Church Buys Historic Sites

[Buzzard]

Hauns Mill, the Joseph Smith Sr. home in Kirtland, Far West cemetery, and 6K acres of farmland from the CofC.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555292/LDS-Church-buys-farmland-Hauns-Mill-Far-West-Kirtland-property-from-Community-of-Christ.html

Am I the only one that thinks the church will continue to support the CofC by picking up historical sites. They seem to be more and more removed from their historical roots as they move towards being a liberal protestant group. One wonders if the Kirtland temple might be next?

[thesometimesaint]

Buzzard:

Coulds be. But don't expect the Kirkland Temple to be a functioning LDS Temple anytime soon. It'll probably remain a museum.

[Kenngo1969]

Hauns Mill, the Joseph Smith Sr. home in Kirtland, Far West cemetery, and 6K acres of farmland from the CofC.

http://www.deseretne...-of-Christ.html

Am I the only one that thinks the church will continue to support the CofC by picking up historical sites. They seem to be more and more removed from their historical roots as they move towards being a liberal protestant group. One wonders if the Kirtland temple might be next?

We can hope! (I wouldn't even necessarily mind if the Church of Jesus Christ paid a considerable premium to acquire properties now in the hands of the Community of Christ and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) respectively. ("We've got you over a barrel, because we know you really want it: what's it worth to you?")

Buzzard:

Coulds be. But don't expect the Kirkland Temple to be a functioning LDS Temple anytime soon. It'll probably remain a museum.

Are you basing that assertion on the relative paucity of members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the area, combined with the relative proximity of the Columbus Ohio Temple (though 160 miles isn't what I'd call close)? Just curious. Why wouldn't Kirtland (and it is Kirtland, by the way ) be like Nauvoo? The latter temple doesn't do bad "business" when one considers the desire of many members of the Church from outside the area to reconnect with Gospel roots by attending it.

[volgadon]

Why wouldn't Kirtland (and it is Kirtland, by the way ) be like Nauvoo? The latter temple doesn't do bad "business" when one considers the desire of many members of the Church from outside the area to reconnect with Gospel roots by attending it.

Probably because the layout doesn't accomodate the current form of the Endowment.

[Kenngo1969]

Probably because the layout doesn't accomodate the current form of the Endowment.

Maybe I'm just displaying my ignorance here, but why couldn't they simply remodel the inside, as they did when converting the Vernal Tabernacle to a temple, and will do when converting the Provo Tabernacle to a temple?

[volgadon]

Maybe I'm just displaying my ignorance here, but why couldn't they simply remodel the inside, as they did when converting the Vernal Tabernacle to a temple, and will do when converting the Provo Tabernacle to a temple?

Of course they could, but why?

[Judd]

I was actually wanting to make a post on this. After viewing what appears to be the "official" website for the Kirtland Temple, www.kirtlandtemple.org, I find it interesting that of all the information they have available about the temple, there isn't one single mention of the fact that the Savior appeared there. I struggle with this because I keep hearing that the Kirtland temple is important to the Community of Christ, which to many members I'm sure it is, but to completely fail to acknowledge the most amazing thing that ever happened there makes me wonder why this building would be so significant, even for historical purposes, if they are trying to distance themselves from such history.

On the other note, I do have questions as to the function of the temple. Obviously I'm only saying this in a theoretical way. There's been acts of nostalgia by the church in recent years (Nauvoo temple, Palmyra temple, Provo tabernacle, etc.) Aside from some history with the church in these locations, there isn't anything doctrinally significant about any of these temples. The events that transpired within the Kirtland temple were apparently important enough that even before the Savior came to earth, the Lord saw it pertinent to make known the return of Elijah. I think this far surpasses any other historical sites (though I do acknowledge those were much different circumstances).

Obviously the Kirtland temple wasn't originally designed to accommodate the temple ceremonies as we now know them. However, to understand the possible usage of the temple within our current framework, I would believe it possible to use the Kirtland temple as a functioning temple without really making any adjustments. A lot of thinking it can't work is based on our cultural expectations of what a temple needs to look like on the inside. I'd assume you could create a separate building that would house a baptistry and initiatories. The two main floors could be used, likely as-is, for the presentation of the endowment (with one room functioning as a celestial room) as all that may be needed would be a screen projection and a veil. I would assume you could put a sealing room in the top. Now, I admit I haven't been inside the Kirtland temple, so forgive my ignorance. I'm not sure how it works from moving floor-to-floor. How big is the basement, anyway?

Also curious, which floor was it that we get section 110 from?

[Kenngo1969]

Of course they could, but why?

The same question could be asked with respect to the Nauvoo Temple, whose district only includes five stakes. Perhaps more than a few skeptical Saints were doubtful of the vision Pres. Hinckley had in restoring the Nauvoo Temple. (“Why do that? The main body of the Saints moved on from there long ago.”) I would be willing to bet (if I were a betting man ) that local patronage only provides a fraction of the temple’s use. The overwhelming majority of its use comes from Saints seeking to augment the Spirit engendered by the history of the place with a spiritual experience of their own, in the temple.

Why restore (or reacquire and restore) a temple anywhere the Saints had a historical presence, since the number of Saints currently residing in most of those locales, alone, probably doesn’t justify it? For the same reason—to give the Saints an opportunity to have personal spiritual experiences in areas which have been of spiritual and historical significance to the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole. (And besides, in at least some of these areas, restoring temples, or erecting them anew, fulfills prophecy. You don’t think the Lord adheres to the old adage, “Better late than never”? )

[Duncan]

I too wondered if the Kirtland Temple was or is on the shopping list. If the Church did make the purchase I would be extremely surprised if they changed it into a modern day Temple, they would probably just leave it as is

[Buzzard]

I too wondered if the Kirtland Temple was or is on the shopping list. If the Church did make the purchase I would be extremely surprised if they changed it into a modern day Temple, they would probably just leave it as is

I agree. But I bet there would be one heck of a visitors center there, and you can be sure it would mention the visit of Christ, Elijah, and Moses. We coughed up 40M for the present sites, wonder how long before the current cash account of the CofC runs a little short again.

I really don't want to come off as smug, I realize that comment could be taken that way. But I do think it would be wonderful to have the Kirtland temple back in the churches hands.

[blackstrap]

From the past history of its use,at the very least I would hope for a rededication.Would it not be marvelous to have a repeat of the original day?

[Avatar4321]

From the past history of its use,at the very least I would hope for a rededication.Would it not be marvelous to have a repeat of the original day?

We need to prepare and sanctify ourselves. We could have a repeat of that day at every temple dedication if we prepared ourselves.

The Lord will put the Temple back in our hands when the time is correct. I hope I see that day in my life time.

[Storm Rider]

The CofC, I suspect, will continue to move away from its Mormon history in favor of their current path of a more protestant approach to doctrine and belief. As this continues to evolve the historic Mormon sites will lose all their appeal and interest. As that occurs it will be natural for the LDS Church to step in and seek to purchase those sites that hold the most meaning to the saints. This is a win-win situation that will allow both to prosper and grow.

There are so many sites in Nauvoo that would be wonderful to care for as the CofC moves away from this form of service. It is great how we can help one another out in such an amicable manner.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo:

The Nauvoo Temple was burned to the ground, and the stones used in other buildings. So we had to literally had to build the new Nauvoo Temple from the ground up. Kirtland OTOH is the original building and it's insides are of historical interest in and of themself. Sure we could gut it and make it a modern Temple, but I don't see the point.

[David T]

The CofC is very, very fond of the Kirtland Temple, and have absolutely ZERO plans to sell it to anyone. Rumors are constantly spreading about it, and last month, when a member of their leadership was asked if they were contemplating selling that property to the LDS Church (or anyone), the answer was an emphatic, "Hell, no!". - Frankly, I don't blame them. It is just as much a part of their heritage as it is ours. And in some cases, more so.

Their relationship with the LDS in allowing use of the building for services and other projects has been wonderful. Giving up undeveloped farmland and other sites that will continue to be undeveloped and used as farmland isn't a big stretch, and goes into their goal for preserving the sites. They don't lose access to those sites this way.

The very contemplation or thinking aloud of ideas for renovating or turning the Kirtland Temple into a functioning LDS Temple - that would deny them access - will do nothing help that relationship.

Right now, the Kirtland Temple is very ecumenical, and a great place for anyone to visit and have a good experience. Even if LDS did purchase it and promise to keep it restored and open to the public, it would most certainly apply its heavy-handed Salt Lake LDS specific proselyting 'historic sites' tours model to it, which would make it a very big turn off for a Church that has been using it and protecting it for decades.

I think the current model is great. If the LDS Church ever does acquire the Kirtland Temple, it will be a sign that the CoC is officially disbanded. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

[Storm Rider]

The CofC is very, very fond of the Kirtland Temple, and have absolutely ZERO plans to sell it to anyone. Rumors are constantly spreading about it, and last month, when a member of their leadership was asked if they were contemplating selling that property to the LDS Church (or anyone), the answer was an emphatic, "Hell, no!". - Frankly, I don't blame them. It is just as much a part of their heritage as it is ours. And in some cases, more so.

Their relationship with the LDS in allowing use of the building for services and other projects has been wonderful. Giving up undeveloped farmland and other sites that will continue to be undeveloped and used as farmland isn't a big stretch, and goes into their goal for preserving the sites. They don't lose access to those sites this way.

The very contemplation or thinking aloud of ideas for renovating or turning the Kirtland Temple into a functioning LDS Temple - that would deny them access - will do nothing help that relationship.

Right now, the Kirtland Temple is very ecumenical, and a great place for anyone to visit and have a good experience. Even if LDS did purchase it and promise to keep it restored and open to the public, it would most certainly apply its heavy-handed Salt Lake LDS specific proselyting 'historic sites' tours model to it, which would make it a very big turn off for a Church that has been using it and protecting it for decades.

I think the current model is great. If the LDS Church ever does acquire the Kirtland Temple, it will be a sign that the CoC is officially disbanded. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

Then you think the CofC will always hold dear their heritage and church evolution through Joseph Smith? That seems to contradict with everything they have done in thelast 25 years. Now, if you are talking about the groups that have separated from the CofC then I think there is a good argument, but it appears that the Community is distancing itself from Joseph Smith and his teachings. If this is accurate, what is the value of that part of their history?

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

The CofC is very, very fond of the Kirtland Temple, and have absolutely ZERO plans to sell it to anyone. Rumors are constantly spreading about it, and last month, when a member of their leadership was asked if they were contemplating selling that property to the LDS Church (or anyone), the answer was an emphatic, "Hell, no!". - Frankly, I don't blame them. It is just as much a part of their heritage as it is ours. And in some cases, more so.

Their relationship with the LDS in allowing use of the building for services and other projects has been wonderful. Giving up undeveloped farmland and other sites that will continue to be undeveloped and used as farmland isn't a big stretch, and goes into their goal for preserving the sites. They don't lose access to those sites this way.

The very contemplation or thinking aloud of ideas for renovating or turning the Kirtland Temple into a functioning LDS Temple - that would deny them access - will do nothing help that relationship.

Right now, the Kirtland Temple is very ecumenical, and a great place for anyone to visit and have a good experience. Even if LDS did purchase it and promise to keep it restored and open to the public, it would most certainly apply its heavy-handed Salt Lake LDS specific proselyting 'historic sites' tours model to it, which would make it a very big turn off for a Church that has been using it and protecting it for decades.

I think the current model is great. If the LDS Church ever does acquire the Kirtland Temple, it will be a sign that the CoC is officially disbanded. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

While I agree that to turn the Kirkland Temple to a functioning Temple would deny CoC use of the Temple, and I have no desire to do so. I don't agree that the Church is heavy handed. Few Temples have any sort of visitors center, and even those that do aren't heavy handed about it. We do however present our beliefs in a positive light.

From what I understand the CoC has been going more and more Protestant in it beliefs for some time now. Does it even accept the BoM as Scripture anymore?

[Kenngo1969]

The CofC is very, very fond of the Kirtland Temple, and have absolutely ZERO plans to sell it to anyone. Rumors are constantly spreading about it, and last month, when a member of their leadership was asked if they were contemplating selling that property to the LDS Church (or anyone), the answer was an emphatic, "Hell, no!" ...

Not even, "Heck, no!"? Well, that just proves they're not the true church, right there!

Their relationship with the LDS in allowing use of the building for services and other projects has been wonderful. Giving up undeveloped farmland and other sites that will continue to be undeveloped and used as farmland isn't a big stretch, and goes into their goal for preserving the sites. They don't lose access to those sites this way.

The very contemplation or thinking aloud of ideas for renovating or turning the Kirtland Temple into a functioning LDS Temple - that would deny them access - will do nothing help that relationship.

You're not going to "tattle" to the Community of Christ that I was musing aloud about it, are you?

Right now, the Kirtland Temple is very ecumenical, and a great place for anyone to visit and have a good experience. Even if LDS did purchase it and promise to keep it restored and open to the public, it would most certainly apply its heavy-handed Salt Lake LDS specific proselyting 'historic sites' tours model to it, which would make it a very big turn off for a Church that has been using it and protecting it for decades.

Salt Lake didn't invent putting a religious spin on tours of sites which are historically significant to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... it just raised it to an art form. To be fair, it's no benefit to the Church of Jesus Christ to be confused with the Community of Christ, but it is a benefit to the latter to be confused with the former.

I think the current model is great. If the LDS Church ever does acquire the Kirtland Temple, it will be a sign that the CoC is officially disbanded. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ, it would be a reacquisition. If the Community of Christ is someone's cup of tea, or mug of beer, or glass of wine (since I don't think the two groups put equal emphasis on the Word of Wisdom [or at least, they interpret it differently]), more power to him or her. God's certainly not going to rain condemnation on someone for sincere devotion to any religious system which bears good fruit in that person's life. I do think it's telling, though, that the Community of Christ has come to look very much like just another Protestant religion of late.

[David T]

From what I understand the CoC has been going more and more Protestant in it beliefs for some time now. Does it even accept the BoM as Scripture anymore?

Of course it does. And they are up to Section 164 in their Doctrine and Covenants, the last section being added last year. A 'more and more' Protestant sect isn't adding new scripture, and support a Prophet and Apostles. They are very strong supporters of their heritage, and their role as a Prophetic People. While they are much more open to liberal interpretations of scripture than the institutional LDS Church currently is, their fruits and actions are quite admirable.

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

Of course it does. And they are up to Section 164 in their Doctrine and Covenants, the last section being added last year. A 'more and more' Protestant sect isn't adding new scripture, and support a Prophet and Apostles. They are very strong supporters of their heritage, and their role as a Prophetic People. While they are much more open to liberal interpretations of scripture than the institutional LDS Church currently is, their fruits and actions are quite admirable.

That's good to hear. Last I heard They'd relegated the BoM to just a good book.

The BoM doesn't include the D&C at least in the Church I attend.

I guess allowing active homosexuals and women isn't adding new scriptures in some Protestant minds. But it is in mine.

Support of a Prophet and Apostles is important, but I see support for the Prophet and the Apostles as more important.

Strong support for heritage is a good thing. A Prophetic People is a good thing.

I'm fine with liberal interpretation of Scripture. But not to be so liberal or conservative as to destroy all distinctions. Walking the extra mile, doesn't mean we should become just like them., or that we reject anything good in them.

I find their actions quite admirable too.

[Duncan]

How is the CoC doing financially?

[Buzzard]

How is the CoC doing financially?

I googled "Community of Christ finances", and found several links referencing financial troubles, but most seemed to be about three years old. Sounds like they are getting their financial house in order.

If I may be allowed to speculate, 40 million buys a fair amount of order, at least for a few years.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

40 million buys a fair amount of order, at least for a few years.

I would think that, wisely used, it should support them for a decade or two minimum, more than enough time to get their financial house in order. It's not their only income, so it will help them bridge the gap as a nest egg.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hauns Mill, the Joseph Smith Sr. home in Kirtland, Far West cemetery, and 6K acres of farmland from the CofC.

http://www.deseretne...-of-Christ.html

Am I the only one that thinks the church will continue to support the CofC by picking up historical sites. They seem to be more and more removed from their historical roots as they move towards being a liberal protestant group. One wonders if the Kirtland temple might be next?

And Temple lot, and all of Nauvoo.

[Judd]

And Temple lot, and all of Nauvoo.

The former is owned by someone else (Church of Christ Temple Lot), who maintain absolutely no contact with any restoration branches.