Nevada temple problem

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Ah. When I absorbed it as a piece, I didn't come away with that impression. But in rereading it with a scripture-like focus on the wording, your interpretation is correct.

Perhaps he phrased it stupidly.

It hit me differently the second time I read it too. I suspect it was an accidental phrasing that isn’t what she really meant.  Possibly because she wanted to keep it short so she wasn’t dictating to people what to say, just wanted to trigger ideas. Or possibly she used an AI and missed it the first time with a casual reading.  I just don’t think we expect that kind of idea and so don’t see it unless closely paying attention. 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Chum said:

Religious observances include types of clothing, so why not a building style?

I don't have any problem with something being part  of religious observance.  My point is I don't think you will find any such teaching from LDS sources. The language of the letter seems to be couched only with a certain law in mind as it uses the exact language. 

[california boy]

On 4/26/2024 at 2:15 PM, bluebell said:

I guess it just depends on what a person means by integral.  Like I posted earlier, I grew up attending church at chapels where the design did not allow for a steeple, but the church wanted a spire pointing to heaven badly enough that they built one into the ground next to each one.

That would seem to indicate that spires (or steeples) are an important aspect of our religious beliefs, though probably not essential.  Does that mean that it needs to be a specific height?  I don't think so, but if the law allows for a spire or steeple of a certain height then using the law to get one approved seems smart to me.

Though, I have been involved in two contentious temple building projects outside of Utah and I don't have a lot of faith in the sincerity of the reasons that the people who try to stop them from happening--or try to keep them as small and unassuming as possible--give for why they don't want them.  I'm sure that colors my perspective some.

It seems to me that this is an ongoing problem when the Church insists on building its temples in residential neighborhoods outside of Utah.  It just stirs up unnecessary animosity among those who will be their neighbors. Having served as president of a home owners association I know full well how hard it is to neutralize those kinds of long lasting problems once they are started 

There are massive amounts of buildings built that have a commanding presence without being excessively tall.  Imposing steeple designs are a choice on how to build an impressive building, not a requirement.  Since the Church keeps doing this, it is starting to look like the designs are done that way to purposefully exert its religious exemption and the neighborhood be damned.   Definitely not a good look. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems to me that this is an ongoing problem when the Church insists on building its temples in residential neighborhoods outside of Utah.  It just stirs up unnecessary animosity among those who will be their neighbors. Having served as president of a home owners association I know full well how hard it is to neutralize those kinds of long lasting problems once they are started 

There are massive amounts of buildings built that have a commanding presence without being excessively tall.  Imposing steeple designs are a choice on how to build an impressive building, not a requirement.  Since the Church keeps doing this, it is starting to look like the designs are done that way to purposefully exert its religious exemption and the neighborhood be damned.   Definitely not a good look. 

Are other churches building with tall steeples in these areas? Are they getting the same reaction? 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems to me that this is an ongoing problem when the Church insists on building its temples in residential neighborhoods outside of Utah.

The McKinney temple isn't going to be in a neighborhood though. It will be adjacent to some existing homes, sure, but it's going to be right on the main commercial street that runs through town, roughly a mile (and exactly one stoplight) away from the city's  town hall and shopping center. Additionally, it will have no access to the neighborhood behind it - everyone will come and go via the main thoroughfare.

 

Quote

There are massive amounts of buildings built that have a commanding presence without being excessively tall.  Imposing steeple designs are a choice on how to build an impressive building, not a requirement.  Since the Church keeps doing this, it is starting to look like the designs are done that way to purposefully exert its religious exemption and the neighborhood be damned.   Definitely not a good look. 

If the Methodists down the street (who are also on land zoned residential) can have a 150'+ bell tower, I don't see what the big deal is. If the citizens of Fairview are comfortable with large religious structures then that's their choice. But they don't get to whine about it just because the Mormons come to town want to be treated the same as everyone else. 

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems to me that this is an ongoing problem when the Church insists on building its temples in residential neighborhoods outside of Utah.  It just stirs up unnecessary animosity among those who will be their neighbors. Having served as president of a home owners association I know full well how hard it is to neutralize those kinds of long lasting problems once they are started 

There are massive amounts of buildings built that have a commanding presence without being excessively tall.  Imposing steeple designs are a choice on how to build an impressive building, not a requirement.  Since the Church keeps doing this, it is starting to look like the designs are done that way to purposefully exert its religious exemption and the neighborhood be damned.   Definitely not a good look. 

It’s a place of worship though. It’s pretty normal to build places of worship in residential neighborhoods. If they were trying to build some thing that big on like one or 2 acres, then I could see the complaints but considering the size of the lot and how far back it will be from other structures, it doesn’t seem that crazy to me. But like I said, I struggle to trust the reasons that people give for being annoyed when a temple gets built in their neighborhood.

I do want the church to be good neighbors and they should do what they can to keep the peace, without giving up their religious rights.

But if we can live in a world where HOAs exist then we can live in a world with temples in residential areas.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/23/2024 at 2:02 PM, Doctor Steuss said:

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

Catholic cathedrals, Russian and Orthodox church buildings, mosques, big box churches, Protestant churches, and Buddhist temples tend to be somewhat visible, too. Three of our largest buildings here are the Methodist, Catholic, and First Baptist. The Missionary Baptist not so much.

[blackstrap]

The lot for the building is about 20 acres, which for city dwellers is 2 full square blocks. The building itself would occupy about an acre and a half plus landscaping.  As for the height, one would hope that would include a substantial lightening rod as it seems to have a metaphorical one already. 

[Duncan]

Something that happened here with the temple is that originally they had planned it being built in one area. 5.5 years of the city councilor not wanting it in her area and things like that the church moved its location to another area. That city councilor's attitude was like 'you want to build a religious building that the city wont ever have to pay for or do anything with, it's all paid by the church plus it will attract people from other provinces and at least two US States, plus others from other places?' Let's build today! So, right now there is not one but two little strip malls built across the street from the temple, you can get donuts, KFC, alcohol, your dental needs etc.! 

[sheilauk]

A couple of interesting articles on steeples and spires:

https://www.deseret.com/2001/2/17/19569894/steeped-in-symbolism/#:~:text=The use of spires%2C steeples,members would ascend to heaven.

https://medium.com/@ameliagrandallxpa/the-beauty-and-symbolism-of-church-steeples-58c41d23e230

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steeple

[california boy]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It’s a place of worship though. It’s pretty normal to build places of worship in residential neighborhoods. If they were trying to build some thing that big on like one or 2 acres, then I could see the complaints but considering the size of the lot and how far back it will be from other structures, it doesn’t seem that crazy to me. But like I said, I struggle to trust the reasons that people give for being annoyed when a temple gets built in their neighborhood.

I do want the church to be good neighbors and they should do what they can to keep the peace, without giving up their religious rights.

But if we can live in a world where HOAs exist then we can live in a world with temples in residential areas.  

You don’t really see the difference between a neighborhood church and a huge imposing mega church surrounded by a big parking lot?   
Well that explains why the Church is building these towering imposing temples in neighborhoods. Looks like they don’t see the difference either. 
I guess if the Church wants to keep having these neighborhood wars then they should keep doing what they are doing. I will withdraw my suggestion 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

The McKinney temple isn't going to be in a neighborhood though. It will be adjacent to some existing homes, sure, but it's going to be right on the main commercial street that runs through town, roughly a mile (and exactly one stoplight) away from the city's  town hall and shopping center. Additionally, it will have no access to the neighborhood behind it - everyone will come and go via the main thoroughfare.

 

If the Methodists down the street (who are also on land zoned residential) can have a 150'+ bell tower, I don't see what the big deal is. If the citizens of Fairview are comfortable with large religious structures then that's their choice. But they don't get to whine about it just because the Mormons come to town want to be treated the same as everyone else. 

 

I don’t know all the existing buildings around the area on this particular temple proposal. If my suggestion is not helpful then just ignore it.  But at some point if the protests fights against the church keep happening maybe the Church should start asking why it keeps happening and see if there are things that can be done to mitigate these issues.  Maybe meet with both the planning department and the neighbors before the temple is designed and offer several proposals. Get some input so they feel like the Church is sensitive to the obvious issues. Ask them about the other religious buildings in the area and how the temple is trying to fit into the community  that seems like a better approach than a legal war to get it’s own way  

Or do you think people just hate the Mormon Church.  If that is the case then maybe the Church should find out why. 

Edited April 28, 2024 by california boy

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You don’t really see the difference between a neighborhood church and a huge imposing mega church surrounded by a big parking lot?   
Well that explains why the Church is building these towering imposing temples in neighborhoods. Looks like they don’t see the difference either. 
I guess if the Church wants to keep having these neighborhood wars then they should keep doing what they are doing. I will withdraw my suggestion 

Considering the number of mega churches with giant parking lots that I've seen in neighborhoods, I must not be the only one that doesn't see giant churches as an immediate and obvious neighborhood blight.  Especially when those churches are in areas where lots are large or undeveloped and they are near business and shopping centers.  The whole "don't ruin our quaint little neighborhood with this giant monstrosity" doesn't seem very sincere in those cases.

But then, I think often it's the denomination of the church that determines whether or not it's an eyesore for people, and not really the building.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Or do you think people just hate the Mormon Church.  If that is the case then maybe the Church should find out why. 

This seems a little odd for someone from the lgtbq+ community to say.

But, when the church was trying to build the temple in Billings Montana, we had people coming up to protest from the neighboring state (wyoming), some 90 miles or so away.  According to them, we worshipped a different Jesus and were the spawn of Satan.  The mega church that was situation a few miles away from the proposed temple lot started advertising the playing of "The Godmakers" so people could see for themselves how dangerous it would be to have a mormon temple in their town.

What do you think the church could do with information like that to bring about fewer problems?  

(The church is now trying to build a temple in Cody Wyoming, where some of those protesters from 20 years ago came from.  This time though, no pamphlets on how evil the mormons are.  Now it's a coalition to protect Cody from light pollution and traffic. It's funny how the reasons for not wanting a temple built become more politically correct over time but the desire to stop it or greatly reduce it's visibility remain the same)

[morgan.deane]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You don’t really see the difference between a neighborhood church and a huge imposing mega church surrounded by a big parking lot?   
Well that explains why the Church is building these towering imposing temples in neighborhoods. Looks like they don’t see the difference either. 
I guess if the Church wants to keep having these neighborhood wars then they should keep doing what they are doing. I will withdraw my suggestion 

Speaking of parking lots and traffic, there are three parcels right next to the proposed Lone Mountain temple owned by the school district. (As best I can tell based on this map: https://facilities.ccsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CCSD-LIM-Las-Vegas_W19.pdf ) If the locals don't like the supposed mega church and parking lot, they really won't like the parking lots and traffic of future schools. Seems to me the temple would have regular, smaller use mostly on nights and weekends. Compared to the massive amounts of usage every weekday for nine months plus two surges a day per location.  Back to my point in my first post, opponents of the Lone Mountain temple are fighting a battle they've already lost against a temple parking lot that is demonstrably better than the alternatives of massive school parking lots and traffic.

Of course my point doesn't account for the size of the temple. But the local area is already zoned for schools and residential units which will destroy views too. It just takes one new apartment complex for which the area is already zoned which means they can't stop the change anyway. 

And I've already seen lots of anti Mormon talking points mixed in with view, lighting, character of the neighborhood concerns. To me it simply seems like the major talking points are different, but the motivation remains the same. 

[manol]

If YOU are the temple of God, and if the Spirit of God dwells WITHIN YOU, then the height of the spire on a building is probably not something that matters a great deal. 

In my opinion. 

That being said, must admit that I think the Washington, DC temple is pretty darn cool looking. 

[2BizE]

Do you think temple ordinances performed in steeple-less temples will be voided and need to be performed again in a temple with a steeple? 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This seems a little odd for someone from the lgtbq+ community to say.

But, when the church was trying to build the temple in Billings Montana, we had people coming up to protest from the neighboring state (wyoming), some 90 miles or so away.  According to them, we worshipped a different Jesus and were the spawn of Satan.  The mega church that was situation a few miles away from the proposed temple lot started advertising the playing of "The Godmakers" so people could see for themselves how dangerous it would be to have a mormon temple in their town.

What do you think the church could do with information like that to bring about fewer problems?  

(The church is now trying to build a temple in Cody Wyoming, where some of those protesters from 20 years ago came from.  This time though, no pamphlets on how evil the mormons are.  Now it's a coalition to protect Cody from light pollution and traffic. It's funny how the reasons for not wanting a temple built become more politically correct over time but the desire to stop it or greatly reduce it's visibility remain the same)

If you think I am defending or attacking either side, you are wrong. I am only trying to see things from there eyes

 

My partner worked for a very big engineering and constructing company.  They build freeways, power plants, huge dams, subways etc.  His job was to bring communities together and help them have some say about their concerns.  The company could have bullied their way through the process since most of these jobs were commissioned by governments. The company knew that bringing the community and responding to their concerns such as modifying a design ended up with a much better result

Everyone who has responded to my post seems to prefer to just dismiss their concerns and blame it all on them. 
 

That’s fine. But the Church has to also live with the problems that approach causes. I am sure they will get their way with the strong possibility that it will be in a hostile neighborhood 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, morgan.deane said:

Speaking of parking lots and traffic, there are three parcels right next to the proposed Lone Mountain temple owned by the school district. (As best I can tell based on this map: https://facilities.ccsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CCSD-LIM-Las-Vegas_W19.pdf ) If the locals don't like the supposed mega church and parking lot, they really won't like the parking lots and traffic of future schools. Seems to me the temple would have regular, smaller use mostly on nights and weekends. Compared to the massive amounts of usage every weekday for nine months plus two surges a day per location.  Back to my point in my first post, opponents of the Lone Mountain temple are fighting a battle they've already lost against a temple parking lot that is demonstrably better than the alternatives of massive school parking lots and traffic.

Of course my point doesn't account for the size of the temple. But the local area is already zoned for schools and residential units which will destroy views too. It just takes one new apartment complex for which the area is already zoned which means they can't stop the change anyway. 

And I've already seen lots of anti Mormon talking points mixed in with view, lighting, character of the neighborhood concerns. To me it simply seems like the major talking points are different, but the motivation remains the same. 

Do you think these neighbors know for sure what the traffic/parking will be like?  Do you know what the height limitations are for apartments?   Is the steeple taller than that limit?  

Edited April 28, 2024 by california boy

[Calm]

2 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

But the local area is already zoned for schools and residential units which will destroy views too

According to another friend who lives in the area, it is unlikely there will be a school built there as originally planned because that plan was scrapped and the high school, Centennial Park?, was built elsewhere.  Since the lot the temple was built on was sold by the school district to a developer who then sold it to the church according to his info, he is thinking the same thing will happen with these other lots most likely.

Edited April 28, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I don’t know all the existing buildings around the area on this particular temple proposal. If my suggestion is not helpful then just ignore it.  But at some point if the protests fights against the church keep happening maybe the Church should start asking why it keeps happening and see if there are things that can be done to mitigate these issues.  Maybe meet with both the planning department and the neighbors before the temple is designed and offer several proposals. Get some input so they feel like the Church is sensitive to the obvious issues. Ask them about the other religious buildings in the area and how the temple is trying to fit into the community  that seems like a better approach than a legal war to get it’s own way  

I think this is a good way to do it. 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Or do you think people just hate the Mormon Church.  If that is the case then maybe the Church should find out why. 

I think that going with Stephen Covey's win/win is a good way to go about it all, but it's integral for both sides to be listening and want a win/win solution. I mean I VERY MUCH think what you propose is important! It's one of my soap box topics. 

I think many leaders in the church have a long way to go in this process, but honestly, I think even if the church were willing to work for it as you have described I think there are many who wouldn't even entertain the idea of letting the church be part of a win/win solution. People go to the worst-case scenario and that makes them no even try to work things out. One thing that would help church members be ok with this idea is letting them know what you think should happen if those opposed to the temples are some of these people who won't truly participate in the process. Does that mean the church never builds a temple in that area?  Or possibly anywhere?    

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you think I am defending or attacking either side, you are wrong. I am only trying to see things from there eyes

 

My partner worked for a very big engineering and constructing company.  They build freeways, power plants, huge dams, subways etc.  His job was to bring communities together and help them have some say about their concerns.  The company could have bullied their way through the process since most of these jobs were commissioned by governments. The company knew that bringing the community and responding to their concerns such as modifying a design ended up with a much better result

Everyone who has responded to my post seems to prefer to just dismiss their concerns and blame it all on them. 
 

That’s fine. But the Church has to also live with the problems that approach causes. I am sure they will get their way with the strong possibility that it will be in a hostile neighborhood 

I expect the church to make changes to the design.  They are in the very beginning of the city approval process.  The city hasn't yet approved anything.  There was a planned meeting a few days ago to talk about the rezoning but the church asked for that to be delayed so that they can present both the rezoning and the plan concept.  It seems like they want to try and show how it isn't as bad as everyone is talking but I would expect the church to make changes if the city requires them.  For instance, the Tuscon Temple doesn't have a steeple because the city wouldn't budge on giving a variance.  It was initially designed with a steeple in mind but now has a dome instead.

The odd statement about steeples being church observance is related to the McKinney Temple, not the Lone Mountain Temple.  That statement is odd because the city didn't seem to have that much of an issue with the steeple (per the city commission, they had approved 154' bell tower for another church https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney_LDS_Temple_complete_PZ.pdf)

One interesting thing about the Lone Mountain Temple is that some of the people are against the temple because it would bring in curbing, sidewalks, and street lighting.  You can see many of the complaints at https://lasvegas.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=51495&meetingTemplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=36650 (this pdf has over 4,000 pages and includes responses in favor and against the temple).  The interesting part is that the church also didn't want curbing, sidewalks, and street lighting.  But it is the city that won't budge on that.

The FAA has also sent in a comment about the height.  The temple is close enough to an airport and is tall enough that the FAA would need to evaluate it before any approval.

 

2 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

Of course my point doesn't account for the size of the temple. But the local area is already zoned for schools and residential units which will destroy views too. It just takes one new apartment complex for which the area is already zoned which means they can't stop the change anyway. 

Apartment complex isn't allowed there.  There is a Interlocal agreement between the county and the city that requires those lots to only have at most 2 units per acre.  https://files.lasvegasnevada.gov/planning/Interlocal-Agreement-2016-12-21.pdf.  That's one of the complaints against the rezoning.  The agreement says that the city/county will not rezone any of the lots to be commercial, industrial, or more than 2 units per acre.  The temple is technically not commercial or industrial so the city council doesn't see an issue but some people feel that is breaking the spirit of the agreement.  I kind of agree with them.

[morgan.deane]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

 

Apartment complex isn't allowed there.  There is a Interlocal agreement between the county and the city that requires those lots to only have at most 2 units per acre.  https://files.lasvegasnevada.gov/planning/Interlocal-Agreement-2016-12-21.pdf.  That's one of the complaints against the rezoning.  The agreement says that the city/county will not rezone any of the lots to be commercial, industrial, or more than 2 units per acre.  The temple is technically not commercial or industrial so the city council doesn't see an issue but some people feel that is breaking the spirit of the agreement.  I kind of agree with them.

I'm color blind so its always a bit tough to read these things, but if I read the map correctly, A1 and A2 refer to the rural preservation zones north and east of the proposed temple lot. (That matches the map here that I already provided: https://www.donohueteam.com/NWSite/RNP.htm)  I was referring to the temple, which as you said, isn't disallowed by zoning. I was also referring to everything south of Alexander road, which is not limited to 2 units per acre.  This is the same disinformation that is being peddled around town trying to put the temple in a zone where it doesn't belong and trying to act like this area isn't already surrounded by suburban sprawl. I go to Lone Mountain often, and the area is nice, but the mountain has a city that's grown around it, so its not some bucolic getaway even with limits in part of the area. (In fact, I've stopped going as much recently because its turning into Redrock and its just too crowded! lol.) Please see the satellite imagery I provided. It wouldn't hurt to take more careful look at the map YOU PROVIDED as well. Best wishes. 

Edited April 29, 2024 by morgan.deane
wrote as I ran out the door, edited for typos, added link.

[morgan.deane]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

According to another friend who lives in the area, it is unlikely there will be a school built there as originally planned because that plan was scrapped and the high school, Centennial Park?, was built elsewhere.  Since the lot the temple was built on was sold by the school district to a developer who then sold it to the church according to his info, he is thinking the same thing will happen with these other lots most likely.

Good to know, thanks. The whole valley is growing quickly so I wouldn't rule out more schools.

[webbles]

In one of the complaints sent in about the rezoning, the person pointed out that a recent code change in Las Vegas (March 2024) made it much easier to get approval for the temple.  The new zone is going to be a C-V zone which used to have a height requirement if it was next to a residential zone.  But with the code change, that height requirement was removed.  The complaint speculates that the church was behind the code change so that it wouldn't have to request a variance for the height.  You can see the new code at https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/lasvegas-nv/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-520 and the old code at https://files.lasvegasnevada.gov/planning/Exhibit-K-UDC-September-2022.pdf (page 506).

The planning committee approved the code change on November 14, 2023 and then was approved by the city council on March 20, 2024.