Just_A_Guy

So, actual survey markers endured.  Interesting.
What I was talking about was something like this:

What I saw had writing on each square to indicate what type of building was supposed to be there.  But this version seems to only indicate farmland.  I wish this image was detailed enough to make out the writing.
I've been doing enough indexing lately that I could read just about any cursive.  But it has to at least stand up to magnificaiton.  And this doesn't.
Most LDS city layouts are at least based on a 1/2 mile grid (Major streets at 1 mile, intermediates at 1/2 mile).  That would make this layout a WHOLE lot bigger than the current grassy area.  But I notice that the central row is a bit taller than the other rows.  That indicates something special along that line.
This gives room for the idea that the temple proper may be built there, but perhaps a different, but still important building will be placed on the top of the hill.

Agreed.  The Church of Christ, Temple Lot owns the parcel where the footprint of the original building was to have stood.
I rather wonder what we would do with such a temple, when we got one.  The construction plans revealed to Joseph Smith wouldn’t make a building that was suitable for what we traditionally know as “temple work”; and we have larger and better facilities for gatherings.  IIRC the original platte for the city of Zion called for twenty-four “temples” all on that plot, for a variety of purposes.  It strikes me that what Joseph Smith had in mind was probably a headquarters campus with a variety of office/administrative/assembly/liturgical structures, all genetically called “temples”.

Agreed.  The Church of Christ, Temple Lot owns the parcel where the footprint of the original building was to have stood.
I rather wonder what we would do with such a temple, when we got one.  The construction plans revealed to Joseph Smith wouldn’t make a building that was suitable for what we traditionally know as “temple work”; and we have larger and better facilities for gatherings.  IIRC the original platte for the city of Zion called for twenty-four “temples” all on that plot, for a variety of purposes.  It strikes me that what Joseph Smith had in mind was probably a headquarters campus with a variety of office/administrative/assembly/liturgical structures, all genetically called “temples”.

Much like how BYU is a collection of "temples of learning."  That's an interesting take.  But it may very well be like BYU.  The classrooms were used as chapels on Sundays.
Maybe what you term to be "generic temples" are actually temples that will be used for other purposes as well.
I wish I could find that city layout again.  There is no way that it could fit in that small plot.  He had something else in mind.  But I'm thinking that without actual dimensions on the paper, a lot of things were misinterpreted.
Joseph received the image in a vision.  But I don't think he had dimensions laid out.  It may very well be that the small lot was for what we might term "the temple proper" and other buildings were support roles for the temple.  But I see something much more complete.
Can a city be designed to have all the regular operations of civil society AND convert the vast majority of those residences, offices, stores, factories, etc. to temples and churches during "off hours"?  I believe it can.  But each building would have to be designed for such multi-purpose functionality in mind.
We still need to consider the concepts of "dedication" and "consecration" of these buildings.  Can this be worked with?  If the Lord wills it, there must be a way.  But that's a big "IF".
My primary question in the OP is: if the Saints were forced to leave the area, how do we know if this is the same lot?  Was there a legal description that we still have?  Supposedly the CoC owns the land.  Did they have the original metes and bounds survey record?  Do they have the original legal description?
If, as @NeedleinA says, the early Saints didn't own the land, I don't know how they could have a record of it.  It had to have been purchased at a later date (after the extermination order was considered obsolete).  If a considerable time passed, how do we know it is the same location?

Agreed.  The Church of Christ, Temple Lot owns the parcel where the footprint of the original building was to have stood.
I rather wonder what we would do with such a temple, when we got one.  The construction plans revealed to Joseph Smith wouldn’t make a building that was suitable for what we traditionally know as “temple work”; and we have larger and better facilities for gatherings.  IIRC the original platte for the city of Zion called for twenty-four “temples” all on that plot, for a variety of purposes.  It strikes me that what Joseph Smith had in mind was probably a headquarters campus with a variety of office/administrative/assembly/liturgical structures, all genetically called “temples”.

1. However that Stake Center got there... you are correct it is massive. 
2. Yes the green area is the Temple location and Yes, the CoC temple is in the wrong spot. 
 

You’re not supposed to talk about good and evil. In certain circles of the Church, there is no right and wrong—only the church’s money, and GAs who aren’t woke enough to use it the way it should be used.  

The amusing thing is, that wing of the Church had assumed that since Elder Renlund had a small family, a lawyer wife, and frequently cited to his experience in Africa—that he would be as libertine as they themselves are.  And yet, he clearly isn’t.
It’s a useful lesson.  We all get tempted to assume that this GA or that is “one of us” on any given social, political, or theological controversy; but really, the question is whether we are one of them.  

So, a minor correction from your resident Titanic nerd:
The crew (with very few exceptions, mostly coming from Captain Smith himself to men he deemed to be of the non-panicking sort), did *not* tell most of the passengers that the ship was actually sinking, because they wanted to avoid a panic.
At least as far as the female first- and second-class passengers were concerned:  Those who trusted that there was good and sufficient reason underlying the captain’s orders and made it a priority to obey, made it off fine.*
 
 *Third-class women were another story because there were no lifeboats in the designated third-class open decks; and men of all classes risked being excluded from the boats depending on which of the senior officers happened to be supervising the loading of any particular boat—Lightoller and Lowe took harsh “no men” rules, even if there were no women around, and had to be persuaded even to admit teenaged boys; the other officers were more willing to admit men once all the women nearby had been loaded into the boats.

You’re not supposed to talk about good and evil. In certain circles of the Church, there is no right and wrong—only the church’s money, and GAs who aren’t woke enough to use it the way it should be used.  

You’re not supposed to talk about good and evil. In certain circles of the Church, there is no right and wrong—only the church’s money, and GAs who aren’t woke enough to use it the way it should be used.  

The brethren vary in race, background, culture, personality, work vs church experience, family, etc... What makes them the same is their devotion to the Lord. They are one with each other - as a united quorum should be.

The amusing thing is, that wing of the Church had assumed that since Elder Renlund had a small family, a lawyer wife, and frequently cited to his experience in Africa—that he would be as libertine as they themselves are.  And yet, he clearly isn’t.
It’s a useful lesson.  We all get tempted to assume that this GA or that is “one of us” on any given social, political, or theological controversy; but really, the question is whether we are one of them.  

The amusing thing is, that wing of the Church had assumed that since Elder Renlund had a small family, a lawyer wife, and frequently cited to his experience in Africa—that he would be as libertine as they themselves are.  And yet, he clearly isn’t.
It’s a useful lesson.  We all get tempted to assume that this GA or that is “one of us” on any given social, political, or theological controversy; but really, the question is whether we are one of them.  

The Lord said he would sift his church...  We saw this with the whole Prop 8 and rainbow movements... Now we are seeing it hit the other side of the political scale, with the face-masks and shut down mandates.
In the end we will see who is on the Lord's side and who thinks the leaders have fallen because they disagree with them...

Here is the thought Elder Renlund provided that is irritating "thought leaders" and those that have succumbed to these thoughts leaders:
The metaphor is a brilliant metaphor relating sickness (virus) to spiritual sickness, and how we should avoid anything in our lives that might threaten the eternal reward of our family. Seems to be a very appropriate analogy in light of scripture. And yet, this section is full of people irritated because  -- the guilty take a truth to be hard. My favorite comment is this, "I doubt that this was an inspired comment and hope you’ll reconsider what a damaging impact this sort of stigmatizing and divisive sentiment has to our congregations."
First, it's funny that someone thinks they are able to say what is inspired and isn't when it was "personal" revelation to Elder Renlund, which he is sharing. The Lord doesn't work horizontally with revelation or inspiration, so the pride involved in this sentiment is even more sad.
Truth only impacts a congregation harmfully if the congregation is prideful and doesn't want to accept truth.
It really becomes tiring reading comments from people who want to twist words an apostle or prophet will say to further their justification for their decisions.

FWIW, my main issue with Biden's plan (and most immigration legislation pre-Trump) is that they seem to reward illegal immigration (and I'm not talking about refugees or asylum seekers). What about those persons who want to migrate legally? The system is failing them and has been failing them for years, they are waiting patiently in their home countries for decades (which I think is absolutely ridiculous) and now laws will be passed to reward those who entered the country illegally. How fair is that? We are rewarding those breaking the law and punishing those who are being honest? And even though there are plans to reduce their waiting time, it will not be a priority. I don't know if there is a solution that can benefit/help all at the same time but this particular point bugs me.

Godless, I am very sorry to read this. I hope 2021 can be a better year for you! We don't know each other but I hope you know that I value and appreciate your contributions. I would hate to see you taking a break but of course, you need to do what is best for your health. I have taken my own sabbaticals over the years and it worked very well. I also use the ignore feature (if It is too much or I find a poster too combative/argumentative). At the end of it all, we are supposed to be here sharing our views and having a good time! Wishing you well.

If you’re asking how Latter-day Saints interpret Hebrews 5’s talk of Melchizedek (and by extension, Hebrews 7 as well)—I think we mostly interpret it the same way you do:  the author of Hebrews is trying to convert Jews to Christianity by showing that the levitical priesthood is not the be-all, end-all; that there is higher token of God’s covenant with Israel than the priesthood or the temple or even the Mosaic Law; and that thing is the Son of God Himself.  The author is trying to shock the Jews by saying “look, you think your priests are the only true priests and that your father Abraham is the greatest guy in scripture; but your own scripture says that Abraham was subservient a member of a higher order/pattern of priesthood, and Christ is one of—in fact, the supreme embodiment of—that higher order of priesthood.”  So far, so good.
Where I think we may depart from each other is that (I presume) most Christians assume that the author of Hebrews is citing this business about Melchizedek primarily for rhetorical effect—from this passage their overall takeaway about “priesthood” as a concept might be that at different times in history, God has had His servants (“priests”) engage in different forms of work and has endowed them with greater or lesser portions of His power.  Mormonism, by contrast, holds that this passage denotes formal orders of priesthood that can—and in this “dispensation of the fullness of times”, do—exist simultaneously, within the same body of believers at the same time; and our church structures its modern clergy and congregational organization around this concept.

It's sad that they have to come out with a statement like this. The level of hatred, disregard for other's life/property, and just plain evil in this world is just awful.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles released a statement:

If you’re asking how Latter-day Saints interpret Hebrews 5’s talk of Melchizedek (and by extension, Hebrews 7 as well)—I think we mostly interpret it the same way you do:  the author of Hebrews is trying to convert Jews to Christianity by showing that the levitical priesthood is not the be-all, end-all; that there is higher token of God’s covenant with Israel than the priesthood or the temple or even the Mosaic Law; and that thing is the Son of God Himself.  The author is trying to shock the Jews by saying “look, you think your priests are the only true priests and that your father Abraham is the greatest guy in scripture; but your own scripture says that Abraham was subservient a member of a higher order/pattern of priesthood, and Christ is one of—in fact, the supreme embodiment of—that higher order of priesthood.”  So far, so good.
Where I think we may depart from each other is that (I presume) most Christians assume that the author of Hebrews is citing this business about Melchizedek primarily for rhetorical effect—from this passage their overall takeaway about “priesthood” as a concept might be that at different times in history, God has had His servants (“priests”) engage in different forms of work and has endowed them with greater or lesser portions of His power.  Mormonism, by contrast, holds that this passage denotes formal orders of priesthood that can—and in this “dispensation of the fullness of times”, do—exist simultaneously, within the same body of believers at the same time; and our church structures its modern clergy and congregational organization around this concept.

The name "Melchizedek priesthood" is actually a nick name.  The proper name of it is actually the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God".  It is Christ's priesthood.    The nickname is used to show reverence to things properly addressed and to avoid too frequent repetition of things (like internet folks would totally acronym it).  
Priesthood in general is the authority to act in God's name, doing God's will, with God's power. We are His disciples, and should be doing as He would have us.
Back in the time of Moses, the children of Isreal were not ready for the fullness of Christ's law and convent (remember the whole golden calf thing...).  So as a preparatory step, the Old Law, Old Covenant, and Aaronic priesthood were put in place.  They are an appendage of Christ's fullness designed to help teach and prepare a person/people for the fullness of His ways.  Come Christ's mortal life, He taught that higher law, new covenant, and ordained with the fullness of His priesthood (nicknamed the Melchizedek priesthood). 
Nowadays, a young man is ordained to the preparatory Aaronic Priesthood, as they prepare and strengthen their walk with Christ.  Later they are ordained to the fullness of His Priesthood, the Melchizedek priesthood.  If a person's growing up in the church, these steps occur age ~12 and ~18.  

"Priesthood" is a word that is often used to denote both "power" and "authority."  If I'm going to get anal on definitions, I'd have to say that it is "authority."  The actual power is what Joseph Smith referred to as "faith."  And this faith of which he spoke was different than the simple "belief in things religious" as is the common meaning.  There is a long drawn out set of lectures on the topic which illustrates why the word "faith" is the most appropriate word, in spite of the fact that we're using an already existing word with other meanings.
But if we can separate "The Power of God" (faith) from "Authority to use that power" (priesthood) then we begin to understand the meaning of Christ and Priesthood.
As Jane said, it is the "Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God."  It is the authority to act in Christ's name.  So we read in verse 4:
We do not inherently have the authority to act in the name of Christ.  We have to be called to it as Aaron was through prophecy.  Then we read in verse 5:
Christ inherently was able to act as His own agent just as anyone is.  Thus He inherently had such authority to act in His own name.  He did not need to have it conferred upon Him.  It was by virtue of being the Son of God that He could act in the name of the Son of God.
The lesser degree (or the incomplete authority granted to man) during the Law of Moses dispensation was the Levitical priesthood.  This is almost synonymous with what we refer to as the Aaronic Priesthood today -- with one exception.  The Levitical priesthood was by birthright during the era of the Law of Moses.  But the Aaronic Priesthood today is given to any man who is called by the Lord to receive it.

If you’re asking how Latter-day Saints interpret Hebrews 5’s talk of Melchizedek (and by extension, Hebrews 7 as well)—I think we mostly interpret it the same way you do:  the author of Hebrews is trying to convert Jews to Christianity by showing that the levitical priesthood is not the be-all, end-all; that there is higher token of God’s covenant with Israel than the priesthood or the temple or even the Mosaic Law; and that thing is the Son of God Himself.  The author is trying to shock the Jews by saying “look, you think your priests are the only true priests and that your father Abraham is the greatest guy in scripture; but your own scripture says that Abraham was subservient a member of a higher order/pattern of priesthood, and Christ is one of—in fact, the supreme embodiment of—that higher order of priesthood.”  So far, so good.
Where I think we may depart from each other is that (I presume) most Christians assume that the author of Hebrews is citing this business about Melchizedek primarily for rhetorical effect—from this passage their overall takeaway about “priesthood” as a concept might be that at different times in history, God has had His servants (“priests”) engage in different forms of work and has endowed them with greater or lesser portions of His power.  Mormonism, by contrast, holds that this passage denotes formal orders of priesthood that can—and in this “dispensation of the fullness of times”, do—exist simultaneously, within the same body of believers at the same time; and our church structures its modern clergy and congregational organization around this concept.