- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
More serious note. I’ll have to look deeper and read some of it but I heard the word restitution used a couple times, seemingly interchangeably with restoration. I realize in some cases the two words could be synonyms. I’m not sure this is one of those cases. Minyan Man wrote:
Can someone explain the need for a temple in Dubai?
I just did a quick google search:
1,631 members
1 stake
5 wards
1 branch
1 family history center.
And we can’t do missionary work there.
I am missing something.
The church was invited to build a temple in Dubai by the government. Apparently, there is a multi-religious development plan in place for Dubai that will have different faith’s sanctuaries in close proximity. If the temple can be part of this development, it will make the LDS Church MUCH more visible in the Middle East. Also, the humanitarian focus on interest-free giving, especially to to Islamic charities, has helped greatly.
It should be noted that the Dubai temple also will not just serve members in the UAE, but is a regional temple serving others in the Middle East, north Africa, eastern Europe, and southwest Asia. Old-Timer wrote:
The church was invited to build a temple in Dubai by the government…Is that what it takes to get a temple in your area? An invitation by a government? I used to think it was revelation.
At best, it seems very odd. Maybe within the next 200 years the purpose for putting it there will become clearer.
In our state, we do not have a temple. We are (3) hours from a temple. Yes, I remember a time when our closest temple was
SLC. Then it was Washington DC (36) hours round trip. I understand their getting closer.
My enthusiasm for doing FH, Indexing, Reviewing, teaching, etc is quickly diminishing.
Maybe I should put my energy into writing an Invitation. I’m sure there are other members of our Stake & Regine,
that are willing to sign it. But, then of course, we are not a government.
Dubai? Really? I’m done venting.
I’m beginning to feel like the LDS version of Lewis Black. Or I should say, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints
version of Lewis Black.(You can google him on Youtube.) It seems like we are building a temple for the possibility of missionary work
in the future, not for the sealing families in the present.
This is beyond ODD to me. I do not feel better.
Antarctica would make as good a choice. IMO Now I’m done.
I like the excitement that comes with the temple announcements. The most touching part of conference for me was the choirs around the world singing together (I wish we would have chosen a song like I’m Trying to Be Like Jesus instead of praising the prophet, but it was still cool). However, I feel like building temples has become a bit of a status symbol, like a flagship store in Times Square or on the Champs Elysee. We are planting our flag and showing that we’re big time. That seems so foreign to the original idea of a temple, a symbol of our shared sacrifice and offering to the Lord. Also seems to fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus and in the Book of Mormon, of the humble people of God giving what they could, modestly, and not building something ornate for the glory of man. Minyan Man wrote:
Old-Timer wrote:
The church was invited to build a temple in Dubai by the government…Is that what it takes to get a temple in your area? An invitation by a government? I used to think it was revelation. [snip]
I think it’s a mixture of several factors.
The church is going to have to get permission from the government to build a temple. Permission is distinct from invitation though.
I get the feeling that Dubai landed in the church’s lap. Do you want to build a temple here? And the church jumped at an opportunity because it’s a foothold in the Middle East, which is too big of an opportunity to pass up.
I’m not sure what happened with the announcement for a temple in Russia, I don’t know whether the church got permission there but it felt like an announcement just to get members to oooh and aaah (and once they did react they got in trouble for it
My city got a temple a few decades ago and I’ve retained a few memories of the lead-up. It was billed as our area having to qualify for a temple. There’s that word again, qualify.
Bottom line is in the USA and other areas where the church is well established, there may be some minimum metrics an area must meet, similar to when wards and stakes are created – X number of MP holders, X number of members, proximity to an existing temple, member’s means to travel to said temple, etc. Plus there have to be enough people to staff a temple. There are probably metrics on that too. Gotta have 500 endowed members with a TR to ensure coverage in staffing a temple or some such.
I’m sure there are exceptions to those rules, like the temple in Rome and the temple in Dubai. Those probably fall more in the realm of advertisement/missionary opportunities than anything.
I also believe revelation comes into play. Even if the rule of thumb is that a temple is only announced when an area qualifies for one, that doesn’t mean revelation wasn’t a part of establishing the metrics. Revelation might also come into play when there are a limited number of temples that can be built, multiple areas that qualify, and a choice has to be made.
But I agree with felixfabulous. We haven’t even selected sites for many announced temples and we’re announcing more and more temples. I appreciate that more members have access to temples but it does feel like a way to show members that all is well. Maybe things are, what do I know?
nibbler wrote:
Ronald A. RasbandThey’re really sticking with the whole, “Rah, rah our church is great and so is the prophet!” theme, aren’t they.
Happy Easter.
I can’t handle those kinds of talks anymore.
Conference for me was overhearing it as my wife watched it. Thing I remember the most was feeling guilty about not being one of the obedient ones when the multi-phase resurrections start happening at the millenium, and how assignment to Kingdoms is based on obedience. This was as I overhead DHO’s talk on the plan of salvation. Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that at this point in time, during this virus pandemic, we have a medical doctor as the prophet? I was just thinking about that tonight as I sit here binging on Netflix. TinSoldier wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that at this point in time, during this virus pandemic, we have a medical doctor as the prophet? I was just thinking about that tonight as I sit here binging on Netflix.
I find it fascinating that the physician prophet’s only offering in response to the virus was “let’s fast again.”
(Yes, he did give a message before and I realize the talks are submitted ahead for translation, etc. But I also believe somebody like GBH would have gone off script. Somebody in another thread said something about maybe having been on home isolation too long and therefore being grumpy – I think that may be true of me as well although in some ways I really like it.)
DarkJedi wrote:
TinSoldier wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that at this point in time, during this virus pandemic, we have a medical doctor as the prophet? I was just thinking about that tonight as I sit here binging on Netflix.
I find it fascinating that the physician prophet’s only offering in response to the virus was “let’s fast again.”
(Yes, he did give a message before and I realize the talks are submitted ahead for translation, etc. But I also believe somebody like GBH would have gone off script. Somebody in another thread said something about maybe having been on home isolation too long and therefore being grumpy – I think that may be true of me as well although in some ways I really like it.)
Don’t forget the new logo.. erm symbol of the church! And the new temples!
I tried to listen to conference. It was hard. What was more difficult was asking my friends what they thought of conference and being told by them that it was the best most scared experience. I guess the tides are changing and I’m drifting away from finding recycled talks to be spiritually uplifting.
I was waiting for the transcript. I was curious as to what people thought about something DFU said during conference. DFU wrote:As we incline our hearts to our Heavenly Father and draw near to Him, we will feel Him draw near to us.
We are His beloved children.
Even those who reject Him.
Even those who, like a headstrong, unruly child, become angry with God and His Church, pack their bags, and storm out the door proclaiming that they’re running away and never coming back.
When a child runs away from home, he or she may not notice the concerned parents looking out the window. With tender hearts, they watch their son or daughter go—hoping their precious child will learn something from this heartrending experience and perhaps see life with new eyes—and eventually return home.
So it is with our loving Heavenly Father. He is waiting for our return.
Your Savior, tears of love and compassion in His eyes, awaits your return. Even when you feel far away from God, He will see you; He will have compassion for you and run to embrace you.
Come and belong.
I’m not sure how I feel about the “draw near unto me, and I will draw near unto you” Jesus. I think I prefer the Jesus that’s been there the whole time and maybe it’s more an issue of noticing Jesus.
I feel a little icky defending this in any way, but parsing it DFU is probably saying there are some that are like a headstrong, unruly child that become angry with church… not that all people that are angry with church are like a headstrong, unruly child. That said, I think in this case it’s going to be more about how the message is received.
It’s still a pretty unfair analogy no matter which way you slice it. Many people that leave home (church) feel like they were run out the door. Some even have been run out the door. There are no parents anxiously awaiting their return, there’s a guard at the door making sure they can’t get back in.
It’s tough because I’ve often felt like there’s no place for me so I might as well leave. When I’m invited back, it doesn’t feel like
I’mbeing invited back, I feel like some orthodox robot version of me is being invited back. But DFU probably isn’t referring to those types? Maybe he’s only referring to people angry at the church. Even then I think the path forward is validation. Maybe even ask Lord, is it I, am I the headstrong, unruly child in this situation?
Ah, and the transcript to a portion of one of Oaks’ talks that immediately made me think Saturday’s Warrior. DHO wrote:In the Council in Heaven, all the spirit children of God were introduced to the Father’s plan, including its mortal consequences and trials, its heavenly helps, and its glorious destiny. We saw the end from the beginning. All of the myriads of mortals who have been born on this earth chose the Father’s plan and fought for it in the heavenly contest that followed. Many also made covenants with the Father concerning what they would do in mortality. In ways that have not been revealed, our actions in the spirit world have influenced our circumstances in mortality.
I thought the last time we went down that path we eventually had to release an essay that disavowed theories advanced in the past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.