Trivia question for you: what was the first LDS temple outside the United States? The answer is below but see if you can guess before you read the answer. In our final conversation with BYU Church History professor Dr. Richard Bennett, we learned that this temple marked the end of gathering the church to Utah, and the beginning of creating temples away from the center of Mormonism.
Temples were magnets and were a powerful factor in people gathering from Europe and inland to the Rocky Mountains. Originally they went to Nauvoo. The saints wanted to be where the temple is.
After 1900 and the beginning of an understanding that we should stay where we are and gather to the local units and gather in their own nations, you begin to see temples now moving out from Utah. I think the first major expression of that would be the Cardston Temple.
We also discussed the Temple Ship, an idea mentioned in Greg Prince’s biography of President David O. McKay!
Yes I know that story, like a Hope Ship. It had a lot of traction at one time. It’s pretty hard to keep sacred a ship though, {chuckles} and I think that was the thing that sunk it, the idea that, oh we can have this boat that would be a dedicated temple. The reason it had traction was you could go to places where the saints were. You could go to the islands and different countries all over the world. But I think, I don’t know. I remember studying that when I was studying the life of David O. McKay years ago, and I wrote the history of Brigham Young University, shadow boat history. This was going to be difficult to keep a ship afloat that’s a temple and keep it sacred, going all over the place, and having it serviced and everything else, plus the cost.
Check out our conversation, and give us a 5 star review on iTunes or Youtube! What do you think about the idea of a temple ship? Would it have been viable?
Wheat & Tares 
While you can debate about whether a US territory was international, the Laie Hawaii Temple was dedicated 4 years before the Cardston.
I know nothing about servicing ships, but it seems to me that if you let go of the idea that the whole ship would be a dedicated temple, the idea seems quite plausible. The bridge, engine room, crew quarters, temple worker quarters, mess hall, etc would all be outside of the dedicated space. Locker rooms (with space for initiatories), an ordinance room, a celestial room, a baptistry, and a sealing room would inside the dedicated space. A travelling custodial staff should be able to service that area. The rest could be serviced like any other ship. The baptistry would be the trickiest aspect. Reliable clean water supplies might not be readily available at every port and the pumps would require expert servicing.
It’s too late to take this seriously, however. The marginal benefit would be very small compared to the days before the proliferation of land-based temples.
While a temple ship could easily be smaller than modern cruise ships and still be larger than most temples, we’re probably past the era where it’d be useful. Most of our growth in areas that are lacking temples are pretty landlocked (Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe).
Very interesting Narrator! I guess Hawaii was a US Territory from 1898-1959, so yes that is debatable as to whether that should be considered international.
Last Lemming, I believe there are a few temples (Manhattan, and perhaps Asia) where local ordinances require the main floor to be accessible to the public. The upper floors are considered the temple, so I think a temple ship could have temple/non-temple parts.
The Manhattan temple is in the same building as the stake center. It was the first thing I thought of when I read this article, actually.
There are plenty of parts of the world where land-based temples have not yet proliferated. It is a major sacrifice and once-in-a-lifetime experience for some to attend the temple, even today.
The other is the Hong Kong Temple above the chapel. I hear when that was being built that the idea was conceived then because the church were anxious to get a temple built there before Britain’s lease on Hong Kong finished and it was returned to China. It was impossible for them to find any land, so thet had to use land they already owned where they already had a chapel. I believe it required them to think outside the box. I don’t think they were able to think that way at the time the ship idea was discussed. It took the urgency they felt at the opportunity to get a temple into what would become Chinese territory.
If U.S Territories count, then the answer is St. George.
You guys are bringing up some awesome comments! St. George certainly was the first Utah Temple, but that would count as too close to church headquarters, IMO. Laie, Hawaii Temple is definitely the first remote temple, (I didn’t realize it was constructed prior to Cardston, which I think we hear nothing about with regards to historical temples.)
I’ve attended a wedding in St. George, but not an endowment session. I know Salt Lake has live endowments, and it seems like I heard Manti does too. Does anyone know if St. George, Cardston, or other temples use temple workers rather than a film for the endowment?
Salt Lake and Manti are the only temples with live sessions. I attended a live session in Idaho Falls in the 1980s, but I think it was the most recent to convert from live to film.
I wouldn’t call St. George “international” either, but distance from HQ isn’t what would make it international. St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake were all dedicated in the Territory of Utah before statehood in 1896. That puts them in the United States in my book, but if the Territory of Hawaii doesn’t count as U.S. in 1919, then the four temples in Utah aren’t in the U.S. either until 1896.
We could do the temple airplane nowadays. Time to take the 747 all over the world and spend a few days in big cities everywhere. There could be 1 or 2 ordinance rooms, with 20-40 people, a celestial room, sealing room and other offices. The 2nd floor could be the celestial room or sealing area in addition to the flight deck. Small changing areas in the front or back and you are good to go.
In all likelihood, the church will pay for some to travel long distances from impoverished areas and come out money ahead vs. the temple airplane.
There have been many ideas floated that have been turned down by the Temple Department. Another interesting proposal came from Carl Bacon at the Provo Utah Temple when he was president. He proposed having two baptismal fonts at the Provo Temple because the font was so busy due to BYU students. Of course, this proposal was turned down and the department told the president to extend the hours to accommodate more patrons.
A floating or flying temple would be very difficult to staff. The Provo Utah Temple, at it’s height, took over 4,000 volunteers to staff the temple, a full time recorder, 4-5 assistant temple recorders, 8 engineers (because half of them didn’t work), a full cafeteria staff, a full laundry staff, etc. But the most critical issue is the “sacred materials” and how to protect them if there was a crash or accident. There is both printed and video materials that would have to be immediately recovered which could be impossible in some circumstances.
I’ve been to Provo a few times and the wait times are always terrible. Two fonts is a great idea for that temple for sure! Extending hours doesn’t fix the busy from 3-10 pm problem, when people are out of school. Two fonts would definitely help that problem.