More details on Salt Lake Temple renovation released

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But you don't know that he didn't, do you.

For some people the prophetic glass is half full, for others half empty.

And for some it's full of Kool-Aid.  

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe it did.  Purely an administrative decision as is both their right and calling.  I'm sure they prayed before making the decision though.  I just doubt God said anything either way.

And given the plethora of multi-language, multi-endowment room temples already in Utah within an hour of Salt Lake I seriously doubt this was an operational necessity.

Without a compelling reason or need to conclude the contrary, my default assumption is always going to be that anointed servants of God acted under His inspiration. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without a compelling reason or need to conclude the contrary, my default assumption is always going to be that anointed servants of God acted under His inspiration. 

Even in the days of Noah, Moses, Peter, and the Prophet Joseph revelation wasn't a daily occurrence in all things.  Most of the time they did the best they could.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without a compelling reason or need to conclude the contrary, my default assumption is always going to be that anointed servants of God acted under His inspiration. 

Especially when they explicitly state as much:

Quote

As this project has progressed, we have felt the Lord’s hand guiding us in modifying several aspects of the renovation.

Of course, some will outright call them liars, and others with more caution will merely reinterpret their words to mean something less.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And given the plethora of multi-language, multi-endowment room temples already in Utah within an hour of Salt Lake I seriously doubt this was an operational necessity.

I can attest that when one of those temples is closed for cleaning or renovation, it strains the capacity of nearby temples. 
 

That’s why we have so many of them here. We need them to meet demand. And yet, we see complaints about the Church building yet another temple near Salt Lake instead of expending its temple building resources elsewhere, as though temple building in the Church were a zero-sum game. I actually saw someone on here not too long ago make the unwise and short-sighted suggestion that members who live in the population center of the Church limit their temple attendance so as to reduce the demand for temples in their locale. 
 

So if the Church’s flagship temple in Salt Lake can be adapted to substantially enlarge its capacity, perhaps thereby postponing or slowing the future need to construct additional temples in the area, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Or is this yet another instance in which the Church in the eyes of the public is

d—-ed if it does and d—-ed if it doesn’t?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/16/2021 at 8:50 AM, smac97 said:

Apparently according to Neylan McBaine it is:

"Cultural violence."  Good grief.

Let's take a look at the Church's summary:

So the changes, inter alia,

• will allow for more ordinance rooms,
• will allow for more significantly more patrons to participate,
• will allow significantly more ordinances to be performed,
• will allow temple workers to work in the temple who previously were limited in their ability to serve in the temple (whether due to memorization constraints and/or language barriers), and
• will transition from English-only presentation of the Endowment to presentations in "more than 80 languages."

When I served my mission in Taiwan I remember how wonderful it felt to be able to go to the temple and listen to the ceremony in English via headphones.  After 8-10 months I was sufficiently adept in Mandarin that I no longer used the headphones, but I was glad the option was there.  We have a Spanish-speaking ward in my stake.  I imagine many of them are happy at the prospect of being able to attend the Salt Lake Temple at any time and listen to the ceremony in Spanish.  The same can be said for many, many other members of the Church who, until these changes, were impeded by language barriers from attending the Sale Lake Temple.

I also love the duality of attending the temple, in that I as an individual benefit from the instruction, while at the same time assist in performing saving ordinances for brothers and sisters on the other side of the veil.  The benefit they obtain from temple work vastly outstrips the benefit to me.  

The Church was never intended to be an insular, cloistered-in-the-Rocky-Mountains sect.  We need to accommodate a world-wide faith.  That means changes such as what we are seeing, but on the efficiency of performing more ordinances, and making those ordinances more accessible to brothers and sisters who may feel more comfortable listening in a language other than English.

This is not "cultural violence."  It is expansion and improvement of temple worship to accommodate a world-wide Church.  And I am very happy to see it.

Thanks,

-Sma 

 

I wonder if Neylan McBaine is tasting sour grapes because the “I’m a Mormon” campaign she worked on when she was with Bonneville was summarily rendered obsolete when President Nelson said we should stop calling ourselves Mormons. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/24/historic-manti-temple/

Requests and complaints from members appear to have at least saved some of the Manti murals from destruction, even if they'll still be removed.

Too bad we didn't have the chance with Salt Lake.

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/24/historic-manti-temple/

Requests and complaints from members appear to have at least saved some of the Manti murals from destruction, even if they'll still be removed.

Too bad we didn't have the chance with Salt Lake.

I'm glad to hear this. I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but listened to this podcast with a woman that worked in the Manti temple and how devastated she was when the changes were announced. I'm sure this is good news to her. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/16/2021 at 3:26 PM, smac97 said:

In a stunning turn of events, Jana Riess is . . . critical of the something the Church has done:

I'm glad that attending the Salt Lake Temple will now be accessible to more people and in more languages.

Thanks,

-Smac

And Ms. Reiss no longer contributes to the maintenance, upkeep, or operation of Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because she feels the contributions she used to pay in Tithing are better spent elsewhere ... yet, apparently, she still wants a say in how Temples are run.

I'm sorry; I know I'll probably get flamed mercilessly for this comment ("How dare you say anything bad about her!  She's a woman! "  All women are completely above reproach at all times!"  Or, "As a man, you have no right to criticize a woman ... ever! " ) but I'm going to call that what it is: Hypocrisy.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And Ms. Reiss no longer contributes to the maintenance, upkeep, or operation of Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because she feels the contributions she used to pay in Tithing are better spent elsewhere ... yet, apparently, she still wants a say in how Temples are run.

I'm sorry; I know I'll probably get flamed mercilessly for this comment ("How dare you say anything bad about her!  She's a woman! "  All women are completely above reproach at all times!"  Or, "As a man, you have no right to criticize a woman ... ever! " ) but I'm going to call that what it is: Hypocrisy.

For future reference and to clarify for those who are confused, and so you don't have to put in the "I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm going to say it anyway" speel in other posts:

• A man trying to speak about/lecture on the experiences of women = gender related pushback.
• A man disagreeing with a woman on paying tithing (or any other issue that has nothing to do with gender experiences) = no gender related pushback.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For future reference and to clarify for those who are confused, and so you don't have to put in the "I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm going to say it anyway" speel in other posts:

• A man trying to speak about/lecture on the experiences of women = gender related pushback.
• A man disagreeing with a woman on paying tithing (or any other issue that has nothing to do with gender experiences) = no gender related pushback.

Not clear enough for someone like me.  Are you talking about how neither sex should presume to speak/lecture about what it is like to be the opposite sex?  Something neither sex should claim to know because we are only the sex we are and not both?

Well, aside from considering our chromosomes, I tend to agree with that statement regarding women.  I don't know what it feels like to have only 2 X chromosomes but I do know what it is like to have both an X and a Y.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For future reference and to clarify for those who are confused, and so you don't have to put in the "I know I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm going to say it anyway" speel in other posts:

• A man trying to speak about/lecture on the experiences of women = gender related pushback.
• A man disagreeing with a woman on paying tithing (or any other issue that has nothing to do with gender experiences) = no gender related pushback.

Sounds good to me.

P.S.: To clarify, when I was speaking of hypocrisy, I was speaking of Ms. Reiss's hypocrisy in presuming to tell the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints how to spend the Lord's money when she no longer contributes to the organization ... in case that wasn't clear.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not clear enough for someone like me.  Are you talking about how neither sex should presume to speak/lecture about what it is like to be the opposite sex?  Something neither sex should claim to know because we are only the sex we are and not both?

Well, aside from considering our chromosomes, I tend to agree with that statement regarding women.  I don't know what it feels like to have only 2 X chromosomes but I do know what it is like to have both an X and a Y.

Oh, geez!  Let's not make this yet another thread in the Gender Wars!  Anyone who wants to do that is welcome to start another thread.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, geez!  Let's not make this yet another thread in the Gender Wars!  Anyone who wants to do that is welcome to start another thread.

Eh, more like a spat than a war but if you don't want in on it then I will not force you into it.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/24/2021 at 4:35 PM, JLHPROF said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/24/historic-manti-temple/

Requests and complaints from members appear to have at least saved some of the Manti murals from destruction, even if they'll still be removed.

Too bad we didn't have the chance with Salt Lake.

That’s already happening with the Salt Lake Temple. As I understand the announcement, a portion of those murals is also being archived. I don’t know whether they’ll be displayed, but I suppose they conceivably could be sometime. 

[Ipod Touch]

On 3/17/2021 at 4:22 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

So if the Church’s flagship temple in Salt Lake can be adapted to substantially enlarge its capacity, perhaps thereby postponing or slowing the future need to construct additional temples in the area, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Or is this yet another instance in which the Church in the eyes of the public is

d—-ed if it does and d—-ed if it doesn’t?

I always viewed the SLC Temple as more than just a working temple.  It is where the Twelve and FP meet, it has a Holy of Holies, the works.  Of course, there are no theological or doctrinal reason to believe it should be or remain this way. But my sentimentality makes me a bit sad that the Temple will be changed so significantly.  

[mgy401]

On 3/17/2021 at 5:22 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I can attest that when one of those temples is closed for cleaning or renovation, it strains the capacity of nearby temples. 
 

That’s why we have so many of them here. We need them to meet demand. And yet, we see complaints about the Church building yet another temple near Salt Lake instead of expending its temple building resources elsewhere, as though temple building in the Church were a zero-sum game. I actually saw someone on here not too long ago make the unwise and short-sighted suggestion that members who live in the population center of the Church limit their temple attendance so as to reduce the demand for temples in their locale. 
 

So if the Church’s flagship temple in Salt Lake can be adapted to substantially enlarge its capacity, perhaps thereby postponing or slowing the future need to construct additional temples in the area, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Or is this yet another instance in which the Church in the eyes of the public is

d—-ed if it does and d—-ed if it doesn’t?

No kidding.  Spend $300 million on a new temple in SL Valley or $100 million increasing the capacity of the existing temple and divert the balance to other Church efforts—and suddenly the “the-Church-spends-too-much-money-on-temples” set decides that pouring millions of dollars into inefficient, opulent structures is not just “very important”, but an actual article of faith.

It’s certainly a gut-punch to lose the live sessions and the murals.  That said:  the baptistry has been reconfigured once before (and the last time I did baptisms there the area was surprisingly dingy); the creation room mural is not original to the temple; the garden room’s mural was redone in 1938 and only one remaining wall was original to 1893; and the telestial room’s mural was completely redone in 1922.  (And there’s kind of a sordid tale underlying the artists who did the murals in the first place.)  We really don’t seem to be losing as much bona fide “pioneer craftsmanship” as one might first assume.  The loss here is primarily one of aesthetics, not of historical or spiritual authenticity.

The best way to honor our pioneer ancestors is to try to value what they valued and sacrifice as they sacrificed. Architectural preservationism is ultimately a cheap thrill that doesn’t begin to approach the sense of groundedness, intergenerational connectedness, and perfect belonging that comes from being on what President Nelson deserves as the “covenant path”.

Edited March 26, 2021 by mgy401