- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wanted to share this article based on the title alone. There are some zoning squabbles over the location of the proposed new temple in tiny Cody Wyoming. A sign from a group that is apposed to the temple was defaced with a crude drawing of Satan. It is suspected that the vandalism was done by a church member.
A local bishop was quoted comparing the pushback to the zoning to anti-black segregation policies before the civil rights movement and anti-Semitism.
It is almost funny that “Mormons Behaving Badly” consists of someone drawing cartoon Satan with sharpies and another being generally tone deaf about our own persecution complex. Even when we run amok, we are pretty nice about it.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the instances of signs being stolen or vandalized was some sort of false flag thing. https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_42647158-355b-11ee-b6e8-f3e1726f834b.html I’m not at all surprised but I’m greatly concerned that the church is framing things as a case of religious freedom.
Quote:LDS representatives also said potential litigation would be costly for the city and its citizens, who would likely lose in the courts, and cited a federal law protecting religious rights.
That sounds more like a mob boss “requesting” that a business pay protection money and less like a religion.
There are zoning laws. The church’s plans would violate them. It’s not about religious freedom. “Religious freedom” increasingly feels like an excuse to try to operate outside the law.
I’m not familiar with Cody but one side of the story is claiming that it’s a residential zone and that both the height of the building and the light pollution would violate existing zoning laws. How does the church respond? Getting salty, threatening to outspend a small town in court, and trying to bend the concept of religious freedom in an effort to ignore zoning laws. Really?
nibbler wrote:
There are zoning laws. The church’s plans would violate them. It’s not about religious freedom. “Religious freedom” increasingly feels like an excuse to try to operate outside the law.I’m not familiar with Cody but one side of the story is claiming that it’s a residential zone and that both the height of the building and the light pollution would violate existing zoning laws. How does the church respond? Getting salty, threatening to outspend a small town in court, and trying to bend the concept of religious freedom in an effort to ignore zoning laws. Really?
Interesting. Did the church get some sort of exemption for the height and the light pollution? I would think that all that would have needed to be ironed out and dialed in BEFORE announcing the location. It’s not like the church leadership don’t have lots of experience building buildings that comply with codes. Did somebody drop the ball?
The speculation I’ve heard is that the site was desired because the temple would have been prominently featured on the drive to Yellowstone. In other words it would have doubled as a billboard for the church. I’ve heard that the church was asked to change locations to avoid any zoning concerns but the church was unwilling.
https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_42647158-355b-11ee-b6e8-f3e1726f834b.html https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_b30af700-355c-11ee-884f-435d17a7aca0.html From these I glean that the church’s argument is that the temple structure itself is only two stories high, so it is in compliance with the residential zoning laws. They do not consider the tower to be a part of the temple. So it’s a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law and the church was trying to get by on a technicality that the tower didn’t need to be considered.
According to the articles, one concession that the church offered was to drop the 101 foot tower by 16 feet, which apparently would still have it be “three times the maximum height allowed.” I’ve read elsewhere that the church claimed that lowering the tower any further would have compromised the structure, which I translate into having to redraw the plans from scratch.
It’s a moot point now anyway. The church got its way with the design. The church is going to be allowed to have their 101 foot tower. They didn’t even lower the tower to 85 feet as a concession. The only concession they’ve made was over the lighting. The exterior lighting is to be shut off between 11PM and 5AM. God, or the threats, came through.
This is the proposed design:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/cody-wyoming-temple/ This brings up a related tangent. The church built many, many temples that are similar in design to the Monticello Utah temple. For reference:
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/monticello-utah-temple/ The church appears to have moved on from the smaller designs, all of the more recent temples are now following much larger designs again. The smaller design temple probably wouldn’t have created as many issues in Cody. None of those temples have massive towers. The height of the smaller temples is in something that is more spire-like.
I’m sure the church didn’t win many non-member friends in Cody with their approach and I’m sure church members will see it all as persecution. History repeats itself.
I remember similar complaints over excessive lighting for the Las Vegas Temple when I lived in LV as a believing member. I generally had the idea that non-member neighbors should feel fortunate that they have the temple to increase their property values.
Something like, “If they don’t like it they can sell their home to Mormons and make a tidy profit.”
I was not sympathetic to their concerns.
😥 Roy wrote:
I remember similar complaints over excessive lighting for the Las Vegas Temple when I lived in LV as a believing member.I generally had the idea that non-member neighbors should feel fortunate that they have the temple to increase their property values.
Something like, “If they don’t like it they can sell their home to Mormons and make a tidy profit.”
I was not sympathetic to their concerns.
😥
I think what has shocked the church leadership in this case is that it’s not just non-members kicking up dust, some of this opposition is coming from members (as per the article). I think there’s also a perception the members who are serving in local government aren’t doing enough, but I also think they’re shocked and don’t know what to do and keep their positions. I think the church expects this sort of thing in areas with smaller church populations, but tends to get their way where the church is larger. But this also isn’t the first time something like this happened – the church moved the whole location of the Tooele Utah Temple because of opposition from mostly Mormon neighbors. In that case the church said they wanted to avoid contention and division, but in this case they seem to be more willing to stand their ground (which I think is a mistake).
If I remember correctly, the church was going to do something to expand the MTC years ago. A church member had an objection to the plan and asked his local leadership if it was ok to oppose the expansion civically. He was assured that he could oppose the church’s plan without fear of punishment – similar to how we can vote our conscience in elections and even vote contrary to what church leaders might prefer.
Anyway, He started community organizing against the expansion and found that the church took that pretty seriously. I think that there were some inferences or hints that his TR might be in jeopardy. He backed off.
I had forgotten about the MTC Roy. As I recall the residents got their way and the plan was significantly changed. ETA link
https://www.fox13now.com/2014/11/19/lds-church-reaches-compromise-with-provo-residents-on-plan-to-expand-mtc ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.fox13now.com/2014/11/19/lds-church-reaches-compromise-with-provo-residents-on-plan-to-expand-mtc https://www.codyenterprise.com/article_b157d538-3acd-11ee-8d8d-778eb91ba993.html The plot thickens. The building permit was placed on hold by the mayor so the issue can be further discussed. It sounds like more of a review of the process than a reversal of a previous decision.
I sit on an advisory board that works with the development commission (which is just the city council wearing different hats) in my small town. It hurts me to see the town government divided on this issue.
It sounds like the church officials felt that they had the approval to move forward. Some of the city officials agree and some disagree.
😥 I do think the whole church lawsuit thing is interesting. I might just be unaware, but I don’t recall the church using that tactic before. Part of what is interesting is that the church has attorneys in its employ and retains outside law firms as well. Having worked in the public sector, often when municipalities, school districts, etc., are sued they just settle or capitulate. We all know that in addition to the attorneys at the church’s disposal, they also have a huge sum of money to pay those attorneys – something small government entities severely lack (hence settling or capitulating). Maybe I need to start up a new thread so the subject is more visible in the thread title but the issue of the church leaning on towns to make exceptions for zoning laws has become a larger issue in recent days. The church is employing a similar strategy in other towns that it employed in Cody, WY. The one that’s been getting a lot of attention lately is the McKinney temple that the church is trying to build in Fairview, Texas.
Similar concerns. A 175 ft. spire and concerns over light pollution at night that both violate currently zoning restrictions. The response from the church appears to be a combination of bribery of local officials, threats of litigation, citing religious freedom, and leaning on members to influence town councils.
I don’t have any linked articles to share, just my own opinion that I’m finding the church’s response absolutely disheartening. If we’re asking what Jesus would do, I’m finding that my answer is that Jesus would do none of those things.
I’ve heard some of the testimonies being borne in town council meetings (literally) by church members. I believe their position is that god revealed the floorplans of the temples to church leaders, this is
exactlywhat god wants, therefore we cannot compromise on the height of the spire. I believe this sets an insanely dangerous precedent. Every utterance of the prophet, right down to whether an i has been dotted or a t has been crossed, is the will of god. This is teaching that prophets are infallible but with one level of indirection, perhaps enough to make it go unnoticed.
I think what gets me most is that it’s driving a lack of compromise. Rather than build a temple that a community would be more than happy to accept, the church appears to be forcing their will onto a community.
Some have pointed out recent statements from both Bednar and Nelson that the size of a temple isn’t important, it’s what goes on inside the temple that counts. I’d guess that the context of those clips is Nelson and Bednar calling members that are upset with the smaller temples to repentance. You’re upset that you got a temple where you bump your head against the wall in the changing room because it’s a smaller temple and it’s cramped, you see that the new temples going up are behemoths, you wonder where your normal sized temple is? Well size doesn’t matter.
We want to build a temple five times taller than anything in town and five times taller than the zoning laws. Go testify to the town council that size matters.
I know church leaders aren’t winning the hearts of the local communities that they’re bullying. They’re losing my heart over their approach.
WWJD? What would Jesus do? I don’t know. Maybe alter the floorplans and be accommodating of his hosts. Many temples don’t even have spires and many that do have spires that are a full on 100 feet shorter than the one being proposed in Fairview.
WWSD? What would Satan do?
Yeah, I saw this as well. I grew up in Las Vegas so I have been interested in the development of a second temple there. I think that church members and church leaders have a defensive reaction going on. We feel that we are attacked for having the truth, therefore we assume that our temples would be met with resistance no matter what the design. Rather than try to come up with something that might satisfy the haters, the bashers, and the naysayers, we push forward and hold the course. I think that we have a bit of an oppression complex.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.