Jump to content

Erda Temple Moving to Tooele


Recommended Posts

We previously discussed (see here) how locals in Erda, Utah were not happy with the construction of a temple there and an associated residential development.  The Church later, apparently in response to complaints, withdrew the zoning change request for the residential development.  

Today the Church announced that the temple is being moved from Erda to Tooele.  See here:

Quote

The building will be constructed west of the intersection of 2400 N. 400 West in Tooele. Originally, it was supposed to be built northwest of the intersection of Erda Way and Highway 36 in Erda, Utah.

Why did the Church make these changes? In a statement, the Church said leaders considered "current circumstances and opportunities." No other information was provided.

Exterior and interior designs will remain the same as depicted in previously released reports.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Haha 1
Link to post

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself? Or was building the temple without the development even an option?

I know the building residential developments next to temples has become a pretty standard practice in recent years, but does it need to be? Should it be? I assume the developments are intended to help the church keep the area surrounding the temple pretty and affluent, but they also serve as a financial investment. When the brethren pray about where to put a new temple is part of their question about housing subdivisions and investment income?

I'm not trying to be cynical but it comes quite naturally. It would seem that asking God about where a temple is most needed and where the church can successfully build the temple should be the concern. Not "where can we build an extra housing development".

Link to post
18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself? Or was building the temple without the development even an option?

I know the building residential developments next to temples has become a pretty standard practice in recent years, but does it need to be? Should it be? I assume the developments are intended to help the church keep the area surrounding the temple pretty and affluent, but they also serve as a financial investment. When the brethren pray about where to put a new temple is part of their question about housing subdivisions and investment income?

I'm not trying to be cynical but it comes quite naturally. It would seem that asking God about where a temple is most needed and where the church can successfully build the temple should be the concern. Not "where can we build an extra housing development".

The church announced in August that they would not seek for the rezoning required to do the housing development because it was causing contention in the community, so that appears to have been taken off the table months ago.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself? Or was building the temple without the development even an option?

I know the building residential developments next to temples has become a pretty standard practice in recent years, but does it need to be? Should it be? I assume the developments are intended to help the church keep the area surrounding the temple pretty and affluent, but they also serve as a financial investment. When the brethren pray about where to put a new temple is part of their question about housing subdivisions and investment income?

I'm not trying to be cynical but it comes quite naturally. It would seem that asking God about where a temple is most needed and where the church can successfully build the temple should be the concern. Not "where can we build an extra housing development".

I would think that, all other things being equal, the Lord wouldn’t expect the Church to spend $150 million on a temple that could be built for $100 million.  I mean, there’s building something with as high a quality as you know how—and then there’s spending money just for the sake of spending money.

Building in the middle of an open field in Erda, where the Church would have to bear the expense of running water, sewer, gas, electric, communications, and so on out there—and not trying to defray the expense by developing the surrounding area—strikes me as falling more in the latter category than the former. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'll say again what I just said on the other thread:  I think they are losing out on blessings by essentially telling the Lord that having a temple that close to their homes is too much of a sacrifice to ask them to make

That was not the situation. People in Tooele County gathered signatures to block a rezoning a developed community. The referrendum did not pertain to the Temple itself.  I can't blame them for wanting to block high density housing when, basically the entirety of the Tooele Valley has one way in and out of the valley - which is Highway 36.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself?

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/referendum-over-tooele-county-latter-day-saint-development-really-close-to-meeting-signature-goal

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself? Or was building the temple without the development even an option?

I know the building residential developments next to temples has become a pretty standard practice in recent years, but does it need to be? Should it be? I assume the developments are intended to help the church keep the area surrounding the temple pretty and affluent, but they also serve as a financial investment. When the brethren pray about where to put a new temple is part of their question about housing subdivisions and investment income?

I'm not trying to be cynical but it comes quite naturally. It would seem that asking God about where a temple is most needed and where the church can successfully build the temple should be the concern. Not "where can we build an extra housing development".

The Brethren might be trying to prevent the building of Walmart, Costco, and strip malls right next to the Temple.  Not a matter of investment income at all.  Indeed, the Brethren already have excellent people investing tithing talents and vastly expanding them -- just as Jesus commands them to do in the NT.  The people of Erda are certainly justified in keeping things small, if that is their wish.  People opposing high rise development of the MTC in Provo also had objections, and they got the Church to change plans -- perhaps to everyone's advantage.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

That was not the situation. People in Tooele County gathered signatures to block a rezoning a developed community. The referrendum did not pertain to the Temple itself.  I can't blame them for wanting to block high density housing when, basically the entirety of the Tooele Valley has one way in and out of the valley - which is Highway 36.  

The church retracted the housing development idea in August and said it would do the temple without it, at least according to the news.

I completely sympathize with the people in that area.  I'm from Wyoming and we spend most of our time leaving the valley on the weekends trying to get away from all the people.  I don't blame them for wanting to protect their space.  I think it's a lost cause though.  With everyone moving into Utah the land out there will be worth billions in development and subdivisions. 

They will likely end up with something far more high dense than what the church was wanting to do in the next ten years, which will be lamentable.

Edited by bluebell
Link to post

So, our city has a temple 99% built but not dedicated and who knows when that'll happen. They honestly put it in a weird place, it's 15 minutes away from the stake centre but the church built a new chapel at the temple site-which is common. I say weird because it's not practical for people to get to, there is one bus that even goes over there but it doesn't run very often. So, that means getting rides with people, which has pros and cons to that. Plus they built it in a business area, so literally across the street from the temple is a liquor mart and other businesses. Funnily enough the Church didn't buy the whole property so there is a strip of land that is vacant and so some of us are like a vaping store, a bar or something similar could go in there and ya know it wouldn't be cool to have a temple right next to a "Wish you were Beer" establishment🍻🍻🍸

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't pay much attention to local Utah politics but I do find this interesting. Am I understanding correctly that the people of Erda are opposed to the housing development associated with the temple and not the temple itself? Or was building the temple without the development even an option?

I know the building residential developments next to temples has become a pretty standard practice in recent years, but does it need to be? Should it be? I assume the developments are intended to help the church keep the area surrounding the temple pretty and affluent, but they also serve as a financial investment. When the brethren pray about where to put a new temple is part of their question about housing subdivisions and investment income?

I'm not trying to be cynical but it comes quite naturally. It would seem that asking God about where a temple is most needed and where the church can successfully build the temple should be the concern. Not "where can we build an extra housing development".

I dare say deciding if the temple can be successfully built includes consideration of prudent cost management. Stewardship over tithes and offerings is part of their calling.  

Link to post

Mistakes have been made in making decisions for temples before IMO (gutting of Logan temple), so I don’t necessarily assume that just because the site in Erda was chosen meant it was the best site. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Mistakes have been made in making decisions for temples before IMO (gutting of Logan temple), so I don’t necessarily assume that just because the site in Erda was chosen meant it was the best site. 

ah, things change over time. Our site was moved! it's now been just about ten years from announcement to almost being done. In Canada. Canada!!!!! Calgary and Vancouver were 4, Edmonton, Halifax and Regina were the Hinckley style so it was like a year or something. 

 

 

Edited by Duncan
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I completely sympathize with the people in that area.  I'm from Wyoming and we spend most of our time leaving the valley on the weekends trying to get away from all the people.  I don't blame them for wanting to protect their space.  I think it's a lost cause though.  With everyone moving into Utah the land out there will be worth billions in development and subdivisions.

What, you mean, you needed to get away from the other ten people who live in Wyoming?!  ;):D (Sorry.  Couldn't resist! ;))

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

They will likely end up with something far more high dense than what the church was wanting to do in the next ten years, which will be lamentable.

I agree.  That was my prediction, as well.  (Not that I'm rooting for it, by any means ... :()

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Mistakes have been made in making decisions for temples before IMO (gutting of Logan temple), so I don’t necessarily assume that just because the site in Erda was chosen meant it was the best site. 

That could be. 
 

But I also think the Lord gives revelation line upon line and in consideration of changing conditions. It was prudent for a temple to be built at Far West, Mo. — until the enemies of the Church rendered it impossible. 
 

Did the Lord know in advance what would happen? Yes. But the scenario had to play out so people’s moral agency could be honored and they could be judged according to their behavior and the intents of their hearts. 
 

Added later: Building the temple in Erda was a good choice UNTIL changed circumstances (the rise of group-think opposition among the locals) made the choice less than optimum. “Current circumstances and opportunities” is a cagey and subtle way of putting it. 
 

But that in no way compels the conclusion that the former site selection and accompanying scheme for a residential development — under the circumstances that prevailed at the time — was a mistake or a poor decision on the part of the Church. 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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?!! :D:yahoo::D:yahoo:

Congratulations. 
 

I’d be pretty embarrassed if I lived in Erda right now, though. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

was a mistake or a poor decision on the part of the Church. 

However, it may not have been the best decision imo. It would have worked, maybe even well eventually, but perhaps not as well as another site. 
 

I leave the possibility open that the residents received inspiration that there were better options out there and it was okay to push the Church to look for them.  I also think it quite possible that the Erda residents have sabotaged themselves long term for a few more years of rural living. 
 

But I currently live in a town that has been moving that way. It used to be required that all lots be a certain size. But waivers have been granted.  As more and more orchards and fields are being converted to housing (still no real business), the character of the town is rapidly changing imo and it is quite sad in many ways to see.  I get why someone wants to hold on to the beauty and quiet of their rural home as long as they can.  If there was a temple stuck in the last large fields clusters in my town, it would not be the same town anymore. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
59 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, it may not have been the best decision imo. It would have worked, maybe even well eventually, but perhaps not as well as another site. 
 

I leave the possibility open that the residents received inspiration that there were better options out there and it was okay to push the Church to look for them.  I also think it quite possible that the Erda residents have sabotaged themselves long term for a few more years of rural living. 
 

But I currently live in a town that has been moving that way. It used to be required that all lots be a certain size. But waivers have been granted.  As more and more orchards and fields are being converted to housing (still no real business), the character of the town is rapidly changing imo and it is quite sad in many ways to see.  I get why someone wants to hold on to the beauty and quiet of their rural home as long as they can.  If there was a temple stuck in the last large fields clusters in my town, it would not be the same town anymore. 

It is not the role of discontented townspeople to receive divine inspiration to guide the Church. That role belongs to prophets, seers and revelators. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

However, it may not have been the best decision imo. It would have worked, maybe even well eventually, but perhaps not as well as another site. 
 

I leave the possibility open that the residents received inspiration that there were better options out there and it was okay to push the Church to look for them.  I also think it quite possible that the Erda residents have sabotaged themselves long term for a few more years of rural living. 
 

I leave open the possibility that it was no sin of the people of Erda to do what they did.  But I don't think it squares with our doctrine to believe that a town can receive revelation on where a temple should go that contradicts the prophet.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But I don't think it squares with our doctrine to believe that a town can receive revelation on where a temple should go that contradicts the prophet.

I think that depends on what the revelation is.  If it is specific to the site, then I would be agreeing.

If it was more confirmation that a particular area in Utah is going to need a temple to avoiding overcrowding in current ones and it is then turned over to a planning committee that chooses a couple of sites and then the First Presidency or prophet prays over which one and the revelation is ‘all are good choices for the community of Saints’, I can see room for Erda residents receiving inspiration that there were other good temple sites out there that would also allow them to for a time continue to have the way of life they had chosen as best for their families...maybe even had prayed about when first deciding to move there. And their inspiration would be it was appropriate for them to ask the Church to go elsewhere (not to tell the leaders where to build, but inspired to tell them the temple was not a “best” choice for them as currently planned).  Given the impact a temple could have on a person’s life, I don’t see it as unusual for a person to receive inspiration about it, including that while it might be a great benefit for Saints in general, it might be a negative for them because their personal needs would be harder to fulfill with a temple in their neighbourhood.

That is also not to say they shouldn’t sacrifice for a good cause to benefit others, but I believe in meaningful sacrifices that are necessary and not done just to be obedient, but done because it makes things better in the long run. I have known too many sacrifices that ended up making things harder for the individual, family, or small community rather than better because other options that could meet needs with lower costs were never explored. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
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?!! :D:yahoo::D:yahoo:

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

One ele? One and a half ele?

Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on what the revelation is.  If it is specific to the site, then I would be agreeing.

If it was more confirmation that a particular area in Utah is going to need a temple to avoiding overcrowding in current ones and it is then turned over to a planning committee that chooses a couple of sites and then the First Presidency or prophet prays over which one and the revelation is ‘all are good choices for the community of Saints’, I can see room for Erda residents receiving inspiration that there were other good temple sites out there that would also allow them to for a time continue to have the way of life they had chosen as best for their families...maybe even had prayed about when first deciding to move there. And their inspiration would be it was appropriate for them to ask the Church to go elsewhere (not to tell the leaders where to build, but inspired to tell them the temple was not a “best” choice for them as currently planned).  Given the impact a temple could have on a person’s life, I don’t see it as unusual for a person to receive inspiration about it, including that while it might be a great benefit for Saints in general, it might be a negative for them because their personal needs would be harder to fulfill with a temple in their neighbourhood.

That is also not to say they shouldn’t sacrifice for a good cause to benefit others, but I believe in meaningful sacrifices that are necessary and not done just to be obedient, but done because it makes things better in the long run. I have known too many sacrifices that ended up making things harder for the individual, family, or small community rather than better because other options that could meet needs with lower costs were never explored. 

I thought the bone of contention was not per se about one site being better than another. 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. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...