- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t disagree with the general input about this, but, to be fair and consider the other side, there actually is a long history of opposition to temples in multiple places – for just about any imaginable reason. I saw it first-hand in two places I lived years ago – rotating, template reasons that really were just opposition to the Church. I wish we didn’t feel like fights are necessary to build temples, but I do understand the view that it is, fundamentally, opposition searching for reason, no matter what. I am not saying I believe that view exclusively or comprehensively, but I have seen it and believe it is a fundamental reason for a relatively large part of the opposition in many instances. I understand why it feels like the singular opposition motivation to many members and leaders.
While I agree that there’s a group that would oppose a temple no matter what, town members are communicating that they would be more than happy to accept a temple, they’d just like some consideration seeing as how the temple is going to go up in their neighborhood/town. Perhaps that argument is being made in bad faith but members are reacting as if the opposition is saying that they don’t want a temple at all. That’s simply not the case.
The church is working within the legal channels afforded to them. They have the right to ask for exemptions to zoning laws. I don’t think they should be 100% entitled to do whatever they want to do, but they have the right to petition.
I’d just like to see the church enter a community and work
withit to build a temple. Threats of litigation doesn’t feel like it achieves that goal. Coaching members to testify that temple spires are important feels less than honest. There’s an absence of institutional humility. Who likes a stranger coming into town throwing their weight around?
Old-Timer wrote:
I don’t disagree with the general input about this, but, to be fair and consider the other side, there actually is a long history of opposition to temples in multiple places – for just about any imaginable reason. I saw it first-hand in two places I lived years ago – rotating, template reasons that really were just opposition to the Church.I wish we didn’t feel like fights are necessary to build temples, but I do understand the view that it is, fundamentally, opposition searching for reason, no matter what. I am not saying I believe that view exclusively or comprehensively, but I have seen it and believe it is a fundamental reason for a relatively large part of the opposition in many instances. I understand why it feels like the singular opposition motivation to many members and leaders.
Assuming this is the truth –
wouldn’t be more community building for the LDS community to coordinate caravans/hire buses and child care to create systems to get to people to existing temples regularly rather then challenging the towns and non-members who don’t want the new temple? While potentially setting up the systems to access and use existing temples may be more costly as the church spends monies to get people to temples that those individuals normally spent – I don’t think the cost difference is that dramatic a difference. If the church got creative enough, they could host “retreats” around temples with less volume that focused on recharging individuals in a variety of ways instead of just focusing on temple work. I am too young, broke, and have young children to go on weekend retreats – but I know it is a burgeoning business out there. That would even be in line with the mission of “perfect the saints”.
nibbler wrote:
While I agree that there’s a group that would oppose a temple no matter what, town members are communicating that they would be more than happy to accept a temple, they’d just like some consideration seeing as how the temple is going to go up in their neighborhood/town.Perhaps that argument is being made in bad faith but members are reacting as if the opposition is saying that they don’t want a temple at all. That’s simply not the case.
The church is working within the legal channels afforded to them. They have the right to ask for exemptions to zoning laws. I don’t think they should be 100% entitled to do whatever they want to do, but they have the right to petition.
I’d just like to see the church enter a community and work
withit to build a temple. Threats of litigation doesn’t feel like it achieves that goal. Coaching members to testify that temple spires are important feels less than honest. There’s an absence of institutional humility. Who likes a stranger coming into town throwing their weight around?
While I think you are correct in what you said, as is OT, I see the big difference in these recent scenarios cited in the article is that the church is now willing to throw its monetary weight around in actual court cases. You’re right, there has always been opposition to temples (except in the Corridor, which now seems to no longer be completely exempt) but those issues have generally been resolved by working with zoning boards, city/town councils, citizens groups, etc., and often involved the church giving a bit (“OK, we will knock 10 feet off that tower as long as we can light it up 24/7”). Going to court to get what they want seems to be a fairly new tactic. The issue this brings up is that as I previously stated while the church has lawyers on staff, lawyers on retainer, and more lawyers at their disposal and copious amounts of money with which to launch and fight (if necessary) lawsuits these places where temples are being built (often suburbs/smaller towns and not the city itself) do not have those same resources and can’t raise taxes enough to effectively fight. This is a big corporation tactic.
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. There should be more consideration the legitimate sensibilities of locals who are not of our faith. Would the Church support the building of a tall mosque in an out-of-the-way community? I’ve visited the Frankfurt Temple on more than one occasion. When it was built, local authorities didn’t want its spire to rise higher than those of other churches in the town (Friedrichsdorf), so it was positioned to the side:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/frankfurt-germany Perhaps the Church is willing to compromise outside the U.S. because it is considered more diplomatic to avoid angering a bunch of foreigners.
To me, the solution is simple.
It seems that the LDS church has won the legal battle in Cody, WY and can move forward. A judge ruled that the planning and zoning board had approved the construction and the opposition would have needed to file the lawsuit within ten days and the opposition missed that deadline. It appears that there may have been some confusion or ambiguity within the planning and zoning board on what they had approved. Some appear to have thought that they were approving the project to move forward generally but would get another chance to review and approve further details later. The planning and zoning board could have made this thought explicit by approving the project contingent upon further review of steeple height and lighting lumens etc. but they failed to do this and just made a blanket approval. Incidentally, I heard a comment second hand that was reported to originate with a church lawyer that if the church gives concessions to towns in steeple height then that becomes a precedent and then every other town will want the same sort of concession. If true, this might help explain why the church leadership seems to be so dogged in not compromising.
The Fairview town council has approved the temple plans. In the end they were only able to get the church to modify plans for a 170 foot steeple down to a 120 foot steeple. There were many other asks, concessions, and non-concessions other than just the steeple height. One more recent development was that the church did make concessions for the Yerba Linda temple and Fairview legitimately wondered why the church was willing to work within the limitations in Yerba Linda but not in Fairview. It’s left a very sour taste in the mouths of non-member residents in Fairview. As one would expect.
The way the church bullied the town and made themselves out to be the ones that were persecuted absolutely sickens me. There are no words… or at least no words that would fly on this site. I’ll leave it at Christ not being found anywhere in the church’s actions in Fairview.
We don’t seem to be very good neighbors when it comes to our temples. 😥
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.