Vatican, We Have a Problem

4 October 2008 @ 11:12 am | 8 comments

Not really but the Pope will be getting a new neighbor with an LDS temple in Rome. That will be an interesting rollout. Now the Catholic Church can continue to hinder the work for the dead in its own backyard.

In addition, President Monson announced four more temples in:

Just as President Monson announced these temples, the Newsroom wasted no time in shooting out a press package with detailed releases on each temple as you can read at the above links.

The internet is the place to be for General Conference.

(Possibly) Related posts:

  1. LDS Church announces open house and dedication for Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple
  2. President Monson to visit President Obama Tomorrow

Tags: , ,





  1. Ardis Parshall’s avatar

    Ardis Parshall on 4 October 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Gee. The Catholics have had a full cathedral here in Salt Lake City since 1909, and somehow we manage to get along just fine. When Pres. Hinckley’s funeral cortege passed the cathedral in February, they rang their bells in tribute to him. The Catholic bishop here also carefully, charitably, and diplomatically explained the recent decision on allowing mass copying of Catholic records, and distinctly informed Latter-day Saints that records of their ancestors would continue to be provided by individual request.

    I think we should be able to announce, build, open, and operate a temple in Rome without unnecessarily making it a point of friction between Mormon and Catholic. That could start with “soft answers” here.

  2. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 4 October 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Thank Ardis.

    You’re right that I shouldn’t make it a focus point of friction between the churches. But despite the LDS Church’s best efforts to be ecumenical and support the local Catholic Church I think the Catholic Church on a broader level hasn’t been very good at reciprocating. But then, I haven’t heard about these clarifications from the local Bishop.

    I shouldn’t have overstated the issue but it’s still interesting that a LDS temple will be in Rome.

  3. Nick Literski’s avatar

    Nick Literski on 4 October 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Nicely said, Ardis. There has been substantial cooperation between the Catholic and LDS communities, notwithstanding the “mass records copying” decision. There’s no sense opening the conversation with a snarky statement of distrust.

  4. David B’s avatar

    David B on 5 October 2008 at 3:01 pm

    David–you might want to re-check the definition of “ecumenical”. One of the two widely used definitions doesn’t really apply here; for the one that does, the Catholic and Mormon churches are purposefully both rather *anti*-ecumenical (and good for them/us, i say).

  5. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 5 October 2008 at 10:36 pm

    David B-

    Thanks for alerting me to another definition of “ecumenical.” Looking at this definition of ecumenical, it looks like I’m okay using as I did in the generic “can’t we all get along” sense but it’s good to know it can mean much more than that. I’ll try to be more careful.

    And as you say, good for them and us being anti-ecumenical. I don’t fault the Catholic church for being so just as we are. I just felt that their active opposition to collecting genealogy records was an uncalled for thumb in the eye.

    I realize that the LDS Church has made great efforts to be supportive and get along with the Catholic Church and its charities (like giving a generous donation to the cathedral that Ardis mentions). I’m all for that. I recognize that the Catholic church has been very influential on important issues (like life and marriage) which is great, especially since it holds lot more influence than the LDS Church.

    Perhaps I could have done it in a better way, but I thought it was worth pointing out that just a few months after the Catholic Church made its move to not cooperate with genealogy records, the LDS Church announces a temple in Rome. “Interesting,” I thought.

    I wasn’t out to attack the Catholic Church.

    So I’ll go lick my wounds as I bone up on future posts knowing that historians and linguists are on the prowl. ;-)

  6. Kim Siever’s avatar

    Kim Siever on 6 October 2008 at 5:52 am

    Thanks for the nod, David, but Cardston will still be our temple. It’s 45 minutes away, compared to Calgary’s 2.5 hours.

  7. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 6 October 2008 at 7:17 am

    Sorry for being on top of everything else an ignoramus on Canada too Kim.

    I heard Alberta and I thought meant it was close to you. I guess not that close.

    This post is a classic.

  8. Kim Siever’s avatar

    Kim Siever on 6 October 2008 at 8:28 am

    Hey, it’s closer than the Edmonton temple. Don’t get me wrong; I am still excited about the new temple. 10 years ago, Canada had 2 temples. Now we “have” 8. :)