Page 7 of 7
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:06 pm
by _Spider-to-the-Fly
Mr. Yahoo Bot,
I recall when going through the COB back in the early 70's before it was put into actual use, the Church tour guide said it was a structure built to standards to last until and throughout the Millenium.
Regards,
Spider.
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:18 pm
by _Tchild
Spider-to-the-Fly wrote:Mr. Yahoo Bot,
I recall when going through the COB back in the early 70's before it was put into actual use, the Church tour guide said it was a structure built to standards to last until and throughout the Millenium.
Regards,
Spider.
If the "millenium" means, "until the first retrofit/remodel", then the tour guide was absolutely correct. Kind of like horse=tapir, translation=catalyst, etc etc.
You probably were not listening with your "spiritual ears".
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:29 pm
by _Spider-to-the-Fly
Tchild wrote:Spider-to-the-Fly wrote:Mr. Yahoo Bot,
I recall when going through the COB back in the early 70's before it was put into actual use, the Church tour guide said it was a structure built to standards to last until and throughout the Millenium.
Regards,
Spider.
If the "millenium" means, "until the first retrofit/remodel", then the tour guide was absolutely correct. Kind of like horse=tapir, translation=catalyst, etc etc.
You probably were not listening with your "spiritual ears".
Mr. tchild,
Right you are. That might have been the day I got my Spock ears at that shop down on Main street.
Regards,
Spider.
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:33 pm
by _Inconceivable
ttribe wrote:Inconceivable wrote:I might add, the reason for the blighted location is the cheap ass Mormon slum lords that own all of the property surrounding the temple lot.
Such as? Or is this just more biased conjecture?
Our family used to be familiar with a couple of the "investors" dead set on buying up the entire periphery. They could never win because the land was held be so many speculators/horders.
You've been been there. I must be at least 80% correct. Not much has changed in 30 years.
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:35 pm
by _ttribe
Inconceivable wrote:You've been been there. I must be at least 80% correct. Not much has changed in 30 years.
I don't have the foggiest idea who owns any of the surrounding property. Furthermore, I'm not sure what the radius of influence is for some critics in terms of the Church's alleged "responsibility" to clean up the surrounding neighborhoods (or how the Church is supposed to do such a thing).
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:37 pm
by _harmony
Inconceivable wrote:Our family used to be familiar with a couple of the "investors" dead set on buying up the entire periphery. They could never win because the land was held be so many speculators/horders.
You've been been there. I must be at least 80% correct. Not much has changed in 30 years.
Are they waiting for the church to put tithing money to cleaning it up, ala downtown SLCentral?
Re: The Cost of a Building Error
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:41 pm
by _ttribe
harmony wrote:Are they waiting for the church to put tithing money to cleaning it up, ala downtown SLCentral?
It's not even close to the same kind of area (in terms of zoning, etc.) and I doubt very much that the Church has the same vested interest in maintaining the surrounding areas for all temples as it does for THE Temple Square.