DiscussMormonism.com

I've had my thumb on the pulse of the Fairview situation for a while, for personal family reasons.

One of the lies that Mormon-temple apologists keep spouting over and over on Youtube and everywhere else is that the town allowed "another church" a zoning variance similar to what the Mormons are demanding. And that the zoning commission is just being bigoted.

Not so. Not even in the same universe. As Paul Harvey used to say, here's the rest...of...the...story...

Years ago the Creekwood Methodist church asked for a variance for a bell tower. It was rather tall and a bit excessive of zoning limits, but nobody really cared because it would have been located on the extreme end of Stacy Rd, where there were no residences. The town council tentatively approved it with conditions. Mostly related to the decibels of noise that the bells would have made. The town council then sent the matter to the zoning commission for further handling of the details. (Zoning commission always has the final decision, not the town council.) Well, the Methodist church never followed through with the conditions and the matter was dropped. Final approval was never granted. The original bell tower was never built. Twenty years later they applied for, and received, a permit to build a 51 ft tower that was perfectly within zoning ordinances. That towers exists today. (Ironically, it is 20 ft shorter than the Mormon meetinghose spire farther south on Stacy Rd. The LDS meetinghouse is the tallest church building in the town!)

"Bigotry" they cry! "Religious freedom" they exclaim!

Persecution!!! (Triple exclamation points )

Rubbish.

It's about zoning ordinances. Pure and simple. Long standing zoning ordinances, and the fact that the current temple plans would result in a monstrosity of a temple in a residential neighborhood. The good people of Fairview are against such a monstrosity. The zoning commission has a long standing history of managing religious buildings in the town with complete fairness and equity. Their reputation is unimpeachable.

In short, the Mormons are demanding special priviledges. Wildly special privileges.

I have an interest in this matter because I have relatives in Fairview. It's going to be interesting to see this play out because A) the town is loaded with wealth. This is not some poor podunk of a town or anything close to it. They've got the money to fight and win. They've got successful lawyers in the town who are committed to the cause and will engage pro bono. B) The Mormons don't have a legal leg to stand on. C) The people will not be bullied. This is Texas. Moreover, this is rich Texas. They will fight to the bitter end on this matter. If perchance the Mormons prevail (not likely), it will never be well with the Mormons in this town. "Jesus" picked the wrong town to mess with. Fuggedaboudit!

The good townsfolk of Fairview are not against Mormons building a temple in Fairview. The LDS Meeting house (right next door to the proposed temple site) is the largest religious building in town and received absolutely no friction during the approval process.

This is all about the size of the temple. The current plans are monstrous. So large it's, quite frankly, laughable.

Make of this what you will.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Great insights. Thanks for sharing!

bill4long wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:14 am

"Bigotry" they cry! "Religious freedom" they exclaim!

Persecution!!! (Triple exclamation points )

Rubbish.

Apologists have to go with the material they've got. Persecution is a powerful rallying cry for Mormons. Being a victim brings forth tithing dollars, which can be funneled into suing Fairview.

"We need a spire to worship!"

A clueless SeN commenter mentioned there’s a quote from Brigham that the bells of hell ring every time the “lord’s church” builds another temple.

Your town is just doing Satan’s bidding by opposing a temple in your backyard, don’t you know!

How’s that for demonizing the other?

As I said in the other thread, the LDS Church should conform to the zoning ordinances of the communities in which it builds its temples.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2024 5:06 pm

As I said in the other thread, the LDS Church should conform to the zoning ordinances of the communities in which it builds its temples.

I think the church may have the law on its side, in that the city may have a heavy burden in establishing a public interest that significantly outweighs religious interests, especially since the validity of that interest (e.g., height of the steeple) may not be something that can be questioned.

The problem is the Church seems to be more than willing to through around its weight with accompanying litigation threats, when it should work with the local community. The mentality of having the law on you side that allows you to bulldoze through local sentiment is unseemly. At best, really bad PR.

I think it is important to be a decent neighbor, even for huge churches.

toon wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2024 8:10 pm

I think the church may have the law on its side, in that the city may have a heavy burden in establishing a public interest that significantly outweighs religious interests, especially since the validity of that interest (e.g., height of the steeple) may not be something that can be questioned.

How so? What if the Mormons wanted to build a 200 ft spire on that property? Or 500 ft? Or 1000 ft? In your opinion, would they "may have the law on its side"?

Zoning ordinances exist for a reason. The Fairview zoning commission has a long track record of applying the long-standing ordinances equitably regarding religious buildings. They have shown no bias whatsoever in this case, and have not sought to violate any Constitutional rights of the Mormons. The Mormons are demanding special privileges that are far outside the limits of the zoning ordinances.

On what basis (black letter law and/or case law) do you think the Mormons "may have the law on its side" ?

If the Church were to build a 1000-foot spire in the Olympus Cove area or adjacent to the administrative HQ of the Interpreter Foundation, it would establish a precedent. LDS members would come from great distances to worship it.

On what basis (black letter law and/or case law) do you think the Mormons "may have the law on its side"?

On the basis that Mormons are God's chosen people.

bill4long wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:14 am

In short, the Mormons are demanding special priviledges. Wildly special privileges.

Of course they are. They are special. They were the most valiant spirits in the pre-existence held back to come forward at this special time to usher in the Millennium. As Joseph Smith, Jr. demonstrated 'in spades,' they think the rules of society do not apply to them.