City Creek Mall

[Stone holm]

There now, Sleeper Cell, see what you've gone and done? He's trying to pick a fight with me now, one of the least inclined on this board to get political.

Lol....talk about bubbles....but really people why do we care whether or not a GA eats at the Mall on the Sabbath, that has nothing to do with whether there was a need to protect Temple Square from the blight of our build and discard mentality. If you are going to object to this project, you really need a better objection than challenging the personal behavior of a GA. As I have said over and over again, I support this project -- it was necessary to do something. Perhaps with a wiser population and political culture they could have prevented the situation which the Church ultimately had to correct from happening, but that was water over the dam. In some ways you could strongly defend the gentrification of the area around the Temple Square, if it caters to the wealthy they are more likely to make sure that it doesn't deteriorate -- they take care of their own. So in that sense, perhaps it was the wisest approach to solving a problem that needed to be solved. Normally the Church locates its Temples in the United States in as exclusive neighborhoods as possible, which is part of the reason they are so bitterly opposed. Normally, in America you do not see Temples being erected in slums. In this case, the Temple had been located in a City originally planned in detail by the Church, however, such City planning fell by the wayside with the advent of libertarian style approach to government -- so this is a case of the Church not being able to locate a Temple in a desirable neighborhood, so they had to change the neighborhood around it.

[Stone holm]

dup

Edited July 27, 2013 by Stone holm

[Scott Lloyd]

Lol....talk about bubbles....

I said I was disinclined to get political on this board. I didn't say I was an ignoramus. You do have a problem with conclusion jumping.

but really people why do we care whether or not a GA eats at the Mall on the Sabbath, that has nothing to do with whether there was a need to protect Temple Square from the blight of our build and discard mentality.

Are you ignoring me on purpose? I said the Homestead, the restaurant and resort mentioned in Tacenda's anecdote, is located in the mountains east of Salt Lake City and Provo. That's nowhere near City Creek Mall. So why do you keep going on about General Authorities "eating at the mall" on Sunday?

And I acknowledged that Tacenda's remark about the breakfast buffet was a thread derailment. I think we all recognize that. Let's move on.

If you are going to object to this project, you really need a better objection than challenging the personal behavior of a GA. As I have said over and over again, I support this project -- it was necessary to do something. Perhaps with a wiser population and political culture they could have prevented the situation which the Church ultimately had to correct from happening, but that was water over the dam. In some ways you could strongly defend the gentrification of the area around the Temple Square, if it caters to the wealthy they are more likely to make sure that it doesn't deteriorate -- they take care of their own. So in that sense, perhaps it was the wisest approach to solving a problem that needed to be solved. Normally the Church locates its Temples in the United States in as exclusive neighborhoods as possible, which is part of the reason they are so bitterly opposed. Normally, in America you do not see Temples being erected in slums. In this case, the Temple had been located in a City originally planned in detail by the Church, however, such City planning fell by the wayside with the advent of libertarian style approach to government -- so this is a case of the Church not being able to locate a Temple in a desirable neighborhood, so they had to change the neighborhood around it.

You have a generally sensible attitude about this issue. A pity that you filter it through snooty allegations about Church leaders living in a "bubble."

If there had been some mass education project as you are calling for it would have done little good. There still would have been pious naysaying from those so inclined. They would have as readily shut their ears before the project commenced as after.

It's like we said on another thread: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, critics gotta carp.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

I never admitted that General Authorities are casual in their Sabbath observance, which is what it seemed the anecdote was intended to convey.

And I think it folly to draw extrapolations from rumors that are likely inaccurate in the first place.

No you admitted the plausibility of GAs needing to eat out on the sabbath.

I'm moving on as you this far have not caught on to the point I was making and have no interest in further derailment.

[Scott Lloyd]

No you admitted the plausibility of GAs needing to eat out on the sabbath.

The plausibility that they might do it under extenuating circumstances was never at issue. It was the suggestion or implication that they do it often enough to constitute a casual attitude about Sabbath observance.

I'm moving on as you this far have not caught on to the point I was making and have no interest in further derailment.

Good. It was you who was continuing it anyway by refusing to take cognizance of my actual position

Edited July 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Garden Girl]

Lol....talk about bubbles....but really people why do we care whether or not a GA eats at the Mall on the Sabbath, that has nothing to do with whether there was a need to protect Temple Square from the blight of our build and discard mentality. If you are going to object to this project, you really need a better objection than challenging the personal behavior of a GA. As I have said over and over again, I support this project -- it was necessary to do something. Perhaps with a wiser population and political culture they could have prevented the situation which the Church ultimately had to correct from happening, but that was water over the dam. In some ways you could strongly defend the gentrification of the area around the Temple Square, if it caters to the wealthy they are more likely to make sure that it doesn't deteriorate -- they take care of their own. So in that sense, perhaps it was the wisest approach to solving a problem that needed to be solved. Normally the Church locates its Temples in the United States in as exclusive neighborhoods as possible, which is part of the reason they are so bitterly opposed. Normally, in America you do not see Temples being erected in slums. In this case, the Temple had been located in a City originally planned in detail by the Church, however, such City planning fell by the wayside with the advent of libertarian style approach to government -- so this is a case of the Church not being able to locate a Temple in a desirable neighborhood, so they had to change the neighborhood around it.

Hi Stone holm...

Now don't fall over, but I actually agree with much of what you have said here... and as Scott Lloyd pointed out, it represents a generally sensible attitude...

It's been a number of years since I've been to SLC, and CC was still in the construction phase (providing many jobs)... but I can tell you the plaza area (also controversial at the time) was stunning with its variety and colors of flowers and plants. Numerous people were walking about enjoying the beauty and peace.

As far as where the temples are located, there is always some opposition... some stronger than others... but rarely does it persist once the temple is operating and the grounds made beautiful... in fact, some areas have increased in property value...

My Portland, OR temple was bitterly opposed... non-LDS people dressed in complete temple robes were on the corner of the very busy intersection with signs and angry words... The area has a lovely complex of 2 - 3 story office buildings, a Chili's restaurant... a tree-lined divided roadway winds through a very upscale neighborhood of homes, leading to the temple... the sidewalk through the neighborhood continues through the temple grounds, becoming a walking/jogging pathway. After I finished my shift as an ordinance worker and would be leaving the temple grounds, I had to be careful of the numerous women pushing baby strollers, the numerous joggers and walkers (including small groups of women walking together), people walking dogs... and I'd see numerous neighborhood/business people (obvious by their clothing) sitting by the fountains simply enjoying the lovely grounds and the peace and quiet.

Gone are the demonstrators and hateful signs... a peaceful co-existence among all parties sharing the area.

This is usually what happens once people realize the temples do not devalue an area...

GG

Edited July 27, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Stone holm]

Hi Stone holm...

Now don't fall over, but I actually agree with much of what you have said here... and as Scott Lloyd pointed out, it represents a generally sensible attitude...

It's been a number of years since I've been to SLC, and CC was still in the construction phase (providing many jobs)... but I can tell you the plaza area (also controversial at the time) was stunning with its variety and colors of flowers and plants. Numerous people were walking about enjoying the beauty and peace.

As far as where the temples are located, there is always some opposition... some stronger than others... but rarely does it persist once the temple is operating and the grounds made beautiful... in fact, some areas have increased in property value...

My Portland, OR temple was bitterly opposed... non-LDS people dressed in complete temple robes were on the corner of the very busy intersection with signs and angry words... The area has a lovely complex of 2 - 3 story office buildings, a Chili's restaurant... a tree-lined divided roadway winds through a very upscale neighborhood of homes, leading to the temple... the sidewalk through the neighborhood continues through the temple grounds, becoming a walking/jogging pathway. After I finished my shift as an ordinance worker and would be leaving the temple grounds, I had to be careful of the numerous women pushing baby strollers, the numerous joggers and walkers (including small groups of women walking together), people walking dogs... and I'd see numerous neighborhood/business people (obvious by their clothing) sitting by the fountains simply enjoying the lovely grounds and the peace and quiet.

Gone are the demonstrators and hateful signs... a peaceful co-existence among all parties sharing the area.

This is usually what happens once people realize the temples do not devalue an area...

GG

Oh that was not meant as a complaint just a statement of fact. In fact, when the initial volleys were shot over the Boston Temple were shot I had a couple sons in Boston they said it actually worked for our benefit there because some of the officials thought it was funny that Belmont was going to take the perceived hit this time. The irony with the protests is that aside from the increased traffic, the Temple normally improves property values.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Stone holm...

Now don't fall over, but I actually agree with much of what you have said here... and as Scott Lloyd pointed out, it represents a generally sensible attitude...

It's been a number of years since I've been to SLC, and CC was still in the construction phase (providing many jobs)... but I can tell you the plaza area (also controversial at the time) was stunning with its variety and colors of flowers and plants. Numerous people were walking about enjoying the beauty and peace.

As far as where the temples are located, there is always some opposition... some stronger than others... but rarely does it persist once the temple is operating and the grounds made beautiful... in fact, some areas have increased in property value...

My Portland, OR temple was bitterly opposed... non-LDS people dressed in complete temple robes were on the corner of the very busy intersection with signs and angry words... The area has a lovely complex of 2 - 3 story office buildings, a Chili's restaurant... a tree-lined divided roadway winds through a very upscale neighborhood of homes, leading to the temple... the sidewalk through the neighborhood continues through the temple grounds, becoming a walking/jogging pathway. After I finished my shift as an ordinance worker and would be leaving the temple grounds, I had to be careful of the numerous women pushing baby strollers, the numerous joggers and walkers (including small groups of women walking together), people walking dogs... and I'd see numerous neighborhood/business people (obvious by their clothing) sitting by the fountains simply enjoying the lovely grounds and the peace and quiet.

Gone are the demonstrators and hateful signs... a peaceful co-existence among all parties sharing the area.

This is usually what happens once people realize the temples do not devalue an area...

GG

I'm glad things worked out so well there, Garden Girl. I've noticed that this is pretty typical where a temple is being built.

As for the nasty protesters, I wouldn't be surprised if they were non-locals. There's a group of them who go from place to place spreading their bile wherever major LDS events are being held.

[Chronos]

[From atop the high mount of Olympus, Chronos peers down with contempt]

I dislike the drama of politics. I declare this thread to be...out of time.

[Waving his scythe, he compels the thread to close itself.]