Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

"Other announcements" Pres. Nelson

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I'm missing why this comment has drawn so much interest. We've scaled our temples to local demands for many years. We are in the process of building temples of all kinds of different sizes. Congo, by the way, has been dedicated. The one in Cabo Verde went from announcement last year to groundbreaking this year. The one just dedicated in Haiti is small.

But if the demand is large, it doesn't make sense to build small. And governments that understand and honour the need for faith groups to have suitable places of worship will facilitate that happening. Our government here doesn't get it. At all

Our local Hindu community has the money and plans to build a temple complex. This would include a library, a meeting hall, the temple itself, supplementary temples, amenities, etc. They keep being offered blocks of land too small for a single temple. Meanwhile, I've just completed a summary of a bill that the government has tabled that would attach uses to community land based on 'government priorities'. So if the government decides that a district needs a sports field or a theatre but not a place of worship, none of the land will be available for a temple of any kind, end of story.

This is not an accident. I sat in the briefing with the minister's staff. They told us that currently 85 per cent of applications for community-zoned land is for places of worship, but they want to 'rebalance' that. I asked if that meant fewer places of worship would be approved under the new legislation. Answer: yes. So faith communities that have raised money and obtained architectural plans, etc. are going to be told no based on 'government priorities'. In fact, they won't even be allowed to make an expression of interest because, when the land is released, it will have a designated use already attached to it -- not based on what community members want but based on what the government knows they should want.

And even those that are successful in obtaining a lease on land will be provided with a list of government provisions. The example in the bill -- certainly not an accident! -- is requiring that a place of worship be open to the public and mandating which days and hours it must operate. Annual reports will need to demonstrate that these provisions have been met, and the government can force the community organisation to be audited up to twice per year at its own expense if any doubts remain. Failure to comply will result in the loss of the land and any structures built on it.

This is the reality of living under a self-designated 'progressive' government that prides itself on its 'diversity'.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond 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. 

search me! I 've mentioned this a bunch of times but when Pres. Hinckley did all those Temples 20 years ago, they were announced, approved and built sometimes within a year and then they had to renovate most if not all of them, some extensive renovations. I wonder if they want austere but at the same time not too fast to have to rebuild them all within 20 years. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the only Pres. Hinckley Temple not to have renovations was the Bismarck North Dakota Temple to the south of us

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

I think you and Sheilauk are going overboard, but whatever you want to do. I didn't say the temples should be abolished and only use churches, like she thinks I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm missing why this comment has drawn so much interest.

Because it brought back memories of President Hinckley's big announcement in April 1998.  I haven't heard anything similar from a prophet in two decades.

Following President Hinckley's announcement, we dedicated 33 temples in one year (2000).  That's 10x our current running average of temple dedications per year.

Of course, if it's true that we had to go back and do major renovations to nearly all of those temples (as Duncan stated) then maybe there were underlying problems with that plan.

Quote

We've scaled our temples to local demands for many years. We are in the process of building temples of all kinds of different sizes.

All true.  I guess I was hoping that it meant we might start scaling down to the point of getting all temples done quicker.

Quote

Congo, by the way, has been dedicated. The one in Cabo Verde went from announcement last year to groundbreaking this year.

That's impressive... it would be great if we could do that more often.

Quote

The one just dedicated in Haiti is small.

But if the demand is large, it doesn't make sense to build small.

President Nelson mentioned three characteristics:  size, scale, and ostentation.

If demand is there (or even anticipated to grow) we wouldn't want to go too small.  But scaling down and being less ostentatious can be done without reducing capacity.

Quote

This is the reality of living under a self-designated 'progressive' government that prides itself on its 'diversity'.

I imagine we'll face more and more of that here in the US, even with our 1st Amendment protections.

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But scaling down and being less ostentatious can be done without reducing capacity.

You've seen Hindu temples before, I'm guessing.

na_5c6d151ea586a.jpg

I'm having difficulty trying to imagine having this conversation with our local Hindu community. Telling people they can only build a temple if it doesn't actually look like a temple (to them) violates the core principles of modern liberalism that we as a nation at least pretend to value. Telling them they can speed up the process if they do the same is almost as ugly.

On this point, I love the statements of the Prophet Joseph regarding the welcome in Nauvoo to all world religions. As a Church member, I've been encouraged to help renovate a Catholic cathedral and to help build a Hindu Temple. I've seen our facilities freely offered to various Christian and non-Christian faiths, and I've been on the receiving end of the same.

Quote

I imagine we'll face more and more of that here in the US, even with our 1st Amendment protections.

I suspect you're right. It appears to be baked into the progressive agenda. There are certainly reasons why the Church has asked us to familiarise ourselves with and advocate for religious liberty as a principle. As a historian, I'm mindful of the thousands of gallons of blood that European soil soaked up before people finally realised that freedom of conscience and expression have to be honoured and protected if peace is to exist in a society.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You've seen Hindu temples before, I'm guessing.

na_5c6d151ea586a.jpg

I'm having difficulty trying to imagine having this conversation with our local Hindu community. Telling people they can only build a temple if it doesn't actually look like a temple (to them) violates the core principles of modern liberalism that we as a nation at least pretend to value. Telling them they can speed up the process if they do the same is almost as ugly.

On this point, I love the statements of the Prophet Joseph regarding the welcome in Nauvoo to all world religions. As a Church member, I've been encouraged to help renovate a Catholic cathedral and to help build a Hindu Temple. I've seen our facilities freely offered to various Christian and non-Christian faiths, and I've been on the receiving end of the same.

I suspect you're right. It appears to be baked into the progressive agenda. There are certainly reasons why the Church has asked us to familiarise ourselves with and advocate for religious liberty as a principle. As a historian, I'm mindful of the thousands of gallons of blood that European soil soaked up before people finally realised that freedom of conscience and expression have to be honoured and protected if peace is to exist in a society.

My comments had nothing to do with Hindu temples or telling any religion how they should build their places of worship. 

I was discussing how we might voluntarily scale down our temples if that were to speed up the approval/construction process. 

Share this post


Link to post

@Hamba Tuhan and @rockpondThe only statement I could find about ostentatiousness is from a blog where President Nelson is quoted as saying, "Those temples don’t need to be large and ostentatious..." This is very different from him saying that our temples heretofore are large and ostentatious. He may even be empathizing with the people of the regions where these will be built, for whom a SLC-style temple would indeed seem excessive on a number of levels. I'd like to see how this message is framed and relayed outside of Brazil.

Regarding the 1st Amendment, where the USA tax code designates a church as a charitable organization for exemptions (because the USA values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good), there may be future limits placed on how much goes into places of worship, especially if there are limits placed for private, members-only use as temples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@Hamba Tuhan and @rockpondThe only statement I could find about ostentatiousness is from a blog where President Nelson is quoted as saying, "Those temples don’t need to be large and ostentatious..." This is very different from him saying that our temples heretofore are large and ostentatious. He may even be empathizing with the people of the regions where these will be built, for whom a SLC-style temple would indeed seem excessive on a number of levels. I'd like to see how this message is framed and relayed outside of Brazil.

Regarding the 1st Amendment, where the USA tax code designates a church as a charitable organization for exemptions (because the USA values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good), there may be future limits placed on how much goes into places of worship, especially if there are limits placed for private, members-only use as temples.

A few posts ago I posted the video of Pres. Nelson's statement. I took it to be exactly how you picture it in my bold. But I got flack for saying something similar. I'll post it again here: https://youtu.be/nUx1J-16d94 minute mark 3:30.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@Hamba Tuhan and @rockpondThe only statement I could find about ostentatiousness is from a blog where President Nelson is quoted as saying, "Those temples don’t need to be large and ostentatious..." This is very different from him saying that our temples heretofore are large and ostentatious. He may even be empathizing with the people of the regions where these will be built, for whom a SLC-style temple would indeed seem excessive on a number of levels. I'd like to see how this message is framed and relayed outside of Brazil.

I cited the source (the newsroom video interview of Pres. Nelson and Elder Cook) and the time of the video in which the statement was made.

President Nelson said:  "There are some areas of the world that are really quite remote, such as Guam and Cape Verde.  Those temples don't need to be large and ostentatious but, the people need the covenants, the ordinances.  So, we'll scale down the temples to fit the needs wherever we go."

If our temples were not already large and ostentatious, why would such a remark need to be made?  Why would we need to scale them down?

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Regarding the 1st Amendment, where the USA tax code designates a church as a charitable organization for exemptions (because the USA values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good), there may be future limits placed on how much goes into places of worship, especially if there are limits placed for private, members-only use as temples.

Yes.  I think @Hamba Tuhan's point about restrictions on zoning for religious use was also interesting.  I could conceive of a day when there is push back on that front, here in the US, as well.  Municipalities restricting the amount of land that can be used for places of worship as opposed to commercial use (that tends to increase employment) and residential use (to prop up the tax base).  If this were to happen in the future, it would also be a good reason to have home-centered church.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A few posts ago I posted the video of Pres. Nelson's statement. I took it to be exactly how you picture it in my bold. But I got flack for saying something similar. I'll post it again here: https://youtu.be/nUx1J-16d94 minute mark 3:30.

 

Hopefully you took all the flack and I won't get any LOL

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If our temples were not already large and ostentatious, why would such a remark need to be made?  Why would we need to scale them down?

Because he would have said, “Those temples don't need to be large and ostentatious like [all / some of] the ones we have already…” Sometimes people use a little bit of trenchancy while empathizing with the audience in their self-expression.

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I think @Hamba Tuhan's point about restrictions on zoning for religious use was also interesting.  I could conceive of a day when there is push back on that front, here in the US, as well.  Municipalities restricting the amount of land that can be used for places of worship as opposed to commercial use (that tends to increase employment) and residential use (to prop up the tax base).  If this were to happen in the future, it would also be a good reason to have home-centered church.

Pity the day should the USA no longer values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because he would have said, “Those temples don't need to be large and ostentatious like [all / some of] the ones we have already…” Sometimes people use a little bit of trenchancy while empathizing with the audience in their self-expression.

I think the part in italics is implied.  Especially since he followed the statement by saying we would scale down the temples for those locations.

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Pity the day should the USA no longer values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good!

Hopefully it will not come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think the part in italics is implied.  Especially since he followed the statement by saying we would scale down the temples for those locations.

I think people will infer what they will; I take nothing as implied. "Scale down" was the idea in making the smaller temples over the past 20 years or so. Further scaling down is not a denunciation that any or all are ostentatious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think people will infer what they will; I take nothing as implied. "Scale down" was the idea in making the smaller temples over the past 20 years or so. Further scaling down is not a denunciation that any or all are ostentatious.

I know that at least one definition of ostentatious has a negative connotation to it.  I certainly don't think President Nelson meant to use it in that sense while implying that other temples that we build are ostentatious.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

... Pity the day should the USA no longer values the advancement of religion as a charitable activity benefiting the public good!

I'll give you a thousand "Amens!" to that!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

(Re: CV75's "Pity the day ..."  comment)

Hopefully it will not come to that.

Hopefully not, but, unfortunately, that's where we're headed. :(

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

...  I love the statements of the Prophet Joseph regarding the welcome in Nauvoo to all world religions. As a Church member, I've been encouraged to help renovate a Catholic cathedral and to help build a Hindu Temple. I've seen our facilities freely offered to various Christian and non-Christian faiths, and I've been on the receiving end of the same.

 

That sort of religious pluralism exists in Nauvoo to this day.  Though it has been a few years since I was there last, I have no reason to believe this has changed: I was struck by the ubiquitousness of other (i.e., non-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint) clergy.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I know that at least one definition of ostentatious has a negative connotation to it.  I certainly don't think President Nelson meant to use it in that sense while implying that other temples that we build are ostentatious.

Well then that's all well and good in my book! :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rockpond said:

My comments had nothing to do with Hindu temples or telling any religion how they should build their places of worship. 

I was discussing how we might voluntarily scale down our temples if that were to speed up the approval/construction process. 

I understand. And on my end, I'm deeply bothered with any faith having to 'voluntarily' scale down their places of worship in a bid to speed up the approval/construction process.

We have a large Ahmadi refugee community here in our city, and it has taken them five years just to secure a block of land. In the meantime, they have been using a run-down shopfront in an industrial estate as their mosque. They have repeatedly complained to my boss about the difficulty of this situation but then didn't want her to say anything to the government about it for fear that would torpedo their hopes of ever securing land. They expect it will take another five years, at least, to clear all the hurdles from the development application process and get the mosque built.

A mosque or a Hindu temple is as important to me as a temple longed for by Latter-day Saints.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You've seen Hindu temples before, I'm guessing.

na_5c6d151ea586a.jpg

I'm having difficulty trying to imagine having this conversation with our local Hindu community. Telling people they can only build a temple if it doesn't actually look like a temple (to them) violates the core principles of modern liberalism that we as a nation at least pretend to value. Telling them they can speed up the process if they do the same is almost as ugly.

On this point, I love the statements of the Prophet Joseph regarding the welcome in Nauvoo to all world religions. As a Church member, I've been encouraged to help renovate a Catholic cathedral and to help build a Hindu Temple. I've seen our facilities freely offered to various Christian and non-Christian faiths, and I've been on the receiving end of the same.

I suspect you're right. It appears to be baked into the progressive agenda. There are certainly reasons why the Church has asked us to familiarise ourselves with and advocate for religious liberty as a principle. As a historian, I'm mindful of the thousands of gallons of blood that European soil soaked up before people finally realised that freedom of conscience and expression have to be honoured and protected if peace is to exist in a society.

I admit if I was in the government I would not approve of zoning land for a building that is clearly made out of legos.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I admit if I was in the government I would not approve of zoning land for a building that is clearly made out of legos.

One more reason we can be grateful you're thoroughly unelectable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I understand. And on my end, I'm deeply bothered with any faith having to 'voluntarily' scale down their places of worship in a bid to speed up the approval/construction process.

I guess my perspective is a little different...

I’m currently trying to get final approval to break ground on a residential development.  We’ve been working with the local city planning officials for years.  They are still finding little things that send us back to the drawing board. 

A simpler development could have avoided much of the hassle.  

So while I agree with you that no faith should have to scale down their place of worship to speed up the approval process, I don’t see it as a burden that is exclusively being placed on religious organizations. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One more reason we can be grateful you're thoroughly unelectable.

I would have you know I was elected second assistant hall monitor in 1st grade so that shoots down that theory.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would have you know I was elected second assistant hall monitor in 1st grade so that shoots down that theory.

Sorry, my fault for using an ambiguous contraction: in this case, 'you're' = 'you are', not 'you were'.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/10/2019 at 7:11 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect you're right. It appears to be baked into the progressive agenda. There are certainly reasons why the Church has asked us to familiarise ourselves with and advocate for religious liberty as a principle. As a historian, I'm mindful of the thousands of gallons of blood that European soil soaked up before people finally realised that freedom of conscience and expression have to be honoured and protected if peace is to exist in a society.

And here folks is an example of a 'Dog Whistle" that was talked about in another thread. Watch out for "the gays".  They are going to take away your right to build temples.  

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...