Kelly, Bill,
last time I played the mound on four was slap bang in the line of play from the middle of the fourth fairway. Maybe you were playing the reverse course
I also have followed a similar path of enlightenment to Sean in that I too used think that a GCA ideal was to make the course appear as though it was all natural. Now I am much more of the opinion that the course should challenge the player and be a joy to the player to play. On sites with good natural movement this is easier to achieve whilst making the course look natural but on flat property it is not. There are many great inland courses in Britain that are fun to play, look artificial but at the same time harmonise with the land. This is something that many/most 1950 to 1990 courses didn't have.
Kingsbarnes is amazing to look at and a great achievement that only people who saw the site prior to the golf course can fully appreciate. Castle Stuart falls into the same category. Both courses would however be totally out of place in an inland setting even if they played the same they would be wrong.
On the same lines Alwoodley and Woodall Spa have many artificial/none natural features but they fit the landscape they are set in beautifully. Inland courses will nearly always be about getting the artificial to fit in the landscape. Tom D made a comment 'inserting a feature which looks obviously artificial would be like shooting myself in the foot'. I would suggest that any bunker on a none sandy site is obviously artificial but if they sit well in the landscape they are okay. Therefore the key word in Tom's statement for me is 'looks'.
But there is also, as Sean mentions, the argument that any new fetaure that veers strongly from the norm will create a certain amount of dislike at the beginning but often these very features are those that become the most loved and untouchable in the long run.