Church Issues Statement about MMM

[cacheman]

The Church sold our old chapel when we built a new one a few years ago. It sold another old building in our stake about 15 years ago as well.

Yeah, what's with the idea that the church doesn't dispose of chapels? The church I attended as a child in California is now in a heavily African American part of LA, and the church sold the building (complete with relief panels of the First Vision on the outside) to an AME church a number of years ago.

Similarly, the Clawson Ward building in Tetonia, Idaho, built sometime in the 1980s, is now a lumber/hardware store. The Alta Ward building, in the same stake but over the border in Wyoming, is now part of the Alta public school. The historic Third Ward building in Provo was sold to private interests when I was a member of that ward in the 1980s.

I don't know where Bob gets the idea that the church never disposes of property. Look at all the welfare farms in Utah that have been sold to build subdivisions.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, the Church is so busy preaching the words of Christ that it can't perform a Christ-like deed. That is truly ironic.

I read my Bible. I don't see any such rule of conduct required. You simply have the politically expedient and relativistic view of morals of a critic and unbeliever. You would demand a system of ethics to which you do not subscribe.

rcrocket

Since you read your Bible so regularly, why don't you turn to Acts 20:35:

35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

I have compassion for the families of men, women, and children who were maliciously slaughtered. That makes my "relativistic view of morals" that of a critic and an unbeliever?

Bob...for the record...you stated in another thread that I know very little about you.....You know very little about me. And it's comments like this that further prove the point of my signature.

Have a nice day!

;)

Now, now. Spell my name correctly. I will just point out that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus say the thing that Paul quotes him as saying.

So Paul's words are not good enough? And since when do Mormons believe every word of Jesus is in the Bible. Come on Crockett, you are drowning fast on this one.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Church sold our old chapel when we built a new one a few years ago. It sold another old building in our stake about 15 years ago as well.

Yeah, what's with the idea that the church doesn't dispose of chapels? The church I attended as a child in California is now in a heavily African American part of LA, and the church sold the building (complete with relief panels of the First Vision on the outside) to an AME church a number of years ago.

Similarly, the Clawson Ward building in Tetonia, Idaho, built sometime in the 1980s, is now a lumber/hardware store. The Alta Ward building, in the same stake but over the border in Wyoming, is now part of the Alta public school. The historic Third Ward building in Provo was sold to private interests when I was a member of that ward in the 1980s.

I don't know where Bob gets the idea that the church never disposes of property. Look at all the welfare farms in Utah that have been sold to build subdivisions.

Good point. A few years back the Church consolidated all its dairy farms to one farm in Elberta Utah and sold the rest. I think Crockett is mistaken on this one.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church sold our old chapel when we built a new one a few years ago. It sold another old building in our stake about 15 years ago as well.

Yeah, what's with the idea that the church doesn't dispose of chapels? The church I attended as a child in California is now in a heavily African American part of LA, and the church sold the building (complete with relief panels of the First Vision on the outside) to an AME church a number of years ago.

Similarly, the Clawson Ward building in Tetonia, Idaho, built sometime in the 1980s, is now a lumber/hardware store.

I don't know where Bob gets the idea that the church never disposes of property. Look at all the welfare farms in Utah that have been sold to build subdivisions.

And let's not forget one of the more famous of LDS chapels -- the temple-looking D.C. chapel dedicated by Heber J. Grant to much fanfare in the 30's, and which even had its own Angel Moroni statue at the top of the spire and gorgeous stain glass with famous scenes of the First Vision, etc. The Church sold the chapel to the Moonies in the late 70's or 80's (but not before removing the Angel Moroni and stain glass, which I believe now reside in the Church's history museum).

[_Runtu]

Good point. A few years back the Church consolidated all its dairy farms to one farm in Elberta Utah and sold the rest. I think Crockett is mistaken on this one.

You just reminded me of taking a load of deacons to Elberta to clean out the milking pens. Wading through 8 inches of wet manure is not a fun memory.

[_rcrocket]

Too bad you need to obfuscate so much. I have always thought it would not hurt the Church to apologize. It is the right
thing to do. Ask yourself What Would Jesus Do....

You all anonymous non-believers and non-contributors have a lot of opinions about what the Church should and shouldn't do.

The "Church" is not a corpus like a corporation. It is a "corporation sole" which means that it is not owned by anybody. It exists as a body of believers. There is no living person alive in the Church responsible for the massacre. Just as I think it silly to ask Virginia to apologize for slavery, or Illinois to apologize for the martyrdom of the prophet, so I think it silly to ask living people to atone for the sins of dead people. Yet, you ard your friends are so willing to mock and point fun, anonymously, at the Church for a horrendous tragedy for which it was not responsible.

In terms of deriding the Church for not conveying its property to the Fanchers, there just simply is no reason to do so. As you cite the Golden Rule and other platitudinous but not specific mandates, I can only simply respond by saying that the Church would be foolish to convey what is now a tourist site accessible to all, and properly maintained at that, to a handful of out-of-staters who have mostly vile things to say about Utah and its citizens. I think the massacre a tragedy, and the Fanchers did not deserve their fate, but no living person today is responsible for that.

rcrocket

[_karl61]

Too bad you need to obfuscate so much. I have always thought it would not hurt the Church to apologize. It is the right
thing to do. Ask yourself What Would Jesus Do....

You all anonymous non-believers and non-contributors have a lot of opinions about what the Church should and shouldn't do.

The "Church" is not a corpus like a corporation. It is a "corporation sole" which means that it is not owned by anybody. It exists as a body of believers. There is no living person alive in the Church responsible for the massacre. Just as I think it silly to ask Virginia to apologize for slavery, or Illinois to apologize for the martyrdom of the prophet, so I think it silly to ask living people to atone for the sins of dead people. Yet, you ard your friends are so willing to mock and point fun, anonymously, at the Church for a horrendous tragedy for which it was not responsible.

In terms of deriding the Church for not conveying its property to the Fanchers, there just simply is no reason to do so. As you cite the Golden Rule and other platitudinous but not specific mandates, I can only simply respond by saying that the Church would be foolish to convey what is now a tourist site accessible to all, and properly maintained at that, to a handful of out-of-staters who have mostly vile things to say about Utah and its citizens. I think the massacre a tragedy, and the Fanchers did not deserve their fate, but no living person today is responsible for that.

rcrocket

It's likely and very possible that Virgina did pass a resolution apologizing for slavery. That would be something that would be accepted. Do you think Ivy league schools have said that they were wrong for not allowing woman or blacks to enter the school. I think they would admitt they were wrong.

[_Jason Bourne]

You all anonymous non-believers and non-contributors have a lot of opinions about what the Church should and shouldn't do.

Blah, blah, blah..............YAWN!

The "Church" is not a corpus like a corporation. It is a "corporation sole" which means that it is not owned by anybody.

Yes we know this. Big deal. It still has a board, there is a Corp of the Presiding Bishop, used to be President. There are leaders that run it and so on.

It exists as a body of believers.

Of course. Still there is structure and organization and leaders that are responsible and speak for the Church. It is not some ethereal entity that floats around on its own.

There is no living person alive in the Church responsible for the massacre

.


Wow. Now there is a newsflash. But the current leaders of the LDS Church can speak up for what we believe was errors of those who are progenitors and they can be forthcoming if they have information that shed more light on the tragedy. They can apologize and express regrets, which Elder Eyring did do, for the actions of those in the past.

Just as I think it silly to ask Virginia to apologize for slavery, or Illinois to apologize for the martyrdom of the prophet, so I think it silly to ask living people to atone for the sins of dead people

.


You are entitled to your erroneous opinion.

Yet, you ard your friends are so willing to mock and point fun, anonymously, at the Church for a horrendous tragedy for which it was not responsible.

I don't mock anyone. And it is sad to watch an alleged stalwart member obfuscate further over a simple "We are sorry about what happened." I note that you ignore the New Testament passages that clearly give a moral compass that would encourage the Church to help in healing the pain of those descended from the survivors of the massacre. How sad.

In terms of deriding the Church for not conveying its property to the Fanchers, there just simply is no reason to do so. As you cite the Golden Rule and other platitudinous but not specific mandates, I can only simply respond by saying that the Church would be foolish to convey what is now a tourist site accessible to all, and properly maintained at that, to a handful of out-of-staters who have mostly vile things to say about Utah and its citizens. I think the massacre a tragedy, and the Fanchers did not deserve their fate, but no living person today is responsible for that.

First I am not arguing for the church to give up the property. Second nobody thinks anyone today is responsible per say for the tragedy. The fact that you cannot see some benefit even for the Church by apologizing for the events that those that were part of 19th century Mormonism speaks volumes to me that you are more concerned about appearances and image then you are the essence of the Christian message.

[_Runtu]

You all anonymous non-believers and non-contributors have a lot of opinions about what the Church should and shouldn't do.

I didn't realize that you had to believe in Mormonism to have an opinion about its actions. I'm a Republican, so apparently I can't say anything about what the Democratic Party does and says. Who knew?

The "Church" is not a corpus like a corporation. It is a "corporation sole" which means that it is not owned by anybody. It exists as a body of believers. There is no living person alive in the Church responsible for the massacre. Just as I think it silly to ask Virginia to apologize for slavery, or Illinois to apologize for the martyrdom of the prophet, so I think it silly to ask living people to atone for the sins of dead people. Yet, you ard your friends are so willing to mock and point fun, anonymously, at the Church for a horrendous tragedy for which it was not responsible.

I haven't mocked the church for the MMM. It was a horrendous tragedy. I simply expressed the opinion that the statement was the right thing to do, and I was disheartened to hear the spokesman backtrack on what seemed like a heartfelt expression of regret. But the church is indeed a corporation (actually, two), at least that's who my paychecks came from.

In terms of deriding the Church for not conveying its property to the Fanchers, there just simply is no reason to do so. As you cite the Golden Rule and other platitudinous but not specific mandates, I can only simply respond by saying that the Church would be foolish to convey what is now a tourist site accessible to all, and properly maintained at that, to a handful of out-of-staters who have mostly vile things to say about Utah and its citizens. I think the massacre a tragedy, and the Fanchers did not deserve their fate, but no living person today is responsible for that.

rcrocket

I'm not deriding the church for not giving property to the Fanchers. Again, I expressed the opinion that such would be the right thing to do. You seem to be confusing the two Fancher organizations. One is indeed very much against the church, but the main organization is not. Not all the Fancher descendants are vile out-of-staters.

I don't believe any living person is responsible, either, Bob. That we disagree as to the right course of action is no reason to call us mockers who point fun at the church. Again, I'm convinced that you don't believe our opinions are sincere but that we are using the MMM as a weapon of opportunity against the church. Simply put, you're wrong, Bob.

[_harmony]

If the church had nothing to do with the tragedy, why are they at all interested in having anything to do with the monument? If they are indeed just bystanders, what interest do they have in something that doesn't concern them?