Corporation of the Lds Church.

[rockpond]

On 5/7/2020 at 4:01 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

So the other day I read about a new Real Estate project the corporate church has just rolled out.  A complete planned community around the proposed Tooele Valley Temple, complete with pickle ball courts, lots of open space and manicured gardens and grounds.  While I can't explain exactly why,  that same feeling of exploitation that I felt over the Lagoon tickets has returned.  The thought of the church profiting from its temple construction turns my stomach and disgusts me. 

While I recognize the need to invest excess tithing funds responsibly to support the mission of the church, so called investments like the mall and both commercial and now these new residential real estate ventures leave me with a ache in the pit of my stomach.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/05/05/lds-church-proposes-new/

 

I think your feelings on this are fair and reasonable.

The Church has long been involved in land development so while such a project isn't really new for them, it is unique in that I'm not aware of such a greenfield development being announced alongside the temple announcement.  But let me offer this to consider...

There is a good chance that those tasked with finding a site for this temple were unable to find an appropriate site that was just the right size that they needed.  My presumption here is that the owner of the land may have only been willing to sell the entire larger piece.

Then, to keep the overall cost of the temple from escalating, Church leaders may have been faced with dividing the remaining land into smaller parcels and selling it to another developer or developing it themselves.  I'm not opposed to the Church keeping the land and doing the development as long as the profit made is used for purposes appropriate to the missions of the Church.

One possible concern in doing this could be that temple site selection becomes an issue of where the most successful development can be done rather than where the Lord wants a particular temple.  But I tend to believe that those in such positions within church organizations would not be driven by that motive.

[Amulek]

On 5/15/2020 at 5:31 PM, 2BizE said:

I completely share the ache in the pit of the stomach.  I think this is a poor precedent to set [...]

By way of information, this isn't precedent setting in any way. In fact, this is pretty much the standard process now for many church buildings throughout the world.

The process was borne out of necessity, as the church was finding it extremely difficult to obtain property for religious use in communities where there was staunch opposition to the church.

We became tired of buying up plots of land in nice neighborhoods and then finding ourselves faced with spending the next several years fighting with those neighbors about how it would impact traffic flow, noise analysis, etc., etc. Why risk creating animosity needlessly? 

Instead, simply buy up a huge plot of land, build the temple first, and then develop the surrounding area into a nice neighborhood. Boom! No more complaints about some church building a temple in "your" neighborhood because the temple was already there when you decided to buy/build your house there in the first place.

In fact, where this particular temple is being built, its presence might actually be a draw for people to move there. I would personally love to be within walking (not hiking) distance of a temple. 

So again: win-win.

 

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

By way of information, this isn't precedent setting in any way. In fact, this is pretty much the standard process now for many church buildings throughout the world.

The process was borne out of necessity, as the church was finding it extremely difficult to obtain property for religious use in communities where there was staunch opposition to the church.

We became tired of buying up plots of land in nice neighborhoods and then finding ourselves faced with spending the next several years fighting with those neighbors about how it would impact traffic flow, noise analysis, etc., etc. Why risk creating animosity needlessly? 

Instead, simply buy up a huge plot of land, build the temple first, and then develop the surrounding area into a nice neighborhood. Boom! No more complaints about some church building a temple in "your" neighborhood because the temple was already there when you decided to buy/build your house there in the first place.

In fact, where this particular temple is being built, its presence might actually be a draw for people to move there. I would personally love to be within walking (not hiking) distance of a temple. 

So again: win-win.

 

This is the most logical concept I have heard.  This makes sense. Thanks for the comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

By way of information, this isn't precedent setting in any way. In fact, this is pretty much the standard process now for many church buildings throughout the world.

The process was borne out of necessity, as the church was finding it extremely difficult to obtain property for religious use in communities where there was staunch opposition to the church.

We became tired of buying up plots of land in nice neighborhoods and then finding ourselves faced with spending the next several years fighting with those neighbors about how it would impact traffic flow, noise analysis, etc., etc. Why risk creating animosity needlessly? 

Instead, simply buy up a huge plot of land, build the temple first, and then develop the surrounding area into a nice neighborhood. Boom! No more complaints about some church building a temple in "your" neighborhood because the temple was already there when you decided to buy/build your house there in the first place.

In fact, where this particular temple is being built, its presence might actually be a draw for people to move there. I would personally love to be within walking (not hiking) distance of a temple. 

So again: win-win.

 

What you say makes sense, of course. 
 

I would just note that, human nature being what it is, the temple having been there to begin with might not necessarily obviate occasional complaints from neighbors. 
 

Throughout my childhood and youth, the city of Draper in Salt Lake County, Utah, was an agrarian locale replete with crop land and livestock. Years ago, after a building boom had been going on there for a while, some of the neighbors began to complain about the barnyard smells in Draper. It was aamazing to me that these folks seemed oblivious to the fact that the farms and livestock were in Draper many generations before they moved there and built their upscale houses, probably drawn in part by the rustic character of the locale. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[echelon]

On 5/22/2020 at 3:51 PM, Amulek said:

By way of information, this isn't precedent setting in any way. In fact, this is pretty much the standard process now for many church buildings throughout the world.

The process was borne out of necessity, as the church was finding it extremely difficult to obtain property for religious use in communities where there was staunch opposition to the church.

We became tired of buying up plots of land in nice neighborhoods and then finding ourselves faced with spending the next several years fighting with those neighbors about how it would impact traffic flow, noise analysis, etc., etc. Why risk creating animosity needlessly? 

Instead, simply buy up a huge plot of land, build the temple first, and then develop the surrounding area into a nice neighborhood. Boom! No more complaints about some church building a temple in "your" neighborhood because the temple was already there when you decided to buy/build your house there in the first place.

I like this reasoning.  I just can't help but wonder if their development plan is somewhat discriminatory.  There does not seem to be any room for apartments or subsidized housing.  I get the stereotypes of renters or low income housing and the appeal of single home and large parks, it just feel weird to see the Church not offering equal opportunity in a community that has it's name on it.  Will Zion be like that?  I can hardly imagine how much a jewel encrusted house with a street made of gold will cost.

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, echelon said:

I like this reasoning.  I just can't help but wonder if their development plan is somewhat discriminatory.  There does not seem to be any room for apartments or subsidized housing.  I get the stereotypes of renters or low income housing and the appeal of single home and large parks, it just feel weird to see the Church not offering equal opportunity in a community that has it's name on it.  Will Zion be like that?  I can hardly imagine how much a jewel encrusted house with a street made of gold will cost.

Will Zion be like that?  I can hardly imagine how much a jewel encrusted house with a street made of gold will cost.

 

I don't think they will cost a dime.Will there even be money?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, echelon said:

I like this reasoning.  I just can't help but wonder if their development plan is somewhat discriminatory.  There does not seem to be any room for apartments or subsidized housing.  I get the stereotypes of renters or low income housing and the appeal of single home and large parks, it just feel weird to see the Church not offering equal opportunity in a community that has it's name on it.  Will Zion be like that?  I can hardly imagine how much a jewel encrusted house with a street made of gold will cost.

Would there be zoning issues they need to take into account even with that much land?

Would the city want to put subsidized housing in a higher end neighbourhood?  Wouldn't that tend to drop property values and therefore drop property tax in an area where it might easily be inflated normally due to members paying higher prices to be near a temple?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Calm

[echelon]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would the city want to put subsidized housing in a higher end neighbourhood?

That's a good point, I never considered the City imposing restrictions on the development plan.  Thank you.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Would there be zoning issues they need to take into account even with that much land?

Would the city want to put subsidized housing in a higher end neighbourhood?  Wouldn't that tend to drop property values and therefore drop property tax in an area where it might easily be inflated normally due to members paying higher prices to be near a temple?

Stockton did that, it ruined the city. Brookside refused to do it and it is still a nice area.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, echelon said:

I like this reasoning.  I just can't help but wonder if their development plan is somewhat discriminatory.  There does not seem to be any room for apartments or subsidized housing.  I get the stereotypes of renters or low income housing and the appeal of single home and large parks, it just feel weird to see the Church not offering equal opportunity in a community that has it's name on it.  Will Zion be like that?  I can hardly imagine how much a jewel encrusted house with a street made of gold will cost.

If I understand right, the church had something to do with the new apartments going in by the Mesa temple, but I am not certain of that.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, echelon said:

I like this reasoning.  I just can't help but wonder if their development plan is somewhat discriminatory.  There does not seem to be any room for apartments or subsidized housing.  I get the stereotypes of renters or low income housing and the appeal of single home and large parks, it just feel weird to see the Church not offering equal opportunity in a community that has it's name on it. 

For the developer's part, they have stated that they "are committed to developing a vibrant neighborhood where people of different ages and income levels will enjoy living within walking distance of the temple."

That being said, I honestly don't think multi-family or subsidized housing projects would be a good fit for a development plan like this.

Plus, as others have mentioned, it isn't only what the church wants that matters. Remember, all of these projects have to be approved by the city's planning department, and cities usually have pretty strong ideas about where they want their subsidized housing projects located. And for very practical / pragmatic reasons, those are usually not located out in the 'burbs. 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:59 AM, rodheadlee said:

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Cardston Temple Vision and compare it with what is going on in the world today.

http://www.reliefmine.com/articles/dreams-a-visions/59-dreams-a-visions/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

So we are on at least number 2 this month. These race riots were predicted in the vision. I suspect World War 3 is just around the corner. Everybody's pretty mad at China over the virus.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

These race riots were predicted in the vision.

Is there anything specific to these riots that is mentioned in the vision or could the vision have been equally identified with any of the unfortunately almost yearly events:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

We have no background on the individual who had the alleged vision save for she was a Quaker woman from back East who was interested in the temple. I don’t see much difference between someone coming in off the street for an open house.  It certainly is possible, but it is also possible the woman did this at many religious communities because she liked the attention or she had some mental illness or there was a combo of the two or maybe even if the three, as in she was inspired in a limited vision but due to her disorder ‘improved’ upon it to get more recognition. 
 

There is danger in looking at visions without studying the source deeply as can be seen in the results of some current schisms and underground movements whose members are instructed to lie to their leaders about their beliefs in certain alleged visionaries so as to be able to be perceived as mainstream, and have access to the temple and more potential recruits. 
 

For an extreme example for an interest in vision gone way astray and harming others——Chad Daybell and his fans (most likely at least four dead in order to fulfill his visions).  A year ago most saw him as a mild mannered executive secretary devoted to his wife of almost 30 years.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Calm

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there anything specific to these riots that is mentioned in the vision or could the vision have been equally identified with any of the unfortunately almost yearly events:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

I dunno Calm, you don’t think the current ones are just a little different from the previous ones?  I was young when the LA riots occurred in ‘92, maybe those were just as bad.  But we had tear gas fired 5 miles from where I live last night.  I’ve never before seen the chaos where it feels like it’s everywhere.

[Calm]

Maybe you need a little more age.  Civil rights movement had nationwide protests.   The assassination of Martin Luther King involves 125 cities according to wiki. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Everybody's pretty mad at China over the virus.

China is not a hotbed of Buddhists and Muslims last I checked and it has been awhile since the Catholic  Church had the political power to lead half the world. 
 

Quote

saw international war again break out with its center upon the Pacific Ocean, but sweeping and encircling the whole globe.

I saw that the opposing forces were roughly divided by so-called Christianity on the one side, and by the so-called followers of Mohammed and Buddha on the other. I saw that the great driving power within these so-called Christian nations, was the Great Apostasy of Rome, in all its political, social and religious aspects. I saw the worldwide dislocation and devastation of production and slaughter of people occur more swiftly and upon a larger scale than ever before. I saw an antagonism begin to express itself from those so-cal1ed Christian nations against your people. I saw those with a similar faith to yours in the far east begin to look toward Palestine for safety.

 

 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is there anything specific to these riots that is mentioned in the vision or could the vision have been equally identified with any of the unfortunately almost yearly events:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

We have no background on the individual who had the alleged vision save for she was a Quaker woman from back East who was interested in the temple. I don’t see much difference between someone coming in off the street for an open house.  It certainly is possible, but it is also possible the woman did this at many religious communities because she liked the attention or she had some mental illness or there was a combo of the two or maybe even if the three, as in she was inspired in a limited vision but due to her disorder ‘improved’ upon it to get more recognition. 
 

There is danger in looking at visions without studying the source deeply as can be seen in the results of some current schisms and underground movements whose members are instructed to lie to their leaders about their beliefs in certain alleged visionaries so as to be able to be perceived as mainstream, and have access to the temple and more potential recruits. 
 

For an extreme example for an interest in vision gone way astray and harming others——Chad Daybell and his fans (most likely at least four dead in order to fulfill his visions).  A year ago most saw him as a mild mannered executive secretary devoted to his wife of almost 30 years.

Yes, I have been around since the race rioting in the 60's. These are spontaneous across the nation. The internet makes it different. 

[rodheadlee]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

China is not a hotbed of Buddhists and Muslims last I checked and it has been awhile since the Catholic  Church had the political power to lead half the world. 
 

 

Did you notice the term so called? The shoe fits the nations involved. It's perception. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

internet makes it different. 

Definitely. But I don’t see that difference specified in the vision.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Did you notice the term so called? The shoe fits the nations involved. It's perception. 

Do you believe the US will sit out this international war?

Are you suggesting China is perceived as a Buddhist and Muslim nation?

Edited May 31, 2020 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe the US will sit out this international war?

Are you suggesting China is perceived as a Buddhist and Muslim nation?

No it will be US, Israel and allies vs China and Iran and Allies. 

Could you imagine the repercussions of an Iran proxy attack on the Vatican? Me either but there would be a lot of Latin American allies. 

[mgy401]

On 5/25/2020 at 8:03 PM, Calm said:

Would there be zoning issues they need to take into account even with that much land?

Would the city want to put subsidized housing in a higher end neighbourhood?  Wouldn't that tend to drop property values and therefore drop property tax in an area where it might easily be inflated normally due to members paying higher prices to be near a temple?

Late hit, but . . . You want your low-income housing to have access to viable mass transit, or within walking distance of grocery stores and other business centers.  I don’t think the Tooele temple site fits those criteria.

It’s one thing for the Church to plop down a few dozen houses around a temple site.  It’s quite another to create an entire community—single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, affordable housing, high-end housing, business districts, schools, green space, public transit, and the supporting water and sewer and power and gas infrastructure (and of course, the temple itself)—entirely ex nihilo.