The Expense of Furnishings within Temples

[Durzan]

The Jesus I believe in would rather us use a 50 cent candle and give the remaining $199.999.50 to the poor, widows and orphans.

Christ told a rich man to give all he had to the poor, his birth took place in a stable not a palace, Christ couldn't of distanced himself more than he did from money or ostanciousness! and yet we continue to build temples costing millions of dollars, why not build temples which are cheaper and functional?

Um dusty... I already addressed that point that you quoted. Since you are building upon that argument, I bring it up again:

Do you not realize that the old Testament Tabernacle was extravagant, as well as Solomon's temple, and the Second temple? Jehovah commanded those temples and tabernacles to be made with extravagance, according to the Law of Moses, and that likewise, Jehovah commanded the use of expensive oils for the rituals that would point to his coming in the meridian of time? And did you not realize that there were at least one time where Judas made the same kind of argument as what you just said?

When Jesus commanded the early saints to construct a temple, they sacrificed much time and effort to procure the most precious materials they could furnish for the temple, and they then crafted them with their own hands. Therefore, I ask you, did they sin in this? Nay. Therefore, why should our leaders be sinning in this when they do a similar thing and for a similar reason?

[Dusty52]

Your argument is not convincing
I hold to my view posted above

[Thinker]

The Jesus I believe in would rather us use a 50 cent candle and give the remaining $199.999.50 to the poor, widows and orphans.

Christ told a rich man to give all he had to the poor, his birth took place in a stable not a palace, Christ couldn't of distanced himself more than he did from money or ostanciousness! and yet we continue to build temples costing millions of dollars, why not build temples which are cheaper and functional?

Um dusty... I already addressed that point that you quoted. Since you are building upon that argument, I bring it up again:

Do you not realize that the old Testament Tabernacle was extravagant, as well as Solomon's temple, and the Second temple? Jehovah commanded those temples and tabernacles to be made with extravagance, according to the Law of Moses, and that likewise, Jehovah commanded the use of expensive oils for the rituals that would point to his coming in the meridian of time? And did you not realize that there were at least one time where Judas made the same kind of argument as what you just said?

When Jesus commanded the early saints to construct a temple, they sacrificed much time and effort to procure the most precious materials they could furnish for the temple, and they then crafted them with their own hands. Therefore, I ask you, did they sin in this? Nay. Therefore, why should our leaders be sinning in this when they do a similar thing and for a similar reason?

That is based on the assumption that Christ was the one commanding everything in the OT (which contradicts him chastising their law of Moses etc)... and... the assumption that Christ is commanding building extravagant shopping malls etc today.

If you look at when Christ actually lived and taught on this earth, you realize indeed, he was all about living humbly and helping those in need. And it’s as if. Christ knew that laws and prophets would try to compete with Christ’s highest commandments when he added, “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

[JK4Woods]

I read somtime ago about the amount of money the church spent on one chandelier was $200k for a temple?
Is this correct

I am not surprised. “Furnishings” include lockers, curtains, seating in every chapel, instruction room and nook and cranny.

I work in the hospitality industry. I remodel complete hotel towers of thousands of rooms at a time.

The cost of furniture is half the cost of a remodel project, and all the items must be placed on order (with deposits and progress payments) over six months before the constructuon work even starts.

Fabric is the longest lead item used for chairs, ottomans, sofas, etc. the fabric has to be made. Then sent to be fire treated. This all takes time and adds cost.

Also the fabric is a very high grade. Typically the specifications are a wear factor durability in the realm of half a million rubs in both directions.

Temple seating fabric is the highest quality. It just wouldn’t do to have to reupholster the Celestial Room seating every five years.

[Michelle]

Perhaps temple furnishings serve a dual purpose, kind of like a parable.

Distracting those who do not want to see and hear weightier matters, at the same time, blessing those who seek to do the Lord's will.

[Juliet]

Money isn't going to be in our vocabulary during the millennium. Living correct principles leads to becoming rich. Poverty is a consequence of actions, not just of individuals but of governments. We were not made to be so dirt poor all the time. We have enough on the earth for everyone to be filthy disgustingly rich. But for that to happen, we have to stop the way we think about money.

First off, coveting is against the commandments. You won't get rich when you covet. You can look at the riches of the church or anyone else for that matter and cry woe is me! But there is enough for the church to stay rich and for you to become rich as well.

If we pull down the rich like crabs in a basket, the world will stay poor.

But if we allow rich people and organizations to become rich, we can learn from them and climb out of the crab basket ourselves.

I read a book on the common traits of millionaire business leaders. Their number 1 trait is impeccable honesty. So, instead of trashing them, maybe we should simply be more like them.

Yes there are a lot of bad people out there who have gotten lots of gain through wickedness. Mostly through wicked government, where people are allowed to legally steal assets from hard working producers. We should know better and bring down these wicked laws and principles.

But in time wickedness is going to be destroyed, it doesn't bring happiness, and meanwhile, we need to have our sights on how to thrive and prosper when balance is restored and the parasites are cut off.

There is nothing wrong with being inspired at what accomplishments the Church of Jesus Christ has made and will continue to make. It's only going to get better. As long as we are living correct principles, we will have an inheritance, as God promised the children of Abraham.

[Durzan]

That is based on the assumption that Christ was the one commanding everything in the OT (which contradicts him chastising their law of Moses etc)...

But note that my primary focus wasn't on the OT as a whole, but rather on the Law of Moses itself. For a long period of time, it was God's go-to Law on Earth, and it was specifically designed to point Israel towards Christ. Taking the other scriptures out of the picture, one cannot deny that the fancy robes, use of elaborate rituals, fancy oils (which were expensive), and so forth are all described in exact detail in Exodus and Leviticus and are a part of the Law of Moses, and the Tabernacle was made from the most precious materials the Israelites had available. But was this for done for the sake of pomp and ceremony... or for living lavishly? No! Every little detail of the Law of Moses, including the use of expensive furnishings, was rich with symbolism and meaning, and that was as it was supposed to be.

So right from the get go, we have an established precedence for expensive decoration... and since the Israelites see all this in the Law of Moses (which, by necessity we must acknowledge as being directly and clearly from God, else all forms of Christianity have no legs to stand on at all), it would naturally follow that Solomon's temple would follow a similar pattern to what was commanded in the 5 books of Moses. If we ignore the fact that God apparently approved of the plans established by David for Solomon's Temple, then it would stand to reason that the Israelites wished to have a permanent location to worship God at, and would wish to honor Him with the most precious materials they had available. The Tabernacle was a giant tent, and it would probably wear thin eventually; but a physical temple would last far longer. And they would do so again for the Second Temple as well as Solomon's Temple. The instructions for the Tabernacle set the precedent; and temples ever afterward followed it. Even Nephi in the Book of Mormon lamented that he didn't have much precious materials to build his Temple for the Lord, yet he made due with what he had.

As for Christ chastising their law of Moses... He wasn't chastising the Law of Moses itself, but was chastising the Jews for adding and subtracting from the Law of Moses as well as focusing on the letter of the Law and not the Spirit of the Law. This parallels the many times He, as Jehovah, chastised Israel for turning away from honoring Him, and forsaking the Law in the past.

In Matt 5:17-20, Christ says:

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Christ wouldn't have said this, if He was chastising or critiquing the Law of Moses itself. There is and always has been a connection between Christ and the Law of Moses, and this scripture is but one that testifies of this fact.

and... the assumption that Christ is commanding building extravagant shopping malls etc today.

Again with the mall Thinker? Let it go. It helped provide jobs in the area, beautified the surroundings, provides places for high volumes of people to eat, and helped enrich the community as a whole. I'd count that as one of many forms of aid. Now, whether it was inspired or not... I cannot say.

But what I can say is that not everything the Lord commands or inspires necessarily makes sense to our minds. Nor will it always appeal to us (neither our spirits or the natural man within us). Nephi had to slay Laban. Jacob had to deceive Esau. Sometimes the Lord commands us to do things that are hard, or tells us truths that are bitter pills to swallow.

From personal experience, I can say that this is indeed true, as I have had several experiences where the Spirit testified to me of truths that I initially recoiled from and viewed with disgust, confusion, and/or horror because it was uncomfortable, seemed to go against everything I knew up to that point (IE was heretical) and I feared deception by the devil, or had profound implications on the nature of divinity that came far from left field (and let me tell you, some of that information isn't exactly pretty). I've had to swallow quite a few bitter pills, and yet... over and over again these truths were manifested to me by the Spirit, and eventually I learned to live with them and see the beauty within.

There are many ways to be of service to your fellow man besides taking what you own, selling it, and then giving it all away to the poor. Sometimes simply participating in capitalism is all it takes to lift others out of poverty. And sometimes building a mall is a part of that.

If you look at when Christ actually lived and taught on this earth, you realize indeed, he was all about living humbly and helping those in need. And it’s as if. Christ knew that laws and prophets would try to compete with Christ’s highest commandments when he added, “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Truly, Christ did indeed live humbly, and placed an emphasis upon helping those in need and living humbly. Christ's actions did not happen inside a vaccum, one cannot discount the historical context of time, place, and culture in when He lived, as well as His understanding of them, or the possible reasons for why He acted the way He did. It is only after analyzing these aspects combined with the records of him in the New Testament can you say with some degree of certainty "what he was all about."

First things first, you must take note that Christ was raised to live and understand the Law of Moses during a time when Israel was occupied by Rome. As a Jew, it would influence and govern every action He would take during His mortal life, and it would influence how and what He taught significantly. Much of his teaching style and metaphor, is actually fairly standard for how Rabbi's supposedly taught during the time.

Second, one must take into account that Christ was indeed Jehovah, the God of Israel. As such, He arguably is the one ultimately behind the implementation of the Law of Moses among the Jews in the first place, and as such has an intimate connection with it above and beyond its influence over the culture he incarnated into. Thus, if one looks closely, you should begin to see His influence upon the Law of Moses. It would point people to Him and would symbolically testify of the great act of Atonement he would perform. Likewise, you would also expect to see hints of His personality in the Law of Moses that would match up with his personality on Earth. If you look closely, you can see hints of his humility and charity intertwined into parts of the Law itself. If Christ is Humble, then every aspect of the Law of Moses itself would have to be necessary for the teaching and uplifting of the Israelites, and if he is Charitable, then there would be means within the law to care for the poor and destitute, and to develop and encourage charitable attitudes within His people. Both things exist within the Law itself, if you look with an open mind. One cannot separate Christ from the Law of Moses, as the two are inextricably linked. As such, it becomes clear that service and charity are a fundamental part of the Law of Moses.

Third, you must understand that before He came to Earth as a mortal, Christ was dealing with Israel in a top-down manner. From what little we can draw from in the Old Testament, Christ's primarily addressed and dealt with Israel as a nation and trying to get Israel to be a better nation on a macro level. Most of His recorded efforts involved dealing with those in political or religious power (IE Kings, Priests, Prophets, and Wealthy individuals) and interacting with the entirety of Israel at once, verses interacting with the average everyday members of ancient Israeli society.

Fourth, during his mortal ministry, Christ was living as though he were one man without very much inherent influence due to the poor nature of His family. As such, the only way He can meaningfully interact with His people (without significantly blowing His cover before the time is right, anyway) is by teaching and interacting with people individually, one on one and in relatively small groups, and actively setting himself as an example and miracle worker for others to look up to. As Jehovah His perspective was far wider, while as a mortal, He willingly subjected himself to a far more limited viewpoint. Because of His circumstances, He takes the micro approach working to improve, inspire, and teach people on an individual basis. In other words, He is showing just who He really as an example to us. Everything He did was with a purpose, He did nothing without good reason.

Fifth, Christ states over and over again (and backs it up with His actions too), that He came to do the will of the Father, not His own will. He even says that He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

Sixth, everytime Christ condemns something, it seems to be because of behavior, sin, and mistreatment rather than because of wealth or status themselves. When Christ addresses groups, He does so in a manner meant to lift up the individual, and to raise those individuals to a higher standard. At the same time, He rarely gets angry, but when He does, you can see the same fire in Him that burned whenever Jehovah chastised or disciplined Israel.

Seventh, parts of the D&C involve Christ speaking to Joseph about being prudent and practical when using resources, using only what was needed.

Eighth, as established earlier, there was a certain amount of extravagance built into the Law of Moses. Likewise, nature itself has a degree of beauty and extravagance.

Ninth, Christ appreciated the offer that a woman made when she washed his feet with expensive and extravagant oil. Judas pointed out that said oil could've been sold and the money given to the poor, but Jesus rebuked him and told him that He wouldn't not always be there physically among them, and that the woman had did a good thing. Clearly, the symbolism of this one act was more important and meaningful to Him than the poor at that time. This means that there are other things besides being humble and charitable that are important to Him.

Tenth, over and over again, if you look at church history as well as ancient times, the Lord encourages or commands His servants to use fine materials and craftsmanship for His temples. We see this in modern day in D&C 124:27-28.

26 And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say unto them: Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth;

27 And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein.

Based on all these points above and more, it becomes clear to me that while Humility, Service, and Charity are important aspects of Christ's personality, it isn't what "He is all about" and it is a disservice to solely focus upon that. Rather, Christ is all about enacting His Father's will. His humble and simple living isn't primarily a statement against extravagance or expensive living, but rather a necessity for the fulfillment of God's will at the time, which involved living among the common populace and being an example to them. As such, at that time, a simple life was needed. Christ does seem to have a prudent and practical streak, only using what was necessary in life as an individual, and encouraging others to do the same. He isn't completely against extravagance, and does seem to appreciate beauty and quality craftsmanship to a certain degree... even if it isn't necessarily the most important thing on His mind. And yet, as established earlier, when it comes to establishing Temples (where Higher Ordinances are to occur and where He can Dwell among us)... He actively encourages His children to work together as a community to create something beautiful, high quality, and of fine craftsmanship.

In short, the Lord isn't always about simplicity. The Lord loves beauty, art, music, and craftsmanship... after all, He is an expert craftsman himself and loves to make big and beautiful worlds for His children to dwell upon. He takes satisfaction in His work and wants us to learn to do so with our work as well. But the Lord also loves practicality, prudence, and efficiency. There is a time for simplicity and a time for extravagance. Everything has a purpose, and should be made to fulfill that purpose well. It can be beautiful and extravagant as well, but if that beauty starts to take away from its purpose, then said beauty is a hinderance and not an asset.

Your argument is not convincing
I hold to my view posted above

Let me expound a little more and shift my approach somewhat to explain my view of this matter a bit more clearly.

I have seen quite a few temples in my short 24 years of life, and while all are beautiful, that beauty is fairly simple in nature, all things considered. They are of fine craftsmanship and have some expensive and precious materials in their design, but they are built to last and be functional first and foremost. Some are small, while others are big, but each is shaped to satisfy the needs of the area and the people within that area; no more, no less. The designs are fairly simple, the carpets are simple, and the internal layout is simple. The architecture is simple and well made, sometimes a bit more ornate, but often still fairly tame and plain in comparison to other buildings. The temple is beautiful, but it also has a purpose for which it was made, and though it may be beautiful, that beauty doesn't take away from its function but enhances it instead. Like in ancient times, temples are full of symbolism, and that beauty is a part of that symbolism.

Now, as beautiful as LDS temples are, nor as extravagant as you seem to think they are... NONE of them hold a candle to the the works of the Catholic Church in Europe. I have toured the Vatican, and it is filled with layer upon layer of golden decorations and ornaments, absurdly expensive pieces of artwork and furniture (Stuff in the tens of thousands of dollars at least), and an intricate maze of rooms with high vaulted ceilings. While the Vatican (and other extravagant buildings built by the Catholic Church) are breathtaking in appearance, most of that decoration is just for decoration's sake. It is so lavish that the building itself is basically a giant exhibit in a museums of art and history, it makes it seem like THATS its purpose instead of being the place where the Church does its work. And these are buildings that cost literally Billions of dollars to build, decorate, and renovate over the 1700 years of the Catholic Church's existence. Now, don't get me wrong... I appreciate the time and effort that these buildings took to make, and the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of good, but at times the lavishness distracts from the purpose of the building itself. Its decoration doesn't serve its function, and that is the main difference.

Like the Tabernacle of Ancient Israel, the beauty and relative extravagance of an LDS Temple has a purpose beyond being lavish for the sake of lavishness. The Temple itself is symbolic of the Celestial Kingdom and Eternal Life, the highest gift that God can possibly give us. Like the Celestial Kingdom, the Temple is beautiful in form and capable in function, and is a place where service, purity, and love are the foundation for all relationships and interactions. Thus, it stands to reason that such a symbol should be of good craftsmanship out of the fine and strong materials that can last a long time, and stocked with high quality furniture and decoration. Would a moldy old shack or a plainly made house do justice at expressing true Godliness or the Highest Blessing God wants to give us? Would their very presence be honoring Christ? No, they would not.

Temples are first and foremost built to honor God and be a home for Him when He visits Earth... but since He is a being of Faith, Hope, Humility, Charity, and Love, He saw fit to make His home a place where we serve one another; and in God's eyes, the beauty of His Home, a Home of service, should reflect that simple, yet elegant, inner beauty that He has striven for so long to impart unto us. And while they may have become more extravagant (such as in the Rome temple), one must remember that said extravagance still serves a symbolic purpose/function within the greater purpose of the temple and is still relative simple in design in comparison to other buildings that exist or have existed throughout the world. The simple beauty and functions not only conveys a degree of symbolism, but also serves to help the visitors and guests feel comfortable and even welcome.

And so, to everyone who is reading this thread, I present you with a choice. We can choose to look upon that $200K Chandelier that (in this thread) represents the extravagance and beauty of the Temples, and fail to see beyond the money that could've been used to uplift the poor instead of buying it, alongside all the negative images of the LDS Church that follow; or, we can choose to look beyond that, and focus on the beauty and the gospel symbolism contained within the glittering light of said Chandelier, and realize that we need to say ""Let us alone; why trouble ye the Temple? For those who built it hath done a good work unto us, our Lord, and our dead."

Dusty, Thinker, and anyone else willing to listen... perhaps you should consider looking at the glass being perpetually half-full when it comes to these matters; it weighs on your soul a whole lot less. If you do decide to do so, well then... I welcome you. If not... well, that your choice.

[Michelle]

That is based on the assumption that Christ was the one commanding everything in the OT (which contradicts him chastising their law of Moses etc)...

Christ did not chastise the law of Moses, He was the author of it. He condemned what they added to it.

[LucianAMD]

Another thing to note: When they remodel temples they take most of those expensive furnishings and destroy them. Talk about throwing money away

[Primary Outcast]

At the Medirian temple the church decided to scale the finishes way back, the original plan was too opulant. I'm sure they saved a little money with the change, but it wasn't about the savings or the money, it was about the finishes. They are scaling temple finishes way back now, especially in 3rd world countries where the work is so impressive and luxurious that it was distracting to the patrons. In my opinion temples aren't as nice as the finishes that you will find in Vegas or other places. They are nice but not over the top.

[Col. Flagg]

Fine sanctuaries that rob the poor.

[Durzan]

Fine sanctuaries that rob the poor.

Might wanna consider looking at the glass half full.

[Dusty52]

Fine sanctuaries that rob the poor.

Might wanna consider looking at the glass half full.

Epictetus tells us that everything has two handles, one by which you can carry it, the other by which you cannot...." We can deal with everything in this manner
There is nothing wrong with the "half emptyers" nor the "half fullers"
Yin and Yang!
We are in need of both, it has always been thus

[Durzan]

Fine sanctuaries that rob the poor.

Might wanna consider looking at the glass half full.

Epictetus tells us that everything has two handles, one by which you can carry it, the other by which you cannot...." We can deal with everything in this manner
There is nothing wrong with the "half emptyers" nor the "half fullers"
Yin and Yang!
We are in need of both, it has always been thus

But too much of half-empty philosophy can drown you in misery. And too much half-full turns you into an air head.

[Dusty52]

Fine sanctuaries that rob the poor.

Might wanna consider looking at the glass half full.

Epictetus tells us that everything has two handles, one by which you can carry it, the other by which you cannot...." We can deal with everything in this manner
There is nothing wrong with the "half emptyers" nor the "half fullers"
Yin and Yang!
We are in need of both, it has always been thus

But too much of half-empty philosophy can drown you in misery. And too much half-full turns you into an air head.

I agree
It's about getting a balance

[Durzan]

Might wanna consider looking at the glass half full.

Epictetus tells us that everything has two handles, one by which you can carry it, the other by which you cannot...." We can deal with everything in this manner
There is nothing wrong with the "half emptyers" nor the "half fullers"
Yin and Yang!
We are in need of both, it has always been thus

But too much of half-empty philosophy can drown you in misery. And too much half-full turns you into an air head.

I agree
It's about getting a balance

But you were leaning on the negative side recently...

[EmmaLee]

At the Medirian temple the church decided to scale the finishes way back, the original plan was too opulant. I'm sure they saved a little money with the change, but it wasn't about the savings or the money, it was about the finishes. They are scaling temple finishes way back now, especially in 3rd world countries where the work is so impressive and luxurious that it was distracting to the patrons. In my opinion temples aren't as nice as the finishes that you will find in Vegas or other places. They are nice but not over the top.

They did?! We were at the Meridian, ID temple in November. Out of the 26 temples I've been through, it is the most opulent one of them all, IMO (except for maybe the Gilbert, AZ temple). But one person's version of opulent is different than another's, I suppose.

[Robin Hood]

The least opulent one I've been to is the Cardston temple, although Frankfurt ran in a close second.

[Primary Outcast]

At the Medirian temple the church decided to scale the finishes way back, the original plan was too opulant. I'm sure they saved a little money with the change, but it wasn't about the savings or the money, it was about the finishes. They are scaling temple finishes way back now, especially in 3rd world countries where the work is so impressive and luxurious that it was distracting to the patrons. In my opinion temples aren't as nice as the finishes that you will find in Vegas or other places. They are nice but not over the top.

They did?! We were at the Meridian, ID temple in November. Out of the 26 temples I've been through, it is the most opulent one of them all, IMO (except for maybe the Gilbert, AZ temple). But one person's version of opulent is different than another's, I suppose.

Yes, I was working for one of the finish subcontractors on the job. They had a massive redesign right before we were about to order our materials which delayed the project and we gave a very significant credit back to the general contractor and owner for the reduced scope of work.

It's impossible to equate nice looking with costs. You can buy a fake Rolex from China for $100 that looks great.

[Durzan]

The least opulent one I've been to is the Cardston temple, although Frankfurt ran in a close second.

The Dallas temple is pretty plain, but its one of the smaller temples in the US.

[Aprhys]

Just another reason why I give my 10% to the actual needy and not the Church anymore.

[Yahtzee]

Another thing to note: When they remodel temples they take most of those expensive furnishings and destroy them. Talk about throwing money away

My former (non member) neighbor helped build the Provo City Center temple. She loved religion and I had hopes for her starting the discussions but she was so appalled at the waste she saw that it left her with too bad a taste in her mouth. I was always disappointed about that. I do think we could be better stewards. I have been told (by my insider in the temple department) they're moving away from the large opulent temples now.

[Dusty52]

Where do general authorities stay when they are in town for a stake conference?
Hotels!
I once knew an old widow who always used to offer her home for any visiting dignitaries from church
Where did they stay? Hotels
When money is not an issue you would and who's paying for that expensive hotel, perhaps the widows mite?
I know where the saviour would stay!
In some ways the church has grown into a gigantic corporation

[oneClimbs]

When we look at a temple we see an expression of perceived value, but it is all dust to God, just like the ointment. If God wanted to feed every starving soul he could rain down manna from Heaven.

I hope that everyone criticizing lives in the tiniest shack available having given all of their wealth to the poor. I hope that each one is interacting on this forum from a computer and a public library and didn’t dare to go spend thousands of dollars on fancy computer equipment to sit in comfort and pick at motes.

We have built temples from day one, even when our people were destitute and we called it a beautiful sacrifice. We build temples today when we can do it with extreme efficiency while in prosperous times and it is now a sin.

Here is something to consider: Are we more able to help the poor now, than in the Kirtland days?

Where a man’s treasure is, there will his heart be also. We put worldy treasure into temples to show where our priorities are. They key purpose of the restoration is to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant and the temples are where we do a big part of that.

I’m sure we could build a square box with a basin in it and call it a temple. But then people would cry out: “This is no temple! God has always commanded that a temple be built of the finest available!”

One constant is for certain, there will always be critics, always, and for everything.

The poor will always be with us. We’ve gone over this ad nauseum. Showing pictures of starving African children and assuming it is our fault or there is something we can do about it shows ignorace as to what the cause and remedies for poverty are. Hint: money doesn’t solve them.

Many people still donate quite a bit of time, talents and resources to build temples. A $200k chandelier might cost that much retail, but could something like that have been donated or given at a massive discount? We don’t know, so let’s be careful how we judge.

Each temple is a piece of artwork, it is like walking through scripture. They represent the beauty of what fallen humans can create when they work together. Remember that God is i control, dust is dust, he can move it here and there and form it into whatever he wishes. He could build a billion temples and put a buffet in every home if he wanted.

[kittycat51]

"Following the 33-minute meeting, President Nelson and President Ballard met with members of the media. "We had a most cordial, unforgettable experience. His Holiness, he was most gracious and warm and welcoming," said President Nelson. He continued, "What a sweet, wonderful man he is, and how fortunate the Catholic people are to have such a gracious, concerned, loving and capable leader." "

Stuff like this wierds me out. I think the whole world is realizing that the Pope is presiding over a global network of homosexual pedophile criminals and he may be quite sympathetic to them, if not part and parcel of the whole scheme. Really, how could he not be? And never mind the Pope's politics.

Now, as a Mormon, I am induced to follow the prophet's lead. If he feels things are on the up-and-up with the Pope, I should, too, right? I guess all that pedo stuff doesn't matter as much as the Pope is such a wonderful leader. I suppose the Pope will give a similar report of the Mormon prophet. It's like all my concerns can be retired now, if I just follow the prophet.

I believe the current pope to be the most corrupt ever. Having said that even Christ dined with sinners. The Catholic Church is only second in world domination next to Islam having 1.285 billion professed members. I believe it is good will on President Nelson's part to praise their leader. (If the pope went after President Nelson and said mean things, I would be up in arms.) Should he be condemning the Pope and standing for truth and righteousness? Maybe? But maybe also it is not the time and place to be doing so. There may come a time in the future where the 1st Presidency and 12 may be so bold as to speak with the tongues of destroying angels. But the time is not yet come. In God's own due time I believe it will though.