Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Shanghai Temple?


Recommended Posts

Some troubling reports out of China

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/04/29/plans-an-lds-temple/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chinese-government-resumes-removal-of-crosses-from-church-buildings-47792

indicate that there might be significant roadblocks to the announced Shanghai temple. Even if it's an unmarked, repurposed building. I hope that the comments from the government officials are just typical Chinese Communist Party bluster, but acting like this is the first they've heard of it, and saying things like "wishful thinking, not based in reality" don't sound good. It also looks like there is Chinese backlash against Christian churches in response to Coronavirus criticisms. 

I notice that Shanghai isn't listed on the most recent list of current and announced temples. Is this because it's of the table, or because we're being secretive about it so as not to anger China?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng

Link to comment

If we were being secretive about it, why announce it at general conference?  Would have been wiser just to talk with with local members about a multipurpose building and let them know it would offer ordinances.

It was never called a temple in any printed material out of the newsroom that I saw. Was it actually called a temple in conference or just announced at the same time, can’t remember?  Added:  read the article and it says there Pres Nelson did not use “temple”.  Too bad everyone else is.  Maybe they should call it an endowment house or come up with another name for it so as to stop people calling it a temple when it is not from its description.

From what I have been reading, there is a lot of hostility in China towards America as well as propaganda the virus came from the States.  I would not be surprised if the Church is running into issues due to that. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Some troubling reports out of China

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/04/29/plans-an-lds-temple/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chinese-government-resumes-removal-of-crosses-from-church-buildings-47792

indicate that there might be significant roadblocks to the announced Shanghai temple. Even if it's an unmarked, repurposed building. I hope that the comments from the government officials are just typical Chinese Communist Party bluster, but acting like this is the first they've heard of it, and saying things like "wishful thinking, not based in reality" don't sound good. It also looks like there is Chinese backlash against Christian churches in response to Coronavirus criticisms. 

I notice that Shanghai isn't listed on the most recent list of current and announced temples. Is this because it's of the table, or because we're being secretive about it so as not to anger China?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng

No temple is being built. I expect the Party decision-makers understand that, even if many others do not, and I also think they would honor any commitments that have been made. But things can certainly change in this geopolitical climate, that is for sure... and then change back again :) 

Link to comment

Yes, it was most definitely referred to as a temple, the Shanghai temple. We all heard that in Conference. 

If we're not being secretive about it, why is it no longer listed? It's possible that it's simply dead in its tracks for now, but nothing has been said because the Church doesn't want negative PR in the other direction (euphoric members who feel like the rug is being pulled out a month after the announcement). 

I wonder if it was actually discussed and approved before it was announced, or if it was simply announced? I wonder the same thing about the Russia temple. What would Putin's government say when asked?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, it was most definitely referred to as a temple, the Shanghai temple. We all heard that in Conference. 

CFR please.  Not doubting you, just want to see the language.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  Not doubting you, just want to see the language.

You couldn't google "lds.org shanghai temple?"

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/new-temples-april-2020-general-conference

Also, it sounds very gaslight-ey to say, "Was it actually called a temple? Are you sure? References, please." We all heard and were amazed when it was announced. I was thrilled, if true, but I had the same reservations I've had with the announced (but no site) Russia temple. 

I'm just tired of self-inflicted PR wounds. 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, it was most definitely referred to as a temple, the Shanghai temple. We all heard that in Conference. 

If we're not being secretive about it, why is it no longer listed? It's possible that it's simply dead in its tracks for now, but nothing has been said because the Church doesn't want negative PR in the other direction (euphoric members who feel like the rug is being pulled out a month after the announcement). 

I wonder if it was actually discussed and approved before it was announced, or if it was simply announced? I wonder the same thing about the Russia temple. What would Putin's government say when asked?

It was never put on the list of temples, so it was never removed.

Link to comment

At that link, when you go to the section on the Shanghai temple, it says, "Information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the People’s Republic of China in English, Simplified Chinese characters, and Traditional Chinese characters can be found at china.churchofjesuschrist.org."

When you click on it, you get "No Redirect Found."

 

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Judd said:

It was never put on the list of temples, so it was never removed.

It's still on the list of temples I linked to above. Where are you getting that it was never put on the list of temples?

That seems shady, doesn't it, if true, to announce a temple but not list it on the list of temples. I don't think that's accurate. I think it's clear that it has been removed for obvious reasons (China is upset, and we don't want to further hurt it's prospects). 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's still on the list of temples I linked to above. Where are you getting that it was never put on the list of temples?

That seems shady, doesn't it, if true, to announce a temple but not list it on the list of temples. I don't think that's accurate. I think it's clear that it has been removed for obvious reasons (China is upset, and we don't want to further hurt it's prospects). 

It was never on the official list. If you want reference for that, you’ll need to go over to ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com and go read any of the temple discussion and shortly after the announcement, people were discussing how it was never out on the list (or perhaps that discussion happened here, too).

Ill have to dig up my words, but very shortly after the announcement I had mentioned that his description sounded more like an endowment house than a temple. Though it was announced with temples and as a temple, he added lots of qualifiers to that.

Link to comment
On 4/5/2020 at 6:37 PM, Judd said:

I’m curious about the invitation from UAE that President Nelson was talking about. I’m also curious about some of the wording regarding the Shanghai temple. Though there are a handful of temples that are multi-purpose, it (to me) almost sounded like it was more of an endowment house. Also, when he said it wasn’t for international tourists, I assume that means for actual going in to the temple, but I’m curious if he means even that it may be considered “sensitive” in the same ways that some of their units there are, where its location may not even be known.

Here’s my quote from April 5.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Judd said:

It was never on the official list. If you want reference for that, you’ll need to go over to ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com and go read any of the temple discussion and shortly after the announcement, people were discussing how it was never out on the list (or perhaps that discussion happened here, too).

Ill have to dig up my words, but very shortly after the announcement I had mentioned that his description sounded more like an endowment house than a temple. Though it was announced with temples and as a temple, he added lots of qualifiers to that.

Thanks, Judd!

What do you make of having an official list (as discussed at that blog), and the list I linked to (from the Church News) that contradict each other. Sort of a plausible deniability list for one audience, and a different list for a Church audience is what that looks like. 

At any rate, it looks like the Church has spiked any China content it had (cf. my previous post on this ). 

I think endowment house/temple is splitting hairs. An endowment house is a temple, isn't it? And, I'm sure the intent with Shanghai is to at least have a font and a sealing altar as well as an endowment room (like the Freiberg temple in East Germany). 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Some troubling reports out of China

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/04/29/plans-an-lds-temple/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chinese-government-resumes-removal-of-crosses-from-church-buildings-47792

indicate that there might be significant roadblocks to the announced Shanghai temple. Even if it's an unmarked, repurposed building. I hope that the comments from the government officials are just typical Chinese Communist Party bluster, but acting like this is the first they've heard of it, and saying things like "wishful thinking, not based in reality" don't sound good. It also looks like there is Chinese backlash against Christian churches in response to Coronavirus criticisms. 

I notice that Shanghai isn't listed on the most recent list of current and announced temples. Is this because it's of the table, or because we're being secretive about it so as not to anger China?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng

The concerns listed in the SLTribune article are of no real concern.  Pres Nelson has an excellent relationship with China and no doubt got permission to create a temple in Shanghai only in a preexisting bldg.  That means no new temple will be built there, and it likely means that no signage will be permitted -- something Peggy seems to understand.  This will all be done on the QT, which is the reason for vehement denials.  The denials mean nothing, and Beijing officials will be obeyed no matter what.  Chinese members will be able to go to Shanghai until renovation of the Hong Kong Temple is completed.  Who knows what will happen thereafter?  It will be best if we hear nothing further about it.

ETA:  I keep thinking of Pres Oaks there negotiating in China (as described by Peggy) looking just like a Buddhist monk with his shaved head.  :mellow:

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The concerns listed in the SLTribune article are of no real concern.  Pres Nelson has an excellent relationship with China and no doubt got permission to create a temple in Shanghai only in a preexisting bldg.  That means no new temple will be built there, and it likely means that no signage will be permitted -- something Peggy seems to understand.  This will all be done on the QT, which is the reason for vehement denials.  The denials mean nothing, and Beijing officials will be obeyed no matter what.  Chinese members will be able to go to Shanghai until renovation of the Hong Kong Temple is completed.  Who knows what will happen thereafter?  It will be best if we hear nothing further about it.

I hope you're right. I just hope that this doesn't get smashed between CCP and U.S. foreign policy tensions (and hurt egos, and propaganda). I'm not sure President Nelson has quite the cachet in China some think he does. I'll bet most of the government has no idea who he is. 

It looks like there is general backlash against foreign churches and institutions, particularly those with American connections. I could see acting against Church interests as a means of bravado, playing to the base, making statements, etc. 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, rongo said:

You couldn't google "lds.org shanghai temple?"

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/new-temples-april-2020-general-conference

Also, it sounds very gaslight-ey to say, "Was it actually called a temple? Are you sure? References, please." We all heard and were amazed when it was announced. I was thrilled, if true, but I had the same reservations I've had with the announced (but no site) Russia temple. 

I'm just tired of self-inflicted PR wounds. 

From President Nelson's talk (and your link), here is how The Shanghai Temple is not a temple:

"Context for the plan for Shanghai is very important..." Every other temple of ours does not require this kind and level of context for such distinctive structure and use.

"In Shanghai, a modest multipurpose meeting place will provide a way for Chinese members to continue to participate in ordinances of the templein the Peoples Republic of Chinafor them and their ancestors.

"…In an initial phase of facility use, entry will be by appointment only.

"These eight new temples will bless the lives of many people on both sides of the veil of death. Temples are a crowning part of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In God’s goodness and generosity, He is bringing the blessings of the temple closer to His children everywhere."

And here is how it is a temple:

"These eight new temples will bless the lives of many people on both sides of the veil of death. Temples are a crowning part of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In God’s goodness and generosity, He is bringing the blessings of the temple closer to His children everywhere."

Our bodies are temples too, and China allows bodies of our persuasion to live there!

Every other temple does not require this kind and level of context for such distinctive structure and use.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From President Nelson's talk (and your link), here is how The Shanghai Temple is not a temple:

"Context for the plan for Shanghai is very important..." Every other temple of ours does not require this kind and level of context for such distinctive structure and use.

"In Shanghai, a modest multipurpose meeting place will provide a way for Chinese members to continue to participate in ordinances of the templein the Peoples Republic of Chinafor them and their ancestors.

"…In an initial phase of facility use, entry will be by appointment only.

"These eight new temples will bless the lives of many people on both sides of the veil of death. Temples are a crowning part of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In God’s goodness and generosity, He is bringing the blessings of the temple closer to His children everywhere."

And here is how it is a temple:

"These eight new temples will bless the lives of many people on both sides of the veil of death. Temples are a crowning part of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In God’s goodness and generosity, He is bringing the blessings of the temple closer to His children everywhere."

Our bodies are temples too, and China allows bodies of our persuasion to live there!

Every other temple does not require this kind and level of context for such distinctive structure and use.

That's just semantic hair-splitting. The temple portion of a multi-purpose building is a temple, and the whole thing is rightly referred to as a temple (cf. Hong Kong). The fact that it is limited to Chinese citizens only, or is referred to as a facility, or is in a multi-use building does not mean that it isn't a temple. 

Why would anyone want to claim that the Shanghai temple isn't a temple? No one is disputing that there are restrictions or differences that make its situation unique. I know that we're not going to break ground and build a temple with grounds. What I'm concerned about is whether the CCP will ultimately allow the changes to be made in the building and temple ordinances (washings and annointings, endowments, sealings, baptisms) to be performed in it. Will it ultimately allow it to be dedicated (I could care less if there is no signage or Moroni, or whether vacationing Americans can go do baptisms there).  

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks, Judd!

What do you make of having an official list (as discussed at that blog), and the list I linked to (from the Church News) that contradict each other. Sort of a plausible deniability list for one audience, and a different list for a Church audience is what that looks like. 

At any rate, it looks like the Church has spiked any China content it had (cf. my previous post on this ). 

I think endowment house/temple is splitting hairs. An endowment house is a temple, isn't it? And, I'm sure the intent with Shanghai is to at least have a font and a sealing altar as well as an endowment room (like the Freiberg temple in East Germany). 

In Chinese they would call it "a mouse tunneling into an ox’s horn"... But in cases such as these, I find that context, nuance and precision [ETA: reading your post now, semantics] are important and appreciated by both parties. It is also recognized that where these are valued in some places, they certainly are not in other places.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's just semantic hair-splitting. The temple portion of a multi-purpose building is a temple, and the whole thing is rightly referred to as a temple (cf. Hong Kong). The fact that it is limited to Chinese citizens only, or is referred to as a facility, or is in a multi-use building does not mean that it isn't a temple. 

Why would anyone want to claim that the Shanghai temple isn't a temple? No one is disputing that there are restrictions or differences that make its situation unique. I know that we're not going to break ground and build a temple with grounds. What I'm concerned about is whether the CCP will ultimately allow the changes to be made in the building and temple ordinances (washings and annointings, endowments, sealings, baptisms) to be performed in it. Will it ultimately allow it to be dedicated (I could care less if there is no signage or Moroni, or whether vacationing Americans can go do baptisms there).  

I don't think you would get too far in China :)

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hope you're right. I just hope that this doesn't get smashed between CCP and U.S. foreign policy tensions (and hurt egos, and propaganda). I'm not sure President Nelson has quite the cachet in China some think he does. I'll bet most of the government has no idea who he is. 

Don't underestimate the influence of a very old prophet who went to the trouble to learn Chinese, and has healed at least one very important person in China.  I think that they look upon him as a friend who is completely outside the orbit of U.S. Gov't personnel.  That means he could be useful to them in the future, and that they do not see him as associated with U.S. foreign policy interests.  They are sophisticated enough to know that he represents a well-organized and obedient religious organization -- one that represents no threat to them.  If Mormons were anything like Falungong, it would be another story.

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

It looks like there is general backlash against foreign churches and institutions, particularly those with American connections. I could see acting against Church interests as a means of bravado, playing to the base, making statements, etc. 

The LDS Church doesn't really fit the mold of the other Christian churches in China.  It might even be helpful that we are held in such contempt by other churches.

I see no likelihood of bravado from the Chinese Mormon faithful.  The LDS emphasis on horizontal Church operations is particularly helpful in China, where LDS priesthood is likely on its own in most respects.  It is also helpful that Apostle Gong is of Chinese descent, even though he was born in the USA.  He served his mission in Taiwan, worked for the U.S. Foreign Service, and was even posted to the U.S. Beijing Embassy.

Link to comment

What I found interesting is that the shangai response was about "mormon" temples.    Pretty sure that the restored Church of Jesus Christ has been the faith asking for the Shanghai temple.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, rongo said:

We addressed the first of these a month ago when Tacenda first raised it.

ETA: my coworker just clarified that neither of the buildings mentioned in my earlier post is considered a church, and, as I noted, neither of them is owned by the Church. They are genuinely multipurpose facilities owned by Church members, who then allow Church gatherings and functions to take place in them.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
9 hours ago, rongo said:

You couldn't google "lds.org shanghai temple?"

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/new-temples-april-2020-general-conference

Also, it sounds very gaslight-ey to say, "Was it actually called a temple? Are you sure? References, please." We all heard and were amazed when it was announced. I was thrilled, if true, but I had the same reservations I've had with the announced (but no site) Russia temple. 

I'm just tired of self-inflicted PR wounds. 

Rongo, do you see how some of us feel about being gaslit? I appreciate your candidness. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, rongo said:

At that link, when you go to the section on the Shanghai temple, it says, "Information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the People’s Republic of China in English, Simplified Chinese characters, and Traditional Chinese characters can be found at china.churchofjesuschrist.org."

When you click on it, you get "No Redirect Found."

When I click on the link, it works just fine. It in fact brings up a very extensive page with answers to dozens of questions.

These questions include, 'When would a meeting place in Shanghai become available?' (emphasis added).

The answer makes it clear that this is a reference to a temple facility of some kind: 'Details of this kind will be shared as they become available. With the July 2019 closure of the Hong Kong China Temple for long-planned maintenance and renovation, a multi-use meeting place in Shanghai would provide a way for Chinese members of the Church to continue participating in the ordinances of the House of the Lord in the People’s Republic of China'.

You may want to try this again and then revise your accusation.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, rongo said:

I hope that the comments from the government officials are just typical Chinese Communist Party bluster, but acting like this is the first they've heard of it, and saying things like "wishful thinking, not based in reality" don't sound good.

Whilst we're rechecking things, you may want to recheck the actual post from the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Ethnic and Religious Affairs. They have removed the 'wishful thinking, not based in reality' language completely (which was definitely there a month ago). Here's the complete post now, courtesy of Google Translate:

Quote

Message time: 2020-04-07 09:18:30

Reply Time: 2020-04-07 14:20

Responding Unit: Office of Shanghai Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau

Message Title: To verify the news of Mormonism

Message content : Seeing the news on the Weibo that the Mormon Church is about to build a church in Shanghai, I have come to consult and verify, please give me a reply in my busy schedule, thank you!

Reply content :

1. According to the relevant laws and regulations of China, foreigners are not allowed to set up religious organizations or venues for religious activities in China.

2. The Mormon Church of the United States released information on the establishment of the so-called "Temple" in Shanghai. My civil sect department was unaware of it.

 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When I click on the link, it works just fine. It in fact brings up a very extensive page with answers to dozens of questions.

These questions include, 'When would a meeting place in Shanghai become available?' (emphasis added).

The answer makes it clear that this is a reference to a temple facility of some kind: 'Details of this kind will be shared as they become available. With the July 2019 closure of the Hong Kong China Temple for long-planned maintenance and renovation, a multi-use meeting place in Shanghai would provide a way for Chinese members of the Church to continue participating in the ordinances of the House of the Lord in the People’s Republic of China'.

You may want to try this again and then revise your accusation.

It worked for me in the past.  I remember being surprised at that amount of info.  It didn't work a minute ago.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...