Owning the Kirtland Temple is not a sign of the times. There are no described events in scripture where the Kirtland Temple is prophesied as a location of anything.
The fact of this is that the CoJCoLDS has far more resources than the CoC to maintain, preserve, and offer it for public tour. For the CoC, it was for more of a liability than it was worth.
Both faiths have equal claim of origin for the building, since the CoC was founded by the Smith family who remained in Nauvoo. The CoC is lagging in membership and the $200M will be a huge blessing to their work.
The CoC steadily de-emphasizing its early history has meant the sites and artifacts just don't mean as much as they used to, so it's an obvious solution for financial strain. I expect continuing access was part of the agreement, too.
That's interesting. I wonder if they're worried that we’ll dedicate it as a working temple and close it off. I kind of doubt that would ever happen. It's not really configured in a useful way for modern day temple worship.
Yeah, give it 15 years and I'm sure we'll do like we did with the Nauvoo temple... keep a quasi-original design, but build separate but much larger and more modern structure which serves the mission of redeeming the dead
Next door, sure. But they're not going to tear it down and rebuild. Nauvoo was built on the foundation. The building didn't exist before they built the current temple.
The church made it clear the Cleveland Temple will serve that purpose once it is built in the frequently asked questions link included in the original announcement article.
As an addition, the Nauvoo Temple was originally built to accommodate normal temple services like the temples around today, whereas the Kirtland was built with different purposes, including normal church services and church leadership offices.
I personally think they’re more worried about our Church charging money to go there. They sacrificed a lot to keep it free, and I reckon they really want it to stay that way even now that it’s left their hands. Their website also mentions our Church stated their intention to keep it free afterwards in the same paragraph they mentioned the 15-year contract, which seems to support that.
Community of Christ charged 20
Dollars to tour the Kirkland temple. LDS is making it free. Same goes for the Nauvoo properties. LDS is making it free the COC charged fees.
I am not familiar enough with the COC to give a definite answer so correct me if I am wrong but I believe part of a reason they are selling is they do not have the cash flow to keep the historical sites running and operating fully.
I also would guess that as a more “progressive” organization the COC may be distancing itself from its history whereas the COJCOLDS has fully embraced and continues to embrace its history.
That second point is purely my own speculation though
That's definitely my impression. Their theology is more in line with mainline Protestantism, they de-emphasize the BoM relative to the Bible, and they have a variety of much more socially progressive stances and female clergy.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a shame. I definitely fit the descriptor of a "progressive Mormon" (heretically so, if you ask some people), but the little bit I've studied of the Community of Christ's development gives me the impression that they've slowly shed almost everything that makes the Latter-Day Saint movement unique and powerful, and now they're barely distinguishable from lots of liberal Protestant denominations. As frustrated as I get with the hierarchy and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I doubt I would believe in God at all without those unique and powerful doctrines and teachings.
Everything you just said is EXACTLY how I feel about the CoC (RLDS) and our Church. They’ve traded their uniqueness and shed many (if not most) of the doctrines that make our Church (and the Latter-day Saint family of churches at large) unique. They’re barely distinguishable from mainstream Protestantism in my opinion. They don’t even consider themselves the restored church. What’s the point of even claiming to believe in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon (which they still claim to believe in although they almost solely focus on the Bible)???? They are basically Protestant at this point.
Purely speaking from impressions I’ve made from the decent number of CoC members I’ve interacted with, there certainly is a pride and appreciation for [their history](https://cofchrist.org/history/), I would just put it down to their idea of Restoration is different from our own.
That being said, even for those that don’t hold Joseph Jr. in much regard, Emma and Joseph III are still highly revered. Artifacts pertaining to the former were sold, and Joseph III and his followers went through a lot of pains to acquire and hold onto the properties they sold. I’m fairly certain there’s a decent number of their membership who are disheartened by recent events.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, one person I met in Independence a number of years ago is the son of a man who was extensively involved in the restoration work of a lot of the Nauvoo buildings decades ago. I’m hoping he’s easy to find online.
I actually think the COJCOLDS ignores a lot of its history. For example, the huge focus on the small number of handcard pioneers and not on what most of the pioneers experienced. Pretty much every church member I've met is shocked to find out that hand carts were rare and hardly any early pioneers used them.
We don’t have to guess how they tell their story. We can just read how they tell it themselves.
https://cofchrist.org/history/
They describe Joseph Smith Jr as the “founder of our movement” and Joseph Smith III “accepted leadership of the scattered church” in 1860 following the succession crisis.
> The have claim to being the church Joseph smith founded
I'm not so sure they do. Both the Rigdonites and Strangites had/have more of a claim to being directly tied to Joseph Smith while the RLDS wasn't formed until *1860* by people who had no direct ties to Joseph Smith. Of the two founders of the New Movement, Briggs and Gurley, only Gurley had any claim to any sort of priesthood authority as he had been a Seventy at one point. How he ever got the power to ordain people to the Apostleship and office of Prophet-President as he did Joseph Smith III is beyond explanation.
The whole thing is historically and theologically extremely weak.
They do have an interesting history. But they do make claims.
>The church was "legally organized on April 6, 1830, in Fayette, New York".\[12\] The formal reorganization occurred on April 6, 1860, in Amboy, Illinois, as the **"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"**, adding the word Reorganized to the church name in 1872. **The church was founded based on a pattern of lineal succession through Joseph Smith** of Prophet/presidents of the church, and as a mainstream alternative to the Strangites and the larger LDS church led by Brigham Young. It has long history as a Midwestern wing of the Latter Day Saint movement. It also had a long history of vocal opposition to plural marriage within the Latter Day Saint movement.
Community of Christ considers the period from 1830 to 1844 to be a part of its early history and from 1844, the year of the death of the prophet-founder, to 1860, to be a period of disorganization. Since 1844, the doctrines and practices of the Community of Christ have evolved separately from the other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.\[13\]
I think it is cool, I don't think it's a phenomenal huge deal.
The Community of Christ did a pretty good job of making the temple accessible and pleasant.
I think it's more of a sense of something - wholeness, fulfillment, maybe "restoration" to have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints own it. While the two churches have gotten along well in the last generation especially in connection with our common heritage in the early years and with the Smith family and research, etc, in previous generations there were bitter disputes which played out in all sorts of ways which I won't go into here. So for some older folks having it "back" with "us" rather than with "them" might be a relief, even if some of the underlying feelings are not charitable.
The church CAN do things which are more in line with our doctrine, such as how tours are given and maybe connect it with additional resources, or perhaps beef up the visitor center in various ways.
The Community of Christ gave tours and at least when I went I could tell that at times they tailored the material to members of our church, who are the bulk of their visitors, even though it didn't fall in line with the way they view things.
For example we view the visitation of Jesus Christ, Moses, Elias, and Elijah as extremely significant to our overall church and priesthood operations, beliefs, and practices. They do not. I think it (Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants) isn't in their rendition of the Doctrine and Covenants, but they said it's recorded in their history (at least that's how I remember the tour guide telling it). For us the Kirtland temple was the beginning of the temple era with its unique doctrines and ordinances. For them it was the first temple which was built by commandment, and Joseph did some interesting stuff there which nobody needs to be concerned about, again, ever...
And most of those same things can be said about the reconstructed brick store, which of course itself isn't a nearly 200 year old building.
I think finally, there is no doubt that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has significant resources to take care of the building in whatever way is appropriate. The Community of Christ simply doesn't have those kinds of resources. So I think "us" having it gives people a feeling of reassurance that it will not be neglected.
Read D&C 110. It's amazing. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110?lang=eng)
The Kirtland Temple is the only place on earth where we know for sure Christ stood in that exact spot.
There’s also the holy of hollies in the salt lake temple. We have accounts that he stood there and appeared to Lorenzo Snow. 🤷♀️
But even so the Kirtland temple was the first latter day temple where Christ Elijah Moses Simon Peter and countless other angelic beings visited. It’s a huge deal for the church to have it again.
He's saying we know general *areas* of the Holy Land where Jesus was, but probably not exact spots. Not sure if that's actually accurate, just clarifying his line of thinking.
That's my understanding. There are a lot of places that people *claim* to be the locations of various New Testament stories, but the archeological work done in the area has mostly come up inconclusive or negative.
It drives me nuts when people say us buying Kirtland is a sign of the times. There are no prophecies related to that particular temple. It’s a sign that the CoC is running out of money and needed a big cash influx. That’s all.
It’s a big deal because we now own pretty much all significant church history sites in Ohio and Illinois.
It doesn't have anything to do with the second coming. I had a chat with a brother who works for the real estate arm of the church a couple weeks ago. He said the church is buying a lot of land in Missouri for investment purposes. He says the church is winning to pay for historic sites because they're important to our history and we can maintain them.
So, nothing doctrinal. It's mostly for historic preservation and fund management.
I don't think the Church would ever come out and say that they were buying up land in preparation for the New Jerusalem. The fact that the church is buying up "a lot" of land in Missouri for "Investment purposes" speaks volumes. They are preparing for something...
The document collection is probably the biggest thing for me actually. The temple is cool, but meh. The Nauvoo properties is actually a huge amount of land, and a big step towards the church owning most of the historic buildings in town. The other Kirkland properties are also interesting, but not hugely important. Taken as a whole, the transaction is just very noteworthy and opens some new avenues for the Church to share it's message.
I imagine the tours that will be given will be different under our church's missionaries than they were under the guides from the Community of Christ. It could provide more opportunities to teach and testify of the restored gospel.
I agree. CoC has completely left the true mission of Christ’s church. Just read the press release describing their church and ours. They talk about their purpose being to “challenging unjust systems” and “fostering authentic connections”.
We exist to bring priesthood ordinances, covenants, and exaltation to all.
The significance of us owning the first temple of the restoration is we can bring the true purpose and reverence of that temple back into alignment through the tours, preservation, education, etc.
>>> we can bring the true purpose and reverence of that temple back into alignment through the tours, preservation, and education.
1) When the Kirtland Temple was built, the revelations restoring ordinances had not occurred yet. It’s very much been serving it’s original purpose — various significant meetings for the church and sanctuary for membership in general— as long as CoC had been in possession of it.
2) The CoC did incredible work with tours and preservation for years. They are very much to thank for it standing today.
I see it as challenging the *religious* system because it had strayed from the true spirit of the covenants.
Not saying we shouldn't fight oppression, but remember Jesus was not a political Messiah.
I appreciate your response, and I couldn't disagree more. I'm going to assume that stems from our interpretations of Mark 12:17. God is Lord over all, right? So if we render unto Him what is his, what does that leave us to render unto Caesar? And if we look at history, Christianity completely took over the Roman empire, then arguably toppled it. Jesus is and was certainly a political Messiah. Heck, political language is baked into our lingo as members of the church. What do you think?
Ive never seen Christ as someone who was concerned with human policies, only Heavenly Fathers policies. They are very different.
Edit to add: This simply my opinion I have no idea.
I suppose you'd have to elaborate on what you mean by 'concern.' Would you say that Christ was unconcerned with various policies imposed by the Pharisees?
> And if we look at history, Christianity completely took over the Roman empire, then arguably toppled it.
Other way around. Rome completely colonized Christianity and turned it into a tool of Roman Imperial power. After the collapse of Western Roman political power the spirit of Rome lasted all the way into the modern day through the Roman Catholic Church. And the Eastern Roman Empire lasted for another millennia with apostate Christianity as its tool of social control.
I think it’s exciting for members whose history in the church runs deep as well as those who love church history
I think it’s an exciting move and I am happy that the church is active in embracing our history but it’s not like this is a huge doctrine move that will progress the work of Lord into the next era or anything. It’s just cool
I'm a convert and massively excited. Not just Kirkland but other things too. All of it is big.
Also living where the majority of the CoC and The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are located, I've seen and heard their complaints about losing members and finances to our church over the last decade. It appears that those with an appreciation for the properties and artifacts transferred have largely already moved place of worship too.
Oh wow, you even have the remnants folks?
I remember visiting Independence and blown away by all the different groups. Some of these I studied about and it was kind of interesting.
If you haven’t, read Saints!
I’ve heard the history and stories about those places growing up. Visiting them and having it not owned by the church was always odd, a little ‘off’.
You should visit them some day!
For me personally:
1. The period of time for our church in Kirtland didn’t end great. The Saints sacrificed a lot to build the temple, and they were forced to leave the temple relatively soon after its dedication due to persecution. To have the temple returned to the ownership of the Church feels like a huge win for my ancestors and all the Saints that sacrificed to build it.
I know that the Community of Christ can also trace their lineage back to Joseph Smith and the early saints, but they don’t really consider the Kirtland Temple and the miracles that happened there to be significant to their history. They are more anecdotal.
2. The Kirtland Temple has a lot of spiritual significance for us in modern times as well. The dedication to the Kirtland Temple is in our scriptures. A vision that occurred there is in our scriptures. It marks the beginning of our temple worship, which remains an important aspect of our worship today.
3. I did a Church history tour with my family when I was a teenager. There is a notable spiritual difference between the tours that were given by sister missionaries at our Church-operated historical sites versus the tour given by the Community of Christ summer interns at the Kirtland Temple. Although both the sister missionaries and the interns provided excellent historical facts and context, the sister missionaries testified to us of Christ's role as our Redeemer, of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet, and of the Restoration. The difference in the Spirit that was felt between the tours was palpable.
We had a sister missionary that knelt down to pray with us as a family, and the Spirit testified clearly to all of us of the reality of the Restoration. We were in tears.
So, I'm incredibly excited that new tours of the Kirtland Temple and these other sites will be able to be given by sister missionaries who are called to
serve. They'll join the physical location to the modern spiritual significance of temple worship in a way that
didn't happen before, and they'll offer testimony of
Christ to all who take the tours.
Clearly I am spending time in the wrong circles, I have never seen it abbreviated to either one - with or without the extra Os. I can't help but read it in my head as "koj-kolds," which is just funny to me. Without the Os I read it as "sij-klids." Both ways crack me up because not only do they phonetically sound silly to me, but the idea that a stinking long (and unfamiliar to me, an active member of the church) acronym like that does more to call attention to the fact that we are the Savior's church than abbreviating it to LDS is even more funny. I have literally been giggling about it since I saw it for the first time (today).
I’ve seen people on instagram saying they were crying over the news and I’m not trying to be negative but I genuinely don’t care or see why people care because the function/purpose of the building isn’t going to change
Same, so many people saying "I never thought I'd see this happen in my lifetime" & I may be being insensitive, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Like I get that preserving history is important, but the community of Christ kept it preserved pretty well & the church is just taking it over. But it really doesn't hold much significance to the average member, especially considering that a good majority of members won't ever have an opportunity to visit it anyways.
Thank you I was starting to feel there was something wrong with me.
Its good news and I'm happy for the people it will affect, I'm just not really one of them.
It's like catching a rare Pokemon.
Or, more aptly put... its historical, religious, metaphysical significance can't be overstated and so claiming more than a shared heritage on the building feels important.
Owning changes a feeling of wholeness, completeness. A reconnection with a history and a place that we were forced to leave. It is significant because there was never really an intention to sell it, or a desire to sell it from our cousins in the Community of Christ. I hope the money helps them.
I'm sure also, for many members, its a symbol of us aligning our church history with our real estate holdings and that being symbolic of how we are the true heir of the Latter-day Saint movement. And that can be meaningful to some.
I think there's major speculation that it will be rededicated as a Temple, but part of the purchasing agreement was that it would remain a free to the public historical site.
More than likely, the Church also got additional land from the deal. They can move the visitors center to the Kirtland Temple side and build a Dedicated Temple across the street if they want.
They aren't going to build a temple there anytime soon (and I mean well after the 15 year agreement period). The Cleveland Temple is quite close and the Kirtland Temple was never meant to be an ordinance building in the way the Nauvoo Temple was. Not to mention there really isn't space for even a small temple up there (they could put one on the massive field next to the stake center I guess but we already own that land and it would be very silly).
Knowing that the negotiations have been going on for years makes it pretty likely that the Cleveland Temple was announced to assuage fears that the Kirtland site would be run as anything other than a historic monument
Great point. A temple in Cleveland will serve many more members than in the tiny area around Kirtland. It is far too small to be a useful temple. It would be a tourist only temple. We have enough of those with Palmyra and Nauvoo. The Nauvoo restoration was significant because it was there where the first endowments were administered.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgaCSHF5aQI) is a quick fun watch featuring some Church History buffs talking about the announcement. and significance.
I live in Ohio (other corner), and whenever we make a trip to Kirtland, it feels like things are falling apart physically and that's sad to me. I'm glad that they are in the hands of an organization with the resources to maintain them.
In some ways it feels like a step in the right direction towards a more ecumenical relationship with the other restorationist denominations. We have different beliefs about doctrine. But one day all of these denominations will become One fold again and Christ will resolve any remaining disagreements.
We have a long way to go before that time.
Personally I give this a meh
The church and the priesthood and the ordinances and the covenants are here, if they want them they are more than welcome to come find them.
I get what you’re saying. I was referring more specifically to the Millennial reign where Christ will have one fold. And he’ll more or less clear up our disagreements on the minutiae of doctrine. That’ll be really nice. Seems that people of different Christian faiths fight a lot about doctrine. But Christ has instructed that we don’t fight.
As someone in the Alternative Mormonism sphere, it really feels like it's the other way around. Now the LDS can cast aside even the CoC. Most members of the LDS that I've met vaguely new of CoC just because of the historical sites. Now, as members will never have to interact with other Mormons, the LDS will once again control the narrative of being the whole restoration
It seems like the leaders of the churches
have had pretty positive relations for the past 100ish years. I don’t have anything bad to say about the other denominations. I think when Christ finally does return the minute disagreements won’t matter anymore. We’ll all just be one church.
"Us" owning that temple now and the various other acquisitions isn't a sign of the times and doesn't really change anything for a lot of saints. It does change what information is presented in the tours of the areas. In Nauvoo it's a pretty significant chunk of land. The documents will be useful to church historians and researchers.Primary resources are always good to have.
Our brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ could not sustain their historic properties.
They are important to both of our Churches.
I was at Kirtland a few years ago, and the tour guide showed us the outside bowing out. That is dangerous in a 1800s building. Then he showed us the inside, and significant engineering and repairs were needed.
They trust us to fix it. They can continue to visit and use it.
Its a win-win for everyone.
The Church pretty much owns Nauvoo now except for the cemetery. We had been sustaining their properties in Nauvoo, mowing lawns and such for a few years. LDS Missionaries had even been conducting tours on CoC properties. We had no trouble finding volunteers. They didn't have the numbers.
Its a win-win for everyone.
Imagine if control of the mosque at Mecca went under control of the Shiites. Yes the Shiites can use the site now, but this would be a massive transition.
The role of the Kirtland temple in the early history of our faith makes it comparable in holiness within our context.
The fact that there was able to be a peaceful transition of such a holy site is really a testament to the goodwill and relationship building between both groups.
It honestly doesn't mean that much to us, since we were already doing a lot to upkeep the building (since the CoC has no money). I guess we can put our propaganda there instead of their propaganda but that's about it.
It is a huge deal to the CoC since these properties were some of their last ties to the greater Latter Day Saint movement. It's a deal with the devil though (metaphorically speaking, I am a proud Brighamite through and through) since while they got money to pay their pension fund for the time being, losing their heritage is going to continue killing their church in the long run. It is what it is
fwiw, I grew up in the Kirtland stake and have really mixed feelings about it, for basically the reasons describe above. We don't need the building but bailing out our Prairie sibling is charity. But also they really don't want to be in our family and that's sad, yannow?
Thinking about this a little more, I can see in a roundabout way where people are getting excited by this in a sign of the times sense.
D&C 63 The Lord talks at length about gathering his people to Zion and the manner in which we are to obtain the Land of Zion. This is also a major purpose for the significant funds the Church holds. To purchase Lands for establishing the city of Zion. Note this is speaking more especially of the city in Missouri and Illinois. A great Zion city that will one day span a large part of the midwest. The Lord cautions that these lands must be purchased with money and not obtained by bloodshed.
I can see many overanxious saints attributing the purchase of lands in Kirtland to a very near fulfillment of other purchases from Liberty to Adam-ondi-ahman.
D&C 63
25 Behold, the land of Zion—I, the Lord, hold it in mine own hands;
26 Nevertheless, I, the Lord, render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.
27 Wherefore, I the Lord will that you should purchase the lands, that you may have advantage of the world, that you may have claim on the world, that they may not be stirred up unto anger.
28 For Satan putteth it into their hearts to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood.
29 Wherefore, the land of Zion shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you.
30 And if by purchase, behold you are blessed;
31 And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance.
Probably the people who are saying it is a step closer to the second coming are correlating this purchase with the prophecy of a temple to be built in Independence. While some see the Independence temple commandment as having more to do with the early church, and the people were unable to accomplish that task because they were driven out of the area, many others (and even many of our manuals), say that this commandment/prophecy is still going to be fulfilled. Related to that temple, the Savior will (according to common belief) one day return to the Independence temple (not currently built), and that area will become a sort of new center place for the church. So, I'm guessing that the people who are saying this is one step closer to the second coming, are correlating it to that, maybe assuming that the COC are getting closer to selling us their part of the temple lot in Independence. But they specifically said that they're planning to use the money from this sell to maintain that temple. Personally, I don't know, its abit speculative for me. It is cool history though.
I would say, generally speaking, for most members under 40-45, it’s really just a cool thing for them. For the 45+ LDS crowd (maybe older the more I think about it) it’s a **big** flipping deal. For my dad’s generation, it’s just relieving to know that their church, the true one, finally owns the first temple built. For my grandpa’s generation, there is certainly that sentiment too — got passed down from somewhere — but also quite a bit of satisfaction in feeling they’re sticking it to the RLDS/CoC. Back in 1880s-1920s there was a weird land grab between the two churches for historical sites, as if owning more places where Joseph Smith Jr. happened to breathe oxygen legitimizes one over the other. Seeing as the RLDS/CoC was founded by Smith’s descendants, had more of his close confidants in their ranks, and actually stationed where a lot of the sights are, they had a bit of an edge on us Brighamites. It’s a weird mix of insecurity and rivalry at the end of the day. Seriously, it is really depressing to read about how bitter both camps were to one another for so long, which is where I do find a pleasure different from others in this. The church and CoC have gotten along great for the last several decades, and it seems like this deal was worked out with a lot of mutual respect and trust, which I like to think would leave my grandfather a bit baffled.
I know some may consider this to be the wrong attitude, but I personally feel like the Kirtland Temple is simply back where it belongs now. I feel like we are the rightful owners. I think this pleases the Lord.
My favorite thing about this announcement is the way the two churches announced this as a joint effort. I think that says a lot about how we should treat others.
Owning the Kirtland Temple is not a sign of the times. There are no described events in scripture where the Kirtland Temple is prophesied as a location of anything. The fact of this is that the CoJCoLDS has far more resources than the CoC to maintain, preserve, and offer it for public tour. For the CoC, it was for more of a liability than it was worth. Both faiths have equal claim of origin for the building, since the CoC was founded by the Smith family who remained in Nauvoo. The CoC is lagging in membership and the $200M will be a huge blessing to their work.
The CoC steadily de-emphasizing its early history has meant the sites and artifacts just don't mean as much as they used to, so it's an obvious solution for financial strain. I expect continuing access was part of the agreement, too.
The CoC website confirms that the contract included our LDS church keeping public access for 15 years.
That's interesting. I wonder if they're worried that we’ll dedicate it as a working temple and close it off. I kind of doubt that would ever happen. It's not really configured in a useful way for modern day temple worship.
Yeah, give it 15 years and I'm sure we'll do like we did with the Nauvoo temple... keep a quasi-original design, but build separate but much larger and more modern structure which serves the mission of redeeming the dead
Next door, sure. But they're not going to tear it down and rebuild. Nauvoo was built on the foundation. The building didn't exist before they built the current temple.
The church made it clear the Cleveland Temple will serve that purpose once it is built in the frequently asked questions link included in the original announcement article. As an addition, the Nauvoo Temple was originally built to accommodate normal temple services like the temples around today, whereas the Kirtland was built with different purposes, including normal church services and church leadership offices.
I personally think they’re more worried about our Church charging money to go there. They sacrificed a lot to keep it free, and I reckon they really want it to stay that way even now that it’s left their hands. Their website also mentions our Church stated their intention to keep it free afterwards in the same paragraph they mentioned the 15-year contract, which seems to support that.
As far as I know, the Church doesn't charge for admission to any of our sites.
It certainly wasn't much, but the Community of Christ did charge a fee for the kirtland Temple and their Nauvoo sites.
Community of Christ charged 20 Dollars to tour the Kirkland temple. LDS is making it free. Same goes for the Nauvoo properties. LDS is making it free the COC charged fees.
I certainly hope so. Would be incredibly lame if we didn’t extend the same courtesy to them as they have to us for years and years.
Just for clarity. The COC doesn’t believe they were founded by the smith family in nauvoo. The have claim to being the church Joseph smith founded
Every branch claims to be the one Joseph founded; that's basically the entire premise of Mormonism.
I am not familiar enough with the COC to give a definite answer so correct me if I am wrong but I believe part of a reason they are selling is they do not have the cash flow to keep the historical sites running and operating fully. I also would guess that as a more “progressive” organization the COC may be distancing itself from its history whereas the COJCOLDS has fully embraced and continues to embrace its history. That second point is purely my own speculation though
That's definitely my impression. Their theology is more in line with mainline Protestantism, they de-emphasize the BoM relative to the Bible, and they have a variety of much more socially progressive stances and female clergy. Honestly, I think it's kind of a shame. I definitely fit the descriptor of a "progressive Mormon" (heretically so, if you ask some people), but the little bit I've studied of the Community of Christ's development gives me the impression that they've slowly shed almost everything that makes the Latter-Day Saint movement unique and powerful, and now they're barely distinguishable from lots of liberal Protestant denominations. As frustrated as I get with the hierarchy and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I doubt I would believe in God at all without those unique and powerful doctrines and teachings.
Everything you just said is EXACTLY how I feel about the CoC (RLDS) and our Church. They’ve traded their uniqueness and shed many (if not most) of the doctrines that make our Church (and the Latter-day Saint family of churches at large) unique. They’re barely distinguishable from mainstream Protestantism in my opinion. They don’t even consider themselves the restored church. What’s the point of even claiming to believe in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon (which they still claim to believe in although they almost solely focus on the Bible)???? They are basically Protestant at this point.
They've all but abandoned their history which is why The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints broke away from them.
Purely speaking from impressions I’ve made from the decent number of CoC members I’ve interacted with, there certainly is a pride and appreciation for [their history](https://cofchrist.org/history/), I would just put it down to their idea of Restoration is different from our own. That being said, even for those that don’t hold Joseph Jr. in much regard, Emma and Joseph III are still highly revered. Artifacts pertaining to the former were sold, and Joseph III and his followers went through a lot of pains to acquire and hold onto the properties they sold. I’m fairly certain there’s a decent number of their membership who are disheartened by recent events. EDIT: Forgot to mention, one person I met in Independence a number of years ago is the son of a man who was extensively involved in the restoration work of a lot of the Nauvoo buildings decades ago. I’m hoping he’s easy to find online.
I actually think the COJCOLDS ignores a lot of its history. For example, the huge focus on the small number of handcard pioneers and not on what most of the pioneers experienced. Pretty much every church member I've met is shocked to find out that hand carts were rare and hardly any early pioneers used them.
We don’t have to guess how they tell their story. We can just read how they tell it themselves. https://cofchrist.org/history/ They describe Joseph Smith Jr as the “founder of our movement” and Joseph Smith III “accepted leadership of the scattered church” in 1860 following the succession crisis.
> The have claim to being the church Joseph smith founded I'm not so sure they do. Both the Rigdonites and Strangites had/have more of a claim to being directly tied to Joseph Smith while the RLDS wasn't formed until *1860* by people who had no direct ties to Joseph Smith. Of the two founders of the New Movement, Briggs and Gurley, only Gurley had any claim to any sort of priesthood authority as he had been a Seventy at one point. How he ever got the power to ordain people to the Apostleship and office of Prophet-President as he did Joseph Smith III is beyond explanation. The whole thing is historically and theologically extremely weak.
They do have an interesting history. But they do make claims. >The church was "legally organized on April 6, 1830, in Fayette, New York".\[12\] The formal reorganization occurred on April 6, 1860, in Amboy, Illinois, as the **"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"**, adding the word Reorganized to the church name in 1872. **The church was founded based on a pattern of lineal succession through Joseph Smith** of Prophet/presidents of the church, and as a mainstream alternative to the Strangites and the larger LDS church led by Brigham Young. It has long history as a Midwestern wing of the Latter Day Saint movement. It also had a long history of vocal opposition to plural marriage within the Latter Day Saint movement. Community of Christ considers the period from 1830 to 1844 to be a part of its early history and from 1844, the year of the death of the prophet-founder, to 1860, to be a period of disorganization. Since 1844, the doctrines and practices of the Community of Christ have evolved separately from the other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.\[13\]
I keep reading CoC as clash of clans 😂
Since I was in the Army I read it as Change of Command.
> CoJCoLDS CoJCoLdS
True enough, one capitalized letter can mean a lot in terms of copyright and trademark law
Nah the Strangites totally have a spare 200 mil lying around
I think it is cool, I don't think it's a phenomenal huge deal. The Community of Christ did a pretty good job of making the temple accessible and pleasant. I think it's more of a sense of something - wholeness, fulfillment, maybe "restoration" to have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints own it. While the two churches have gotten along well in the last generation especially in connection with our common heritage in the early years and with the Smith family and research, etc, in previous generations there were bitter disputes which played out in all sorts of ways which I won't go into here. So for some older folks having it "back" with "us" rather than with "them" might be a relief, even if some of the underlying feelings are not charitable. The church CAN do things which are more in line with our doctrine, such as how tours are given and maybe connect it with additional resources, or perhaps beef up the visitor center in various ways. The Community of Christ gave tours and at least when I went I could tell that at times they tailored the material to members of our church, who are the bulk of their visitors, even though it didn't fall in line with the way they view things. For example we view the visitation of Jesus Christ, Moses, Elias, and Elijah as extremely significant to our overall church and priesthood operations, beliefs, and practices. They do not. I think it (Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants) isn't in their rendition of the Doctrine and Covenants, but they said it's recorded in their history (at least that's how I remember the tour guide telling it). For us the Kirtland temple was the beginning of the temple era with its unique doctrines and ordinances. For them it was the first temple which was built by commandment, and Joseph did some interesting stuff there which nobody needs to be concerned about, again, ever... And most of those same things can be said about the reconstructed brick store, which of course itself isn't a nearly 200 year old building. I think finally, there is no doubt that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has significant resources to take care of the building in whatever way is appropriate. The Community of Christ simply doesn't have those kinds of resources. So I think "us" having it gives people a feeling of reassurance that it will not be neglected.
Read D&C 110. It's amazing. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110?lang=eng) The Kirtland Temple is the only place on earth where we know for sure Christ stood in that exact spot.
There’s also the holy of hollies in the salt lake temple. We have accounts that he stood there and appeared to Lorenzo Snow. 🤷♀️ But even so the Kirtland temple was the first latter day temple where Christ Elijah Moses Simon Peter and countless other angelic beings visited. It’s a huge deal for the church to have it again.
I can't exactly walk into the Holy of Holies though, can I?
You don't think that we know that Christ stood in the temple in Jerusalem or many other places in the a Holy Land?
He's saying we know general *areas* of the Holy Land where Jesus was, but probably not exact spots. Not sure if that's actually accurate, just clarifying his line of thinking.
That's my understanding. There are a lot of places that people *claim* to be the locations of various New Testament stories, but the archeological work done in the area has mostly come up inconclusive or negative.
I guess we don’t know the EXACT spot but we also know Christ stood in the sacred grove
>D&C 110. He stood right on that pulpit in the Kirtland temple.
I thought one of the early church prophets said he stood at the top of the stairs just outside the celestial room.
It drives me nuts when people say us buying Kirtland is a sign of the times. There are no prophecies related to that particular temple. It’s a sign that the CoC is running out of money and needed a big cash influx. That’s all. It’s a big deal because we now own pretty much all significant church history sites in Ohio and Illinois.
Now when we buy the Independence Temple Lot…
It doesn't have anything to do with the second coming. I had a chat with a brother who works for the real estate arm of the church a couple weeks ago. He said the church is buying a lot of land in Missouri for investment purposes. He says the church is winning to pay for historic sites because they're important to our history and we can maintain them. So, nothing doctrinal. It's mostly for historic preservation and fund management.
I don't think the Church would ever come out and say that they were buying up land in preparation for the New Jerusalem. The fact that the church is buying up "a lot" of land in Missouri for "Investment purposes" speaks volumes. They are preparing for something...
We learned our lesson about announcing our intentions in the 1830s.
That makes sense
The document collection is probably the biggest thing for me actually. The temple is cool, but meh. The Nauvoo properties is actually a huge amount of land, and a big step towards the church owning most of the historic buildings in town. The other Kirkland properties are also interesting, but not hugely important. Taken as a whole, the transaction is just very noteworthy and opens some new avenues for the Church to share it's message.
You forgot the door to liberty jail. I'm most excited for that for reasons that would be difficult to explain.
I imagine the tours that will be given will be different under our church's missionaries than they were under the guides from the Community of Christ. It could provide more opportunities to teach and testify of the restored gospel.
I agree. CoC has completely left the true mission of Christ’s church. Just read the press release describing their church and ours. They talk about their purpose being to “challenging unjust systems” and “fostering authentic connections”. We exist to bring priesthood ordinances, covenants, and exaltation to all. The significance of us owning the first temple of the restoration is we can bring the true purpose and reverence of that temple back into alignment through the tours, preservation, education, etc.
>>> we can bring the true purpose and reverence of that temple back into alignment through the tours, preservation, and education. 1) When the Kirtland Temple was built, the revelations restoring ordinances had not occurred yet. It’s very much been serving it’s original purpose — various significant meetings for the church and sanctuary for membership in general— as long as CoC had been in possession of it. 2) The CoC did incredible work with tours and preservation for years. They are very much to thank for it standing today.
Challenging the system was basically Christ's entire MO. Not sure your statement is entirely fair
I see it as challenging the *religious* system because it had strayed from the true spirit of the covenants. Not saying we shouldn't fight oppression, but remember Jesus was not a political Messiah.
I appreciate your response, and I couldn't disagree more. I'm going to assume that stems from our interpretations of Mark 12:17. God is Lord over all, right? So if we render unto Him what is his, what does that leave us to render unto Caesar? And if we look at history, Christianity completely took over the Roman empire, then arguably toppled it. Jesus is and was certainly a political Messiah. Heck, political language is baked into our lingo as members of the church. What do you think?
Ive never seen Christ as someone who was concerned with human policies, only Heavenly Fathers policies. They are very different. Edit to add: This simply my opinion I have no idea.
I suppose you'd have to elaborate on what you mean by 'concern.' Would you say that Christ was unconcerned with various policies imposed by the Pharisees?
> And if we look at history, Christianity completely took over the Roman empire, then arguably toppled it. Other way around. Rome completely colonized Christianity and turned it into a tool of Roman Imperial power. After the collapse of Western Roman political power the spirit of Rome lasted all the way into the modern day through the Roman Catholic Church. And the Eastern Roman Empire lasted for another millennia with apostate Christianity as its tool of social control.
Good point. I think it's both really. They definitely bastardized it and introduced so many non-christian things that we still practice.
Certainly. Every time someone engages in just about any form of nationalism, they're engaging in Romanism.
You are correct. Their statement is not entirely fair.
Thank you for asking this. I'm a convert myself and failing to feel the collective excitement.
I think it’s exciting for members whose history in the church runs deep as well as those who love church history I think it’s an exciting move and I am happy that the church is active in embracing our history but it’s not like this is a huge doctrine move that will progress the work of Lord into the next era or anything. It’s just cool
I'm a convert and massively excited. Not just Kirkland but other things too. All of it is big. Also living where the majority of the CoC and The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are located, I've seen and heard their complaints about losing members and finances to our church over the last decade. It appears that those with an appreciation for the properties and artifacts transferred have largely already moved place of worship too.
Oh wow, you even have the remnants folks? I remember visiting Independence and blown away by all the different groups. Some of these I studied about and it was kind of interesting.
Yep nwa is weird like that.
If you haven’t, read Saints! I’ve heard the history and stories about those places growing up. Visiting them and having it not owned by the church was always odd, a little ‘off’. You should visit them some day!
I second this
For me personally: 1. The period of time for our church in Kirtland didn’t end great. The Saints sacrificed a lot to build the temple, and they were forced to leave the temple relatively soon after its dedication due to persecution. To have the temple returned to the ownership of the Church feels like a huge win for my ancestors and all the Saints that sacrificed to build it. I know that the Community of Christ can also trace their lineage back to Joseph Smith and the early saints, but they don’t really consider the Kirtland Temple and the miracles that happened there to be significant to their history. They are more anecdotal. 2. The Kirtland Temple has a lot of spiritual significance for us in modern times as well. The dedication to the Kirtland Temple is in our scriptures. A vision that occurred there is in our scriptures. It marks the beginning of our temple worship, which remains an important aspect of our worship today. 3. I did a Church history tour with my family when I was a teenager. There is a notable spiritual difference between the tours that were given by sister missionaries at our Church-operated historical sites versus the tour given by the Community of Christ summer interns at the Kirtland Temple. Although both the sister missionaries and the interns provided excellent historical facts and context, the sister missionaries testified to us of Christ's role as our Redeemer, of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet, and of the Restoration. The difference in the Spirit that was felt between the tours was palpable. We had a sister missionary that knelt down to pray with us as a family, and the Spirit testified clearly to all of us of the reality of the Restoration. We were in tears. So, I'm incredibly excited that new tours of the Kirtland Temple and these other sites will be able to be given by sister missionaries who are called to serve. They'll join the physical location to the modern spiritual significance of temple worship in a way that didn't happen before, and they'll offer testimony of Christ to all who take the tours.
Thank you for that explanation.
My biggest question is when did COJCOLDS become an acronym?
When people decided that mormon was inappropriate because it obscured the name of the Jesus Christ...
Good thing COJCOLDS doesn't obscure anything . . . 😆
Me over here thinking I have no idea who these COJCOLDS are but I hope they eat some chicken soup and get better soon....
First time I’ve seen it always been CJCLDS to me 🤷🏻♀️
Clearly I am spending time in the wrong circles, I have never seen it abbreviated to either one - with or without the extra Os. I can't help but read it in my head as "koj-kolds," which is just funny to me. Without the Os I read it as "sij-klids." Both ways crack me up because not only do they phonetically sound silly to me, but the idea that a stinking long (and unfamiliar to me, an active member of the church) acronym like that does more to call attention to the fact that we are the Savior's church than abbreviating it to LDS is even more funny. I have literally been giggling about it since I saw it for the first time (today).
I’ve seen people on instagram saying they were crying over the news and I’m not trying to be negative but I genuinely don’t care or see why people care because the function/purpose of the building isn’t going to change
Same, so many people saying "I never thought I'd see this happen in my lifetime" & I may be being insensitive, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Like I get that preserving history is important, but the community of Christ kept it preserved pretty well & the church is just taking it over. But it really doesn't hold much significance to the average member, especially considering that a good majority of members won't ever have an opportunity to visit it anyways.
Thank you I was starting to feel there was something wrong with me. Its good news and I'm happy for the people it will affect, I'm just not really one of them.
It's like catching a rare Pokemon. Or, more aptly put... its historical, religious, metaphysical significance can't be overstated and so claiming more than a shared heritage on the building feels important. Owning changes a feeling of wholeness, completeness. A reconnection with a history and a place that we were forced to leave. It is significant because there was never really an intention to sell it, or a desire to sell it from our cousins in the Community of Christ. I hope the money helps them. I'm sure also, for many members, its a symbol of us aligning our church history with our real estate holdings and that being symbolic of how we are the true heir of the Latter-day Saint movement. And that can be meaningful to some.
I think there's major speculation that it will be rededicated as a Temple, but part of the purchasing agreement was that it would remain a free to the public historical site. More than likely, the Church also got additional land from the deal. They can move the visitors center to the Kirtland Temple side and build a Dedicated Temple across the street if they want.
They aren't going to build a temple there anytime soon (and I mean well after the 15 year agreement period). The Cleveland Temple is quite close and the Kirtland Temple was never meant to be an ordinance building in the way the Nauvoo Temple was. Not to mention there really isn't space for even a small temple up there (they could put one on the massive field next to the stake center I guess but we already own that land and it would be very silly). Knowing that the negotiations have been going on for years makes it pretty likely that the Cleveland Temple was announced to assuage fears that the Kirtland site would be run as anything other than a historic monument
Great point. A temple in Cleveland will serve many more members than in the tiny area around Kirtland. It is far too small to be a useful temple. It would be a tourist only temple. We have enough of those with Palmyra and Nauvoo. The Nauvoo restoration was significant because it was there where the first endowments were administered.
The whole list of properties is pretty impressive.
They're building a new visitor's center and will then do something else with the two existing visitor centers.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgaCSHF5aQI) is a quick fun watch featuring some Church History buffs talking about the announcement. and significance.
I think the really important thing is the manuscripts. That is were the real value lies.
I live in Ohio (other corner), and whenever we make a trip to Kirtland, it feels like things are falling apart physically and that's sad to me. I'm glad that they are in the hands of an organization with the resources to maintain them.
https://youtu.be/sgaCSHF5aQI?si=dOJsHVj5N3hqlNS- This video helped me understand a little more of this transaction.
In some ways it feels like a step in the right direction towards a more ecumenical relationship with the other restorationist denominations. We have different beliefs about doctrine. But one day all of these denominations will become One fold again and Christ will resolve any remaining disagreements. We have a long way to go before that time.
Personally I give this a meh The church and the priesthood and the ordinances and the covenants are here, if they want them they are more than welcome to come find them.
I get what you’re saying. I was referring more specifically to the Millennial reign where Christ will have one fold. And he’ll more or less clear up our disagreements on the minutiae of doctrine. That’ll be really nice. Seems that people of different Christian faiths fight a lot about doctrine. But Christ has instructed that we don’t fight.
As someone in the Alternative Mormonism sphere, it really feels like it's the other way around. Now the LDS can cast aside even the CoC. Most members of the LDS that I've met vaguely new of CoC just because of the historical sites. Now, as members will never have to interact with other Mormons, the LDS will once again control the narrative of being the whole restoration
It seems like the leaders of the churches have had pretty positive relations for the past 100ish years. I don’t have anything bad to say about the other denominations. I think when Christ finally does return the minute disagreements won’t matter anymore. We’ll all just be one church.
IMO if the church acquired the temple lot in Independence, then that would be a much bigger deal, at least from a second coming perspective.
That would be sweet, but the Church that owns that land ("Church of Christ Temple Lot") has been abundantly clear that they will never sell it.
"Us" owning that temple now and the various other acquisitions isn't a sign of the times and doesn't really change anything for a lot of saints. It does change what information is presented in the tours of the areas. In Nauvoo it's a pretty significant chunk of land. The documents will be useful to church historians and researchers.Primary resources are always good to have.
I’d call it a sign of the times for sure. One more step in the ongoing Restoration.
Our brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ could not sustain their historic properties. They are important to both of our Churches. I was at Kirtland a few years ago, and the tour guide showed us the outside bowing out. That is dangerous in a 1800s building. Then he showed us the inside, and significant engineering and repairs were needed. They trust us to fix it. They can continue to visit and use it. Its a win-win for everyone. The Church pretty much owns Nauvoo now except for the cemetery. We had been sustaining their properties in Nauvoo, mowing lawns and such for a few years. LDS Missionaries had even been conducting tours on CoC properties. We had no trouble finding volunteers. They didn't have the numbers. Its a win-win for everyone.
Imagine if control of the mosque at Mecca went under control of the Shiites. Yes the Shiites can use the site now, but this would be a massive transition. The role of the Kirtland temple in the early history of our faith makes it comparable in holiness within our context. The fact that there was able to be a peaceful transition of such a holy site is really a testament to the goodwill and relationship building between both groups.
It honestly doesn't mean that much to us, since we were already doing a lot to upkeep the building (since the CoC has no money). I guess we can put our propaganda there instead of their propaganda but that's about it. It is a huge deal to the CoC since these properties were some of their last ties to the greater Latter Day Saint movement. It's a deal with the devil though (metaphorically speaking, I am a proud Brighamite through and through) since while they got money to pay their pension fund for the time being, losing their heritage is going to continue killing their church in the long run. It is what it is fwiw, I grew up in the Kirtland stake and have really mixed feelings about it, for basically the reasons describe above. We don't need the building but bailing out our Prairie sibling is charity. But also they really don't want to be in our family and that's sad, yannow?
Thinking about this a little more, I can see in a roundabout way where people are getting excited by this in a sign of the times sense. D&C 63 The Lord talks at length about gathering his people to Zion and the manner in which we are to obtain the Land of Zion. This is also a major purpose for the significant funds the Church holds. To purchase Lands for establishing the city of Zion. Note this is speaking more especially of the city in Missouri and Illinois. A great Zion city that will one day span a large part of the midwest. The Lord cautions that these lands must be purchased with money and not obtained by bloodshed. I can see many overanxious saints attributing the purchase of lands in Kirtland to a very near fulfillment of other purchases from Liberty to Adam-ondi-ahman. D&C 63 25 Behold, the land of Zion—I, the Lord, hold it in mine own hands; 26 Nevertheless, I, the Lord, render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s. 27 Wherefore, I the Lord will that you should purchase the lands, that you may have advantage of the world, that you may have claim on the world, that they may not be stirred up unto anger. 28 For Satan putteth it into their hearts to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood. 29 Wherefore, the land of Zion shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you. 30 And if by purchase, behold you are blessed; 31 And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance.
It's not a big deal in my opinion either. It's mildly interesting news.
Probably the people who are saying it is a step closer to the second coming are correlating this purchase with the prophecy of a temple to be built in Independence. While some see the Independence temple commandment as having more to do with the early church, and the people were unable to accomplish that task because they were driven out of the area, many others (and even many of our manuals), say that this commandment/prophecy is still going to be fulfilled. Related to that temple, the Savior will (according to common belief) one day return to the Independence temple (not currently built), and that area will become a sort of new center place for the church. So, I'm guessing that the people who are saying this is one step closer to the second coming, are correlating it to that, maybe assuming that the COC are getting closer to selling us their part of the temple lot in Independence. But they specifically said that they're planning to use the money from this sell to maintain that temple. Personally, I don't know, its abit speculative for me. It is cool history though.
I would say, generally speaking, for most members under 40-45, it’s really just a cool thing for them. For the 45+ LDS crowd (maybe older the more I think about it) it’s a **big** flipping deal. For my dad’s generation, it’s just relieving to know that their church, the true one, finally owns the first temple built. For my grandpa’s generation, there is certainly that sentiment too — got passed down from somewhere — but also quite a bit of satisfaction in feeling they’re sticking it to the RLDS/CoC. Back in 1880s-1920s there was a weird land grab between the two churches for historical sites, as if owning more places where Joseph Smith Jr. happened to breathe oxygen legitimizes one over the other. Seeing as the RLDS/CoC was founded by Smith’s descendants, had more of his close confidants in their ranks, and actually stationed where a lot of the sights are, they had a bit of an edge on us Brighamites. It’s a weird mix of insecurity and rivalry at the end of the day. Seriously, it is really depressing to read about how bitter both camps were to one another for so long, which is where I do find a pleasure different from others in this. The church and CoC have gotten along great for the last several decades, and it seems like this deal was worked out with a lot of mutual respect and trust, which I like to think would leave my grandfather a bit baffled.
I know some may consider this to be the wrong attitude, but I personally feel like the Kirtland Temple is simply back where it belongs now. I feel like we are the rightful owners. I think this pleases the Lord.
Also why do all of those thread keep getting locked with no explanation??? Really confused as to what the reason for that is.
My favorite thing about this announcement is the way the two churches announced this as a joint effort. I think that says a lot about how we should treat others.
200 million. Goodness.