“Church moving in a new direction”; since when.

[The_Phoenix]

In a small town in Georgia called “Buchannan” stood (until a couple of years ago) the oldest LDS Church building in the Southeast (so the story goes) complete with bullet holes from persecution in the late 1800’s. It was spoken of in a book by one of it’s members called (I believe) “Miracle of the South”, by a Sister Kimball (not the same Kimball’s as President Spencer W Kimball). Some 100 miles to the north is a monument built to young Elder Joseph Standing, who was killed. His companion lived and I believe later became President of the Quorum of the Twelve. I spoke to the Architect of the new Buchannan Brach building and asked what would happen to the old building, which btw has a cemetery of members dating back 120+ years. I know him and was driving through the town the other day which caused me to ask. He said that as soon as the new building was dedicated that the old historic one was torn down. I asked why “would the church tear down such an historic building”; and he said “the church is moving in a different direction concerning such things”.

I have traveled all over America seeing Church historical sites, does anyone know what he means by a “different direction”?

In my opinion (as my father used to say); “You don’t know where you are going if you don’t know where you have been”. Maybe it is my age, but our past is as much a part of who we are as any other factor. I love going to Church historical sites, it builds faith in a people who would not be conquered and a God who would not forsake them.

On a more humorous note the church sat on “Morman Church Rd”. The city fathers did not know how to spell Mormon when they first named it.

I have included a link from the Church website that addresses the history of the Church in Georgia and Elder Standing who was murdered there.

Here is link:

Mormon Temple - The Church in Georgia

[The_Phoenix]

Since no one cared about my little history lesson on Georgia. Let me just ask outright; does anyone know if the Church is moving away from preserving “anymore” historical sites?

Here is like why I am asking. My former Bishop designed a new branch building, within a week a very historical one was torn down. When I asked why he said that he was told the Church is moving away from (or having) such sites.

Has anyone heard anything like this?

The one I mentioned that was commissioned by David O McKay is in deplorable condition, buy now possibly not even maintained. Even though the road it is own now bares the Elder who was killed for his faith; our faith.

[Guest saintish]

very sad

[Wingnut]

Historic to one tiny area with no significant impact on Church history as a whole doesn't qualify a place as a "Church historic site." The Church is not doing away with its historic sites.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Wingnut

[john doe]

Try exercising a little patience. You started the earlier thread less than 6 hours before starting a second one on the same subject. These threads will be merged.

[Wingnut]

Proof the Church isn't abandoning historic sites.

[Guest saintish]

Proof the Church isn't abandoning historic sites.

well its one thing to choose to restore cites that linearly related to church history, but it is still a tragedy to me anyway, when a almost 200 year old church is lost, especially an lds one when establishing ourselves as something other than a new religion can be hard to do.

[carlimac]

Did you ask the guy what he meant by "the church is moving in a different direction on these things"? Perhaps the Church has decided to be more choosy about which sites to maintain and keep up. Perhaps the building was in such bad shape that it would have been too costly to refurbish. Termites? Not enough people in the area to justify the money spent to keep it up? Who knows? These tough decisions have to be made. Some will like them and some won't.

[Guest mormonmusic]

This is one of those issues over which we as rank and file members have very little control. To even find out what the Church's policy is on this issue would be a nightmare. This is one thing I would try not to be concerned about, notwithstanding our need for context. I'd be very surprised if anyone on this site knows what the Church's policy is on this.

By the way, my wife and kids are in Georgia at the temple open house....tomorrow!

[Suzie]

Dave Banack from Times and Seasons:

The substantial financial commitment of the Church to purchase, restore, staff, and manage these sites can only be justified if it furthers the mission of the Church. LDS leaders won’t spend millions of tithing bucks to subsidize the equivalent of a county historical museum; they will spend millions of tithing bucks to preserve sites, landmarks, and monuments that witness or testify to the truths of the Restoration.

LDS Historical Sites | Times & Seasons

Makes sense to me.

[The_Phoenix]

Historic to one tiny area with no significant impact on Church history as a whole doesn't qualify a place as a "Church historic site." The Church is not doing away with its historic sites.

Why do you place it significance in the tine real? Also the question was if the church is just not doing any new sites?

[The_Phoenix]

Historic to one tiny area with no significant impact on Church history as a whole doesn't qualify a place as a "Church historic site." The Church is not doing away with its historic sites.

Many of them are historical to one tiny area. This does not seem to fit the criteria. Georgia probably has 100.000 members or more, it would seem such a site would only help establish us as more than a 'flash in the pan" religion here in the Southeast. Especially because so many who gave their all to build up the church here in the South are buried there.

[Just_A_Guy]

Every church building is "historical" once it has stood for a generation or more. Pretty much every building of that age was built, not with general Church funds, but by individual contributions of members who often did so at enormous financial sacrifice. Where stands the perpetual memorial to their faith?

The sad bottom line: the Church simply can't afford to be in the business of maintaining every one of its sanctuaries a duly registered historical site, especially in a town like Buchannan with a population of barely over 900 people.

The Church has to pick and choose, and inevitably someone's going to disagree with those choices. But which Church site would you have sold off to maintain the Buchannan building?

By the way: this lack of regard for buildings of local historical significance is not a "new direction" for the Church. Coalville Tabernacle, anyone? (To say nothing of the "renovations" of the Logan and St. George temples . . . )

Edited April 22, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[applepansy]

By the way: this lack of regard for buildings of local historical significance is not a "new direction" for the Church. Coalville Tabernacle, anyone? (To say nothing of the "renovations" of the Logan and St. George temples . . . )

I wouldn't call it a lack of respect, but I could add the Ogden Temple to your list.

Moving forward is important. Sometimes we have to lose the old to move forward. This is true in our personal lives as well.

[Wingnut]

I wouldn't call it a lack of respect, but I could add the Ogden Temple to your list.

Moving forward is important. Sometimes we have to lose the old to move forward. This is true in our personal lives as well.

Provo, too. Its renovations completely changed the significance of why it was designed the way it was.

[The_Phoenix]

Every church building is "historical" once it has stood for a generation or more. Pretty much every building of that age was built, not with general Church funds, but by individual contributions of members who often did so at enormous financial sacrifice. Where stands the perpetual memorial to their faith?

The sad bottom line: the Church simply can't afford to be in the business of maintaining every one of its sanctuaries a duly registered historical site, especially in a town like Buchannan with a population of barely over 900 people.

The Church has to pick and choose, and inevitably someone's going to disagree with those choices. But which Church site would you have sold off to maintain the Buchannan building?

By the way: this lack of regard for buildings of local historical significance is not a "new direction" for the Church. Coalville Tabernacle, anyone? (To say nothing of the "renovations" of the Logan and St. George temples . . . )

Yes, I get the pick and choose, but that town of 900 is near a metropolitan area with 5,000,000 people and an LDS Temple. The Joseph Standing monument is not in a town of 300 people. Also there was some great history behind that particular building and what the early Saints there endured there. But I guess it does not matter now, it is all gone. I have a few friends buried there who chose to be so thinking it would always be there. Now they are just buried beside of the road; The property was sold.

[The_Phoenix]

Provo, too. Its renovations completely changed the significance of why it was designed the way it was.

I don't know the story, why was it designed the "way it was"?

[Wingnut]

I don't know the story, why was it designed the "way it was"?

I had to look it up quickly to remember the specifics, even though I've learned them before. According to Wiki, "[t]he exterior design of the Provo Temple has its roots in scriptural imagery. The broad base and narrow spire represent the cloudy pillar and the fiery pillar (respectively) that the Lord used to guide the Israelites through the wilderness under Moses (Exodus 13:21-22)." The Ogden Temple, I imagine, was based on similar symbolism.

The Provo Temple used to look like this:

And now looks like this:

I think it looks kind-of like a giant white cupcake with a flame at the top of a white candle.

[gruden]

Here's a thought: if the old church means so much to you, why don't you form a local committee to save the building? If the local saints could make a sacrifice a 100 years ago to build it, is it important enough to the saints of today to sacrifice to keep it?

Everybody wants 'the Church' or 'the Government' to do something. Maybe instead of relying on the larger organization to do something, the Saints there could practice some self-reliance and do it themselves. Just a thought. It's up to you.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Joseph Standing monument is not in a town of 300 people.

But the Standing monument is not being sold, right?

Also there was some great history behind that particular building and what the early Saints there endured there. But I guess it does not matter now, it is all gone. I have a few friends buried there who chose to be so thinking it would always be there. Now they are just buried beside of the road; The property was sold.

I'd be interested to learn more about this. Why would someone buy a cemetery?

[jlf9999]

Getting back on the church moving in a new direction theme, I suppose that is correct. From strictly my perception and what I have read from knowledgeable LDS figures, Church practice (as opposed to doctrine) is a living thing. They are not the same critter. As we grow world wide we have to give up on many of the things that kept us together when we were small and struggling to maintain cohesion. The persecutions and the aftermath helped keep us together to be sure. However that doesn't work well for members outside our original membership and the follow-on generations. It is time to move on. We seek to embrace others not stay in a protected shell so to speak. We even have a name for those first few generations after the move west. They are known as siege Mormons. The wariness of outsiders is diminishing as older generations die. Maybe it is time to loose some of the reminders of those times too. Just a few.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[RipplecutBuddha]

Let me share a story about the historical sites connected with the Willies and Martin handcart companies. I grew up in the stake where they are located, and I've done two 2-day treks on the trail as a youth. I've pushed a handcart up Rocky Ridge, and I've been to Martin's cove, as well as the Willies rescue site. All through my youth, these sites were on private land. When the Second Rescue began, interest in securing access to these sites was strong. However, the initial talks with the land owners dealt stritclty with being allowed access to specific areas, as well as permission to erect monuments.

The talks went back and forth, and ultimately the land owners decided to deny access on a regular basis. Only at that point was the attempt made to buy the land outright from the land owners. A sale was agreed upon, and now the church owns the land directly.

You have to understand how the decisions are made to preserve historic sites with regards to the use of tithing funds. This is not something the church does lightly, preserving historical sites. The use of tithing funds is a very carefully considered action, whatever the end use is.

With regards to the Willies and Martin handcart companies, there were dozens of areas where those who died along the way were buried. How much money should the church spend locating and preserving each and every one of them? There has to be a line somewhere, and as has been said before, some people won't like where the line is, no matter where it is placed.

Finally, the nature of the gospel is to remind us that this life is temporary, and but a step towards a much greater future. The day will come that all church historic sites will no longer be maintained. At some point, we cannot allow ourselves to be held back by our past, but remember to use our past to look forward.

[bytebear]

The Ogden temple renovation is less about the actual temple design and more about trying to revitalize the area. The downtown area around the temple is pretty bad, and I think the church feels that if they invest in the reconstruction of the temple, the city and the surrounding businesses will do likewise. Of course, this was why the temple was built there the first time, and it really didn't work then. Hopefully it will this time.