Comments on: Relief Society History: A Building for the Women of the Church

By: css

css — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:31:00 +0000

Wow. That is so fascinating. And Frustrating. Thank you for writing this.

By: The Other Clark

The Other Clark — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:14:10 +0000

Justin’s link alludes to the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, a brainchild of JFS, which was overruled to build the Hotel Utah.

You could say that JFS got the last laugh, but he had to wait 80 years–twice as long as the RS sisters.

By: David Y.

David Y. — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:55:39 +0000

Wow — a fantastic post by Ardis, and then an appearance by the great Justin! Yea, it is like unto two sticks being joined together.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:37:09 +0000

Thank you, Justin.The date of this suggests that the changed intention was much earlier than I had realized, and made very early in JFS’s administration. It suggests that one reason for the change was, perhaps, efficiency — he’s concerned about debt, and a single administration building would likely have been far less expensive than building individual headquarters for all the various quorums and auxiliaries. I also think I see hints of an awareness by JFS that the RS had already expressed unhappiness at having lost control of their work, because he reassured them that their money was still their own — while nevertheless firmly stating that they would be called upon to contribute to the new building.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:11:30 +0000

Your interesting post prompted me to look through some general conference addresses during the same period for mention of the building. I found a reference to the building by Joseph F. Smith in October 1903. I'm not certain how it fits into the story.

By: lindberg

lindberg — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:13:29 +0000

As usual, a masterly telling of a complex story. Thank you, Ardis.

By: Cynthia L.

Cynthia L. — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:10:18 +0000

JimD, if clear title to the land by the church were an issue, why would the church tell the sisters to donate their money to build a different church building on the site? It seems they were quite confident the land was theirs, and they just had other plans for it.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:44:34 +0000

Jim, that’s another example of the kind of question to ask — thanks. In this case, I would be surprised to learn that President Snow’s personal finances had a bearing, though, because the Church didn’t hesitate to put their own building on that lot, or to use Relief Society funds to help with construction (i.e., if the RS were to be exposed to any claim by the Snow estate by building there themselves, they would have been at the same risk of losing the funds they invested in the Bishop’s building).

Jim and Matt have both raised questions that hadn’t occurred to me — whether or not these played a part in the decision, they are the kinds of questions to ask.

By: JimD

JimD — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:33:51 +0000

Ardis, for what it’s worth, Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition states that Lorenzo Snow died intestate, that the Church had no corporate entity and its’ own attorneys were admitting that clear title to many Church properties may actually lie with Snow’s heirs, and that at least some of the Snow family was none too helpful in sorting out the mess. (pp. 98-99, online at Google Books.)

Without more research, I think it’s at least fair to ask 1) whether the First Presidency was even in a position to honor Snow’s commitment, and 2) whether doing so may have exposed the Relief Society to a claim against the contributed funds by the Snow estate.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:29:35 +0000

Ardis: I’d love to know if such a financial record existed. from the sounds of things, it is kind of like the Church Historian’s group in Arrington’s years, where the church leaders did what they thought was best without communicating along the way.