We were there! It was beautiful and so wonderful to hear Brother Rasband and his
wife speak. It was also wonderful to see the beautiful example of the saints
when they were asked to give up their seats for the more elderly members who
were standing. A beautiful morning, a beautiful spirit and the chance to have a
beautiful new temple in Fort Collins.
Where is the site for the temple?
My first impression seeing the artist rendition: Wow, times are moving fast. The
surge of missionaries, the new film, and now Temples that look like chapels, and
a member of the seventy doing the dedication. The Saints (and the world) are
being prepared for something bigger. While some are critical I see things
differently and hope I will be ready.
We were there too--a beautiful morning! I wish the DN would have had photos of
the actual event (there were several official photographers clicking away)
instead of only the rendering of the temple, which we have seen many times
before. And Frere Durand--at 30,389 sq feet, it is hardly the size
of a small chapel. In fact, it will be a little larger than the Denver Temple.
What's with the grumpy people in Sacramento? Or maybe it's the same
person commenting twice . . .
KincoMy thoughts exactly.But remember, they do live in California.
Frere Durand, I think you need to check your numbers. A 30,000 sq ft house would
not be considered "large", it would be a mega-mansion! The average home
in the US is about 2,300 sq ft, and high end homes average 5,000 sq ft,
depending, of course, whether you are in expensive Manhattan or . . .
Sacramento. I am sorry that you do not like the Fort Collins Temple. Good news!
You live far, far away and will never have to come here (great sigh of relief
heard from Fort Collins). We are so happy to have a temple in our midst and look
forward to its completion and dedication. Just FYI, the Sacramento
Temple is 19,500 sq ft. and I think it looks lovely.
Just a few miles from the home where I grew up. We used to go on youth temple
trips to Utah once every other year. When I think about how much progress the
Church has made in that area, I'm thrilled.I suppose it should
go without saying that there's nothing "squat and ugly" about this
temple's design, and nothing "trivial" or insulting about having
the ground broken by a member of the Seventy.
It always makes me shake my head when people get critical of a temple size or
design. The idea is to have to opportunity to do The Lord's work. If The
Lord so wished it could be done in a closet. If The Lord accepts the temple and
The Lord asks the Prophet to send the second assistant to the ward librarian to
dedicate it, who are we to question these things. Either the gospels true or it
is not if you truly believe that that it is true (as I do) then we are led by a
true prophet of God, and thus the person sent to dedicate a temple is the exact
right person for the job. If the prophet was the better person for the
assignment The Lord would have said so. Have faith brother the work is in good
For those who are inclined to criticize the architecture and size of any temple,
I offer this short parable by President Boyd K. Packer: "A merchant man
seeking precious jewels found at last the perfect pearl. He had the finest
craftsman carve a superb jewel box and line it with blue velvet. He put his
pearl of great price on display so others could share his treasure. He watched
as people came to see it. Soon he turned away in sorrow. It was the box they
admired, not the pearl."For devoted members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the design and size of a temple are
immaterial. What matters is what takes place inside the temple. For those who
are critical of the Church, your denigrating comments and opinions are likewise
I attend a temple that is about 10,700 sq. ft. in size and love it.The Kirtland Temple is just about 15,000 sq. ft. and it was the source of much
celebration.As others have said, the grandeur of the temple is not
the issue. But the ability to have sacred ordinances close to the people.Has the announcement of new temples become trivial? I don't think
so. But so much more common that perhaps we can miss the significance
thereof.Are temples becoming ubiquitous? I truly hope for that
Obviously, Frere Durand has a decimal point in the wrong place. Common mistake
made by many. Temples range in size from 6,000 sq feet to more than 100,000 sq
ft. As one person said, a closet could be sufficient if the Lord wanted it so.
This is definitely a larger temple. The architecture is interesting
but that is not what is important. I do think the photo gives the wrong
impression which may indicate that Frere Durand and others are more visual than