Prophets And Dedicating Land For Temples-How Sure Is It?

[Duncan]

So in 1998 Pres. Hinckley came to our city for a conference and while here he indicated somehow that a certain piece of land would in time have a Temple there. Somehow afterwards, the city heard about this and re-zoned it so that no Temple would be built there and so years later Pres. Monson indicated publicly that we are getting a Temple. Well, surprise surprise the city council is against building a Temple on that property and has offered other places that the Church could build. We just had stake conference and some people here are trying to get approval for the Temple built on that piece of land that Pres. Hinckley had indicated. To me it seems like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Why can't the the Church build on another site that the city has offered? How hard and fast is what the Prophet has said where it is to be built? The Church owns the land but so far can't build a Temple there due to zoning stuff. Are there instances where the Church has built the Temple on another site other then where the Prophet had said it would?

[Freedom]

Hi Duncan, long time no speak. I have two experiences with sites being selected for a temple. In both cases, it was a profound revelatory experience. For the Vancouver temple, a significant amount of research went into finding locations suitable for the temple however when Pres Hinkely arrived he told the driver to drive up a certain road and had him stop in front of a farm and said, effectively, this is the place. The property was not for sale but the owner was found and he immediately agreed to sell his property. Temples are unique and, from my limited experience, very much controlled by a higher power. Location is only one aspect. I knew some of the contractors that were involved in the construction of the temple here. No changes were make without consultation with Salt Lake. Not even a change in location of an outlet.

[Robert F. Smith]

So in 1998 Pres. Hinckley came to our city for a conference and while here he indicated somehow that a certain piece of land would in time have a Temple there. Somehow afterwards, the city heard about this and re-zoned it so that no Temple would be built there and so years later Pres. Monson indicated publicly that we are getting a Temple. Well, surprise surprise the city council is against building a Temple on that property and has offered other places that the Church could build. We just had stake conference and some people here are trying to get approval for the Temple built on that piece of land that Pres. Hinckley had indicated. To me it seems like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Why can't the the Church build on another site that the city has offered? How hard and fast is what the Prophet has said where it is to be built? The Church owns the land but so far can't build a Temple there due to zoning stuff. Are there instances where the Church has built the Temple on another site other then where the Prophet had said it would?

I'm not sure how important location is in all instances, nor whether the Church has ever modified requests due to opposition. I wouldn't be bothered if there had been such delays or changes.

However, there are certain locations which were formally dedicated as LDS temple sites over a century and a half ago which have yet to seen any construction. I am thinking particularly of the Far West, Missouri, Temple site, and the lot in downtown Independence, Missouri, where the Great Temple of the Center Stake of Zion will someday be built. In the former case, the LDS Church owns the site which is far out in the countryside (the Mormons having fled the area long ago), and in the latter case, another church currently owns the land.

This is analogous to the situation of the Jews in Jerusalem today: Their ancient temple mount is firmly in the hands of another religion. Only patience, longsuffering, and deep faith have kept them buoyed up with the hope that one day the Messiah will allow the rebuilding of their Temple. In the meantime they have been preparing for that eventuality.

[Duncan]

Hi Duncan, long time no speak. I have two experiences with sites being selected for a temple. In both cases, it was a profound revelatory experience. For the Vancouver temple, a significant amount of research went into finding locations suitable for the temple however when Pres Hinkely arrived he told the driver to drive up a certain road and had him stop in front of a farm and said, effectively, this is the place. The property was not for sale but the owner was found and he immediately agreed to sell his property. Temples are unique and, from my limited experience, very much controlled by a higher power. Location is only one aspect. I knew some of the contractors that were involved in the construction of the temple here. No changes were make without consultation with Salt Lake. Not even a change in location of an outlet.

yes! I hope things are well in your neck of the woods! interesting, most interesting!

[LeSellers]

When he announced the Manti Temple, Brigham Young met with stiff resistance. So much so that on the day he dedicated the site, and people told him that no one would show up, he said something like, "Moroni dedicated this site, and if I am the only one there, this is where we will build."

That said, I know of one (although I'm hard-pressed to recall which one—Boston? New York?) where the site was announced and them the location changed later.

Lehi

Edited October 25, 2011 by LeSellers

[poulsenll]

So in 1998 Pres. Hinckley came to our city for a conference and while here he indicated somehow that a certain piece of land would in time have a Temple there. Somehow afterwards, the city heard about this and re-zoned it so that no Temple would be built there and so years later Pres. Monson indicated publicly that we are getting a Temple. Well, surprise surprise the city council is against building a Temple on that property and has offered other places that the Church could build. We just had stake conference and some people here are trying to get approval for the Temple built on that piece of land that Pres. Hinckley had indicated. To me it seems like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Why can't the the Church build on another site that the city has offered? How hard and fast is what the Prophet has said where it is to be built? The Church owns the land but so far can't build a Temple there due to zoning stuff. Are there instances where the Church has built the Temple on another site other then where the Prophet had said it would?

In the case of the Monterrey, Mexico Temple, the site was chosen but when the Church applied for building permits the Catholic Church wer opposed because the site was opposite a Catholic seminary. They filed a dispute and it went to court. The Church of Jesus Christ prevailed in the litigation and were given permission to build. The church then chose not to build on that site and built on another location. Part of the decision to not build there was due to the long time that passed to complete the litigation and the demographics had changed significantly.

Larry P.

[Duncan]

In the case of the Monterrey, Mexico Temple, the site was chosen but when the Church applied for building permits the Catholic Church wer opposed because the site was opposite a Catholic seminary. They filed a dispute and it went to court. The Church of Jesus Christ prevailed in the litigation and were given permission to build. The church then chose not to build on that site and built on another location. Part of the decision to not build there was due to the long time that passed to complete the litigation and the demographics had changed significantly.

Larry P.

That is interesting!-I dunno to me if they offer you other places to build then carpe diem! is what I say! rather build then waste time and money in court stuff

[LeSellers]

if they offer you other places to build then carpe diem! is what I say! rather build then waste time and money in court stuff

A right you do not defend is a right you lose.

Governments regularly overstep their bounds (when there are any bounds, which is too often not the case), and if the people, including social and corporate entities, do not raise the red flag at every instance, those rights will be forever lost.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

How hard and fast is what the Prophet has said where it is to be built?

We could extend this question out. How important is it that David's temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt on the orginal site? Why does it matter?

[Freedom]

We could extend this question out. How important is it that David's temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt on the orginal site? Why does it matter?

This is a good point but since we understand so little of the process it is all academic. Our mission president is the brother-in-law of the general authority over all temple construction. I will see if he can glean some clarification on the matter. I am not his buddy but I do see him quite often.

[LeSellers]

How important is it that David's temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt on the orginal site? Why does it matter?

One wonders if Melchizedek had a (much smaller) Temple there long before David purchased the site? Salem, aka Jerusalem is "the navel of the world/earth" according to some, (erroneously) the site of the Garden of Eden.

I believe I read it on a link supplied here that there is a significant group who believe that the Dome of the Rock (mosque) is not built exactly on the site of Solomon's two-storied Temple, but that the Temple was built a few dozen meters further north (?).

In any case, the fact that the Temple will be reuilt in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount, and on the site of Solomon's "original" Temple cannot be denied by anyone who accepts the Bible. But exactly where, on that hill, remains an open question.

Lehi

[Duncan]

This is a good point but since we understand so little of the process it is all academic. Our mission president is the brother-in-law of the general authority over all temple construction. I will see if he can glean some clarification on the matter. I am not his buddy but I do see him quite often.

Please do! that would be awesome!

[BCSpace]

In any case, the fact that the Temple will be reuilt in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount, and on the site of Solomon's "original" Temple cannot be denied by anyone who accepts the Bible. But exactly where, on that hill, remains an open question.

Indeed, though other than obedience to the command and and the possible signal of dominance of Christ's Church over any other that might be in the way, why not move it a few dozen meters to avoid conflict? Not that I am hoping to avoid conflict in this case.....

So does this then, applying back to the original situation, say anything about how important it is we biuld a temple on the site originally specified by the prophet? Is the conflict we have to go through perhaps necessary to bring us together, build our faith, and show the dominance of our God over any other god or the doings of man?

[Duncan]

Indeed, though other than obedience to the command and and the possible signal of dominance of Christ's Church over any other that might be in the way, why not move it a few dozen meters to avoid conflict? Not that I am hoping to avoid conflict in this case.....

So does this then, applying back to the original situation, say anything about how important it is we biuld a temple on the site originally specified by the prophet? Is the conflict we have to go through perhaps necessary to bring us together, build our faith, and show the dominance of our God over any other god or the doings of man?

well, what is God's will and how specific is it?, as in God's will is that a Temple be built in a city or is it more specific as in this city on this spot. Why reinvent the wheel, if the city says no to this spot then build it where it is more suitable-no contention in the land

[Robert F. Smith]

One wonders if Melchizedek had a (much smaller) Temple there long before David purchased the site? Salem, aka Jerusalem is "the navel of the world/earth" according to some, (erroneously) the site of the Garden of Eden.

I believe I read it on a link supplied here that there is a significant group who believe that the Dome of the Rock (mosque) is not built exactly on the site of Solomon's two-storied Temple, but that the Temple was built a few dozen meters further north (?).

In any case, the fact that the Temple will be reuilt in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount, and on the site of Solomon's "original" Temple cannot be denied by anyone who accepts the Bible. But exactly where, on that hill, remains an open question.

Lehi

You recall correctly that careful study by one expert has determined that the actual Holy of Holies of the Solomonic and Herodian temples was several meters north of the Dome of the Rock: See Asher S. Kaufman, “Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 9/2 (Mar-Apr 1983), 40-59; Kaufman, “Where Was the Temple?” BAR, 26/2 (Mar-Apr 2000), 60-61, 69.

However, whatever Jewish priestly sources may think about that, the Muslims own the entire Temple Mount and Israeli law fully protects that ownership.