A Discussion with a McKinney Resident about the Fairview Temple

Рет қаралды 584

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 38

@Mim-i4n Ай бұрын

Thanks for informing us on the predicament. Very informational. I agree with freedom of religious artistic expression! Hope it gets built and stays peace with the community.

@kaijusushi8165 Ай бұрын

I'm fascinated to learn of the new "steeple doctrine" declared by the Church's legal team stating the temple must have a tall steeple in order for the saving ordinances to work. After 60 years in the church, I have never heard anything about this before.

@tawneenielsen4080 Ай бұрын

Seriously. It is so ridiculous that we pretend these things are of value when we were taught, as older members, that it's about the ordinance (which I question now anyway) not the building.

@jacobmayberry1126 Ай бұрын

It's not new. The only thing new about this is the church asking its members to testify before a town council. The church has always fought to have architecture legally protected under religious freedom laws. The Boston Temple is only one example.

@kaijusushi8165 Ай бұрын

@@jacobmayberry1126 - "steeple doctrine" is simply local church leaders and lawyers to trying to gaslight the town counsel. It's not honest.

@jacobmayberry3566 Ай бұрын

@@kaijusushi8165 If that's what you think then you haven't been paying attention

@kaijusushi8165 Ай бұрын

@@jacobmayberry3566 - The spin won't work on me. The church should be ashamed for lying.

@paulhallett1452 Ай бұрын

As an attorney without a dog in this fight, this is brutally painful to watch. I may weigh in here to correct and clarify on a number of points, but basically the LDS is Church has an incredibly weak case here. I am very willing to believe LDS org members could just honestly be misled and confused (sort of definitional), but I think people can be forgiven for concluding arguments this bad and off-point are made in bad faith (no pun intended). I think their read is predictably bad here on the optics, but a victimhood complex is a powerful drug. Maybe the LDS should just use the other lot or propose a shorter steeple, but, at this point, if I were LDS I would want the org to really consider cutting their losses - not that I have any problem with the LDS scoring own goals (LDS org is the Ronaldinho/Messi of that).

@jacobmayberry3566 Ай бұрын

We aren't making legal arguments in this video so your expertise is irrelevant here. Also, unless you specialize in the field of law that specifically pertains to this this issue, please don't appeal to your expertise as an attorney. It would be really cringe if you were like a divorce attorney and barged into our comments claiming expertise.

@Rogue_Missionary Ай бұрын

“Attorney without a dog in the fight…” Then proceeds to lampoon members of having a persecution complex and make fun of our church website… You sure dude?

@mlg74 Ай бұрын

Is it a bunch of rich entitled people that live there?

@raulofmustachio3d Ай бұрын

Bridger's been radio silence. What's his story?

@jacobmayberry1126 Ай бұрын

Just life. That's all I'll say.

@paulhallett1452 Ай бұрын

What if the Prophet just went Jesus live tweeting D&C style and came down with a “Thus sayeth the LORD” about where they were building the temple. I mean - I guess that didn’t really work out for jailbait Joe, but apparently the restoration is now ongoing - maybe an LDS prophecy will actually not be falsified for once!

@jacobmayberry1126 Ай бұрын

Yawn

@aliceduren6542 Ай бұрын

This was a great deep dive. Only heard of all the controversy about the steeple height. I agree this all stems from the church misreading what the standard height is with religious buildings, but also locals not wanting the church to infiltrate the reputation of their town. I'm still for the temple. Fairview seems to misunderstand the purpose of temples and why bigger ones are more ideal.

@Rogue_Missionary Ай бұрын

There's not a religious building standard in Fairview. You can say there is a precedent based on what has been approved/built, but Fairview's CUP zoning considerations are public health & safety, flood protection, noise/light effects, street/traffic concerns, parking situation, economic/environmental impact, and aesthetic appearance. Fairview United is asking the town to create a religious structure standard, but there currently isn't one in place. I wouldn't say the church misread standards in the town but misread how the town would react to such a proposal. The church assumed they would be less hostile to a larger structure due to the council's lack of concern of a 154' bell tower proposal. Main distinction is law vs preference. There is nothing specific in the law about the height of religious structures other than the council can consider "The aesthetic appearance of the use, and other sensory effects that the use may have on the established character of the neighborhood, its property and the property within the town as a whole."

@paulhallett1452 Ай бұрын

Not this