I lived in north DFW for the last 22 years.. if this were going to be a new high school football stadium, they would change up whatever zoning & ordinances they had to! These folks need to go down to the Dallas LDS Temple, tucked away in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood and see how well they have enjoyed having it there.
Which people ALSO fought about but the guy that owned the land threatened to put a bunch of pigs on it if they didn’t shut their traps and they piped down real quick! Funny how that works 🙄
These type of objections are normal for every temple announced. It’s alarming for the neighbors but if you research it further, what you’re about to experience is a raise in property values and a very beautiful and pleasant addition to your community. A perfectly manicured and well kept building with quiet and polite patrons. Year round gardens. Give it 10 years. You’ll feel differently.
Those are all great things, but be fair and look at the other side a heck of a lot more traffic through your neighborhood every day you got a name all the things that come with it not just the good things and some people don’t really care if their property values go up a little bit they may just want to have homes around them and not temples or churches or any other building People have a right to feel that way and have a I think members of the church don’t get it. It’s more than just physical things!
How about a stadium with lights and traffic it generates? Temples have nowhere near the traffic nor the lights and the beautiful landscaping like nothing you will see anywhere?
As a 24 year residential real estate appraiser that has worked in both Texas and Utah, I can say that LDS Temples have been nothing but positive to the property values. In fact, the view is a positive factor. The church improves everything they touch.
Absolutely nothing better than getting the news that an LDS temple is announced in your town. Beautification, planning, property values, everything comes together and things work out for the better. I’ve seen this happen in literally dozens of communities around the U.S. and the world and everyone benefits. I’ve even seen where other denominations offer to sell or donate property to have an LDS temple and its surrounding grounds brought into the town. An excellent example of this was Yuba City, California, and the incredible LDS feather river temple that is now in the town.
This video wasn’t too harsh nor were the comments. Understandable concern but they didn’t interview any LDS folks like my parents that live close by. I believe it will be something that most will love having close by regardless whether one falls religiously.
It's not the first time this has happened. In a previous Temple they built it without the steeple, put the people said it didn't look right, and the steeple was added later.
@@apexj-lf4rwLet me get this straight: You are alleging harm because a development (not inflation) is increasing property values for other owners? Are you sure that’s your argument?
There were no interviews from people who are in favor of the LDS Temple. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for residence to hear pro and con perspective? Surely there are people in Fairview who are either in favor of the temple or have no objection.
@@apexj-lf4rw “Secret molestation hotel”….Think of all the good things you could do with your prolific creative writing skills. You have a gift Harry…
This would serve all of the Greater North DFW members which is a lot more than you think or know! It cannot be tiny for that reason. Maybe if there were dozens of temples scattered throughout but they are trying to serve the members of this specific area (which is a GIANT area) and the way they can do that best is by vertically maximizing space.
Generally speaking, those living around temples property values increase, lucky you! It’s definitely better to have a beautiful Temple, than a school and all the loud noise, and only two bus lengths from your back door. I dislike my city council so incredibly. They don’t care about the residence, they only care about the money they can put in their pocket. In all honesty, you will come to love the peace and beauty that comes with a temple in your area.
@@apexj-lf4rw People will use any reasoning they can to stay in the church and not have to change, EVEN IF they don't believe it. The property values aren't going to increase because of the temple. The land developers who find the land and execute these temple projects are taking a calculated risk on the area becoming more valuable so that their massive temple can be more of a write-off for the church. It's the same reason they bought all of that land in Florida and the same reason they invest your tithing money into blue chip stocks. It's all about THEIR increase, not yours.
@@JerrodNelms Your first statement is ironic given your straining to construct some argument against the Church on this basis. I’ve touched on the incoherency of your tax arguments related to a 501c3 vs an investment arm of the 501c3 in a separate comment, so I won’t rehash that here. But more importantly, where is this impropriety you’re trying to infer? Please point me to any organization or person, charitable or otherwise, that as a matter of policy does NOT invest, protect from the devaluation or attempt to increase the value of cash or other reserve assets? Because you are implying that in itself is scandalous rather than basic common sense. Is that what you do with your assets? Do other people, that have nothing to do with you, get to decide how and when you have to spend your money or whether you get to invest it? Or are you under their obligation to spend it immediately on their professed priorities? Secondly, who is somehow reaping the rewards of this supposed scandalous behavior? You point at “they”…the Church. So who in Church leadership is actually profiting? Who actually has direct financial profit motive? You’re making the high level accusation, so cite your sources.
The LDS church has much smaller temple buildings then the one being proposed here… the Sacramento Temple size seems like it would be a much better fit for the neighborhood
Ummmm......have you looked into the area at all? It's in Collin County, consistently in the Top 1-10 fastest growing counties in the US. Sacramento County has 1.5 Million and grew about 11% since 2010, Collin County has a current population of 1.3 Million and grew nearly 40% since 2010 and expected to have nearly 3 million in the next 30 years. So I don't think that a little "neighborhood" temple is in order here. Also, this area is world famous for building giant High School Stadiums with astroturf and jumbotrons alongside their mega-churches. I think a golden spire is just fine.
How lucky to have an absolutely beautiful structure devoted to God with law abiding citizens. The church maintains it properties beautifully and your property values will go up.
@@tattooedwhitetrash Tell me you literally know NOTHING on the subject matter you're discussing. I'm a lifelong member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. There are many, many, many (probably most) church meetings I go to where Joseph Smith isn't mentioned. But there's rarely a meeting where Jesus Christ isn't mentioned. We don't now and never have worshipped Joseph Smith. We compare him to Moses or Abraham, who are prophets of the Bible. Sorry to burst that hate bubble you have going on with the facts. 🤷🏻♀️
There are 2 types of members. Those who believe that Jesus is in charge... and those who don't. I don't get it but I have to admit that I stand between the Celestial and the Terrestrial.
If they don't want it, they don't deserve it. But, it thr Church choses to build, it will be a reward to residents that even the LDS population cannot fathom. Logan, Manti, & St. George have been blessed by temples for generations.
Maybe I didn't watch carefully, but is it the height that's the objection, on its own? Or that it will block people's cherished views from the neighborhood? Or...?
I guarantee she isn't an active LDS member in goodstanding. Any LDS would be honored to have an actual Temple in their town/city. For those wondering, an LDS Temple is way different than a regular LDS Chapel. For example in DFW, and area larger than the State of Connecticut with nearly 300 LDS Chapels only has ONE Temple in Dallas (although in the next 5 years the Mckinney/Fairview Temple and the Burleson/Ft. Worth are expected to be added). In the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS there are currently only FOUR LDS Temples: Dallas, San Antonio, Lubbock, & Houston. LDS Temples are the only place that the necessary ordinances of baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the endowment, and sealings (weddings) are performed. So her statements are not of an active Mormon.
As a former member of the LDS church, this type of thing turns my stomach. The church thinks they can do whatever they want whenever they want and clearly, in this case, thinks they should be able to come into an area that doesn't want them there and restructure the zoning just so that they can put their tax shelter (if you're paying attention, that's what a temple really is) in the location where it will get the most return (for their money, not for the members). What's more sickening is that the members are conditioned to where they will do whatever the church wants including writing scripted letters to the zoning and planning boards to try to get them to vote to bypass ordinances (legal, not culty) and thereby take what they (the LDS church) want by brute force. Absolutely disgusting.
😆😆😆😆😆I live across the street from white trash that literally has trash and furniture all over their lawn. This will increase property values and will NOT be a horrible eyesore but make the landscape much more beautiful. You are severely biased in your beliefs. Can leave the church alone can you.
"Turns my stomach"..."sickening"..."brute force". I see you are trying to establish some position on a moral high ground because you have some past beef with the Church, whatever that is. The Church is organized as a 501c3 organization. It's already tax exempt and doesn't need to spend any of the donated funds at all on temples or meetinghouses for those funds to be legally protected. There's no Joel Osteens and Bakers becoming mega-millionaires off of donations, so critics have had to find other creative angles to throw the mud. The newest angle is attacking its investment arms, which are not used to construct meetinghouses or temples but operate more as rainy-day funds, and which do not have the same scale of protections because of the layers of legal separation from the main 501c3. Unfortunately, such investment arms also operate in a more ambiguous legal landscape , which the SEC loves, because they get to apply their infamous 'regulation by enforcement' approach for anyone they want to pick a fight with. Reference the recent Ripple case debacle where Ripple spent approaching 200 million defending itself against a regulation-by-enforcement attack from the SEC/Gary Gensler. Even though all the facts were clearly on Ripple's side, it still required an eye-popping sum to litigate over several years. A former employee who worked with one of the funds management teams working with the Church investment arms went to the SEC with complaint related to how the investments were publicly declared. This approach had been recommended as legal and appropriate by the legal team working with the investment arm, but the SEC saw it as enough of a grey area that they could find room to litigate and bring yet another organization to bend the knee. I imagine the Church probably looked at what the SEC was doing and what it would cost to fight it and win, vs take the fine and a hit to it's reputation (at least for anyone not familiar with the SEC's modus operandi). I don't know that for sure, but it's reasonable given that any one of use would have done the same thing. It ended up taking the fine and made a conciliatory statement. For those who have been following the SEC's corrupt behavior generally, it looks like yet another shakedown. The 'whistleblower' received a very healthy portion of the fine as payment for his 'services'. No conflict of interest there, I'm sure.
That's just what the Scribes and Pherasees said about Jesus Christ. Baptism isn't in the Old Testament, Sacrament isn't in the Old Testament, washing of the feet wasn't in the Old Testament, though it is in modern temples. Though there are still hints of each of these in the Old Testament, if you look carefully enough. Like the Brazen Sea in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple of Solomon. Besides can you explain to me why The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints is the only church to fulfill the prophecies by Jesus Christ himself about who his true followers are? "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, AND SAY ALL MANNER OF EVIL AGAINST YOU FALSELY, for my sake; Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you." and "Ye shall be hated of ALL MEN for my name's sake."
@@rolandsmith4394 Temples are referenced earlier in the Old Testament than the Tabernacle built by Moses, and well before the Temple of Solomon, like in Genesis 28: 21-22, where Jacob promises that if God would bring him safely to his father, the piller he set up would be for God's House. He called the place Bethel, which literally means Beth (House) of El (God). We never hear again of this House for God, but have no reason to believe that this faithful servant of God until his death didn't fulfill his promise. We are not told why it wasn't built or couldn't be built. And if it was built, we are not told what happened to it, or why they couldn't use it once they retook Bethel.
@@shawnjensen3896 Look, people are entitled on how they want to think and feel. That temple is there for more than just that small town it's meant for all the other towns and cities around it. A Temple is a house of the Lord. It will be as big and as tall as He sees fit. The temple belongs to God, not man. The church members who signed that petition need to repent. A Temple is not just a standard building. Is it the most sacred place on Earth.
@@ericlaw2416 Well, what I said is true. The Lord gets what He wants, but people always have problems with God because we just don't understand. Plus, church members shouldn't do what these ones did. At every general conference, we swear before God that we will be loyal to His chosen church leaders.
Not true, Erik, maybe officially they don’t but remember the old adage every member a missionary so the way you treat people coming and saying a comment like it’ll be as big as the Lord wants it to be give me a break it’ll be as big as the temple construction department wants it to be!
