The Former Church College Of New Zealand: A Minimal Statement.

[Pahoran]

In 1958, the Church opened Church College of New Zealand (the word "college" commonly means high school in NZ) in Temple View, an entirely purpose-bult commmunity just outside Hamilton. The Hamilton New Zealand was dedicated that April.

The school, the original houses in Temple View, the Temple and numerous subsequent meetinghouses around NZ were built by a force of labour missionaries that largely learned their trades building the college.

When the school was built, the Church had very few members who were qualified teachers -- or indeed professionals of any kind -- living in New Zealand. For that reason, the Church decided to bring teachers, mostly from the US and a few from Australia, out to NZ to teach at the college on mostly four-year contracts. Houses -- small and fairly basic, but comfortable enough -- were also built adjacent to the college, and from the same materials as the school, the Temple and the Foster's Road chapel. (That is, they were of concrete block construction.)

Throughout the time it was in operation, the school charged astonishingly low base fees -- around a third of the amounts charged by similarly structured schools -- then discounted them heavily for students from poorer families, or those who showed above average academic aptitude. Yet for all this, it refused to accept government aid, even though New Zealand law imposed upon the government the burden of assisting private schools, based upon the theory that if the school wasn't educating its students, the state system would have to educate them. (Note that the similarly structured schools mentioned earlier are assumed to have accepted state aid.) Anti-Mormons routinely scoff at this fact, but it is undeniably true. The Church's policy appears to have been based upon Doctrine and Covenants 78:14.

In 2006, Church members heard the announcement that the college would close at the end of the 2009 school year. It then wound down its operations, effectively closing down one class level each year, from Year 9 up.

As a father of two sons I had hoped to send to the college, I was naturally saddened by the announcement. CCNZ had been an important part of my life, and for all its flaws (and it certainly had them) it provided a valuable learning experience.

Like many Church members, I went through what can best be described as a period of grieving.

And then I got over it.

It appears, however, that not everyone has managed to do that.

A little group of people has implacably opposed everything the Church has tried to do with the land. The original proposal was to return the land to pasture, which was its original use when the Church first bought it in the 1950's; that little group, styling itself the "Temple View Heritage Society," opposed this. It opposed demolishing even one of the buildings the Church no longer needed. When the Church argued that the buildings were not up to current seismic standards, the Society insisted that they were, despite having been built in the 1950's by a volunteer workforce, before those standards had been thought of.

The Society has agitated to get all of the buildings -- even the most inconsequential utility buildings -- classifed as "heritage buildings." They imagine that every single concrete box house -- and they are all alike -- should be treated as a unique architectural treasure along the lines of the Palace of Westminster.

When President Monson visited Temple View, he listened to the concerns of various people. Then he went away, having made no promises; but shortly thereafter, the Church came out with a new proposal to convert the land into a medium-density housing development with a new stake centre and a "senior housing" neighbourhood.

And naturally, the "Temple View Heritage Society" was thrilled. NOT!

They're still opposing everything. Still insisting that every single one of the old buildings must remain.

I don't believe that they represent the views of the majority, or even a significant minority of New Zealand Latter-day Saints. Or of Temple View residents. (Tellingly, the so-called "Temple View Heritage Society" has its headquarters, not in Temple View, but in Raglan, some 50 kms away.)

Don't get me wrong; many of us, myself included, have a sentimental attachment to the former college campus. But very few -- actually, surprisingly few, given the notorious kiwi sense of entitlement -- seem to imagine that a sentimental attachment confers any rights upon us, or imposes any obligations upon anyone else.

The Church wants to clear away the old buildings before they simply fall into ruin, and replace them with something that will keep the temple precinct attractive. I can't see why anyone would imagine that to be a bad thing.

However, some clearly do. They have a website, but it's fairly useless. It contains no actual proposals or counterproposals, probably because they don't have any. What they do have is a bunch of propaganda posters containing half-truths and heavily editorialised opinions, taking potshots at the Church and its leaders.

So here are some actual arguments. The Society is unimpressed by arguments to the effect that Church members should sustain their leaders, so I won't appeal to such views. Instead, I am going to begin with some facts, and then argue from those facts.

• Labour Missionary service was, first and foremost, a form of missionary service. Missionaries don't expect that the Church owes them anything for their service, because that was not the basis on which they served. And the old Labour Missionaries I've spoken to (a bit like war veterans -- a dwindling group of older people, but still remarkably resilient) don't have any such expectations! I have yet to meet even one who approves of the TVHS and their shenanigans.
• The Church does not owe the people of New Zealand, whether member or non-member, a high school. I am unable to find any statement or representation from the Church, whether express or implied, that undertook to provide a high school in perpetuity.
• The Church heavily subsidised the college throughout its operating life, and it did so from tithing funds. This is relevant because the TVHS website is spitting with rage because the Church is spending tithing funds to develop the land for commercial purposes. But they have no problem with the concept that the Church should continue pouring tithing funds into that land -- forever! -- maintaining buildings for which it no longer has a use.
• The Church is the sole owner of the land and the buildings on the land. The college, temple and township were built as part of a single project, "out in the country" with no neighbours to speak of except a few farmers.

The above four points are simply facts. Now I draw some conclusions from those facts.

• Given that The Church does not owe the people of New Zealand a high school, it follows that the Church also does not owe us any explanation for why it no longer wishes to maintain a high school. In fact, it has provided several explanations: it regards the present NZ educational system as more congenial to the needs of its high school student population than it was in the 1950's; it feels that its tithing funds can be better spent elsewhere; it regards the aging buildings as falling behind increasingly demanding seismic standards. The TVHS has offered nothing in response to these explanations than to snarl "Lies! All lies!" But it fails to understand that:
• Given that The Church does not owe us any explanation for why it no longer wishes to maintain a high school, it follows that it really doesn't matter whether we find its explanations satisfactory or not.
• Given that the Church subsidised the college using tithing funds, and since its closure in 2009 has continued to maintain the unused buildings also using tithing funds, there can be no valid objection to diverting some of those funds towards bringing that continuing financial drain to an end.
• Given that the Church is the sole owner of the land and the buildings, it follows that in equity it ought to be allowed to do as it sees fit with that land and those buildings. Anyone objecting to its plans needs to show some compelling reason why they should not go ahead. In my view, this has not been done; nor has it even been seriously attempted.

The real legacy of the Labour Missionaries who built CCNZ and Temple View is a legacy of sacrifice and service. Their theme song could easily have been "I'll Go Where You Want Me To Go." The so-called "Temple View Heritage Society" have abandoned that legacy and embraced the old Kiwi culture of entitlement and demands. Their theme song ought to be a variation on "Gimme Gimme Gimme."

Regards,
Pahoran

[6EQUJ5]

Exxcommunicate the lot of them, I say.  They could take a lesson from their brothers and sisters in Provo.

[Pahoran]

Exxcommunicate the lot of them, I say.  They could take a lesson from their brothers and sisters in Provo.

 

Or not.

[Storm Rider]

When pure anger emotions lead there is no thought, not rational explanation, no exchange of ideas. 

 

Could you explain how this group is able to stop any redevelopment of the site?  Is the government controlled by this group? Or, is their position valid and has caught the attention of the government?  I am missing something. 

[sheilauk]

There will always be those who oppose redevelopment, out of fear of change as much as any sentimentality.  People get used to what they can see and want to see it for ever.  They are discomfited by our ever changing landscape.  No major redevelopment goes through unopposed.  And those who are so opposed that they form an action group will never accept anything - even if the Church were to develop some sort of heritage site, they probably wouldn't be happy.  Rational argument will never succeed.  If the TVHS is a small minority group, all the Church can do is explain its rational and thinking, whilst acknowledging the fear and anger of the TVHS, then develop its plans and, if they get the appropriate and necessary approvals, go ahead with them, regardless of the TVHS in the hope that, once the change has begun, they will become accustomed to it and come to accept it.  Once the land has been redeveloped and changed, most do get used to the new landscape and memories fade of what was there before. 

[Boanerges]

I'm not a Kiwi, but I did serve a mission in NZ and I love the country and the people. I can see both sides of this issue, although I do believe the church has acted in good faith in trying to appease those opposed to redevelopment. Bottom line is that the church owns the land and can do what they want with it, as far as I'm concerned.

 

The real issue here, IMO, is that the church is not prepared to deal with anyone who opposes any particular policy and especially so when it's not just one individual but an organized group.

[6EQUJ5]

Or not.

 

This kind of dissobedience should not be tolerated, IMO.  Do you disagree?

[HappyJackWagon]

This kind of dissobedience should not be tolerated, IMO.  Do you disagree?

Yes. I disagree.

 

The church does not need to rule with an iron fist requiring everyone to get in line and accept everything they say or do in fear of ecclesiastical retribution. For members who believe the eternal consequences of excommunication, I would think this would be the last option anyone would want to see. Often this is not the case as if members would rather see a strong, powerful, authoritative church who will make everyone agree. Wasn't that Satan's plan?

[6EQUJ5]

Yes. I disagree.

 

The church does not need to rule with an iron fist requiring everyone to get in line and accept everything they say or do in fear of ecclesiastical retribution. For members who believe the eternal consequences of excommunication, I would think this would be the last option anyone would want to see. Often this is not the case as if members would rather see a strong, powerful, authoritative church who will make everyone agree. Wasn't that Satan's plan?

 

Either one believes in living prophets or one doesn't.  If members refuse to obey the living prophet then .... 

[Silhouette]

Either one believes in living prophets or one doesn't. If members refuse to obey the living prophet then ....

It's my understanding that this was a business proposal, not a revelation or commandment or doctrine. I don't think either obedience or disobedience enters into it in this case.

[6EQUJ5]

It's my understanding that this was a business proposal, not a revelation or commandment or doctrine. I don't think either obedience or disobedience enters into it in this case.

 

The prophet is conducting the business of the Church.  We need look no further than the D&C to find the Lord does not differentiate between "business proposals" and other prophetic duties.  Obedience is obedience, IMO.  If we won't obey the prophet when he instructs us on temporal matters we certainly won't obey when he advises us on spiritual matters.

 

This is your first and last warning to cut the snark. Trolls have a very short life so don't act like one.

[Tacenda]

There wasn't a backlash, but this story reminds of the former high school in Mexico turned MTC.  The church does what is needed, I guess. 

[Scott Lloyd]

When the Hotel Utah in downtown Salt Lake City was converted into the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, the structure was literally gutted, leaving only the exterior walls. The interior was replaced in what is known in architectural parlance as "adaptive re-use."

 

I clearly remember there was an outpouring of grief and outrage at the closure of the old hotel and reconstruction of the building. But that was long ago, and nothing is ever said these days regarding the loss, even in 2011, when the centennial of the hotel was celebrated.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

This kind of dissobedience should not be tolerated, IMO.  Do you disagree?

Interesting perspective. So these people, and those in Provo who opposed the MTC high rise expansion (which was changed to meet their approval), are all grievous sinners and should be  - what - excommunicated?

 

Yes, I disagree. I believe the Lord has little to do with - and little interest in - the temporal affairs of the church. This is exactly what I meant when I said the church was unprepared to deal with this type of issue, especially with groups. If the only argument/defense they have is "follow the prophet" it's a pretty weak one indeed. He is a prophet (teacher) not a ruler.

 

I do susatin Pres. Monson, I love his messages of loving each other and following the example of the Savior, and if he said we need to prepare to walk to Missouri I would do so. This is completely different. (And don't come back spouting scripture from D&C - they can be and are clearly interpreted differently by some than others.)

Edited October 20, 2014 by Boanerges

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I disagree. I believe the Lord has little to do with - and little interest in - the temporal affairs of the church.

 

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a ^alaw which was ^btemporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 29:34

[Pahoran]

This kind of dissobedience should not be tolerated, IMO.  Do you disagree?

I think I made it abundantly clear that I think they are wrong all the way down the line. Oscar Pistorius has more of a leg to stand on than they do.

But this isn't a matter of faith or doctrine. It's utlimately a matter of property rights. I've never heard of excommunicating anyone over that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Avatar4321]

Interesting to hear. The land will be used as the Lord directs. I would be a shame for anyone to fall away over this.

[6EQUJ5]

But this isn't a matter of faith or doctrine. It's utlimately a matter of property rights. I've never heard of excommunicating anyone over that.

 

 

But folks leave over milk-strippings ( I still have no idea what those are ).  Go figure!

[6EQUJ5]

Interesting perspective. So these people, and those in Provo who opposed the MTC high rise expansion (which was changed to meet their approval), are all grievous sinners and should be  - what - excommunicated?

 

I do susatin Pres. Monson, I love his messages of loving each other and following the example of the Savior, and if he said we need to prepare to walk to Missouri I would do so. This is completely different. (And don't come back spouting scripture from D&C - they can be and are clearly interpreted differently by some than others.)

 

The first law of heaven is obedience.  If the prophet asked us to turn over our homes to the Church, we should do it.  

 

If you are unwilling to give up your mountain views, why would you leave your home and walk to Missouri?  Both actions serve to build up the Kingdom.

[Scott Lloyd]

The first law of heaven is obedience.  If the prophet asked us to turn over our homes to the Church, we should do it.  

 

If you are unwilling to give up your mountain views, why would you leave your home and walk to Missouri?  Both actions serve to build up the Kingdom.

Who is going to be told to leave his home and walk to Missouri?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exxcommunicate the lot of them, I say.  They could take a lesson from their brothers and sisters in Provo.

Smells like troll.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do susatin Pres. Monson, I love his messages of loving each other and following the example of the Savior, and if he said we need to prepare to walk to Missouri I would do so.

The notion of there being a prophecy that the Church members en masse will be called to leave their homes and walk to Missouri is folklore.

[Scott Lloyd]

Smells like troll.

That's becoming clearer by the moment.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't feed the trolls.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Boanerges]

The notion of there being a prophecy that the Church members en masse will be called to leave their homes and walk to Missouri is folklore.

 

I know this and was using it as a somewhat absurd example to demonstrate that I would follow the prophet in matters that relate to spiritual or even temporal salvation. Whether or not we build a tower at the MTC or demolish buildings at an unused church school has little, if anything, to do with our salvation or exaltation. They are much "administrative" matters as opposed to "ministering" matters, policy as opposed to prophesy. I don't think we're required to "follow the prophet" in these purely temporal matters.

 

(edited to correct typos)

Edited October 20, 2014 by Boanerges