It's not a religious freedom issue at all. Build your temple. Just build it to comply with zoning requirements. Who would want ANYTHING that big coming into their residential area?!? The parking and traffic alone make this a no for that spot. Comply or choose a parcel of land in a different zone.
Obviously, you have not been anywhere near a Temple or a Meetinghouse.....Meetinghouses are located in residential areas and most have spires of one height or another. Temples are built to be seen by the many and attended by worthy Members of the Church. Your line of thinking is that a community with a majority of LDS Members would not have the freedom to build an edifice of their liking? "Were you aware that the illuminated Temple/spire of the LDS Temple in Oakland, CA is used as a navigational aid? Probably not. The temple appears on the FAA's San Francisco Terminal Area Chart as "VPMOR". And small planes regularly use it when flying into or out of the Bay Area. For example as described in these blog posts (Instrument checkride, Long solo cross-country, 4 July and Talking with Oakland Tower) Some other temples appear to also occasionally be used in a similar way, though Oakland seems to be the most commonly used." And, having personal knowledge, the Temple, illuminated or not, can be used as a navaid when out and about on the bay, especially in small craft that are susceptible to the currents, there.
The Church owns property in communities that for many years precede the institution of current or amended zoning requirements. You and others would do well to check your data before making a blanket statement like that. The leadership of the Church is more farsighted than they are given credit for because its detractors have no clue as to why decisions within the leadership are made. Temples and Meetinghouses are paid for/no mortgages. The Church owns the land upon which its buildings are built. The Church is self-insured. 17 million members. As in its earliest days, Members of the LDS Church have been ostracized, murdered, beaten, and thrown out of their settlements because of the ignorance of others. The point is that the Church was and will always be a threat to the institutionalized political and religious beliefs of any community. In short, those people are jealous of the benefits received from hard work, devotion to God and family and the community at large, and the general easy-going demeanor of the majority of the Members of the Church. Kindly advise: Which religious group of people in these United States had, until June 25th of 1976, a government-sanctioned extermination order placed against them? We all are waiting for your very considered response.
I live in a neighborhood with a temple it is huge and illuminated at night. It is one of the most beautiful buildings in our city. It is an asset to the neighborhood. I’m not religious just saying it’s not a nuisance.
@@paulkalff6408 The LDS church is not without sin.... And they are NOT Christians. They are entitled to their religion, but let's not make them out to be perfect people. Having said that, I think a compromise on height is in order.
When another church in the area has received the same permit, it creates a precedence allowing others to do the same. It is a religious building built to invoke feelings of heaven, so yes, they want to build it a certain way.
@S7ZEE - the other church asked for 65 ft, not 175 feet. It is not comparable. Also, the height is the only issue. The town has repeatedly said they have no problem with the church building a temple. There is nothing at all in LDS theology mandating a large steeple. In fact they have several without steeples entirely. It is just pride and vanity that the church keeps pushing to ignore laws when it doesn't suit their desires. In this town and in others, while pushing a false persecution narrative. A tale as old as the church itself.
Latter Day Saints are free to practice their religion but this does not give them the right to impose their building esthetics on private citizens’ neighborhoods. This is NOT an abuse of their freedom of religion.
Most if not all LDS building sites have been owned by the Church for many years before the modification/institution of the existing zoning regulations. The Oakland Temple's main property was purchased in January of 1943. The property for a current Meetinghouse in Fremont, CA was purchased in the belief that it would hold a new Missionary Training Center for Missionaries headed for the Pacific Rim. A portion of the land holdings was sold to the CA School For The Deaf in 1980 as the existing MTC in Provo, UT was expanded. A former LDS Stake Center and now Meetinghouse occupies the balance of the property.
The issue theyre gonna run into is the city granted another church a variance for a spier that exceeded the limit already. LDS will win this one in court.
Gah. This is an ordinary zoning/building code dispute. Attempts to frame it as a "religious freedom" issue are moronic. They didn't get what they want so they'll play victim card.
The other church is 68' at the spire, the LDS are asking for 175'. This is not the same thing. The LDS church would be 16 stories tall, plus the spire, making it the largest building in the city. Don't assume that because a waiver was granted for one, that the second is asking for the same waiver.
Yes, they are asking for the same waiver. There is a height regulation in that residential section of town. By granting an exemption for one, the town has set a precedent. If they had made a new regulation limiting the height of church spires (which of course would have been unconstitutional!) they’d not have this issue. Or better yet, make no exemption in the first place. In either event, this now becomes a First Amendment fight - all because they chose to show favoritism to one particular church and grant them an exemption. Idiots.
@@Gk2003m the church in question is the LDS Stake center- which means that the LDS church was already approved (by many of these same council members) to have the tallest church in town. How on earth does that constitute persecution? They literally already have the tallest building in town. Now they’re proposing a building twice the height. One man compared it to asking for an exception to speed 90 miles an hour on their 50 mile an hour Stacey Rd. It’s frankly ridiculous. What the town did is set precedent for allowing a steeple that is 68 feet. That’s it.
@Gk2003m there's a multitude of examples that shows your argument is not based in reality. Bottom line, the variant approved is DIFFERENT than that of the LDS. Even the LDS Proponents said that they were prepared to request a new variant. No court would agree with your argument that all variants are equal.
Religious freedom does not usurp local policy. Unless they grease everybody’s palms behind the scenes. There’s NO reason why you can’t worship in a structure without a towering and imposing steeple.
I mean technically their religious doctrine says that the temple needs a spire but if we agree to all deeply godly mumbo jumbo we have to be equal with it. And I am an atheist I don’t believe in any of it. To me it’s only logical that it’s all or nothing.
@@MyDestinyDear Well there ARE some LDS temples without a spire. There’s at least one each in Hawaii, Arizona and Alberta so clearly it’s not an immutable requisite.
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated are you familiar with the First McKinney Baptist Church? It is in the same zip code as the proposed Temple. With a steeple hight approximately 170 feet. Building hight approximately 64 feet. Distance to residential homes approximately 250 feet. Very similar to the proposed Temple.
I thought it was going to be a case of impingement on religious freedom. Then I watched the video and found out the LDS folks are wanting to build a skyscraper in a regular-height neighborhood. I'd reject that plan, too.
There is a very interesting letter from Illinois Gov. Ford to Joseph Smith in June of 1844 explaining some of the problems with LDS teaching and conduct from the beginning, in a nation of representative government and laws where the LDS were not free to create their own substitute governance for the cities and towns where they happened to be.
Why even have churches, just stay home and read your Bible for free. Give your money to the sick and needy. No one will get to “heaven “ any faster by paying someone to pray for you
The steeple would be 173' tall. There are building codes for a reason. They might end up getting a variance, or they could simply redo their plans. I doubt the latter would happen, as all their temple building have more or less the same look and profile.
@@jlr3636Can do just this and also see people in real life. Real life is pretty powerful for encouragement and learning. Communion, singing together, and having face to face conversations are very worshipful.
So build it within the code….there…it’s solved…and no your “religious freedom” isn’t being violated because YOU are the ones not following the rules set in place.
@@JamesDavis-vm9gw Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
I remember my father in Ireland before WW2 making the observation that the churches were truly ornate inside with gold fittings etc. Yet the people were in rags and kids had no shoes etc; the church did not care one bit
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints spends billions on charity and provides humanitarian services throughout the whole world. That being said, the ordinances that are performed in the temple are even more vital, because they have eternal consequences. John 12: 3-7 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. I'm not saying you do not care about the poor, but money needs to be spent on holy things, such as temples, as well.
@@tonywood3660 Mormonism uses Christian terminology but LDS theology teaches a universe with untold numbers of gods, each was once a human but has since progressed to godhood. It is closer to pantheistic religions like Hinduism, which has over 33 million gods.
They stopped a Catholic church in my neighborhood from expanding and building a taller new church and that neighborhood is mostly Catholic and all Christian. Nothing against any religion, they just wanted it too big.
For people like that, building bigger is part of their religion, what helps them believe in what they are told to believe in. You can't join a club to be a Christian, you have to act like one.
Aside from concerns that a bigger church may cause traffic jams, overload the power grid, obstruct other people's views, or overtax the sewage system, there is no valid reason to restrict such construction. Who gets to determine what is or isn't "too big". If the land belongs to a person or group and what they want to do on it doesn't adversely affect others, they should be permitted to do so.
There is a HUGE difference between a Catholic town stopping a Catholic church from expanding, and a Protestant town stopping a Mormon church. You understand that right?
@@SallyJohnson-rk8ic That's why we have zoning laws. You can't build a sky scraper in a residential neighborhood even though you want to buy the houses and dear them down for the room.
No, they aren't that large. There large temples, but generally the temples now are much smaller so they can build them in more areas to serve the memebrs better.
Exactly! Build in a CITY. This is a town. I know in my town of Chino Hills CA it was low-level buildings for the longest time and then one hotel went up then other high rise hotels and healthcare centers. Changed the area completely.
It is not in character with the neighborhood or town which is a valid consideration. It will loom over all, which is likely the intent, to be intrusive and imposing. I was given guidelines on what was an acceptable structure on my lot. Mobile homes new or old were a hard no, as are tiny homes under a certain square footage (have to be large enough to meet code, house a kitchenette and a contained bathroom, but it better be cute). Modulars squeak in only because they have no wheels or axles. Brick, stick built or log/timber is preferred. Alternative building techniques will see you fighting a long hard battle with council to prove it won't blight the neighborhood or potentially bring the city liability issues for allowing it.
A temple in the LDS church isn’t the same as a church. It’s not a space for all the congregation to meet on a regular basis. It’s a space where you need to meet certain criteria to be given a recommend by your bishop. I was raised LDS and lived in a place that didn’t have a temple. We traveled so my parents could go to the temple. It’s not a required space for regular worship.
@@johnbarton7159 That mournful wail of agony is the sound of a bible verse being violently ripped out of context. Here is Proverbs 12, in its correct context: There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it is the way of death.
@@htschmerdtz4465 it came from the book of Ether 12:25 …the Gentiles shall mock at our words.[which is exactly what the above comment was] 26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek
@@johnbarton7159 So you were actually quoting the Book of Mormon. Then I cannot comment or critique it; I do not consider it to be inspired or historically relevant.
@@jlueb 56’ temple + 83’ spire = 139 on the Boston temple. This is a negotiation. It won’t take them long to drop the height a bit. But the temple will be built. The law is on their side.
@@TrendyStoneI don’t think so.. they are free to build right now, but they want to build a monument which requires the sign-off of the community. It would be a tough sell to say that putting up such a building is required for their religious expression.
@@enginerdy Actually they don’t need to abide by local zoning per RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). The city of Boston challenged them on the same issue (steeple height) and they won in the Supreme Court. Their MO is to reduce the steeple height as a Good Will gesture and if they still don’t get permission, challenge it in court. And they will win.
Same thing happened in Vegas, but the corrupt council allowed them to build their horrific 216 foot tall temple blocking a beautiful 700 foot tall hill people live to look at and hike on. They haven't built it yet, but got full approval. Hopefully something changes.
I am a member of the Restored church. My father was a City Planner and even helped with the lawful compliance of a temple in one of the cities where he worked. The zoning laws are there for a reason. And last I checked our own code of faith states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." There is absolutely NO reason to have a spire that is outside the zoning regulations of the city. The spire is decorative... it's cosmetic to the building and has ZERO connection to the work or worship that takes place inside the temple. There are quite a number of temples that do not have spires or have one that is well within the compliance of this cities laws. I can not for the life of me understand why the committee that is in charge of this temple construction doesn't simply chose a different design from the many that are likely available. It's sad that Temples have become so standard issue that an architect can't simple alter things to fit the law and need of members. It certainly would make for being a kind neighbor to those that live in the area. To the folks in this town I am sorry that this is going on. It really shouldn't have gone beyond the planning commision meeting and the city stating that it needed to be in compliance. One or two feet higher is one thing, but well over 100 . . . COME ON brothers and sisters ... you should know better than to place a kind of pride (rameumptom) over love one another as HE loves.
Also LDS. You're exactly right. It seems like there should be other building plans to choose from. I'm sure there are constraints they're working with that we're not privy to, but I'll pray that they manage to work something out. Otherwise, what a disappointment for members in the area!
Sounds like they have ridiculous rules. Does NOT sound anything like Christianity. It's a very small town that's being taken over by some nuts. It's just north of my town. Next door. I hate to see this happening.
yes Mormons temples are exclusively for LDS members. community is NOT allowed in following dedication. And the church's attitude is "you need to be grateful to us for blessing your town with this monstrosity."
@BizznessBox-f4f Maybe you should check to see how much $$ and food and clothing are donated by the Church and its members? I guess the Islamic leaders of Hamas are sending truckloads of clothing and food for the residents of Gaza while hiding out with Swalwell's buddies in Qatar, correct? Ever operated or owned a business? Ever been a member of a parish or other religious community and had access to how funds are raised and distributed? Wow. Public education is a major failure.
@@WolfeSaber9933 The request for an exemption is absolutely within the law. It was only when the request was denied that the whining about "religious freedom " began. The request is just that. Their religion does not entitle them to an automatic exemption.
@@garryowen5110 That permit would have quidelines on how the spire would be built. Plus, the Church has another temple with a similar tall spire in the same county that also has a special permit.
@@WolfeSaber9933 Yep, and it was denied. Get over it. Comply with the process. Comply with the law. You have rights. So does everyone else. Yours are not inherently superior.
In the 1965 movie, The Sandpiper, Richard Burton as an Episcopalian minister in Pacific Grove California is challenged by Church members at a meeting when he proposes that funds be used to provide scholarships for students in need instead of building a new chapel. One businessman member protests that a new chapel is needed to have a better facility for prayer. Burton answers, “Judging from the quality of prayers from this congregation, I would say that the present chapel is quite adequate.”
@@kkirsch3583 : My point is that it is not the structure’s size or grandeur but the reverence and devotion of the people towards God, presumably the object of their worship that is important. When David desired to build a temple, God pointed out that He had dwelt happily among the Israelites for 400 years in a tabernacle tent. God desires obedience and love not grand structures.
nrgmstr27, you’re failing to recognize the eternal significance of sacred geometry. You speak like a human, God speaks a language you are still learning, it is a language all around you in the design and proportion of Nature and Creation. Numbers are important in creation and the future of humanity. Look closely at the numbers and you will have clues of the future of Fairview Texas. I feel sorry for the people of Fairview if this Temple is rejected, in time they will understand how God speaks…
@@ReconF350 its the arrogance of LDS like you who turn people off...and you'll find going forward that more and more communities will learn that your vast money making empire can be fought and won against. the "Great and Spacious" building need not be everywhere. I feel sorry for the people of the LDS church who fund and give free labor at the discretion of hedge fund directors who have them convinced that they "talk to god". Nothing cultish about that.
I'm betting that there is a significant difference in the specs that the first church asked for and what the LDS is demanding. Why do you need a 65" high church w/a 175" spire? It seems to me that this is less about religious freedom and more about the LDS thinking that they should be able to build however large a building they want even if it is out of scale w/the rest of the city buildings and codes.
Have you ever attended a city council meeting that discusses requests for a building variance? It's hardly someone throwing their weight around, unless it is the largest car lot in town wanting to build their driveway too wide. That's all this is as far as the city is concerned. Another non-profit business asking for a variance, and with a public hearing where citizens listen to the discussion and sound off if they want to. That' probably why the hearing took a month, to allow all the citizens who wanted to get involved in the disccussion. Well, the church was not given a permit, so that is that. They will sell their building site and move it somewhere else. End of story.
People get building ordinances for things all the time and ask for permission to change the rules and it’s usually granted. My friend recently went and asked that they subdivide and rezone a huge parcel of land they bought so they could build multiple houses (cus the zoning law was that you could only build one house even if the land was 10 acres and you could very easily without any problems built multiple)
So, if there are permits that allow for buildings above the limit, what then determines how tall a building can be after you get the permit? What are the criteria for determining who gets the permit and who doesn't? Is it just according to the whims of the council members?
LDS are doing this all across the US. Out in Vegas there is a battle going on, as well as in other states. It's the same scenario: 65' steeple on a giant new temple, always in residential neighborhoods with a height limitation they want too skirt around.
When dealing with zoning ordinances, the only recourse to go outside the ordinance is to apply for a variance. Most of the time, though, a variance will only be considered when the applicant can prove some kind of hardship that would disallow conformance to said ordinance.
The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
My question is why does the spire have to be so very tall? Is there a purpose other than ego? Is it to be able to say, "we have the tallest" therefore we're the best? Is it to be seen all over the town like a billboard? I see no rational reason for the excessive height.
_"My question is why does the spire have to be so very tall? Is there a purpose other than ego?"_ No there is not. _"Is it to be able to say, "we have the tallest" therefore we're the best?"_ Yes. Impressing potential converts has been the point of cathedral building since the first cathedral was built in the Middle Ages. _"Is it to be seen all over the town like a billboard? I see no rational reason for the excessive height."_ Religion is not and never has been about rationality or reason. It's about power and control, and has been since Moses brought the tablets down from Mt. Sinai.
I’m glad a community stood up to this hateful religious group. I grew up in a Mormon town in the 70’s except I was of a different faith. I was a Christian and not a member of the cult that calls itself LDS. As such I was discriminated against in both after school activities and normal adolescent activities.
@@canvasjockey4628 Not correct; there's a way to tell the difference. The Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses are two overgrown cults. While this is not the actual deciding factor, this is the evidence: stop putting your tithe into one of those two and they will take action against you. At a Catholic or Protestant church the leadership probably doesn't even notice.
So... the issue is over the height, not the church itself??? So then the question is over the reason for the building codes, are they too restrictive or serve a good purpose.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus of Latter days Saints, the church wants to build a temple not a church. There’s a big difference between the two and yes it does need to be this tall. Also, home prices next to the Temple usually go up in value after a temple gets built.
Christians and LDS can get along. My grandparents were Christian’s and loved their LDS neighbors like family. We even called them our cousins. But now evangelicals seem to just want to sew division amongst everyone.
It's called Religious Freedom, not Religious Privilege. If you want to build something, you follow the same rules and be subject to the same decision process as everyone else.
We have an LDS temple in our neighborhood, a block away from my house on the same street. LDS are about the only ones in the neighborhood that don’t cause problems, always clean, well manicured landscaping and the alway contribute to neighborhood events. I have attended many neighborhood gatherings in the parking lot and have never been preached to or made to feel unwelcome. Now, the house directly across the street from the church is another story. Tearing up and down through the neighborhood on Harley’s all hours of the day and night, music blasting, drugs being sold, cops there all the time and fights all the time. I’ll take the LDS temple any day over that pile of dung any day.
Just build a modest building that can be easily repurposed. As a Catholic, when you travel outside the USA, you must see church conversions everywhere. In Quebec, there were 2700+ churches still operating in 2003. 25% of those have since closed, been demolished or re-purposed. (None, so far, as skate parks…as in USA.) Building structures that can be repurposed so that the investment in bricks and mortar is not lost should be part of the mission of every faith.
Well, how many other churches are there across the world? Do they do any good? Are they helping the communities? Are they tax exempt? Are they getting rich from the brainwashed masses?
…and there it it is, the token antitheist who has to show up in every discussion thread to voice off their opinion on religion in general, and not the topic at hand. It’s as if God is living in your head rent-free and you have to go “No, no He’s not really there!” every chance you get.
There's something about having the tallest structure hover over the community that sends a message. Having moved to Utah from a non Mormon State, I can attest that it is an eye opener to see this. I applaud the community for sticking to their code.
The proposed McKinney Temple is the remarkable similar in size to the beautiful First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. The McKinney Temple will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. Same zip code. Similar structures. Consists with the neighborhood.
They will lose in court because they already made an exception for another church. This is America. You can't say, "My church is ok but your church is not."
Nobody got threatened. Who let Karen speak?? If you drive by any temple, the landscaping is so massive and beautiful that the spirals do not block anything because of how much space there is between it and the exterior of the property
The city council themselves said the church’s attorneys have implied they would bankrupt them the way they’ve done to other small towns that fought against oversized temple buildings.
Come off the roof. LDS comes from a history of shedding blood: Mountain Meadow Massacre, anyone? Just build a modest building that can be easily repurposed. As a Catholic, when you travel outside the USA, you must see church conversions everywhere. In Quebec, there were 2700+ churches still operating in 2003. 25% of those have since closed, been demolished or re-purposed. (None, so far, as skate parks…as in USA.) Building structures that can be repurposed so that the investment in bricks and mortar is not lost should be part of the mission of every faith.
If the height restriction applies to all structures, the Mormons have no leg to stand on. Traffic is another subject. This facility, like all Mormon temples, would not be used for local church meetings but as regional center for LDS rituals, such as proxy baptisms for the dead, member baptism and eternal marriage sealing (wedding) rituals. Sunday services for local members take place in church buildings elsewhere.
In order to midigate traffic concerns, many temples are built right next to church buildings so there is enough parking space. Appointments are also made so the amount of people showing up can be controlled. Traffic, in my opinion, is a non-issue.
@@DavidPeel-fo9xv Your say appointments are needed and that itself illustrates that traffic is a concern. The nature of temple ceremonies makes them mandatory rituals for LDS members to remain in good standing, so temples are active from Tuesday to Saturday and occasionally Monday, whereas most churches are open Sunday and occasionally one other day of the week. With regard to height; Mormon temples are not merely utilitarian, they are designed to be noticed, to stand out in a community as both an architectural statement and a monument to the LDS church's presence and influence, therefore it is necessary for them to exceed the average height of surrounding structures. Historically, this is the same philosophy behind development of famous European cathedrals and churches that are meant to be open for community events and use. The community is not welcome to enter and use Mormon temples for community purposes and that makes sense because they are broken up into smaller individual rooms where secret rituals are conducted. I was once involved in Freemasonry when I learned about Mormon temple rituals, they felt very familiar, many were quite similar. Should a community be allowed to restrict large architectural monuments in residential neighborhoods? In most cases, I believe they should have that power. The LDS church's willingness to dip into its nearly $50 billion reserve to pay lawyers to override the will of a local community may succeed, but at the cost of building alienation and resentment in the local community.
@@htschmerdtz4465 Maybe I should rephrase: traffic is a concern, but it would be a problem if it weren’t for appointments. These appointments keep traffic from extending outside the available parking lots inside temple grounds. As for our “secret” rituals-well, obviously they aren’t secret if you know about them. There actually is some very interesting history about the Endowment ceremony and rites in Freemasonry, but in my opinion, the similarities are superficial. The Endowment is essentially a walk-through of our divine heritage through the lens of Adam and Eve. There is nothing that resembles that story inside the Endowment, except for the Bible, of course. The reason why nonmembers aren’t allowed to take part in the Endowment is because they don’t believe in it. It’s the same reason a non-Catholic cannot receive Eucharist, because they don’t believe in the Catholic doctrines surrounding it. So why would it matter if you’re not allowed to participate? Besides, all this information is given at temple open houses. The information is free and available, even if you aren’t allowed to take part in the ordinances. Now concerning the wealth of the Church. The Church doesn’t just have 50 billion (although I have heard that the Church has up to 100 billion) dollars just for an army of lawyers. The Church also takes care of a load of stuff, including: -Four universities (BYU, BYU-I, BYU-H, and Ensign college) -Seminaries and Institute -3,500 stakes (like a Catholic diocese or a Lutheran Synod, or simply a group of churches in an area) with around 5 “wards” (meetinghouses) at a time. Each ward has around ~250 members. -Construction and maintenance of 335 temples -Humanitarian aid, which includes Bishops Storehouses, Welfare Square, and loads of farms to keep all that stuff free. -Missions, including over 67 thousand proselytizing missionaries, over 27 thousand senior service missionaries, and almost 3 thousand service missionaries aged 18-25. These missions last two years. While many missionaries can pay on their own, there are still many missionaries who are given financial assistance by the Church. Oh, and the Church is worldwide (most Mormons in America don’t even live in Utah), which is also a huge endeavor. It’s also important to note that the Church has almost been bankrupt on multiple occasions. The first time was in 1837, when the Church-founded Kirtland Safety Society failed during the Panic of 1837. Then in the 1880s, because of government pressure surrounding the issue of polygamy, the Church had lost its legal status and was under the threat on confiscation. This was resolved in 1890 with the Manifesto, which started the process of ending polygamy in the Church. In the 1960s, due to ambitions of rapid expansions, the Church’s finances were running in the red. This forced the Church to start budgeting to save themselves from financial disaster. This taught the Church to be more conservative with its money, and many members view it as a blessing that the Church is in good financial standing. I hope you understand my point of view. God bless.
The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
In the 1960's a large LDS church was built in the Oakland hills in Oakland, CA. Not long after its completion, there was a huge land slide in that neighborhood, wiping out quite a few houses. To this day, the LDS church is blamed for causing the slide. The theory is that runoff from the huge church parking lot caused the slide.
Once built, LDS members will flock to live next to it. They will overpay for the property as well, good for the seller. I have lived in a LDS community and they will tolerate you, but you’ll never be their friend. That temple will create division within the community, period.
@@JJ-vp3bd there was a landlord who was LDS and he was a slumb lord . In the winter he had no heat for the kids on mission that he rented too. He didn't care, nor did the adults in charge of those kids. No one would report him, cause it would make them look bad.
I am old enough to remember how protestant church leaders complained about catholic cathedrals. And they complained about the mormons as well. I think this is fascinating considering the huge evangelical churches.
@@firstLast-gb9kr That Baptist Church that is the one being mentioned for having a permit that is approximately 100' shorter in height? That sounds dramatically different for any cognitively functional human being.
The community of LDS are very nice people. They are family oriented and have strong sense of community. Out of all the people that would be picked to move in, LDS is a great choice. I’m Catholic so it’s not that I am biased.
I’m a Catholic who was forced to join that cult when I was 12 and I assure you they are nice to your face, but condemn you the moment you’re out of earshot. They are family oriented so long as you fit the ideal of their family and the abuse and negative impact of that corporation on its members, its community and the world cannot be quantified. They want to build a gigantic complex 16 stories high along with all the noise, traffic and pollution associated with it in a residential area. I don’t want that cult building its pretty altar to hate and lies in my backyard.
Just build a modest building that can be easily repurposed. As a Catholic, when you travel outside the USA, you must see church conversions everywhere. In Quebec, there were 2700+ churches still operating in 2003. 25% of those have since closed, been demolished or re-purposed. (None, so far, as skate parks…as in USA.) Building structures that can be repurposed so that the investment in bricks and mortar is not lost should be part of the mission of every faith.
Same thing going on in Central California right now. The LDS doesn't want to comply with the height limits, then criesl about religious freedom ....follow zoning rules and your all good. !!!
@@davidvanbrunt4233 That special permit would have guide lines as to how the spire would be built, what the structure would be. Also, have you seen the attacks Christian based religions have been getting? Like the Olympics to a demon statue that Christians have been getting some heat over for their dislike of it?
I’m from Phoenix AZ, there are a lot of LDS here and in Mesa. I’ve known many LDS members in my 43 years. I can honestly say I may not “like” every one I’ve met, but I’ve never known who was a bad person.
I had 2 of the young men doing missionary work help get my truck unstuck from some deep mud in Louisiana. They were covered in mud head to toe by the time I got out of the mud. I felt really bad because they were wearing nice clothes and offered them some money and they turned it down.
@@gokiburijin8478 I wasn’t commenting on the situation, just on the people in general. I think you’re right about the temple though. When they’re built to full height they’re impressive buildings.
@@gokiburijin8478 I don’t understand what you mean, it’s their Temple. The place they gather to worship and glorify their God, I suppose they build as a physical representation of their glorification of him. I don’t know, I’m not Morman.
As a former LDS church member, glad this town stood up to this church. The church will keep pushing and they’re not above making shady deals. They have billions in the bank
Religion became a size queen when the Roman Empire decided to change into the Holy Roman Empire. Your Abraham Lincoln Memorial is a copy of a Roman Empire temple for a god.
@@chunhaylee This is a funny comment. Since Jesus was born in 5BC, this would have been the time when he turned 4. What happened at age 4 which would make contemporary Judaism (as Christianity per se didn't exist) a size queen? I doubt any such ideas started before Constantine.
Why the hate in the comments? Not liking a building proposal is one thing, but mocking, name calling, and hatefulness of a group of a religious people that large is just sad to see. Especially from Texans. Ya’ll are better than that. Hate the building proposal if you like, but we don’t need to hate people.
The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
Welcome to city hall. I wanted to build three stories but our town codes only allow for two. I asked the mayor about getting a easement,and he asked what I was going to do if someone became trapped on the third floor and our fire department has only equipment that is safely designed to reach the roof of a two story commercial building. I began to see the logic in the argument. Although many town leaders in some areas may simply be on power trips it's important to hear the city out on many issues as there may be things officials are aware of the individuals requesting permits are not. For instance is this tower to be erected near an airport? Is there adequate equipment to rescue anyone performing maintenance on a structure of this elevation?
Bottom Line: They are not denying you the right to build your church. They are asking you to abide by the same building regulations as everyone else in the residential community. You want a skyscraper in a residential community. Go to the city. Any good architect could give you a plan that would comply.
@@scrapjack6714 I am wondering what the tallest structure is in that town? Three stories, four or taller. Just curious if there are any taller structures
@@moonbuni59The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
Once they gave an exemption to one church I would think it opens the door to everyone. You can't discriminate based on theology. This is nothing new, local governments have always tried to control churches through zoning laws. I don't have the statistics but I would guess it usually fails.
There's more than 100 feet of difference between the church that was given the exemption verse the one LDS wants to build. Without improving the towns infrastructure, if a building that tall catches on fire, they couldn't put it out. So that's part of it.
@@kennethloki7011 As long as it's a public safety issue and not discriminatory based on religious belief, I would imagine the local government has a case. I also notice no one is saying they can't build a temple, just that it has to conform to local regulations. The recent fire at FBC in Dallas shows churches do burn.
No, they control cults spreading. Thank God our local and state reps are doing their job in representing the majority. The country is already going plenty crazy, keep cults and religions of violence out of Texas as much as possible
@@kennethloki7011The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
Typical of people who want to be noticed. “Look at me look at me”. They don’t care about anyone around them the environment it is all about their drive to get their own way and bully, bully, bully. And then have the cheek to mention tolerance! I don’t think so.
Temples are different from churches. They are ornate and large but do not accommodate crowds. The "size" of the building is purely for effect and is the standard LDS has built in many towns or cities. The standard is to build in residential or rural areas and not in cities because they do not serve the public. Again, different than a church. In fact, they are closed on Sundays and Mondays and do not hold any regular "service" accommodating more than a few hundred (if they are lucky to have that attendance). LDS has faced the same height-compliance issue in many communities. Sometimes they modify the design. Sometimes they look for a different location. It would be a benefit to the community and they are somewhat foolish to fight it. They are beautiful buildings kept in immaculate condition with extensive landscaping and not a source of crowding or traffic issues. They also are not a source of proselytizing, which some may think will increase.
I agree with that. They are finding it isn't really effective anymore. My point was temples are not a center from which missionary activity would be initiated. It does not increase missionary activity. They are separate arms of the church.
I have height restrictions where I live, I wanted to go higher, but had to abide by the zoning laws, no big deal. Same with LDS, abide and be a schmuck like the rest of us tax payers!
This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints has abided by all laws with the proposed McKinney Temple. The McKinney Temple of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints will be approximately the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church worship center.
They like to build temples everywhere, but this size building won't fit in a smaller town. It also might be an issue of trying to get land where it's less expensive. They have enough money to build where they'll be a better fit.
Yeah, but they’d actually have to spend money for that. The Mormon church likes to hoard theirs, hence the trouble they recently got into with the IRS. The reason the Mormons build their temples is the same reason Scientologists build their centers. It’s proven they receive more donations in areas where a new temple (or center) is announced for construction. The money dies down eventually once it’s built. That they want to build it there indicates they have a large enough local membership to predict a sizable tithing and temple fund pool.
The proposed McKinney Temple is the same size as the First McKinney Baptist Church's main worship building. This video may be misleading. The the building 65' The spire 108' Total height 173 approximately
@@firstLast-gb9kr - Maybe it's true, the L.D.S. temple building isn't wanted by the majority of the town. If so, build the large temple in a different place, enjoy the churches you do have there.
@@user-pn9db8sm5w the proposed McKinney Temple will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. Laws are laws. Law are there to protect from capricious persecution. The law allows for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The First McKinney Baptist Church shows a building of this size is consistent with the neighborhood.
Just make it smaller. God doesn’t need a church at all; let alone a such a huge church. They have the right to build a church, just not one that breaks city codes. Their religious freedom does not give them the right to take freedom from others!
35 feet is the limit? That’s very short for commercial buildings in a city but the reporter said it’s a residential area. Even so, most churches of any size would need more than 35’ if they have a large sanctuary with a high ceiling along with any kind of architectural features on top. But the height these LDS people want seems too much for a residential area. 175?
If I heard right they provided an exemption for another church to build up to around 60’ so it doesn’t sound like the council is unwilling to work with them on this, I think the inflexibility on the 175’ height is the main issue here.
@@Dnttou0497 the "other church" is the LDS meeting house, which is already the tallest steeple in the town vs. 6 other churches. 175ft sounds absurd in this location
That is a flawed argument given the difference in height of the first church is 65 feet vs 170 for the LDS church. That's over 100 feet!! It is the choice of the town to set a limit on how high a church can be.
They didn’t, the Bell Tower didn’t get approved 20 years ago. I know the mormon lawyer and bishop are pretending it did, but it didn’t get the final approval (height) and it wasn’t approved or built.
