God protects His temples

[bytebear]

I do find it interesting that the only temple (Nauvoo) that fell into the hands of people who did not hold a stewardship of the temple (or temple lot) and were antagonistic to the church was the one that was destroyed and not allowed to be used for other purposes, and that the Lord provided a way for the temple to be restored.

[LeSellers]

20 hours ago, bytebear said:

I do find it interesting that the only temple (Nauvoo) that fell into the hands of people who did not hold a stewardship of the temple (or temple lot) and were antagonistic to the church was the one that was destroyed and not allowed to be used for other purposes, and that the Lord provided a way for the temple to be restored.

I believe Kirtland was also lost.

True, that Kirtland was not a Mechizedek Priesthood Temple (if I may describe it so), but it was The House of the Lord.

Lehi

Edited May 1, 2016 by LeSellers

[pam]

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I believe Kirtland was also lost.

True, that Kirtland was not a Mechizedek Priesthood Temple (if I may describe it so), but it was The House of the Lord.

Lehi

Lehi

@LeSellers What do you mean by lost?

[bytebear]

12 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I believe Kirtland was also lost.

True, that Kirtland was not a Mechizedek Priesthood Temple (if I may describe it so), but it was The House of the Lord

Lehi

I don't consider the Kirtland temple lost, both because it was not a fully functional temple, and really more of a tabernacle, or perhaps a preparatory temple. And because it is still held by believers of Joseph Smith, and therefor preserved, and held sacred by those who care for it. Christ appeared in that temple, and therefore God has not allowed ownership by anyone who does not understand the profound event(s) that occurred there.   I also believe the Temple Lot is being preserved by the hand of the Lord by people not of our faith, for a time when it will be completed.

Edited May 1, 2016 by bytebear

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, pam said:

@LeSellers What do you mean by [the Kirtland Temple's being] lost?

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

I don't consider the Kirtland temple lost, both because it was not a fully functional temple, and really more of a tabernacle, or perhaps a preparatory temple. And because it is still held by believers of Joseph Smith, and therefor preserved, and held sacred by those who care for it. Christ appeared in that temple, and therefore God has not allowed ownership by anyone who does not understand the profound event(s) that occurred there.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost the Kirtland Temple because she does not own it. It does not function under the power of the Priesthood of God, and it does not serve its intended purpose.

I dispute that the Community of Christ (aka RLDS Church) "understand(s) the profound event(s) that occurred there." If they did, they'd accept the Endowment and Mechizedek Priesthood Temples because, as you hint, the Lord there announced the great work of salvation for the whole family of Adam by, if nothing else, Elijah's appearance. The other keys restored that day are similarly rejected by these "believers of Joseph Smith" (I'm not sure what you mean by this, either, since the CoC also rejects the majority of the Restoration. There is a rumor, count it as you will, that they have considered jettisoning the Book of Mormon along with what they no longer accept of the revelations Joseph received.)

Lehi

[pam]

Just now, LeSellers said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost the Kirtland Temple because she does not own it. It does not function under the power of the Priesthood of God, and it does not serve its intended purpose.

I dispute that the Community of Christ (aka RLDS Church) "understand(s) the profound event(s) that occurred there." If they did, they'd accept the Endowment and Mechizedek Priesthood Temples because, as you hint, the Lord there announced the great work of salvation for the whole family of Adam by, if nothing else, Elijah's appearance. The other keys restored that day are similarly rejected by these "believers of Joseph Smith" (I'm not sure what you mean by this, either, since the CoC also rejects the majority of the Restoration. There is a rumor, count it as you will, that they have considered jettisoning the Book of Mormon along with what they no longer accept of the revelations Joseph received.)

Lehi

Okay because the subject was about temples and natural disasters so that had me confused.

[bytebear]

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost the Kirtland Temple because she does not own it. It does not function under the power of the Priesthood of God, and it does not serve its intended purpose.

I dispute that the Community of Christ (aka RLDS Church) "understand(s) the profound event(s) that occurred there." If they did, they'd accept the Endowment and Mechizedek Priesthood Temples because, as you hint, the Lord there announced the great work of salvation for the whole family of Adam by, if nothing else, Elijah's appearance. The other keys restored that day are similarly rejected by these "believers of Joseph Smith" (I'm not sure what you mean by this, either, since the CoC also rejects the majority of the Restoration. There is a rumor, count it as you will, that they have considered jettisoning the Book of Mormon along with what they no longer accept of the revelations Joseph received.)

Lehi

I have no doubt the CoC understands the profound events and the significance of the temple.  As for requiring a temple to be owned and controlled by the church, I disagree.  The Lord can protect the temple from desecration without having the church own it. The Lord preserved America long before the Mormons. The Lord preserved the Bible long before the Mormons.  The Lord provided good men to protect the sacred without the true keys and fullness of the Gospel.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

I have no doubt the CoC understands the profound events and the significance of the temple. 

If they understand it, why do they not practice what we learned there and, specifically, what we learned at its dedication?

Lehi

[Guest]

3 hours ago, bytebear said:

As for requiring a temple to be owned and controlled by the church, I disagree.  The Lord can protect the temple from desecration without having the church own it. The Lord preserved America long before the Mormons. The Lord preserved the Bible long before the Mormons.  The Lord provided good men to protect the sacred without the true keys and fullness of the Gospel.

I think the temple is a different animal than the Bible and the land that is America.  The temple is a temple precisely because it is dedicated as such by the power of the priesthood.  It is part of the gospel definition of a Temple. 

Quote

Any temple of the Lord…will be His abiding place, His sanctuary, His designated dwelling wherein ordinances of salvation will be performed. All of this requires His revealed direction and the services of His…authorized priesthood.”

—Church News, August 7, 1971, p. 16

So, yes, the world may still call the building a temple for historicity and legacy or for lack of a better term.  But from a gospel perspective, it simply isn't one anymore.

The Bible is the Bible no matter who owns, uses, reads, or teaches from it.  It is just words on paper -- even if those words contain a divine message.

The land is the land.  And I don't even know want to get into the definition of "preserve" when it comes to land.  How can you destroy a parcel of earth?  

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Guest

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

If they understand it, why do they not practice what we learned there and, specifically, what we learned at its dedication?

Lehi

Because they are acting as custodians.

[bytebear]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think the temple is a different animal than the Bible and the land that is America.  The temple is a temple precisely because it is dedicated as such by the power of the priesthood.  It is part of the gospel definition of a Temple. 

So, yes, the world may still call the building a temple for historicity and legacy or for lack of a better term.  But from a gospel perspective, it simply isn't one anymore.

The Bible is the Bible no matter who owns, uses, reads, or teaches from it.  It is just words on paper -- even if those words contain a divine message.

The land is the land.  And I don't even know want to get into the definition of "preserve" when it comes to land.  How can you destroy a parcel of earth?  

 

Israel was also dedicated by the power of the priesthood, and I fully believe that the Lord is preserving it, and ensuring that the priesthood blessing will be fulfilled, but the LDS Church does not own, nor control Israel.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Israel was also dedicated by the power of the priesthood, and I fully believe that the Lord is preserving it, and ensuring that the priesthood blessing will be fulfilled, but the LDS Church does not own, nor control Israel.

Like I said.  Land is land.  So, am I missing something?

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

I have no doubt the CoC understands the profound events and the significance of the temple.  As for requiring a temple to be owned and controlled by the church, I disagree.  The Lord can protect the temple from desecration without having the church own it. The Lord preserved America long before the Mormons. The Lord preserved the Bible long before the Mormons.  The Lord provided good men to protect the sacred without the true keys and fullness of the Gospel.

5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

If they understand it, why do they not practice what we learned there and, specifically, what we learned at its dedication?

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

Because they are acting as custodians.

That's a non sequitor.
Their custodial status does not support your contention that the CoC understands the events and significance of the Temple.

Lehi

Edited May 1, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, the CoC has allowed the Kirtland temple to be used for "devotionals" held by gay-rights oriented groups.  

The church was clearly told not to let any unclean thing into the temple, and the CoC knows that revelation as well as we do.  I am inclined to agree with LeSellers:  Kirtland is defiled.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

A non-member friend told me that there was all kinds of damage done to the earthwork around the temple area.  I stopped by to take a look. 

This and one other lamp post were damaged and being worked on.  Apart from that I could see no damage to anything.  I realize it's been a couple weeks now, so there may have been more lamp posts that have since been fixed.  But damage to earthwork is not fixed this quickly without leaving some signs.

This photo was taken at the flagpole (Temple behind the greenery) at the lowest point on the temple grounds proper.  Note the depression behind and to the left of the flagpole.  This is the primary catch basin on the grounds.  If anything, this area should have seen the most erosion.  But I saw nothing. 

Here's another thing about erosion control.  Many think that if you put grass down, it will stabilize a slope.  That is a myth.  You need something with deep roots.  The trees and bushes directly behind the flagpole are on the steepest part of the slopes in the area.  That is what kept this area from sloughing.  The area right around the catch basin should have seen some damage.  But some of that could be that it was a fairly short distance for the steep portion.  And it was surrounded by a relatively flat area for a reasonable distance.

If you're going to use grass for erosion control, you have to have a deep rooted grass or some other method of groundcover.  Buffalo grass and clover will grow well here to do that job.  Clover tends to be about 12' deep roots.  Buffalo grass goes down about 6' deep.

I didn't take a close look at the grass.  But it would be interesting to find out if it was buffalo grass.  And of course, the entire area was graded fairly flat.  So that helped.

Regardless, it stood up pretty well.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

Carbs, next time you're in Utah, will you landscape my yard? 

[Guest]

On 4/27/2016 at 9:24 AM, NightSG said:

Is it just me, or do we hear phrases like "this year's rain is a [100|200|500] year event for Houston" about every three years?

Night,

I just had a seminar about this topic.  Here is an abstract.

Quote

The frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events have been increasing over the past decades, and it is expected that increasing rainfall will have a significant impact on infrastructure and public safety. Engineers, planners, and policy makers utilize rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves in municipal planning and infrastructure design to plan for expected precipitation events, however in Canada, a number of climate stations which are used to produce IDF curves are no longer active. The resulting outdated IDF curves do not reflect recent trends in precipitation and may not be robust enough to plan for future extreme rain events. Furthermore, future predictions of

So, it looks like we are going to be changing maps, graphs, and all sorts of things with the changing climate.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Guest

[NightSG]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, it looks like we are going to be changing maps, graphs, and all sorts of things with the changing climate.

About time; this week marks the 6th time I've seen the 200 year flood plain on the Bosque under several feet of water.  I'll be 40 next week, not 1200.

[anatess2]

On 5/1/2016 at 3:44 PM, Carborendum said:

How can you destroy a parcel of earth?  

 

Al Gore said...

nevermind.

[Guest]

@anatess2

The house may mold or get washed away.  The earth remains.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zomarah said:

I find it interesting that after all these years, including structural failings, the Kirtland Temple is still standing. Whereas the Nauvoo temple was completely destroyed. 

The Nauvoo temple would have fallen apart eventually because of the limestone foundation.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/27/2016 at 6:56 AM, Carborendum said:

Some background on its construction:  Rumor has it...

Whenever anything is built in the Houston area, it is required or recommended that any structures be built 1.5 ft above the 100 yr flood plain.  Most jurisdictions also have flood displacement measures that must be implemented.  This means that if you build up a building pad, some pond or pit must be dug that equals the amount of water displaced by the pad.

The original design of the Houston Temple was made to be the minimum 1.5' above the 100 yr flood plain.  But knowing that floods can be a fickle thing, the temple was to be raised somewhat higher.  If I understand correctly, it was the Church's own Project Manager that required it.  It was raised so high, in fact, that the usual basement for the baptismal font is actually above grade.  But that may have been to avoid buoyancy with such a shallow water table.

The higher finished floor elevation meant that the building pad had to be built up.  Normally a 2:1 slope is standard for the sides.  But to maintain aesthetics, it was flattened to a 5:1 slope or flatter.  This amounted to a LOT more soil and a lot more flood mitigation.  So, there is a lot of thought put into building temples -- and a lot of money.  These are very high quality buildings.*

The recent flooding was touted as a 500 year event.  But the reported 15 inches in less than 24 hours sounds quite a bit higher than a 500 year event.

It was this foresight at the time of construction that allowed the temple to remain unharmed during this event.

 

*Another rumor:

During construction only a few LDS were on the construction team.  The HVAC engineer was one of them.  During the course of construction he developed a favorable relationship with many of the other construction leads.  The local Baptist Church was quite vocal about protesting the building of a Mormon Temple.  The general contractor was a staunch baptist.  As the building was completing, this engineer spoke with the GC and asked how he felt about building a Mormon Temple.

He spoke of how in ancient times there were apprenticeships and journeymen and masters.  To be a master you had to present a masterpiece of the highest quality to be judged by other masters.  In today's world, people always want to cut costs.  Quality suffers.  

"I've never had a chance to show anyone how good I really am or to make something to the best of my ability.  I'm grateful for one thing about you Mormons.  You don't skimp when it comes to building your temples."  He concluded with a tear in his eye,"This is my masterpiece."

I'm bumping this, because with the hurricane flooding in Houston it looks like we're about to see how well this analysis holds up. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/27/2016 at 7:59 AM, tesuji said:

This is cool, but it's not entirely true that God always protects his temples.

I think you added a word. That's called a strawman.

[person0]

A friend of my wife's posted a picture showing how the flooding is above the temple threshold.  It will likely require major cleaning, possible repairs, and then re-dedication (according to him).

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

A friend of my wife's posted a picture showing how the flooding is above the temple threshold.  It will likely require major cleaning, possible repairs, and then re-dedication (according to him).

Perhaps.  There is also discussion on Facebook that the pic may be a Photoshop job.  As of five hours ago, official word was that an ancillary building had been compromised but that the main structure remained dry.