Hello again, everyone! While I don't know currently if President Nelson will be in Italy for the entire 3 days of the dedication of the Rome Italy Temple, this article reports he will oversee at least the first session. I also anticipate that we will see several other apostles in attendance during those 3 days as well. I will monitor this development and post more details as I learn of them.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, on any post at any time, as long as such comments are made in accordance with the established guidelines. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly-added content, please feel free to subscribe. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
BREAKING TEMPLE NEWS: President Nelson Will Preside at the Rome italy Temple Dedication
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
17 comments:
In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.
At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.
I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.
And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.
Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey, in my opinion I'd expect the entire Q15 to be present for the Rome temple dedication. In our faith if there are any holy cities in this world Rome would be no.2 on the list after Jerusalem. Then SLC, Nauvoo, Kirtland, Jackson County, Palmyra etc. It just seems natural that the Q15 would all agree to be in attendance weather that means in the same time or on roster etc.
ReplyDeleteJust my personal outlook and opinions here but it is also understood that the Q15 have other responsibilities and desires to attend too.
All of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will be in attendance at this event.
ReplyDeleteThe newsroom story.
ReplyDeletehttps://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/prophet-dedicate-rome-italy-temple
Hello, everyone! I actually heard the news about the entire apostleship taking part in some portion of the dedicatory events at the top of the noon news hour on KSL, and it was further reported half an hour later that this is the first time in a long time that an event has involved all ordained apostles. So that is exciting, to be sure. I am sure as the coverage is provided this weekend, we may get more information about the specifics on that. My thanks to you all for commenting, and for your ongoing interest and support.
ReplyDeleteI do have some more information to share. The Church News takes a look at the historical context of having all ordained apostles in one location outside of Church headquarters. There have been times when a majority of all ordained apostles were in one location outside of Church headquarters at one time, but this is the first time that all 15 apostles have been in one location:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-03-08/all-15-members-of-the-first-presidency-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles-to-gather-in-rome-for-temple-dedication-49166
I would just mention by way of clarification that the Newsroom release previously cited is inaccurate in one respect: The release refers to Elder Bednar as "Chairman of the Temple and Family History Department", but as we know, the Temple Department is separate and distinct from the Family History Department. The two departments even have separate Executive and Assistant Executive Directors. Based on other things that have been published, the Newsroom is referring to Elder Bednar's assignment to chair the Temple and Family History Executive Council, which involves Church leaders serving in both separate departments.
I found it interesting that there will be seven dedicatory sessions over the 3-day period. Perhaps, with the historic nature of this dedication, and the fact that all apostles will be participating in this event, the sessions are going to be longer in duration than they typically have been. I imagine that would divide out into 3 to be held on Sunday, and 2 each on Monday and Tuesday, but I guess we will find out. This will be an exciting weekend, to be sure, and I will do my level best to cover what I can of this weekend's events. Thanks again, everyone!
On a separate, unrelated note, I wanted to add that the Church News has published a couple of other articles that are worthy of a mention on this blog. Elder David A. Bednar and his wife Susan were the keynote speakers at RootsTech Family Discovery Day, and they provided encouragement to those involved in family history work. You can read a summary of their remarks in the article below:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-03-07/you-can-do-this-elder-and-sister-bednar-encourage-latter-day-saints-in-family-history-responsibilities-opportunities-49157
In the meantime, the Church News also published the latest edition of their series: "This Week on Social". The latest edition, published around 1.5 hours ago, features posts from the following leaders: President M. Russell Ballard. Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and fellow Quorum members Elders Dieter F. Uchtdorf, D. Todd Christofferson, Gary E. Stevenson, and Gerrit W. Gong. Also featured for the first time were 2 posts from Relief Society General President Sister Jean B. Bingham, and 1 each from Sisters Bonnie H. Cordon, Young Women General President, and Lisa L. Harkness. First Counselor in the Primary General Presidency. The posts covered a wide variety of topics. and you can find those summarized in the following article:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-03-08/this-week-on-social-church-leaders-share-love-for-women-on-international-womens-day-49168
The one other thing I would like to mention is that the Newsroom has published an article in honor of International Women's Day, and that article is well worthy of your time:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/international-womens-day-2019-africa-church-leaders
I will have coverage of the Rome Italy Temple this weekend, and am also planning to publish updated data about the ages and tenures of our current apostles at some point on Sunday as well, so be on the lookout for that. My thanks again to you all for your ongoing interest and support.
I'm curious about a change I've heard to your mission service. I've heard from a friend it will be 18 months and not 24.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when missionaries served only 18 months, but that was during a serious economic downturn. By 1985 though it was back to 24 months.
DeleteYoung men serve for 24 months or so, and the calls of young women are for 18 months. Any changes to missionary service should not be considered official unless and until such details are confirmed by Church leadership.
ReplyDeleteCould there be an adjustment in the future to the length of service for full-time missionaries? Perhaps. But at present, since most young men go out into the field when they are between 18-22, the two-year service period is seen as a "tithe" of sorts, an offering of 10% of an individual's lifespan up to that point.
In my mind, the only way I see the length of time changing is for the Lord to repeal the mandate that "every worthy young man should serve a mission". Of course, I say that as one who around six months ago also said that the switch to a 2-hour Church block was something I didn't see happening. The Lord proved me wrong in that expressed opinion, and He could do so again. But I also think that the Church will likely focus more on unrolling whatever President Nelson's temple-building plans are.
I base that belief on what the Lord has said about how He commands, and only if men do not obey, he revokes that command, and they do not receive the associated blessing. Quite honestly, I have known young men who go into the mission field being so immature that a 24-month period of service isn't quite enough for them to make the changes into the kind of men the Lord needs them to be. If only for the purpose of molding the young men in the most effective way He can, I am reasonably confident that the 24-month period will stay intact for young men.
As for young women, they are not under the same mandate to serve that the young men are given. Prophets have specified that whether any young woman serves is up to each such individual. Those who do serve are blessed. In my own inability to serve full-time and away from home, I count myself lucky to be married to someone who did so.
The thing of it is, if the service of young men were again shortened to 18 months, there would have to be some shortening of the service of young women as well. I personally don't see any of that happening.
That said, the Church has recently announced that all prospective missionaries will go through the same process of submitting papers, and that the Brethren at Church headquarters will determine whether a full-time or service mission would be appropriate, so there has been some evolution of sorts to the missionary program.
But with all that noted, I see more of a reason to maintain the status quo as currently established for missionary service lengths. However, if it turns out I am wrong in that respect, I will be happy to admit to being so. In the meantime, thank you, Anonymous and James Anderson for taking time to comment.
"The thing of it is, if the service of young men were again shortened to 18 months, there would have to be some shortening of the service of young women as well."
ReplyDeleteI'll challenge you there on that "have to" statement. A lot of what you're saying is based on tradition and reasons that people in the church have made up to make sense of how things are.
Men with 24 months and women with 18 months and the "tithe" is a nice thought that fits the situation and makes us all feel happy. But the fact is that this is just what we have been instructed to do by the Lord's prophet.
There is no "have to" shorten a woman's mission if men's missions are shortened. There is just as much evidence in the world that if men's missions were shortened to 18 months, womens would stay the same length to feel more equitable between men and women who are choosing to serve.
Let's not pretend there's a reason. There are things we say to make it sound nice, that's all. The real reason is that is what is asked of us currently. That's it.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, as I am entitled to mine. And in that respect, whether or not the service length for sister missionaries would be shortened if the service period for the elders was shortened is really beside the point.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that missionary service is a sort of "tithe" on a young man or young woman's life is one that has some support from the statement of prophets and apostles. If given time to do so, I'd be more than happy to find statements which have been made to that effect.
Either way, the material point at issue here that is relevant to your original question is whether missionary service has been shortened from 24 months to 18. And in that regard, until an official statement is made from a Church leader (whether it be the prophet himself or someone he authorizes to do so on the Missionary Executive Council), that particular idea is nothing more than a rumor. And I for one do not see a shortening of that period occurring in any way, for either men or women. If it does wind up happening, I'll cordially invite you to come back and let me know how wrong I am. Fair enough? Either way, thank you for taking time to comment.
Okay. I am back to report that I have found at least one reference. The idea of missionary service as a "tithe" was first officially presented by President Gordon B. Hinckley. During the October 1995 General Conference (which marked only his second General Conference as President of the Church), President Hinckley gave an address during the Priesthood Session. He stated the following:
ReplyDelete"I throw out a challenge to every young man within this vast congregation tonight. Prepare yourself now to be worthy to serve the Lord as a full-time missionary. He has said, 'If ye are prepared ye shall not fear' (D&C 38:30). Prepare to consecrate two years of your lives to this sacred service. That will in effect constitute a tithe on the first twenty years of your lives.
Now, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, neither Presidents Hinckley, Monson, or Nelson have said anything between then and now that would lead me to believe that President Hinckley's point-blank reference to missionary service as a tithe on a young man's life has been retracted or no longer applies.
I will just add this thought, if I may: I have no desire to offend anyone who reads or comments on my thoughts here, and if I have done so, I apologize. As long-time readers of this blog could and will tell you, I could not do what I do to the degree to which I do it unless I am sure that things I say are accurately supported by the scriptures or through statements from apostles and apostles.
That said, do I have all of the answers? Hardly. I'm a very imperfect man who has relied on what knowledge he can acquire about gospel-related topics to get through a life that, on its' best days, is so far from perfect at times it's beyond ridiculous. But I do know where to go for the answers, and I hope that my efforts to provide a thoughtful commentary on such questions are appreciated, even if they are not agreeable to those who read them. I hope that my latest comments on your questions have proven illuminating, and I thank you for taking time to offer your feedback. Asking questions is how any of us learn and grow, and I commend you for your desire to do so.
You're assuming all of those "Unknown" comments are from the same person which is untrue. Why don't you try being more accepting of people leaving comments on your blogs this week, we'd appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Your point is well-taken. I have directly addressed the concerns you expressed in a new post published on this blog a few minutes ago. Let me know if that post does not deal sufficiently with your feedback.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I am only as good as the information I am given, so one suggestion I made is for all those commenting under the "Unknown" moniker to leave me their first names as part of their comments so I know who I'm dealing with. Unfortunately, I cannot see through my computer screen and automatically know I am talking to someone different than the last "Unknown" with whom I interacted. For that reason, I throw out the suggestion that all users commenting as "Unknown" leave me a first name to work with so I can tell the difference, especially since I am not omniscient, nor am I ever likely to be so. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have done what I can on my end. The rest is up to you and all others using the "Unknown" moniker here.
I am sorry if that last comment came across as harsh. But I have one regular who comments as "Unknown", and he always leaves me his first name with the comments he makes, so I know when such feedback is coming from him. And I am all for "being more understanding" in general. But unless I know who I'm dealing with, and have some way to know that each "Unknown" I talk to may be someone different, I feel it unfair to blame me for a lack of omniscience and my inability to see through my screen. Acceptance is all well and good, but it's a two-way street. I will do my part, as long as all others, especially those commenting under the "Unknown" moniker do the same. Thank you again.
ReplyDeleteSorry. One additional thought: When I was a teenage boy whose voice was cracking regularly, when I'd answer the phone at my parents' house, the person on the other end of the line would sometimes confuse me for my mother or one of my two sisters. In such instances, if I had expected the person on the other end to know that I was a boy, not a girl, that would have been unreasonably arrogant of me. In the same manner, unless I am given some way to tell that the "Unknown" I am interacting with is not the same as the last "Unknown" I interacted with, can I or should I really be faulted for an assumption that I am dealing with the same person each time? It's the same basic principle.
ReplyDeleteThe people interacting with teenage James could not have known I was not my mother or sisters, and in the same way, the only clue I'd have that each "Unknown" with whom I interact is different is if I have a way to tell the difference. Food for thought, don't you think?
By the way, once that problem was resolved (after my voice fully changed), I had a different problem: Those calling could not make the distinction between myself, my father, and my brother. That is part of why I took to saying "This is James" after greeting each caller, so there was no ambiguity or room for confusion. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of those who comment under the same moniker are not extending me the same courtesy of knowing with whom I am interacting. And without knowing whether or not I am speaking to a different individual, can I be blamed for not responding accordingly?
ReplyDeleteI don't desire to keep flogging the proverbial dead horse, but I really have to ask: Why and how am I supposed to be the one responsible for figuring out that I am talking to a different person every time someone posts under the "Unknown" moniker?
Is it really fair for anyone to expect me to do so when such people are not giving me any help to know that is the case? Maybe it would be if I were psychic, omniscient, or could see through the screen, but since I can't. anyone who wants me to differentiate between all of those commenting under the "Unknown" moniker need to help me do so. If that doesn't occur, I can't be held responsible for "being more accepting" of those who comment. I need to know who I'm dealing with in order to model my behavior accordingly.
That xaid, I think I have made my point (if I have not indeed overemphasized it ad nauseam). I am asking you (and all others using the "Unknown" moniker to help me help you help me to know who I'm dealing with. I hope you will choose to be part of the solution here, but that's your call entirely. I will step off my soapbox now. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention.