City Creek From 6,000 Miles Away

[Nathair/|\]

By upscale...the advertisements showing a woman drinking what appears to be a glass of champagne in a backless dress.

I don't understand why you would be upset with an image of someone who hasn't made baptismal covenants consuming alcohol nor with someone who hasn't made covenants to wear temple garments showing off body parts not covered by a bikini.

[rockpond]

Didn't the Church acquire some of it's own land when it first settled Utah? From what I understand, the Salt Lake Valley wasn't even part of any native tribe's territory because nobody wanted it until the Saints built irrigation ditches.

I don't know. Did it? Do you have a reference? Or did individuals gain the land through homesteading and then donate to the church? Either way, it would appear that the land was gained and then improved through the blood, sweat, and tears of the early saints crossing the plains.

[Calm]

I don't know. Did it? Do you have a reference? Or did individuals gain the land through homesteading and then donate to the church? Either way, it would appear that the land was gained and then improved through the blood, sweat, and tears of the early saints crossing the plains.

The Church was the government when they got there...at least many of the leaders overlapped in their offices, it was the Church leaders who divided up the land. The first land that was marked off, IIRC, were the temple grounds and then the city was built around it (which is why the temple's address is 50 W N Temple). Many other cities that were settled by Saints were set up the same way with the Bishop doing things like organizing irrigation rights and such.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/centennial_celebration/052195.html

Using engineering instruments brought from England, Pratt and Henry G. Sherwood began to survey the city plat during the first week of August. It was sufficiently accurate that the heart of Great Salt Lake City "has all its lines today as Pratt laid them out in 1847," said J. Cecil Alter, first director of the Utah State Historical Society. Of primary concern in that initial survey was selection of a site for the proposed Mormon Temple. Alter studied Wilford Woodruff's diary entry and wrote the following account: "We walked from the north [pioneer] camp," writes Woodruff, "to about the center between the two creeks" (This would have brought them approximately to the site of the Kearns Building, or in the street in front of it, or possibly as far east as The Tribune building, Alter says), "where President Young waved his hand and said: Here is the forty acres for the temple; the city can be laid out perfectly square, north and south, east and west.'" However, when it came to actually laying out the design on the plat, four central city blocks seemed entirely too much ground and it was reduced to a quarter that size, a regular city block from which all streets were to be named and numbered.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

I don't understand why you would be upset with an image of someone who hasn't made baptismal covenants consuming alcohol nor with someone who hasn't made covenants to wear temple garments showing off body parts not covered by a bikini.

The image itself doesn't upset me. The fact that it is being displayed there in SLC as a means of promoting the investment made with the Lord's funds doesn't sit well with me. The message appears to be that it's okay to promote values contrary to our teachings, as long as it is profitable.

[rockpond]

The Church was the government when they got there...at least many of the leaders overlapped in their offices, it was the Church leaders who divided up the land. The first land that was marked off, IIRC, were the temple grounds and then the city was built around it (which is why the temple's address is 50 W N Temple). Many other cities that were settled by Saints were set up the same way with the Bishop doing things like organizing irrigation rights and such.

My point still stands. The land was gained through the blood, sweat, and tears of the early saints.

[Calm]

My point still stands. The land was gained through the blood, sweat, and tears of the early saints.

And the Saints were...and are....the Church.

[rockpond]

And the Saints were...and are....the Church.

Yes and no. Not in terms of the assets. Those are now the property of the corporation.

Either way, I see all assets as being consecrated to the Lord in his work. Including those that were gained by settling the Salt Lake Valley.

[ERayR]

The image itself doesn't upset me. The fact that it is being displayed there in SLC as a means of promoting the investment made with the Lord's funds doesn't sit well with me. The message appears to be that it's okay to promote values contrary to our teachings, as long as it is profitable.

Wasn't there a parable of sorts about motes and beams?

[ERayR]

My point still stands. The land was gained through the blood, sweat, and tears of the early saints.

But it was not your blood, sweat or tears.

[ERayR]

Yes and no. Not in terms of the assets. Those are now the property of the corporation.

Either way, I see all assets as being consecrated to the Lord in his work. Including those that were gained by settling the Salt Lake Valley.

Herein lies the problem, Obviously there are different interpretations as to what constitutes furthering the Lord's work.

[Calm]

Yes and no. Not in terms of the assets. Those are now the property of the corporation.

Either way, I see all assets as being consecrated to the Lord in his work. Including those that were gained by settling the Salt Lake Valley.

So the issue is not what or how the Church got the assets, but that you see them as consecrated and you don't feel that it is appropriate to use consecrated assets in such a way as even if they started out as 'mundane' or 'worldly' (in the sense that the Saints were trying to create a comfortable lifestyle as well as a place they could freely practice their religion and that comfort would have included the religious practice) they are now sacred due to their consecration to the Lord? Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Wasn't there a parable of sorts about motes and beams?

Not sure what your point is? Am I not allowed to participate in the discussion because I am a sinner?

[rockpond]

But it was not your blood, sweat or tears.

Nor yours.

[rockpond]

Herein lies the problem, Obviously there are different interpretations as to what constitutes furthering the Lord's work.

Agreed.

[rockpond]

So the issue is not what or how the Church got the assets, but that you see them as consecrated and you don't feel that it is appropriate to use consecrated assets in such a way as even if they started out as 'mundane' or 'worldly' (in the sense that the Saints were trying to create a comfortable lifestyle as well as a place they could freely practice their religion and that comfort would have included the religious practice) they are now sacred due to their consecration to the Lord?

Yeah, that's probably accurate. I see a difference between trying to settle the SL valley and deciding that the church should build a mill because nobody else has the resources and it's obviously needed vs. building a high-end shopping mall in a place filled with shopping malls.

But I'm not trying to ignore the comments that others have made. I get that people on here feel like there is value in beautifying the area around temple square and that City Creek was a great way to do that.

[Deborah]

D&C 29:

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

I think the Lord is as concerned about the temporal affairs of men as he is the spiritual. Abraham was wealthy and Nauvoo became a city of prosperity and enterprise.

[ERayR]

Nor yours.

But I am not the one complaining. Those whose blood, sweat and tears it was left it to the Church to do with. I honor their wishes.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ERayR

[rockpond]

But I am not the one complaining. Those whose blood, sweat and tears it was left it to the Church to do with. I honor their wishes.

Glad that you know what their wishes were.

[Nathair/|\]

The image itself doesn't upset me. The fact that it is being displayed there in SLC as a means of promoting the investment made with the Lord's funds doesn't sit well with me. The message appears to be that it's okay to promote values contrary to our teachings, as long as it is profitable.

I don't think I was as clear as I should have been and I apologize for that. I don't believe that the woman is practicing anything contrary to LDS teaching as applied to those who haven't made covenants. If she hasn't made baptismal covenants, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to drink champagne and if she hasn't made covenants to wear temple garments, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to wear a backless dress.

[cinepro]

For those who think the decision to build the City Creek Mall involved some degree of revelation to the leaders of the Church, can you explain how this revelation works?

For example, did the leaders pray for guidance, and in response receive divine guidance that a mall and housing development was what God wanted them to do? How detailed was the revelation regarding the size, scope and cost of the project?

For example, if God had envisioned something nice but small, and it was error that led to something huge and "high end", how would we know? If God envisioned something nice but closed on Sundays with no alcohol being served, and it was temporal error that led to some tenants being open on Sunday and serving alcohol, how would we know? Could the spirit tell us?

And if revelation were involved in the creation of the mall complex, and the final result wasn't what God had in mind, is that a form of apostasy?

Edited February 1, 2013 by cinepro

[rockpond]

I don't think I was as clear as I should have been and I apologize for that. I don't believe that the woman is practicing anything contrary to LDS teaching as applied to those who haven't made covenants. If she hasn't made baptismal covenants, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to drink champagne and if she hasn't made covenants to wear temple garments, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to wear a backless dress.

Got it. So where do you draw the line? I assume you'd be good with a Hooters opening up in City Creek then, right?

[cinepro]

There are also other definitions of "mall" (i.e. the "National Mall")

2. a large area, usually lined with shade trees and shrubbery, used as a public walk or promenade.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mall

What if God revealed that he wanted a "mall" in that space, and Church leaders went with the wrong definition?

[cinepro]

Got it. So where do you draw the line? I assume you'd be good with a Hooters opening up in City Creek then, right?

From a spiritual standpoint, why would a "Hooters" be any worse than any other restaurant that sells alcohol, or a store that has pictures of women in lingerie in the windows?

[rockpond]

From a spiritual standpoint, why would a "Hooters" be any worse than any other restaurant that sells alcohol, or a store that has pictures of women in lingerie in the windows?

It's the combination of the two. And live models as opposed to pictures. I'm just trying to gain an understanding of Nathair's perspective on this.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think I was as clear as I should have been and I apologize for that. I don't believe that the woman is practicing anything contrary to LDS teaching as applied to those who haven't made covenants. If she hasn't made baptismal covenants, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to drink champagne and if she hasn't made covenants to wear temple garments, it's not contrary to church teaching for her to wear a backless dress.

On the other hand if all the models on the ads were holding to LDS standards, modest dress, no alcohol, Molly Mormon stuff, people would complain that it would appear that non-members were not welcome and that Mormons were clearly clannish and corny.

Sigh.

You can't win for losing around here!