Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Temple Lot

Recommended Posts

I was just looking at the Temple Lot in Independence, MO.  Supposedly the Community of Christ owns that lot and now has its "Temple" on that spot.

But one of my professional competencies is that of a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM).  So, I was wondering about the flood potential for that lot. 

It turns out that the entire area is near the top of a hill.  Lots of small tributaries to the Missouri River.  They're all over the place.  But it looks like they have a very effective drainage system throughout the city.  So, that was nice.

It also seems like it attempted to use the grid system that was used in so many Pioneer settled communities.  But it has been REKKED.  So, I don't know if we ever really set anything out there.  But it is a mess compared to other LDS settled areas.

Interesting Thoughts:

1) The highest spot of land there is where the police station and post office is.  It's a better spot than the CoC Temple Lot.  And it's not that far off from that spot.
2) It seems to be an area of cheap real estate. By all mortal measures that I've been able to determine from publicly available sources, that other area would be better all around.
3) There is also another high point not too far away which is mostly residential.  It seems to be pretty cheap real estate as well.  There are some nice apartments near there.

I wonder if the specific spot has been set in stone already.  What if the CoC has it wrong? Do we also have records that this is the chosen location?

What if the campaign against religion results in weakening the Church of Christ and the Community of Christ so that we can finally obtain that land?

What if we're supposed to buy that land on top of the hill?  What if we're a lot closer to obtaining the land than we think?  Of course, the post office and police station would be a big deal to relocate.  But it looks like almost everything else at that location would be easy to relocate. There are some pretty nice apartments nearby for initial move-ins (say... construction teams).

I would soooo love to be the engineer to design that city and all the buildings therein.  I undrstand that Joseph drew up an initial city plan for that area.  I've seen it.  It was pretty simplistic.  I'm supposing that it was a first iteration and we're to expand upon it via preset fractal patterns.  That's going to cause some problems given the existing city.  But I think it can be worked.

Thoughts on this lot?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun post @Carborendum and fun things to think about. 
 

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder if the specific spot has been set in stone already.  What if the Church of Christ has it wrong? Do we also have records that this is the chosen location?

I found the following:

Quote

When was the land dedicated as a temple lot? Who pronounced the dedication?

John Whitmer wrote that on August 3, 1831, eight elders “assembled together where the temple [was] to be erected.” Those eight elders were the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Peter Whitmer Jr., Frederick G. Williams, William W. Phelps, Martin Harris, and Joseph Coe. John Whitmer recorded: “Sidney Rigdon dedicated the ground where the city is to stand, and Joseph Smith Jr. laid a stone at the northeast corner of the contemplated temple in the name of the Lord Jesus of Nazareth. After all present had rendered thanks to the great ruler of the universe, Sidney Rigdon pronounced this spot of ground wholly dedicated unto the Lord forever.”

I don't know what is meant by "stone". Did they drop a no kidding stone/boulder sunk in the earth... or was is more like he placed a, for example, softball sized stone sitting on the surface of the ground? The land wasn't theirs, so I kind of doubt (?) they were dropping a permanent stone, but I'm not knowledgeable on this subject. Could we have the location wrong...perhaps?

For referrence:
temple-lot-wide-zoomed2.thumb.jpg.c96d27e1839c8badfdc0a0e94a35a9d5.jpg

 

temple-lot-wide.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

temple-lot-wide.jpg

Wow, that looks like one of those mega-stake centers I've heard about.  It's supposedly two stake centers built back-to-back.

So, that area you have labelled as "Temple Lot."  It's the green area, right?  That is west of the CoC temple.  If I'm understanding this correctly, the CoC temple is in the wrong spot.

I'm still hoping that the "real" historical stone location is unknown and we're going to build uphill a bit.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the relationship between ourselves and the Reorganized  is very good.  Much better than what has existed in the past.  I am sure when the time comes to build that the L-rd will have his hand in the work and it will go forward on His time table.  It will take me a while to find the source but I believe the Missouri center as planned will have several temples and temple complexes.  

As a side note the largest single land owner in Missouri is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Most of the land is farm land and the Church subs out the land to be farmed.  I do not know how much of the land is operated for profit and how much for the Church Welfare Services.  Also I discovered a large area of land up by Adam-ondi-alman (the middle of no where) that has been developed for residential living and is outfitted for utilities - including fiber-optic cable which appears to be planned for over 100,000 residential lots.   I have contacted some individuals that work for the Church in downtown SLC that should be in the know if the Church is involved - but they are unware or any such development within the Church. 

It is my personal opinion that if the L-rd was to so command that the church could move very quickly to respond to building in Missouri.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1. Wow, that looks like one of those mega-stake centers I've heard about.  It's supposedly two stake centers built back-to-back.

2. So, that area you have labelled as "Temple Lot."  It's the green area, right?  That is west of the CoC temple.  If I'm understanding this correctly, the CoC temple is in the wrong spot.

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. 

Quote

The rectangle measures about 300 feet by 200 feet (90 meters by 60 meters). It has nothing on it but grass, a few trees, six small stone markers, and a sign.

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I would soooo love to be the engineer to design that city and all the buildings therein.  I undrstand that Joseph drew up an initial city plan for that area.  I've seen it.  It was pretty simplistic.  I'm supposing that it was a first iteration and we're to expand upon it via preset fractal patterns.  That's going to cause some problems given the existing city.  But I think it can be worked.

The next time I talk to Pres. Nelson*, I'll tell him you're the guy for the job.

 

 

 

 

* (I've never actually talked to him, but you never know.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

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. 

 

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”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The next time I talk to Pres. Nelson*, I'll tell him you're the guy for the job.

I certainly hope you will.  And could you have him throw in a jar of kim chi as a signing bonus?

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

* (I've never actually talked to him, but you never know.)

Dang it all!  You get my hopes up and then you crash them to pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

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?

The Wikipedia page on the Independence temple isn’t terrible.  Apparently survey markers were laid, and discovered by the Temple Lot church in the mid-20th century.

But talking about the “original layout” of Independence as a whole, may be overly optimistic.  As I understand it there were only a few dozen households there when the Mormons arrived; there may not have been much of a formal city plan at that point—it was a frontier town, and the Mormons weren’t there very long . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Wikipedia page on the Independence temple isn’t terrible.  Apparently survey markers were laid, and discovered by the Temple Lot church in the mid-20th century.

So, actual survey markers endured.  Interesting.

Quote

But talking about the “original layout” of Independence as a whole, may be overly optimistic.  As I understand it there were only a few dozen households there when the Mormons arrived; there may not have been much of a formal city plan at that point—it was a frontier town, and the Mormons weren’t there very long . . . 

What I was talking about was something like this:

Zionplat2.thumb.jpg.e21564a6c2d5b56adb3d8c042259a49a.jpg

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.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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.

04-wishes.gif

 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/plat-of-the-city-of-zion-circa-early-june-25-june-1833/1

Quote

the painted squares [in the] middle are for publick buildings the one without any figure is for store houses fo[r] [the] Bishop and to be devoted to his use figure one is for Temples for the use of the pres[idency,] the circles inside of the square are the places for the temples you will see it containes twelve f[igures] 2 is for the Temples for the lesser Priesthood it also is to contain 12 Temples the whole square <plot> is s[upposed] to contain from 15 to 20 thousand people you will therefore see that it will require 24 building to supply them with houses of worship schools & none of these temples are to be smaller than the one of which we send you the draft this Temple is to be built in square number marked figure one and to be built where the circle is which has a cross on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this