- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mom3 wrote:
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.
That was partly accidental. The temple was supposed to be upstate I think but the locals caused so much trouble that they lost it and moved it to Manhattan.
Now while I see the value in a Hong Kong temple, a Manhattan one is more questionable.
Old Timer wrote:
If it becomes a tourist site for non-members, like the SLC temple, it will be worth the cost.
I don’t see that happening. I just can’t imagine a person coming home from a Italian vacation, and telling their friends “We went to Rome and saw the Vatican, the Colosseum, and Trevi Fountain. Oh, and we also went to see the Mormon Temple!
SamBee wrote:
mom3 wrote: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.
That was partly accidental. The temple was supposed to be upstate I think but the locals caused so much trouble that they lost it and moved it to Manhattan.
Now while I see the value in a Hong Kong temple, a Manhattan one is more questionable.
There is kind of an interesting history there. In 1992 it was announced there would be two temples built in the northeast US, one in White Plains NY (which is downstate according to most upstaters) and one in Hartford, CT. Locals in White Plains (actually nearby Harrison) did oppose the temple and put up every legal roadblock (zoning, etc.) they could. The church fought and eventually (after 7 years) won those legal battles but in the meantime decided to build the Manhattan Temple by refurbishing a building already owned and used by the church. It is in Midtown, very close to Lincoln Center. AND the church also replaced plans for the Hartford temple and instead build in Boston suburbs. The White Plains temple was supposed to be the temple to serve the NYC area, but with one in the heart of Manhattan there was no longer a need. The church does still own the property in Harrison. The Boston Temple was completed in 2000. In 2010 another temple was announced for Hartford and it was dedicated in 2016.
The Manhattan Temple is not nearly the spectacle of most others and could go unnoticed amidst the skyscrapers of Manhattan. But, it does serve its purpose as a temple for NYC area members. I have never been so I can’t say how much it is utilized, but it has hours similar to other Northeast temples. Of note of course is that it did not get the attention the Rome Temple (or even the Palmyra Temple) got.
Quote:I don’t see that happening. I just can’t imagine a person coming home from a Italian vacation, and telling their friends “We went to Rome and saw the Vatican, the Colosseum, and Trevi Fountain. Oh, and we also went to see the Mormon Temple!
Sheldon and I rarely see eye to eye, but I am with him on this one. Like the Versaille Temple, the only visitors are members. In fact our buildings look puny and awkward next to the historic landmarks they are housed by. Just turning the corner to Versaille and seeing it stretch across the acres is breathtaking. Nothing like it, most anywhere. The temple is a blip that gets wandered past like the souvenir shops.
Quote:If it becomes a tourist site for non-members,
The only time I see this happening is when non-members want to use it for their wedding, high school grad photo’s etc. My parents live near the Oakland Temple. My brother was sealed there. We had to juggle our family photos around the non-member family photo’s.I think only in Salt Lake City do flocks of non members ramble over temple grounds. They are modern, new. Maybe a hundred years from now that could change. From what I heard a decade ago, the London and Swiss Temples have cut back their hours due to low attendance.
Not entirely… I visited a temple as a non-member tourist. I believe the Roman temple is in a modern area so may be a kind of local attraction. Roy wrote:
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.
Looks like the Deseret News unveiled the real reason why all the apostles had to go to Rome.
Drum Roll ………… Revelation!
Holy Cow wrote:
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).
From the article Roy linked:
Quote:“These apostles now will go all over the world and recap the experiences that they felt here as this holy house was dedicated,” he said.
You were right Holy Cow, but I bet you didn’t think it would be the apostles that did it.
Brace yourselves, conference is coming.
:angel: :angel: Revelation is as revelation is perceived to be. I am sure the statements are completely honest and sincere. I wasn’t part of the process, so I can’t classify the conclusions one way or another. That is one thing I don’t touch with a ten-foot pole – largely because I don’t want others critiquing my own revelation/inspiration/critical thinking/ whatever when they aren’t a part of my processes.
Old Timer wrote:
Revelation is as revelation is perceived to be.I am sure the statements are completely honest and sincere. I wasn’t part of the process, so I can’t classify the conclusions one way or another. That is one thing I don’t touch with a ten-foot pole – largely because I don’t want others critiquing my own revelation/inspiration/critical thinking/ whatever when they aren’t a part of my processes.
I have 2 concerns with the way that “revelation” for church policy can be used:1) There have been a number of instances where a policy changed and the answers that were put forward by the church to explain the change where spiritual reasons that minimized or even completely dismissed what I suspect are very compelling legal and business reasons for the change. This makes me feel like church leadership does not feel that they can just be honest with me as a member. My go-to example is the removal of local church custodial staff. It totally makes sense that to have far flung and poorly suppervised employees would be a challenge for Fair Labor Standards Act compliance, OSHA compliance, and other employer headaches. The church said that they (Church leadership) wanted members to have the opportunity to take pride in the building by cleaning it. IMO the church fairly regularly and fairly predictably follows this pattern of obfuscation of practical, legal, and business motivations.
2) Claims of revelation in this context is a trump card that essentially says, “God told me to do what I am doing. I do not have to explain it to you and may not even understand it myself because God’s ways are not man’s ways.”
The justification given for the removal of local custodial staff was somewhat lame but at least it was an attempt to reason through some of the spiritual benefits of the change. I fear that the “revelation” card could have been used back then. “God has revealed that he wants us to clean the church buildings for the joy of it and pride that we will have in our facilities.” If we believe that our leaders deliberate under the influence of the HG then what decision could they possibly make that could NOT be termed revelation? Revelation could be applied to everything to mean that it is not acceptable to question anything.
To me, claims of revelation seem to go hand in hand with perceptions of infalibility.
Roy wrote:
I have 2 concerns with the way that “revelation” for church policy can be used…
I fully agree with both of those reasons. That being said, I believe the Church leadership believes it’s revelation, and to them, that is reason enough. One of the reasons having prophets/seers/revelators (i.e. the Q15) is so important to us, is because they receive direct revelation from God on how to conduct the affairs of the Church, and “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” That was from Wilford Woodruff, when forbidding polygamy in OD1. JS spoke for God in enacting polygamy. WW spoke for God in repealing it.
While other factors, both political, practical business, socio-economic, or… more baser impulses undoubtedly have an effect on declared revelation, I don’t believe Church leaders believe they have an effect. Their revelation comes directly from God, and ultimately that’s the only thing that matters. And we’re taught that the prophet’s revelation is infallible. JS’ revelation enacting polygamy was infallible. Were it wrong, God would’ve removed JS from being prophet (… by having him murdered in jail or something).
My point is, while what we see in reported “revelations” coming from Church leaders might be closer to the objective truth, I don’t think it’s how the Church leader’s view it. Or in other words,
Old Timer wrote:
Revelation is as revelation is perceived to be.
… Sometimes I feel like the whole of the Church is one big case of doing right for the wrong reasons, and doing wrong with the best of intentions.
There have been church leaders that have said things like, “the Q15 process for accessing revelation is not unlike the process for you as individual members”. Let’s just say that I prefer somewhat demystifying statements such as these. OTOH, I am sure that there are many that really get excited about statements that imply a direct link with clear and unmistakable messages between the church leadership and heaven. To each their own I suppose.
Roy wrote:
There have been church leaders that have said things like, “the Q15 process for accessing revelation is not unlike the process for you as individual members”. Let’s just say that I prefer somewhat demystifying statements such as these.
Most LDS members take their own “revelation” as perfect, do they not? Except later if they find out they were wrong… but then they redefine it to being something “not revelation” all along. As far as the Church is concerned, any “revelation” that supports them is of God and perfect. Any that doesn’t, is of the devil. And the Q15 is always on the side of the Church, so…
This is off topic but I think the subject that we never broach at church is what we do if we receive personal revelation that isn’t in harmony with the revelation a church leader receives. I think we often resolve that in our minds by making the assumption that a genuinepersonal revelation would always be in harmony with the revelations received by leaders. I get having a house of order, where someone needs to direct the ship, and people’s revelations only extend to the borders of their church stewardship. At the same time I think many would benefit from more breathing room within the stewardship of self.
I think we do enjoy that freedom, but don’t realize it. Though exercising that freedom could come at the cost of social standing.
Roy wrote:
There have been church leaders that have said things like, “the Q15 process for accessing revelation is not unlike the process for you as individual members”. Let’s just say that I prefer somewhat demystifying statements such as these.OTOH, I am sure that there are many that really get excited about statements that imply a direct link with clear and unmistakable messages between the church leadership and heaven. To each their own I suppose.
I totally believe and have said this myself. RMN receives revelation the same way you and I do – by “feelings” or “impressions” or however else you describe it. He does not regularly (or ever) have sit downs with the Savior in the Holy of Holies. The only ones I have encountered having a hard time swallowing that are the ones who also think all the Apostles have seen Christ – and there are fewer and fewer of those these days.
nibbler wrote:
This is off topic but I think the subject that we never broach at church is what we do if we receive personal revelation that isn’t in harmony with the revelation a church leader receives. I think we often resolve that in our minds by making the assumption that agenuinepersonal revelation would always be in harmony with the revelations received by leaders.
There was a woman on my mission who said that she received personal revelation to pay a 7.5% tithe, instead of 10%. However, when she told the bishop that she was paying 7.5%, he took her temple recommend away. She was very hurt by it, and continued to pay 7.5%, even though she knew that she wasn’t going to get her recommend back. My companion asked her why she didn’t just pay 7.5%, and tell the bishop that she was a full tithe payer. She said that she felt that would be deceptive. She was very adamant that she had received personal revelation with this very specific instruction, and insisted that as long as she was following God’s will for her, then that was more important than having a temple recommend for the time being. It was an interesting situation. She was very well off, and easily could have paid the additional 2.5%. She was very giving, and helped the missionaries and other members with meals all the time. Both her and the bishop vented their frustrations to the missionaries about the situation, but we were able to stay out of it, luckily.
As far as the Rome Temple goes, if RMN says that it was revelation to bring along the entire Q15, then I’m fine with that. My only question is why he couldn’t also extend the invitation to some of the female leadership. “Alright, God, I’ll invite the whole Q15, as you’ve instructed. I’m also going to invite the General RS Presidency, unless you’ve got any specific instructions not to, alright?” I doubt he would have received a response of, “No.” I don’t know… I tend to agree that revelation tends to be overused whenever there isn’t a better answer. It’s kind of the equivalent of a parent telling a child, “Because I said so.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.