If the Church bought the Kirtland Temple

[Duncan]

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

I would bet they would, especially since they've turned Provo's tabernacle into a temple and rebuilt the Nauvoo temple. I'd think there would be a lot of excitement at bringing the Kirtland Temple back into the church...as a temple. 

[bluebell]

I think they'd keep it as a tourist attraction.

[strappinglad]

Does anyone know how much land would come with it?  I think the building would stay a tour-able place, tabernacle-esque if you like.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

I agree.  It serves a valuable historical purpose now, and has great missionary potential.  We need to take it over and make sure that it functions much like our many tabernacles.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree.  It serves a valuable historical purpose now, and has great missionary potential.  We need to take it over and make sure that it functions much like our many tabernacles.

i'm sure it wouldn't go quietly in the financial night

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

I think it would remain the same, it was not like other Temples that came later. However some of the most extraordinary things happened in it. Not to mention D&C 110, I believe, the first, "Dedicatory Prayers" for any Temple, Given by Revelation.

[Avatar4321]

I suspect when we obtain it the Lord will reveal the purpose to everyone's shock

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

"If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it?"

Yup. It would belong to the true Mormons.

 

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

I live near Kirtland. We use the temple all the time. Youth conference. Devotional. Even an annual sacrament meeting for high school seniors. The CoC is very accommodating. 

If the temple changed hands the visitor center next to it would tell a somewhat different story, but otherwise nothing would change. It's not like we could adapt the building to function like a modern temple. That would destroy the historical beauty. It's also a designated historical site so there'd be legal challenges  Do people seriously want to gut the pews and podiums where the early saints worshipped just to have another temple?  We could build a modern temple cheaper and better next door  

For me, the best thing about the current ownership structure is the building ties the CoC to Joseph and the restoration and therefore to some degree to us. The lds church taking over the temple would be a great loss in that sense. I hope it never happens (unless it happens because the two churches rejoin). 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Buckeye

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I live near Kirtland. We use the temple all the time. Youth conference. Devotional. Even an annual sacrament meeting for high school seniors. The CoC is very accommodating. 

If the temple changed hands the visitor center next to it would tell a somewhat different story, but otherwise nothing would change. It's not like we could adapt the building to function like a modern temple. That would destroy the historical beauty. It's also a designated historical site so there'd be legal challenges  Do people seriously want to gut the pews and podiums where the early saints worshipped just to have another temple?  We could build a modern temple cheaper and better next door  

For me, the best thing about the current ownership structure is the building ties the CoC to Joseph and the restoration and therefore to some degree to us. The lds church taking over the temple would be a great loss in that sense. I hope it never happens (unless it happens because the two churches rejoin). 

That's kind of what I was thinking, own it but leave it the way it is, less feet stepped on things like that

[thesometimesaint]

I think the CoC has pretty well abandoned Joseph Smith. They are just another Protestant church at this point. If we were to buy the Kirkland Temple keep it just as a museum of early Church History.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think the CoC has pretty well abandoned Joseph Smith. They are just another Protestant church at this point. If we were to buy the Kirkland Temple keep it just as a museum of early Church History.

 

52 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That's kind of what I was thinking, own it but leave it the way it is, less feet stepped on things like that

I would hope for this also, I so wanted to visit when my husband and I went to Nauvoo one year, but it wasn't in the cards. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would bet they would, especially since they've turned Provo's tabernacle into a temple and rebuilt the Nauvoo temple. I'd think there would be a lot of excitement at bringing the Kirtland Temple back into the church...as a temple. 

It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not sure the architecture of the Kirtland Temple would allow that.  Just my $0.02.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think the CoC has pretty well abandoned Joseph Smith. They are just another Protestant church at this point. If we were to buy the Kirkland Temple keep it just as a museum of early Church History.

There's no Temple, whether belonging to the Community of Christ or to anyone else, in Kirkland.  Just sayin'!  (There's one in Seattle, one in Richland, and one in Spokane, but ...)

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would bet they would, especially since they've turned Provo's tabernacle into a temple and rebuilt the Nauvoo temple. I'd think there would be a lot of excitement at bringing the Kirtland Temple back into the church...as a temple. 

It couldn't function as a temple unless it were gutted and the interior designed and built from scratch.  No way would the Church do that with the temple's historic significance. 

Kirtland Temple was never designed to be used as today's temples are, because the temple doctrines weren't revealed until the Nauvoo period of Church history. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There's no Temple, whether belonging to the Community of Christ or to anyone else, in Kirkland.  Just sayin'!  (There's one in Seattle, one in Richland, and one in Spokane, but ...)

Isn't the Kirkland Temple a nickname for Costco?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not sure the architecture of the Kirtland Temple would allow that.  Just my $0.02.

No it wouldn't. Not without a total interior demolition and rebuild. 

Temples as we know them today did not exist until the Nauvoo period. The Kirtland Temple was and is essentially a meetinghouse. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would bet they would, especially since they've turned Provo's tabernacle into a temple and rebuilt the Nauvoo temple. I'd think there would be a lot of excitement at bringing the Kirtland Temple back into the church...as a temple. 

They turned the Provo Tabernacle into a temple because a fire had already gutted the structure. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think they'd keep it as a tourist attraction.

In the Church we call them visitor centers. 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the Church we call them visitor centers. 

I’ve never heard of the beehive house or Carthage jail called a visitor’s center. 

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

let's play a game of make believe. If the Church actually bought the Kirtland Temple, would anything be different with it? would they  run it like it's being done now as a tourist place or what do you think would happen? I can imagine they would have the occasional meeting in there but I don't see it being turned into an operating Temple.

It would be a great place to display the printer's manuscript.

[jkwilliams]

Williams family lore has it that the temple property would revert back to our family if the temple stopped being used for religious purposes. Of course, I've never seen any confirmation of that, so I assume it's just family mythology. Either way, I can't see the church turning it into a functioning temple because that would require it to be gutted and reconfigured. Even if the building were not on the historic register, I doubt the church would destroy the historical structure in that way.

[Alan]

If the LDS Church obtained the Kirtland Temple I very much suspect it would function as it does now.

There would be no need to change anything.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Alan said:

If the LDS Church obtained the Kirtland Temple I very much suspect it would function as it does now.

There would be no need to change anything.

The tour guides would probably be working from a different script, though.