Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[helix]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

But it’s not like it’s a religious principle or practice in the name that they are requiring or even demanding a certain form.  The Church chose to name the temple after the town the temple was going to be in, but then the temple ended up being in a different town.  Isn’t all the board is asking for is to abide by the standard the Church originally chose for the name, just to update it for the current situation rather than stick with the now outdated label?

It's a sign that the city fundamentally doesn't understand the First Amendment. 

Suppose the town council says "We'll approve your temple on one condition. Do three jumping jacks for us here in front of our citizens. To show good will. Otherwise it's a no and we'll see you in court."

These things are wildly out of bounds for governments to demand of religions.

 

[Chum]

To the First Amendment points I am reminded of Pres Oaks counsel about how we protect them.

Quote

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights singles out the “free exercise” of religion for specific protection, along with the related freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
These rights enjoy singular status because of their paramount significance to the foundations of our constitutional republic.
They are rights on which all other rights depend.
Protecting them is essential to safeguarding and perpetuating all constitutional freedoms.
That is why religious exercise and religious expression enjoy special constitutional protection.

Robust and healthy protections on the free exercise of religion - they are companion to the same for the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. 
We best serve them when we elevate our concerns for all to match our concern for one.

The Robust and healthy part comes when we find ourselves protecting the right to behaviors we disagree with, because doing so protects (the whole of) the First Amendment in a meaningful way.

Edited April 26, 2025 by Chum

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

To the First Amendment points I am reminded of Pres Oaks counsel about how we protect them.

i want to append a thought to this. I often wonder what the Church does to protect each+all of those rights.  And it may be that the Church is limited on actions it can take because there are always costs attached.
Prop 8 is an example because being involved led to complex and nuanced consequences for the Church.

I think what the Church does is to push us in the right direction. 

Personally speaking, the frequency and tone of those proddings are the best indicators I have for the thinking of Church leadership. Their absence is also an indicator, at least the best one I have.

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, Chum said:

What about positive pressure - say, offering to trade-off another requirement for it?

I understand that as a strategy, and like I said earlier, I think the Church may have tipped its hand that they are probably fine with doing that. A rose by any other name and all.

But the part of me that is not fully a Saint - the part that has lived in Texas my entire life, bullied and disdained by the same sort of people who are opposing the temple now - that part of me wants to see the Church ignore these Capulets and force them to drive by the best looking building in their town and see another city's name on it. 

But maybe we can give it the MOTAB treatment and compromise by calling it the McKinney Texas Temple at Fairview.  

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, helix said:

It's a sign that the city fundamentally doesn't understand the First Amendment. 

When the add it as a condition, yes, that is deeply problematic.

If they simply explain that it rubs people the wrong way and politely note that making a change might make it a bit easier for some of the people on the other side to embrace / go along with it, I'm 100% fine with that.

 

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If they simply explain that it rubs people the wrong way and politely note that making a change might make it a bit easier for some of the people on the other side to embrace / go along with it, I'm 100% fine with that.

I feel when conditions are too lawyer-flavored for too long, it's hard to introduce personal sentiments like this. "That thing isn't sitting well with us. Doing this thing instead would feel like good will and make a lot of folks happy".

Edited April 26, 2025 by Chum

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Chum said:

I support this all over. 2x for residential properties.

I don’t understand how this works. I can see my neighbors regular porch light blocks away. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, helix said:

uppose the town council says "We'll approve your temple on one condition. Do three jumping jacks for us here in front of our citizens. To show good will. Otherwise it's a no and we'll see you in court."

But that isn’t a good analogy.  It is not a frivolous request.  It can benefit the town to have greater name recognition.  According to one of the city’s site, they are trying to attract people to move there***.  I can see them being concerned that someone thinking of moving to McKinney because of the benefit of the nearby temple locks onto McKinney as their destination and doesn’t change their mind to moving to Fairview instead once they realize where the temple really is because it’s not much further if you have to get in a car anyway.

Plus if people make plans to use Fairview resources (thinking mostly restaurants, but there is at least a Hilton there) when they visit the temple rather than assume McKinney is where they should make additional plans because of the name, then the town could get greater revenue. (According to Alexa, McKinney is 5 miles away from Fairview)

Now the Church may not want to change it because more people will recognize where McKinney is than Fairview just as I might tell people I live in Provo rather than Mapleton if I wasn’t able to add more detail like “about 10 miles south of Provo, but it is a reasonable request not based on any religious teaching or practice, so it’s not interfering with religious rights logically speaking.  Ownership rights perhaps.  I am not saying that the city should have the right to dictate the name, I just don’t see it as an infringement on religious rights.  It doesn’t affect religious practice at all that I can see.

I am not saying the Church should automatically give in, I am just saying it seems odd to treat it as a constitutional issue when it comes across to me as a practical one.

***https://fairviewtexasedc.com

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

the part of me that is not fully a Saint - the part that has lived in Texas my entire life, bullied and disdained by the same sort of people who are opposing the temple now - that part of me wants to see the Church ignore these Capulets and force them to drive by the best looking building in their town and see another city's name on it. 

But maybe we can give it the MOTAB treatment and compromise by calling it the McKinney Texas Temple at Fairview.  

I did laugh at the request given how the impression given in the news at least was most didn’t want the temple in their town and yet now they want to claim dibs on it.  There is a sense of it serves them right if it gets called McKinney.

But there is also the practical side of me which understands that even if the preference was not to have it (if that was the actual preference and it just wasn’t the size and lighting that was bugging people), but in the end they accepted its presence because it’s the Church’s legal right to build a temple there if they meet the legal requirements, that once accepted, it makes sense to maximize any benefits to the town, including the publicity for the city that comes with attaching the correct name.

[bluebell]

I thought it was interesting that they wanted the temple named after their town but for the neighboring town’s sewer system to be used. 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t understand how this works. I can see my neighbors regular porch light blocks away. 

Technically, it's simple. They aim it downward or put some guards around it to direct it downward.

To make it reality, there's be a local code. Same as ever when basic courtesy is the exception.

[Calm]

 

10 hours ago, longview said:

What business is it for government, for example, to mandate the Roman Catholic Church to name a cathedral to be "Matthew Shepard Memorial" instead of their normal designations such as "Our Lady of Guadalupe" or "Basilica of the Twenty-Six Holy Martyrs" ?

again, it’s a different analogy…we have a name based on nonreligious geographical location, the difference of the change being approximate or precise location in this case, not an insistence to replace a name given to honor the Mother of God or heroes/martyrs of their faith or anything else of religious significance.

To treat a request to change a geographical name as if it’s demeaning a name chosen for worship is overkill, imo.  Now if they had insisted on the Church using “center” or “assembly” instead of “temple”, that downplays the sacred significance of the building for us, and I would call them out for dictating religious practice in that case.  But there is no religious practice affected if the name is changed from McKinney to Fairview even if it’s illegal for a city to try and dictate a name change.

I am not saying the Church should go ahead and change it on demand as there is also a practical reason to call it McKinney in the sense of ‘area’ vs actual city limits (Mapleton can be defined as located in the Provo-Orem complex imo, if we weren’t in Utah with so many temples, building a temple in Mapleton and calling it the Provo-Orem temple if it was the only one in the Provo-Orem area would be reasonable).

Like I said, it feels more an ownership issue than a religious one to me.  Can a city dictate an organization call itself by a certain name?  If not, Fairview’s attempt to dictate the name fails on that account without having to appeal to freedom of religion.  That seems to me to be a more appropriate defense since there is nothing demanded in a religious sense in the name change since “temple” is the same.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought it was interesting that they wanted the temple named after their town but for the neighboring town’s sewer system to be used. 

I was thinking sewer service is rather important and that town should get more credit for keeping the area in good shape.  😛 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I thought it was interesting that they wanted the temple named after their town but for the neighboring town’s sewer system to be used. 

Fairview doesn't have sewer service for that part of Stacy Road, so they want us to secure sewer rights as a condition of building. The Church has already received notice from the City of Allen saying they have the capacity to handle it without issue - they just didn't go all the way to saying they would supply service, because they are trying to stay out of Fairview's business and not commit to actually doing anything until Fairview agrees to let us build something.

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But there is also the practical side of me which understands that even if the preference was not to have it (if that was the actual preference and it just wasn’t the size and lighting that was bugging people), but in the end they accepted its presence because it’s the Church’s legal right to build a temple there if they meet the legal requirements, that once accepted, it makes sense to maximize any benefits to the town, including the publicity for the city that comes with attaching the correct name.

I understand that as well. I think the Church just views it as being more helpful (communication wise) for insiders. There are about 10 congregations in McKinney; there's only one in Fairview. And technically, Fairview resides within a McKinney zip code as well - though I'm sure, at some point, that may change. 

I'm suspect Burleson might want to maximize the benefits to their town by having the temple named after it as well, rather than it being called the Fort Worth Temple, but pretty much everybody has a rough idea of where Fort Worth is; Burleson, not so much. To be clear, McKinney's no Fort Worth - not by any stretch of the imagination - but I think most people around here have got a better idea of where it is than Fairview. 

Edited April 27, 2025 by Amulek

[helix]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not a frivolous request.  It can benefit the town to have greater name recognition.  According to one of the city’s site, they are trying to attract people to move there***.  I can see them being concerned that someone thinking of moving to McKinney because of the benefit of the nearby temple locks onto McKinney as their destination and doesn’t change their mind to moving to Fairview instead once they realize where the temple really is because it’s not much further if you have to get in a car anyway.

None of that matters one whit compared to the First Amendment.

They could call the temple the "Oklahoma City Temple", or "Not LDS Temple", or "We Don't Like Fairview Temple". None of that should or can have any bearing whatsoever if a city will approve it. That the city is attempting to tie in what a religion names its own building to the approval process shows how fundamentally wrong Fairview is.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am just saying it seems odd to treat it as a constitutional issue when it comes across to me as a practical one.

Practical disappeared long ago when the Methodists got far more leeway with their approved designs and plans. This is religious targeting. They're making up more rules on the spot because the townspeople want to give our church pressure. 

Edited April 27, 2025 by helix

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

think most people around here have got a better idea of where it is than Fairview.

Iirc it’s 20 times bigger population wise, so it makes sense to see the temple as part of the McKinney region.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I was thinking sewer service is rather important and that town should get more credit for keeping the area in good shape.  😛 

I was thinking that Fairview wants the credit without the maintenance. 😁

[Amulek]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iirc it’s 20 times bigger population wise, so it makes sense to see the temple as part of the McKinney region.

Also, when you land at DFW and leave the north side of the airport on 121, which kind of runs diagonally (SW to NE), you can either go south to Fort Worth or north to McKinney; it's kind of the outside boundary of the Metroplex over on this side of the world. 

 

[longview]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

Also, when you land at DFW and leave the north side of the airport on 121, which kind of runs diagonally (SW to NE), you can either go south to Fort Worth or north to McKinney; it's kind of the outside boundary of the Metroplex over on this side of the world. 

I looked at Google Maps. It appears to be quite a distance from the airport to the proposed temple. Would travelers need to pass through Fairview to get to the location? I googled the following and received an AI response:

My question: what are names of lds stakes and districts around area of McKinney and Fairview

Quote

AI Overview

Learn more

 

The area around McKinney and Fairview, Texas, is served by several Latter-day Saint stakes and districts. The primary stake serving the area is the McKinney Texas Temple district, which will be served by the planned McKinney Texas Temple. Additionally, the Allen Texas Stake, Frisco Texas Stake, and other stakes in the surrounding areas may also serve members in the McKinney and Fairview regions. 

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown: 

 

• McKinney Texas Temple District:

  .Opens in new tab

  This district will be served by the McKinney Texas Temple which is planned to be built on Stacy Road in Fairview, Texas, near the border of Allen, Texas. The temple will serve Latter-day Saints in the northern Dallas suburbs, including the McKinney and Fairview areas.
• Allen Texas Stake:

  .Opens in new tab

  While the precise boundaries can vary, the Allen Texas Stake likely encompasses parts of Allen and may also include some areas in the surrounding McKinney and Fairview regions.
• Frisco Texas Stake:

  .Opens in new tab

  The Frisco Texas Stake is located in Frisco, Texas, which is also in the northern Dallas suburbs and may serve members in the McKinney and Fairview areas.
• Other Stakes:

  .Opens in new tab

  There may be other, smaller stakes and districts serving the area, as the exact boundaries of stakes can change over time.

The AI did not make it clear: how many stakes are there in McKinney and Fairview? What will be the actual extent of the McKinney Texas Temple district?

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, longview said:

I looked at Google Maps. It appears to be quite a distance from the airport to the proposed temple. Would travelers need to pass through Fairview to get to the location? 

Since the temple resides in Fairview itself, yes, you are going to have to enter the town in order to get there. 

The point I was trying to make is that from pretty much anywhere in the Metroplex, you are going to be following the signs to McKinney almost all the way there.

When you leave the airport, you're going to be following signs to McKinney. If you're coming down from Sherman - again, you'll be following the signs to McKinney. Need to come up from Dallas to attend a family member's sealing - also, follow the signs to McKinney. In fact, now that I think about it, I don't believe there are any signs on the freeway - any freeway - saying how many miles you are away from Fairview. It's more than a one traffic light town, but it's not much more than a single exit.

 

20 hours ago, longview said:

I googled the following and received an AI response:

My question: what are names of lds stakes and districts around area of McKinney and Fairview

You're probably going to be talking about McKinney, Allen, Frisco, Plano, Richardson, etc.

 

Quote

The AI did not make it clear: how many stakes are there in McKinney and Fairview? What will be the actual extent of the McKinney Texas Temple district?

There is one stake in McKinney. There is one ward in Fairview, which is technically part of the Allen Texas stake. I don't know that they have finalized the areas that will be part of the McKinney Texas temple district, but you can look at the areas served by the Dallas temple here: https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/dallas-texas-temple/district/

The Fort Worth temple will pick up a big chunk of towns on the west side, and McKinney will alleviate pressure from the North / North Eastern direction.

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Since the temple resides in Fairview itself, yes, you are going to have to enter the town in order to get there. 

The point I was trying to make is that from pretty much anywhere in the Metroplex, you are going to be following the signs to McKinney almost all the way there.

When you leave the airport, you're going to be following signs to McKinney. If you're coming down from Sherman - again, you'll be following the signs to McKinney. Need to come up from Dallas to attend a family member's sealing - also, follow the signs to McKinney. In fact, now that I think about it, I don't believe there are any signs on the freeway - any freeway - saying how many miles you are away from Fairview. It's more than a one traffic light town, but it's not much more than a single exit.

You're probably going to be talking about McKinney, Allen, Frisco, Plano, Richardson, etc.

There is one stake in McKinney. There is one ward in Fairview, which is technically part of the Allen Texas stake. I don't know that they have finalized the areas that will be part of the McKinney Texas temple district, but you can look at the areas served by the Dallas temple here: https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/dallas-texas-temple/district/

The Fort Worth temple will pick up a big chunk of towns on the west side, and McKinney will alleviate pressure from the North / North Eastern direction.

Thank you for the link to the Dallas Temple district. It is stunning to see that there are 29 stakes in it. Including North Louisiana Shreveport Stake and Longview Stake!

Are you hearing any rumblings concerning the Fort Worth Temple? Or is it still in the planning stage?

ETA: I see that the link is indicating that Fort Worth Temple is in construction phase.

Edited April 28, 2025 by longview

[Amulek]

Sorry for not posting this yesterday when I saw it, but as of April 28, the First Presidency has approved a name change for the planned McKinney temple.

It will now be known as the Fairview Texas Temple: https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2025/04/28/first-presidency-releases-new-name-updated-rendering-mckinney-texas-temple/

Hopefully that will make things go a little smoother at the Town Council meeting tonight.

I plan on stopping by after I get off work to see if I can make it into the meeting again. It's overcast but not raining, so there might be much better turnout. If that ends up being the case, I'll just go home and watch it online like everyone else.

For those interested in watching, it will be live streamed at 7:00 PM Central, here.

 

[Stargazer]

On 4/26/2025 at 8:08 PM, Chum said:

Prop 8 is an example because being involved led to complex and nuanced consequences for the Church.

The consequences of Prop 8 were immaterial, because the principle needed to be stood for. Now that the matter is settled constitutional law, the matter is closed.

For the moment, anyway. If SCOTUS reversed itself it wouldn't be the first time.

[Stargazer]

On 4/27/2025 at 4:23 AM, Calm said:

Iirc it’s 20 times bigger population wise, so it makes sense to see the temple as part of the McKinney region.

Just for the fun of it, I did a selective summary of temple naming vs temple location (mileage is as the crow flies)...

• The Seattle temple is located in Bellevue, 10 miles away from the Seattle Center (where the Space Needle is).
• The London temple is located in Newchapel, Surrey, 24 miles south of central London (where Big Ben stands). From a personal viewpoint, it's only 21 miles from my house. It would take 1 hr 41 minutes to drive to the temple from Big Ben, but only 40 minutes from my house. 
• The Portland Oregon temple is located in Lake Oswego, OR, 7 miles southwest of Portand's downtown.
• The Washington DC temple is in Kensington, Maryland, a different state, about 2 miles from the DC border
• The Atlanta Georgia temple is located in Sandy Springs, Georgia, about 12 miles north of downtown Atlanta
• The Medford Oregon temple is located in Central Point, Oregon, about 4.5 miles northeast of downtown Medford
• The Memphis Tennessee temple is located in Bartlett, TN, about 13 miles northeast of downtown Memphis
• The Los Angeles temple is actually located in Los Angeles, amazingly enough