Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[LVAllen]

Can someone explain why the church needs a temple to be 100ft ?

Or just a way for the church to push power ?

Because a shotgun layout doesn't work?

I don't understand the question. The new Las Vegas West temple is 64' of useable space. Throw another story on top, like we would if it was a densely populated area and we built like space was truly at a premium, and you hit 100' easy.

[Moliere]

Can someone explain why the church needs a temple to be 100ft ?

Or just a way for the church to push power ?

The church likes temples to look nice and different. It’s not needed but it’s wanted. In some places where they can’t get approval, they don’t put a big spire on it. The Paris temple is a good example and one where the local building codes are pretty clear.

[Bo Diddley]

I asked the Google what the average height of a spire on a church was and it said 50-100 feet.

[Maximus]

Because a shotgun layout doesn't work?

I don't understand the question. The new Las Vegas West temple is 64' of useable space. Throw another story on top, like we would if it was a densely populated area and we built like space was truly at a premium, and you hit 100' easy.

The current texas one they won't change

[All-American]

The current texas one they won't change

The Church said it would go along with a compromise that would have reduced the height of the spire from 174' to 120', but it appears the city will not.

To address your first question-- why does the church need a 100' temple?-- you could just as easily ask why we need a designated building at all, or if not that, why we need a building that has any kind of distinctiveness or unusual quality. An ordinance performed in a box of cinder blocks with a tin roof would surely be just as valid. (One can't seriously argue that having a high-quality building is absolutely required given that we haven't gone back and retroactively invalidated each and every ordinance that was performed in the old Provo temple.)

But, the church does in fact want nice buildings for its temples. In fact, it spends quite a lot of money to make sure the buildings are nice. The quality of the physical space-- all the way up to the steeple-- is clearly an important part of temple worship.

[Maximus]

theres a lot of temples that arent 100'

why should the church have an exemption in the area that others dont? you cant claim it is necessary religiously. we know that isnt true from other temples.

if what you want isnt allowed there. go elsewhere. and come on the steeple (well in this case it being 20 feet higher or not ) has nothing to do with religious worship.

[YOhio]

Can someone explain why the church needs a temple to be 100ft ?

Or just a way for the church to push power ?

To lift the eyes and hearts of all who behold them toward heaven. To build a spire to stand as a beacon of faith, providing a visible reminder that our lives should be centered on Christ. To symbolize the soul’s upward journey. To act as an invitation to rise above the world, seek holiness, and strive toward the divine. To radiate light to the surrounding community and testify that God’s presence and love are near. To zealously defend the freedom of religious expression, even on a matter that seems trivial, because embedded in our DNA is the memory of those spires in flames. Because we'd rather sacrifice years of work and bury the foundations of a temple than give a government any semblance of authority over how we worship God.

[All-American]

theres a lot of temples that arent 100'

why should the church have an exemption in the area that others dont? you cant claim it is necessary religiously. we know that isnt true from other temples.

if what you want isnt allowed there. go elsewhere. and come on the steeple (well in this case it being 20 feet higher or not ) has nothing to do with religious worship.

If the steeple had nothing to do with religious worship, then the church wouldn't spend money on it.

Temple service is a part of our worship. Building temples is a part of our religion. Why does the state of Texas get to dictate how that religion is exercised? (Especially when they give similar exceptions to other faiths apparently more of their liking-- like the Methodist church one mile away from the temple site that was able to build a 154-foot bell tower with basically no objection.)

[LVAllen]

theres a lot of temples that arent 100'

why should the church have an exemption in the area that others dont? you cant claim it is necessary religiously. we know that isnt true from other temples.

if what you want isnt allowed there. go elsewhere. and come on the steeple (well in this case it being 20 feet higher or not ) has nothing to do with religious worship.

Look, the McKinney Texas temple plan is intended to be Precast Concrete Temple Pattern A. If we had to go back and choose Precast Concrete Temple Pattern A.nospire or Precast Concrete Temple Pattern B, that's money that we wouldn't have to spend if we just, you know, did it the way it was agreed to.

[BlueK]

If the steeple had nothing to do with religious worship, then the church wouldn't spend money on it.

Temple service is a part of our worship. Building temples is a part of our religion. Why does the state of Texas get to dictate how that religion is exercised? (Especially when they give similar exceptions to other faiths apparently more of their liking-- like the Methodist church one mile away from the temple site that was able to build a 154-foot bell tower with basically no objection.)

It's the town of Fairview that has a problem with the temple, not the state of Texas. The church has tried to negotiate, and through an arbitrator was able to come to an agreement with the town after agreeing on changes. Then the town went back on it. The church then asked for another meeting and the town ignored the request. That is when the church filed suit. Also this was only after months. Texas state law is on the church's side here as there is one on the books that basically addresses this kind of dispute between local municipalities and churches seeking to build a house of worship.

Also Fairview doesn't have anything in their zoning laws that would prohibit the building of a temple that is being proposed or that was agreed to from the arbitration except for a provision that the town council still has to approve. This is exactly what current Texas state law prohibits local areas from doing.

[BlueK]

It's the town of Fairview that has a problem with the temple, not the state of Texas. The church has tried to negotiate, and through an arbitrator was able to come to an agreement with the town after agreeing on changes. Then the town went back on it. The church then asked for another meeting and the town ignored the request. That is when the church filed suit. Also this was only after months. Texas state law is on the church's side here as there is one on the books that basically addresses this kind of dispute between local municipalities and churches seeking to build a house of worship.

Also Fairview doesn't have anything in their zoning laws that would prohibit the building of a temple that is being proposed or that was agreed to from the arbitration except for a provision that the town council still has to approve. This is exactly what current Texas state law prohibits local areas from doing.

Adding to this a bit since this is close to where I live...

When a temple was announced in General Conference it was for Prosper, Texas, which I can get to from my house by walking five minutes. So that was exciting. But then they changed it to McKinney, but more specifically to Fairview which is on the other side of the highway, US 75 from McKinney, about 20 miles from me. The church already had the land which sits next to an existing church building.

I would have preferred they actually did it in Prosper for my own personal reasons, and at first when there was local resistance wondered why it seemed the church was sticking hard to its position instead of considering a different location. The leaders of Fairview at the time were seemingly saying all the right things and sounding reasonable. But the church over many months has tried to work with them but the goalposts keep being moved on them to where it's become pretty clear that the town was not negotiating in good faith. As I said above, there is nothing specific in their zoning that the church is not in line with, and the town's position has little chance of succeeding in court based on current state law and legal precedent related to it, not to mention the First Amendment issues.

[Moliere]

Adding to this a bit since this is close to where I live...

When a temple was announced in General Conference it was for Prosper, Texas, which I can get to from my house by walking five minutes. So that was exciting. But then they changed it to McKinney, but more specifically to Fairview which is on the other side of the highway, US 75 from McKinney, about 20 miles from me. The church already had the land which sits next to an existing church building.

I would have preferred they actually did it in Prosper for my own personal reasons, and at first when there was local resistance wondered why it seemed the church was sticking hard to its position instead of considering a different location. The leaders of Fairview at the time were seemingly saying all the right things and sounding reasonable. But the church over many months has tried to work with them but the goalposts keep being moved on them to where it's become pretty clear that the town was not negotiating in good faith. As I said above, there is nothing specific in their zoning that the church is not in line with, and the town's position has little chance of succeeding in court based on current state law and legal precedent related to it, not to mention the First Amendment issues.

Having lived in Texas for 19 years, I’m not surprised that a temple is being feverishly opposed by locals, especially in suburbs that are likely staunchly evangelical. I’ve noted this before, and I’m in a position to know, that mainline Christians and evangelicals don’t really care for or want other religions having a strong presence in their suburbs. We had a Hindu temple built right by our church building and it faced a lot of opposition. The Houston temple also faced a lot of opposition when it was built back in 2000. This is just par for the course and taking local municipalities to court to get the law enforced is the correct action to take.

[BlueK]

Having lived in Texas for 19 years, I’m not surprised that a temple is being feverishly opposed by locals, especially in suburbs that are likely staunchly evangelical. I’ve noted this before, and I’m in a position to know, that mainline Christians and evangelicals don’t really care for or want other religions having a strong presence in their suburbs. We had a Hindu temple built right by our church building and it faced a lot of opposition. The Houston temple also faced a lot of opposition when it was built back in 2000. This is just par for the course and taking local municipalities to court to get the law enforced is the correct action to take.

This probably wouldn't happen and antis would try very hard to complain if it did, but part of me hopes the church prevails legally but then says, yes we won but we've decided to build it at the originally announced place in Prosper.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Watched the Hulu Ruby Franke documentary. It was okay. I think they focused on the less interesting side of the story. I think there is a better documentary to be told about Jodi Hildebrandt than the Franke family.

[MartyFunkhouser]

So, I noticed that there was a Max episode of some documentary series about Jodi Hildebrandt. I started watching it. A few minutes into it, John Dehlin showed up on the screen. At that point, I just assumed it was going to suck and turned it off.