Conference tecrus::mormonism

	Not only are non-LDS refused entrance to the temple proper,
	but many LDS are also refused entrance.  The requirements are
	plain, and anyone can fulfill the requirements if he or she so
	desires, and would be permitted to enter.

	I don't believe that lawsuits on this matter have arisen.  However,
	there was a lawsuit against the Church a few years ago because the
	Church was requiring that people being hired for a particular position
	had to hold a temple recommend.  (As I recall, the position would be
	a clerk position for Beehive Clothing).  Again, as I recall, the case
	went to the U.S.Supreme Court, where the Court decided in favor of the
	claims of the Church.

	Can anyone give a more reliable account ?

RE: Note 267.0 ISLNDS::COX 

>        Has anyone
>        has ever challenged the LDS church on this policy [of not 
>        admitting non-members to Temples] on the grounds of
>        religious d[i]scrimination?  

The Temples are open to everyone, of every creed, color, national 
origin, etc., etc. There is no discrimination. On the contrary, the 
Temples were built for all mankind - not only those who are alive now, 
but all those who ever lived as well. 

However, you have to meet the requirements first. You have to be
baptized, obey the commandments, and be in good standing for at least
one year. As was pointed out in .1, being LDS is not the thing that
gets you in, it's whether you meet the requirements. To imagine that a
person walking in off the street has to be admitted on demand without
meeting the requirements is silly, and any court action would no doubt
be dismissed as frivolous. 

If a person really wanted to get into the Temple, the last thing 
anyone would do is turn him away. There are a number of people at each
Temple whose calling it is to lovingly explain all this, and to show
the way to eventually get into the Temple. 

/kevin

            It occured  to me that maybe I should make a disclaimer.  NO, I
        do not intend to be the test case in such a challenge! [ O;^) ]
        
        - Ed

    Are all Mormon places of worship called "Temples", and if so, are there
    other buildings that Mormons use as places of [small scale] assembly
    which admit non-Mormons (i.e., ones that do not meet the requirments
    spelled out in reply .2 by MILPND::PERM)?  [This may call for a bit of
    explanation, since I know very little about the formalities of LDS
    worship.]
    
    re .2
    
>However, you have to meet the requirements first. You have to be
>baptized, obey the commandments, and be in good standing for at least
>one year. As was pointed out in .1, being LDS is not the thing that
>gets you in, it's whether you meet the requirements.
    
    	In line with my previous question, is there a Biblical precedent
    for this one year trial period?  What goes on in the temple that
    requires that outsiders and newcomers be excluded?  
    
    	How can one be "in good standing for a least one year" and NOT be a
    member of the LDS?  Suppose one has been "baptized" according to the
    stipulations of another denomination?  Do Mormons make a distinction
    between LDS and non-LDS baptisms?
    
    								-mark.

    Re: Note 267.4 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark,
    
>   Are all Mormon places of worship called "Temples", and if so, are there
>   other buildings that Mormons use as places of [small scale] assembly
>   which admit non-Mormons
    
    Yes. The regular houses of worship are called churches and might be
    compared to Biblical synagogues. They are places of regular worship and
    learning, where all are welcome, members and non-members alike.
    Temples, on the other hand, are sacred edifaces wherein only those who
    are worthy may go. In the Bible, you will find that only certain people
    had the right to enter into the the temple itself. 
    
>   	In line with my previous question, is there a Biblical precedent
>   for this one year trial period?  

    Not that I am aware of. It is simply how the Lord has directed that
    admittance to the temple should be governed at this time. 

>   What goes on in the temple that
>   requires that outsiders and newcomers be excluded?  
    
    Members receive instruction in sacred matters and make sacred covenants
    with God to keep his commandments. Since we believe that no one
    should receive these things or make these covenants with God unless
    they are ready to abide by them, a time of preparation is stipulated.
    
>   How can one be "in good standing for a least one year" and NOT be a
>   member of the LDS?  
    
    They can't.
       
>   Suppose one has been "baptized" according to the
>   stipulations of another denomination?  Do Mormons make a distinction
>   between LDS and non-LDS baptisms?

    Yes. They must be baptized by one who has the proper authority to
    baptize. We believe that this authority is only found in the LDS
    church.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
     

Good responses, Rich.  If I might cover a slight nit ...

>    Yes. They must be baptized by one who has the proper authority to
>    baptize. We believe that this authority is only found in the LDS
>    church.
    
    Actually, the Authority is, of course, held by some who are not
    members of the LDS church.  Keep in mind that the Church is for
    this dispensation.  Its members are from this dispensation (Latter-Day
    Saints).  Priesthood endowment continues beyond this life.  Therefore, 
    those who had Priesthood before and passed on still have it.  They
    still have authority to perform Priesthood ordinances.  This is
    actually an important principle:
    
    The first bestowal of the Priesthood in this dispensation, if I
    remember correctly, was done by one who was not and has not become a 
    member of the LDS Church - John the Baptist.
    
    Have a good one!  :)
    
    Steve

    re .5 (RIPPLE::KOTTERRI)
    
    Hi Rich,
    
    	Thanks for the reply.  (Fancy meeting you here, eh?)  Your answer on
    baptism presents a position that is similar to the one that my own
    religion adheres to, so I don't find it too hard to understand.  I
    asked about it because the wording in the REPLY I was replying to
    sounded a bit more 'liberal', if you know what I mean.
    
    	I suspect that this next question will open a rat-hole, but ... why
    have "temples" in addition to the more synagogue-like churches?  (How
    many Mormon temples are there?  I assume from your wording that there
    is than one.)  After all, the first century Christian congregation (of
    'early day saints') operated without a literal temple.  Doesn't the
    Bible actually teach that the only true 'Christian temple' is spiritual
    and/or heavenly?
    
>    Members receive instruction in sacred matters and make sacred covenants
>    with God to keep his commandments. Since we believe that no one
>    should receive these things or make these covenants with God unless
>    they are ready to abide by them, a time of preparation is stipulated.
    
    	Can you be more specific (either here in the conference or off-line
    by MAIL)?  What is the nature of the sacred covenants that one makes
    with God in the temples; are they not explicitly spelled out either in
    the Bible or in the later Mormon writings?
    
    	BTW, I don't take issue with the idea that "private" instruction --
    i.e., that which is not given to the general public -- for those with
    theocraticly appointed positions of service is necessary, since the
    Witness organization provides special training (schools and seminars)
    for its elders and ministerial servants ("deacons") and its full time
    evangelizers (missionaries and pioneers).
    
    	Once a year in good standing has passed, are all Mormons -- men,
    women, and children -- permitted to attend temple services, or are
    there further stipulations that limit the eligibility of temple
    communicants?
    
    								-mark.

    >	Once a year in good standing has passed, are all Mormons -- men,
    >women, and children -- permitted to attend temple services, or are
    >there further stipulations that limit the eligibility of temple
    >communicants?
    
    The only requirement that the Lord makes on people who want to worship
    in the temple is to hold to the covenants made at baptism.  When a
    person wants to attend the temple they are interviewed by their bishop
    and stake president and a temple recommend is issued.  The recommend is
    granted when the bishop and stake president interview the person and
    determines that they are worthy.  Part of the bishop and stake
    president's calling is to be a judge.  The questions are simply to find
    out if a person is living the commandments they covenanted to live when
    they were baptized into the church.  
    
    As has been noted earlier, no one is denied access.  We invite all to
    be baptized, by those who hold the proper authority, and live worthy
    lives to enable them to enter the House of the Lord.
    
    scott

    re .8 (CSC32::S_JOHNSON)
    
>    The only requirement that the Lord makes on people who want to worship
>    in the temple is to hold to the covenants made at baptism.  When a
>    person wants to attend the temple they are interviewed by their bishop
>    and stake president and a temple recommend is issued.  The recommend is
>    granted when the bishop and stake president interview the person and
>    determines that they are worthy.  Part of the bishop and stake
>    president's calling is to be a judge.  The questions are simply to find
>    out if a person is living the commandments they covenanted to live when
>    they were baptized into the church.
    
    	Does a person have to be judged "worthy" before he or she is
    baptized?  If not, why not?  If a person has to meet some measure of
    lifestyle qualifications before being baptized (and therefore, judged
    "worthy" to some degree), why doesn't the Mormon church accept such a
    one's "yes" to mean "yes" (ref. Mt 5:37), in the sense that his baptism
    signifies that he has already cleaned up his life, and can properly be
    recognized as one of Christ's disciples and representatives?  If there
    is to be a period of 'probation', shouldn't it be BEFORE a person is
    baptized?  This then leads (me) to the question, at what point is a
    person accepted as, or formally recognized by the Mormon church as a
    member of your religion?
    
    	Once a person has been judged worthy (after a year's 'probation')
    and admitted to temple services, there's always a possibility that such
    a one might backslide so that his current course of life isn't much
    better than before he became worthy.  What happens then?  Can temple
    worship privileges be revoked without a person being excommunicated
    entirely (i.e., still allowed to retain regular church privs.)? 
    Without being excommunicated, can a person ever lose his or her temple
    privileges?
    
    								-mark.

    >	Does a person have to be judged "worthy" before he or she is
    >baptized?  If not, why not?  If a person has to meet some measure of
    
    Yes.  A candidate for baptism is interviewed prior to being baptized to
    determine if they are worthy of baptism.
    
    >    one's "yes" to mean "yes" (ref. Mt 5:37), in the sense that his baptism
    >signifies that he has already cleaned up his life, and can properly be
    >recognized as one of Christ's disciples and representatives?  If there
    
    I understand what you are saying. "If I said yes the first time isn't
    that good enough?" might be another way of putting it.  When a person
    joins the church, often times, there are some things that need to be
    learned.  For example, the concept of eternal marriage is introduced in
    the missionary discussions.  There are also several principles that
    need to be learned and it takes time.  After a person is baptized, they
    usually start attending a gospel principles class during sunday school
    instead of gospel doctrine.  This is where a person can learn above and
    beyond what he has learned on his own and what the missionaries have
    taught him.  Another thing the year's "probation" is not standard.  I
    had a friend who attended the temple 6 months after he was baptized to
    get ready to go on a mission.
    
>    baptized?  This then leads (me) to the question, at what point is a
>    person accepted as, or formally recognized by the Mormon church as a
>    member of your religion?
 
    A person is formally recognized as a member of the church when they are
    baptized into it.
    
    When a person backslides after joining the church, it depends on how
    far back they slid. ;).  It mainly depends on what they did to
    backslide.  If by backslide, you mean they go out and commit murder or
    rob someone, then action will probably be taken to deal with the
    person.  If you mean they stop praying or reading scriptures then it is
    more of an individual thing between the person and the Lord.  I guess
    it is like being involved in anything else, if you lose interest, how
    important does it become to you and how much time do you put into it?
    
    A temple recommend expires usually after 4 or 5 quarters.  One quarter
    being 3 months like in the business environment.  When it expires the
    person has to get it renewed by once again being interviewed by a
    bishop and a stake president.  If a person does not get it renewed then
    they cannot attend the temple after it expires.  Yes, the temple privileges
    can be revoked without a person being excommunicated.
    
    scott
    

    Note: I started a response and didn't get to finish it until later.
    Since then some others have responded with some of the same information
    in this reply, but I will post it anyway, for what it's worth.
    
    Re: Note 267.7 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark,
    
>   	Thanks for the reply.  (Fancy meeting you here, eh?)  
    
    Nice to see you here, and welcome!
    
>   why have "temples" in addition to the more synagogue-like churches?  

    A temple is a very special place, just as it was in the days of the
    Bible. Solomon went to a great deal of expense to build the temple in
    Jerusalem, and it was the place that the Lord designated that certain
    sacred ordinances were to be done. Prior to Solomon's temple, the
    Tabernacle in the wilderness served this function. It is the same
    today, temples are built with finer materials and workmanship than
    churches, and they are the only place that certain ordinances may be
    received. 
    
    In addition to the sacred ordinances that take place in the temples,
    they serve as a special house of the Lord, which He himself visits on
    occasion. For example, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith
    and Sidney Rigdon in the Kirkland temple, and there have been other
    instances where the Savior has personally visited these sacred temples.
    Also, other heavenly messengers have appeared in the temples. For
    example, Elijah came in fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy and appeared
    in the Kirkland temple. Gabriel visited Zacharia, the father of John
    the Baptist, while he was serving in the temple. 
    
    The ordinances that pertain to the temple include the following: 
    
    The endowment, consisting of instruction and covenants in sacred gospel
    matters. 
    
    Temple marriage, which is for time and all eternity (not just till
    death do you part). 
    
    Sealing of families together for the eternities. 
    
    Baptism for the dead, where living persons are baptized by proxy for
    those who have died without being baptized, as briefly mentioned by
    Paul in 1 Cor 15:29, and as revealed again in our day. 
    
    These ordinances may not be performed outside the temples. 
        
>   How many Mormon temples are there?  
    
    Currently there are 43 in operation around the world, and a few others
    under construction. In contrast to this, there are probably 10,000 or
    so LDS churches in the world (wild guess on my part, since I don't have
    the numbers with me). 
    
>   After all, the first century Christian congregation (of
>   'early day saints') operated without a literal temple.  Doesn't the
>   Bible actually teach that the only true 'Christian temple' is spiritual
>   and/or heavenly?
    
    In certain times of poverty and persecution of the church, both in
    modern and ancient times, the saints have not been able to have
    temples. In these times, the Lord has revealed that some of the
    ordinances performed in temples may temporarily be performed in certain
    other places. This was the case, for example, with the Tabernacle. It
    would seem that the early Christians must have also had some similar
    arrangement, as they (according to our beliefs) performed baptisms for
    the dead, though the Holy Bible does not give many details on this
    subject. 
    
    Certainly the Holy Bible speaks of a heavenly, or spiritual temple. It
    also speaks of how our own bodies are temples. In the LDS view, these
    are allegories that give an object lesson that relate these things to
    the Holy Temple that the people were familiar with. Evidence that the
    need for temples were not done away with Christ is the prophecy in
    Revelation that, in the last days, a temple will be built in Jerusalem,
    and that Christ would appear suddenly in His Temple. From this, it
    would seem apparent that temples would be built in the latter days,
    which we believe has been and is being fulfilled. 
    
>   What is the nature of the sacred covenants that one makes
>   with God in the temples; are they not explicitly spelled out either in
>   the Bible or in the later Mormon writings?
    
    The sacred covenants made in the temple basically boil down to
    commitments to keep the commandments that God has given in the
    scriptures and through revelation to his prophets. If a person were to
    study the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and
    Pearl of Great Price, as well as the teachings of the modern day
    prophets, he would have a pretty good understanding of the commandments
    that I am referring to. In turn, promises are made by the Lord
    pertaining to eternal life to those who are faithful in keeping these
    sacred covenants. 
    
>   	Once a year in good standing has passed, are all Mormons -- men,
>   women, and children -- permitted to attend temple services, or are
>   there further stipulations that limit the eligibility of temple
>   communicants?
    
    Yes, all may attend who are found worthy to attend the temple. This is
    determined by an interview with the Bishop and also an interview with
    the Stake President or his counselor. Members then receive a recommend,
    which is good for one year, with which they are permitted to enter the
    temples. 
    
    Children may only attend that temple to be sealed to their parents, and
    youth ages twelve and above may also be baptized for the dead.
    Otherwise, youth do not receive all of the temple ordinances until they
    are mature enough, usually about age 19 or 20. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 
    

<<< Note 267.10 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON "You gotta drop the duck to play the saxophone" >>>

>    Another thing the year's "probation" is not standard.  I
>    had a friend who attended the temple 6 months after he was baptized to
>    get ready to go on a mission.

     This is a little hard for me to believe, are you sure ?  When friends
     of mine wanted to go to the temple 11 months after they were baptized,
     prior to the death of one of the members of their family, the case had
     to be presented either to the First Presidency, or the First Council of
     the Twelve Apostles, I cannot remember which, for approval.

     I realize that most people are not ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood
     within 12 months, although that is not a hard and fast rule.  But going to
     the temple in the first year, from what I understand, is pretty tough to
     get around.

     Of course, I could be wrong.

    re .10 (CSC32::S_JOHNSON)/Scott
    
>                    -< I hope this answers your questions >-
    
    	Yes, it answers some of them.  Thank you very much.
    
>    A temple recommend expires usually after 4 or 5 quarters.  One quarter
>    being 3 months like in the business environment.  When it expires the
>    person has to get it renewed by once again being interviewed by a
>    bishop and a stake president.  If a person does not get it renewed then
>    they cannot attend the temple after it expires.  Yes, the temple privileges
>    can be revoked without a person being excommunicated.
    
    	Verrrry interesting.  So what you are saying is that everyone,
    including yourself, undergoes a sort of 'spiritual review' every year
    or so to renew one's temple privileges, correct?  Is this an
    organizational policy, or one that is actually stipulated in Mormon
    writings?  (I have copies of the BoM and D&C, which I'll admit I
    haven't read much of ... but I'd lookemup if they are in there.)
    
    	Is there a relationship between having temple privileges and one's
    'eternal salvation' (if you know what I mean)?
    
    								-mark.

    I believe that you are correct that an exception to the one year
    period must be approved by the First Presidency. I would guess that
    such approval was obtained for the prospective missionary.

RE: Note 267.10    CSC32::S_JOHNSON 

>    Another thing the year's "probation" is not standard.  I
>    had a friend who attended the temple 6 months after he was baptized to
>    get ready to go on a mission.
    
I'm pretty sure the one year is standard. Bishops may issue a 
Baptisms-for-the-Dead-only recommend to anyone over the age of twelve, 
regardless of how long they have been a member. But to receive one's 
own endowment, as is necessary to go on a mission, only the First 
Presidency can authorize exceptions to the one year rule. Perhaps your 
friend was an exception.

There is great wisdom in the one year rule, which I did not understand 
until I actually went to the Temple. During that year, you learn how
to actually live the life of a committed Christian, how to love and
depend on the Lord, how to live with and use the companionship of the
Holy Ghost, and how to keep the baptismal covenants, all or some of 
which may still be foreign to the newly baptized convert.

For that reason, I dislike the word 'probation.' That does not
describe what is going on. I was no more or less worthy to go to the
Temple on day 365 as I was on day 1, but, looking back, I'm very glad
I had that year to achieve some real spiritual growth in the Church in
preparation for the Temple. If I had gone to the Temple after only a
short period as a member, I would not have understood or appreciated
the experience. 

For me, the one year rule was a blessing for which I am grateful.

About revoking Temple privileges, I would like to make a distinction 
among revoking Temple access, revoking Temple blessings, and revoking
Temple ordinances. 

Temple *access* ceases after the expiration of a recommend (at the end
of the twelfth calendar month following the date of issue by the
bishop). It can also cease before then if the bishop determines that a
recommend holder is no longer worthy and requests the return of the
recommend. In any of these cases, the ordinances of the Temple are
still in effect. 

Temple *blessings*, which we receive from the Lord as a result of
these ordinances, are contingent on our worthiness and willingness to
live up to our responsibilities, as always. If we sin, which means
disobeying the Lord, and we are unrepentant, we cannot expect the Lord
to bless us anyway. 

Temple *ordinances*, on the other hand, only cease upon excommunication 
or if the person requests removal of their name from the records of
the Church. In these cases, both blessings and access are denied, the
person is no longer endowed, and if they were sealed (married) in the
Temple, that marriage becomes a civil-type marriage only, which is
valid only until 'death do us part.' 

Once an excommunicated person rejoins the Church through rebaptism,
the previous Temple ordinances can be restored upon approval of the
First Presidency. Then Temple blessings are restored by the Lord in
response to living worthily. Temple access is restored when we are
interviewed for another recommend. 

/kevin

    >or so to renew one's temple privileges, correct?  Is this an    
>organizational policy, or one that is actually stipulated in Mormon    
>writings?  (I have copies of the BoM and D&C, which I'll admit I     
>haven't read much of ... but I'd lookemup if they are in there.) 
    
    I don't think the scriptures come right out and say that we have to be    
interviewed on a yearly basis.  However, they do say that the Lord does  not
have to command us in all things and that we have our agency with  which to
make decisions.  If you consider the writings of the Mormon  prophets and
apostles mormon writings, then yes this procedure is  in the mormon
writings. 
 
 There is not a relationship between temple privileges and eternal 
salvation.  But, there is a relationship between the covenants made by 
attending the temple and exaltation.  I guess in answer to your  question,
there is a relationship between exaltation and exercising the  privilige to
attend the temple.  Having the privileges does nothing for  you.  If I have
the right to drive, but I don't exercise that right, it  gets me nowhere. 
Eternal salvation and exaltation  are different according to the way I see
it.  Everybody is guaranteed  salvation because of the atonement of Christ. 
Not everyone will be  exalted.  I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere in
this conference  if you want more information or references. 

scott

> Everybody is guaranteed  salvation because of the atonement of Christ. 
>Not everyone will be  exalted.

We have to be careful when we use the terms "salvation" and "exaltation",
because different people use them with different meanings, and this
difference is often a cause of confusion between LDS and non-LDS.  I think
Scott used the term "salvation" to refer to the resurrection while Mark used
it in our context of exaltation.  The scriptures, by the way, use the term
"salvation" in our context of "exaltation".

If anyone is interested in discussing the LDS concepts of "salvation" and
"exaltation", let's go to note 121 (Salvation: differing views) to avoid
fragmenting this note.  Some background reading that would be helpful is
the following:

      4.24  Faith
      4.25  Christ is the Gift
      4.26  Salvation is conditional
      4.27  Faith & works
      4.46  The Atonement of Christ
      4.60  The Judgment

    I picked this article up from the lds network distribution list: 
    

    From:	GILROY::"lds-request" 27-SEP-1989 03:54
    To:	[email protected] 
    Subj:	Las Vegas, Nevada Temple to open 

    The following article is from the Church News. 

    Las Vegas temple -- 26th in decade

    November open house, December dedication announced for Church's 43rd
    temple 

    A remarkable decade of temple building will culminate in December with
    the dedication of the Las Vegas Nevada Temple. 

    The First Presidency announced this week that the temple, which will be
    the Church's 43rd in operation, will be dedicated in 11 sessions Dec.
    16-18.  The dedication will be preceded by a public open house Nov.
    16-Dec. 9. 

    Private tours for specially invited guests will be held Nov. 13-15.
    During the open house, the temple will be open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
    except on Mondays, when it will close at 6 p.m. The temple will be open
    Thanksgiving Day, but closed on Sundays. 

    At the beginning of the decade -- the Church's Sesquicentennial --
    there were 17 temples in six nations; by the end of the decade, there
    will be 43 temples in 23 lands.  During the 1980s, 26 temples were
    announced and 26 temples, including those announced previously, were
    dedicated.  That is more than one and a half times as many as in all
    the previous 150 years. (See Temple time line at end of story.) 

    With white cast stone towers and a copper roof, the Las Vegas Nevada
    Temple is nestled against the mountains on the far east side of the
    city.  The edifice is at the foot of Sunrise Mountain on the outskirts
    of a residential area and faces the easterly mountains.  Visible from
    most of Las Vegas Valley, the temple has become a landmark even before
    its completion. 

    Both members and non-members are eagerly watching the progress of the
    temple, said James K. Seastrand, vice chairman of the temple committee. 

    "The Lord has not overlooked our valley.  There are many great LDS
    people here as well as many God-loving people who live apart from the
    lifestyle that many tourists engage in when they come here for
    entertainment," he commented.  "They accept the temple here as a strong
    religious testimony of God." 

    The presence of the temple sends a message to the people of Las Vegas
    that the "Church of Jesus Christ is vibrant and alive, and is making a
    statement for good." 

    Seastrand once observed to city engineers and inspectors who were
    visiting the temple that the statue of the Angel Moroni, facing away
    from the city, "is facing eastward to announce the second coming of our
    Lord, and perhaps to announce the temple eastward to the world." 

    "My personal non-member friends have asked me to be sure to invite them
    to the open house," he continued.  "That seems to be the most common
    reaction among non-members." 

    Visitors to the well-known gaming city are looking at "the magnificent
    white temple with its spires reaching into the air, and they are also
    attracted to it," he added. 

    The temple will be open on Thanksgiving Day to accommodate the many
    visitors and because "the completion of the temple has been a
    thanksgiving festival for the members of the Church in the Las Vegas
    temple district." 

    The temple committee expects 200,000 visitors during the open house.
    Visitors will enter a closed pavilion adjacent to the temple, see
    exhibits on temples, and be introduced to the purpose of temples.  They
    will be able to choose from a menu of information about the Church as
    they await the tour, preparing them spiritually to enter the House of
    the Lord, he said. 

    The building encloses about 60,000 square feet and the tallest of its
    six towers reaches 125 feet high, topped by a ten-foot, gold-leafed
    statue of the Angel Moroni.  Within the temple's basement, main and
    second stories are a baptistry on the backs of twelve sculptured oxen,
    four ordinance rooms, six sealing rooms, a chapel, offices, cafeteria,
    laundry and a children's waiting area.  Off-street parking will
    accommodate about 300 vehicles.  The temple was designed by the Church
    architectural staff, with Tate & Snyder as the local architects. The
    firm of Hogan & Tingey of Centerville, Utah, is the building
    contractor. 

    The Las Vegas Nevada Temple District includes about 54,000 members in
    14 stakes in southern Nevada, and the Blythe California and Kingman
    Arizona stakes. 

    The temple was announced on April 7, 1984 by President Gordon B.
    Hinckley of the First Presidency, who announced four other temples at
    the same time. 

    One of the four, the Portland Oregon Temple, was dedicated Aug. 19-21.
    (See Church News, Aug. 26.)  Two others are under construction -- one
    near Toronto, Ontario in Canada, and another in San Diego, Calif.  The
    fourth, for Bogota, Colombia, is awaiting groundbreaking. 

    A temple has been announced for Guayaquil, Ecuador, and a site has been
    acquired for a temple in Bountiful, Utah, but no temple has been
    announced for that property. 

    In announcing the first of the multiple temples on April 2, 1980, the
    First Presidency stated, "It is our intention to provide temples as
    close as practicable to where the members reside. 

    "The temples will be of a quality that will be pleasing to all, and at
    a cost that will not be burdensome for members to bear.  The character
    and beauty of the new temples will be in keeping with their sacred
    purpose." 

    Throughout the world, the temples of the 1980s stand as a fulfillment
    to that pledge.  And the Las Vegas temple promises to be an appropriate
    capstone of the decade. 

    Temple time line -- 1980-1989 

    April 2, 1980 -- Seven temples announced: Apia, Western Samoa,
    (originally announced for American Samoa); Atlanta, Ga.; Buenos Aires,
    Argentina; Nuku'alofa, Tonga; Papeete, Tahiti; Santiago, Chile; and
    Sydney, Australia. 

    Oct. 27, 1980 -- Tokyo Temple dedicated. 

    Nov. 17, 1980 -- Seattle (Wash.) Temple dedicated. 

    April 1, 1981 -- Nine temples announced: Chicago, Ill.; Dallas, Texas;
    Guatemala City, Guatemala; Frankfurt, Germany; Johannesburg, South
    Africa; Lima, Peru; Manila, Philippines; Seoul, Korea; and Stockholm,
    Sweden. 

    Nov. 16, 1981 -- Jordan River Temple dedicated. 

    March 31, 1982 -- Four temples announced: Boise, Idaho; Denver, Colo.;
    Guayaquil, Ecuador; and Taipei, Taiwan. 

    Oct. 9, 1982 -- Freiberg DDR Temple announced. 

    June 1, 1983 -- Atlanta Georgia Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 5, 1983 -- Apia Samoa Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 9, 1983 -- Nuku'alofa Tonga Temple dedicated. 

    Sept. 15, 1983 -- Santiago Chile Temple dedicated. 

    Oct. 27, 1983 -- Papeete Tahiti Temple dedicated. 

    Dec. 2, 1983 -- Mexico City Temple dedicated. 

    April 7, 1984 -- Five temples announced: Bogota, Colombia; Las Vegas,
    Nev.; Portland, Ore.; San Diego, Calif.; Toronto, Ontario. 

    May 25, 1984 -- Boise Idaho Temple dedicated. 

    Sept. 20, 1984 -- Sydney Australia Temple dedicated. 

    Sept. 25, 1984 -- Manila Philippines Temple dedicated. 

    Oct. 19, 1984 -- Dallas Texas Temple dedicated. 

    Nov. 17, 1984 -- Taipei Taiwan Temple dedicated. 

    Dec. 14, 1984 -- Guatemala City Temple dedicated. 

    June 29, 1985 -- Freiberg DDR Temple dedicated. 

    July 2, 1985 -- Stockholm Sweden Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 9, 1985 -- Chicago Illinois Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 24, 1985 -- Johannesburg South Africa Temple dedicated. 

    Dec. 14, 1985 -- Seoul Korea Temple dedicated. 

    Jan. 10, 1986 -- Lima Peru Temple dedicated. 

    Jan. 17, 1986 -- Buenos Aires Argentina Temple dedicated. 

    Oct. 24, 1986 -- Denver Colorado Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 28, 1987 -- Frankfurt Germany Temple dedicated. 

    Aug. 19, 1989 -- Portland Oregon Temple dedicated. 

    Dec. 16, 1989 -- Las Vegas Temple to be dedicated.