'm on the freeway. Ugh.
bluebutterfly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm in the greater Sacramento area and I remember > going to the Oakland temple as a youth in the > early 1990's. I only went once or twice. It was a > long drive. Now we have one really close by and I > have to see it every time I'm on the freeway. > Ugh.
I have another ick moment, before that Aero Jet property was repurposed into the Sac Temple, there used to be regional youth dances there. I got lost and made a wrong turn on Sunrise and drove south to the boondocks at Sheldon. I ended up on 99 down near Galt before realizing how lost I was.
Later I attended someone's wedding reception there and this time I hitched a ride.
I would have assumed people from Bakersfield would have gone to the LA temple, as it would have been a slightly shorter drive. Then again, I guess just as with wards, they don't get a choice of which temple to attend in most cases, especially if they have a bad spin of Bishop roulette.
San Jose. You know how the church likes to build temples that reflect the local area. They should build a temple that resembles the Winchester Mystery House. They are similar. Mrs. Winchester wasted money building something completely weird and silly that serves no real purpose.
A bunch of folks from San Jose moved into my home ward 25 years ago. Many sold their swanky homes during a rush to the Silicon Valley housing crunch and they made good money from it.
Many moved up into the foothills, moving into newly constructed gated communities. About half were nice, they assimilated into my former home ward with grace and generosity- others were woefully unhappy. Quite a few were unhappy about their new callings in an established ward.
Many went straight to the stake president with their former ward's tithing slips in hand. Less than 6 months, there was an unexpected new bishopric. All of them, save the executive secretary were San Jose natives.
Now here's the silver lining. Within 4 years, living in the foothills wasn't all that was cracked up to be. Either they became bored, didn't like snow and road closures or figured that the ward was too liberal or too conservative. Many of them left for Idaho.