- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It took 40 years to build the Salt Lake Temple, now we build 40 in ten years, and increasing. Why? The Mormon Zietgeist for over a century was that temple work would be one of the main occupations in the Millenium. A thousand years to do the temple work. But it is occurring now, rapidly, why?
You could say that it’s because the second coming is imminent. You could say that the worldwide increase in membership warrants it. You could say, why not? and that this is a stupid post.
From my perspective, I think that it points to a narrowing of viewpoint. I think that the leaders wondered where they should place their eggs. There is less and less doctrinal drum beats, e.g., about the gathering of Israel (“Zion isn’t a place, it’s in your heart”), about proclaiming the restoration; challenging more overtly other religions with the
factthat we have the only authorizedvoice of God here on the earth; a more perfect book than any other, and that God is concerned with world events pursuant to prophesies for the here and now. No alarm, really, coming from the leaders. Not like it used to be. Rather: Mormons believe in family: look at the beautiful temples. Look, we’re so similar to other Christians. We’re all about family.
What are we going to do in the Millenium? There’s plenty of time for ubiquitous temples, what’s the rush?
If I had been President Hinckley, I would have built fewer, and farther apart. Back in the sixties and seventies, members would save and travel hundreds of miles to get to a temple; it made for a Mormon haj. What if Muslims had 112 Meccas around the world, would it boost their faith in special ritual, or diminish it?
primarycolor wrote:It took 40 years to build the Salt Lake Temple, now we build 40 in ten years, and increasing. Why?
Consider all of the technological advances that have occurred from the mid 1800s to now, and it should answer this question.
Of course the Church is going to build more temples in various areas to allow membership access to more ordinances. It just makes sense.
And personally I would say that the higher number of temples should go to show the rate of the world’s decline, not the Gospel’s.
primarycolor wrote:Not like it used to be.
D&C reads that Zion IS the pure in heart.
don’t we believe in revelation?
Temples are a good investment for the church for two main reasons: – ordinances are the church’s products (what it sells). Closer temples = better distribution network.
– temples are places where members increase commitment: to get a TR you must be observant/practicing the religion, and once within the temple you commit to your marriage, to God, to the church, to your fellow human beings, etc. Now, honestly, once you’ve done this for yourself, that’s technically enough, but going through again and again reminds people of those commitments. It’s like renewing your wedding vows in a sense (but to the church).
So, McTemples are put in all reasonably large communities, and this will reinforce commitment (McCommitment?).
hawkgrrrl wrote:Temples are a good investment for the church for two main reasons:
– ordinances are the church’s products (what it sells). Closer temples = better distribution network.
– temples are places where members increase commitment: to get a TR you must be observant/practicing the religion, and once within the temple you commit to your marriage, to God, to the church, to your fellow human beings, etc. Now, honestly, once you’ve done this for yourself, that’s technically enough, but going through again and again reminds people of those commitments. It’s like renewing your wedding vows in a sense (but to the church).
So, McTemples are put in all reasonably large communities, and this will reinforce commitment (McCommitment?).
Love it! I’m sure many will say this is just too worldly a view, but I see it differently. The Church is a sales organization. It sells a specific social culture. Some would say it sells salvation and exhaltation. Either way, it needs to grow (success breeds success), and it apparently has a good amount of wealth, so investment in real estate is about as good as any other, so it’s really a win-win to build more places to recruit/retain members.
Primarycolor said….If I had been President Hinckley, I would have built fewer, and farther apart. Back in the sixties and seventies, members would save and travel hundreds of miles to get to a temple; it made for a Mormon haj. What if Muslims had 112 Meccas around the world, would it boost their faith in special ritual, or diminish it? jeriboy, I sent you a private message. hawkgrrrl wrote:So, McTemples are put in all reasonably large communities, and this will reinforce commitment (McCommitment?).
McAwesome comment!!!
😆 😆 Perfectly stated.
hawkgrrrl wrote:– temples are places where members increase commitment: to get a TR you must be observant/practicing the religion, and once within the temple you commit to your marriage, to God, to the church, to your fellow human beings, etc. Now, honestly, once you’ve done this for yourself, that’s technically enough, but going through again and again reminds people of those commitments. It’s like renewing your wedding vows in a sense (but to the church).
I offer myself as anecdotal evidence. I have been mulling over the idea of renewing my TR for a few months. That local temple is closed for 18 months now for major renovations. The closest alternatives would require me making an entire day journey/event out of it with a lot more cost. This isn’t the only factor in my overall decision, but I admit it DOES make me lean towards delaying the process — why bother now if I really am not going to even go to the temple for another year or more.
To Old-Timer, looked for your message, could you please send it again, thanks. If we were building more in Missouri and fewer in Draper (where they are like six miles apart), it would be easier for me to believe in the Latter-days (or latter days). Utah isn’t Zion; it’s a temporary camp. I don’t have a problem with the number of Temples being built, but I do disagree with the extravagancey of them. I recognize that the Church does a lot of humanitarian/charity work, but in Africa alone, 10-15 million children die every year because they can’t get clean drinking water. Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids. It’s similar to the idea of fast offerings, just on a much grander scale. It doesn’t have to be just African kids, people all over the world, and our country, are impoverished and they really have no hope without some form of charity. The Church could do more in this area. Quote:Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids.
ws – I know the church does a lot of humanitarian work that is not published in places like this, but when I read your comment I immediately thought of the Phil Hartman sketch where he portrayed Bill Clinton at a McDonalds talking to the common people (but really just stealing bites of their food). He’s illustrating the problem with working with some of the developing nations that need US help, and he keeps saying the phrase “intercepted by warlords” as he takes a bite of their food. It’s a funny sketch, but the point is still valid. When nations have unrest, sometimes humanitarian efforts are intercepted and used against the people you intend to help. I have been associated with CCF (Christian Children’s Fund) for over 10 years, and they have some of the same issues in trying to do the work they need to do. In many cases they can deal with a benign dictatorship, but in countries where there is too much civil and political unrest, the people are truly held captive by their leaders who intercept the aid.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids.
ws – I know the church does a lot of humanitarian work that is not published in places like this, but when I read your comment I immediately thought of the Phil Hartman sketch where he portrayed Bill Clinton at a McDonalds talking to the common people (but really just stealing bites of their food). He’s illustrating the problem with working with some of the developing nations that need US help, and he keeps saying the phrase “intercepted by warlords” as he takes a bite of their food. It’s a funny sketch, but the point is still valid. When nations have unrest, sometimes humanitarian efforts are intercepted and used against the people you intend to help. I have been associated with CCF (Christian Children’s Fund) for over 10 years, and they have some of the same issues in trying to do the work they need to do. In many cases they can deal with a benign dictatorship, but in countries where there is too much civil and political unrest, the people are truly held captive by their leaders who intercept the aid.
You’re absolutely right about many situations around the world, like Somalia or Sudan right now. But many of these African countries aren’t currently at war, and sending in Peace Corps volunteers to build water facilities, that unlike rice or wheat, won’t be intercepted, is something that is done regularly. The problem is that projects like this ultimately lack funding. One person that has done a good job in this area is James Dobson. He collects donations from his congregation, and makes regular trips to Africa to personally oversee the project he’s a part of. Maybe war lords will blow up these water wells/water stations, but does that mean we shouldn’t try? Not only that, but as I mentioned in my original post, there are lots of areas where help is needed–vaccines, educational materials, etc. I personally believe the Church could spend a little less on material buildings like Temples, and a little more elsewhere. I’m not advocating that they don’t build temples, nor am I saying they don’t do good things.
A really good book about issues like this was written about 6 months ago by Peter Singer, it’s called “The Life You Can Save”. It’s a really eye opening book. Just one example is the amount of money Americans spend on bottled water, when we have perfectly good drinking water. If everyone that buys bottled water just used tap water and used that money for good causes, an enormous amount of good could be done. I don’t have much money, but I stopped buying bottled water and I’ve saved about 100 bucks that I’m giving to a group that works to provide drinking water in Africa. It’s not much, but multiply it by thousands. Once again, its really the same principal as fast offerings–fast, donate the money from the skipped meals, i.e., reduce the amount of money spent on Temples, donate the leftovers to good causes.
Captain Curmudgeon wrote:If we were building more in Missouri and fewer in Draper (where they are like six miles apart), it would be easier for me to believe in the Latter-days (or latter days). Utah isn’t Zion; it’s a temporary camp.
With a two billion dollar mall being built in Salt Lake by the church, with temples being placed foursquare around the valley, I would also suggest that the ‘temporary camp’ title has gone away. I know full well that Bro. Brigham is his will, made arrangements for his burial in one of two locations (SLC or Independence), depending where he was living at the time. That was well over one hundred years ago.
Young men see visions and old men dream dreams, I think that’s what the bible speaks of…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.