christopher wrote:Why does the church own the land anyway? What would the interest or need be if "the church" had no involvement in the killings?
Chris <><
Excellent question. Since the church was in no way involved in MMM, what is the signifiance of that land to the church? Nothing in church history happened there. It would be like a group of Jews purchasing Haun's Mill and maintaining it for no apparent reason and refusing to give up ownership.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
christopher wrote:Why does the church own the land anyway? What would the interest or need be if "the church" had no involvement in the killings?
Chris <><
Excellent question. Since the church was in no way involved in MMM, what is the signifiance of that land to the church? Nothing in church history happened there. It would be like a group of Jews purchasing Haun's Mill and maintaining it for no apparent reason and refusing to give up ownership.
Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.
Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
christopher wrote:Why does the church own the land anyway? What would the interest or need be if "the church" had no involvement in the killings?
Chris <><
Excellent question. Since the church was in no way involved in MMM, what is the signifiance of that land to the church? Nothing in church history happened there. It would be like a group of Jews purchasing Haun's Mill and maintaining it for no apparent reason and refusing to give up ownership.
Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.
Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
rcrocket
I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you telling us that we can't really expect to see the Church sell any property?
Because if that's true. . . you're misinformed. The Church has been selling chapels to the SDA, if I remember correct, for some time now.
Bryan Inks wrote: I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you telling us that we can't really expect to see the Church sell any property?
Because if that's true. . . you're misinformed. The Church has been selling chapels to the SDA, if I remember correct, for some time now.
Church disposition of property is very rare. But, there are instances. In our valley, development did not go in the direction the Church thought and it sold a church site to the Baptists. The Baptists now have a nice little chapel 4 miles from the nearest housing development.
Bob wrote:Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.
Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
rcrocket
Who said anything about the Church being hateful?
All anyone here is saying is that this portion of land is important to the families of those victims. It would be a charitable act on the Church's behalf to deed that portion of the land over to them.
Let me ask you this, Bob. What "purpose of God" is the Church advancing by keeping it?
And now one less thing for the critics to bitch about.
I wish. The AP is reporting that LDS spokesman, Mark Tuttle, has clarified the statement was not an apology, just an expression of profound regret. I'm afraid the statement changes very little, if anything. Well, at least the Church can continue its 177-year streak of never apologizing for anything.
Bob wrote:Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.
Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
rcrocket
Who said anything about the Church being hateful?
All anyone here is saying is that this portion of land is important to the families of those victims. It would be a charitable act on the Church's behalf to deed that portion of the land over to them.
Let me ask you this, Bob. What "purpose of God" is the Church advancing by keeping it?
Sorry, I can't be parried with substance-less questions. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please continue to express it.
liz3564 wrote:Let me ask you this, Bob. What "purpose of God" is the Church advancing by keeping it?
Sorry, I can't be parried with substance-less questions.
Bob, you are the one who first linked "advancing the Church's interests" to an MMM apology and real estate transactions. Answer the question, or don't raise the issue if you "can't be parried."
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Bob wrote:Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.
Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
rcrocket
Who said anything about the Church being hateful?
All anyone here is saying is that this portion of land is important to the families of those victims. It would be a charitable act on the Church's behalf to deed that portion of the land over to them.
Let me ask you this, Bob. What "purpose of God" is the Church advancing by keeping it?
Sorry, I can't be parried with substance-less questions. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please continue to express it.
rcrocket
It was an honest question, Bob. With your vast gospel knowledge, explain to me what purpose of God the Church will accomplish by keeping this property?
rcrocket wrote:It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.
rcrocket
So how does holding this land advance the purposes of god? Liz asked a good question. If anything, holding this land hurts the church's missionary effort by keeping the wound of MMM open.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks