The Church's strategy concerning building new temples--especially building them in places where the locals object--has seemed to me to be akin to a dog marking its territory. There's not really any indication that the temples need to be built because there is a big *demand* for them or anything. Again, this Cody, WY temple is a perfect example: How many people are going to use it each month? Did the Church build it because driving an hour (or whatever) to the nearest temple in Utah (or wherever) was super-burdensome? It seems like these questions are irrelevant, and that the Church is just going to do whatever it feels like doing.
Well it isn't because new temples lead to congregational growth...
The construction of additional temples does not appear to have a direct impact on LDS growth trends as manifest by membership and congregational growth rates and increases in the number of stakes and districts.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
it does look like it needs a bell in that tower. suppose Dan is on a long desert drive and sees a southwest-style mission in the distance. It's hazy, it could be the new temple or it could be a Taco Bell. As he gets closer, it seems to be a temple. Is he elated or disappointed?
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
The original Nauvoo temple had a functioning bell in the tower that was used for a variety of purposes. The new Nauvoo temple, more recently constructed, has a nonfunctioning bell that does nothing.
it does look like it needs a bell in that tower. suppose Dan is on a long desert drive and sees a southwest-style mission in the distance. It's hazy, it could be the new temple or it could be a Taco Bell. As he gets closer, it seems to be a temple. Is he elated or disappointed?
It depends. If donor money has been transferred over to Redbrick so that he can spend the money “guilt-free,” then he would be bummed out. But if Taco Bell would have entailed him having to dip into his own “travel savings fund,” then I’m sure he’s glad for the temple.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I remember a time--perhaps it was when Hinckley was still leading the Church--when temples like this were referred to as "McTemples." For whatever reason, it seems that the term has gone out of fashion, but I think it definitely fits here. Cody, WY has a population of, what? 10,000 people or so? It is basically a small town. So why do they need a temple? How big is the LDS population there? I mean: the LDS Church has as much right (I suppose) as Starbucks, Pizza Hut, or Taco Bell to put in new "franchises" wherever they want, but this involved quite a bit of protest from the locals, If I recall correctly.
But yes: I agree that the aesthetics of this "McTemple" can very reasonably be described as "objectionable." Sort of a phallic Stalinist edifice plopped down into the prairie landscape.
Perhaps a hint for future celestial sex for the Mormons?
The spire is out of proportion — too tall. I think the design of the Cardston temple is much better for prairie settings.
Res Ipsa, without getting too excited about this ho hum building my eyes agree with your observation. Remove one story of the steeple and the balance would be much better, I think.
It’s a blemish on the landscape. And that’s not because of what it is, it’s because of how it looks in the landscape. Completely out of place, jarring to the eye, and poorly designed from an architectural aesthetic perspective. Completely unsympathetic to the landscape.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Doctor Scratch wrote: How many people are going to use it each month? Did the Church build it because driving an hour (or whatever) to the nearest temple in Utah (or wherever) was super-burdensome?
No, the church built it because the temple an hour a way made for an excuse for a family trip a couple times a year. After the temple, they could go shopping and out to eat and make it something like a mini pilgrimage to Mecca. The largest hotel in the world is in Mecca. Mecca makes Salt Lake look like an ant farm, but there is some benefit to having a built-in excuse to get out and go somewhere. The brethren, in the spirit of Frederick Winslow Taylor and as you point out, the economy of McDonalds, said "enough!" As punishment for Members rushing through a session to get to the reward of shopping and a day out, they put a temple right in their backyard. Divide the total time of the SLC trip by the time it takes to drive two miles to the temple and get in a session and that's the minimum number of trips to your own backyard you'll be taking in lieu of your little vacations.
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
