Idaho

by

In re Cantu

Decision: In re Rebecca Cherie Cantu and Alejandro Cantu, Case No. 14-40254-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho, 26 Aug. 2014)
Judge: Honorable Jim D. Pappas, United States Bankruptcy Judge
Counsel for Debtors: Paul Ross, Idaho Bankruptcy Law, Paul, Idaho
Chapter 7 Trustee: Gary L. Rainsdon, Twin Falls, Idaho
Trustee’s Counsel: Brett R. Cahoon and Daniel C. Green, Racine, Olsen, Nye, Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, Idaho

Background

Rebecca and Alejandro Cantu filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on 20 March 2014. In the months leading up to their filing, two creditors — NCO Financial and Bonneville Billing and Collections — had been garnishing their wages pursuant to state court judgments. NCO, collecting on student loans, garnished 15% of Ms. Cantu’s wages each pay period under federal law. Bonneville garnished an additional 10% under state law. Idaho only allows a maximum of 25% to be garnished from an individual’s wages. Over the 90-day preference period preceding the petition date, the two creditors combined had garnished a total of $1,536.93 from the Debtors’ paychecks.

On their amended Schedule B, Debtors listed the garnished funds as personal property and claimed $1,500 of that amount exempt under Idaho Code § 11-605(12) — a wage exemption statute enacted by the Idaho Legislature in 2010, and one that, as Judge Pappas noted, had never been interpreted by any court.

The Trustee’s Objections

The Chapter 7 Trustee filed two objections in sequence. The first, argued simply that the garnished funds were not “disposable earnings receivable” because they had already been paid to the creditors prior to the bankruptcy filing. When the Debtors amended their Schedule C to increase the claimed exemption from $1,086.53 to the statutory maximum of $1,500, the Trustee withdrew the first objection and filed a more detailed second objection through retained counsel.

The second objection raised two grounds. First, the Trustee argued the garnished funds were avoidable preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) — transfers made within 90 days of filing to specific creditors on account of antecedent debt — and that the Debtors were therefore barred from exempting them under § 522(g), which limits a debtor’s ability to exempt property recovered by the trustee to situations where the debtor could have exempted the property absent the transfer. Second, the Trustee contended that because the Debtors had received a benefit from the garnishments — reduction of their judgment debts — the funds had effectively been “paid” to them, and thus did not qualify as unpaid wages under Idaho Code § 11-605(12).

The Debtors’ Responses

This firm filed two responses on behalf of the Debtors, tracking the Trustee’s evolving objections.

On the statutory interpretation question, Debtors argued that Idaho Code § 11-605(12) means exactly what it says: the exemption applies to earnings that “have been earned but have not been paid to the individual.” The garnished funds were unquestionably earned by Ms. Cantu through her personal services, and they were never paid to her — they were diverted directly to her creditors via the sheriff. The statute does not require that funds be “receivable,” nor does it specify where the funds must be held. The Trustee’s position that the funds were “effectively paid” to the Debtors because they reduced outstanding debts stretched the statutory language beyond its plain meaning.

On the § 522(g) issue, Debtors argued that the garnishments were not voluntary transfers — they were compelled by court order — and that the funds had not been concealed, as they were fully disclosed on Schedule B and the Statement of Financial Affairs. Because the property could have been exempted under Idaho Code § 11-605(12) had it remained with the employer and not yet been paid, the Debtors were entitled to claim the exemption on any funds recovered by the Trustee under § 522(h).

The Court’s Ruling

Judge Pappas ruled in favor of the Trustee and sustained the objection, disallowing the exemption. The Court’s analysis turned entirely on the meaning of the phrase “have not been paid to the individual” in Idaho Code § 11-605(12).

The Court acknowledged that the statute had never been interpreted by any court since its enactment in 2010, and that the phrase “paid to the individual” was arguably ambiguous. However, the Court concluded that reading the statute in context — as required under Idaho rules of statutory construction — compelled the conclusion that the garnished wages had been paid.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on several fronts:

From the employer’s perspective, the wages were indisputably paid. The employer transferred the full amount owed to Debtors — some directly to them, and the garnished portion to the sheriff on their account — satisfying its payroll obligation in full.

From the Debtors’ own perspective, the Court found the wages had likewise been paid. The garnished sums reduced the Debtors’ outstanding judgment debts, conferring a direct financial benefit. To hold otherwise, the Court noted, would potentially require employers to pay the garnished amounts twice — once to the sheriff, and again to the debtor following a successful exemption claim — a result the Idaho Legislature could not have intended.

The Court also rejected the Debtors’ reading as internally inconsistent with Idaho’s garnishment statutes. Idaho Code § 8-509(b) expressly directs an employer-garnishee to “pay” the earned wages to the sheriff for the creditor’s benefit. Treating those same wages as simultaneously “paid” for garnishment purposes and “unpaid” for exemption purposes would create an irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes. As the Court observed, while exemption statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of debtors, statutory language should not be “tortured” in the name of liberal construction.

Because it resolved the case on the § 11-605(12) issue, the Court declined to reach the Trustee’s alternative argument under § 522(g).

Why This Matters

1. A case of first impression on Idaho Code § 11-605(12). The Court explicitly noted that no prior case had interpreted this 2010 wage exemption statute. This decision remains the leading — and only — authority on its meaning and scope. Idaho practitioners advising debtors on wage garnishment situations should be aware of its limitations.

2. “Paid to the individual” means paid on the individual’s account, not just into their hands. The Court’s construction of the statute is broad: wages diverted to a creditor through garnishment are treated as paid for exemption purposes, even though the debtor never personally received them. Debtors who suffer pre-petition garnishments cannot use § 11-605(12) to recapture those funds in bankruptcy.

3. The interplay between § 547 preferences and § 522(g) exemptions is complex. Where a trustee seeks to avoid a pre-petition garnishment as a preference, the debtor’s ability to claim an exemption in the recovered funds depends on whether the property could have been exempted in the first instance. This case illustrates how critical it is to identify viable exemption authority before asserting the right to avoid a transfer under § 522(h).

4. Debtors should assert wage exemptions in state court before filing. The Court noted, in a footnote, that Idaho Code § 8-519 permitted the Debtors to have raised an exemption claim in state court at the time of the garnishment. No such claim was made. Practitioners should advise clients facing wage garnishment to promptly evaluate available exemptions under state law — before funds leave the employer’s hands.

5. Liberal construction has limits. Idaho courts construe exemption statutes in favor of debtors, but that principle does not authorize courts to rewrite statutory language. Where plain meaning and statutory context point clearly in one direction, liberal construction will not overcome them.

Full Decision: Available on PACER, Case No. 14-40254-JDP, Doc. 51 (Bankr. D. Idaho 26 Aug. 2014)

Exemption DecisionDownload
by

Gooding County Courthouse

Gooding County Idaho Courthouse

I have been taking pictures of various Idaho County Courthouses as I get around. Here is another in that series.

I don’t get to Gooding County very often. It is still in the 5th Judicial District, so I get there once in a while. Normally something doing a title search in the land records or rarely for a court appearance.

The last time I was at the Gooding County Courthouse in mid 2025, I found a 1942 French two francs coin in the parking lot. It was my lucky day. I told the bailiff and employee in the recorders office in case anyone showed up asking about it. I still have it, so its owner doesn’t know where they lost it, or didn’t know they had a two francs coin. It is worth between $10 to $30 as of when I found it. France is on the Euro now.

by

Preston England Dedication Handkerchief

Preston England Temple Dedication Handkerchief

On 5 April 2020, I had to go digging to find my Hosanna Shout Handkerchief. It was the 200th Anniversary of the First Vision of Joseph Smith Jr. and President Russell M. Nelson had indicated we would be having a Hosanna Shout the day before to honor and celebrate. At some point on that day I snapped this picture of my handkerchief.

This handkerchief was given to me in Runcorn, England by John and Rose Byrom. It had been used in the Hosanna Shout for the Preston England Temple Dedication. I do not know who it belonged to or why it was being given to some missionary from Idaho, but I gladly accepted it. I got to use it for the first time on 8 October 2000 in the Manchester England Stake Center for the dedication of the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Several days later I recall my companion, Elder Gheorghe Simion, telling me that during the night he heard me muttering the Hosanna Shout in my sleep. Later, again, we were in the car and he told me I should stop saying the Hosanna Shout under my breath. I had not realized I was doing it. But I do catch myself once and a while repeating its words to myself on particular occasions. It is deeply entrenched in my soul.

As I sat thinking about this handkerchief in 2020, I was thinking about all the occasions on which I have had the privilege of using it since then. For a record, I thought I better list the dates this handkerchief was used for a Hosanna Shout. I have updated it even for additional uses since 2020, particularly in dedicating our own Burley Idaho Temple.

Preston England Temple – 7-10 June 1998 – Preston England Temple, Chorley, England. I did not use it, someone else did.

Conference Center – 8 October 2000 – Manchester Stake Center, Altrincham, England.

Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple – 22 April 2001 – Branson Chapel, Branson, Missouri.

Nauvoo Illinois Temple – 27 June 2002 – Branson Chapel, Branson, Missouri.

Boise Idaho Temple – 18 November 2012 – Paul Idaho Stake Center – Paul, Idaho.

Provo City Utah Temple – 20 March 2016 – Kaysville Utah South Stake Center, Kaysville, Utah.

Idaho Falls Idaho Temple – 4 June 2017 – Burley West Idaho Stake Center, Burley, Idaho.

Meridian Idaho Temple – 19 November 2017 – Burley West Idaho Stake Center, Burley, Idaho.

Palm Sunday – 5 April 2020 – Ross Home, 819 Fairmont Street, Burley, Idaho.

Pocatello Idaho Temple – 7 November 2021 – American Falls Idaho Stake Center, American Falls, Idaho.

Layton Utah Temple – 16 June 2024 – Kaysville Columbia Heights, Kaysville 11th, and Spencer Wards Building, Kaysville, Utah.

Burley Idaho Temple – 11 January 2026 – Burley Idaho Central Stake Center, Burley, Idaho.

by

2023 Inaugural Dinner

Standing (l-r) Scott & Sarah Erekson, Jolene Maloney, Anne Taylor, Teresa Molitor; Seated: Trish and Tony Geddes, Amanda and Paul Ross

This is an election year. All our Idaho Constitutional Officers are up for election again. I hope some great candidates will step forward to run.

Amanda and I were fortunate to attend the Inaugural Dinner in January 2023. Many who were working on the new Idaho State Public Defender legislation were invited to attend. It was an honor.

We also walked up to the Capitol afterward for some of the festivities there.

What will the inauguration in January 2027 look like?

Amanda and Paul Ross in the Idaho State Capitol – Boise, Idaho

Extra points for those who recognize my lapel pin…

by

In re Champ

Decision: In re Richard M. Champ and Helen B. Champ, Case No. 08-40272-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho, 19 Aug. 2013)
Judge: Honorable Jim D. Pappas, United States Bankruptcy Judge
Counsel for Debtors: Paul Ross, Idaho Bankruptcy Law, Paul, Idaho
Chapter 13 Trustee: Kathleen A. McCallister, Meridian, Idaho

Background

Richard and Helen Champ filed a Chapter 13 petition on 8 April 2008, represented by attorney Emil F. Pike, Jr. Their plan was confirmed in October 2008, requiring monthly payments of $910 over sixty months toward $53,019.09 in unsecured debt. The confirmation order included a specific provision reflecting that Mrs. Champ had a pending Social Security disability claim: if she were awarded benefits, the Debtors were required to file an amended Schedule I to disclose that income.

The Debtors faithfully made plan payments for nearly five years — even through a period in which Mr. Champ suffered a heart attack and the Trustee extended the payment period to allow them to catch up. By the time this dispute arose, only approximately $1,130 remained unpaid under the Plan.

The Trustee’s Motion

In March 2013 — nearly two years after learning of the Social Security award from the Debtors’ 2011 tax return — McCallister filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the Debtors had failed to comply with the confirmation order by not amending their schedules to disclose Mrs. Champ’s Social Security lump sum award of $37,914.40 and her ongoing monthly benefit of $1,038.90. The Trustee argued the award remained property of the estate and demanded either dismissal or a turnover of approximately $25,600 to pay creditors in full.

The Objection

The Debtors engaged new counsel — Paul Ross with Idaho Bankruptcy Law — and filed a substantive objection raising several important points.

First, the Debtors’ original attorney, Emil Pike, had passed away in April 2010, leaving them without legal guidance at the precise moment they needed it most. When Mrs. Champ received the Social Security award in mid-2011, the Debtors did what they understood to be appropriate — they called the Trustee’s office. A factual dispute arose over what was communicated: the Trustee believed the Debtors were asking about a payoff and were told to contact an attorney; the Debtors believed they were simply told to keep making plan payments. Either way, their outreach demonstrated good faith, not an intent to conceal.

Second, new counsel promptly filed amended Schedules B, C, and I to address all disclosure deficiencies, including the Social Security lump sum, the ongoing monthly benefit, and a previously undisclosed $92 monthly Lamb Weston pension payment to Mrs. Champ.

Third, and critically as a legal matter, Social Security benefits are excluded from the calculation of a debtor’s current monthly income under 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B) following BAPCPA. As such, the Social Security award would not have increased the Debtors’ required plan payments regardless of when it was disclosed. The Trustee’s demand for a $25,600 turnover had no statutory basis.

The objection also raised alternative relief: modification of the plan under § 1329 to reduce any remaining payment obligation to zero given the Debtors’ reduced income and medical hardships, or alternatively, a hardship discharge under § 1328(b) given that the plan shortfall was attributable to circumstances beyond the Debtors’ control — specifically, the death of their attorney and Mr. Champ’s serious medical issues.

The Court’s Ruling

Judge Pappas denied the Trustee’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. While acknowledging that the Debtors technically failed to comply with the confirmation order, the Court exercised its discretion under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) — which uses the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall” — and weighed the totality of the circumstances carefully.

The Court’s analysis turned on several key findings:

  • The death of the Debtors’ attorney left them without guidance at a pivotal moment, and their confusion about compliance was understandable given that circumstance
  • The Debtors’ phone call to the Trustee’s office and their voluntary provision of their 2011 tax return — which disclosed the Social Security income — demonstrated that they were not attempting to conceal anything
  • The Debtors had substantially completed five years of plan payments; denying them a discharge at that stage would be a disproportionately harsh sanction
  • Under post-BAPCPA law, Social Security income is excluded from current monthly income under § 101(10A)(B), meaning the award would not have changed the Debtors’ payment obligations in any event — a point recently confirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Drummond v. Welsh (In re Welsh), 711 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2013)
  • The undisclosed Lamb Weston pension of $92 per month, while a concern, was too minor an omission to override five years of consistent plan compliance

The Court declined to consider the alternative requests for plan modification or hardship discharge raised in the objection, noting those would need to be raised by proper motion with appropriate notice — but the dismissal motion itself was denied, clearing the path for the Debtors to receive their discharge.

Why This Matters

1. Disclosure obligations are ongoing and binding. Confirmed plans create court orders, and debtors must comply with them throughout the life of the case — not just at the point of confirmation. A change in financial circumstances mid-case requires prompt attention.

2. Attorney death mid-case creates real risk for clients. When counsel passes away during a long Chapter 13 plan, clients are left without guidance precisely when they may need it most. Practitioners and courts alike should be attentive to these situations, and successor counsel should audit compliance with the confirmation order from the outset.

3. Social Security income is excluded from disposable income calculations post-BAPCPA. While SS income must be disclosed on Schedule I, it does not factor into a debtor’s projected disposable income under § 1325(b), and — as confirmed in In re Welsh — it cannot be considered in a good faith analysis under § 1325(a). The Trustee’s demand for a $25,600 turnover in this case was legally untenable.

4. Dismissal under § 1307(c) is discretionary. Courts are not required to dismiss even upon a finding of material default. Where debtors have acted in good faith, made substantial plan payments, and the equities weigh against dismissal, courts retain and will exercise broad discretion to deny the motion.

5. Good faith communication matters. The Debtors’ efforts — calling the Trustee’s office, providing tax returns, engaging new counsel promptly — were central to the Court’s finding that no intent to evade existed. Documented communication with the Trustee’s office, even if informal, can be meaningful evidence in contested dismissal proceedings.

Full Decision: Case No. 08-40272-JDP, Doc. 72 (Bankr. D. Idaho 19 Aug. 2013)

Memorandum of DecisionDownload
by

Christmas 2022

James sneaked down to catch Santa, but fell asleep

Since we just passed Christmas, I thought I would share a couple of pictures from our first Christmas in our current home. The difference 3 years makes!

Have to wait before they can descend to see the presents or trees on Christmas morning

Traditionally we make all the kids get up and get together and we go in together. That way nobody peeks or otherwise gets ahead of the other kids.

This year was unique in that we arrived home after midnight. Kids slept in until past 8 am.

by

Pearlie letter to Jim

This letter was shared with me by Erron Alvey. Erron and I are cousins descending from James Thomas Ross/Meredith and Damey Catherine Graham. I have written about them before. In 2020, I shared that some more photos of James/Jim were found and I hoped that more would be found. Erron is a descendant through Robert “Bob” Leonard Ross, brother to my John “Jack” Ross. Bob’s daughter, Mary, is Erron’s Great Grandmother. It appears that some of Jim’s possessions and photos have come through the generations to her. She provided some photographs and other documents for scanning, I scanned 215 documents in all. Among them, was this letter. Pearlie was married to James Thomas Ross/Meredith Jr. Envelopes suggest Jim was living in Winton, California. None of the letters have an address on them.

The letter is dated 1934. That is right in the depths of the Great Depression. During this time in California, Jim is planning on making his way to the Salt Lake City Temple. There he will make covenants only available in temples. His closest temple at that time would have been St. George. But he has family and friends in Salt Lake City. I don’t know if he made it to Vernal and Lapoint to visit James and Pearlie and their family. But this certainly gives some more insight into the ongoing conversations and relationships that existed. I will share the scans of the letter below. I will also share some of the stash of photos that have come over, unfortunately most are unnamed individuals. Jim was baptized and confirmed 17 April 1898. He received his endowment 20 June 1935 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Damey, who has passed away in 1933, also received her endowment vicariously on the same date. They were also sealed that same date. This letter is 11 months before Jim made the trip and received these ordinances.

Pearlie May Marshall was born 16 September 1892 in Gladesboro, Carroll, Virginia and died 17 September 1976 in Vernal, Uintah, Utah. She married to James Thomas Ross (1895 – 1964) 4 June 1913 in Laurel Fork, Carroll, Virginia. They divorced and she remarried to Ashley Bartlett in Vernal, Utah, 22 November 1938. James Jr and Pearlie had six children: Vesta Virginia Ross (1914 – 2007), Eugene Dale Ross (1915 – 1986), Iola Inez Ross (1918 – 1976), Ernest Howard Ross (1919 – 1922), Sydney Bea Ross (1922 – 2010), and Carma Ross (1924 – 2015). All but Sydney were born in Lapoint, she was born in Rupert, Minidoka, Idaho. Ernest died in Rupert while there.

James and Pearlie Ross

Lapoint, Ut

July 20, 1934

Dear Dad,

We were surely pleased to get your letter as we half been expecting one for some time.

How are you and what are you doing?  We are all well as usual and not doing much of any thing.

Are times getting any better down there?  Don’t seem to be any better here, besides the water situation is getting serious.

Just enough for gardens and maybe that won’t last.

No hay or grain raised if under the White Rocks Canal and not much under the Government Canal.

Glad you are coming to Salt Lake City to go through the Temple.

Nothing would please me better than to go through with you, but I haven’t a penny now and don’t suppose I will then, but if it is possible I will be there.

One of my neighbors used to work in the Temple.  She said you could get some one there to go through with you, but I will if I can get there.

I wish Tom would go and be sealed to you and have our work done but I’ve about given up all hopes.

You must be sure and come on out here whether I can meet you there or not.

It won’t cost much more and we want to see you so bad.  The children talk about your a lot.  Sydney and Carma are getting to be quite big girls now.  Eugene hasn’t grown much since you saw him.  Surely sorry to hear Jack had cancer of the stomach.  Hope he is better by now.

How are Fannie’s folks?

I wrote her 2 or 3 weeks ago but haven’t heard from her.  

Do you still stay with Florence?  How are her and her family?  Tell her to write and tell all about herself and kiddies.

Where is Orson?  How are he and his wife getting along.  Where does Mary live and how is her health now.

Dad and Mother are getting quite feeble.  They ask about you often.  Said give you their love.  All the rest are quite well.  The depression has hit them all.  

Irma and Bill are still here but would like to lie in Calif.

Well, Dad don’t wait so long to write us as we are always anxious to hear from you.  Be sure you make your plans to come on here when you come to Salt Lake.

Would like for you to come stay with us.  It was not cold here last winter so maybe it won’t be this.

Any way come for awhile.  I’ll meet you if I can.

Please write soon.

Love from all

Pearlie

by

Burley Idaho Temple Open House

The Burley Idaho Temple Open House ran 3 November 2025 to 22 November 2025. It was an amazing opportunity to invite the local and broader community to walk through a pinnacle of our worship. I attended 5 of the much more individual and personal tours on the 3rd through 5th with public leaders and distinguished guests. I wish everyone could attend these tours, which would often take 45 minutes to 60 minutes for the full tour. Some of these were guided by General Authorities, including Elders Steven R. Bangerter, Karl D. Hirst, and K. Brett Nattress.

On Thursday, the general public was welcome to attend open tours. Our first tour tried to do a small introduction in each room, but about half-way through that was abandoned to keep the lines moving. Every tour I attended afterward did not have any attempted presentations, other than to remind individuals to not take photos and to speak softly.

Amanda sneaked over and caught a personal tour on the 6th.

6 November 2025 – Amanda Ross attended individually

Amanda and I took our family on Friday 7 November 2025.

Saturday morning we attended with some friends. This was my 7th tour that first week!

8 November 2025 – Bud and Karen Marie Whiting, Amanda Ross, James Ross, Aliza Ross, Lea Pierucci Izama, Audra Hales, Aleah Hales, Anson Hales, Brad Hales, Paul Ross

The next weekend, Amanda had a bunch of family come to town and also attend. This Friday night was my 4th tour of the second week.

14 November 2025 – Hiram Ross, Amanda Ross, Lillian Ross, Rowan Hemsley, Margo Hemsley, Bryan Hemsley, Olivia Hemsley, Jill Hemsley, Jack Hemsley, James Ross, Paul Ross, Aliza Ross, Jordan Hemsley, Derek Hemsley

I also got to attend some more times the third week. But my 4th tour in the third week was with my sister and brother-in-law.

22 November 2025 – Paul Ross, Andra and Wes Herbst

That makes 15 trips through the temple for the open house. I was also privileged to do temple security on 5 different occasions, all for the 9:00 PM to 1:00 AM shift. Here are some photos from that opportunity.

4 November 2025
4 November 2025
5 November 2025 – Paul Ross and Kevin Mower for the graveyard shift
10 November 2025 – Paul Ross and Tyson Smith for the graveyard shift

Amanda also got to do a security shift, parking shift, and foot covering (booty) shift.

12 November 2025 – Amanda Ross Parking Shift
12 November 2025 – Amanda Ross Security Shift

Some of the late night security shifts were great opportunities to reflect on the blessings we are now achieving with the ease and access of a temple so close.

When I received my first temple recommend for my own endowment, Paul Idaho Stake President, M. Gene Hansen, invited me to make a commitment to attend the temple every month at a minimum. I took that commitment. I agreed.

In Hazelton, Idaho, it took me roughly 2 1/4 hours to get to the Boise Idaho Temple (speed limits have increased since then); Idaho Falls Idaho Temple was just under 2 hours; Logan Utah Temple was about 2 1/2 hours, and Ogden Utah Temple was 2 1/2 hours. I was endowed in Logan in September 1998 with my Dad. I attended Logan and Boise before going on the mission. But it was at least half a day planning to attend the temple before the mission.

Within the Manchester England Mission is found the Preston England Temple. Attending the temple in the mission required coordination with members as the temple isn’t near public transportation and we relied on members to take us. We could only go on Preparation Day, which was Tuesday. That took some work, but I was able to attend every month of the mission (except for some months where some missionaries had abused the privilege and all missionaries lost temple attendance options for three months). Getting to the temple was within 1 hour for every area in which I served.

I lived in Branson Missouri for a couple of years. Our closest temple for Branson was the St. Louis Missouri Temple. That drive was at least 4 hours one way, often 4 1/2 hours. That required an entire day to be set aside and planned to drive, attend, and return home. Never missed a month in Branson. I sealed my Jonas grandparents together in St. Louis Missouri Temple. The Bentonville Arkansas Temple has been constructed much closer at about 2 hours. The Springfield Missouri Temple will be less than an hour away from Branson.

Amanda and I lived in Richmond Virginia for a couple of years. Our closest temple for Richmond was the Washington D.C. Temple. That drive was between 4 and 5 hours away, depending on beltway traffic. We would often go up and spend Friday night with family, attend the temple that night or in the morning, and then make our way back home. Washington D.C. Temple was closed for a bit, so to make the monthly trip, we had to go to the Raleigh North Carolina Temple. That was almost a 4 hour drive one direction. The new Richmond Virginia Temple is just outside the first neighborhood we lived in and within 10 minutes of the second neighborhood we lived.

When we moved back to Idaho, the Twin Falls Idaho Temple had been dedicated. That dropped the 2 to 2 1/2 hour drive time for all those temples to less than an hour, usually between 50-60 minutes. But it still takes time and planning to ensure I get there every month. This is double now that we also have a commitment to see that Aliza and Hiram are able to attend at least monthly.

Now, with the dedication of the Burley Idaho Temple in January, the temple will be between 5 to 6 minutes away.

Now I have to reevaluate. It seems the once a month commitment is not enough. I think that will remain the absolute minimum going forward for the rest of my life. It also seems I have no reason to not attend to at least one ordinance in the temple at least every week.

To show my gratitude to our Father and our Savior, I intend to attend the Burley Idaho Temple at least daily for the first 30 days it is open after dedication. Which isn’t as much as it seems if you consider it is not open on Sunday, Monday, or Thursday. Still working out what happens after the first 30 days.

For the last three weeks I have found myself regularly humming The Spirit of God and also muttering the Hosanna Shout under my breath. I am looking forward to the dedication of the Burley Idaho Temple on 11 January 2026!