Sethbag wrote:With the recent topic of 2nd Annointings, which apparently are performed in temples, I have to wonder if the McTemple phenomenon hasn't allowed the leadership to build a base of utterly faithful, older members who are completely dedicated to the cause by inducting them into the elite, secret ranks of the exalted, and in places that otherwise might be weak in church membership.
The temple ties people to the church in other ways. think about it. We have a temple now in my stake and in fact in my ward. We have over 45 people working as ordinance workers from our ward. Before it was a 3-4 hour drive to the temple. Very few if any of these people were ordinance workers before. Members of our ward and stake go much more often then before. We have a monthly ward temple night with 30 or more people. If we went two or thre times a year before that was a lot. The temples might not be busy but if you do not thing they are benefiting the Church, increasing endowments and causing people to be more faithful LDS you are nuts. There is a great ROI in this for the Church.
Retention of new members if also a function of temple service. New members are encouraged to become involved in family history work, preparing names of their family members to take to the temple. A new adult member may participate in baptisms for the dead before the year anniversary of their membership is up. Having temples close to make freuqent temple attendance possible is a major benefit to members.
charity wrote:max, your cynical assessment is a figment of your imagination. I can think of no one demographic group that needs the peace and solace of the temple than young people. And they often think they are too busy to attend. I am quite sure that they were grateful for the calls, because then they could with good conscience take the time to attend.
Why do you need a calling to attend the temple? I always thought temple attendance was voluntary.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Boaz & Lidia wrote:Is that a great legacy? A bunch of empty extravagant buildings with a huge utility bill?
It's actually smart business, although it might not appear to be on its face. It develops the real estate in a way that has flexible use going forward, and it insures a steady stream of tithes and offerings and members dedicated locally to the cause (like mini- country clubhouses).
This is true. From a purely business perspective, it is very wise -- investing in real estate and other commercial ventures attracts more potential members (and more tithing) and is a hedge against inflation.
charity wrote:max, your cynical assessment is a figment of your imagination. I can think of no one demographic group that needs the peace and solace of the temple than young people. And they often think they are too busy to attend. I am quite sure that they were grateful for the calls, because then they could with good conscience take the time to attend.
Why do you need a calling to attend the temple? I always thought temple attendance was voluntary.
Depends on what you mean by "voluntary." For example, BKP's idea of "voluntary" may differ from what others think. With respect to callings, here is what BKP said in his now-infamous "Unwritten Order of Things" speech (emphasis mine):
"We are called to positions in the Church by inspiration. Even if the call is presented in a clumsy way, it is not wise for us to refuse the call. We must presuppose that the call comes from the Lord."
That's some pretty heady pressure on a faithful member when asked to accept a calling, in my opinion.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Boaz & Lidia wrote:I truly would have wept when he died had he spent that money helping the LIVING needy people rather than the DEAD.
No, you wouldn't have. No matter what the Church does you see it as dark and sinister.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Depends on what you mean by "voluntary." For example, BKP's idea of "voluntary" may differ from what others think. With respect to callings, here is what BKP said in his now-infamous "Unwritten Order of Things" speech (emphasis mine):
"We are called to positions in the Church by inspiration. Even if the call is presented in a clumsy way, it is not wise for us to refuse the call. We must presuppose that the call comes from the Lord."
That's some pretty heady pressure on a faithful member when asked to accept a calling, in my opinion.
I suppose the reluctant person who wants to get along with as little participation as he can get away with, and wanting to be thought to be active, might think of that as pressure. The person who wants to obey the two great commandments is excited to have a given calling of service.
Part of the test to separate the sheep from the goats.
My impression is that new temples do well in terms of patronage for a while, but then the novelty wears off. I've attended the Houston Temple at various times and days of the week, and it's always been empty. The temple president, William Bradford, recently started a "Fill the Temple" program wherein wards and stakes were assigned to fill every ordinance session for a 2-day period. The first time they did this, a lot of people signed up. The second time they did it, I kept receiving these mass emails from the bishop saying that we still hadn't come close to filling the assignment. So, I guess it was a good short-term solution, but the long-term problem is that most church members don't enjoy the temple enough to go regularly.
If Houston, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles are representative, most temples outside Utah are not being used very heavily.
charity wrote:Early in the pioneer experience in Utah, a man came to Brigham Young. The man had heard that there were rumors that Saints might be going to chased out of the valley. So he asked Brother Brigham if he should plant fruit trees, if maybe they weren't going to be around to enjoy them. The prophet said, "I would plant fruit trees today even if I knew I were having to leave them tomorrow."
Perhaps Brigham read a little bit of Martin Luther's writings. A quote from Martin Luther: "If Christ were coming again tomorrow, I would plant a tree today".
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace