Temple Dedications, by Person

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _I have a question »

Number of Temple Dedications by person:
85 - Hinckley
22 - Monson
10 - Uchtdorf
7 - Faust
7 - Eyring
5 - McKay
4 - Kimball
3 - Grant
2 - Benson
2 - Smith (JF)
2 - Hunter
2 - Packer
2 - Bednar
1 - Nelson
1 - Wells
1 - Taylor
1 - Snow
1 - Woodruff
1 - Smith (George)
1 - Romney
1 - Oaks

Oaks and Nelson stand out, having done only 1 each in all the time they've been Apostles.
Remind me, which one was a Marketing Professional?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _Shulem »

Hinckley dedicated 85 temples and practically glorified the name Mormon because it pleased the Lord. But then, crotchety old Nelson whose hardly dedicated anything comes along and demonized the name Mormon.

Which church President has more credibility? One has dedicated 85 temples and another just one. Which prophet is more in tune with the Lord and therefore more impressed with how the Lord feels about the name Mormon being used in his church?

I say the Quorum of the 12 should get together and oust Nelson -- remove him from his position and dissolve the First Presidency. They have that power. Get rid of Nelson. He's a disgrace to the Mormon institution.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _cinepro »

I have a question wrote:Number of Temple Dedications by person:
85 - Hinckley
22 - Monson
10 - Uchtdorf
7 - Faust
7 - Eyring
5 - McKay
4 - Kimball
3 - Grant
2 - Benson
2 - Smith (JF)
2 - Hunter
2 - Packer
2 - Bednar
1 - Nelson
1 - Wells
1 - Taylor
1 - Snow
1 - Woodruff
1 - Smith (George)
1 - Romney
1 - Oaks

Oaks and Nelson stand out, having done only 1 each in all the time they've been Apostles.
Remind me, which one was a Marketing Professional?


The list would seem to suggest that dedicating Temples is almost entirely an endeavor for the First Presidency. Since Oaks and Nelson haven't been in a FP until this year, how would that tell us anything about them other than that what we already know?
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _I have a question »

cinepro wrote:The list would seem to suggest that dedicating Temples is almost entirely an endeavor for the First Presidency. Since Oaks and Nelson haven't been in a FP until this year, how would that tell us anything about them other than that what we already know?


I'm just cutting the temple data in different ways.

I note Bednar has done a couple without being in a FP.
I note Hinckley, a professional marketing person, went bigger on temples than anyone else. And I don't think his profession and the number of temples is coincidental. I believe temples are more about lds marketing spend than they are about anything doctrinal. I think the data (including announcing 4 or 5 times more in a year than can be built, announcing temple intentions rather than specific temple announcements...like the Russian one etc) supports that conclusion.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_SuperDell
_Emeritus
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 12:27 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _SuperDell »

and no Joseph Smith?
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.”
― Joseph Joubert
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _Shulem »

The more the Mormon church builds temples the more people in general will talk about the sacred nature of what actually takes place in the temple. The secret ceremony will be discussed and portrayed in graphic detail because the public at large wouldn't have it any other way. People are going to want to know what goes on in the Mormon temple and more and more Internet sites will blossom exposing everything about the temple. The days of secret society are long over. The 19 & 20 centuries are gone. Google God has taken the Mormon cult to task and more is yet to come. "Secrecy"? How hardly.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _cinepro »

I have a question wrote:I'm just cutting the temple data in different ways.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _I have a question »

cinepro wrote:
I have a question wrote:I'm just cutting the temple data in different ways.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.


The Temple programme is baloney?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_slskipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _slskipper »

I say the Quorum of the 12 should get together and oust Nelson -- remove him from his position and dissolve the First Presidency. They have that power. Get rid of Nelson. He's a disgrace to the Mormon institution.[/quote]

Except they can't- not if they want the church to continue as a legally constituted entity, with all that entails. My understanding is that the succession rules are written into the church's charter Maybe that's just a holdover from the old days when the church was forced to knuckle under to its creditors (around 1900), who for a time at least were actual owners of the LDS church.

Can anybody fill me in?
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Temple Dedications, by Person

Post by _Shulem »

slskipper wrote:Except they can't- not if they want the church to continue as a legally constituted entity, with all that entails. My understanding is that the succession rules are written into the church's charter Maybe that's just a holdover from the old days when the church was forced to knuckle under to its creditors (around 1900), who for a time at least were actual owners of the LDS church.

Can anybody fill me in?


It certainly seems that provisions in D&C 107 allow for the Quorum of the Twelve in counsel with the governing bodies of the church can oust the President of the Church. "There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church . . . And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church . . . . "

The 12 are equal in power and authority with the First Presidency which actively utilizes the so-called keys of the kingdom. But the First Presidency can be dissolved by the 12 and governing bodies and by the general consent of the church. If the voice of the church doesn't sustain the First Presidency they must be removed from their office. The general consent or voice of the members at large are equal to the 12 and FP.
Post Reply