Vancouver temple because of Olympics?
It might just be the conspiracy theorist in me, but I am left wondering…
To what extent did the successful bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics contribute to the decision to put a temple in Vancouver?
Before you jump down my throat, I think it’s an honest question given the drive to the Seattle temple is not really that terrible, and other locations with equal populations of LDS commute much farther to attend the temple.
Popularity: 5% [?]
[?]
Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information.
[More Help]
[More Help]
it’s been in the planning for awhile. well before the olympics.
the drive isn’t so bad for those in the lower mainland, but when you look at people in central BC or on the Island, it’s a whole other story. It is a very long trip.
don’t worry no jumping down your throat. they’ve had the olympics in other places without putting temples there.
16 Jun 2006 @ 09:38 | Permalink
Only three of the seven stakes who will be using the temple are near enough to Seattle that the distance to travel isn’t an issue. Unfortunately, the changes at the border in recent years makes it more of a hassle to get there.
16 Jun 2006 @ 10:03 | Permalink
I’m with Kim on this, it is the border changes and the length of time no required to get through.
I grew up on VI and the temple trip was an all day deal with great cost for ferry and gas. I wonder if they’ll run some type of shuttle from the ferry terminals to the temple.
I now live in Utah and hit the temple early and still make it to work by 8:15 AM. I’m very grateful to live in such a place. I’m also excited for those in Vancouver to have an opportunity to have a temple so close.
My Dad made a pitch to have one of the mini temples placed on VI, but it didn’t pass – not enough memebers.
16 Jun 2006 @ 10:29 | Permalink
Yeah, I understand the whole border issue being a concern, but if they were looking for just *one* more good reason, is it unlikely that someone didn’t include,”…and the Olympics are coming to Van shortly too – think of what a wonderful opporunity it would be to spread the good word if we had a sparkly new temple for people to see there.”?
16 Jun 2006 @ 10:55 | Permalink
That’s the thing, rick. No one will see it. It will be hidden in some trees, away from the highway, away from transit, away from all the venues. Only people coming from the east will see it when flying over it.
16 Jun 2006 @ 11:21 | Permalink
I thought it was on a hill?
16 Jun 2006 @ 11:28 | Permalink
In Langley. Langley is kind of off the beaten path.
16 Jun 2006 @ 11:31 | Permalink
It’s not on a hill per se. It’s on the highest point of elevation in Langley (according to local misionaries).
16 Jun 2006 @ 11:58 | Permalink
Well then my theories are completely unfounded then.
I guess.
For now.
lol
16 Jun 2006 @ 12:58 | Permalink
Maybe they’ll give it a tall spire.
16 Jun 2006 @ 13:03 | Permalink
I hardly think that the Olympics was a selling feature for Church headquarters when deciding on the temple. I would like to think the decision was due to fasting, temple attendance, and missionary work. The drive is not the issue being only 2 hours give or take from Surrey where I live to the temple. It’s the several hours wait in line up that is time consuming. Plus with the increased security at the border now, many of our Saints are no longer able to cross the border even for things that happened in their youth or pre-membership days. Now if you have been charged with ANY criminal offense you no longer can cross the border no matter how minor the offense was.
People that will be coming here to watch and or participate in the Olmpics will be concentrating their time and efforts on the actual events and trying to maneuver through the highways and traffic snarls to get from point A to point B to want to go to some temple.
16 Jun 2006 @ 17:04 | Permalink
Regardless of what reasons there are beyond the stated reasons (# of tithe-payers, # of TR holders, frequency and # of people in the subject area who actually attend existing temples, percentage of capacity that’s actually utilized in the surrounding temples) I’m sure the first presidency takes the matter to the Lord, and they get a yeah/nay from Him before any announcements of a new temple.
I can’t fathom the first presidency authorizing construction of a temple without getting approval or confirmation from Him whose house it is.
I’m also confident that, as in the days of Joseph and Brigham, the Lord is still capable of initiating a conversation and telling the first presidency where to build a temple, without them having to ask first.
Alas, poor Indianapolis. We are surrounded by five temples (Louisville KY, Columbus OH, Detroit MI, Chicago IL, Nauvoo IL), so we won’t get a temple of our own until all five of those are operating at capacity, and we have enough TR-holders and temple-attenders in our own region to support one.
16 Jun 2006 @ 19:12 | Permalink
“…if you have been charged with ANY criminal offense you no longer can cross the border…”
You mean to tell me that criminals are going to Mormon temples? I knew there was something fishy going on there!
(Sally, I’m joking please don’t throw me to hell-fires for the above comment)
Just how fast is the church growing in that area, that they would require the new temple? This would be news to me.
17 Jun 2006 @ 12:12 | Permalink
I think to say that it will be hidden is a bit of a stretch. When the stake president, who drove President Hinkley around that day the choice for land was made, he told us “…the temple will be extrememly well lit. And will be so that all will be able to see it. It is meant to be seen…”, and I believe it will be. I take his statement literally.
In relation to the temple bieng built becaues of, or in part, because of the Olympics is a ‘no issue’ to me. The temple was in planning before the Bids. The temple comes through revelation.
There is a population increase in the lower mainland, and from what I’ve heard from the stake pres, there is going to be spiritual growth in this area within the coming years. I’m greatful for the foresight of the leaders and the temple is in preperation for the great missionary work that will be coming forth.
18 Jun 2006 @ 13:23 | Permalink
Considering the temple will be only two storeys tall and only somewhat larger than Edmonton’s, I do not see how this will be anywhere visible enough to be seen from any prominent vantage point. Given the zoning bylaw limitations on light pollution, I doubt President Hinckely’s statement that it will be seen by all can in any way be taken literally. I certainly will not be able to see it from my house in Lethbridge.
18 Jun 2006 @ 15:03 | Permalink
I find it difficult to believe that the winter olympics would be reason enough to build a temple. Salt Lake had their run with the olympics and would probably find more success in the missionary work department by sending the Mormy Tabs to town for a concert than building a temple only worthy LDS members can enter.
18 Jun 2006 @ 15:50 | Permalink
I don’t doubt the prophets statement at all. And I can’t wait to see it accomplished. :)
19 Jun 2006 @ 10:00 | Permalink
“…the winter olympics would be reason enough to build a temple”
As do I Nikki, hence my asking if it *contributed* to the decision.
19 Jun 2006 @ 11:38 | Permalink
The winter olympics might have had a little bit to do with the TIMING, but they’re not that long an event, so I can’t see a decision being based on that factor. Seems like a stretch to me. I think it’s 80-90% coincidence.
22 Jun 2006 @ 04:17 | Permalink
Matt,
So you honestly believe that persons in Shanghai or Aba will be able to see the Langley temple from where they live? Do you believe that Awá—who have never been outside of the Amazon—will ever see the Vancouver temple?
22 Jun 2006 @ 07:49 | Permalink
I was at GM place when President Hinkley spoke I think it was in 1995 and he said that one day Vancouver will have a temple. As it has been stated earlier there are many who have problems crossing the border. It took my Mom a long time to get permission to cross the border to be able to see my baby! I am going to BYU-Idaho but I’m from BC.
25 Jun 2006 @ 18:30 | Permalink
I think the Lord has a bigger vision than we can comprehend. Yes, there are some border issues BUT our stake president told our ward that the prophet sees great things (i.e missionary work) happening in our area and the temple will help with this. There are fast tracking the temple process here and the temple committee is in daily communication with our stake president. The prophet wants this temple fast tracked so he can dedicate it! The prophet’s words. It is a very exciting time to be in BC!
As for whether EVERYBODY” can see it. Of course not, Kim, don’t be silly. But this temple is being built to be seen and noticed and will not be hidden behind bushes/hedges!
20 Aug 2006 @ 21:31 | Permalink
I wasn’t being silly, Michelle. I was responding to Matt’s interpretation of President Hinckley’s words.
21 Aug 2006 @ 05:43 | Permalink
“The prophet wants this temple fast tracked so he can dedicate it!”
Is this some sort of a comment on the (un)healthiness of the prophet?
21 Aug 2006 @ 08:35 | Permalink
Well, didn’t the prophet just turn 96? Correct me if I’m wrong! Of course, we all heard he had some surgery a bit ago as well. Not speculating on his health though.
22 Sep 2006 @ 19:13 | Permalink
I drive down Hwy 1 alot, and it seems that with a steeple, the new temple will be visible from the freeway right before you get to the 204 st overpass going westbound. It will be cool to see.
6 Oct 2006 @ 15:48 | Permalink
It still involves a ferry ride for people to attend either the temple in Seattle or the proposed one in Vancouver. However, if going to Seattle you can leave right from downtown Victoria’s Inner Harbour, get off in Port Angeles and drive the short ways to the Seattle temple. Much less time consuming than driving from Victoria to Swartz Bay then traveling to Tswassen and then into Vancouver. Then again who wants to have to bother with customs and the worlds longest and most stringently defended border. I say that actually travel either way is 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of t’other.
24 Mar 2007 @ 17:46 | Permalink
Actually, Langley is not that far from Surrey, directly accesible off the HWY # and is fast becoming a satellite suburb of Vancouver and area.
24 Mar 2007 @ 17:49 | Permalink
Not only is it not far from Surrey, it borders Surrey. It’s been a satellite suburb for years.
24 Mar 2007 @ 21:09 | Permalink
Yes, so I guess we can agree that the temple will not be situated in some out of the way back water area. Probably fit in nicely with all the Jehovahs Witnesses and Sikh temples that are in BC
24 Mar 2007 @ 23:04 | Permalink
Hey Rick, when you say “the Seattle temple” that is the one that is actually in Spokane, is it not? Also is prospective numbers of attendees not an issue when temple building? If so, why did Cardston get one before Edmonton? It certainle wasn’t on the basis of population density. Two more questions: 1) how many mormons do you suppose are in BC, and separately for AB. 2) What percentage of people identifying as Christian do you believe are mormon?
Anyone can answer these for me. In fact the more responses the better.
25 Mar 2007 @ 17:13 | Permalink
There is one in Spokane and one in Seattle.
The Cardston one was built first because that’s where all the Alberta Mormons lived after WWI, when the temple was announced. Any population criteria would be based on existing Mormons more than prospective Mormons.
Most recent published internal data suggests there are 28,492 Mormons in BC and 71,205 Mormons in Alberta.
25 Mar 2007 @ 19:19 | Permalink
Interesting! Do you suspect the mormon faithful are growing in numbers, or declining in Canada? Can you save me time and direct me to where I might find statistics to verify growth? I would also like to determine where mormonism ranks amongst all other Christian faiths, for growth.
25 Mar 2007 @ 20:20 | Permalink
I know of nowhere online that shows membership growth in Canada. I know of only where one can read the most recent statistics.
In my opinion, I think there is very little national growth, if any at all. For example, to my knowledge, there has not been a new stake created in Canada since the 1990s.
25 Mar 2007 @ 20:29 | Permalink
Much like myself, you seem to be a studious man blessed with an inquisitive nature so why do you figure that there is very little, to no growth, nationally in the mormon faith? Also, please tell me where I might review these latest stats.
25 Mar 2007 @ 22:10 | Permalink
Because Canada has been at around 170,000 for several years now.
Here is where you can find membership information for Canada.
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
26 Mar 2007 @ 05:50 | Permalink
Thank you for the link. Just as soon as I have the time, I will try to also identify another, non-partisan, link to compare and contrast this information against that of an independent (not LDS) source. Unfortunately, I doubt I will get to it today as I have a contract to deliver on at the MHC (Medicine Hat College) at 2:00 pm today.
Thanks again!
26 Mar 2007 @ 08:48 | Permalink
Oops! I forgot to ask, do you, or anyone else on this site, posses any rationale for why it is that the number of mormons in Canada has stalled at 170,000?
If it has been at this number for as you say “number of years now”, why decide to build a temple in Vancouver. It doesn’t seem warranted since, if there has been no growth, people are still being well served by their stakes?!
Maybe there is something to Rick’s theory regarding the timing of temple building and the 2010 Olympics in Whistler after all. I’ll bet Coca-Cola will be the biggest sponsor as well.
26 Mar 2007 @ 09:01 | Permalink
John,
There could be a lot of reasons. Perhaps many LDS from the east have moved out west to the Vancouver area, so while the country demographic hasn’t changed, perhaps the regional demographics have.
26 Mar 2007 @ 10:03 | Permalink
Does it really matter why Vancouver is getting a temple? It should only matter that we are. As for the membership not changing in Canada, how often is that site that was mentioned updated? A ward out here was just split yesterday (Sunday) into 2 wards now. We had 4 baptisms in our ward alone in last 2 months so the membership IS changing just maybe not being recorded.
The temple was decided on being built here long before it was voted to have the Olympics here and to say that is the only reason that we are getting it is very immature and pure envy/jealousy on your parts. Many of our members here are made up of immigrants who can not travel into the US to attend a temple session making it difficult to travel to Alberta to go to the temple. And now with having to get passports to cross the border it will restrict even those who go now.
And by the way John 2010 Olympics was given to Vancouver NOT Whistler as you mentioned and I wonder what does it matter if Coco-Cola is a sponsor of the Olympics? What does that have to do with Vancouver getting the temple or hosting the Olympics?
26 Mar 2007 @ 11:44 | Permalink
Bravo, Mum. You are right. Being a British Columbian by birth and nature, I was absolutely thrilled and ecstatic that Vancouver is getting a temple. It has nothing to do with the Olympics. It has to do with the Lord’s will. And perhaps as well, to make it easier for members to attend, since with the new rules for travelling to the States will probably diminish the ability for members to get to Bellevue as regularly.
26 Mar 2007 @ 12:11 | Permalink
I just checked out the link. (#36)
I find it interesting that they are listing the number of ‘congregations’ rather than the number of wards or stakes.
Subtle mainstreaming of terminology.
Watch out. Soon you’ll be calling your bishop a minister…
:P
26 Mar 2007 @ 12:35 | Permalink
“Watch out. Soon you’ll be calling your bishop a minister…”
Or perhaps pastors:
From The Articles of Faith #6:
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
26 Mar 2007 @ 13:11 | Permalink
Well, come time for General Conference and we can watch some T.V. Evangelists too!
26 Mar 2007 @ 13:47 | Permalink
Come to think of it, perhaps the temple is being built because of the increased faith of the LDS in the area (I mean, they really do beileve that they will finally get a Stanley Cup this year!)
26 Mar 2007 @ 13:49 | Permalink
And elsewhere in Canada, wards are combined and branches are disbanded. Hence, very little, if any national growth. JM may be right that it’s just a matter of simply transient demographics.
26 Mar 2007 @ 14:08 | Permalink
But Vancouver still deserves a temple. I am so glad there will be one there.
JM
LOL, ok, could be. :) Stanley Cup? I can’t even recall the last time we got it! (Yes I still think in terms of being a British Columbian). I do remember when it was close though!
26 Mar 2007 @ 14:46 | Permalink
This may be applicable to this line of thought:
Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.
~ (Romans 5:3–4).
26 Mar 2007 @ 15:02 | Permalink
Good scripture. Though I don’t know how much the BCers have suffered. Ok, well the flooding, yes.
26 Mar 2007 @ 15:13 | Permalink
Mary,
I don’t think Vancouver has ever won a cup. If Calgary doesn’t make the playoffs or gets booted out, I’ll be hoping the Canucks finally get theirs! They’ve been playing pretty good this year. Perhaps on account of the increased faith of the fans :-)
26 Mar 2007 @ 17:30 | Permalink
Oh have they? I have to admit I am not a great Hockey watcher (or any type of sport watcher) so I don’t keep up unless our team (local wherever I am) gets in the playoffs, then I pay attention. That’s good! Good to see the Canucks are playing well :) Lol, you think it’s the increaed faith? You never know :)
Want to hear something funny and supersticious? Well, whenever (yes literally whenever) I watch a home team game, in person, they always lose. My high school boy’s basketball team won the triple A championships the year I graduated ONLY because I wasn’t there. Ok, maybe not really. But it was fishy, every time I went to a game, they lost. When I didn’t, they won. And that has held true for every other time I have gone to see a local team (that I want to win) play. I don’t know what it is! haha.
26 Mar 2007 @ 17:39 | Permalink
Whos Sally, slow your mustang down. We don’t need any grannies getting in a dither over simple suppositions. I never claimed the 2010 Olympics was the only reason Vancouver was getting a temple. I also never said the 2010 Olympics were not granted to Vancouver. Though you must concede most of the winter events, as well as, the Olympic Village will be in Whistler! Aside from that, I am also not jealous that Vancouver will be getting a temple. Maybe Vancouverites will be jealous that in fact the temple will be situated in dusty ol’ Langley, but not I. Like I said it will fit in very well with the Sikh temples in BC.
Just as Mary, I too am a BC transplant; Island boy in fact. Oak Bay, Victoria to be precise. Yes by Birth, though I am entirely unfamiliar with the nature claim she makes. Is that somehow set apart (aside from the geographical divide of the Rockies, and the Strait of Georgia in my case), from the nature of the rest of the Canadian populace (allowances for Francophone Quebec set aside).
The changing demographics of Mormons between provinces is an interesting point; I wonder if we can prove that?! For instance, can you produce numbers that would suggest that more mormons from elsewhere in Canada are moving into BC? If that is true, what happens to temples in other areas as membership leaves? Is there justification to continually throw money at a temple which may now be serving only 50% of it’s previous total. Seems like a waste of the faithful’s money. Maybe they will close these temples?!
Someone told me Coca-Cola was owned by mormons. So I was having a little fun with the irony of sponsorship by a mormon owned soft drink corporation, in light of the temple being built in BC and the 2010 Olympics. As well as, the irony that if it is true that Coca Cola is a mormon enterprise it is a drink that a mormon will not consume themselves and yet have no qualms about making it available to other people. Then when people get sick and die early deaths you’ll stand in proxy for the salvation of their souls. Yet, you contributed to their deaths in the first place – that’s ironic!
Its called humour Sally, try it on sometime. You might find it a tight fit at first but with a bit of wriggling I think you’ll learn to enjoy it.
By the way, nice pic . . .you are a hot granny!
26 Mar 2007 @ 18:55 | Permalink
John said: “Whos Sally, slow your mustang down. We don’t need any grannies getting in a dither over simple suppositions.”
She is a grandmother but not a “Granny”. She’s a hip, young grandma with a lot of energy, oomph and chicness. And she has a great sense of humour. And a husband who loves and supports her and knows her for being a wonderful, strong and loving person, as do all of us who know and love her (and have the honour of being her children and children in law and grandchildren).
Coca-Cola was never owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. The church used to, many years ago, possibly own shares in Coca-Cola as did many many others (individuals and companies and organisations) who are/were not members of the Church(investments, known as Mutual Funds and stocks). And Latter day Saints can, and do consume coca-cola and no, it does not keep them from attending the temple or taking the sacrament or holding callings or sustaining their leaders and people called to new positions. Personally, I find cola drinks distasteful, but then I don’t drink pop.
Check this (non LDS site) for reference:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp
Another urban myth put to rest. Common sense dictates that all such claims be researched thoroughly.
Boy, I wish I owned shares in Coca-Cola.
26 Mar 2007 @ 19:44 | Permalink
John, first of all I am a Nana not a granny.. there is a huge difference! Grannies are little old grey haired stooped ladies that need help crossing the street. Nanas do not have grey hair.. they may have extremely light blonde hairs on their heads but never grey. At 5′10″ I would hardly be described as little or stooped nor do I need help crossing the street.
Now onto your other comments in regards to the temple. You are the one that said and I quote “Maybe there is something to Rick’s theory regarding the timing of temple building and the 2010 Olympics in Whistler after all. “…Actually only the skiing events will be held in Whistler, the remaining ones will be in the Lower Mainland and that still does not make it a Whistler Olympic.
There is not a single Vancouverite that is jealous that a temple will be built in Langley and not in “their” city.. not one of us would begrudge driving 20 minutes or so rather then a 2 hour wait at the border crossing. And I don’t happen to think Langley is dusty… try living in Saskatchewan and then tell me about dirty dusty cities.
As to whether or not temples will close that is up to the Lord not to us mere mortals. When we lived in Regina one of our dear friends was the General Manager of the Coca Cola plant there. A person’s job/career has nothing to do with their faith. Well maybe if you were a stripper in a bar it might be frowned upon. And don’t lump all members of this church in the same category of “all” Mormons… There is no law that forbids drinking of coke products.. I drink diet coke. My husband is a huge fan of drinking regular coke. We have yet to be hung at high noon.
People will die of second hand smoke long before they die of drinking coke. My dad died at the age of 59. My sister at the age of 46. I have 4 aunts that died of cancer in their 40’s. I stood in proxy for each of these women and Kim stood in proxy for my dad. All was done in honour of them because we loved them with all our hearts. I did not contribute to their deaths. And yes I do know you meant “you” as in general terms when you said you contributed to their deaths. People have agency to choose their lives and how they will live it. Being a member of this church does not change that.
And I happen to have great amounts of humour. After all you are still breathing after having called me a granny aren’t you?
26 Mar 2007 @ 19:58 | Permalink
There you go again Mary, back on the attack I won’t even try to address your defense of grannies. Mostly, because I agree with you, or at the very least can find no good reason to refute your claims. Like I told you, “someone told me” . . .from their I took a playful jab at the mormon faith. My my my don’t get so defensive; one might think you protest to much. After all, I tempered my comment with the disclaimer that it was humour. Humour never requires research; I don’t have the time to waste on that.
As for you Mustang Sally, I imagine I am still alive because I told you, “you are one hot granny” which places you quite a bit higher than a stooped over gray haired li’ ol’ lady from Pasedena. Besides, what are you going to do, set some mormon thugs upon me to try and give me a beat down? Or better yet, will you have my eternal spirit cast to hell? OOOOOO boogity, boogity boogity! Sheesh! Just be glad I didn’t ask to see your “magic underwear” (rofling w/tears streaming from my eyes).
However no matter what the church’s involvement or investments they should be inline with the doctrine; which again should be universal to members and absolute. Or, is what good for the goose only good for the gander if there is no profit to be made.
Anyway, good to have you join the fray. I was going to leave as I was no longer having any fun (having not been able to find an intellectual equal to joust with), but your presence may cause me to stay . . .just a little bit longer. Besides, I am still following up on some leads Kim gave me . . .and I just don’t have time to bicker with biddies.
Sleep tight
26 Mar 2007 @ 22:05 | Permalink
John said: “There you go again Mary, back on the attack I won’t even try to address your defense of grannies. ”
uh, yeah…ok. Defending my mother in law, not grannies. I love her to pieces and she’s one of my most favourite people in the world. And I happen to know she doesn’t like being called a granny.
27 Mar 2007 @ 06:05 | Permalink
27 Mar 2007 @ 07:50 | Permalink
I’ve lived in both Saskatchewan and the GVRD, and I have to say that Greater Vancovuer is by far the dirtiest of the two. I will concede that Saskatchewan was dustier, but given how little rain Vancouver had last year and how much rain Saskatchewan had last year, it was probably neck and neck last summer.
Because a decision can be made before an announcement is or before land is decided upon. That doesn’t meet the requirement of evidence but it does address the question.
27 Mar 2007 @ 07:56 | Permalink
lol. You are an interesting one. I don’t look for offence, and perhaps one day you might want to meet me in person (not that I desire to at all) to see who I really am. Nor am I distressed. You read far too much into my words. Not sure why. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I defend those I love. Always. I was not offended.
27 Mar 2007 @ 08:33 | Permalink
Certainly a decision can be made before an announcement (I had, in fact, already considered this), yet without proof
. . .weeell, you’ve already pointed out the end result of that. I agree with you, we come up short of evidence! Then I stopped, and gazing thoughtfully off into the distant bright light of the incandescent bulb flickering epileptically across the room. I was, quite suddenly, taken aback by what should’ve been obvious from the very beginning. Is evidence really necessary? After all, the blog site is merely “Our Thoughts” (as opposed to our proof), God imbued each of us with an individual conscience. Each is entitled to their own thoughts.
Then this epiphany climaxed with the realization that it is not up to anyone of us to change the other’s mind/open their eyes as all knowledge comes through Him alone and He will grant it in His own time.
In the immortal words of Jimmy Page & Robert Plant, “Your time is gonna’ come” from the album Led Zeppelin I
27 Mar 2007 @ 09:14 | Permalink
Sask. has nothing to do with it, that was your mom’s contribution. Nor was I alluding that Langley was dirty! I never even used the word as a descriptive element while referring to Langley. Having lived in the Fraser Valley for a number of years, while attending university in Vancouver, it has been my experience that Langley is dustier than Vancouver. This is attributable to the preponderance of farmland in Langley, as well as its further geographical location from the ocean and its accompanying breeze.
One thing for absolute certain is that Victoria is cleaner (less dusty) than all priorly mentioned cities or provinces, in what has degenerated to a ridiculously inane thread.
27 Mar 2007 @ 09:24 | Permalink
More about Coca-Cola: Coca-Cola and Diet Coke have exactly 45.6 mg caffeine per 12-oz. serving. Mormons have always recognized that the “abuse” of certain drugs is different than using those drugs for legitimate medical reasons. It is also irrelevant what most mormons claim as their reason for avoiding caffeine. The “Word of Wisdom” itself gives no indication of the reasons this substance should be avoided; it only states that it should be.
HOWEVER!
So I suppose, it can be construed, if you do not live according to the spirit of the word of wisdom, you are not entirely living within the wisdom of your faith.
Δεν ισχύει αυτό; (is this not true)
28 Mar 2007 @ 08:58 | Permalink
What can be construed is that according to the above the “spirit of the Word of Wisdom” is different for everyone.
28 Mar 2007 @ 09:05 | Permalink
You are without a doubt (in my mind) correct again!
However, how is it the church (financial leaders) can reconcile it’s financial interests in Coca-Cola, in light of a leadership appointed for their knowledge of doctrine & enlightened wisdom of the mormon faith & God. I, for one, would suspect that they (the leaders) might hold themselves/the church up to a higher standard, considering the faithful may be looking toward them as examples of living by adherence to the word of wisdom (mormon basic law of health).
Add to this the fact Suzanne Armitage (an LDS member) states, “ the body is a temple” scripture found in the Bible and we begin to have a clearer understanding of the Church’s emphasis on being vigilant of what we ingest and on the wellbeing of our bodies.”
Did ya’ get the part,”Church’s emphasis on being vigilant of what we ingest and on the wellbeing of our bodies.”?
So whats the deal with being financially invested in Coca-Cola. Does the LDS church also have any tobacco investments? Hold up on that; I will research it myself and get back to you.
Don’t be too defensive of the church on this, after all I am certain (personal knowledge) that other Christian faiths are also not living up to their own doctrine as espoused by their respective leadership. It appears that all of Christianity has become more interested in saving money, than souls. Especially the televangelists! Are there any mormon televangelists? Out to make a buck off the faithful (and the general community at large).
While the faithful who live in rundown clapboard houses (surrounded by equally derelict houses) with shabby narrow yards, backing onto dirty muddy alleys, in old neighbourhoods so close to the business core that enterprise has crept onto the very street upon which they live, give to the church more than they can afford to give – the fat-cats at the top of religion’s food chain invest (sow) the cash and reap the harvest by paying themselves good salaries (which are income tax-free), write off nearly all their expenses (trips too), live in opulent homes in the nicest of neighbourhoods and continually breed guilt amongst the faithful who are just not quite yet down to their last two mites to give.
My point being that while the faithful live in squalor, the leadership takes their money and invests it (in interests that are not even doctrinally sound or in any case of sound wisdom according to the faith) to make the church even more financially powerful, without financially caring for the faithful (especially the working poor families).
It appears to be Fascism (do/live what/as we say, not as we do), practiced by religion. Sheesh, how about a little Socialism to even up the haves (clergy) and the have nots (laity)?! How long does one go on supporting a system which is holding them down. God loves (wants the best for) you too. He didn’t intend you to be subjugated by intermediaries claiming to stand between you and Him.
28 Mar 2007 @ 13:16 | Permalink
I have never seen any credible evidence that firmly establishes the Church is financially invested in Coca-Cola.
28 Mar 2007 @ 13:22 | Permalink
It is owned by (wealthy) Mormons in Lethbridge!
But what about the rest of what I had to say?
Are you ambivalent concerning the financial disparity between the laity (yourself included) and the clergy? Don’t you think God has prepared you with a sound mind and good health, and provided you with employment because He wants to improve your (yes, you!) lot in life personally?! “cause He doesn’t require these intermediaries to act on your behalf. They don’t know whats best for you, God does – and He provided you with the aforementioned gifts, not to squandor, to flourish.
28 Mar 2007 @ 13:41 | Permalink
Honestly? I think it’s blatant threadjacking and is ruining the integrity of the topic originally posted. Feel free to start your own blog if you’d like to get feedback on rehashed issues not found in current threads here.
28 Mar 2007 @ 13:46 | Permalink
John… if you are going to quote facts you should research them more thoroughly.. while I was in the strawberry patch I wanted to make note the following about the Olympic events… MOST are not being held in Whistler and the Olympic Village is not a sport last time I checked although I am sure lots of “sports” will be played out in the Village..
Whistler will host the alpine skiing events.
Blackcomb Mountain will host the sledding one such as bobsled and luge.
Cypress Mountain will host the freestyle skiing (aerials, moguls, and ski cross), and all 2010 snowboard events (half-pipe, parallel giant slalom, snowboard cross).
Vancouver will host the opening and closing exercises, all hockey, curling, figure skating and speed skating, ice sledge hockey, and the Olympic village for the paralympic as well as curling for the paralympic (seeing as how you want to include the Olympic Village as being in Whistler)
Oh and I do not mind you posting on my blog, I welcome all messages but if you are going to post I would appreciate you posting something relevant to what the original message was. After all what does Coca Cola have to do with the end table I just bought?
30 Mar 2007 @ 15:29 | Permalink
I never said the Olympic Village was an event, I merely pointed out that it will not be in Vancouver. The Vancouver City website’s page describing the Olympics clearly states 10 events will be in Whistler & only 6 in Vancouver, C’mon girlfriend do the math (rofling)!
Last time I took a helicopter over Blackcomb I had to drive to Whistler first. So, any events at Blackcomb, count as Whistler oriented. I agree Vancouver will get the opening and closing ceremonies (gotta’ pay for that new roof on BC Place somehow), and its only fitting as Vancouver is the Gateway to the Pacific (you know gate . . open & close . . .aw, nevermind).
I read that Whistler will be hosting the special/para – Olympics. Please direct me to your source for this information.
ttfn
30 Mar 2007 @ 18:54 | Permalink
Hey you all I just know by faith that the temple will be built in Langley / Vancouver B.C. although it still has not had final Langley city approval yet. But Heavenly Father has chosen this place for the saints in Vancouver and surrounding areas
15 Jul 2007 @ 21:24 | Permalink
Sounds like Heavenly Father better inform the Langley City Council.
16 Jul 2007 @ 08:14 | Permalink
I served in the Alaskan-Canadian Mission (hence North Van and Vancouver, etc., 1962-1964, and there was only one ward in Vancouver back then. And only one ‘real’ chapel in the area, the Vancouver Ward.
The area is very, very blessed to have this temple. We want to come to the open house and tour the mission field again.
Does anyone have any idea as to a ‘guess’ when the open house might be?
17 Feb 2009 @ 16:54 | Permalink
We actually just had a fireside last night (Sunday the 22nd Feb 2009) in regards to this. It was supposed to be in November of this year but we have had 2 setbacks.. one the huge amounts of snowfall this winter which then turned into record breaking amounts of rainfall and then secondly the company that had been doing the heating/AC work went bankrupt and time was taken to get new bids in and a new company in place. They are still hoping and praying for the end of this year.
23 Feb 2009 @ 18:04 | Permalink
Looks like the Open House may be pushed back until after the Olympics (February/March 2010).
10 Mar 2009 @ 16:54 | Permalink
Looks like the temple got its Angel Moroni yesterday.
11 Mar 2009 @ 08:05 | Permalink