Micro Temples?

[helemon]

I never realized how small these new temples are.
10,700 sq ft. compared to the 253,015 sq ft in the SLC temple. Apparently the Detroit temple was built in the parking lot of one of the Stake Centers! Talk about not needing to travel far to go to the temple!

[Born Free]

I never realized how small these new temples are.
10,700 sq ft. compared to the 253,015 sq ft in the SLC temple. Apparently the Detroit temple was built in the parking lot of one of the Stake Centers! Talk about not needing to travel far to go to the temple!

I recall Simon Southerton labelling them McTemples when we had dinner together in Canberra a few years back. I don't know whether the label was his invention or not, but I loved it.

If the McTemple here in Brisbane Oz is anything to go by, the tackiness factor in the decor is no better either, maybe worse.

They could go one step further: follow the Californian example set 40 years ago, and go drive-through, with fast-serve ordinances. Baptisms might have to go to airosol application, as people couldn't get back in their car wet too easily.

Can you imagine pulling up at the lights with someone next to you in one of the silly Mo/Mason hats? I can see a new traffic sport for the youth to engage in: mooning the Mo family in their MPVs with their strange McTemple garb at the lights! :eek: (God, I've got a sick mind.)

Can I feel a Peepstone story coming on?

Daryl

[helemon]

I recall Simon Southerton labelling them McTemples when we had dinner together in Canberra a few years back. I don't know whether the label was his invention or not, but I loved it.

If the McTemple here in Brisbane Oz is anything to go by, the tackiness factor in the decor is no better either, maybe worse.

They could go one step further: follow the Californian example set 40 years ago, and go drive-through, with fast-serve ordinances. Baptisms might have to go to airosol application, as people couldn't get back in their car wet too easily.


If they are going to make them this small why even build them? The Stake centers could work as temples. On Sunday they would be for regular church services and then the rest of the week they could be used as a temple except during ward functions. Endowments held in the chapel. Sealing in the RS room. They already have a batismal font. Convert the mutlipurpose room into the celestial room. Think of the money they could save! Do members really need to sit in fancy ornate gilt rooms in order to feel the spirit? I have heard many a bishop and High Councilman say how strongly they had felt the spirit at the meeting.

[hitchiker]

If they are going to make them this small why even build them? The Stake centers could work as temples. On Sunday they would be for regular church services and then the rest of the week they could be used as a temple except during ward functions. Endowments held in the chapel. Sealing in the RS room. They already have a batismal font. Convert the mutlipurpose room into the celestial room. Think of the money they could save! Do members really need to sit in fancy ornate gilt rooms in order to feel the spirit? I have heard many a bishop and High Councilman say how strongly they had felt the spirit at the meeting.i sat on a H/C meeting a few years ago and i was told that this was exactly what they were going to do , incorperate a endowment room with new stake centers

[Born Free]

If they are going to make them this small why even build them? The Stake centers could work as temples. On Sunday they would be for regular church services and then the rest of the week they could be used as a temple except during ward functions. Endowments held in the chapel. Sealing in the RS room. They already have a batismal font. Convert the mutlipurpose room into the celestial room. Think of the money they could save! Do members really need to sit in fancy ornate gilt rooms in order to feel the spirit? I have heard many a bishop and High Councilman say how strongly they had felt the spirit at the meeting.
Helemon,

I hold the theory that the Temple appeal is founded in the superior/inferior mindset that Moism promotes.

If you want to keep people in the low self-esteem controllable head space of inferiority (you evil sinner that must be saved), then you need an offsetting head space where they feel superiour. I believe the temple is a key component of the superiority head space. "You are God's elect. Keep worthy and obedient, and you will be God's first chosen".

Such a psychological need is probably not compatible with using a regular meeting house.

Daryl

[helemon]

Helemon,

I hold the theory that the Temple appeal is founded in the superior/inferior mindset that Mosim promotes.

If you want to keep people in the low self-esteem controllable head space of inferiority (you evil sinner that must be saved), then you need an offsetting head space where they feel superiour. I believe the temple is a key component of the superiority head space. "You are God's elect. Keep worthy and obedient, and you will be God's first chosen".

Such a psychological need is probably not compatible with using a regular meeting house.

Daryl

I agree completely. I posted this question to the fair boards and the moderator actually let it pass. We will see what the reaction is. I am sure they will say that the temple needs to be separate from the chapel because after it is dedicated only worthy members can enter and some unworthy member attend sacrament meeting.

I am trying to think if there are any sacred decorations that would make it a problem? The kneeling altars could be rolled in from a locked storage shed, the veil could be hung up for the sessions and then later taken down and locked up. The double mirrors might be nice to have in some of the small rooms.

Granted doing this might lessen the ambiance of the space if it looked thrown together rather than presented as a finished product.

[Born Free]

I agree completely. I posted this question to the fair boards and the moderator actually let it pass. We will see what the reaction is. I am sure they will say that the temple needs to be separate from the chapel because after it is dedicated only worthy members can enter and some unworthy member attend sacrament meeting.

I am trying to think if there are any sacred decorations that would make it a problem? The kneeling altars could be rolled in from a locked storage shed, the veil could be hung up for the sessions and then later taken down and locked up. The double mirrors might be nice to have in some of the small rooms.

Granted doing this might lessen the ambiance of the space if it looked thrown together rather than presented as a finished product.
Helemon,

But what would they do with the money saved by not building all the McTemples?

Maybe they could buy chandeliers, white carpets and Aryran 'Jesus art' for villages in Africa to help them become 'pure and wholesome'! :rolleyes:

Daryl

PS: It's late Friday afternoon here, and I am due to go off to the gym, having missed all this week. I am clearly bitter and twisted this week. :eek: Hopefully a workout will help.

[helemon]

Helemon,

But what would they do with the money saved by not building all the McTemples?



Buy more shopping malls? :duh

I think if they did what I suggested the experience would loose some specialness like you suggested. It would be like letting the enlisted men into the officers club. It would be harder to hold it up as this goal or destination to work toward. It would seem more common and less alluring if it was performed in the Stake Center. The temple needs to have some mystery and mystique that only the elect are privy to. Still from a purely functional, efficiency and economic standpoint the Stake Center Temple seems reasonable.

[Born Free]

Buy more shopping malls? :duh

<snip>

Still from a purely functional, efficiency and economic standpoint the Stake Center Temple seems reasonable.

Since when was religion about "purely functional, efficiency"? :cool:

Daryl

[helemon]

Since when was religion about "purely functional, efficiency"? :cool:

Daryl
Never. That's why it wont happen. But it's still fun to see how this will be rationalized.

[taruleo]

I agree completely. I posted this question to the fair boards and the moderator actually let it pass. We will see what the reaction is. I am sure they will say that the temple needs to be separate from the chapel because after it is dedicated only worthy members can enter and some unworthy member attend sacrament meeting.

I am trying to think if there are any sacred decorations that would make it a problem? The kneeling altars could be rolled in from a locked storage shed, the veil could be hung up for the sessions and then later taken down and locked up. The double mirrors might be nice to have in some of the small rooms.

Granted doing this might lessen the ambiance of the space if it looked thrown together rather than presented as a finished product.

Of course you then run the risk of the uninitiated some how getting the keys and looking at those decorations. The veil of mystery would be lessened. Plus then when they must promise not to reveal anything their first time, they might have some idea of what they are promising :eek: and we just can't have that!

[why me]

I think that if the LDS church built temples the size of the Washington DC temple there would be a lot of complaining about the unnecessary expense of such projects. The mctemples can be rationalized through church growth and the need to build temples as quickly as possible to keep up with work at hand. I am cannot be positive about this but there is some level of rationalization in the mindset. And as we all know it is not the size of the temple that matters for a TBM but rather the work that is done there. This is the logic I believe. But lets be honest here...if the LDS church still built huge temples wouldn't you be complaining about the money and the expense of such projects? :) I am not worthy to go to the temple so it does not matter to me if they are big or mcsomething size. :)

[helemon]

if the LDS church still built huge temples wouldn't you be complaining about the money and the expense of such projects? :)

I think that is the what the original poster of that thread was arguing. He missed the large 'magestic' designs of the past.

My arguement was that if the reason they are doing this is to save money, make them more accessible and speed the work then why not incorporate them into chapels? There are no special symbols on the walls of the temple, and if there are in some they are not mandatory. Thus there is no reason why they couldn't use the ward houses for temple ceremonies. I think the first endowments were done in the woods. I just want them to be consistent. Although, yes personally I think there are better things they could do with the money they spend on large ornate temples.

[bigeddy]

I agree with Daryl on this one. I also heard years ago that there was a plan to convert Stake Ctrs. to doing temple work. At that time it was taught that this was because there was no way to get all the work done for the dead. However, knowing now that this is McBS, and knowing other things I now Mcknow, I can see far more sinister stuff in this.

I agree with the notion (McDaryl style) that the whole plan is to keep an elite/bum division in the church. If members have no elite to strive for they will quit paying their 10%. If a temple (or McTemple) is nearby they will strive even harder to be McWorthy. There is no need to be doing this McWork for the McDead so the whole idea is one to maintain control and keep the money flowing in.

Ed

[helemon]

There is no need to be doing this McWork for the McDead so the whole idea is one to maintain control and keep the money flowing in.

Ed

I agree, but it is still fun to see how the TBMs justify it. :D

[peter_mary]

The other part of this that just doesn't sit well with me is all the stuff I heard while serving in the Bishopric about how difficult it was to keep the temples busy because a) people weren't coming, and b) there just weren't enough names to keep the ones who did come busy.

We've had all kinds of "pushes" here in Idaho Falls to get people out to the temple, with all kinds of programs, cajoling, guilting, whatever it takes. It hasn't really worked, and the temple is still severely under-utilized.

So what solution does the Church come up with? "Build a new temple 30 miles away in Rexburg!"

Ah....the logic is stunning... :Crazy:

No, the mcreasons for the mctemples are more mcsinister than "we need them all if we are going to do all the work for the dead." First, mathematically, there ain't no way ALL the temples in the world, times 10, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at maximum capacity, could ever even dent the work for the dead. Second, I think it has a LOT more to do with needing to convert cash into assets than it has ANYTHING to do with redeaming the dead. Post that on FAIR, will ya, Helemon?

Peter_Mary

[elder_nomo]

The other part of this that just doesn't sit well with me is all the stuff I heard while serving in the Bishopric about how difficult it was to keep the temples busy because a) people weren't coming, and b) there just weren't enough names to keep the ones who did come busy.

We've had all kinds of "pushes" here in Idaho Falls to get people out to the temple, with all kinds of programs, cajoling, guilting, whatever it takes. It hasn't really worked, and the temple is still severely under-utilized.

So what solution does the Church come up with? "Build a new temple 30 miles away in Rexburg!"

Ah....the logic is stunning... :Crazy:
Speaking of logic.....
If baptism is a symbolic, physical ritual, meant to represent the actual, spiritual cleansing of the soul, baptism for the dead is a physical symbol representing a physical symbol representing something spiritual, for people who have no physical, but are entirely spirit. :Crazy:

IMO temples can't be under- or over-utilized, since they accomplish nothing.
There is an awful lot of activity, but nothing truly productive gets done, other than making the participant feel good.
This reminds me of another activity that is rather frowned upon by the church.

[and in a *completely* separate thought (i promise), i wonder where the term "jack mormon" got its start?]


No, the mcreasons for the mctemples are more mcsinister than "we need them all if we are going to do all the work for the dead." First, mathematically, there ain't no way ALL the temples in the world, times 10, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at maximum capacity, could ever even dent the work for the dead. Second, I think it has a LOT more to do with needing to convert cash into assets than it has ANYTHING to do with redeaming the dead. Post that on FAIR, will ya, Helemon?

Peter_Mary
P_M, don't you think Helemon is in enough hot water at FAIR? Don't go encouraging him to go do something silly, like using facts. ;)

[helemon]

P_M, don't you think Helemon is in enough hot water at FAIR? Don't go encouraging him to go do something silly, like using facts. ;)

hehehe
I discovered today that my username lds8n't was perceived by many on FAIR as inflamatory. I think some were reading it as LDSatan, which I cannot for the life of me figure out. It was meant to be LDSain't meaning I am not LDS by playing on the last word and turning saint into ain't.

I have been asked to create a new user name by Dunamis. I shall therefore henceforth be known as Orange Zodiac. I guess I was feeling a bit 70's today. :D

[Born Free]

hehehe
I discovered today that my username lds8n't was perceived by many on FAIR as inflamatory. I think some were reading it as LDSatan, which I cannot for the life of me figure out. It was meant to be LDSain't meaning I am not LDS by playing on the last word and turning saint into ain't.

I have been asked to create a new user name by Dunamis. I shall therefore henceforth be known as Orange Zodiac. I guess I was feeling a bit 70's today. :D
helemon,

That's what happens when you lose the Priesthood! :eek:

See they have IT, which enables them top detect evil intent in your user name and coerse a name change (but can't pick up something serious like a sexual predator in their midst!).

Oh, I miss it so! :duh

Daryl