Talk:Junius Driggs

The verbiage on what he did as temple president is misleading, and the statement about his length of service is wrong
The area on Driggs as temple president is just wrong. While his duties may describe what he used most of his time doing, it underestimates that the temple president is the head of the temple. His duty is to make sure the temple runs smoothly, andordinances are administered as prescribed. While initial greeting and interviewing potential temple workers may be where he does his actions most, he also has to ensure that training of temple workers is done right, and there are other duties. Also, the wording about 3-year-terms is just wrong. At present all temple presidents are called for 3-year-terms, be they in Colonia Juarez the smallest temple in the Church or Salt Lake City the largest. From 1998-2005 there was a plan to have presidents of some of the smaller temples serve 5 years, but by 2005 it was decided that it was better even in those temples to only have temple presidents serve 3 years, although Colonia Juazrez alone held out on the longer term plan until roughly 2015. However, that is not at all relevant to Driggs service in 1975-1980. What is relevant is this the list of Mesa Arizona Temple presidents. Kenneth M. Smith the current one was serving when the temple closed for renovation, so he has not actually actively served over 3 years over an actually operating temple. If you look at the list you see everyone else from LeRoy Layton to the present served 3 years. However you also see here that the claim about the uniqueness of Driggs term is false. L. Harold Wright who succeeded him served 5 years, so did his predecessor C. Bryant Whiting. In the Swiss temple the 2 who overlapped with Diggs, Immo Luschien served 5 years and Percy Fetzer 4 years. The presidents of the Cardston Temple who overlap with Driggs both served 5 years. The presidents of the Hamilton New Zeland temple who overlap both served 4 years. In the Idaho Falls Temple, Delbert V. Groberg is president the same 5 years as President Driggs. In Logan the Temple presidents who overlap serve 5 and 6 years. We even have an article on the second of these Reed Bullen. In London the temple presidents serve 6 and 3 years. Richard C. Statford in the Los Angeles temple served the same 5 years as Driggs, although his successor only served 2. However that was Robert L. Simpson, who was a general authority while serving as temple president, and it looks to me like the trend in the 1980s was to have general authorities serving as temple presidents only serve as temple presidents 2 years, after the 1980s they seem to stop having current general authorities serve as temple presidents, although in the 1990s some 2nd quorumers start as temple president before they are released. Since 2000 releases have been largely done away with, and norally emeritized general authroties start as temple presidents before they are emeritized. It also seems they may have started piloting 3 year terms for temple presidents in about 1980, but this does not become the norm until about 1985, and even then it is pushed back against in 1997, and not fully normed until 2005, when it is normed for all temples. Lai'e Temple presidents who overlapped with Driggs served 7 years and 4 years. Manti, 4 and 7, the later was Wilbur Cox who early was the first stake president in Boston. Oakland presidents serve 5 and 6 years. Ogden 4 and 4. Provo 4 and 4, followed by Simpson for 2 years, but Simpson is another 1980s concurrent tmeple president and general authority. Salt Lake is another 5 and 5 overlap. Sao Paulo is a 1 and 5 overlap. However Finn Paulsen serves as temple president for a year because he died. St. George 5 and 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In summary in the 1970s when Driggs was temple president, the general plan was to have temple presidents serve 4-6 years. The plan to have them serve 3 years is only put in place after the time of Diggs service, so the way the article tries to make Driggs an outlier for serving 5 years is based on an anachronistic imposing of a post-1970s system (the actual wording only applies to the system that existed from 1997-2005) on something in the 1970s. This is misleading and needs to be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)