- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have had mixed feelings about this temple. I am still not sure what I think in totality, but I am impressed with the effort to move outside of our traditional look and create something grander. The pictures are worth a gander. Enjoy. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/14/latter-day-saints-open/ The complex looks really nice. I especially liked the design of Christ surrounded by the apostles in the visitor’s center. My biggest complaint with temple design in general, is the golden Angel Moroni on top. I also don’t know how I feel about the outward design of the temple, though the inside looks pretty. They are trying new things, which is GREAT, and maybe I’m just not used to it. I could see it growing on me. I too like/love the Christ surrounded by the Apostles. So cool. Beyond that, I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don’t think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn’t historic to another country or religion. Don’t get me started on “The Golden Guy.” mom3 wrote:
I too like/love the Christ surrounded by the Apostles. So cool. Beyond that, I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don’t think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn’t historic to another country or religion. Don’t get me started on “The Golden Guy.”
Pretty much everywhere in Europe is historic. In the case of Rome, I imagine there were plenty of “brownfield sites” around the city. If it replaced a shopping mall, factory or car lot then it was no great loss (I expect if anyone lost their jobs out of it, it would have been before the land was even purchased).
mom3 wrote:
I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don’t think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn’t historic to another country or religion.
We are very universalist in our religion. It’s doctrine (or at least pseudo-doctrine) that most every religion had true origins, but apostatized later. So really, Rome has historical/religious significance for us too! Plus, there is the undying Christian prerogative to share the true gospel with the entire world, including other Christians who are “wrong”.
Do Christians butt heads? Yes they do.
I love the temple and design. I have a bit of an inferiority complex though – and I usually get annoyed when I see the little guy get treated normally but the special guy treated, well special. Rome is special. Snowflake, AZ (home of a somewhat recent small temple) is not. Part of me is thrilled we built a beautiful building in Rome – it will be one of our more visible temples I suspect. On the other hand, will Christ me likely to visit Rome than Dallas because of the fancy building? It’s a nit pick and not totally fair because I don’t want plain vanilla temples everywhere either. I do remember that the Gila Valley temple in Arizona was bragged about because it’s the home of the Kimballs and the Eyrings and that location got special church permission for a 3 color scheme instead of the standard 2 color scheme for small temples. Rome looks like it was given an open check book.
Quote:will Christ me likely to visit Rome than Dallas because of the fancy building?
I have always assumed he’d go to Provo first, cause it’s the ugliest of them all. (IMO).
If RMN received a revelation that I should have a temple recommend, in spite of everything, the Rome temple would be on my shortlist of temples to visit. The top five would probably be, in no particular order, Rome, Provo (City Center), DC, SLC and Hawaii. As for the Church building a temple in (the outskirts of) Rome, I don’t see anything wrong with it. There are Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant churches there, Mosques, Synagogues, Kingdom Halls, Buddhist Temples, and Hindu Temples. I’m sure the same thing could be said of Jerusalem and SLC as well, and I think we live in a better time because of it.
I love how they constructed it. Other than that, what OON said. It is on my bucket list.
I didn’t mind Moroni so much until he usurped the original angel on the Nauvoo Temple. Codependent wrote:
I didn’t mind Moroni so much until he usurped the original angel on the Nauvoo Temple.
Why’s Moroni become the symbol of our church? We don’t like to put up crosses, because of idolatory, but non-members see his statue all over the place.
SamBee wrote:
Codependent wrote:
I didn’t mind Moroni so much until he usurped the original angel on the Nauvoo Temple.
Why’s Moroni become the symbol of our church? We don’t like to put up crosses, because of idolatory, but non-members see his statue all over the place.
I agree with your point about Moroni, but I had never heard we don’t do the cross because of idolatry.
DarkJedi wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Codependent wrote:
I didn’t mind Moroni so much until he usurped the original angel on the Nauvoo Temple.
Why’s Moroni become the symbol of our church? We don’t like to put up crosses, because of idolatory, but non-members see his statue all over the place.
I agree with your point about Moroni, but I had never heard we don’t do the cross because of idolatry.
I’ve heard this. Maybe it’s a folk belief. I ignore it. I know members who wear crosses and have one or two myself. I have no issue with crosses whatsoever.
I know there are also some that think that we should focus on Christ’s resurrection rather than just his death.
Probably differentiation from Catholics too.
(I don’t have a particularly big problem with Moroni personally, but I do wonder how it looks like to non-members.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.