Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

17 new temples! Yay!


Recommended Posts

I don't know about others but I have two ancestor families from N. Ireland and we can't, for the life of us, get past the 1840's and 1830's on their lines. I'd be honored to do their temple work but if the documentation is non existent or whatever you are at a standstill, so I am hoping something breaks through genealogy wise for it to happen. I've paid money to PRONI, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland and bupkus

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
16 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Pretty dang amazing.   10 outside of the US, 7 in the US, and only 1 in Utah.   The darn near logarithmic growth of temple construction continues:

54048239693_6b432a8490.jpg

 

I've taken to looking up the per capita GDP of the countries where we're putting our temples.   This is an exercise that almost brings me to tears as I think about how devastatingly poor many folks outside of happy rich 1st world nations are.  The US is at $81,695, I'm not bothering to break down by state.

Dublin Ireland $103,685
Coeur D'alene Idaho
Queen Creek Arizona
El Paso Texas
Huntsville Alabama
Milwaukee Wisconsin
Summit New Jersey
Price Utah
Milan Italy $38,373
Puerto Montt Chile $17,093
Juchitan de Zaragoza Mexico  $13,926
Santiago Dominican Republic $10,716
Medellin Columbia $6,980
Santa Ana El Salvador $5,344
Abuja Nigeria $1,621
Kampala Uganda $1,014
Maputo Mozambique $608

Uganda gets its first temple.  Pretty cool!

 

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

Why is this amazing?  It is clear that temple building is no longer based on the membership numbers and TR holders in any given region. And since the church is incredibly wealthy building these expensive buildings won't be problematic fiscally wise. So they can build these buildings even if they mostly sit empty and create the illusion of some sort of dynamic growth.  But good for them. Great and spacious buildings are after all, part of Mormon scripture. 😏

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why is this amazing?  It is clear that temple building is no longer based on the membership numbers and TR holders in any given region. And since the church is incredibly wealthy building these expensive buildings won't be problematic fiscally wise. So they can build these buildings even if they mostly sit empty and create the illusion of some sort of dynamic growth.  But good for them. Great and spacious buildings are after all, part of Mormon scripture. 😏

They will be useful both now and during the Millennium.

Edited by let’s roll
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The reason we are encouraged to go to the temple is now more often framed as a personal enrichment of one's spiritual strength than it used to be. 

Pres. Nelson touched on the reason in his concluding talk Sunday. Yes, he did mention individual benefits but he emphasized the need for the Church to continue progressing and rise up and become a Zion people. Like the City of Enoch. After going thru much tribulation and being tried and tested, Zion will be prepared and adorned as the Bride of Christ.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/7/2024 at 1:03 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

I've been musing on this idea lately and wonder if anyone has anything to support or refute it:

It seems to me that in the last few decades, the purpose of temple worship has been reframed a bit to include (or even emphasize?) the personal benefit of temple worship and not just the salvific benefit such worship has for our kindred dead.  The reason we are encouraged to go to the temple is now more often framed as a personal enrichment of one's spiritual strength than it used to be. 

If that observation is correct, then that the shift of emphasss coincides with the huge uptick in temple building in the same time period.  Which makes sense.  Saving ordinances for the dead could be done at any temple in any city in the world.  The bottleneck for the salvation of the dead is not really the number of temples out there, so increasing that number really won't make that work go much faster.  But the personal spiritual strengthening that comes from temple worship can only be experienced at the temple closest to the worshipper.  By building more temples they become more personally accessible to the general membership of the Church, and those personal benefits proliferate much more broadly.  

If temple building is thus judged only for how much more efficiently it pushes along the redemption of the dead, then the increase in temple building may be seen as an unwise use of resources.  But if temple building is judged for its impact on both the redemption of the dead AND the perfection of the saints, than this proliferation of temple building is more than justified.  

Thoughts?

I agree that message seems to be frequently taught these days.  And it's also what I hear from those around me... they go often because they feel peace, or it renews them for the week/month ahead, or they receive personal revelation.  I still hear people talking about work they did for their ancestors (or someone's ancestors) but more often it is the personal benefits.

But, that is also consistent with church teachings:  when we serve (including in the temple), we feel the Spirit and the Spirit brings peace, strength, and revelation.

Link to comment
On 10/7/2024 at 1:03 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

I've been musing on this idea lately and wonder if anyone has anything to support or refute it:

It seems to me that in the last few decades, the purpose of temple worship has been reframed a bit to include (or even emphasize?) the personal benefit of temple worship and not just the salvific benefit such worship has for our kindred dead.  The reason we are encouraged to go to the temple is now more often framed as a personal enrichment of one's spiritual strength than it used to be. 

If that observation is correct, then that the shift of emphasis coincides with the huge uptick in temple building in the same time period.  Which makes sense.  Saving ordinances for the dead could be done at any temple in any city in the world.  The bottleneck for the salvation of the dead is not really the number of temples out there, so increasing that number really won't make that work go much faster.  But the personal spiritual strengthening that comes from temple worship can only be experienced at the temple closest to the worshipper.  By building more temples they become more personally accessible to the general membership of the Church, and those personal benefits proliferate much more broadly.  

If temple building is thus judged only for how much more efficiently it pushes along the redemption of the dead, then the increase in temple building may be seen as an unwise use of resources.  But if temple building is judged for its impact on both the redemption of the dead AND the perfection of the saints, than this proliferation of temple building is more than justified.  

Thoughts?

One of the last stake conferences we had, the visiting general authority stated that we need to stop thinking that we are going to the temple to do work for the dead and hoping that we have an experience with Christ while we are there.  He said we need to go to have an experience with Christ, and that doing work for the dead is secondary to that purpose. 

So I think you are right.

Link to comment
On 10/6/2024 at 5:04 PM, Duncan said:

I don't know about others but I have two ancestor families from N. Ireland and we can't, for the life of us, get past the 1840's and 1830's on their lines. I'd be honored to do their temple work but if the documentation is non existent or whatever you are at a standstill, so I am hoping something breaks through genealogy wise for it to happen. I've paid money to PRONI, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland and bupkus

I'm sorry to hear that ... all I can say is that the Lord is aware of both of you [of all of you].  I know this will seem like a cliché, and I don't mean it to, but it's true in a lot of areas of life, and family history and temple ordinances are no exception: Sometimes the hardest-won victories are the sweetest.  (And I have faith that we'll learn some astounding things about the struggles and the challenges we have faced here, including the sort of challenge you're facing now.)

Godspeed in your continued search.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 10/7/2024 at 1:26 PM, longview said:

Pres. Nelson touched on the reason in his concluding talk Sunday. Yes, he did mention individual benefits but he emphasized the need for the Church to continue progressing and rise up and become a Zion people. Like the City of Enoch. After going thru much tribulation and being tried and tested, Zion will be prepared and adorned as the Bride of Christ.

+1. 

Link to comment

@Stormin' Mormon, notwithstanding my reply to @Duncan, above, I do agree with what you have written, how you have framed the blessings of Temple worship.  I think it's a "both/and" situation rather than an "either/or" situation.

Link to comment
On 10/7/2024 at 5:31 PM, Teancum said:

Why is this amazing?  It is clear that temple building is no longer based on the membership numbers and TR holders in any given region. And since the church is incredibly wealthy building these expensive buildings won't be problematic fiscally wise. So they can build these buildings even if they mostly sit empty and create the illusion of some sort of dynamic growth.  But good for them. Great and spacious buildings are after all, part of Mormon scripture. 😏

I'm so not agree with this. Not all the buildings are so big in Mormonland. Only the temples. But the wards are all small. Even in Salt Lake City all the wards are compact, little, simple buildings and that can't be that expensive. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Even in Salt Lake City all the wards are compact, little, simple buildings and that can't be that expensive. 

I wouldn’t call them little, and some of the older brick is beautiful for their coloring and a few even had stain glass windows. Overall, pretty simple though. 

Before the 70s and 80s iirc, a ward would fundraise and collect a lot of money for building a chapel and even volunteer to help with the work when that was legal. Salt Lake would help as well, there are some quite beautiful older chapels. Then they went to a standard plan of a couple of different styles where Salt Lake paid for the building out of tithing funds, taking a lot of stress off the members and bishops of new wards, no doubt.  The cookie cutter approach wasn’t always the most prudent choice to save money. Our old ward up in Canada was built with a style that would fit well in California, but was freezing in the winter in Calgary (a window in almost every room and originally not the insulates kind, plus when they pour the cement for the floor, the contractor foolishly ended up crushing the heating vents in some of the classrooms…so much nicer when it got renovated).  Not a big deal when energy was cheap, but later on….

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

I wouldn’t call them little, and some of the older brick is beautiful for their coloring and a few even had stain glass windows. Overall, pretty simple though. 

No you're right. I mean little from what i've seen on google maps in Salt Lake City. The church where i go to is really small though. But i guess that can be a differend in other parts of the world. Like Utah.

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Before the 70s and 80s iirc, a ward would fundraise and collect a lot of money for building a chapel and even volunteer to help with the work when that was legal. Salt Lake would help as well, there are some quite beautiful older chapels. Then they went to a standard plan of a couple of different styles where Salt Lake paid for the building out of tithing funds, taking a lot of stress off the members and bishops of new wards, no doubt.  The cookie cutter approach wasn’t always the most prudent choice to save money. Our old ward up in Canada was built with a style that would fit well in California, but was freezing in the winter in Calgary (a window in almost every room and originally not the insulates kind, plus when they pour the cement for the floor, the contractor foolishly ended up crushing the heating vents in some of the classrooms…so much nicer when it got renovated).  Not a big deal when energy was cheap, but later on….

How interesting. No but here the churces are small. Not the catholic or the protestant churches though. Because they're really big here. But all the LDS wards are very small on here. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

e. But all the LDS wards are very small on here. 

It makes sense to have them small when the congregation is small.  Saints are very practical in most things, imo, until you get to the temple.  :) 
 

We are also very traditional, which has always struck me as odd given our continuing revelation foundation.

 

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

It makes sense to have them small when the congregation is small.  Saints are very practical in most things, imo, until you get to the temple.  :) 
 

Saints a very practical indeed. Here even more because Dutch people are practical in general.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are also very traditional, which has always struck me as odd given our continuing revelation foundation.

 

Yes but is that not just a US thing as well?...to be so traditional all the time about everything. Especially around Christmas time. Here in the Netherlands it's not that big of a deal. All those public holidays are not that important for us. 

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
On 10/7/2024 at 11:31 AM, Teancum said:

Why is this amazing?  It is clear that temple building is no longer based on the membership numbers and TR holders in any given region. And since the church is incredibly wealthy building these expensive buildings won't be problematic fiscally wise. So they can build these buildings even if they mostly sit empty and create the illusion of some sort of dynamic growth.  But good for them. Great and spacious buildings are after all, part of Mormon scripture. 😏

Wow 5 downvotes! Must be a record for me,  I guess I hit a nerve with this one.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I'm so not agree with this. Not all the buildings are so big in Mormonland. Only the temples. But the wards are all small. Even in Salt Lake City all the wards are compact, little, simple buildings and that can't be that expensive. 

Well I was referring to the temple building spree the church seems to be all in on.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, bluebell said:

One of the last stake conferences we had, the visiting general authority stated that we need to stop thinking that we are going to the temple to do work for the dead and hoping that we have an experience with Christ while we are there.  He said we need to go to have an experience with Christ, and that doing work for the dead is secondary to that purpose. 

So I think you are right.

Why does one need to go to a temple to have an experience with Christ?  And this seems a new twist. The purpose of the temples are specifically for our own ordinance work and for the ordinance work for the dead.  Certainly spiritual experiences can and always have been taught that temple attendance can generate those but that was not the primary purpose.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t call them little, and some of the older brick is beautiful for their coloring and a few even had stain glass windows. Overall, pretty simple though. 

Before the 70s and 80s iirc, a ward would fundraise and collect a lot of money for building a chapel and even volunteer to help with the work when that was legal. Salt Lake would help as well, there are some quite beautiful older chapels. Then they went to a standard plan of a couple of different styles where Salt Lake paid for the building out of tithing funds, taking a lot of stress off the members and bishops of new wards, no doubt.  The cookie cutter approach wasn’t always the most prudent choice to save money. Our old ward up in Canada was built with a style that would fit well in California, but was freezing in the winter in Calgary (a window in almost every room and originally not the insulates kind, plus when they pour the cement for the floor, the contractor foolishly ended up crushing the heating vents in some of the classrooms…so much nicer when it got renovated).  Not a big deal when energy was cheap, but later on….

I'm old enough to say that my husband and I donated to the ward building fund, and we were asked to by our bishop.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why does one need to go to a temple to have an experience with Christ?  And this seems a new twist. The purpose of the temples are specifically for our own ordinance work and for the ordinance work for the dead.  Certainly spiritual experiences can and always have been taught that temple attendance can generate those but that was not the primary purpose.

I think that's a very good question. My most special personal experiences with the divine have been outside of the temple. I haven't had a temple recommend for a few years because going tends to give me panic attacks, this was even the case when I did my first baptisms for the dead when I was 24 or 25. I know there have been reports of many Muslims (I'm sure there have been those of other faiths as well) in the Middle East actually having dreams and seeing Christ in the dream telling them to go see a preacher or whatever. So while God (generally) can communicate with anyone outside of the temple, Christ (specifically) has reportedly been powerfully experienced outside of the temple, in and out of the church. Even in LDS church history Joseph saw the Father and the Son outside of the temple, and angels many times.

I personally do have a witness of God, but I don't have a witness that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I'm working to determine whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Maybe I need the temple in order to receive that kind of witness? But I feel like that discounts the experiences many people have had receiving mercy through repentance.

If I was to theorize why there is a shift away from the focus on ordinance work for the dead here is what I come up with:
1) A lot of ordinance work has already been done and the vast majority of ordinance work will be for the billions currently living who will be burned up when Christ comes again. (Yeehaw)

2) As the world gets more profane, unholy, defiled, and straight up Satanic maybe it will be harder to have true, pure, undeceived experiences with Christ outside of dedicated buildings for that purpose?

3) ... I forgot what my third theory was, I'll edit it back in if I remember.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

we were asked to by our bishop.

I am certain the bishops of days past just loved their meetings with members where they got to play fundraiser for the building and budget funds.

I think there would be less criticism on tithing if people remember it was closer to 20 or 25% of your income that was needed to function at one time.  Thank goodness they put in wise economic policies so as to take that burden off the Saints and the local leaders.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why does one need to go to a temple to have an experience with Christ?  And this seems a new twist. The purpose of the temples are specifically for our own ordinance work and for the ordinance work for the dead.  Certainly spiritual experiences can and always have been taught that temple attendance can generate those but that was not the primary purpose.

They don't.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that one can only have an experience with Christ in the temple.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JVW said:

A lot of ordinance work has already been done and the vast majority of ordinance work will be for the billions currently living who will be burned up when Christ comes again. (Yeehaw)

Wha...?? 🤨 

Where do you get the idea that billions will be burned up?

Edited by ZealouslyStriving
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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