The empty Church

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

One thing I wonder about is liability. Just thinking out loud here, but most of the local churches where I live (and man are there a ton) are either independent of any national organization or affiliate with one but are not owned by them. The one Catholic Church is probably an exception.

I'm just thinking, does a local church (which is nothing more than its board of trustees which are appointed by the governing body then ratified by the local court) which owns nothing more than the land it sits on really worried about being sued? Probably not. I am doing some work for the United Methodist church which is trying to divest itself of some literally empty buildings and is having a remarkably hard time even giving them away. They aren't worth much. If the local church is sued it is probably judgment proof.

The Catholic Church and LDS church on the other hand are much different. If you open your buildings to people they are licensees there and you owe them a duty of ordinary care which will include the duty to fix or warn about dangerous conditions. It would probably, as a practical matter, require having someone present there whenever the building is open to discharge that duty.

I feel what SEIQ is saying here but I think this is a function of having lay clergy. The only way I see this working is hiring someone to be a full time building manager. I'm not saying thats impossible, but it is truly not the same thing as having a priest or a pastor who is there most of the day.

So you are saying there is a price for doing everything on the cheap?

[Indy Coug]

Are we going to let a little legal liability get in the way of us keeping up with the Brother Joneses?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Are we going to let a little legal liability get in the way of us keeping up with the Brother Joneses?

Sadly, much we do in the church is about legal liability, and not about helping our fellow saints.

It saddens me that I will probably never have the chance to be a primary teacher. Why? Because the church is afraid of being sued.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The only way I see this working is hiring someone to be a full time building manager.

When I was a kid, there was something like this - a crotchety old man who hated kids who was the custodian. It was a paid position (as in he worked for the LDS church) and his job was to make sure everything was okey dokey at the building, which pretty much meant that he'd stand in the doorway of whatever room the group was in and stare at everyone until they were uncomfortable enough to end whatever they were doing and go home.

The Brethren later determined that the members of each ward who used the building could keep it clean which is how this entire business of each ward taking a turn getting up early on a Saturday to get the building ready for Sunday, which is why Saturday is a special day. But I digress.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Sadly, much we do in the church is about legal liability, and not about helping our fellow saints.

It saddens me that I will probably never have the chance to be a primary teacher. Why? Because the church is afraid of being sued.

IMO, that is the fault of a sue-happy society and not the fault of the church. People are always looking for an easy way to make a buck.

[MikeWaters]

How about we trade that Salt Lake dowtown project for custodial service for the next 50 years?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

IMO, that is the fault of a sue-happy society and not the fault of the church. People are always looking for an easy way to make a buck.

Will children suffer because 46% of all Saints have now been excluded from being their primary teachers?

The amount of $ they thought they would lose was more important than the benefit to the children. That's the calculus.

[il Padrino Ute]

That would be fine with me. I don't like to go downtown. I am a suburbanite.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Will children suffer because 46% of all Saints have now been excluded from being their primary teachers?

The amount of $ they thought they would lose was more important than the benefit to the children. That's the calculus.

That's not true... I was just called as a primary teacher (My wife will not be team teaching). In fact, I asked the counselor who called me about the policy and he said "its only a guideline if you have the people"

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

That's not true... I was just called as a primary teacher (My wife will not be team teaching). In fact, I asked the counselor who called me about the policy and he said "its only a guideline if you have the people"

Yes there is an opt-out clause, but Bishops at the very least will likely put men at the bottom of the list.

It says if you don't have enough adults in your ward, you can have men, with certain conditions.