- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve had a really mixed reaction to the Rome temple and wanted to see if anyone felt the same way. On the positive side, I think it’s really cool that: 1. We built a temple in Rome; 2. Pres. Nelson met with the Pope and 3. That all the Q15 went over there (photo with all the apostle statutes was powerful). Anytime that we do something that unites members around the world and creates excitement makes the Church exciting. But, I’m conflicted. The rumor is that we spent $1B on this project. A distant relative of mine worked on it and it was a nightmare, tangled up in red tape for years. This seems like so much money and so many resources to build a temple where we don’t have that many members and the Church is shrinking. The whole purpose of the temple seems to be like a flagship store in retail, where it’s a lot about advertising and image and probably won’t be all that busy as a temple. So, did we just build a $1B temple in Rome because we could and thought it would be cool? Would Jesus do that?
felixfabulous wrote:
The rumor is that we spent $1B on this project.
In the interest of not furthering rumors, I’d say that the likelihood of this temple costing the Church $1B is extremely remote. Just by way of comparison, the opened-in-2016 US Bank Stadium where the Vikings play in downtown Minneapolis cost that amount. It’s a beautiful, glass-enclosed stadium with a large seating capacity. The Rome Temple does sit on a multi-use site, but the interior square footage of the temple is relatively small. It’s almost exactly half the size of the Las Vegas Temple and of the Portland Temple. It is about the same size as the Fort Collins, CO, Cedar City, UT, and Tucson, AZ Temples.Even so, I’m sure that the Rome Temple did cost a lot of money. It instantly becomes the showcase temple for all of Europe. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I look at it as similar to the Nauvoo Temple and the Provo City Center Temple. Were they really NEEDED? No; but it is cool that the Church CAN.
Seperately from the issue of cost, my TBM feminist SIL was very bothered by all of the apostles and their wives going to the dedication but none of the women general auxiliary leaders. That thought didn’t even cross my mind until she brought it up which goes to show how far I still have to go in my attempt at being more progressive and feminist-minded in my thinking.
No matter the cost, I’m sure the Rome Temple is the most expensive ever in modern times when looked at on a per capita basses. There is only 10 stakes in all of Italy. There is more mebers in my county in Southern California than all of Italy. Quote:So, did we just build a $1B temple in Rome because we could and thought it would be cool?
Tha’s essentially my take on it.
Quote:I look at it as similar to the Nauvoo Temple and the Provo City Center Temple. Were they really NEEDED? No; but it is cool that the Church CAN.
Likewise a few others, including Palmyra and Council Bluffs (both of which are smaller and less costly, of course). At least one of those is very not busy, few sessions per week and low attendance at those few.
FWIW, I don’t think it’s all that cool. Yes, it is a beautiful temple and it has gotten the church some PR points (at least in Utah). Could it have been a small temple? Yep, but it wouldn’t have gotten the mileage. All the apostles going?
:thumbdown: Pres. Nelson meeting with the Pope? Not that big a deal.🙄 I love the Deseret News hype of two world religious leaders meeting – that’s only true from a certain point of view because the church (compared to Catholicism or not) is really barely a blip.I’m trying really hard not to be a Negative Ned, but I think this has been way overplayed even in the church. I do give my tithing money freely for them to spend as they see fit – nevertheless I think it could have been better spent (but it’s still not my call).
(I am reminded of the joke about the phone call to God being a local call from SLC, though.
🙂 )I don’t feel like this temple was built for the local membership. It will likely have more attendance from LDS members who are visiting Rome, than from the actual local members. Any time a church member goes to Italy for vacation, the Rome temple will now be on the list of sites that they MUST see (so they can come back and tell everyone about it in F&T meeting). I’m sure there will be no shortage of testimonies about how ‘cold and unfeeling’ the catholic cathedrals in Rome feel compared to our incredible temple. 🙄 This temple definitely feels like more of a PR move than something that was built for the members in Rome. And I agree with some of the other comments about the photo opportunities with the Pope and the statues of the apostles. I’m sure the meeting meant a lot more to our top execs than it did to the Pope. It was a media blitz, and they definitely did everything they could to try acting like we’re playing with the big boys now. Comparing our modern apostles to the Christ’s 12 bugs me, too. Our current leadership is more like a board of directors, right down to the God complexes found in most boards of directors. That photo opp felt like an effort to remind people that, “Hey, look, we have the same authority that these guys had! Look how important our keys are! If it wasn’t for the restored priesthood that we hold, we’d all still be like those lost Catholics!”
:sick: DarkJedi wrote:
Likewise a few others, including Palmyra and Council Bluffs (both of which are smaller and less costly, of course). At least one of those is very not busy, few sessions per week and low attendance at those few.
I’ve been to Palmyra and unless there was a massive population boom, every sentient life form in that region could be a card carrying member and I couldn’t imagine that temple being busy. I guess there is appeal for tourists to do a session so close to the sacred grove but the non-summer months must be light on attendance. More so with the pageant gone.
I see the temple in Rome as pure advertising. The payoff is more about people talking about the building (both the locals and members worldwide) than it is about placing a temple where it will achieve maximum throughput. To that end I would say that it has already achieved its purpose.
Still, I’m left with the question. Why the big hullabaloo of having the entire Q15 show up and by extension the big deal about the statues of the 12 apostles? I’m not up on my history, did all the original apostles pick up and move to Rome or just Peter and Paul? Maybe save that for the temple in Jerusalem? I guess you save your most important performance for when the spotlight is trained on you. Edit, IOW what Holy Cow said.
1) “Rumor has it” is not a solid way to frame this discussion. We have no idea, but I am skeptical of that cost. 2) This is a showcase temple. I am fine with that, given the location. It probably will become a Mecca-like location – the SLC temple of Europe. If that is the intent, I get it.
3) Photo ops as impoertant religious leaders with the Pope are powerful propaganda. It does send a message to a whole lot of people, inside and outside the LDS Church. Priceless? Probably not. Worth what it cost as part of the package? Probably.
4) All other issues aside, it is gorgeous – physically breathtaking. It will draw attention, I am sure. If it becomes a tourist site for non-members, like the SLC temple, it will be worth the cost.
nibbler wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Likewise a few others, including Palmyra and Council Bluffs (both of which are smaller and less costly, of course). At least one of those is very not busy, few sessions per week and low attendance at those few.
I’ve been to Palmyra and unless there was a massive population boom, every sentient life form in that region could be a card carrying member and I couldn’t imagine that temple being busy. I guess there is appeal for tourists to do a session so close to the sacred grove but the non-summer months must be light on attendance. More so with the pageant gone.
Keeping in mind that this is one of Hinkley’s small temples, you don’t know the half of it. I have literally been in sessions on Saturdays where more than half in the session were temple workers and they had to be there to make enough people for the prayer circle (in which everybody took part). It runs 16 sessions a week right now, most less than half full. It is slightly more busy during tourist season, and yes, I think the demise of the pageant will affect that. FWIW, membership in the Palmyra Temple area is on the decline.
Old Timer wrote:3) Photo ops as impoertant religious leaders with the Pope are powerful propaganda. It does send a message to a whole lot of people, inside and outside the LDS Church. Priceless? Probably not. Worth what it cost as part of the package? Probably.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, which is also why I think it was a missed opportunity. They could fly out the top 15 and their wives, but none of the leaders in the women’s auxiliaries were invited? Seems like a swing and a miss! I’ve seen one picture of the top 15’s wives, which originally stated, “The wives of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.” There were a lot of comments complaining that their names weren’t even included, and they were only being referred to as ‘the wives of…’ However, it looks like they paid attention to the comments, and have now added the names of the women. Would have been nice to see some of the women leaders mixed in with the PR photo campaign, and the husbands of those women standing alongside, “the wives of…”
At first I did not understand why the entire Q15 had to go. Now that I see the pictures and the photo op it makes sense. This may be a good business decision for the church – or at least not a terrible decision given what we know and can guess.
Flagship temple, PR, historical significance and all that.
The way things appear is far more important than how things really are. Most members of the Church won’t think as in-depth about this as we on this forum do. Having a temple, and such a grandtemple in Italy, is sending the Church a message. We are growing. We are world-wide. We are prominent on the religious world-stage. We hold legitimacy. If it costs $1B, the Church can definitely afford it. The Church has
deeppockets. It has major financial investments. It pays almost no taxes. Also, keep in mind that temples generate their ROI very indirectly. It’s the faith of the membership that produces tithing. Temple attendance canincrease that faith (and also tithing). But the Rome temple has so much prominence, and is such a “sign to the people”, that I have no doubt it will increase tithing in-spite of the fact that it will be hardly used. Probably much more so, than if it had been built any other place. 5 or 6 years ago, my husband and I went to France. We spent a day touring Versailles. Very French. Naturally we posted pictures. The Versailles temple was barely a glint in the worlds eye. The ground hadn’t been broken. Nothing. Sure as shootin’ – all our devout friends and family could say was, “You were by where the new Temple is going to be.” We Mormons really do Morm.
More American Tourist Members will attend the temple than locals.
I get the symbolism. I think On Own mentioned it in another thread, but there likely are mosque’s, and other symbolic worships centers there, too. I for one wish they had placed it in a nearby city. Not Rome. I don’t mind an Italy temple. For me it’s an 8th article of faith deal. Rome has belonged to Catholicism for ages. I would like them to bask in it.
By the same measure, I am fine that we have Temple Square. A mecca center for our story. If the Catholics wanted to build a building on Temple Square property I would hope they would move a couple blocks away (which they are).
It’s like siblings taking over someone’s bedroom.
mom3 wrote:
By the same measure, I am fine that we have Temple Square. A mecca center for our story. If the Catholics wanted to build a building on Temple Square property I would hope they would move a couple blocks away (which they are).It’s like siblings taking over someone’s bedroom.
To be fair, the RCs built a cathedral in SLC way back in 1909.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Madeleine_(Salt_Lake_City,_Utah) Then back in 1999, the Catholics built a 42 million center in the Mormon heartland “
reported to be the largest Catholic education campus in the United States, and the largest gift made for Catholic primary and secondary education“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skaggs_Catholic_Center Why would the largest Catholic education campus in the USA be so near to SLC? There are other cities with a more significant RC population. The obvious answer is the link with Mormonism. It is hard to think of any other major US cities with such a strong link to any denomination in particular. SLC was built by LDS for LDS and is centered on church buildings.
Thanks Sam. It was funny after I posted it, I thought I could be wrong. I knew there was a strong Catholic Diosese in Salt Lake since 1900. Which therefore totally fails my theory. I really appreciate you looking into the details. I will still wish that we had built our Italy temple somewhere else. Someday I may find I am wrong.
I also never loved the idea of New York having a temple right in the heart of New York. Clearly I have an agenda that won’t be met by Salt Lake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.