“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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Wingnut

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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