Page 1 of 3

Rome Temple

Posted: 14 Jan 2019, 15:37
by mom3
I have had mixed feelings about this temple. I am still not sure what I think in totality, but I am impressed with the effort to move outside of our traditional look and create something grander. The pictures are worth a gander. Enjoy.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01 ... ints-open/

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 14 Jan 2019, 15:57
by SamBee

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 14 Jan 2019, 15:59
by SamBee
Image

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 14 Jan 2019, 16:59
by dande48
The complex looks really nice. I especially liked the design of Christ surrounded by the apostles in the visitor's center. My biggest complaint with temple design in general, is the golden Angel Moroni on top. I also don't know how I feel about the outward design of the temple, though the inside looks pretty. They are trying new things, which is GREAT, and maybe I'm just not used to it. I could see it growing on me.

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 14 Jan 2019, 18:35
by mom3
I too like/love the Christ surrounded by the Apostles. So cool. Beyond that, I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don't think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn't historic to another country or religion. Don't get me started on "The Golden Guy."

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 15 Jan 2019, 04:59
by SamBee
mom3 wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 18:35
I too like/love the Christ surrounded by the Apostles. So cool. Beyond that, I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don't think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn't historic to another country or religion. Don't get me started on "The Golden Guy."
Pretty much everywhere in Europe is historic. In the case of Rome, I imagine there were plenty of "brownfield sites" around the city. If it replaced a shopping mall, factory or car lot then it was no great loss (I expect if anyone lost their jobs out of it, it would have been before the land was even purchased).

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 15 Jan 2019, 09:33
by dande48
mom3 wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 18:35
I wish we had left the Versailles Temple and Rome Temple off the grid. I may change my mind, but I don't think so. I think we should put our little temples on ground that isn't historic to another country or religion.
We are very universalist in our religion. It's doctrine (or at least pseudo-doctrine) that most every religion had true origins, but apostatized later. So really, Rome has historical/religious significance for us too! Plus, there is the undying Christian prerogative to share the true gospel with the entire world, including other Christians who are "wrong". :P I think the Church specifically built the temple in Rome, not because of the needs of the membership (had friends who served there two years without a single baptism), but because we want to set the Catholics there straight! Are we offended at the incessant conversion attempts by other Christians? Don't we know it!

Do Christians butt heads? Yes they do.

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 15 Jan 2019, 11:10
by Roadrunner
I love the temple and design. I have a bit of an inferiority complex though - and I usually get annoyed when I see the little guy get treated normally but the special guy treated, well special. Rome is special. Snowflake, AZ (home of a somewhat recent small temple) is not. Part of me is thrilled we built a beautiful building in Rome - it will be one of our more visible temples I suspect. On the other hand, will Christ me likely to visit Rome than Dallas because of the fancy building?

It's a nit pick and not totally fair because I don't want plain vanilla temples everywhere either. I do remember that the Gila Valley temple in Arizona was bragged about because it's the home of the Kimballs and the Eyrings and that location got special church permission for a 3 color scheme instead of the standard 2 color scheme for small temples. Rome looks like it was given an open check book.

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 15 Jan 2019, 17:15
by mom3
will Christ me likely to visit Rome than Dallas because of the fancy building?
I have always assumed he'd go to Provo first, cause it's the ugliest of them all. (IMO).

Re: Rome Temple

Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 12:09
by On Own Now
If RMN received a revelation that I should have a temple recommend, in spite of everything, the Rome temple would be on my shortlist of temples to visit. The top five would probably be, in no particular order, Rome, Provo (City Center), DC, SLC and Hawaii.

As for the Church building a temple in (the outskirts of) Rome, I don't see anything wrong with it. There are Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant churches there, Mosques, Synagogues, Kingdom Halls, Buddhist Temples, and Hindu Temples. I'm sure the same thing could be said of Jerusalem and SLC as well, and I think we live in a better time because of it.