Church purchases Kirtland Temple, other historic buildings and artifacts from Community of Christ

[blackstrap]

I have a great deal of sympathy for Emma. Her trials were rough and included the loss of children and homes as well as Joseph. I do not fault her for trying to stabilize her life as best she could.

[Tacenda]

This came up on youtube feed, thought some might like to see it. I'm going to because it might be the only time I see it. 

 

[Duncan]

I posted this on Facebook in 2019, not sure where I got it from but

"Some rules for the Kirtland Temple, "6th— All persons are prohibited from cutting marking or marring the inside or outside of the house with a knife pencil or any other instrument whatever, under pain of such penalty as the law shall inflict—"7th— All children are prohibited from assembling in the house above or below or any part of it to play or for recreation at any time, and all parents guardians or masters shall be ameneable for all damage that shall accrue in consequence of their children—

8th— All persons whether believers or unbelievers shall be treated with due respect by the authority <authorities> of the Church—"

[Calm]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2024/03/06/rejoicing-and-mourning-context-for-selling-the-kirtland-temple
 

Quote

This announcement was met with joy by many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Latter-day Saints) and with sorrow by many members of Community of Christ. As Latter-day Saints celebrate receiving ownership of these important historical assets, we can also “mourn with those that mourn” (Mosiah 18:9) in Community of Christ who are devastated at having to part with these cherished pieces of history.

Quote

The RLDS church cared for these properties and assets carefully for over 150 years. When they changed their name to Community of Christ, they continued to care for these important pieces of their past. They made iconic places such as the Kirtland Temple and buildings in Nauvoo available for public tours and worked diligently to maintain these important pieces of history. They graciously shared access to important historical documents.

The Kirtland Temple was a foundational historic asset to Community of Christ, evidence to them of God’s spirit working in the lives of people on earth. It was a testament to their place as a “prophetic people” called to bring the shalom of Christ to all people on earth. And the properties in Nauvoo were ancestral homes of their church founders and leaders. From these buildings, RLDS church president Joseph Smith III, the son of the martyred Joseph Smith, began the process of building up that church from the scattered Saints in Illinois and the Midwest.

There is a lot of background on why the CoC had to sell their cherished properties.  In the end fulfilling their mission in the here and now and future is the most important aspect of their faith.

Quote

At this time of both heartbreak and rejoicing, Community of Christ members can find hope that this sale will enable their church to “have greater capacity to pursue our mission priorities around the world,” as noted by Stephen Veazey. They can find peace and joy through Jesus Christ, who will “comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion” (Isaiah 61:2–3, NIV). And both Community of Christ members and Latter-day Saints can find joy knowing that these cherished pieces of our shared past will be well-preserved for generations to come.

 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2024/03/06/rejoicing-and-mourning-context-for-selling-the-kirtland-temple
 

There is a lot of background on why the CoC had to sell their cherished properties.  In the end fulfilling their mission in the here and now and future is the most important aspect of their faith.

 

I hope the church will follow their lead and be upfront about the history. I felt the church hid a lot back when I went to Nauvoo about 10 years or so ago. I know the church hid polygamy, despite the King Follett speech with someone portraying Joseph Smith right in the very spot that it took place I believe, which was pretty amazing. The church mainly hid JS's wives.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/5/2024 at 1:18 PM, Calm said:

Beat me by ten minutes!  Dang  

For some reason I am more excited about this than the Nauvoo temple and I was pretty happy about that one.

This all happened in 2023. Old news.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This all happened in 2023. Old news.

I believe most of the arrangements began in 2021 and seems to have been hinted at last December by the CoC saying funds would likely become available this year, but it was just publicly announced on the 5th, so not old news.

From the blog post I posted above that discusses what led up to the sale  

”On March 5, 2024, Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints jointly announced that, after years of discussion, Community of Christ had sold to the Church of Jesus Christ the iconic Kirtland Temple, several historic sites in Nauvoo, and many historical documents and artifacts.”

The CoC started to sell properties in 2012 to offset lower tithing and other donations. 

Edited March 7, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church will follow their lead and be upfront about the history. I felt the church hid a lot back when I went to Nauvoo about 10 years or so ago. I know the church hid polygamy, despite the King Follett speech with someone portraying Joseph Smith right in the very spot that it took place I believe, which was pretty amazing. The church mainly hid JS's wives.

Agreed.  The last time I went to the Beehive House in SLC (probably 12 years ago) it was horrible.  The tour pretended like BY wasn't a polgamist and even went out of their way to show us his 'wife's' bedroom, all the time acting like there was only one.  And part of the tour included a lesson on family home evening, which came out of nowhere and was annoying in that context. 

I've heard that they've changed it since then and that it's much better.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.  The last time I went to the Beehive House in SLC (probably 12 years ago) it was horrible.  The tour pretended like BY wasn't a polgamist and even went out of their way to show us his 'wife's' bedroom, all the time acting like there was only one.  And part of the tour included a lesson on family home evening, which came out of nowhere and was annoying in that context. 

I've heard that they've changed it since then and that it's much better.

I had the same experience as you, probably went about that time too, my husband and I. I was there to see if what people on the outskirts were saying was true about hiding polygamy, and yep it was. And I had been to the Beehive House when a youngster and remember the black and white photo of BY with all of his wives and that had been taken down. I remember as a child going to the store next to it and getting their candy that would have been eaten in that day and age. I also went there for my eighth birthday with my friends and we pulled taffy. So us oldsters remember a whole different thing. 

I'll have to go again and see if they've changed it back to reality. Thanks bluebell!

[LoudmouthMormon]

Dan Peterson has a few interesting thoughts and anecdotes concerning the matter:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2024/03/a-few-more-thoughts-on-the-kirtland-temple-deal.html

Quote

That said, I suspect that there are other members of the Community of Christ for whom the sale of the Kirtland Temple and of other properties and artifacts pertaining to the Joseph Smith era of the Restoration has been largely a matter of indifference if not, indeed, of quiet pleasure.  One obvious reason would be the considerable expense that caring for old buildings and their surrounding properties represents.

But it’s not only that.  There has been an enormous theological evolution within their ranks, much more pronounced among some (including the leadership) than among many of their members.  I well remember a then-prominent intellectual from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as it was then called, expressing to me his satisfaction at his church’s conscious distancing of itself from the Book of Mormon and other aspects of early Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice.  “Now,” he said, “if we can only get rid of other notions, like ‘priesthood.'”

But such changes caused genuine, wrenching pain for many other members of the Reorganized Church.  They had been taught to reject the claims of “Utah Mormonism” or the “Brighamites,” but they continued to venerate the Book of Mormon and to respect Joseph Smith.  And when the leaders that they called “prophets” began to jettison much of that, they felt bereft, orphaned.

 

[a_little_taller]

I believe the CofC still has ownership of the Smith family burial plots in Nauvoo. 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, a_little_taller said:

I believe the CofC still has ownership of the Smith family burial plots in Nauvoo. 

When I was there awhile back that was the case. 

[Thinking]

I have toured the Kirtland Temple and am familiar with its history. During the tour a well meaning LDS member asked where the baptismal font was. There was one LDS man who under his breath kept saying that the guide was wrong. I knew the guide was correct because I had done some studying before the tour.

Anyway, I think the Church is doing the right thing by not converting it to an operating temple. Many of the LDS members who go on the tour will learn things they didn't know, like what the purpose of that temple was.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I said "Many..." not "All".

Still how did you determine it was "many?"

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

My comment about Emma and BY was more tongue in cheek…but he sure hated her.

And she him.  I take Emma's side. Based on my studies of BY he was a despicable man.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

My comment about Emma and BY was more tongue in cheek…but he sure hated her.

And she him.  I take Emma's side. Based on my studies of BY he was a despicable man.

I'm content to leave the dispute to them and the Lord.  They'll sort it out.

FAIR provides some useful context:

Quote

The animosity between Brigham Young and Emma had multiple grounds: personal, religious, and financial

In the October session of General Conference 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:

..."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. ( 6-8 Oct 1866, 36th Semi-Annual Conference, Bowery, G. S. L. City. [Deseret News Weekly 15:364, 10/10/66, p 4-5 and 15:372, 10/17/66, p 4-5; MS 28:764, 774]) off-site

The animosity between Brigham Young and Emma had multiple grounds: personal, religious, and financial. Brigham, for all his strengths, had little patience for anyone who would betray the prophet, which he perceived Emma doing on multiple levels. This made the poisoning accusation plausible for him. The episode seems to have been a family quarrel between Joseph and Emma—two mortals living in something of a fishbowl, under enormous pressures and strains.

Emma certainly made errors in judgment, as do we all. Her judgment lies in God's hands, not in ours or Brigham Young's.

If Brigham Young had one constant character trait, it was his absolute faithfulness to Joseph Smith. Brigham had very little patience for those who demeaned or rejected Joseph; the difficulties that Joseph experienced with Emma can only have frustrated the loyal Brigham.

Following Joseph's murder, Emma refused to go west with the Saints. She seems, among other things, to have been worried about providing for her children, as well as protecting them from the violence which had claimed Joseph. Emma and Brigham also disagreed about which parts of Joseph's estate were personal property, and which belonged to the Church.^[1]

Brigham also doubtless considered Emma dishonest and a liar because she continued to insist that her husband had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage

Brigham also doubtless considered Emma dishonest and a liar because she continued to insist that her husband had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage. So adamant was Emma on this point that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held it as an article of faith, and Emma's children never accepted the idea that Joseph had instituted plural marriage. Given that Brigham was blamed by Emma for being the inventor of plural marriage, he probably felt rather ill-used by her. Brigham, after all, saw Emma as fighting against the man Brigham revered as the Prophet, and he knew that Emma knew that Joseph taught plural marriage.

Finally, Brigham was Joseph's successor, and Emma challenged that succession by supporting her son, Joseph Smith III, as the 'proper' leader, and as one who would not teach the hated doctrine of polygamy (which Emma falsely claimed Brigham had foisted on the Church).

Richard Bushman writes of the poisoning accusation:

Through the late fall and winter of 1843 and 1844, Joseph and Emma's relationship broke down only once. During Sunday dinner on November 5, Joseph became ill, rushed to the door, and vomited so violently that he dislocated his jaw. "Every symptom of poison," Richards noted in Joseph's diary. That night at the prayer meeting, Richards, wrote in code that Joseph and Emma did not dress in the usual special clothing, a sign they were too much at odds to participate. The next day, Richards wrote that Joseph was "busy with domestic concerns." Years later, in the anti-Emma atmosphere of Utah, Brigham Young spoke of a meeting where Joseph accused his wife of slipping poison into his coffee. Brigham interpreted Emma's refusal to answer as an admission of guilt.. Though there probably was an argument, the poisoning accusation was unfounded. Joseph was susceptible to vomiting anyway. He had even dislocated his jaw while vomiting once before; and five weeks after the 1843 dinner episode, he was sick again, vomiting more violently than ever. During this last bout, Joseph said gratefully, "My wife waited on me."^[2]

Brigham and Emma did not agree on the disposition of Joseph's estate

Furthermore, Brigham and Emma did not agree on the disposition of Joseph's estate. Illinois law at the time held that no church could hold more than ten acres of property, and so much of the church's properties were held in Joseph's name. At the same time, much of the Church's debt was held by Joseph as a private citizen—thus, Emma was liable for Joseph/the Church's debts, but had a less clear claim on the Church's lands that Joseph held as Trustee-in-Trust.^[3]

This difficult situation was complicated by the immense demands on Brigham Young's time. He delegated a great deal of the Church's interaction with Emma to Almon Babbitt, a man greatly lacking in tact:

Almon Babbitt's air…bordered on the pompous...Babbit provided Joseph with legal advice that resulted in the destruction of the Expositor, then he refused to help when Joseph was jailed in Carthage saying, 'You are too late. I am already engaged on the other side.'^[4]

Either Brigham Young was not aware of Babbitt's propensity for alienating those around him or, like Joseph before him, he overlooked his faults because he needed his legal knowledge. In the future Brigham would have his own falling out with Babbitt and the rift would become so widely known that, when Indians killed Babbitt on the Western plains in 1856, Eastern newspapers erroneously reported that Brigham had ordered him killed.

In the meantime, Emma assumed that because these men represented the Twelve they acted on direct orders from Brigham. And Brigham, his relationship with Emma strained at best, did not bother to separate the inflammatory rhetoric of Babbitt's letters from the less dramatic probabilities. Babbitt would make Brigham's requests to Emma sound abrupt and thoughtless, and her responses to him selfish and defensive.^[5]

 

Notes

1. Jump up↑ “Memoirs of Joseph Smith III (1832–1914),” ed. Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, The Saints Herald (2 April 1935): 431–434.
2. Jump up↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 498.
3. Jump up↑ See discussion in Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd edition, (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 199–209. The laws against churches holding property is discussed on page 258.
4. Jump up↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 6:660. Volume 6 link
5. Jump up↑ Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd edition, (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 230.

Unfortunately, such hostilities can last for generations.  See here: Healing the rift between Brigham and Emma

Quote

He wanted an apology to Emma Smith's family.

"What?!" Brigham Young's descendants said, according to Mary Ellen Elggren. "What are they talking about?"

In 2007, Elggren was president-elect of the Brigham Young Family Association when she first heard that Michael Kennedy, president of the Joseph Smith Jr. Family Organization, wanted an apology.

"I was totally puzzled over this," Elggren said.

Kennedy, however, was not puzzled. He was baptized as a Mormon in 1973 — the first male descendant of Joseph and Emma Smith to join the LDS Church and be ordained an elder. He knew firsthand the prejudices that kept the families of Emma and Brigham apart.

"From the LDS perspective you've got a woman who did not come West. She is living very well. Her life is set. She's financially stable. She has not had to go through near the heartaches or the troubles that the Latter-day Saints did when they were trying to cross the plains and come up here and start everything afresh. So there is a little bit of resentment there," Kennedy said. "She didn't come West. She hated Brigham Young. And she wanted her kids to be running the church — and we learned that those things aren't true."

From the Latter-day Saint perspective in the 19th-century West, the whole world was against them. "Brigham Young is hearing comments of Emma stating this or that, most of which are taken out of context because he is hearing them through third parties. ... So he makes all these harsh statements about Emma — and those harsh statements get back to Emma. And so she responds by making harsh statements back about Brigham," Kennedy said.

Very unfortunate.

But some good things came out of this:

Quote

Historian Ronald W. Walker, who is writing a new biography on Brigham Young, also thinks that miscommunication lies at the heart of the tension between Brigham and Emma.

"It has all the classic signs of people probably doing their very best in a very unsettled and difficult time. Sometimes in those circumstances, on both sides, there's a misreading of motive. You know, if they had had an opportunity to sit down and talk it through it might have evaporated," Walker said. "Without a telephone and 1,200 miles between them, it became very hard."

Kennedy approached the Young family organization. "Brigham Young never would have said any of the things he did had he had the correct information. And so I figured that maybe, if he were alive, he would come before Emma and apologize. And that's what began this was those thoughts," he said.

The initial reaction of the group was negative to the idea. People stood up and were upset. "Brigham Young doesn't need to apologize for anything!" Kennedy recalls them saying. "And so there was this stiffness that was definitely there," he said.

Then the Young family learned the prejudices that the Smith family held onto.

They had been taught that Brigham had Joseph killed, according to Kennedy. "These descendants have been raised (to think) that Brigham was part of the conspiracy, that Emma didn't want anything to do with Brigham, that they very much did not like each other."

Elggren and the rest of the group were won over. "I did not begin to know the amount of baggage that (Smith descendants) were carrying around in the way of oral tradition, father to child, about Brigham Young. I had no idea," she said. "They've got an obstacle in their path, and somehow it's Brigham Young."

The group decided to have Elggren draft the document.

It came to her in a quick burst of inspiration, she said. In July 2007, she flew to Nauvoo, Ill., to present what is called "The Healing Document" to the Joseph Smith Jr. Family Organization meeting.

There were representatives from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and from the Community of Christ. There were descendants of the Smith family from the LDS Church, Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and those who did not belong to any church.

Elggren read the document aloud to a quiet room. "For a century and a half we have grieved over the loss of the fellowship of our dear Emma Hale Smith, her children and her descendants. We feel in our hearts an abiding longing to join once again these two families in a common celebration of their ancestors," she began.

The document spoke of a commitment to correct false traditions and to honor Emma's "noble life." It ended with a desire to "rebuild that bridge of friendship between our two families that existed not so long ago."

"There was no one, including the leaders, after that presentation was over that was not emotional," Kennedy said.

Many of the descendants who were not LDS came up to Kennedy and told him, "This should have been done a long time ago."

A friend of Elggren's in the Community of Christ later told her the statement wasn't really a full-blown apology. "I know," Elggren said. "But it is a bridge of friendship."

Wonderful stuff.  The whole article is worth a read.

More here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church will follow their lead and be upfront about the history. I felt the church hid a lot back when I went to Nauvoo about 10 years or so ago. I know the church hid polygamy, despite the King Follett speech with someone portraying Joseph Smith right in the very spot that it took place I believe, which was pretty amazing. The church mainly hid JS's wives.

I would not hold your breath. I am sure the LDS missionaries that will be hosting tours at the Kirtland Temple and the other sites will be giving the same whitewashed banal narrative focused at seeking converts and bolstering testimonies like they do at all the other historical sites.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Dan Peterson has a few interesting thoughts and anecdotes concerning the matter:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2024/03/a-few-more-thoughts-on-the-kirtland-temple-deal.html

 

I think those remarks were rather petty and smug.  Typical of Dan Peterson.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm content to leave the dispute to them and the Lord.  They'll sort it out.

FAIR provides some useful context:

Unfortunately, such hostilities can last for generations.  See here: Healing the rift between Brigham and Emma

Very unfortunate.

But some good things came out of this:

Wonderful stuff.  The whole article is worth a read.

More here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting. Doesn't change the fact that BY seems like a despicable human.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would not hold your breath. I am sure the LDS missionaries that will be hosting tours at the Kirtland Temple and the other sites will be giving the same whitewashed banal narrative focused at seeking converts and bolstering testimonies like they do at all the other historical sites.

I was told that the tour at the beehive house has changed significantly from what it used to be, though I haven’t been back. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Interesting. Doesn't change the fact that BY seems like a despicable human.

Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 8, 2024 by smac97

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion.

I hope to God you wouldn’t be this indifferent if someone treated your wife or daughters the way Brigham treated Emma. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

I hope to God you wouldn’t be this indifferent if someone treated your wife or daughters the way Brigham treated Emma. 

Mormon 9:31 does not address indifference.

[Smiley McGee]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mormon 9:31 does not address indifference.

And yet you are citing it as a reason to remain unconcerned and unbothered. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

I hope to God you wouldn’t be this indifferent if someone treated your wife or daughters the way Brigham treated Emma. 

I thought the verse was Mormon 9:13, which came up with 14 as a set and I could not figure out why you were upset with verses that indicate to me the afterlife/resurrection is just.

Quote

And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.
And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still.
Mormon 9:13-14

Though I like Elder Renlund’s commentary on them..

Quote

In His mercy, God promises forgiveness when we repent and turn from wickedness—so much so that our sins will not even be mentioned to us. For us, because of the Atonement of Christ and our repentance, we can look at our past deeds and say, “’Twas I; but ’tis not I.” No matter how wicked, we can say, “That’s who I was. But that past wicked self is no longer who I am.”7

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/04/latter-day-saints-keep-on-trying?lang=eng

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm