Church Issues Statement about MMM

[_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?

The Church has no property disposition program, at least of which I am aware. It has no employees whose jobs are to focus upon excess properties, or even requests to sell property. The Church's mission is to preach the Gospel and redeem the dead; property disposition of property that costs practically nothing to maintain is just something it doesn't spend money on employees to consider.

The fact that you think it would be politically expedient to gift the property to a handful of Fanchers who don't live in the state, and are always critical of the Church and claim without evidence that Young ordered the attack, doesn't take into account to various restrictions which face the owners of historical sites, the ease by which the property is now being maintained, the thousands per year who visit the site with its current ownership configuration, the long-standing connection the site has had with the Hamblin family, and probable donative restrictions extant between the Hamblin family and the Church. In short, the Church's mission would be disrupted by going through the exercise of spending money to respond to what you think is right.

But, what you think is right is governed by no rule book except the one between your own ears. One that is antithetical to the Gospel. Three points.


rcrocket

[_Runtu]

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?

The Church has no property disposition program, at least of which I am aware. It has no employees whose jobs are to focus upon excess properties, or even requests to sell property. The Church's mission is to preach the Gospel and redeem the dead; property disposition of property that costs practically nothing to maintain is just something it doesn't spend money on employees to consider.

I used to ride the vanpool with a guy who worked in the church's properties division. He said there were basically three types of property the church dealt with:

1. Investment property.
2. Property intended for religious purposes, such as for meetinghouses or temples.
3. Property with some historic or religious value. In this category were sites such as Adam-ondi-Ahman and the land around the temple lot in Missouri (he said the church had charged them to buy any land nearby the temple lot as it became available).

Anyhow, the investment property is bought and sold all the time. And the second category is also sold, as circumstances require. The third category, which the MMM site would seem to fit (well, in a weird sort of way). I don't see why the church has some need to hold on to such sites, regardless of their maintenance costs. It's not like they'd have to hire new people to sell the property. They already have people who do that.

[_Yoda]

In short, the Church's mission would be disrupted by going through the exercise of spending money to respond to what you think is right.

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

By the way, since the money they would be spending is my tithing money, I wouldn't mind seeing it being spent on a Christ-worthy cause.

The fact that you think it would be politically expedient to gift the property to a handful of Fanchers who don't live in the state, and are always critical of the Church and claim without evidence that Young ordered the attack, doesn't take into account to various restrictions which face the owners of historical sites, the ease by which the property is now being maintained, the thousands per year who visit the site with its current ownership configuration, the long-standing connection the site has had with the Hamblin family, and probable donative restrictions extant between the Hamblin family and the Church. In short, the Church's mission would be disrupted by going through the exercise of spending money to respond to what you think is right.

I understand that the whole ownership issue is messy. But couldn't there at least be some type of meeting between the Facuhers, the Hamblins, and the Church?

It just seems like there should at least be some attempt for everyone to be on the same page, and have some sort of agreement that would be acceptable to all parties concerned.

Maybe that's happened, and I'm just not privy to it. It sounded from the article like the Church had its' mind made up, and wasn't open to any type of negotiation or meeting. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

[_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?

The Church has no property disposition program, at least of which I am aware. It has no employees whose jobs are to focus upon excess properties, or even requests to sell property. The Church's mission is to preach the Gospel and redeem the dead; property disposition of property that costs practically nothing to maintain is just something it doesn't spend money on employees to consider.

I used to ride the vanpool with a guy who worked in the church's properties division. He said there were basically three types of property the church dealt with:

1. Investment property.
2. Property intended for religious purposes, such as for meetinghouses or temples.
3. Property with some historic or religious value. In this category were sites such as Adam-ondi-Ahman and the land around the temple lot in Missouri (he said the church had charged them to buy any land nearby the temple lot as it became available).

Anyhow, the investment property is bought and sold all the time. And the second category is also sold, as circumstances require. The third category, which the MMM site would seem to fit (well, in a weird sort of way). I don't see why the church has some need to hold on to such sites, regardless of their maintenance costs. It's not like they'd have to hire new people to sell the property. They already have people who do that.

No it doesn't. I know, having negotiated a disposition agreement with the Church on behalf of a multi-billion dollar trust I represent.

rcrocket

[_Runtu]

No it doesn't. I know, having negotiated a disposition agreement with the Church on behalf of a multi-billion dollar trust I represent.

rcrocket

Fascinating. I wonder what happened to the guys in the properties division?

[_rcrocket]

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

[_Runtu]

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

I believe it's called the Golden Rule, or something.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I guess GBH's "stand for something" platitude doesn't apply to the Church or its general leaders.

[_Yoda]

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!

;)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Sadly, I believe attitudes like rcrockett's are the majority within church leadership, and it is this type of attitude towards MMM that guarantees it will be a festering wound for the church until they change their attitude.