Phoenix Temple Protests

[ttribe]

Maybe the people in that area of Phoenix hate Mormons, but I doubt it.

Not all of them, for sure. Likely not even a majority of them. But, having now corresponded with a few of them, there is some real hatred amongst them.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Who is saying that anyone deserved anything?

We are only saying what happened, the deserves and all that is between them and God. All we know is that the Bible warns the Hebrew people that if they break there covenants and do not follow God they will lost his protection and there enemies will attempt to destroy them and will afflict them with terrible things.

I would encourage you to reexamine any inspiration you believe you are receiving, if you think crazy conspiracy theories about the "Learned Elders of Zion" trying to take over the world and the holocaust were divine retribution from God for something their ancestors did nigh 2,000 years ago instead of plain old persecution inspired by satan.

[Bsix]

But your estimate of a car per minute seems strange, since I would assume all the people attending a particular session would try to arrive around the same time.

I don't understand your objection. I don't think DP was attempting suggest that there was a perfectlhy steady flow of traffic. I think he was attempting to suggest that surges may be small...and in the context of volume over time...the average is fairly low.

Remember, there are a lot of patrons who come and do several sessions or types of orinances. These are often temple workers who both assist with an assignment...and then do sessions. Because the sessions are at regular intervals, there is less pressure to miss a particular session. This tends to flatten out the arrivals and departures.

I think the point is that the traffic will be less than the critics are worrying about.

I also think that there is a point of honor here. The LDS Church can reasonably be considered a domain expert in traffic patterns and volumes for temple. The Church has assured the critics that their claims regarding traffic are overblown and exaggerated. To reject the Church's estimates is to dismiss their experience...or to consider the Church to be lying.

Six

[krose]

The proposed LDS temple isn't truely "in" a residential neighborhood. It is more accurate to say that the temple will adjoin the outside edge of a residential neighborhood. I think that is an important distinction.

Then that is a slightly different matter. I am accustomed to city councils that willingly grant exemptions and even change zoning designations at the request of developers, such as the area right behind my house that the city abruptly changed from residential to commercial. If that isn't the case in Phoenix, then I would agree that the protests appear less reasonable and unlikely to prevail (although, having gone through it, I still sympathize with their desire to avoid having a large structure over their back fences).

[Bsix]

I still sympathize with their desire to avoid having a large structure over their back fences.

In a lot of ways, I also sympathize with them. If you aren't a Mormon, this is just some big building that rises up over the skyline and has lights and potential noise associated.

I confess I don't know where the line of demarcation line of the religious owners of the property...and the rights of those who live nearby who didn't pay for the property...won't pay for the improvement of the property...won't use it...and won't upkeep it.

I do tend to believe that within five years, the property values for the immediate neighborhood are going to rise significantly due to Mormons wanting to live near the temple. I hope that this might be a somewhat positive outcome for those home owners.

Six

[Calm]

I would encourage you to reexamine any inspiration you believe you are receiving, if you think crazy conspiracy theories about the "Learned Elders of Zion" trying to take over the world and the holocaust were divine retribution from God for something their ancestors did nigh 2,000 years ago instead of plain old persecution inspired by satan.

I suspect that LDSguy defines divine retribution as God acting directly against someone, not as he is describing what he sees happening here which is the Lord withholding protection to those who are basically not asking him for it sincerely.

An analogy (LDSguy can correct me if I am reading him wrong) would be grounding or taking car privileges away from your semi-adult child or even spanking/hitting him as opposed to letting a drunk attack him because he used a false id to go to a bar where he encountered the drunk. In the first situation, God is punishing the individual himself, in the second God is letting the individuals (Israel) deal with the consequences of their behaviour on their own (the holocaust would likely have not occurred if Israel had remained faithful to the Lord and thus never would have ended up in exile, living outside of their homeland, etc. That does not mean to imply they deserved getting killed, just that they are having to live on their own as any child who declared emancipation from their parent would be doing.

PS: I am not saying I agree with him.

Oops, this was supposed to be off topic and I slipped up. I will leave this up for awhile and then delete it so as to not make a long term rabbit trail. I would encourage everyone---but LDSguy and only him if I've got it wrong---to take it to another thread if they feel compelled to answer me or any other posts on this side trail.

[Pahoran]

No, the choice of Islam was just an example of "a religion that's not yours." I could just as easily have specified Hare Krishna or Scientology, or even a Salvation Army homeless shelter.

Of course you could. The Hare Krishnas or Scientology are "weird," and a homeless shelter -- regardless of what church is running it -- attracts homeless people, and could contribute to the degentrification of a neighbourhood in very short order.

OTOH, if you really just wanted to talk about "a religion that's not yours," you could have chosen, simply, a religion that's not Dan's. Like a Presbyterian or Episcopalian church.

But I think we both know why you didn't, don't we?

I think you really overplay the bigotry card. Being opposed to your religious building does not make a person bigoted toward you. I was very much opposed to the building of the Draper temple right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I think it's a monstrosity, the way it dwarfs everything around it, and I that it's a gaudy, ugly structure.

The fact that you are opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ might just have something to do with it, too.

But does that mean I hate Mormons? That would be an odd leap, considering the fact that all but a couple of the people that I love in my life are active LDS.

And besides, some of your best friends are black.

Now Krose, how many people do you really expect to be impressed by that sophistry?

Maybe the people in that area of Phoenix hate Mormons, but I doubt it.

If "hate" means something like "lie awake at night boiling with rage that there are Mormons anywhere in Arizona," I doubt it too.

But if "hate" means "are willing to use any trick they can in order to prevent the Church of Jesus Christ from building a temple anywhere that they might be offended by seeing it," then I think that many, if not most or all, of the Phoenix torches-and-pitchforks brigade qualify.

Just like some in Draper.

Interesting. Are those in residential-zoned areas? I'm in favor of keeping all such businesses (including the business of salvation) out of residential neighborhoods. That's what zoning regulations should be for.

In addition to what others have said, I draw your attention to the fact that there is already an LDS meetinghouse on the property. If a chapel used for regular Sunday services meets the zoning regs, then a temple really ought to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

Then that is a slightly different matter. I am accustomed to city councils that willingly grant exemptions and even change zoning designations at the request of developers, such as the area right behind my house that the city abruptly changed from residential to commercial. If that isn't the case in Phoenix, then I would agree that the protests appear less reasonable and unlikely to prevail (although, having gone through it, I still sympathize with their desire to avoid having a large structure over their back fences).

I'm not sure how up to date you are on this series of events, but the Church no longer needs to get any zoning exceptions for the current design. Zoning is a dead end on this at this point for the opposition.

[frankenstein]

I'm not sure how up to date you are on this series of events, but the Church no longer needs to get any zoning exceptions for the current design. Zoning is a dead end on this at this point for the opposition.

I thought the Church was still having to seek a variance?

[ttribe]

I thought the Church was still having to seek a variance?

No. None whatsoever. They withdrew their variance application (which had been approved by the City Council) when the neighbors sought to get signatures on a petition to get the City Council's decision reversed. There's nothing the opposition can do at this point in terms of zoning; which is, of course, why they are now protesting and going after the parking issue.

[krose]

But I think we both know why you didn't, don't we?

I hesitate to point this out, but I'm afraid you may have lost a step, P-Daddy. You used to be so much more effective at the fine art of insulting, so good at throwing petrol on the glowing embers of a conversation and fanning them into a raging flame.

Why, back in the day, you used to come right out and accuse me of hating my LDS family and friends. I barely even feel insulted now. You almost leave me pining for former times.

[Pahoran]

I hesitate to point this out, but I'm afraid you may have lost a step, P-Daddy. You used to be so much more effective at the fine art of insulting, so good at throwing petrol on the glowing embers of a conversation and fanning them into a raging flame.

Why, back in the day, you used to come right out and accuse me of hating my LDS family and friends. I barely even feel insulted now. You almost leave me pining for former times.

You're seeing insults that are not there, Krose.

You started off with a Muslim mosque, knowing that Muslims are widely disliked in America right now. When that misfired, you protested, with wide-eyed innocence, that you were merely offering them as an example of a "religion that's not yours." You offered further examples: Hare Krishnas, Scientologists and a homeless shelter. What you didn't offer was something like the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Methodists or the Baptists.

So what do all of your choices have in common that they don't share with the choices that apparently didn't occur to you?

If I've ever accused you of hating your LDS family, I don't recall it. However, it is obvious to me that you despise their religion, and by your own admission, your disdain for it trumps your concern for their feelings enough to permit you to directly oppose something they would want very much: namely, a temple where they live.

So while I naturally accept that you love your LDS family, I conclude that you don't quite love them as much as you hate their church.

There, does that relieve your pining?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hestia]

Pahoran, you are making personal attacks, which have taken thread off topic. Take a break from this thread and cool it.

[Mansquatch]

I have heard tell that there is a mega-church called "Christ Church of the Valley" not very far from the proposed temple site that could be fueling much of this. Does any one have any facts related to something like this that may exonerate or implicate CCV?

I must say that I like how straightforward the responses to accusations are in this posting from the church: http://www.phoenixmormontemple.com/news-and-updates.html#dec-27-2010 . The FAQ section is also a must see.

[ttribe]

I have heard tell that there is a mega-church called "Christ Church of the Valley" not very far from the proposed temple site that could be fueling much of this. Does any one have any facts related to something like this that may exonerate or implicate CCV?

I must say that I like how straightforward the responses to accusations are in this posting from the church: http://www.phoenixmormontemple.com/news-and-updates.html#dec-27-2010 . The FAQ section is also a must see.

No way to tell what role, if any, CCV is playing. If they are influencing any of this, the people of the neighborhood have done a good job of keeping quiet about it.

[Mansquatch]

No way to tell what role, if any, CCV is playing. If they are influencing any of this, the people of the neighborhood have done a good job of keeping quiet about it.

Just rumors then. Innocent until proven guilty. I do find it odd that there is a mega-church in the neighborhood, but it's freakout time when the Mormons want to build. Same for the water park and ball fields in the neighborhood which produce much more noise and light.

[ttribe]

Just rumors then. Innocent until proven guilty. I do find it odd that there is a mega-church in the neighborhood, but it's freakout time when the Mormons want to build. Same for the water park and ball fields in the neighborhood which produce much more noise and light.

To be fair, those three structures (the church, the water park, and the ball fields) are all 1+ miles away form the neighborhood proper. The Temple will be much closer.

[Bsix]

On the site provided by Mansquatch is a traffic chart that answers points made by Krose regarding traffic volumes.

The road that the temple is on is NOT a residental street. It is something of a main feeder trunk from which actual residential streets run off of.

Here is the chart:

If correct (I assume it is) the traffic is minimal and will have no impact on the streets of the neighorhood.

It should also be noted that the Temple will be closed two days of the week...almost 30% of the time...which means no traffic on those days.

Six

[krose]

You started off with a Muslim mosque, knowing that Muslims are widely disliked in America right now. When that misfired, you protested, with wide-eyed innocence, that you were merely offering them as an example of a "religion that's not yours." You offered further examples: Hare Krishnas, Scientologists and a homeless shelter. What you didn't offer was something like the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Methodists or the Baptists.

So what do all of your choices have in common that they don't share with the choices that apparently didn't occur to you?

If I've ever accused you of hating your LDS family, I don't recall it. However, it is obvious to me that you despise their religion, and by your own admission, your disdain for it trumps your concern for their feelings enough to permit you to directly oppose something they would want very much: namely, a temple where they live.

So while I naturally accept that you love your LDS family, I conclude that you don't quite love them as much as you hate their church.

Well, it's fortunate that I don't take your comments seriously enough to be offended by any of it. In fact, the colorful descriptions are entertaining. I especially enjoyed the "wide-eyed innocence" part. Kudos.

But just for the record, and for any others who may care, I offer the following points (and will leave it at that if you are not allowed to reply):

- Islam, Scientology, et al, are valid comparative examples because they (like Mormonism) are also organizations that are either disliked, misunderstood, feared or mistrusted. And a person from one of those groups who would oppose a project by any of the others fails the "shoe on the other foot" hypocrisy test, and has little right to complain about "anti" bias. That was the point. Anyone who opposed the famous Islamic center in Manhattan has no right to complain about temple protests.

- I am not a fan of religion, it's true, but I'm not one of those who argue that it is always harmful and evil. The more fundamentalist the religion, however, the more harm it does. Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians (including Mormons) are truly scary people, given their extreme views and even willingness to resort to violence to advance or defend their cause. But for most people, religious practice is harmless, and I don't resent their belief. I don't even discuss religion with acquaintances unless one expresses a desire to do so.

- Just for accuracy, it is extremely unlikely that the majority of my family members will ever get a temple built where they live. I think it would be nice if they didn't have to drive so far to get to one (the mountain passes are dangerous in winter), but that's not going to change unless temples, some day, become as plentiful as chapels.

[krose]

On the site provided by Mansquatch is a traffic chart that answers points made by Krose regarding traffic volumes.

I believe I mentioned that my assumptions were based on the newer temples in my own area, which seem to be right in the middle of residential neighborhoods. If the access street is not residential, that obviously changes things considerably. Neighbors still may object to additional traffic on streets they regularly drive, but it's not the same as having the additional cars driving right in front of their homes.

[ttribe]

I believe I mentioned that my assumptions were based on the newer temples in my own area, which seem to be right in the middle of residential neighborhoods. If the access street is not residential, that obviously changes things considerably. Neighbors still may object to additional traffic on streets they regularly drive, but it's not the same as having the additional cars driving right in front of their homes.

Just so it's clear, the Temple will be built just to the right of the marker on this map.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5220+West+Pinnacle+Peak+Road,+Phoenix,+AZ&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.829089,112.939453&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=5220+W+Pinnacle+Peak+Rd,+Phoenix,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85310&t=h&z=17

The land to the south is preserve.

[frankenstein]

now that I have looked at the map, the "neighbors" have no legit claim to traffic. No one has front yard on either street leading to the Temple, 56 or 59 is a four lane, i.e. high traffic road till on reaches nothing but open deseret, pinnacle peak is two lanes, but again no one has a front yard to it, and there appear to be a large sturdy wall built along everyones back yard.

traffic will not go through a "neighborhood" if we consider neighbor to be the area around the Jordan Utah Temple or the Mesa Arizona Temple.

[ttribe]

now that I have looked at the map, the "neighbors" have no legit claim to traffic. No one has front yard on either street leading to the Temple, 56 or 59 is a four lane, i.e. high traffic road till on reaches nothing but open deseret, pinnacle peak is two lanes, but again no one has a front yard to it, and there appear to be a large sturdy wall built along everyones back yard.

traffic will not go through a "neighborhood" if we consider neighbor to be the area around the Jordan Utah Temple or the Mesa Arizona Temple.

Yep. Thus the mystery of the kerfuffle.

[frankenstein]

has anyone done a study on property value pre and post Temple? I can understand for tax purposes one would not high property value but for resale high value is good.

My personal opinion is the church buy out all the complainers at the value of their property before the Temple was annouced, the person can continue live their till their death or move, but can never receive any monetary benefit to the value of their property from the presence of a Temple.

[ttribe]

My personal opinion is the church buy out all the complainers at the value of their property before the Temple was annouced, the person can continue live their till their death or move, but can never receive any monetary benefit to the value of their property from the presence of a Temple.

That would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention easily manipulated by crooks.