Rome temple

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

You seem to have a short and selective memory, so allow me to recap.

A news article said the Rome Temple was the first Temple in "the land of the Bible."  I pointed out that LDS scriptures teach that Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, not too far from the Kansas City Temple (about 70 miles), so that Temple might be considered to be in "the land of the Bible."

You'll notice at no point did I mention the Garden of Eden. Remember that.  It's important.

You responded by insisting the Church " subscribes to no official geographical model" on the geography of the Bible, and then you invoked the Garden of Eden as part of the discussion.  Assuming Adam-ondi-Ahman is part of biblical geography (and since its location is in reference solely to the Adam of the Bible and his family, that would seem to qualify it as a biblical location), I pointed out that no less than the Doctrine and Covenants identifies the specific location of that place.  Again, I never mentioned the Garden of Eden.

You then followed up by further invoking The Garden of Eden and the Church's attempts to distance itself from any specific claims regarding its location.  That's fine, since I never brought it up in the first place.  My statement was based entirely on the claims regarding Adam-ondi-Ahman.  You attempted to support your claims with an edited quote from the Church, but as Scott Lloyd pointed out, you could only do so by editing out the part that clearly supports my claim and totally discredits yours:

  So at this point, let's agree that the invocation of The Garden of Eden was a canard and misdirection on your part.  If you want to continue to argue that the Kansas City Temple isn't in the "land of the Bible" according to LDS doctrines, you have these options to choose from:

1. 70 miles is far enough to place the Kansas City Temple out of what could reasonably be considered "the land of the Bible" (limited geography arguments are always a good go-to in these situations).

2. The claim of Joseph Smith regarding Spring Hill being Adam-ondi-Ahman is incorrect (or his claim about what Adam did there is incorrect), and the newsroom is wrong about us knowing it "by revelation".

3. A two Adam-ondi-Ahman theory, where the original AOA was in the middle east, and the identification of Spring Hill is more of a symbolic teaching than an actual statement of geography.

Or the Church Newsroom misspoke, and whoever made the claim forgot that Biblical lands include, at the very least, parts of Missouri in LDS Scriptures.

 

 

5 hours ago, blueglass said:

This quote allegedly from president newsroom, "we do know by revelation the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman . . . " can't be found at entry 16 from the newsroom link provided by Scott.  This is from Scott quoting himself in the same font type and size as newsroom.  The location of the quotes was a bit subtle.  My point in my response is that we used to know by revelation both the location of the garden of eden and the location of adam ondi-ahman.  I don't believe the J writer of Genesis 2 was aware of Adam ondi-ahman in Missouri, or of the pure language.  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/sample-of-pure-language-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832/1#full-transcript:

I think for something to be considered in the land of the bible it has to be mentioned in the extant manuscripts of the bible we have.  What's the best way to resolve the conflicts which arise when trying to reconcile Genesis old world geography lands/rivers with North America?  Looking at the options when we pull everything into the geography of north america: The garden, the fall, the building of the tower of babel, we have to send the brother of Jared and friends to travel down the Mississippi in barges to the gulf of mexico to start the olmec civilazation seems difficult.  Ultimately, we have to get Lehi's ancestors back across the ocean to Egypt to learn egyptian so they can teach demotic to his father, so he could learn his genealogy, protest with Jeremiah and his friends, kill Laban and steal the plain and precious brass scriptures so that he can escape Jerusalem, and then travel back to the americas.  

Sorry for the confusion. The verbiage beginning with "we do know by revelation the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman" was not quoting anyone. It was me making a statement.

It's difficult-to-impossible for me to use the board's quote function when I'm on my mobile device, so I revert to standard quotation marks to separate out quoted material from my own words.

I hope it's clear now. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Quote

It's difficult-to-impossible for me to use the board's quote function when I'm on my mobile device,

Same here, it only goes up to the strikethrough option when I am on my phone, so I don't know how to do anything but quote the entire post...and since it deletes only one word at a time, that gets too bulky to deal with.  Plus I can't use the quote box for pasting research, etc.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

46 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I’m still awaiting the braying by the naysayers. They’ve been oddly silent so far.

I don’t even know what he means by it so I doubt they have any clue either

[MiserereNobis]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote from Pres Nelson upon his departure:

 

I'm not a nay-sayer, truly. However, this does again raise the question I earlier asked. I wondered what was the big deal of the apostles all being together in Rome, since Rome is the center of Catholicism, not the center of protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The answers given pretty much said it is because Rome is Biblical, not because of Catholicism. However, in this article there is a much different tone that goes beyond the fact that Rome was mentioned in the Bible. My thoughts:

Quote

"This is a hinge point in the history of the church. Things are going to move forward at an accelerated pace, of which this is a part," he said, later adding, "The church is going to have an unprecedented future, unparalleled; we're just building up to what's ahead now."

Why is Rome the hinge point? What is so important about Rome, if not for Catholicism? I'm not sure other Christian sects point to their presence in Rome as a major event, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Quote

Two experts on Latter-day Saints described the last of those images, shared from President Nelson's Instagram and Twitter accounts, as a symbol that the church has a growing place among world religions.

If the LDS church is already Christian, then it is already among world religions as a part of Christianity. In any case, a temple in Rome does not a world religion make. A world religion is marked by massive numbers and a huge influence on global cultures. I'm not denigrating the LDS church at all, but it is a long stretch to call it a world religion separate from Christianity. If it is Christian, then it has always been a part of a world religion and this statement doesn't mean much. Perhaps it was meant to say a growing place among Christianity. If so, that is specifically because of Catholicism, not because of the fact that Rome is a Biblical city. There are many many more important cities to Christianity at the time of the New Testament.

Quote

"Having all of the apostles in Rome is a powerful symbol that the Restored Church is the same church of Jesus Christ that our Lord established in the meridian of time."

Again, why Rome? Wouldn't Jerusalem be the actual powerful symbol if one didn't believe Catholic claims of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome because of Peter? Jesus wasn't in Rome, Jesus didn't establish a Church in Rome. Peter did. And his successors made Rome the center of Christianity vis-a-vis Catholicism.

I guess I'm seeing this article as being quite triumphant in tone because of Rome's place in Christianity, which is due to Catholicism. In other words, the reasons earlier given do not seem to quite apply anymore. The celebration of the temple in Rome seems to be precisely because it is the heart of Roman Catholicism. It is not the heart of Orthodoxy, or the heart of protestantism, but the heart of Catholicism.

Welcome to the neighborhood. Despite the cries of apostasy, we always knew you wanted to be a part of the club

ETA: please take the ending as it was meant to be: light-hearted  

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Sorry for the confusion. The verbiage beginning with "we do know by revelation the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman" was not quoting anyone. It was me making a statement.

It's difficult-to-impossible for me to use the board's quote function when I'm on my mobile device, so I revert to standard quotation marks to separate out quoted material from my own words.

I hope it's clear now. 

For me I think it is part of our faith mission to convert this entire earth into the garden of Eden.   I'm thinking of Joseph's quote "if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society.”

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don’t even know what he means by it so I doubt they have any clue either

Agreed, but the fact that he actually thinks the Church has a future will gall many who see their personal apostasy as symbolic of what's ahead.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why is Rome the hinge point? What is so important about Rome, if not for Catholicism?

Prophecy often doesn't make much sense until it's fulfilled, in my opinion. Why Bethlehem, for example? Why a donkey? Why three days?

I wouldn't get too hung up on this being about your faith. I honestly don't see it that way. 

ETA: None of the apostles is framing it that way, either.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not a nay-sayer, truly. However, this does again raise the question I earlier asked. I wondered what was the big deal of the apostles all being together in Rome, since Rome is the center of Catholicism, not the center of protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The answers given pretty much said it is because Rome is Biblical, not because of Catholicism. However, in this article there is a much different tone that goes beyond the fact that Rome was mentioned in the Bible. My thoughts:

Why is Rome the hinge point? What is so important about Rome, if not for Catholicism? I'm not sure other Christian sects point to their presence in Rome as a major event, but perhaps I'm wrong.

If the LDS church is already Christian, then it is already among world religions as a part of Christianity. In any case, a temple in Rome does not a world religion make. A world religion is marked by massive numbers and a huge influence on global cultures. I'm not denigrating the LDS church at all, but it is a long stretch to call it a world religion separate from Christianity. If it is Christian, then it has always been a part of a world religion and this statement doesn't mean much. Perhaps it was meant to say a growing place among Christianity. If so, that is specifically because of Catholicism, not because of the fact that Rome is a Biblical city. There are many many more important cities to Christianity at the time of the New Testament.

Again, why Rome? Wouldn't Jerusalem be the actual powerful symbol if one didn't believe Catholic claims of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome because of Peter? Jesus wasn't in Rome, Jesus didn't establish a Church in Rome. Peter did. And his successors made Rome the center of Christianity vis-a-vis Catholicism.

I guess I'm seeing this article as being quite triumphant in tone because of Rome's place in Christianity, which is due to Catholicism. In other words, the reasons earlier given do not seem to quite apply anymore. The celebration of the temple in Rome seems to be precisely because it is the heart of Roman Catholicism. It is not the heart of Orthodoxy, or the heart of protestantism, but the heart of Catholicism.

Welcome to the neighborhood. Despite the cries of apostasy, we always knew you wanted to be a part of the club

ETA: please take the ending as it was meant to be: light-hearted  

 

I cannot help on this; I don't understand the context for the statement. There is nothing in my understanding of LDS theology that lends importance to having a temple in Rome. It does not appear to be any more important than having a temple in Paris, or Bern, or London, or any other major European city.

BTW, I was able to hear George Weigel speak this evening in D.C. He was the William E Simon Lecture annual speaker. The title of his speech was, "This Catholic Moment - Today's Crisis in Historical Context". He took a very macro position relative to the topic. He began with a quote from John Henry Newman regarding history - (cannot remember exact quote) during every period of history the people have always felt this was the end, that people were abandoning the truth, etc. We are no different today, but the crisis is real and it is a problem Ultimately today's problem is the failure of pursuit of holiness within the priesthood. It is not a problem of clericalism, which has only facilitated the problem. He never mentioned the word homosexuality, but did say that 80% of the problem has been shown and is evidenced by priests preying on young men. 

He quoted many of the popes.

I thought it was an excellent talk - maybe a little too much of a macro level address - but he is a very erudite speaker and I enjoyed hearing him. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Storm Rider

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

Jesus has never struck me as looking like Goldilocks!hahahhahahahhahahahhahaha! 

I think his hair is supposed to be white like the pure snow.  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110.3?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1  "the hair of his head was white like the pure snow"

This painting looks closer (missing artist attribution), but he needs a more luminous face, and fire in his eyes.   https://store.lds.org/usa/en/christ-appears-in-the-kirtland-temple

Does anyone know of a painting of the resurrected Jesus that includes the detail of sec 110? 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

............................................

Or the Church Newsroom misspoke, and whoever made the claim forgot that Biblical lands include, at the very least, parts of Missouri in LDS Scriptures.

The problem with that notion is that

(1) the Creation is in the Bible and that includes the entire planet and solar system (at least), and that is not normally included in the phrase "Bible lands";

(2) actual scholars do not include the Garden of Eden or Noah in their Bible atlases or studies of Bible geography, simply because they are considered mythical places which are not tied to a worldly geography:  For example, the 4 rivers of Eden (which are considered a late insertion into the text) are 2 branches of the Nile and the Tigris & Euphrates of Mesopotamia, which never meet anywhere (the Book of Abraham excludes them);

(3) all serious biblical geography begins with archeology and history, as in Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 2nd ed. (1979), or the Macmillan Bible Atlas.

Like Atlantis or Erewhon, Eden and Ararat are literally nowhere.  In any case, in his discussion of Eden, one of the greatest non-Mormon biblical scholars, the late David Noel Freedman, included the great rivers of North America: 

Quote

. . . the Mississippi River in our country drains a vast basin from north to south, being fed by tributary rivers on both sides, e.g., the Ohio, itself the product of a vast tributary system flowing into the Mississippi from the East, while the mighty Missouri joins the Mississippi from the West.  If we try to impose a real picture on the imagined one in the book of Genesis, we might come out in the following fashion: It may be that the flow of the biblical rivers from one source into many streams will be reversed and they will flow back into the main stream from which they came.    Freedman, “Introduction: The Rivers of Paradise,” in Freedman & M. J. McClymond, eds., The Rivers of Paradise (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 9; E. A. Speiser, “The Rivers of Paradise,” in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich, 473-485.

Indeed, one is hard put to find a better location for Eden and its four rivers than the Great Plains of North America (cf. Sumerian EDIN “Plain”) perhaps with the Yellowstone, Missouri, Little Missouri, and Platte Rivers.  The "Garden" itself is placed on the East side of this fertile "plain" or Eden (according to Genesis 2:8, Abraham 5:8), thus suggesting the appropriateness of Jackson County, Missouri, as the original site. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Agreed, but the fact that he actually thinks the Church has a future will gall many who see their personal apostasy as symbolic of what's ahead.

It's called "projection" by psychologists, and "wishful thinking" by the hoi polloi.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

................. what was the big deal of the apostles all being together in Rome, since Rome is the center of Catholicism, not the center of protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The answers given pretty much said it is because Rome is Biblical, not because of Catholicism. However, in this article there is a much different tone that goes beyond the fact that Rome was mentioned in the Bible. My thoughts:

Why is Rome the hinge point? What is so important about Rome, if not for Catholicism? I'm not sure other Christian sects point to their presence in Rome as a major event, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Why do all roads lead to Rome?  Perhaps because the LDS Church is in direct, prophetic competition with the Vatican ("Prophecy"), claiming the priesthood authority and keys in its own version of Christ's sacramental Church.  Both churches are headed by the claimed Deputy of Christ on Earth.  Both claim full apostolic authority to preach and act in God's name.  Not actually Protestant at all -- indeed, Mormonism is major heresy from the Protestant POV.

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If the LDS church is already Christian, then it is already among world religions as a part of Christianity. In any case, a temple in Rome does not a world religion make. A world religion is marked by massive numbers and a huge influence on global cultures. I'm not denigrating the LDS church at all, but it is a long stretch to call it a world religion separate from Christianity. If it is Christian, then it has always been a part of a world religion and this statement doesn't mean much. Perhaps it was meant to say a growing place among Christianity. If so, that is specifically because of Catholicism, not because of the fact that Rome is a Biblical city. There are many many more important cities to Christianity at the time of the New Testament.

Again, why Rome? Wouldn't Jerusalem be the actual powerful symbol if one didn't believe Catholic claims of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome because of Peter? Jesus wasn't in Rome, Jesus didn't establish a Church in Rome. Peter did. And his successors made Rome the center of Christianity vis-a-vis Catholicism.

Jerusalem, yes, and how quickly everyone forgets Byzantium.

By the way, Pres Nelson is not the first Mormon to have an audience with the Pope.  Immediately after World War II, when Europe was still in chaos, a brilliant young American Lieutenant from Utah was in charge of creating a new German constitution and govt.  He ran into a bit of difficulty with the Bavarian Catholics, who did not trust him.  A German Catholic man of great influence therefore got him a papal audience.  The Pope approved of his efforts, and the Bavarians quickly accepted him.

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I'm seeing this article as being quite triumphant in tone because of Rome's place in Christianity, which is due to Catholicism. In other words, the reasons earlier given do not seem to quite apply anymore. The celebration of the temple in Rome seems to be precisely because it is the heart of Roman Catholicism. It is not the heart of Orthodoxy, or the heart of protestantism, but the heart of Catholicism............................

Triumphalism, yes.  Respectful, but triumphalist just the same.  Mormons worldwide will see this as bringing true Christianity back to Rome, and they are savoring the irony.  An additional irony is entailed in Joseph Smith's effort (via Apostle Orson Hyde in 1841) to bring the Jews back to the Holy Land through formal dedication on Mt Olivet -- which has been remarkably successful.  It only remains for the Jews to rebuild their temple (also part of Hyde's dedicatory prayer), then the End Time is near.

[Calm]

Not sure this has been posted (it says published 18 hours ago, so I checked those posts):

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900060133/why-president-nelson-took-all-latter-day-saint-apostles-to-rome-and-what-they-said-about-it.html

Edited March 13, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 3/12/2019 at 7:09 PM, sjdawg said:

I love me some olive garden but it doesn't compare to the real stuff.

Well, I'm not an overwhelming fan of Olive Garden (only go there because my wife loves it), but where does one find "real stuff"?  

[Stargazer]

On 3/12/2019 at 5:57 PM, rchorse said:

This. While I did have one fantastic pizza in Italy near Naples, I was not impressed by the rest of the pizza I had there.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of bad cooks in Italy, too, and it seems like they tend to be drawn to the tourist areas. We ate at several restaurants in several different cities there and had some pretty good food and some mediocre food. None of it was mind-blowing. Some of the Italian food I've had in the US and in Argentina was better than what we had in Italy.

That said, I hope to never darken the door of another Olive Garden in my life.

Curious why not darkening the door of an Olive Garden is a life goal? 🙂 

[sjdawg]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I'm not an overwhelming fan of Olive Garden (only go there because my wife loves it), but where does one find "real stuff"?  

Italy😁

[bluebell]

Cafe Molise in SLC has some really good Italian food.  Their pumpkin and butternut squash ravioli in a balsamic vinegar reduction sauce is SO good.  Plus, it has the awesome distinction of being in the old SLC teen dance club.  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Cafe Molise in SLC has some really good Italian food.  Their pumpkin and butternut squash ravioli in a balsamic vinegar reduction sauce is SO good.  Plus, it has the awesome distinction of being in the old SLC teen dance club.  

Do they still have that polenta and sausage in marinara?

So good.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Do they still have that polenta and sausage in marinara?

So good.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that on the menu last time were were there!

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Italy😁

Well, that's a rather large piece of real estate.  As I said earlier, my wife went there a few years ago (before we were married, so I wasn't there to verify) and she said she was very disappointed in the food.

So, WHERE in Italy do you find the "good stuff"?

[sjdawg]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that's a rather large piece of real estate.  As I said earlier, my wife went there a few years ago (before we were married, so I wasn't there to verify) and she said she was very disappointed in the food.

So, WHERE in Italy do you find the "good stuff"?

truthfully I didn't find a bad restaurant.  We tried to stay out of the tourist area and go to places the locals liked.  Spent a lot of time reading reviews

 

Our favorite pizza place was Pizza Zizza just about 10 minutes walk from the Vatican.  I don't really remember the names of any of the other places we ate but we didn't have a bad meal.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, sjdawg said:

truthfully I didn't find a bad restaurant.  We tried to stay out of the tourist area and go to places the locals liked.  Spent a lot of time reading reviews

That may have been her problem.  If we ever go to Italy I shall try to avoid the tourist areas.

1 minute ago, sjdawg said:

 

Our favorite pizza place was Pizza Zizza just about 10 minutes walk from the Vatican.  I don't really remember the names of any of the other places we ate but we didn't have a bad meal.

I'll try to keep the place in mind.  At least it's a distinctive name!