My inactive and antagonist cousin complained about the Cedar City, UT temple being built close to his home. I told him to move -- but to wait until after it was built to put his home up for sale because property values would be significantly increased and the area much more desirable. He quit complaining.
Bob WoodburyMay 8, 2025
It seems forgotten in this is the earlier mediation in which the Fairview mayor and city council agreed to the design changes the Church proposed and shook hands on it. I’m guessing that afterwards, the city leaders took flak from some residents and in an attempt to deflect their part in the mediation agreement threw the Church under the bus. The final vote of approval was an acknowledgment that a court case wouldn’t hold up in view of their earlier agreement with the Church. It appears their late opposition was to save face and not accept responsibility.
The Kingdom goes forward in spite of ever present opposition.
Darla GaylorMay 8, 2025
I'm a Ft. Worthian & am old enough to remember the protesting and hullabaloo surrounding the building of the Dallas temple- and the attempt a group of "good" people in my small town (NW of Ft. Worth) made at showing the God Makers in our high school auditorium. They nearly succeeded with that last thing, until our parents got wind of it and had a discussion with the school board. The viewing was moved into a couple of local churches, where they could talk about our awful "cult" on private property.
In Houston, we have very few zoning ordinances. While it makes for some interesting neighborhoods, it also allows for some large spires, crosses, and mega churches- some of which require off duty police officers to direct traffic for every single weekend. Saw the same thing in Nashville when we lived there. Can't recall a single instance (other than an open house?) where those issues occur for a temple.
I would love to think we are progressing as human beings, but too much evidence is in full view to tell me we aren't that far removed from Salem.
Gary C JohnsonMay 7, 2025
Though I'm not conversant with the current criteria utilized to ascertain where our temples are built, it has always been my understanding that the Church does not propose temples where they won't be used. It seems that temples are located where they are both needed by local members and to anticipate future growth in their numbers.
I suspect that the Church is, by now, sufficiently well-schooled enough to anticipate resistance to any construction project they propose. They may even have at the ready, alternative designs that address potential local concerns. Thank goodness, the Constitution protects both the aggressor and the aggrieved.
Maryann TaylorMay 7, 2025
The important thing to me is that the Lord's work will continue to go forth, despite opposition. Temples will continue to be constructed and Zion will be built on both sides of the veil. As we are promised in the D&C 3:1, "The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." We can trust our Prophets and Apostles to be led by the Spirit in dealing with the opposition. Our responsibility is to avoid contention and to continue in temple work.
Elizabeth HarbisonMay 7, 2025
I listened to the arguments after Fairview city council said yes. Things like “May God help us all” and “I’m Christian but I’ll say yes because we can’t afford a lawsuit.” Yeah, this was definitely about more than the spire height or the traffic.
Michael BrashearMay 6, 2025
Acting with good faith and within the purview of the law, the Church cannot afford to allow those in opposition to the Church set a precedent of forcing the Church to abandon its plans. There always seems to be a group that follows the temple builders around so as to stir up opposition to the Church, yet once constructed, the temples become a magnet for good families to build up the surrounding community and add, not detract, from the scenic and economic opportunities of the area.
Jenny Madsen SvendsenMay 6, 2025
I grew up in Denmark, I went to in Copenhagen. Our building was renotvated as a Temple (my husband and I now live in Canda. The streets on 3 sides of the temple are very narrow, apartment buildings on 3 sides. there was a lot of opposition against the church, but people around the Temple are fine with it now. Also, as a youth I had the opportunity to attend the Bern Switzerland Temple twice for youth baptisms, once we stayed with a lady in her apartment facing the Temple, and she said that the Temple has brought a peaceful feeling to the neighbourhood, and they all love it. My point is to say, that where ever the Lord wants His Temple, it will be so, and is always an added wonderful building to everyone around it.
HelenCMay 6, 2025
When similar size, lighting and traffic issues were hurled at the building of the Portland, Oregon Temple in thy 1980s our sweet President Hinckley quipped (I thought LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) stood for “Let Us Build A Temple”.
When protestors demanded we cut the spires’ heights in half I recall suggesting they do the same to the arms of Portlandia, a statue of a female torso being built to emerge out of a city building, “Aliens”-style. Neither design change would have made proportional sense.
None of this does.
Comments | Return to Story
LDeFriezMay 9, 2025
My inactive and antagonist cousin complained about the Cedar City, UT temple being built close to his home. I told him to move -- but to wait until after it was built to put his home up for sale because property values would be significantly increased and the area much more desirable. He quit complaining.
Bob WoodburyMay 8, 2025
It seems forgotten in this is the earlier mediation in which the Fairview mayor and city council agreed to the design changes the Church proposed and shook hands on it. I’m guessing that afterwards, the city leaders took flak from some residents and in an attempt to deflect their part in the mediation agreement threw the Church under the bus. The final vote of approval was an acknowledgment that a court case wouldn’t hold up in view of their earlier agreement with the Church. It appears their late opposition was to save face and not accept responsibility. The Kingdom goes forward in spite of ever present opposition.
Darla GaylorMay 8, 2025
I'm a Ft. Worthian & am old enough to remember the protesting and hullabaloo surrounding the building of the Dallas temple- and the attempt a group of "good" people in my small town (NW of Ft. Worth) made at showing the God Makers in our high school auditorium. They nearly succeeded with that last thing, until our parents got wind of it and had a discussion with the school board. The viewing was moved into a couple of local churches, where they could talk about our awful "cult" on private property. In Houston, we have very few zoning ordinances. While it makes for some interesting neighborhoods, it also allows for some large spires, crosses, and mega churches- some of which require off duty police officers to direct traffic for every single weekend. Saw the same thing in Nashville when we lived there. Can't recall a single instance (other than an open house?) where those issues occur for a temple. I would love to think we are progressing as human beings, but too much evidence is in full view to tell me we aren't that far removed from Salem.
Gary C JohnsonMay 7, 2025
Though I'm not conversant with the current criteria utilized to ascertain where our temples are built, it has always been my understanding that the Church does not propose temples where they won't be used. It seems that temples are located where they are both needed by local members and to anticipate future growth in their numbers. I suspect that the Church is, by now, sufficiently well-schooled enough to anticipate resistance to any construction project they propose. They may even have at the ready, alternative designs that address potential local concerns. Thank goodness, the Constitution protects both the aggressor and the aggrieved.
Maryann TaylorMay 7, 2025
The important thing to me is that the Lord's work will continue to go forth, despite opposition. Temples will continue to be constructed and Zion will be built on both sides of the veil. As we are promised in the D&C 3:1, "The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." We can trust our Prophets and Apostles to be led by the Spirit in dealing with the opposition. Our responsibility is to avoid contention and to continue in temple work.
Elizabeth HarbisonMay 7, 2025
I listened to the arguments after Fairview city council said yes. Things like “May God help us all” and “I’m Christian but I’ll say yes because we can’t afford a lawsuit.” Yeah, this was definitely about more than the spire height or the traffic.
Michael BrashearMay 6, 2025
Acting with good faith and within the purview of the law, the Church cannot afford to allow those in opposition to the Church set a precedent of forcing the Church to abandon its plans. There always seems to be a group that follows the temple builders around so as to stir up opposition to the Church, yet once constructed, the temples become a magnet for good families to build up the surrounding community and add, not detract, from the scenic and economic opportunities of the area.
Jenny Madsen SvendsenMay 6, 2025
I grew up in Denmark, I went to in Copenhagen. Our building was renotvated as a Temple (my husband and I now live in Canda. The streets on 3 sides of the temple are very narrow, apartment buildings on 3 sides. there was a lot of opposition against the church, but people around the Temple are fine with it now. Also, as a youth I had the opportunity to attend the Bern Switzerland Temple twice for youth baptisms, once we stayed with a lady in her apartment facing the Temple, and she said that the Temple has brought a peaceful feeling to the neighbourhood, and they all love it. My point is to say, that where ever the Lord wants His Temple, it will be so, and is always an added wonderful building to everyone around it.
HelenCMay 6, 2025
When similar size, lighting and traffic issues were hurled at the building of the Portland, Oregon Temple in thy 1980s our sweet President Hinckley quipped (I thought LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) stood for “Let Us Build A Temple”. When protestors demanded we cut the spires’ heights in half I recall suggesting they do the same to the arms of Portlandia, a statue of a female torso being built to emerge out of a city building, “Aliens”-style. Neither design change would have made proportional sense. None of this does.
ADD A COMMENT