Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

"Other announcements" Pres. Nelson

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sheilauk said:

Yep,  that's why He didn't tell his disciples to preach to all the nation's,  why He wasn't at all concerned about what went on in the Temple grounds, nor ever preached there, why He chastised Mary for using expensive oil on Him and it's why he never spoke about spiritual matters being more important than earthly matters... It seems to me that the Lord when on the Earth was as concerned with ALL parts of what we call the four fold mission as He is concerned for ALL parts in the latter days, given His revelations to the prophets in the past as well as now.  We are to do all of it,  not privilege one over others.

Can you please explain to me what you're saying here. I don't understand what your point is. Not your fault, my brain isn't quite comprehending what you mean, other than you're not liking my post at all, along with Nehor.

Share this post


Link to post

I can’t speak to Tacenda specifically because I’ve never met her, but the people I’ve known in real like who’ve wanted the Church to drop everything else to ‘feed the poor’ have all been less concerned about the poor than they have been eager for the Church to fail in its other divine mandates. 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can’t speak to Tacenda specifically because I’ve never met her, but the people I’ve known in real like who’ve wanted to Church to drop everything else to ‘feed the poor’ have all been less concerned about the poor than they have been eager for the Church to fail in its other divine mandates. 

I honestly don't know why members need the elaborate adorned temples. I think the smaller temples are nice as well. And if there is a huge need to do temple work, I think I've heard it said or I'm dreaming, that one day the churches would be needed. And I think, well, then the money spent on temples could go to some needs out there. Also, there is a quote from one of the presidents of the church in the early church that said if the church ever has more than enough money than there will be no need for tithing.

I think those people such as Haitians could be in a category of not being expected to pay tithing. https://restavekfreedom.org/2017/01/20/statistics-about-life-in-haiti/ The new temple is almost a slap in their faces of opulence. I know I sound critical and at times like this I am. The church in the beginning wanted feedback from it's members, what we can't say anything? And at this time I know my voice is only worth so much since I'm not active. I do have visits from a ministering couple and probably will go to Sacrament in a couple of weeks to hear him speak. So I'm not against attending. 

Why can't our church spend more on the 4th mission of our church? But please don't derail and answer me, haha. And to the bold, this doesn't really make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the most important question regarding temple expenses is whether a simplified temple (not necessarily a smaller building but more simple in design/finish and maybe smaller land use) would enable us to complete them faster. 

Because, here is the issue as I see it in the numbers:

We have 29 temples announced but not yet under construction.  15 temples under construction.  9 temples being renovated. 

Over the last decade we have averaged 3.3 temple dedications/re-dedications per year.  (I welcome anyone questioning and double-checking my numbers, I could be wrong.)

At that rate, we have a 16 year backlog of temples to finish.  And if we keep announcing more than 3 temples per year, without speeding up the process, the backlog will keep growing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, there is a quote from one of the presidents of the church in the early church that said if the church ever has more than enough money than there will be no need for tithing.

Really? It was only 2.5 months ago that you brought this same point up by sharing a misleading meme, and I demonstrated here and here that the people who made the meme were being dishonest and deceitful. Pres Snow never said or implied this. At all. And you would know that if only you had read what I copied out for you or -- even better! -- used the link I provided to read his actual words for yourself instead of blindly trusting what shonky Church critics want you to think he might have said.

Quote

I think those people such as Haitians could be in a category of not being expected to pay tithing.

Of course you do. Because you have no faith in the practice of tithing and its attendant blessings. For those of us who know from personal experience how the faithful payment of tithes truly opens the windows of heaven, we understand that you would rob the Haitians of enormous blessings. And that's wrong.

Quote

The new temple is almost a slap in their faces of opulence.

I strongly suspect that the Saints in Haiti -- who are celebrating having a dedicated House of the Lord in their midst -- neither want nor need you to appoint yourself their spokesman on this issue.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think the most important question regarding temple expenses is whether a simplified temple (not necessarily a smaller building but more simple in design/finish and maybe smaller land use) would enable us to complete them faster. 

Are you suggesting that the Church is facing financial difficulties in completing temples? Despite having previously estimated the ROI of its presumed $32,000,000,000 stock portfolio?

I feel confident that any 'backlog' is not a result of financial limitations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Tacenda--

Your questions are great, as usual.  My responses are in red

 

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I honestly don't know why members need the elaborate adorned temples.

The Temples are houses of the Lord that glorify God.  They represent the significance of the work that is done inside their walls, and how the people feel about their Savior. 

It is as Sheilauk said, referring to the woman who wanted to anoint the Savior with expensive oil: "And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an (expensive) alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."  The scripture in Luke 7:36-50 is profound when looked at in context. The disciples felt as you do, that the ointment should be sold and the proceeds given to the poor.  So you are in good company.  But Jesus opened our minds to the higher law.  He referred to exactly your point:

"There was a certain creditor (the Man who had money to lend-- I believe it was the Savior in this instance,)  who had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.  And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.  Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?  Simon answered and said , I suppose that he to whom he forgave most.  And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged."

Money is not a fixed amount that can either go to feed the poor or build the Temple.  The money comes from God's rich and abundant hand.  He can and often does give us ideas to obtain the money we require.  When we consider the lilies of the field, He finds a way to take care of them.  Same with us.  Not at the same level, but our needs are met just the same.  Same hours in a day.  Same air to breathe.  Different resources in different parts of the world.  No doubt about it, some areas are poorer than others.  God sends people to those areas for His wise purposes— to teach them what they need to know for what comes next.   God lets them exercise their agency, and engage in commerce. 

The way the richest 1 percent have obtained their wealth is through commerce.  They invent and sell things, creating wealth for themselves.  They also help create jobs and income for the ninety nine percent.  I believe the mistake you are making is that there is only enough money for feeding the poor OR Temples.  There is enough money for all of it, including taking care of the poor.  The Church welfare system is also a great example of how to take care of the poor.  We teach governments and countries how we do it.

Each of us who have been forgiven can relate to the woman bathing His feet with her tears.  The Temple is a gift from God.  The sacred ordinances are gifts from God.  He provided the resources in our lives to build them.  I am most grateful for the Temple's and the important work done there.

Regarding tithing, you couldn't get me to withhold my tithing because of the blessings connected to that commandment. I have proven to my satisfaction that God honors His promises.  People in poverty who live this law are lifted by it, just as others of us you hear testify at Church.  You may want to try and see for yourself.  But do it with faith, nothing wavering.  Then you will understand more clearly what we are talking about.

 

Edited by Meerkat
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you suggesting that the Church is facing financial difficulties in completing temples? Despite having previously estimated the ROI of its presumed $32,000,000,000 stock portfolio?

I feel confident that any 'backlog' is not a result of financial limitations.

No, that’s not what I am suggesting. 

I’m wondering if the scale/complexity of temples was reduced, could we build them faster and reduce the backlog.  And it is a sincere question.  I’m open to the answer being “no”.

ETA:  I just watched the Newsroom video that @Tacenda shared immediately below this post.  President Nelson refers to temples in remote areas (around the 3:30 mark) not needing to be "large and ostentatious".  He says that "we'll scale down the temples to fit the needs wherever we go."  This is what I am referring to although I'm suggesting that perhaps it isn't just a good way to get temples built in Guam and Cape Verde but throughout the world to reduce the backlog.

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post

@Hamba Tuhan, @The Nehor, @sheilauk @Meerkat (just got help on how to highlight, yay)

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

Pres Nelson said ostentatious! I only said elaborate and opulence! When I read their definitions, mine wasn't critical at all.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hamba, Nehor, Sheilauk (do not know how to highlight like so many do, I need help with that. :) )

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

 

@Tacenda you just need to put the @ symbol in front of the name.

Thanks for sharing the video - great interview with President Nelson and Elder Cook.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

@Tacenda you just need to put the @ symbol in front of the name.

Thanks for sharing the video - great interview with President Nelson and Elder Cook.

You're the best! 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

@Hamba Tuhan, @The Nehor, @sheilauk @Meerkat (just got help on how to highlight, yay)

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

Pres Nelson said ostentatious! I only said elaborate and opulence! When I read their definitions, mine wasn't critical at all.

Nice try but no, you were critical.

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I honestly don't know why members need the elaborate adorned temples. I think the smaller temples are nice as well. And if there is a huge need to do temple work, I think I've heard it said or I'm dreaming, that one day the churches would be needed. And I think, well, then the money spent on temples could go to some needs out there. Also, there is a quote from one of the presidents of the church in the early church that said if the church ever has more than enough money than there will be no need for tithing.

I think those people such as Haitians could be in a category of not being expected to pay tithing. https://restavekfreedom.org/2017/01/20/statistics-about-life-in-haiti/ The new temple is almost a slap in their faces of opulence. I know I sound critical and at times like this I am. The church in the beginning wanted feedback from it's members, what we can't say anything? And at this time I know my voice is only worth so much since I'm not active. I do have visits from a ministering couple and probably will go to Sacrament in a couple of weeks to hear him speak. So I'm not against attending. 

Why can't our church spend more on the 4th mission of our church? But please don't derail and answer me, haha. And to the bold, this doesn't really make sense to me.

I would be interested to see that quote.

The Haitian Saints would disagree with you. You are not exactly one of the people whose feedback the church wants. You consider its mission irrelevant. Why would they want your advice on how to execute the mission? You hand wring over how church money is spent but I have my doubts you contribute.

They do not spend more because they have been led not to. Consult with God if you disagree. I doubt God will be deeply impressed with your critique but it might be worth a try.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@Hamba Tuhan, @The Nehor, @sheilauk @Meerkat (just got help on how to highlight, yay)

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

Pres Nelson said ostentatious! I only said elaborate and opulence! When I read their definitions, mine wasn't critical at all.

Thanks Tacenda.  Great interview.  I think this interview has something for everyone.  We have been moving to more smaller Temples.  It makes sense.  If we had gone smaller a few years earlier, we could have had a Temple in Seattle and Tacoma, and maybe one more for less than the cost of the Seattle Temple, and we could attend more frequently.   I like the smaller Temple idea where possible.   Apparently there is much yet to be revealed.  We need to take our vitamins!

Edited by Meerkat

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you suggesting that the Church is facing financial difficulties in completing temples? Despite having previously estimated the ROI of its presumed $32,000,000,000 stock portfolio?

I feel confident that any 'backlog' is not a result of financial limitations.

Even with money, building and planning takes time.  I've got a friend who has been trying to build his dream house for years, and trust me, he's got the money, but the permitting and other factors would be going a lot more smoothly if his plans were smaller and more manageable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@Hamba Tuhan, @The Nehor, @sheilauk @Meerkat (just got help on how to highlight, yay)

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

Pres Nelson said ostentatious! I only said elaborate and opulence! When I read their definitions, mine wasn't critical at all.

You were, as usual being critical.   You were saying that we should make churches temples (effectively getting rid of temples) and that they are only for members to feel special because  Christ only cared about the poor, implying that Christ would not approve and that they are not built through revelation but by man's design alone.  But Christ did not only care about the poor.   He has always instructed His people to build holy places of worship and to keep them special.   President Nelson isn't suggesting doing away with them, or that they are no longer important.  And I don't think he would accept that they should be less than perfect in their build, (which is what takes the time.)  I'm happy to accept temples shouldn't be ostentatious, I'd agree.   Whether they are ostentatious may be a matter of opinion. The 3 temples I've been to are small and I'd say that  the decor is far from ostentatious at them, rather that they are elegant but others may disagree.  Perhaps President Nelson would and he wants to change the decor.  No problem, i've been to many places of worship and some do ostentatious far more than we do and some do much simpler.  The design and decor don't matter in the long run.  The holiness of a place is dependent on Christ's presence. I have felt it in a few places that belong to other groups,  but always in the Church's chapels and in abundance at the Temple. Even non members feel it at the Temple.   My father is against religion and God,  but he will talk about how special our temples are.  So I cannot accept that temples are not important to our Lord or that the work done in them doesn't matter or that they can be combined with our chapels. Temples are a house of the Lord.  They should be our very best work.  When the great cathedrals were built in the Middle Ages, conditions were difficult for most, but they built magnificent creations of their best work as praise to God.  Our temples are special, built to praise God, so requiring our best and they are a refuge from the world and long may they continue to be whilst we also help the poor and needy.  As I said,  Christ supported both and asks us to do both at the same time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Even with money, building and planning takes time.  I've got a friend who has been trying to build his dream house for years, and trust me, he's got the money, but the permitting and other factors would be going a lot more smoothly if his plans were smaller and more manageable.

It took 5 ish years to get approval, just the simple approval to build the Temple here in Canada, not to judge but the Temple in the Congo was announced, approved and built before this one. How on earth is the infrastructure better in the Congo than in Canada? yikes a licious

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Even with money, building and planning takes time.

Exactly! And we rarely hear all the behind-the-scenes stuff, but I know that the temple I serve in took years to build post-announcement, not because the Church wasn't ready, willing and able but because certain members of the local government kept searching for reasons to not approve or obstacles they could throw up -- including an attempt to declare the run-down building already on the block that the Church owned a 'heritage site'. As it is, we still are limited on which hours the temple can be open because the government was super concerned about its impact on traffic, they said. It sits less than a kilometre from a shopping centre that has a huge multistorey car park and no restrictions on its trading hours ...

By the way, our temple would be small to most of you. Size doesn't really matter, from what I can tell.

I suppose we could start announcing temples right before their groundbreakings (and once all the permits and back-door negotiating are done), but I suspect there is function in telling a group of people that they have a House of the Lord to look forward to and prepare for?

43 minutes ago, Duncan said:

How on earth is the infrastructure better in the Congo than in Canada?

Clearly, something is better in the Congo than in Canada, and I doubt it's the infrastructure.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

It took 5 ish years to get approval, just the simple approval to build the Temple here in Canada, not to judge but the Temple in the Congo was announced, approved and built before this one. How on earth is the infrastructure better in the Congo than in Canada? yikes a licious

Sometimes (perhaps most of the time) the places with the best infrastructure will take the longest amount of time to get approvals and to build. I’d suggest there’s a strong correlation there (a municipality has good infrastructure because it places a lot of requirements on developers). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there.

Lobbing intentionally incendiary bombs and then pretending the reaction is a case of 'striking nerves'?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly! And we rarely hear all the behind-the-scenes stuff, but I know that the temple I serve in took years to build post-announcement, not because the Church wasn't ready, willing and able but because certain members of the local government kept searching for reasons to not approve or obstacles they could throw up -- including an attempt to declare the run-down building already on the block that the Church owned a 'heritage site'. As it is, we still are limited on which hours the temple can be open because the government was super concerned about its impact on traffic, they said. It sits less than a kilometre from a shopping centre that has a huge multistorey car park and no restrictions on its trading hours ...

By the way, our temple would be small to most of you. Size doesn't really matter, from what I can tell.

I suppose we could start announcing temples right before their groundbreakings (and once all the permits and back-door negotiating are done), but I suspect there is function in telling a group of people that they have a House of the Lord to look forward to and prepare for?

Clearly, something is better in the Congo than in Canada, and I doubt it's the infrastructure.

To the extent that institutional prejudice or biases of those in authority are preventing timely temple construction, than I agree that scaling down the temples will not make much of a difference. 

But if the process is being slowed by the size and type of building, than maybe smaller and less ostentatious structures, specifically ones that fit into the existing zoning of the chosen parcel could theoretically he built faster. 

I guess we’ll see what happens in Congo and Cape Verde... or if President Nelson provides additional clarity on this smaller, less ostentatious, and scaled down temple comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To the extent that institutional prejudice or biases of those in authority are preventing timely temple construction, than I agree that scaling down the temples will not make much of a difference. 

But if the process is being slowed by the size and type of building, than maybe smaller and less ostentatious structures, specifically ones that fit into the existing zoning of the chosen parcel could theoretically he built faster. 

I guess we’ll see what happens in Congo and Cape Verde... or if President Nelson provides additional clarity on this smaller, less ostentatious, and scaled down temple comment. 

the Congo Temple is done and done!

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/kinshasa-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-temple/

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It does seem to fit the “scaled down and less ostentatious” descriptor from President Nelson (when compared to most US temples I’ve seen)

4.5 years planning time

3 construction

I haven’t extracted the data for temples in general to see how that compares.  I wonder if someone has or if I would need to go thru each temple to compile it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...