Troubling Article Re: Temple in Texas

[smac97]

Inside the bitter fight between the Mormons and small town America: Church accused of 'bullying' picturesque hamlets into letting them build towering temples

Quote

When the rural neighborhood of Lone Mountain, Nevada, stood up to the might of the Mormon church, they may have anticipated an explosive argument.

But not literally.

'We've had people setting off fireworks,' says resident Erin LeDoe. 'It was a neighbor who lives up against the mountain. They were setting off what were basically large cannons, right outside her backyard.'

Those behind the pyrotechnics are thought to be supporters of a planned Mormon mega temple - and members of the church itself.

Their target was a local woman who had fiercely opposed it, along with many of her neighbors, on the grounds that the proposed 216-foot tall building would dwarf their homes and destroy their peaceful idyll.

I'm sort of having difficulty lending credence to this story.

Quote

Despite its name, Lone Mountain is just one of several rural areas across America taking on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), commonly referred to as the Mormon church, over its plans to plant 'humongous' temples in the heart of their communities.

Residents claim the proposals ride roughshod over local planning rules, designed to preserve the character of these unique settlements.

"Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

Quote

Yet simply by defending their land, locals have ignited the ire of their religious neighbors, who have labeled opponents as 'bigots' and threatened to sue those who resist.

"{D}efending their land" = "Opposing the Church's efforts to apply the law in the same way any other religious group can."

I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought.

Quote

And while the church flexes its legal muscle, it mobilizes its members by issuing rallying cries to descend on town halls from far and wide in a bid to show their projects have mass support.

Ecclesiastical leaders say the size of these temples is 'essential' to their religious practice - and therefore protected by law.

But many of their own members have poured scorn on these arguments, while others have suggested it is merely a cynical ploy to bolster the church's vast real estate portfolio.

As neighbor is pitted against neighbor, DailyMail.com lifts the lid on a land grab that has turned toxic.

"{T}he church flexes its legal muscle" =  "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

Quote

Scared into silence

LeDoe has become used to the name-calling.

Among other things, opponents of the proposed 87,000-square-foot Mormon temple have been called agents of the devil and 'a bunch of dumb monkeys'.

But some of the 'intimidation tactics', as LeDoe calls them, have become downright sinister.

Just last week, one of her neighbors had a banner on his property 'slashed up' by a church lackey, while others had cars honking in their driveway as LDS members 'stared them down'.

'It's kind of scary,' says LeDoe. 'It's like, "you better stay silent, or we're going to come for you".'

Troubling stuff, if true.  Very troubling.  And wholly incompatible with how Latter-day Saints ought to behave.

"If true" being the operative component.  I confess some skepticism about this stuff.  

Quote

For some, it appears to be working. The woman who was given the impromptu firework display said she has camera footage showing the fireworks were set off from her neighbors' property, who are church members, and aimed in the direction of her home.

Given the timing of the incident - and the fact it had never happened before - she believes it was done to 'intimidate' her. She did not wish to be named due to fear of reprisals.

Businesses are also afraid of speaking out. After voicing her concerns about the temple, local photographer Victoria Bremmer was given a one-star Google review along with the comment: 'Victoria discriminates against other people because of their religious beliefs.'

Hmm.

Quote

The proposed temple, quite apart from towering above anything else in the town, includes plans for 514 parking spaces in a lot that would be lit up from 5am to 11pm.

The local Northwest Rural Preservation Association, of which LeDoe is treasurer, fears the area's undisturbed dark skies would be lost forever if the temple was built.

'We're not saying you cannot build here,' LeDoe says. 'We're not bigots. It has nothing to do with religion. We have other churches that have developed in the area that have worked with the community.

'We're just asking the LDS to follow the same rules as everyone else. Don't come in and steamroller us and build something that is not compatible with our neighborhood.'

I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this.

Quote

Grassroots mobilization

Mormon leaders have also unleashed an extraordinary grassroots campaign, drawing 'unprecedented' crowds to town hall meetings usually attended by one man and his dog.

On May 14, a crucial planning vote in Lone Mountain was swarmed by LDS members dressed in navy blue who had answered a call to arms from the church's official Las Vegas Facebook page.

On Tuesday, a meeting in Fairview, a small town in north Texas, drew 2,500 Mormons dressed in white as residents debated plans for a new mega temple.

That is despite church figures showing that only around 70 of the Fairview's 11,000 population are LDS - and these are believed to be overestimates.

The slick hierarchy of the church means its leaders are able to rally its troops at the snap of their fingers, with their flock descending on Fairview from across the region. 

Yeah, overwrought.

Quote

"Megatemples" are probably intended to evoke the notion of "Megachurches," which involve thousands of people all arriving and departing around the same time.  A temple would not have such a thing happening.

Quote

DailyMail.com has seen letters sent to rank-and-file members from local church leaders in neighboring towns and cities including McKinney, Dallas, Sherman and Cross Roads.

The correspondence noted that opposition to its planned 16-storey temple 'has been louder and more numerous than our support' and demanded 15,000 emails be sent to the town planner from all members aged 12 and over.

"Demanded."

Quote

Church faithful were advised to bring camping gear in anticipation that not all would get into the 300-capacity venue, which had been hired specially by town officials as part of a number of 'crowd control' measures.

The city says 87 percent of the 350 messages it has received from Fairview residents about the temple have opposed it.

But it's received more than twice as many from non-residents, with 89 percent of those messages in favor of it. 

It is this form of lobbying that has most angered Fairview Mayor Henry Lessner, who has vowed to block the project based on the fact that the proposed 174-foot structure far exceeds the 35-foot limit imposed in the residential zone it seeks to join.

'LDS folks are being told to come from up to 300 miles away,' he told DailyMail.com. 'That really upsets me because it's none of their business.

'They want a show of force, but it probably makes us dig our heels in harder.'

It looks like both sides of the dispute are trying to rally public opinion.

Quote

'We do this all the time...and we never lose'

Lessner added that a church attorney had already threatened legal action if Fairview voted against their temple, describing the move as 'bullying'.

'Their attorney basically said, "we're going to do this and if you don't let us, we're going to sue you",' the mayor claims.

'Some local LDS officials have said "if you don't like it, you can't move, and LDS folks will move in and buy your houses".

'That is completely arrogant.'

Having a hard time taking this at face value.

Quote

Indeed, the church sledgehammer has been wielded by its lawyers - often to great effect.

Amid threats of legal action, the Las Vegas Planning Commission approved the Lone Mountain temple under the condition that it meet the neighborhood's lighting standards.

In other words, both sides made concessions.

This is, apparently, a bad thing.

Quote

Egelholl and other members of the neighborhood group claim they have been personally threatened with legal action by church leaders.

'They told us that they have a right to build their house of worship,' she says. 'They said we should take this very seriously, that they need to be accommodated. They also said "we do these kinds of cases all the time…and we don't lose".'

Uh-huh.

Quote

A place of worship or wealth generator?

The church's argument is based on the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects houses of worship from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws.

To this extent, its leadership has been at pains to explain that the size and scale of their temples are essential to their worship, with the height of the steeples 'drawing their eyes towards heaven'.

As an integral part of their religion, the church argues, the height of temples should not be bound by local planning restrictions.

Yet at least half a dozen Mormon temples across North America do not have steeples, which opponents say contradicts their claims.

As to why they need to be built in these rural, residential areas, church representatives say these peaceful surroundings are most conducive to their style of worship.

But others have offered alternative theories.

Joel Schuh, an accountant who lives with his wife Jennifer in Fairview, believes any religious arguments are 'a complete ruse'.

'My opinion is that this is financially beneficial for them,' he says. 'If they buy land and real estate, they generate wealth.'

Schuh believes affluent rural residential areas are being targeted because planning laws would prohibit other commercial buildings being constructed next to the temples, protecting them from any potential depreciation in value.

I'm curious about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this.

That is what the planning commission asked and the Church agreed to. The proposed plans for Lone Mountain House of the Lord fall within every existing building code for the area. The county would have to ignore their own codes to deny the Church a building permit.

If Church members really did this they would've been cited or even arrested as arial fireworks are illegal, it is 110 outside, and aiming them at someone else's property could be considered attempted arson.

[The Nehor]

This article is from the Daily Mail. You can safely assume at least half of it is false.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

This article is from the Daily Mail. You can safely assume at least half of it is false.

I agree.  Any info from the Daily Mail should be confirmed by a more reliable source, preferably multiple ones.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought.

It’s the Daily Mail.

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

I haven't seen anything other than mainstream new reports for the Nevada temple. Regarding the McKinney (Texas) temple, though, I came across a document with "minutes" from some planning commission meeting from Fairview (wish I could find it on the city's official website again). This document described a handful of exceptions that the city had made for churches in relation to their height requirements. I noted that the tallest exception was for our own meetinghouse (the one that would neighbor the temple) at about 70 feet tall. Other churches had been granted exceptions for steeples/bell towers between 50 and 70 feet tall. The church is currently requesting an exception for a 170 foot tall steeple (and other height stats related to the building) -- 2 to 3 times higher than any other church in the community.

I agree that the church should be treated the same as any other religious group. In this case, it appears to me that the church is going way above and beyond what any other church in Fairview has done. And then the church is asking members to flood Fairview with letters and petitions in support of such an unprecedented exception. I'm not sure I understand why we are stubbornly insisting on this exact temple design when we have many other temple designs that could fit within the current precedent.

Edit to add: here's the link that used to bring up the document from Fairview's website. https://fairviewtexas.org/pdf/Agendas_Minutes/Agenda-with-Memos-Reports-6-4-24.pdf

Edited June 19 by MrShorty
added link, even though it no longer works for me

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

'My opinion is that this is financially beneficial for them,' he says. 'If they buy land and real estate, they generate wealth.'….

protecting them from any potential depreciation in value

This doesn’t make sense unless he is talking about tithing and the last bit makes it obvious he isn’t.  Real estate generates wealth when one leases or sells it and the Church doesn’t intend to do that for temples.  I highly doubt they use them as collateral on loans or any such thing.

Edited June 19 by Calm

[morgan.deane]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Inside the bitter fight between the Mormons and small town America: Church accused of 'bullying' picturesque hamlets into letting them build towering temples

I'm sort of having difficulty lending credence to this story.

"Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

"{D}efending their land" = "Opposing the Church's efforts to apply the law in the same way any other religious group can."

I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought.

"{T}he church flexes its legal muscle" =  "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can."

Troubling stuff, if true.  Very troubling.  And wholly incompatible with how Latter-day Saints ought to behave.

"If true" being the operative component.  I confess some skepticism about this stuff.  

Hmm.

I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this.

Yeah, overwrought.

"Megatemples" are probably intended to evoke the notion of "Megachurches," which involve thousands of people all arriving and departing around the same time.  A temple would not have such a thing happening.

"Demanded."

It looks like both sides of the dispute are trying to rally public opinion.

Having a hard time taking this at face value.

In other words, both sides made concessions.

This is, apparently, a bad thing.

Uh-huh.

I'm curious about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Where do they get 16 stories? I assume they are referring to the height of the steeple. Yet its still just a steeple, not a 16 story building. The opponents of the Lone Mountain temple do that too. They try to compare the steeple to the Durango casino, when there is a big difference between the two. Its very disingenuous. 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

Yet its still just a steeple, not a 16 story building.

A lone figure looks out across the town, its residents appear like ants far below him. Peering through the slit-like window 16 storeys above the ground, President Nelson gleefully waits for the next person to get close enough to shine his laser pointer at.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t make sense unless he is talking about tithing and the last bit makes it obvious he isn’t.  Real estate generates wealth when one leases or sells it and the Church doesn’t intend to do that for temples.  I highly doubt they use them as collateral on loans or any such thing.

It's just the "greedy Jew" trope reframed and aimed at us.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's just the "greedy Jew" trope reframed and aimed at us.

Not seeing the criticism “Mormon leaders are using temples to generate wealth” as saying “all Mormons are greedy”.

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not seeing the criticism “Mormon leaders are using temples to generate wealth” as saying “all Mormons are greedy”.

Alright.

[Vanguard]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Despite its name, Lone Mountain is just one of several rural areas across America taking on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), commonly referred to as the Mormon church, over its plans to plant 'humongous' temples in the heart of their communities.

"...rural areas across America..."?! Lone Mountain?! From Google Maps Lone Mountain looks about as ugly a packed suburban greater Las Vegas community as one can get. Urban center? - no. But rural? Good grief... ;o

Edited June 19 by Vanguard

[california boy]

It really is a shame that the Church continues to use architecture of it's temples in a way that consistently causes ill will and division within a community when there are other architectural options that have been used in the past that would not cause this division.  It seems so counter productive to what I believe a temple should be conveying.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

19 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

"...rural areas across America..."?! Lone Mountain?! From Google Maps Lone Mountain looks about as ugly a packed suburban greater Las Vegas community as one can get. Urban center? - no. But rural? Good grief... ;o

Lone Mountain appears to be an unincorporated area of Clark County, but it is surrounded on three sides by the incorporated city of Las Vegas, and is within the Census-defined boundaries of the Las Vegas urbanized area.  

edited: corrected name of county

Edited June 19 by Stormin' Mormon

[ZealouslyStriving]

40 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

"...rural areas across America..."?! Lone Mountain?! From Google Maps Lone Mountain looks about as ugly a packed suburban greater Las Vegas community as one can get. Urban center? - no. But rural? Good grief... ;o

It's not rural. The houses, for now, are a little further apart and there are some undeveloped plots, but rural it ain't.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

It really is a shame that the Church continues to use architecture of it's temples in a way that consistently causes ill will and division within a community when there are other architectural options that have been used in the past that would not cause this division.  It seems so counter productive to what I believe a temple should be conveying.  

This assumes the majority of opposition is due to the architecture.  Is there any way to demonstrate this?  Do chapels have to go through the same approvals process with city public meetings and such?  Temples would get more publicity, so that would likely increase antimormon activity, so I wouldn’t expect to see comparable numbers for chapels and temples even if opposition was mostly antimormon driven, but still there should be an indication if antimormon is is strong in the area or not.  

There is also the problem that it could be the antimormons inflating/inflaming concerns over buildings so while the majority who oppose are not antimormon, they wouldn’t have been concerned if the hadn’t been exposed to the spin the antimormons put on it.

Not saying the opposition is antimormon driven.  Just wondering if we can reliably conclude if the Church was adaptable there would be much difference and therefore the opposition is on the Church for not being adaptable.

Do we have an example of where the Church was adaptable from the beginning and saw little resistance?

PS:  I always use “antimormons” to mean 1) people I believe who want to destroy the Church or want the Church gone for whatever reason (they could be very reasonable about it, such as some evangelical antimormon ministries) and 2) people who make money off of criticizing, mocking or otherwise degrading the Church.  People who are critical or even hate the Church on a personal level, but don’t fall under those two categories I just throw in the catch all “critics”, which covers for me those who do intense, emotional criticism to consistent mild criticism with little positive to say.

Edited June 19 by Calm

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

Where do they get 16 stories? I assume they are referring to the height of the steeple. Yet its still just a steeple, not a 16 story building. The opponents of the Lone Mountain temple do that too. They try to compare the steeple to the Durango casino, when there is a big difference between the two. Its very disingenuous. 

I think the locals are concerned about the lighting impact.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

This assumes the majority of opposition is due to the architecture.  Is there any way to demonstrate this?  Do chapels have to go through the same approvals process with city public meetings and such?  Temples would get more publicity, so that would likely increase antimormon activity, so I wouldn’t expect to see comparable numbers for chapels and temples even if opposition was mostly antimormon driven.  There is also the problem that it could be the antimormons inflating/inflaming concerns over buildings so while the majority who oppose are not antimormon, they wouldn’t have been concerned if the hadn’t been exposed to the spin the antimormons put on it.

Not saying the opposition is antimormon driven.  Just wondering if we can reliably conclude if the Church was adaptable there would be much difference and therefore the opposition is on the Church for not being adaptable.

Do we have an example of where the Church was adaptable from the beginning and saw little resistance?

I think the jump to anti-mormon is a bit of a stretch. Far more likely is just plain old NIMBYism and CAVE (citizens against virtually everything) people. Unless anti-mormonism is at work in Provo too: https://www.fox13now.com/2014/11/19/lds-church-reaches-compromise-with-provo-residents-on-plan-to-expand-mtc

[Stormin' Mormon]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 Far more likely is just plain old NIMBYism and CAVE (citizens against virtually everything) people.

Irrelevant tangent: When I was getting my Master's degree in City Planning in the early aughts, I encountered the acronym BANANA, which stands for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.  That's the acronym I've used throughout my professional life (when I find myself in informal settings, of course).  But the NIMBY wikipedia page tells me that BANANA is more common in the UK, while CAVE is more common in the US.  Which now makes me wonder how I picked up BANANA from graduate coursework in Southern Arizona.  

Edited June 19 by Stormin' Mormon

[10THAmendment]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

It really is a shame that the Church continues to use architecture of it's temples in a way that consistently causes ill will and division within a community when there are other architectural options that have been used in the past that would not cause this division.  It seems so counter productive to what I believe a temple should be conveying.  

I think you’re really overestimating how many people actually care about the steeple height. As stated by others here, the opposition purely consists of the NIMBY and CAVE phenomena. This is proven by the speakers’ comments at the city council meetings.  Lots of people saying to keep Fairview, TX “country” and that the temple height would block views of nature. Uh, the DFW metroplex is not AT ALL “country” and there are no views of nature to obstruct. There are water towers and some trees. 

[Damien the Leper]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Not seeing the criticism “Mormon leaders are using temples to generate wealth” as saying “all Mormons are greedy”.

It was a sleazy way to bandwagon.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This assumes the majority of opposition is due to the architecture.  Is there any way to demonstrate this?  Do chapels have to go through the same approvals process with city public meetings and such?  Temples would get more publicity, so that would likely increase antimormon activity, so I wouldn’t expect to see comparable numbers for chapels and temples even if opposition was mostly antimormon driven.  There is also the problem that it could be the antimormons inflating/inflaming concerns over buildings so while the majority who oppose are not antimormon, they wouldn’t have been concerned if the hadn’t been exposed to the spin the antimormons put on it.

Not saying the opposition is antimormon driven.  Just wondering if we can reliably conclude if the Church was adaptable there would be much difference and therefore the opposition is on the Church for not being adaptable.

Do we have an example of where the Church was adaptable from the beginning and saw little resistance?

 

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

I think you’re really overestimating how many people actually care about the steeple height. As stated by others here, the opposition purely consists of the NIMBY and CAVE phenomena. This is proven by the speakers’ comments at the city council meetings.  Lots of people saying to keep Fairview, TX “country” and that the temple height would block views of nature. Uh, the DFW metroplex is not AT ALL “country” and there are no views of nature to obstruct. There are water towers and some trees. 

Is all I know is that every single suburban community the Church has placed or tried to place one of these temples with huge steeples, people have complained and the Church has resorted to threatening legal battles to get what it wants.  Yes they have every right to try and get approvals and fight for what they want.  But to me, it defeats the very goal of a temple and seems to be tearing communities and neighbors apart. Is it worth the battles?  I guess it depends on what goal the Church has in fighting these battles.  But it seems to me, winning these battles also increases the anti-Mormon feelings and gives reasons to people to hold onto those feelings.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the jump to anti-mormon is a bit of a stretch. Far more likely is just plain old NIMBYism and CAVE (citizens against virtually everything) people. Unless anti-mormonism is at work in Provo too: https://www.fox13now.com/2014/11/19/lds-church-reaches-compromise-with-provo-residents-on-plan-to-expand-mtc

I wouldn’t assume it is the same factors in each case, but my guess when a building controversy pops up has always been it’s mostly the above.  It would just be nice to be able to have such stats on it to satisfy my curiosity as well as to know what the Church might be able to do to remove much of the opposition.  It just seems unlikely they could do much if it’s NIMBYism and CAVE and/or antimormonism driving opposition where if it’s truly architecture they might be able to if they decided to go for a different, but equally memorable look (Cardston is my favorite temple inside and out and I love the outside of the Hawaiian and Mesa temples, never been inside them, also like the Paris temple).  I could so go for a truly Mountain of the Lord look for our temples.

Edited June 20 by Calm

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is all I know is that every single suburban community the Church has placed or tried to place one of these temples with huge steeples,

Do we have any recent examples (last 20 years) that started out without a steeple or with smaller steeples inside the US to compare community reactions?

I think using temples outside the US makes comparing population reactions inappropriate as dynamics could be quite different in that outside the US we are often viewed as an American religion, which can have some pretty intense positive or negative reactions.

Edited June 20 by Calm