A temple in ROME!

The place for religious discussions -- doctrinal or cultural, Mormon or otherwise.

Moderators: Lady Celtic, Eric's Moderator Brother, seespot, Sara without the H

User avatar
Mrs. Goofy Gordon
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu 27 Dec, 2007 03:11 am
Location: WA making a home with my sweetheart

A temple in ROME!

Postby Mrs. Goofy Gordon » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 04:18 pm

WOW, this brings tears to my eyes, having served in Italy , WOW, there are just no words, this is great news. I think I need to plan a trip there for when it opens in the next few years!!!!!

Conference was so awesome!!!
Some people are like Slinkies...they are not really good for anything,
but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs

User avatar
Momma Snider
Posts: 9072
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2002 08:50 am

Postby Momma Snider » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 06:55 pm

They also announced one in Philadelphia, where Eric's mission was. Jeff and Lane went to Billings, Montana, and WAshinton DC, and both of those places already have temples, so this makes it all three.

But yeah, Rome is a pretty amazing one.

Sara without the H
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu 23 Jan, 2003 11:53 pm

Postby Sara without the H » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 07:14 pm

Also "the Greater Kansas City area." Interesting wording, I thought. Independence is 15 miles outside of Kansas City.

User avatar
seespot
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue 06 Dec, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Postby seespot » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 08:05 pm

That is interesting, Sara. I didn't even make that connection.

EricDSnider
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 03:13 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Postby EricDSnider » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 09:03 pm

Pres. Monson said, with regard to the newly announced temples, that "sites have been acquired," which I take to mean the church already owns the land that the temples will sit on. So if the Kansas City one is actually in Independence, the church already knows it -- so why not say so today?

User avatar
Jersey Girl
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu 12 Sep, 2002 08:31 am
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Postby Jersey Girl » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 09:44 pm

I'm excited for the Philly temple. I wonder where in Pennsylvania they will put it. The DC Temple is my local temple and it will ease the parking situation there on Saturdays. There are usually tons of Pennsylvania plates in the parking lot. It will also make it easier for the Mormons of South Jersey to get to the temple since DC is the closest temple to them and it is still four hours away. Manhattan was just as far for many of them.

I also thought it was interesting that they said "Greater Kansas City". Is it time to build that temple in Zion? For all we know it could be in Far West.
"Chicken legs were moved, roads were crossed, motives were questioned."--EFB

User avatar
ImAdhis
Posts: 2968
Joined: Wed 15 Oct, 2003 02:51 pm
Location: Here and Now

Postby ImAdhis » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 09:58 pm

EricDSnider wrote:So if the Kansas City one is actually in Independence, the church already knows it -- so why not say so today?


Because of the LDS freaks who'd start packing up their wagons and heading East. Or West, if you're west of Zion. I mean, "the greater Kansas City area." Whatever. I gotta go pack my wagon.
www.NewMoneyMama.com

EricDSnider
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 03:13 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Postby EricDSnider » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 10:28 pm

ImAdhis wrote:
EricDSnider wrote:So if the Kansas City one is actually in Independence, the church already knows it -- so why not say so today?


Because of the LDS freaks who'd start packing up their wagons and heading East.


How does not telling us today, but instead at some date in the future, prevent that? All it does is postpone it. And anyway, it could be prevented (in large part, at least) if the announcement is accompanied by a directive not to start wagon-packin'. And that directive could have been given today just as easily as later.

I suspect the reason for saying "greater Kansas City area" rather than the specific location is a boring one: The land is probably located in some town that no one's ever heard of, far enough from the city that simply saying "Kansas City" wouldn't really be accurate.

jds88
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Postby jds88 » Sat 04 Oct, 2008 10:38 pm

As long as there remains a possibility that the temple will be in Independence, President Monson has probably single-handedly stopped the slide in real estate values in the Kansas City area. :D

Seriously, I wouldn't worry about lots of Mormons packing up and heading to Zion without being asked to. We talk a good game about consecration, but I doubt most of us would part with our suburban McMansions without some pretty heavy persuasion by our church leaders. (Yes, I am a cynic.)

--Jim

Ryan Reeder
Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2002 03:01 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby Ryan Reeder » Sun 05 Oct, 2008 12:29 am

Seems like I've heard (or I'm spreading the rumor, whichever), that the Church has been quietly acquiring whatever parcels of ground it can obtain in that region for decades. If that's true, there are probably a lot of places, already owned, where it could be.

One place it wouldn't be, presumably, is the original site (Doctrine and Covenants 57:3), which has been owned by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) since 1867, and is kind of their raison d'etre. Also, at only about two acres, the site is fairly small by the standards of many other modern temples.

My impression, which is only my impression, is that the "Greater Kansas City" announcement is simply a temple in a region where the current church membership is sufficient to sustain it, similar to nearly every other temple. Its location near--or even inside--Jackson County is just circumstantial. At least for now.

Also, the announcement of Rome, Italy seemed to get a bigger reaction anyway, including from me. That's pretty cool, for a lot of reasons.
[url=http://ryanreeder.blogspot.com/]http://ryanreeder.blogspot.com/[/url]

User avatar
robcan2
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri 26 Sep, 2003 10:19 am
Contact:

Postby robcan2 » Sun 05 Oct, 2008 09:58 am

EricDSnider wrote:I suspect the reason for saying "greater Kansas City area" rather than the specific location is a boring one: The land is probably located in some town that no one's ever heard of, far enough from the city that simply saying "Kansas City" wouldn't really be accurate.

This was my thought, too. The church apparently owns about 40 acres in Lenexa, KS, (my wife's home town), and it could easily be there. But that is not interesting to most people. There are dozens of other places it could be too, of course.

<img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/robcan2/kansascityarea.jpg" width="500" border="0">

User avatar
Karenins_SuperSon
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue 09 Aug, 2005 03:30 pm
Location: Not in Australia anymore. :(

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Sun 05 Oct, 2008 03:37 pm

Before you posted, Rob, as I was reading everyone's responses, my first thought was Lenexa, KS. It has a higher-than-average LDS population, and would be well positioned.

I fear even more for the attendance at the St. Louis Temple.

With Winter Quarters, Nauvoo, and Memphis, the temple attendance at St. Louis has dropped drastically. Especially with regards to temple workers.

We saw the same thing when they built the Redlands & Newport Beach temples. The Los Angeles Temple was drawing a lot of temple workers from those newly formed districts.

Anyway, as evidenced by the daily sign-in sheet, it seems like the St. Louis Temple gets about 30-45% of its temple workers from Stakes in the Kansas City Area.

Besides, those that the Lord wants in Missouri have already been asked. I mean, didn't YOU get a call, too? Hmm...weird. Youd' better go sit and try to figure out why.
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

User avatar
stephsterr
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri 11 Feb, 2005 11:36 am
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Postby stephsterr » Mon 06 Oct, 2008 10:48 am

We used to live near the little "10" bubble on that map above in the far left bottom corner. We had a couple people who I would classify as slightly-off-their-rockers in our ward, and they were anxiously awaiting the announcement of a temple to be built in the KC area, as a call to Zion to be reestablished, etc, etc. They also just KNEW that we hadn't moved there for just any reason, there had to be a purpose for this. ("Uh, yeah, my husband had a JOB there.") They were way into studying doctrines that I consider extemporary. OH! And one of them was sitting next to my husband during the All-Adults meeting of a Stake Conference and leaned over to him and said, "I wonder if this is when they'll announce it." "Announce what?" "The change of the name of the church!" "What are you talking about?" "The change of the name of the church to 'The Church of Jesus Christ of the New Millennium.' " :shock: Did I tell that story before? I feel like I have.

Anyway, I'm sure there are at least a small faction of Saints out there that when that announcement was made, a shiver ran up and down their spines. I was happy for my friends in KC that they won't have to drive the 4 hours to St. Louis, but sad for the St. Louis temple, because I know they struggle, like KSS said.

User avatar
steelem
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed 19 May, 2004 09:29 pm
Location: Mesa is a dot to me, AZ
Contact:

Postby steelem » Mon 06 Oct, 2008 11:35 am

It's sad too, even without the addition of new temples, that the novelty of having a temple close by wears off so quickly. My parents work in the Albuquerque temple, which was built just about 9 years ago, I think, and everyone was so very excited to have that new temple. The closest ones before that were Mesa and Las Vegas. There aren't any new temples in the area, people have just gotten complacent about going and take the temple now for granted.

With kids and pregnancies, we seem to attend the Albuquerque temple and Newport Beach temple most frequently, because that's where the grandparents are to watch the kids. :) Free grandparent babysitting is the best.
Friendship doesn't make you fly, jellyfish do. Duh.

treen
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 04:15 pm
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Postby treen » Mon 06 Oct, 2008 02:57 pm

I share the concern about low temple attendance at current temples with the contruction of new ones - my concern is the DC Temple when Philadelphia is finished.

Jersey Girl mentions crowded parking on Saturdays - it's like that in the morning and early afternoon. By 4 pm, it's empty. My husband and I went to a 6 pm session on a Saturday a couple of weeks ago - only 9 people in the room. They had to have a temple worker come in for the prayer. And every time we've gone on a week night, most of the time they're excited to have anyone there to do a session at all.

These numbers aren't new either. Apparently when President Hinckley spoke at the 30th anniversary of the DC Temple a few years ago (the meeting was for temple workers, and we had some friends there), he said that the Columbia River Temple - one of the smallest - does as much ordinance work as the DC Temple. That's just sad.

User avatar
robcan2
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri 26 Sep, 2003 10:19 am
Contact:

Postby robcan2 » Mon 06 Oct, 2008 03:06 pm

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why should it matter that attendance at the older temples goes down if the construction of new temples ultimately leads to higher overall attendance? It's not like a franchise where a new store canibalizes business from an older one. If it means that more members attend the temple more often then that is a win, right?

User avatar
KareNin
Posts: 3562
Joined: Mon 19 Aug, 2002 02:22 pm
Location: On the Lower Rungs of the socio-economic ladder
Contact:

Postby KareNin » Mon 06 Oct, 2008 03:32 pm

In addition, maybe we won't still be around in earthly form to see it, but aren't all the temples all over the world eventually supposed to be running at capacity around the clock? I couldn't find an actual reference for that statement to cite, but it's something that I have been told since the early '70s, when I joined the church.

For all I know, it's semi-true Mormom Lore, but I know that I've heard that, as if it were honestly something a prophet or apostle has said, since I've been in the church.

Anyone have any enlightenment links for me?
Have a nice day, unless you already have other plans.

User avatar
Audrey
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 08:34 pm
Location: off eating Ben & Jerry's somewhere
Contact:

Postby Audrey » Tue 07 Oct, 2008 05:43 pm

I'm in the Washington DC temple district and will still probably be even after the construction of the Philadelphia temple (DC is 1 hour and 15-30 minutes versus Philadelphia which is 2.5-3 hours depending on traffic and which side of the city we're talking about). I'll admit I personally have been bad about attending the temple since moving back to PA. However, the future Mr. Audrey and I have set a goal to attend at least once a month and I'm looking forward to it.

Like many things that are good for us but hard to stick to (dieting and exercising immediately come to mind), it's easier to "fit them in" when you have company and are accountable to someone else to make the goal a reality. I don't mean to trivialize temple attendance, of course. I can see, though, why it is so hard for people to get there. There is always something to stand in our way. With diet it's "But I really like Ben & Jerry's and how can I eat that if I'm trying to be healthy? So I guess I just won't eat healthy." With exercise it's "But I really have to grade these papers so I can't spare the half hour to run over to Curves, because then I'll be all sweaty and tired. I'll just go tomorrow." With the temple, for me it's a 3-hour round trip plus the time spent there and that's difficult to impossible on a weeknight. Going down there on a Saturday makes it difficult to get anything else done at home. As a single person, I have always liked some solitude when I go to the temple -- my personal reflection time -- but it makes more sense to go with friends so the drive and the cost of making the drive are less of an issue. And so on. So I haven't made it much of a priority. And that's kind of pathetic, given that the blessings I receive (and others receive by proxy) as a result of my temple attendance definitely outweigh those small inconveniences.

I guess my point is that, hey, the DC temple can now look forward to 2 more people attending every month. Hooray! It's good for them and it's good for us. Now if I could just start eating healthy and exercising, I'd be all set. :)
If you smile at me I will understand, 'cause that is something everybody everywhere does in the same language.

User avatar
ImAdhis
Posts: 2968
Joined: Wed 15 Oct, 2003 02:51 pm
Location: Here and Now

Postby ImAdhis » Wed 08 Oct, 2008 05:26 pm

I couldn't help it. Ok, I could have. But I didn't.

I was tickled when Elder Hales mentioned blogging in his Sunday morning address. Been there, done that, gonna get the onesie.
www.NewMoneyMama.com

User avatar
WiseNLucky
Posts: 2796
Joined: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:50 am
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Contact:

Postby WiseNLucky » Fri 10 Oct, 2008 01:20 pm

From the church newsroom about locations for the new temples:

For the temple serving the greater Kansas City area, the site will be in Clay County, Missouri, on residential land within the Kansas City limits that is already being developed by the Church. The development is known as Shoal Creek.


I googled it and the area seems to be west of Liberty, which itself is just north of Independence.
WiseNLucky

Horizontally gifted since . . . .


Return to “Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests