Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Last week the Town Council voted to approve the final plat: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-votes-finalize-lds-temple-lawsuit-stall-construction/287-7627e8a0-cc7f-4c44-ab18-3720bb59eeff

Now, approving the final plat is mostly just a formality. In fact, the town's statutes state that unless there is a material defect, the plans are automatically approved after 30 days following their submission, even if no vote is held. The planning and zoning board voted unanimously to accept the place, and the Town Council did the same. However, as indicated in the article, the (new) mayor included the following as a prelude to his proposal to accept the plat:

The Fairview Temple should be a symbol of love and community, a place where neighbors come together in mutual respect. Instead, the Fairview Temple has become a symbol of division, bullying, and a refusal to be good neighbors…When the conditional use permit was approved, the council inadvertently left out the removal of two parking lot lights on the north side of the property. These lights shined directly into the homes of families living on Forest Oaks. The town reached out and asked the LDS Church if they would, out of the kindness and consideration for the people living next door, their neighbors, take the poles down. The church answered no. With the approved CUP, the LDS Church has every legal right to keep those lights, just as they have every legal right to build a 120-foot steeple. But having the legal right doesn't make it the right thing to do. A true neighbor doesn't ask, ‘What can I get away with?’ A true neighbor asks, ‘How can I live in harmony with the people around me?’ That’s what makes this process for me so disappointing.
 

Unfortunately, the mayor’s comments mischaracterize both the process and the facts regarding the Fairview Temple’s lighting. The town council did not “inadvertently” leave out this issue; the council explicitly reviewed the lighting plan as part of the conditional use permit process, and the two lights in question were discussed during the meeting.

For safety reasons, the Church (understandably) wants to have visibility its parking lot during operational hours. The Church accommodated the town's request that all parking fixtures be shielded to prevent glare, and they happily agreed to use only color temperatures specified by the town's lighting ordinances. In complying with these requests, the Church anticipates producing zero foot-candles of light on adjacent properties.

And let's not forget that (1) the Church already exceeds the minimum setback requirements from the homes in question to begin with, and (2) these properties will be further shielded by foliage which currently exists and which the Church will be adding as part of its landscape design plans. 

The claim that the lights "shine directly into the homes of families" is factually incorrect, and the mayor's effort to portray the Church's adherence to an approved, code-compliant plan as "bullying" or a refusal to be a good neighbor is not only unfair - it undermines the integrity of the council's own process. 

Rights and relationships are not mutually exclusive. But moving the goalposts after the council already approved a code-compliant plan - and then claiming you “forgot” to include a condition that was specifically discussed on the record - isn’t fairness, it’s politics. 

 

That would be a good OP ED or letter to the editor 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

That would be a good OP ED or letter to the editor 

I second that.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Unfortunately, the mayor’s comments mischaracterize both the process and the facts

Seems to be a pattern here.  I wonder if he does this for other issues.

From your previous post…

Quote

A couple of quotes, followed by my thoughts, in red:

To its credit, the church did participate in a mediation process with the town. We appreciate that step. Mediation is never easy, and entering it shows a willingness to listen. However, it did not result in an agreement that ended our community’s concerns. And today, litigation continues — an outcome that I believe neither side truly wants.

To be fair, litigation only continues today because the Town Council members who unanimously agreed to the proposal developed during mediation failed to vote as they said they would.

While a supermajority of the Town Council held their noses and voted for the proposal, two council members - including the incoming Mayor - voted against it.

 

Edited September 8, 2025 by Calm

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Seems to be a pattern here.  I wonder if he does this for other issues.

You can hear the current mayor's explanation for why he voted against the proposal here (note: if I messed up the link, it's at the 5:07:04 mark).

For those who don't want to listen, my rough transcript of his comments are as follows:

I was involved in the mediated agreement back in November. When we had that mediated agreement, one of the provisions of the agreement was that we would go back to the town and have a public hearing, which we did.

In that public hearing we heard citizen after citizen, resident after resident say they did not like the height of the building. It was my hope, and I think it was the mayors hope too, that the LDS church hearing that you know – and I hear so many times from Melissa McNeely that we want to be good neighbors – that we thought after hearing these pleas after saying that and reading it this in the newspaper that they would on their own accord lower the the the size of the steeple and they did not.

And again, I just keep thinking of this being good neighbors. And I'm not going to tell the story about me growing up in Oak Park. But the one thing I will say about it is we lived in a non-Jewish neighborhood. And we out of respect, we may have had the right to do it, but we didn't do any we didn't do any activities on Saturday this Sabbath because my dad said, "Be a good neighbor."

Um, this council as a team is wiser than one person. And I disagree with my council members on this, the way I'm going to vote, but I support the process and I can tell you they did not do this um this vote out of fear. They did it out of concern for the best interest of the town. But with that, I'm voting against the ordinance.

 

Basically, he's saying (without technically saying) that his original vote to approve the mediated version of the temple was really a conditional vote based on public reception of the mediated agreement.

I suppose that's how he justifies not having entered into mediation in bad faith, but it feels more like political cover than genuine principle. If mediation only “counts” until the crowd reacts, then what exactly is the point of the process? It starts to look less like leadership and more like hedging bets.

And frankly, the “good neighbor” framing only highlights the contradiction. On one hand, he invokes personal anecdotes about respect and compromise, but on the other, he punts on making a clear decision when it actually matters. It’s as if the responsibility to compromise should rest entirely with the other side while the council reserves the right to walk away whenever the optics get tough.

If that’s how agreements are going to be treated, then mediation becomes less about resolving disputes and more about staging another round of politics.

 

[bluebell]

I never go on reddit for anything, and the desire to go on there and look at latter-day saint topics is even less, but I saw this headline come up on a google search and it made me laugh.

 

You just can't fight dumb.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

suppose that's how he justifies not having entered into mediation in bad faith, but it feels more like political cover than genuine principle.

It comes across as manipulation to me, as in ‘I am going to look like the cooperative one so no one can complain about me since I can depend on others to pressure them into agreeing to what I want; I bet those guys want to be liked enough that it’s not a risk to not insist on my way when I have the opportunity to do so’ and then he eggs on the negative.

Edited September 10, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

Just saw this news - https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/23/fairview-texas-temple-begins-construction-grounbreaking/.  The temple is officially under construction.  I guess all the lawsuits have been resolved.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

Just saw this news - https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/23/fairview-texas-temple-begins-construction-grounbreaking/.  The temple is officially under construction.  I guess all the lawsuits have been resolved.

I don’t think the town council deserves any thanks but it was nice for the church to offer it anyway. 

[Amulek]

On 2/24/2026 at 8:09 AM, webbles said:

Just saw this news - https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/23/fairview-texas-temple-begins-construction-grounbreaking/.  The temple is officially under construction.  I guess all the lawsuits have been resolved.

I meant to pull the case after it completed (here), but I've been super busy for the last few months and haven't made it around to the courthouse.

But yes, the Church held a small groundbreaking ceremony which was comprised of a member of the Area Presidency and a handful of youth. Nobody from local government was in attendance, though I don't know if they were even invited. My understanding is that it was an intentionally low-key event.

 

[Notatbm]

I guess steeples weren’t necessary after all. Why does the church lie?

temple on left is a rendering of Austria temple. No steeple. 

 

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I guess steeples weren’t necessary after all. Why does the church lie?

temple on left is a rendering of Austria temple. No steeple. 

 

 

Has the church said that steeples are necessary somewhere?  They have a lot of temples without them.  The first was built in 1919.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Has the church said that steeples are necessary somewhere?  They have a lot of temples without them.  The first was built in 1919.

I take it you didn’t follow the Fairview steeple fiasco. The church lawyers argued steeples were neccessary. Also local area authorities sent out correspondence to the temple district encouraging members write in and mention steeple heights important to worship. 
 

listen to the city council arguments by church lawyers. 

also- if you have the time
 

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I take it you didn’t follow the Fairview steeple fiasco. The church lawyers argued steeples were neccessary. Also local area authorities sent out correspondence to the temple district encouraging members write in and mention steeple heights important to worship. 
 

listen to the city council arguments by church lawyers. 

also- if you have the time
 

 

I remember a member trying to make that argument and then other members kind of making fun of it. I didn’t remember it being a lawyer for the church. Do you have a transcript? I’m not gonna watch a video. 

[Notatbm]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I remember a member trying to make that argument and then other members kind of making fun of it. I didn’t remember it being a lawyer for the church. Do you have a transcript? I’m not gonna watch a video. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/rpsnipVagc

sorry but it’s a video. It’s only two ish minutes. I know ur not gonna watch it, but it is of the lds lawyer testimony to city council 

Edited March 24 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/rpsnipVagc

sorry but it’s a video. It’s only two ish minutes. I know ur not gonna watch it, but it is of the lds lawyer testimony to city council 

I listen to some of that link. He doesn’t ever talk about the temple needing a steeple that I heard but he does talk about how the height is important. Is there another steeple quote that I’m missing?

[Notatbm]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I listen to some of that link. He doesn’t ever talk about the temple needing a steeple that I heard but he does talk about how the height is important. Is there another steeple quote that I’m missing?

That’s the point. Church steeple height is important. Is what he argues. Nowhere in our doctrine does it say that. He is lying. 

one min mark

Edited March 24 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

That’s the point. Church steeple height is important. Is what he argues. Nowhere in our doctrine does it say that. He is lying. 

one min mark

I don’t think he’s trying to argue that doctrinally temples have to be certain height.

[Notatbm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think he’s trying to argue that doctrinally temples have to be certain height.

He was arguing it for this temple. That was what about 98% of this fiasco was about. The church took the position the steeple had to be the height they are demanding be accepted. It was pitched as a religious belief which it isn’t for Mormons… so he is lying 

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

He was arguing it for this temple. That was what about 98% of this fiasco was about. The church took the position the steeple had to be the height they are demanding be accepted. It was pitched as a religious belief which it isn’t for Mormons… so he is lying 

No, I get that what you are saying he said, I just don’t agree that’s what he was saying.  I think he was saying that height is important, I don’t think he was saying it was a doctrinal issue.  

[Notatbm]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I get that what you are saying he said, I just don’t agree that’s what he was saying.  I think he was saying that height is important, I don’t think he was saying it was a doctrinal issue.  

Ok/yea that is the discussion. 
 

in your entire life in the church have you ever been taught anything about the importance of having a steeple on a temple much less anything about the height of it or whether there is even a steeple at all? Answer is definitely no. This guy is selling it to the city council as it being important thus necessary for Mormons free practice of religion. We all know that’s not true therefore it is a lie. He is a lawyer representing the church therefore he is lying to the city council on behalf of the prophet. 

Edited March 24 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I remember a member trying to make that argument and then other members kind of making fun of it. I didn’t remember it being a lawyer for the church. Do you have a transcript? I’m not gonna watch a video. 

Not a transcript but two separate letters that went out from the church area authorities (so basically the 1st presidency since they put it on church letterhead and sent to multiple areas) to encourage members to send in letters to the fairview city council as a show of support for the temple. One of the items they asked to be included in correspondence was the importance of the steeple to worship in the mormon temple. As if that is even a thing. 

 

 

Edited March 24 by Notatbm
highlighting

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Not a transcript but two separate letters that went out from the church area authorities (so basically the 1st presidency since they put it on church letterhead and sent to multiple areas) to encourage members to send in letters to the fairview city council as a show of support for the temple. One of the items they asked to be included in correspondence was the importance of the steeple to worship in the mormon temple. As if that is even a thing. 

 

 

Yeah, I remember this.  We discussed it at length a while back. This was what I meant when I said that some people were kind of making fun of the idea that a steeple was doctrinal because it's so obviously not.  I still wouldn't consider this to be a lie though.  I think whoever wrote this believes it.  Being generous, there is also the chance that they were thinking of height and bearing (because you can still get multiple stories high and be an impressive building without one) but didn't apply the thought beyond the problem with the temple in question so 'steeple' is what came out.  

I know you are prone to seeing the worst possible motives in the leadership of the church but this "they lied!" accusation just seems like a bunch of nothing.  They said something a little weird?  Sure.  They didn't think this line of reasoning all the way through?  Probably.  They forgot all of the temples that exist that don't have steeples? Definitely.  

But lied in some nefarious plot to get their way through subterfuge?  Nah.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But lied in some nefarious plot to get their way through subterfuge?  Nah.

Too easy to find contradictory info of that interpretation.  Who would believe a lie like that would work and not backfire?

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, I remember this.  We discussed it at length a while back. This was what I meant when I said that some people were kind of making fun of the idea that a steeple was doctrinal because it's so obviously not.  I still wouldn't consider this to be a lie though.  I think whoever wrote this believes it.  Being generous, there is also the chance that they were thinking of height and bearing (because you can still get multiple stories high and be an impressive building without one) but didn't apply the thought beyond the problem with the temple in question so 'steeple' is what came out.  

I know you are prone to seeing the worst possible motives in the leadership of the church but this "they lied!" accusation just seems like a bunch of nothing.  They said something a little weird?  Sure.  They didn't think this line of reasoning all the way through?  Probably.  They forgot all of the temples that exist that don't have steeples? Definitely.  

But lied in some nefarious plot to get their way through subterfuge?  Nah.

They (the area authorities) thought it out enough to publish letters to all the stakes in their area of responsibility and sending it to all members with instructions on what to say. 
 

since two plus maybe more area authorities were involved, those letters were sent out likely at the direction of the 1st presidency 

they lied about the importance of the giant steeple they wanted. 

Edited March 25 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

They (the area authorities) thought it out enough to publish letters to all the stakes in their area of responsibility and sending it to all members with instructions on what to say. 
 

since two plus maybe more area authorities were involved, those letters were sent out likely at the direction of the 1st presidency 

they lied about the importance of the giant steeple they wanted. 

I understand that you believe they have nefarious motives.  I don't see evidence of that in these exchanges.