Shanghai Temple?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Try copying the URL and pasting it into your browser.

[Calm]

I think i know what is wrong, did you include the period at the end?  It worked fine for me once I made sure not to include that.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

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.

It is possible the one checking did not know enough to check for both names if they were asked about a “Mormon temple”.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Also, it sounds very gaslight-ey to say, "Was it actually called a temple? Are you sure? References, please."

I had read the China link afterwards and was paying attention to the language not including a temple when it was being detailed in the sections I read. I had assumed if “temple” wasn’t used there, it wouldn’t be elsewhere on that page and therefore likely in any official reporting, but checking now the section in preparing for the Lord’s House actually used “Shanghai China Temple” so it appears it is not being avoided, just not used to describe the whole building, I assume, since the whole building will not be used as a temple. 
 

I was asking simply as a memory issue, whether it was me or others who misremembered I didn’t really care.  I know I misremember things a lot these days, but so do others so I tend to assume 50/50. It turns out it was both a mistaken memory and a misunderstanding on my part because I wasn’t careful enough to read the entire page so I was impressed by something that I shouldn’t have interpreted as I did. 
 

There was no intent on my part to mislead. I only wanted to be accurate...but didn’t want to do the checking myself at that time. 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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

It's working for me now, too, but it didn't yesterday. I got the "no redirect found" message, and I checked the URL to make sure that I didn't have any stray characters. 

It was just odd to me that, right at the moment I was reading all of this (including lists from the Church with and without the Shanghai temple), the Church's China site didn't work for me. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's working for me now, too, but it didn't yesterday. I got the "no redirect found" message, and I checked the URL to make sure that I didn't have any stray characters. 

It was just odd to me that, right at the moment I was reading all of this (including lists from the Church with and without the Shanghai temple), the Church's China site didn't work for me. 

I'm finding this happen a lot lately with a number of websites.  I have 2 blogs and it has actually been a little frustrating trying to take care of things. It may not be related at all, but it doesn't surprise me with my recent experiences.

[rongo]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

I didn't know individuals could own property in the PRC. Wouldn't they have to be Party members to be allowed to own buildings as individuals? That's kind of tenuous, isn't it, to have a temple located at someone's privately-owned building (which isn't a church, let that be stressed)? What if they apostatize, or knuckle under to regime pressure or persecution? 

A separate question that comes to mind is whether the temple would be subject to random, spontaneous, mandated inspections on demand, as a condition of getting a temple there. East Germany left the temple alone, but there is a world of difference between that regime and culture and the CCP (or, even, the Putin regime). You'd have to plan on "observers" at services (Brother Pawelke, the branch president in my East German city for decades, headed that off by inviting the Stasi to meetings and providing them with who would be speaking. They quickly learned that there was nothing of interest there, and that the Mormons weren't a threat to the regime), but temple worship shouldn't be subjected to that. If that is a requirement, then maybe we wait until it isn't. 

[stemelbow]

21 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

Sure, hopefully the church's announcement wasn't just typical  Mormon leader bluster.  

I'm guessing the Church has used one of it's many arms to make some deals in Shanghai to build a building with more of an under the table agreement to let them secretly do it's temple ritual business.  It was likely a mistake to announce it as a temple, maybe even as part of the deal.  But we'll see.  

[webbles]

20 hours 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).  

The semantic hair-splitting might actually be needed because of the Chinese relationship.  Just like how we don't have missionaries in Russia; instead we have "volunteers".  Maybe China will not accept a temple but will accept an endowment house.  To us, they are the same thing.  But to the Chinese government, they are different.  So, maybe, any discussion about a temple with the Chinese government will get incorrect answers because a temple isn't going into Shanghai.

[bluebell]

On 5/4/2020 at 12:30 PM, rongo said:

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. 

How is asking for a reference or information 'gaslight-ey'?  Do you really think that by asking that Cal was trying to make you doubt your sanity?

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is asking for a reference or information 'gaslight-ey'?  Do you really think that by asking that Cal was trying to make you doubt your sanity?

It wasn't asking for a reference (that she could easily have googled herself, just like I did). That's separate. It was her tack of "Was it even referred to as a temple? Did President Nelson even actually say temple? Are we reading temple into this?" Etc. We all heard the dramatic Shanghai temple announcement (most of us at the same time), and it's squarely listed as a temple in some published lists from the Church

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

but apparently not in others, so wordsmithing to downgrade "temple" to something else approaches gaslighting. That's why I said "gaslight-ey," not a full-out accusation of gaslighting. 

When you look at some of the rhetoric here, it is a tactic people seem to turn to, wittingly or unwittingly, when circling the wagons to try to damage control embarrassing or problematic things to make it so that leaders never stepped on rakes or had something go south on them. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by rongo

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

It wasn't asking for a reference (that she could easily have googled herself, just like I did). That's separate. It was her tack of "Was it even referred to as a temple? Did President Nelson even actually say temple? Are we reading temple into this?" Etc. We all heard the dramatic Shanghai temple announcement (most of us at the same time), so wordsmithing to downgrade "temple" to something else approaches gaslighting. That's why I said "gaslight-ey," not a full-out accusation of gaslighting. 

When you look at some of the rhetoric here, it is a tactic people seem to turn to, wittingly or unwittingly, when circling the wagons to try to damage control embarrassing or problematic things to make it so that leaders never stepped on rakes or had something go south on them. 

Are you arguing that Cal is likely to use rhetoric and spinning tactics to circle the wagons when something might embarrass the church?  It's hard to believe that that's sincerely the kind of person that you believe Cal is, given her extensive posting history which includes zero evidence to back up such an accusation.

People make accusation of gaslighting way to often.  It's a term that at one time might have had some usefulness but has been overused and misapplied to often.  For all those reasons, I try never to use it.  Having said that, trying to accuse Cal of being that kind of person when everyone here knows she isn't is the only 'gaslight-ey' thing I've seen happen on the thread.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

It was her tack of "Was it even referred to as a temple? Did President Nelson even actually say temple? Are we reading temple into this?"

If you can remember, please always take my questions in the context I have a screwed up memory due to drugs I take and unless I say I have researched something just then, I am always in doubt about what I recall. My questions were sincere, actual questions because I wasn’t trusting my memory fully (and should have trusted it less actually).

I was practically certain that while the prophet had included Shanghai in the announcements for temples, it was stuck on the end and never referred to in the talk as a temple.  I was quite wrong and have no clue why my brain rewrote it that way unless I set up a false assumption the church was doing this due to my reading only the sections of the China page that didn’t use “temple” and seemed to me to be careful not to do so.  Possibly I was projecting how Russia is “volunteers” now.

I don’t ask questions when I know the answer for sure.  

Edited May 5, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

It's working for me now, too, but it didn't yesterday. I got the "no redirect found" message, and I checked the URL to make sure that I didn't have any stray characters. 

It was just odd to me that, right at the moment I was reading all of this (including lists from the Church with and without the Shanghai temple), the Church's China site didn't work for me. 

Dang.   I had an elaborate conspiracy theory all worked out involving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Chi-Coms, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Trilateral Commission, the New World Order, the United Nations, black helicopters, UFOs and aliens, 9/11 being a false-flag government operation, the Illuminati, and the faked Moon Landing, and now you're telling me that's all for naught?

Thanks a lot!

P.S.: Hey, the end of my first sentence and my second sentence rhyme!  Maybe there's a poem in there someplace!

Edited May 5, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

I didn't know individuals could own property in the PRC. Wouldn't they have to be Party members to be allowed to own buildings as individuals?

No.

Quote

That's kind of tenuous, isn't it, to have a temple located at someone's privately-owned building (which isn't a church, let that be stressed)? What if they apostatize, or knuckle under to regime pressure or persecution? 

I suspect that providing Chinese Saints with local access to temple ordinances will involve confronting a number of complications and potential risks. But the alternative is not providing Chinese Saints with local access to temple ordinances. I'm not a fan of that, but it seems that you may be, if only to demonstrate that you understand the situation better than the prophets?

[rongo]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you arguing that Cal is likely to use rhetoric and spinning tactics to circle the wagons when something might embarrass the church?  It's hard to believe that that's sincerely the kind of person that you believe Cal is, given her extensive posting history which includes zero evidence to back up such an accusation.

No, I don't. But I think she did in this instance. Doing something in one instance but not in most others doesn't make someone "the kind of person" who does it. 

It's like logical fallacies. We all use them from, at times, even though we aren't normally "the kind of person" who does. Hopefully not, anyway . . .  

People make accusation of gaslighting way to often.  It's a term that at one time might have had some usefulness but has been overused and misapplied to often.  ]/quote]

I agree. I think it's a useful term when it actually fits. 

For all those reasons, I try never to use it.  Having said that, trying to accuse Cal of being that kind of person when everyone here knows she isn't is the only 'gaslight-ey' thing I've seen happen on the thread.

There you go with your "kind of person" rhetoric again. Pointing out instances of it when appropriate isn't "trying to accuse" anyone "of being that kind of person." Just like with logical fallacies. 

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If you can remember, please always take my questions in the context I have a screwed up memory due to drugs I take and unless I say I have researched something just then, I am always in doubt about what I recall. My questions were sincere, actual questions because I wasn’t trusting my memory fully (and should have trusted it less actually).

I am so sorry about that, Calm! The last thing I wanted to do is make you feel bad about memory issues, especially medication-related ones. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I am so sorry about that, Calm! The last thing I wanted to do is make you feel bad about memory issues, especially medication-related ones. 

No worries.  I don't feel badly about my memory issues, which is why I tend to be very open about them.    And I rather have meds to blame them on than worrying about it being something degrading in my brain, because there is always hope a better med is coming and so in my last ten years or so, I get back my practically perfect memory of my youth (according to reading and such tests).    Unfortunately three generations on my mom side of women had dementia, so I am hoping there are medical breakthroughs there as well....got about 15 years before those start to show up if the pattern holds and 25 before it gets significant as long as I don't live alone.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No.

Fascinating! Thank you for posting this. So, 1990s reforms essentially privatized parts of the Chinese economy, making Chinese Communism a different flavor from Leninist. 

I suspect that providing Chinese Saints with local access to temple ordinances will involve confronting a number of complications and potential risks. But the alternative is not providing Chinese Saints with local access to temple ordinances. I'm not a fan of that, but it seems that you may be, if only to demonstrate that you understand the situation better than the prophets?

Very much agree with the complications and potential risks parts, disagree with the part about understanding the situation better than the prophets. This is a discussion board. If we can't think out loud, ask questions, make assertions, etc. unless they are in plainsong lockstep with Church policies, procedures, and practices, then there isn't any discussion. From anyone. 

I'm concerned, given the lay of the land (which I admittedly and demonstratively am not an expert on), that things like this or the Russia temple could go south on us as regimes and geopolitical situations rapidly change. That, coupled with our frequent declarations about always going in through the front door, while at the same time insinuating that a lot of winks and nudges and code words with double meanings are necessary with dangerous regimes, makes things like the Shanghai temple, the Russia temple, etc. a concern. Or at the very least, a topic of interest. 

[rongo]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

People make accusation of gaslighting way to often.  It's a term that at one time might have had some usefulness but has been overused and misapplied too often. 

From multiple people in this thread, addressing the straightforward matter of whether President Nelson did or did not announce the Shanghai temple at conference. You don't think any of this could be considered to be gaslighting, not even slightly?:

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

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

No temple is being built

His description sounded more like an endowment house than a temple. Though it was announced with temples and as a temple

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.

This last one reminds me of when teenagers, following the shift to never use the term Mormon again, went around saying to their friends at school, "There's no such thing as Mormons" (without any context or explanation). When their friends were confused and said, "But you're a Mormon, right?" they would repeat, "There is no such thing as Mormons." I've witnessed this multiple times, and I've told them privately that I understand what they were doing, but that it's not a good way of trying to do what we've been asked to do; the important thing in talking to our friends about the Church is communication and above all, not confusing the heck out of them. 

I feel the same way about things like this: saying, "The government said Mormon temples. Since there aren't any Mormon temples, only Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint temples, they're not talking about us, but rather, some other church." Somehow, I don't think that would be very convincing to the CCP that we got them on a technicality.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

... plainsong ...

New word -- and now genre -- for me. Thanks!

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

New word -- and now genre -- for me. Thanks!

One star. Would not recommend, would not buy again.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

One star. Would not recommend, would not buy again.  

No offence, but I intend to check it out for myself ...

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

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

 

 

Quote

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

That was me and not gaslighting, but my misremembering and then the article being incomplete.  Though the newsroom memory was right, I just didn't read the whole page as you had to pop open the sections and that is always annoying to me as I read fast and get bored fast.

As far as the last quote you posted, I am reminded of an article including both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormons as showing up to help after a disaster...this was a while back when such confusion was understandable.  The same confusion likely occurs in China (I know it did in Russia in the 90s).  If someone asked the official to check on an application for a Mormon temple and it was listed under the official name as it would be, there is a very good chance the official checking would not know the official name and not find it, especially if "temple" wasn't the label they gave it.

Now perhaps the poster didn't mean it that way, but I assumedthat was the point she was making,...applications would use the official name, not the nickname.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

From multiple people in this thread, addressing the straightforward matter of whether President Nelson did or did not announce the Shanghai temple at conference. You don't think any of this could be considered to be gaslighting, not even slightly?:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This last one reminds me of when teenagers, following the shift to never use the term Mormon again, went around saying to their friends at school, "There's no such thing as Mormons" (without any context or explanation). When their friends were confused and said, "But you're a Mormon, right?" they would repeat, "There is no such thing as Mormons." I've witnessed this multiple times, and I've told them privately that I understand what they were doing, but that it's not a good way of trying to do what we've been asked to do; the important thing in talking to our friends about the Church is communication and above all, not confusing the heck out of them. 

I feel the same way about things like this: saying, "The government said Mormon temples. Since there aren't any Mormon temples, only Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint temples, they're not talking about us, but rather, some other church." Somehow, I don't think that would be very convincing to the CCP that we got them on a technicality.  

Do I think that any of those posters were attempting to make you doubt your sanity by pretending something they knew was true wasn't true?  No, I don't.  I really don't.  

I can't speak for them, but it seems like they were attempting to answer your question to the best of their ability (going off of memory, asking follow up questions, providing other possible explanations, etc). Why assume the worst about them?