Nevada temple problem

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

We are?

 

I think it was said on a podcast, I'll try to find more about it. So you're in Texas I take it, haha.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm not sure what could be done.  I just realized that this proposed temple is even bigger than the existing Las Vegas Temple, which is itself a massive landmark.  The proposed site is also fairly close to four different really incredible parks, so even the inclusion of green spaces/gardens might not be all that helpful in placating people (like the Las Vegas Temple, which had absolutely no green spaces around it, when it was built, making the fountain and garden a huge draw and bonus).

I'm having an even harder time wrapping my head around this.  The existing massive Las Vegas Temple is 137 ft high.  I can't wrap my head around another 80 feet of height -- especially in a residential neighborhood with capped home story limits.

It seems to me that a primary goal is for it to be as visible as possible.

If wonder if the 216 height includes the spire?  The highest spire on the las vegas temple is 240 feet so it would be slightly higher if the spire is included.  

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it was said on a podcast, I'll try to find more about it. So you're in Texas I take it, haha.

Is this the one?  Apparently the steeple is 173 feet and will be lit at night and their community, Fairview, leans dark skies (mine does too and I am unhappy when people leave porch lights or decorative trim lights on all the time; when we moved in we could see the Milky Way from our back porch; there were a couple of years I couldn’t keep my window open at night because the neighbors’ front light was extra bright and tilted so it shone straight into my bedroom…never happened before we got that cul-de-sac, grumble, grumble).  I hope the Church, if it doesn’t already, has a program to automatically turn off lights by 11, if not 10 PM in residential areas.  Yes, it was cool to see the temple lit up across the Bay at night, but being a good neighbour is important too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/McKinney/comments/1c448hg/help_needed_letter_in_opposition_to_mckinney/

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

We are?

 

The trouble hasn't begun yet, it's preventing the problem. The church sent a letter to multiple stakes asking members to write the Fairview planning manager in support of the Mckinney Temple in the neighborhood. And the steeple being part of the temple observance. Or stressing how important the height of the steeple is, something like that. So I got it wrong, it's prevention of a problem down the road.

Is the steeple really that important, since some temples don't have them? I wonder why the church won't just omit it where it might be a problem.    

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this the one?  Apparently the steeple is 173 feet and will be lit at night and their community, Fairview, leans dark skies (mine does too and I am unhappy when people leave porch lights or decorative trim lights on all the time; when we moved in we could see the Milky Way from our back porch; there were a couple of years I couldn’t keep my window open at night because the neighbors’ front light was extra bright and tilted so it shone straight into my bedroom…never happened before we got that cul-de-sac, grumble, grumble).  I hope the Church, if it doesn’t already, has a program to automatically turn off lights by 11, if not 10 PM in residential areas.  Yes, it was cool to see the temple lit up across the Bay at night, but being a good neighbour is important too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/McKinney/comments/1c448hg/help_needed_letter_in_opposition_to_mckinney/

 

That's the one, I just commented about it to Amulek. Thank you! 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And the steeple being part of the temple observance. Or stressing how important the height of the steeple is, something like that.

from the above link…

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

from the above link…

That's interesting. I never really thought of a steeple being a part of religious observance.  

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's interesting. I never really thought of a steeple being a part of religious observance.  

Neither have I.  I bet you the vast majority of Saints would not include it if it was listed in a “what are your religious observances?” multiple choice question that allowed you to check all that applied.

Given how low church style our chapels typically are, inexpensive, practical, easy to build, this is an odd argument to me.

Edited April 24, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Neither have I.  I bet you the vast majority of Saints would not include it if it was listed in a “what are your religious observances?” multiple choice question that allowed you to check all that applied.

Given how low church style our chapels typically are, cheap, practical, easy to build, this is an odd argument to me.

Thinking about it, I guess it makes sense.  A few of the stake centers that I attended church at as a kid were not the style that could include a steeple as a part of the building, but they all had a spire set into the ground pointing towards heaven next to the building in the lawn.  I never really thought about why a spire meant so much that they would include one even when it couldn't actually be attached to the building.  

I remember it was always one of my favorite places to hang out as a child though.  The design made it so you could step up inside of it and stand underneath the spire part while surrounded by three metal columns.  There was just something about standing in that structure and looking up toward heaven along with the spire that felt special to me.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thinking about it, I guess it makes sense.  A few of the stake centers that I attended church at as a kid were not the style that could include a steeple as a part of the building, but they all had a spire set into the ground pointing towards heaven next to the building in the lawn.  I never really thought about why a spire meant so much that they would include one even when it couldn't actually be attached to the building.  

I remember it was always one of my favorite places to hang out as a child though.  The design made it so you could step up inside of it and stand underneath the spire part while surrounded by three metal columns.  There was just something about standing in that structure and looking up toward heaven along with the spire that felt special to me.

I have loved the teaching of that symbology in cathedrals where stepping into the building everything is meant to draw your eye heavenward.  To me that is really a part of religious observance.  I can’t find anything on the Church’s website that teaches this meaning of steeple.

Plus how high does it need to really be?  It’s not like the higher it is, the more spiritual it makes us feel.

It is not like it is unknown in general architecture though, so maybe the argument sort of works for us even if it’s not included in our doctrine or teachings?

https://www.americansteeples.com/contact/blog/51-what-is-a-steeple-and-why-your-church-should-have-one

Quote

Something you may notice about steeples is the way they are always pointed towards the sky and standing tall. This positioning is extremely significant and is supposed to point people in the direction of Heaven. By bringing your eyes to the sky, this positioning aims to make people contemplate this religious significance. In ancient times, it was believed that God was easier to reach if this part of the church was higher in the sky. The Bible refers to Him as a tower in Psalm 61:3-4, saying, “Raise me up, set me on a rock, for you are my refuge, a tower of strength against the foe”. It makes it more obvious to individuals in areas around the church where they can go to worship and be closer to God. 

 

Edited April 24, 2024 by Calm

[blackstrap]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

steeple being a part of religious observance

horsefeathers ! ( this is NOT a reflection on bluebell. It was just easier to quote. )

[Calm]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

horsefeathers ! ( this is NOT a reflection on bluebell. It was just easier to quote. )

Okay….my reaction wasn’t atypical, lol

My husband’s response was “bunch of hooey”.  He vaguely remember the idea of steeples pointing to heaven, but not connecting it to the Church…it is just out there, somewhere.  Born and bred Utahn, rarely misses a Sunday.  He is my touchstone for “typical church upbringing”

This is what sprung to my mind:

Quote

Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;

13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.

14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/31?lang=eng#p12

Edited April 24, 2024 by Calm

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So you're in Texas I take it, haha.

Born and raised.

And (stereotypically) proud of it.  

 

[longview]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

This is demolished in my view…

ha ha . . .

You are right . . . my mind is playing tricks on me . . . from google:

 

The Jordan River Utah Temple in South Jordan, Utah was rededicated by President Henry B. Eyring on May 20, 2018, after extensive renovations that began in February 2016. The temple had closed on February 15, 2016, and remained closed until the latter part of 2017. The general floor plan remained the same, but interior walls were removed to remodel the celestial room, bride's room, initiatory areas, and the baptistry.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this the one?  Apparently the steeple is 173 feet and will be lit at night and their community, Fairview, leans dark skies [...].  I hope the Church, if it doesn’t already, has a program to automatically turn off lights by 11, if not 10 PM in residential areas.  Yes, it was cool to see the temple lit up across the Bay at night, but being a good neighbour is important too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/McKinney/comments/1c448hg/help_needed_letter_in_opposition_to_mckinney/

Yes, if approved, the temple would be the tallest structure in Fairview. See, e.g., here for the city planning manager's most recent memorandum on the project (lots of useful info). 

As far as lighting goes, "Site lighting will comply with the Town of Fairview’s lighting ordinance and restrictions. Site lighting will consist of both parking lot and building lighting intended to enhance the exterior façade of the temple and its grounds while maintaining safety and functionality of the parking lot and exterior grounds. Parking lot lighting will be shielded to avoid light trespass to neighboring properties. Building lighting will be directed at the building surfaces. Exterior lighting levels will extend one hour before and one hour after the temple hours of operation and will then dim to code minimum for security purposes." (ibid.)

Unlike the Dallas temple, the McKinney temple won't reside within an existing neighborhood. Instead, it will be situated on a major commercial street with no access to the handful of residential homes that will be adjacent to it on one side only. It's literally going to be across the street from a Sonic Drive-in for crying out loud (mmm...I can taste the cherry limeades after youth baptism trips already). 

I live and work in the area, and I have yet to hear any meaningful opposition to the project. The church recently held an open house to unveil the plans to local church and political leaders, and everything went smoothly. While I'm sure there will be a handful of detractors, I don't think it will be anything like trying to get the Dallas temple built back in the day - compared to that, this one should be easy-peasy. 

 

[blackstrap]

Had the statement been , " religious symbolism " instead of "religious observance " I might have agreed. As a member I am not required to put a steeple on my house. 🤨

[JAHS]

23 hours ago, sunstoned said:

From what I have read the concern seems to be the height.  Residents launched a balloon up to the proposed height to get an understanding of just how big the building would be.  And yes, it will be very tall.  I'm wondering if the church would be willing to adjust the proposed height.  I'm sure it could be done without compromising the temple's function.

Sometimes I wonder if the Church initially exaggerates the height of what the temple will be so they have some room to compromise and make it shorter to please the critics. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Sometimes I wonder if the Church initially exaggerates the height of what the temple will be so they have some room to compromise and make it shorter to please the critics. 

You aren’t the only one, lol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

Had the statement been , " religious symbolism " instead of "religious observance " I might have agreed. As a member I am not required to put a steeple on my house. 🤨

Yep…

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not familiar with the area, but could it be that the church will develop homes or rental homes and town homes surrounding the temple?

I was thinking along similar lines. They've been dabbling in city planning.

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Had the statement been , " religious symbolism " instead of "religious observance " I might have agreed. As a member I am not required to put a steeple on my house. 🤨

Has the statement been authenticated? I live in the temple district, and we haven't been asked to participate in an email campaign.

I have family in McKinney who can confirm they haven't received something like that either. They were told just last week, in a letter read over the pulpit from their Stake President, that there would be clipboards in the foyers this coming Sunday for people to sign if they wanted to participate a petition supporting the temple. That's pretty much it.

 

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Sometimes I wonder if the Church initially exaggerates the height of what the temple will be so they have some room to compromise and make it shorter to please the critics. 

Possibly - though I suspect they authentically want it to be as originally designed.

 

[Doctor Steuss]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

If wonder if the 216 height includes the spire?  The highest spire on the las vegas temple is 240 feet so it would be slightly higher if the spire is included.  

Where were you able to pull the 240 feet figure?  I was going off the Church's listing for it (Link), which puts the height at 137 feet.  Does the Church only give the roof height in these?

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Where were you able to pull the 240 feet figure?  I was going off the Church's listing for it (Link), which puts the height at 137 feet.  Does the Church only give the roof height in these?

I cannot find it anymore!  So annoying. I'm sure your information is correct.  But now I'm really wondering where that info came from.  I need to pay more attention.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Where were you able to pull the 240 feet figure?  I was going off the Church's listing for it (Link), which puts the height at 137 feet.  Does the Church only give the roof height in these?

I figured it out!  It was a stupid AI article and I didn't notice.  It looks like it had combined incorrect info about this new LV temple with info from the exist LV temple and reported that the highest Las Vegas temple spire was 240 feet while the temple was 137 feet tall.