Will the Church Purchase the Kirtland Temple?

[smac97]

From the Tribune:

Quote

In 2017, the church bought the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon from the Community of Christ for $35 million.

That sparked a question — at least in the mind of Times and Seasons blogger Stephen Cranney — of what else the Missouri-based church might be willing to sell to the much-larger, much-richer Utah-based faith.

After all, the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, flatly stated in its December 2020 financial update that its “Presiding Bishopric continues to evaluate potential historic-asset sales.”

Given that comment and the monetary pressures on the denomination, Cranney came up with a list of properties that the LDS Church might be interested in obtaining:

• Kirtland Temple • Mormonism’s first temple holds a special place in the faith’s history and members’ hearts (3D virtual tours of the three-floor Ohio landmark are available).

• Red Brick Store • This rebuilt two-story structure in Nauvoo, Ill., served as the church’s headquarters, where founder Joseph Smith formed the Relief Society and administered temple endowments.

• Mansion House • It’s where Joseph and Emma Smith lived for a time in Nauvoo and where Latter-day Saints viewed the bodies of Joseph and his brother Hyrum after the 1844 martyrdom.

• Smith family cemetery • Not far from the Mansion House, this spot is where Joseph, Emma, Hyrum, Joseph Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith all are buried.

While making no claim that any of these properties will be unloaded, Cranney’s blog does state that “it looks likely ... that there will be additional sales from the Community of Christ to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the future.”

I am curious if anyone has any sense of how the CoC folks feel about the Kirtland Temple.  As I understand it they have no temple worship practices as such, so I wonder how much attachment they have to the edifice.  Anyone?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune:

I am curious if anyone has any sense of how the CoC folks feel about the Kirtland Temple.  As I understand it they have no temple worship practices as such, so I wonder how much attachment they have to the edifice.  Anyone?

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven't spoken to any of my MO CoC friends for a while BUT I know that the more time passes the farther the church drifts from its restorationism origins. In my opinion it's just a matter of time before CoC sells the Kirtland temple and other Church history associated properties (like Nauvoo tourist attractions)

I'll find it much more interesting when/IF CoC sells it's Independence Missouri Temple site.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune:

I am curious if anyone has any sense of how the CoC folks feel about the Kirtland Temple.  As I understand it they have no temple worship practices as such, so I wonder how much attachment they have to the edifice.  Anyone?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think we really want them to think about how much attachment they have to that building.  Any descendants of Joseph and Lucy Smith who are members of the CoC would probably feel some kind of attachment to it, considering its place in their own family history.  I think we would just want to try to persuade them to let us take care of the building, paying taxes on it, maintaining it, and restoring it and keeping it restored to as good as new if not better conditions.  It's an expense they could do without and I'm sure we would still welcome them for visits.  I think we would probably keep it as an open house rather than dedicating it or rather rededicating it for temple work. A place for everyone to come and see what it was like when it was first built and used for its intended purpose.  And the other buildings in the area would be good for us to have and show off too.  I'd even advise going so far as to restore the whole town to what it was like in those days, as much as we possibly could.

Edited September 23, 2021 by bOObOO

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't spoken to any of my MO CoC friends for a while BUT I know that the more time passes the farther the church drifts from its restorationism origins. In my opinion it's just a matter of time before CoC sells the Kirtland temple and other Church history associated properties (like Nauvoo tourist attractions)

I'll find it much more interesting when/IF CoC sells it's Independence Missouri Temple site.

Yes, I had thought of that too.  From this church article:

Quote

Who owns the temple lot today?

Community of Christ owns most of the 63.27 acres purchased by Bishop Partridge. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the next-largest portion.

The smallest portion of the land—including the spot dedicated for a temple—is owned by the Church of Christ, once known as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). This church was founded by Granville Hedrick, a former Latter-day Saint who chose not to go to the Salt Lake Valley when the Saints left Nauvoo, Illinois. Granville Hedrick and his followers returned to Independence in 1867.

Per Wikipedia, this third portion of the land is 2 acres in size.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Boanerges]

Just my opinion, but I could see them selling all the other properties before the prized temple. The BoM transcript was a prized possession though so I could be wrong.

And I agree,if the church were to purchase the temple they would likely keep it as a tourist attraction.

[Judd]

They’ve still got a number of properties and I think the temple would be the thing they’d hold onto the longest, as it’s obviously the most interesting property. I believe their attachment to it significantly wanes over time as they detach themselves almost completely from the restoration. I visited back in 2012 and their promotional video emphasized much more the community that built it rather than any unique history behind it. It mentioned in passing some people reporting spiritual visions. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that video mentioned anything about the appearance of the Savior or anything else. The guy giving the tour said he moved to Kirtland because of the temple and it’s history, so I think there’s still some attachment to the history for some members, but it appears the official messaging neglects this entirely and is more interested in how a community came together to build a building. I don’t know this first hand, but I have heard a lot of people clinging to the restoration in CoC have moved over into other restoration branches.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't spoken to any of my MO CoC friends for a while BUT I know that the more time passes the farther the church drifts from its restorationism origins. In my opinion it's just a matter of time before CoC sells the Kirtland temple and other Church history associated properties (like Nauvoo tourist attractions)

I'll find it much more interesting when/IF CoC sells it's Independence Missouri Temple site.

On your last point, it's interesting to note that land in Independence, including the temple site, isn't on the Tribune's wish list.

It’s important to understand that Independence is a not-particularly-nice urban area in the Kansas City metro area. For example, if Kansas City were Salt Lake City, Independence would be West Valley City. Because of that, it’s kind of a weird place to go on a religious pilgrimage. Sharon, Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo are all rural and much more conductive to faith-promoting trips.

So if the church were to acquire sacred land in downtown Independence, what would it do with it? They don’t need a temple there—a few years ago they opened up the Kansas City temple about 10 miles away which will serve the area’s temple needs for the indefinite future. If they did any major property acquisitions or construction in downtown Independence, it would just draw attention to things like the claim that is where the Garden of Eden was located and the claim that that is where New Jerusalem will be. I don’t think the Church will want that kind of attention. My prediction is they’ll avoid purchasing land there, unless of course the CoC gets desperate and decides to sell it to the highest bidder regardless. But the LDS Church isn't going to seek it out and pay a premium for it.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Just my opinion, but I could see them selling all the other properties before the prized temple. The BoM transcript was a prized possession though so I could be wrong.

And I agree,if the church were to purchase the temple they would likely keep it as a tourist attraction.

I could envision an arrangement where the Church buys the temple property and then leases it back to the COC.  I don't think the Church would be interested in managing the COC temple.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

On your last point, it's interesting to note that land in Independence, including the temple site, isn't on the Tribune's wish list.

It’s important to understand that Independence is a not-particularly-nice urban area in the Kansas City metro area. For example, if Kansas City were Salt Lake City, Independence would be West Valley City. Because of that, it’s kind of a weird place to go on a religious pilgrimage. Sharon, Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo are all rural and much more conductive to faith-promoting trips.

So if the church were to acquire sacred land in downtown Independence, what would it do with it? They don’t need a temple there—a few years ago they opened up the Kansas City temple about 10 miles away which will serve the area’s temple needs for the indefinite future. If they did any major property acquisitions or construction in downtown Independence, it would just draw attention to things like the claim that is where the Garden of Eden was located and the claim that that is where New Jerusalem will be. I don’t think the Church will want that kind of attention. My prediction is they’ll avoid purchasing land there, unless of course the CoC gets desperate and decides to sell it to the highest bidder regardless. But the LDS Church isn't going to seek it out and pay a premium for it.

Well- there are revelations about building a temple specifically there.

Do you think the church is afraid of the Garden of Eden doctrine? If they are, then you are right. If they only care about the revelations from God, then you may be wrong  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

On your last point, it's interesting to note that land in Independence, including the temple site, isn't on the Tribune's wish list.

It’s important to understand that Independence is a not-particularly-nice urban area in the Kansas City metro area. For example, if Kansas City were Salt Lake City, Independence would be West Valley City. Because of that, it’s kind of a weird place to go on a religious pilgrimage. Sharon, Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo are all rural and much more conductive to faith-promoting trips.

So if the church were to acquire sacred land in downtown Independence, what would it do with it? They don’t need a temple there—a few years ago they opened up the Kansas City temple about 10 miles away which will serve the area’s temple needs for the indefinite future. If they did any major property acquisitions or construction in downtown Independence, it would just draw attention to things like the claim that is where the Garden of Eden was located and the claim that that is where New Jerusalem will be. I don’t think the Church will want that kind of attention. My prediction is they’ll avoid purchasing land there, unless of course the CoC gets desperate and decides to sell it to the highest bidder regardless. But the LDS Church isn't going to seek it out and pay a premium for it.

With the Church’s visitor center located in Independence, there is plenty there to promote faith, especially if some of the historic locations were developed into visitor attractions. Also, there are several visitor attractions within easy driving distance that have historical significance: Liberty, Richmond, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Far West, Hawn’s Mill. 
 

You seem to think the Church has abandoned the belief that Jackson County will be the center place of the New Jerusalem and that the Garden of Eden was located somewhere in the vicinity. That’s news to me if true. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

Just my opinion, but I could see them selling all the other properties before the prized temple. The BoM transcript was a prized possession though so I could be wrong.

And I agree,if the church were to purchase the temple they would likely keep it as a tourist attraction.

Not so much, I don't think.  I'm open to correction, but from where I stand, I cannot see how the Community of Christ would have any special attachment to the Book of Mormon.  More or less, doesn't its members view the book as inspired fiction?  If so, I can see, rather plainly, how the manuscript would be more important to Latter-day Saints than to members of the Community of Christ.

[JustAnAustralian]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a standing offer to buy:

Kirtland Temple from the Community of Christ

Temple Lot from the Church of Christ

Plus other historic sites/items from their respective owners

[Judd]

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It wouldn't surprise me if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a standing offer to buy:

Kirtland Temple from the Community of Christ

Temple Lot from the Church of Christ

Plus other historic sites/items from their respective owners

I believe if they had standing offers for either of those two properties, they wouldn’t be owned by their current owners. 

[JustAnAustralian]

18 minutes ago, Judd said:

I believe if they had standing offers for either of those two properties, they wouldn’t be owned by their current owners. 

As recently as 2017, the Church of Christ wouldn't have sold temple lot https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/11/three-mormon-rooted-religions-move-past-conflicts-to-find-cooperation-in-tug-of-war-over-sacred-spacesbr/

Edited September 23, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Judd]

28 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As recently as 2017, the Church of Christ wouldn't have sold temple lot https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/11/three-mormon-rooted-religions-move-past-conflicts-to-find-cooperation-in-tug-of-war-over-sacred-spacesbr/

Are you saying the LDS church has a standing offer? I would agree with that. The way it was worded I got the impression that you were saying the CoC and Church of Christ Temple Lot had standing offers for the church. 

[JustAnAustralian]

9 minutes ago, Judd said:

Are you saying the LDS church has a standing offer? I would agree with that.

That would be my guess. Not being employed by Property Reserve Inc (or the church at all for that matter), I don't know for certain. But it seems likely.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the Church’s visitor center located in Independence, there is plenty there to promote faith, especially if some of the historic locations were developed into visitor attractions. Also, there are several visitor attractions within easy driving distance that have historical significance: Liberty, Richmond, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Far West, Hawn’s Mill. 

You seem to think the Church has abandoned the belief that Jackson County will be the center place of the New Jerusalem and that the Garden of Eden was located somewhere in the vicinity. That’s need to me if true. 

I think those beliefs are perceived as being hypothetical in nature, contrary to science, and unnecessary for salvation. The belief in a literal Garden of Eden in Missouri is compatible with young-earth creationism and a universal-flood, but isn't the least bit compatible with mainstream science that says humans came out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. Jesus coming down out of the sky and setting up a worldwide government with Independence as the capital city is just as hypothetical and embarrassing as the belief that Ensign Peak Advisors is in fact saving up cash for that specific event. I think the Church will continue to treat these beliefs just as it treats the belief in the global flood--past prophets taught it and current prophets don't disavow it--but they don't emphasize it and don't require belief in it for full fellowship. 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well- there are revelations about building a temple specifically there.

Do you think the church is afraid of the Garden of Eden doctrine? If they are, then you are right. If they only care about the revelations from God, then you may be wrong  

I'm sure when Jesus personally tells the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric that they should build a grand temple and Jesus' palace in Independence they will do so. Until then, they'll invest in office space in major cities, in agriculture, and in the stock market.

If the CoC got in a real financial bind and went to Salt Lake City with their hat in their hand and put their temple on the negotiating table do you know what LDS Inc. would do? I predict they would purchase the CoC temple and surrounding real estate, but would then lease it back to the CoC. The LDS Church isn't going to convert the CoC temple to an LDS one, and they aren't going to tear it down to build their own temple. No way.

[CelestialSeething]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyone?

I believe our Church will purchase it but seem to recall hearing years ago that CoC would only sell it to our Church if there was a use agreement/restriction in place which prohibited it from becoming a Temple. Kind of doubt CoC would do that based on the purchase price they could get from likely one other buyer, our Church

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think those beliefs are perceived as being hypothetical in nature, contrary to science, and unnecessary for salvation. The belief in a literal Garden of Eden in Missouri is compatible with young-earth creationism and a universal-flood, but isn't the least bit compatible with mainstream science that says humans came out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. Jesus coming down out of the sky and setting up a worldwide government with Independence as the capital city is just as hypothetical and embarrassing as the belief that Ensign Peak Advisors is in fact saving up cash for that specific event. I think the Church will continue to treat these beliefs just as it treats the belief in the global flood--past prophets taught it and current prophets don't disavow it--but they don't emphasize it and don't require belief in it for full fellowship. 

You can ridicule or disparage it all you like, but that doesn’t mean the Church has renounced it or is embarrassed by it just because you, an ex-believer, thinks it should be. 

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't spoken to any of my MO CoC friends for a while BUT I know that the more time passes the farther the church drifts from its restorationism origins. In my opinion it's just a matter of time before CoC sells the Kirtland temple and other Church history associated properties (like Nauvoo tourist attractions)

I'll find it much more interesting when/IF CoC sells it's Independence Missouri Temple site.

I think the LDS church would buy all the historical properties owned by CoC. CoC doesn’t own the temple lot. It is owned by the Church of the Temple Lot. An offshoot of the LDS church. 

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well- there are revelations about building a temple specifically there.

Do you think the church is afraid of the Garden of Eden doctrine? If they are, then you are right. If they only care about the revelations from God, then you may be wrong  

In Mexico City, the temple is located in what most of us would call “the hood”.  I’m sure if the temple lot became available, the Church would buy it. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I could envision an arrangement where the Church buys the temple property and then leases it back to the COC.  I don't think the Church would be interested in managing the COC temple.

..............

They keep their temple school and library there.  It is unlikely they would sell or lease it for any reason.  Same applies to their HQ across the street, The Auditorium.  They do need money to keep from going bankrupt, so they will continue to sell some of their properties -- which you already listed -- and the LDS Church does want to acquire them.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think those beliefs are perceived as being hypothetical in nature, contrary to science, and unnecessary for salvation. The belief in a literal Garden of Eden in Missouri is compatible with young-earth creationism and a universal-flood, but isn't the least bit compatible with mainstream science that says humans came out of Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The shallow, unsophisticated belief in young-earth creationism is not actually an LDS theological claim at all, and biblical scholars do not see the Genesis Garden of Eden Story as anything other than part of "a temple story" (so Anglican Bishop Tom Wright, PhD), same as the temple stories which LDS endowment participants regularly engage in, and for the same reason.  Yokels read the Genesis origins text as though it were a geological text or historical narrative, but yokels is as yokels does.  The text is obviously liturgical in nature, and in no way contradicts hominids coming out of Africa.  You might want to ask the obvious about the fact that all BYU professors of biology are evolutionary biologists.  The Hebrew term 'adam means "man," and is generic and archetypal.  It does not refer to any specific man, but rather is used as a title in the liturgy, a liturgy which is repeated forever, with its signs, oaths, and covenants.  Liturgy and science are completely compatible.

As to the claim of the universal Flood, there is no reason why the literary account in Genesis need be interpreted as other than a regional Flood.  Some evangelical yokels read it as a geology or science text, which is to miss the  point entirely -- which evangelicals and some poorly educated Mormons frequently do.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Jesus coming down out of the sky and setting up a worldwide government with Independence as the capital city is just as hypothetical and embarrassing as the belief that Ensign Peak Advisors is in fact saving up cash for that specific event. I think the Church will continue to treat these beliefs just as it treats the belief in the global flood--past prophets taught it and current prophets don't disavow it--but they don't emphasize it and don't require belief in it for full fellowship. 

Your wild speculation about the purpose of LDS Church investments is uncalled for, but it is interesting to see you admitting that the global Flood nonsense is not required as a matter of Mormon belief.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm sure when Jesus personally tells the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric that they should build a grand temple and Jesus' palace in Independence they will do so. Until then, they'll invest in office space in major cities, in agriculture, and in the stock market.

It is not necessary to be crass about it.  We need to be respectful of such beliefs, just as we are of the Jewish belief that they will someday build a temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem -- even though that Mount is under the control of the Muslims at this time.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

If the CoC got in a real financial bind and went to Salt Lake City with their hat in their hand and put their temple on the negotiating table do you know what LDS Inc. would do? I predict they would purchase the CoC temple and surrounding real estate, but would then lease it back to the CoC. The LDS Church isn't going to convert the CoC temple to an LDS one, and they aren't going to tear it down to build their own temple. No way.

The CofC has been losing members and facing financial problems for years now, and they have been selling things off to the LDS Church all that time.  That will continue.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I think the LDS church would buy all the historical properties owned by CoC. CoC doesn’t own the temple lot. It is owned by the Church of the Temple Lot. An offshoot of the LDS church. 

There's more to Independence than just the temple lot. CoC has a large temple area directly across from the LDS visitors center which also connects to the temple lot. For those who need a minor refresher, it's not just a prophesy about "a" temple being built in Independence on the temple lot it's about a "complex" of temples being built. I think the church would like EVERYTHING in that area and I suspect some day they will have it. The church obviously has the funds to make any purchases it wants, it's just a matter of the owners being willing to sell.

 

[rongo]

We got to talk to one of the Hedrickite apostles (Church of Christ - Temple Lot actually owns the temple lot with the cornerstones). They are dying out as a church (aging out), and underwent a bitter legal battle with the RLDS Church in the early 80s for the temple lot. He expressed gratitude for the Church helping them rebuild their church building when it was destroyed in a fire, and I got the impression from him that when the time comes, they will be more than happy to sell us the actual temple lot. I think (hope) we would raze the "Tin Man" CoC temple to the ground if/when we ever bought it. 

I don't think there is any animosity towards us from CoC any more, and I don't think they care at all about any Joseph Smith legacies. Selling the printer's manuscript to the Church is very telling.

As far as the Kirtland temple, have any of you had a tour? The CoC missionaries strenuously avoid talking at all about the D&C 110 stuff --- they focus on architecture and trivia.