Erda Temple Moving to Tooele

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought the bone of contention was not per se about one site being better than an other. I thought their problem was the planned residential development with an increased density they didn’t want marring their rustic environs. It’s difficult for me to see in that wisdom that trumps revelation received by the high leadership of the Church as it pertains to guiding the Church as a whole. 

As far as I am aware, leadership has not shared the particulars on how the site was chosen. Without knowing what the revelation actually was, I am hesitant to judge anyone’s worthiness on questioning it. 

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If Tooele really IS too ele how much ele would be appropriate?

One ele? One and a half ele?

I don't know.    If you'll forgive me for quoting Goldilocks, one "ele," is too few.  Three "ele" are too many.  But Two "ele" is juuuuust right.  There's a legend that, actually, the name of the town used to be Ele-ele, but people thought that was too awkward, so they changed it to Tooele.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as I am aware, leadership has not shared the particulars on how the site was chosen. Without knowing what the revelation actually was, I am hesitant to judge anyone’s worthiness on questioning it. 

That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the residents’ reason for opposing the project, which I understood was not about the temple site selection so much as it was about the residential development that was to accompany it. They didn’t want it there because they thought it would disrupt the rustic nature of their environs. I thought they were mollified when they learned the area would be getting the temple without the housing development. 

 

Is my understanding incorrect? 
 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the residents’ reason for opposing the structure, which I understood was not about the temple site selection so much as it was about the residential development that was to accompany it. They didn’t want it there because they thought it would disrupt the rustic nature of their environs. Is my understanding incorrect? 

What difference does that make?  Not following you...

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What difference does that make?  Not following you...

I’m saying the residents weren’t disputing the site selection for the temple. They apparently were fine with it so long as the housing project was stripped away from the concept. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m saying the residents weren’t disputing the site selection for the temple. They apparently were fine with it so long as the housing project was stripped away from the concept. 

I was using “temple” to refer to the whole project, in part because the Church pulled the temple along with the development plan.  You are correct that it was presented as the development that was the problem. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I was using “temple” to refer to the whole project, in part because the Church pulled the temple along with the development plan.  You are correct that it was presented as the development that was the problem. 

Well then it strikes me that the residents opposing the project were motivated by self-interest, not altruism. Given that, I’m not inclined to entertain the notion that their objections were inspired by God to move the Church leaders toward a better decision on site selection for the temple. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

it strikes me that the residents opposing the project were motivated by self-interest, not altruism

If they desire a good life for their family and friends, is that not altruistic?  That they envision that life differently than you do doesn’t mean they are wrong for them.

And is there anything inherently wrong with self interest? It is self interest to go to school to be educated. Would not God inspire someone to do that if we that appropriate to his Will?

These people have not shared their process for deciding to protest. Why jump to judging them on such limited info?  Doesn’t seem appropriate in my view. Or necessary. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If they desire a good life for their family and friends, is that not altruistic?  That they envision that life differently than you do doesn’t mean they are wrong for them.

And is there anything inherently wrong with self interest? It is self interest to go to school to be educated. Would not God inspire someone to do that if we that appropriate to his Will?

These people have not shared their process for deciding to protest. Why jump to judging them on such limited info?  Doesn’t seem appropriate in my view. Or necessary. 

I agree. Not sure why the people opposed to the new housing development should be judged harshly for looking after their own interests; finances, quality of life etc, when the church looks after it's own financial interests. Isn't that called rational behavior?

Edited January 21, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If they desire a good life for their family and friends, is that not altruistic?  That they envision that life differently than you do doesn’t mean they are wrong for them.

And is there anything inherently wrong with self interest? It is self interest to go to school to be educated. Would not God inspire someone to do that if we that appropriate to his Will?

These people have not shared their process for deciding to protest. Why jump to judging them on such limited info?  Doesn’t seem appropriate in my view. Or necessary. 

The question is whether they were inspired by God to move the Church leaders to a proper course through their objections. I don’t think you’ve made a persuasive case for that proposition. When it comes to leading the Church as a body, God will reveal his will to anointed prophets and apostles, not to dissidents who hedge up their way. 
 

Am I accusing them them of gross sin? No. But I don’t think what they did was particularly noble either. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. Not sure why the people opposed to the new housing development should be judged harshly for looking after their own interests; finances, quality of life etc, when the church looks after it's own financial interests. Isn't that called rational behavior?

Rational behavior (from a secular perspective), and Christ like behavior (or the behavior of people who have made covenants to sacrifice, etc.) are not always the same thing.  But I say that fully leaving open the possibility that the people of Erda have done nothing wrong in the sight of God.  He is the judge.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The question is whether they were inspired by God to move the Church leaders to a proper course through their objections. I don’t think you’ve made a persuasive case for that proposition.

Not my position, so not surprised.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not my position, so not surprised.

Maybe not, but you did suggest it in an approving light. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe not, but you did suggest it in an approving light. 

You really don’t get me.

How can I approve or disapprove of behaviour without knowing more of how both came to their decision?  And believing it can be appropriate for someone to voice negative reactions doesn’t require that I see those reactions as necessitating movement from others, though I think recognition is important.  
 

And I don’t see providing feedback on leadership decision as usurping leadership.  I like that the Church has a balance of innovation from grassroots and top down over the years, from imo the beginning (Joseph sought revelation at times because of others’ reactions, such as the WoW).

Edited January 21, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

You really don’t get me.

How can I approve or disapprove of behaviour without knowing more of how both came to their decision?  And believing it can be appropriate for someone to voice negative reactions doesn’t require that I see those reactions as necessitating movement from others, though I think recognition is important.  
 

And I don’t see providing feedback on leadership decision as usurping leadership.  I like that the Church has a balance of innovation from grassroots and top down over the years, from imo the beginning (Joseph sought revelation at times because of others’ reactions, such as the WoW).

I just think it’s far-fetched that God would inspire griping dissidents to set the Brethren straight. 
 

But the Church leaders were indeed responsive. Almost immediately, they scrapped plans for the housing development. And ultimately moved the project out of the neighborhood altogether. 
 

Not sure the latter is what the residents would have wanted, but hey, be careful what you wish for. 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just think it’s far-fetched that God would inspire griping dissidents to set the Brethren straight. . 

And I think it far fetched to label possibly devout members dissidents because they were unhappy about a development plan.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/21/2021 at 12:12 PM, Calm said:

And I think it far fetched to label possibly devout members dissidents because they were unhappy about a development plan.

Was it a matter of “devout members” (I have no idea of their religious affiliation or level of devoutness) giving feedback to Church leaders? I was under the impression they made objection to the municipal government and mounted a zoning petition, and that the Church leadership quickly headed off the uproar by scrapping the proposed housing development. 
 

Doesn’t seem like the process of “innovation from grassroots” in the Church that you have characterized it to be. Seems more like legal obstructionism based on self-interest. 
 

But I’m happy for Kenngo. He got the temple even closer to his house than he had anticipated. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/19/2021 at 1:48 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Hey, I was pretty stoked when I found out that the Temple was gonna be near my hometown.  Now that it's gonna be in my hometown?!!

I’m thrilled for you. 
 

When my temple district got changed, the new temple was placed farther away from me than the other one had been. 
 

Less convenient access, too. I currently have to drive halfway up the mountainside instead of across the river like before. 
 

I’m not complaining, though. I love the Draper Utah Temple, and I appreciate being within easy driving distance of a half-dozen or more temples. 

[strappinglad]

Who owns the property now?

[Bob Crockett]

I love the modern temples but my granola friends grumble against them.  Light pollution.  And I get that. 

There was a stake center built in Wallsburg Utah and it lit up the valley. Round the clock lighting and it seem kind of offensive to the residences nearby.  The church turned down the lighting.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I love the modern temples but my granola friends grumble against them.  Light pollution.  And I get that. 

There was a stake center built in Wallsburg Utah and it lit up the valley. Round the clock lighting and it seem kind of offensive to the residences nearby.  The church turned down the lighting.

 

There’s an apple orchard in my neighborhood that’s being sold off for development. I’d love to have a temple built there. I wouldn’t worry about light pollution or population-density impact or anything else. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Who owns the property now?

If the Church owned it before now, I’m guessing they still do. 
 

That could quickly change, though, with the rate at which the Church buys and sells property. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/19/2021 at 12:48 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Hey, I was pretty stoked when I found out that the Temple was gonna be near my hometown.  Now that it's gonna be in my hometown?!!

Hurray for Tooleee.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t seem like the process of “innovation from grassroots” in the Church that you have characterized it to be.

I have not labeled this specific effort “innovation from grassroots”.  This is not innovation.  I was speaking in a more global sense about how leadership has always allowed itself to be influenced by input for others besides God and giving two parameters I see among others to provide context.
 

I also said “possibly devout members”...meaning we have no clue about their ongoing relationship with the Church, if any, so how can you know enough about them to assume they are dissendents?
 

And if you view the whole thing as a zoning issue of people you have no idea about their religious affiliation or status, why did you use the term “dissidents”?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I love the modern temples but my granola friends grumble against them.  Light pollution.  And I get that. 

There was a stake center built in Wallsburg Utah and it lit up the valley. Round the clock lighting and it seem kind of offensive to the residences nearby.  The church turned down the lighting.

 

As someone who loves seeing the stars at night, light pollution is a big thing for me.  Also affects my sleep.  There was a neighbor that would keep their rather strong porch or something light on all night which meant if I slept with my window open (standard as it improves quality of sleep massively most of the year), the light would keep me awake.  I compromised by sleeping with a mask, but that causes other issues like overheating.

When I lived with my grandmother, it was nice looking out of the bedroom window and seeing the Provo temple (mile away I am guessing).  But when it is bedtime, mentally it helps to see the neighborhood in darkness.  I bet I am not the only one with sleep issues who gets affected that way.