 An artist's rendering of the Cody Wyoming Temple.©2023 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. |
This may sound harsh. However, our critics often make stuff
up, throw it at us and hope something will stick.
Sometimes it does, usually it doesn’t. Often, the
accusations are more aimed at convincing those outside the Church that are
totally ignorant on the subject. Church members can easily unmask the
accusations as being without foundation.
Temple controversies often take this form. The Cody, Wyoming
temple is no exception.
The objections voiced against that temple are typical of
objections voiced against other temples throughout the years. A few objections
are Cody specific.
Research?!?
The same objections keep coming up. For example, that the
temple is inconsistent with the ambience of the residential neighborhood it is
proposed for, that it will lower property values, increase traffic, obstruct
views and have obnoxious and intrusive lighting.
This is the perennial list of complaints. It never changes.
There is never any evidence given for these assertions. No
one ever references past temples in other areas and how they have affected
their communities. There is never any evidence for anything. This supports my
contention that the assertions have no basis in fact.
Evidence such as this could probably be compiled. However,
I’ve never seen any hint of it. I suspect that if compiled, it would refute the
critics, not support them.
Thus, the absence of it.
Residential Location of Temples
The assertion that temples are inappropriate in residential
neighborhoods is somewhat understandable as a concern, only because most people
are ignorant as to the temple’s mission and purpose.
I was discussing this issue with my brother once. I said,
people don’t think they should be located in residential neighborhoods. They think
they should be located in commercial areas. He finished the thought for me, “Along
with all the other businesses?”
His inference was that people assume that temples are
consistent with commercial buildings and commercial structures. They aren’t,
but that’s what people think.
Many churches do operate like businesses. People make money
out of them and off of them. We don’t. Temples are the opposite of businesses.
No money changes hands and there is no cost to attend them. They cost money,
they don’t produce it.
This view is evident
in the following coverage of the Cody controversy:
Kaelberer and Skinner said they are
not against the temple in Cody, they just think it belongs somewhere else.
“One might ask where can one put a
hundred foot tall tower church in an applicable zone where they wouldn’t have
to go through a conditional use permit or a special exemption for the height,”
Skinner said. “That answer’s pretty easy. It’s a D3 commercial zone.”
That would be anywhere in downtown
Cody, or where there are businesses already.
There is nothing particularly sacred about zoning.
Exceptions do need attention and specific approval and that’s what the official
approval process is for. Some exceptions could imperil public safety and that obviously
needs consideration. It’s just difficult to imagine what a temple or temple steeple
would imperil.
Who made these people/critics experts on temple location
anyway?
Temples are unique structures and it is hard to argue they
“belong” or “don’t belong” anywhere. Those of us with knowledge of what they
are, how they function know they are best located in quiet, residential
neighborhoods.
No master plan, zoning or guidelines are going to be set up
to address Latter-day Saint temples. It isn’t feasible or rational to do this
ahead of time. They have to be considered as a unique exception to planning and
zoning. This is what the approval and exception process is for.
I would never presume to inform church leaders as to the
best location for where temples should be. I’m amazed at the foresight and
inspiration that goes into location decisions. Often, events and situations
develop way down the road that shows the wisdom in the location choice.
As for property values, this accusation is truly mystifying.
I can’t think of anything better to protect property values. Temples are
immaculate structures with meticulously manicured and beautiful landscaping.
Can you imagine a better neighbor?
Temples don’t go anywhere. They exist for the ages. They
aren’t going to be bought by some nefarious individual or group and left to
decay. They’ll remain in the same hands and continue to be breathtaking. You
take more of a risk having regular neighbors.
Why do these other people think they are experts on temple
location?
Have any of these critics actually talked to individuals
living near residential temples about their experience? If they do, I never
hear about it, or read about it. Although, I did see a church produced video
spotlight a man who was extremely grateful for the property value of his home
near the temple when he finally did sell it.
Temples are different than any other structures. They will
always stick out as unusual no matter where they are located. There is no
getting around that. They can never be expected to blend in anywhere. They are
unique. However, they are crucial to the free exercise of our religious worship
and should not be impeded under federal law.
Traffic Concerns
What about increased traffic? What about it? There really
isn’t any, but people often don’t believe this. I can, I’ve lived around
temples.
If all they are referencing for this accusation is the
notion of mega-churches perhaps this notion would be compelling. However, it is
wildly inaccurate when it comes to temples. You’ll have more traffic to worry
about if your neighbors have teenage kids.
I pointed
all this out over 10 years ago when the Connecticut temple was being
resisted. The article I focused on referenced the Belmont, Massachusetts
temple:
”There really were some concerns
about noise and traffic, but it turned out to be nothing," said Lt.
Richard Santangelo of the Belmont Police Department. "You really can't
even tell they're there.”
If noise and traffic truly are problems with temples in
residential areas, this would be easily ascertained after-the-fact rather than
before. I know of no complaints after temples have gone in, just before. This
suggests there really is no merit to this assertion.
Again, critics never point to any actual data from other
temples. If it was there, I suspect they could find it if they went looking. I
would assume it either isn’t there or doesn’t support their conclusions.
If temples were noisy and busy it would defeat their purpose
of being a calm, serene, spiritual entity where you can get away from the
hustle and bustle of the world. The Church is careful not to let that happen
and it can be controlled.
It can be controlled because numbers are so carefully
managed. Only a certain number of patrons can be accommodated at temples. Only
a certain number of known individuals have access to temples. Only a certain
number of individuals are assigned to a particular temple.
The Church can make certain that these numbers are not
exceeded. If they come close, the Church builds another temple in another
location to accommodate the increased numbers.
Aesthetics and Law
Do people object to immaculate, picturesque landscaping?
Wouldn’t you want that in your neighborhood? With temples that have been around
for a while, the word gets around. The Oakland temple is a big draw for a
variety of groups and photographers per this
Los Angeles Times article:
On any springtime Saturday, a
steady stream of quinceañeras can be seen promenading along the blooming rose
bushes and gushing fountains of Oakland’s Mormon temple.
It’s a favorite among the
15-year-olds, who travel from all parts of the Bay Area for a photo shoot among
the temple’s gardens, creating a unique blend of cultures. It’s not clear how
the temple photo shoot tradition got its start, or why certain segments of the
community choose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Oakland
over any other locale.
But Dulce Gutierrez, who owns and
operates Gutierrez Limo in between pre-med classes, has a pretty good guess:
“Its beauty,” she said. “That’s the main draw here.”
The Oakland temple is more urban and not as residential so
it is different than many temples. However, the beauty of the grounds is
something all temples share. The article continues:
With an imposing modernist design,
five gold-crested spires reaching to the sun and the center point climbing 170
feet, the temple has a castle-like, even Disney-esque, appearance. Manicured
lawns surround rollicking waters that burble under footbridges. A rooftop
terrace rimming the temple treats visitors to sweeping views of the San
Francisco Bay.
Photographers tend to recommend the
location to their clients, Gutierrez said, and they pass along the tip to other
photographers. That’s how videographer Carmen Palacios heard about the temple,
she said. Her friend, who is also a photographer and videographer, recommended
it, and she’s been coming nearly every Saturday ever since. That was four years
ago, she said.
“It’s my favorite place to take
photos,” Palacios said.
Not all temple grounds are that open to the public, but
anyone can enjoy how beautiful it is, if only from a distance. Temples make
excellent neighbors.
One of the specific, but not uncommon, concerns for the
Cody, Wyoming temple is the height of the steeple. Although consistent
with law and precedent , it may be inconsistent with the Cody Master Plan,
a document with no legal bearing that appears to have been dusted off and
utilized for objecting to the temple.
The Cody temple would be consistent
with law:
During the second meeting in late
June, more than a hundred people came. One was Jessica Wille.
“I am for bringing people to God in
any capacity,” Wille said. “And, I’m also for just following the laws. And when
I went to these meetings, I realized that everything is in accordance with the
laws.”
According to Sean Carter, who works
for the City of Cody Building Department, Wille is right.
In the latest Planning and Zoning
meeting, he told the board, “If they are constructing the Temple Tower out of
what we consider non-combustible construction, it can be unlimited in height.”
That’s because a rooftop structure
is exempt from Cody height restrictions. But, some of the board members
disagreed with Carter’s definition of the large tower as a rooftop structure.
This issue may ultimately be settled in the courts, regardless
of people’s personal interpretation.
The notion that the height of the steeple is too high and
could obstruct people’s views seems almost laughable to me. I’ve lived and
traveled in Wyoming. I can’t imagine it being more than a toothpick in Big
Sky Country. There is almost no view to obstruct.
View some videos of Cody on YouTube and you’ll see what I
mean, especially this one
produced by the city itself. I would think the dam there is less consistent
with the inherent beauty and terrain of Cody than the proposed temple.
Lighting and Lighting Issues
I’m always astonished at how the Church is able to light up
the temples without lighting up the surrounding neighborhood or other structures.
They do a masterful job. You have to see it yourself to really appreciate it.
One way you can do so is to search Latter-day Saint or
Mormon temple at night on YouTube. There are a variety of videos posted, many
taken by individuals via drones. Judge for yourself.
I do remember one instance, years ago, where the Church was
asked to mute the lights at night at a particular temple. They did so. They
were later asked to increase them back to what they were. Apparently, it wasn’t
that intrusive and it was beautiful. I don’t remember enough of the details to
search it and provide proof here but I do remember it occurring.
We also have Sharon
Osbourne’s evidence, the wife of rocker, Ozzy Osbourne:
One example is Sharon Osbourne, a
television personality and the wife of rockstar Ozzy Osbourne. She built a hot
tub on the top terrace of her home so she could look out across Hollywood's
Santa Monica Boulevard and admire the Los Angeles LDS Temple.
"One of the first things I
bought for the house was a big old-fashioned telescope, which I kept in the
living-room area. And the first thing I did every night when I came home was go
to the spyglass and look out across the city on the Mormon temple," she
said.
The lighting is always exquisite at temples and it is
stunning as well as respectful to the neighborhood.
Conclusion
So, if all these assertions really are without merit, why
are people resisting temples? That is the million-dollar question.
I can’t help but think that if the situation were reversed
that these people would be screaming that it’s their land, their money and as
long as they aren’t violating any laws they should be able to do what they want
with it.
So, why do they want to control our temples?
Why are they trying to control what other people do with
their own money, their own land and their own resources. I find it mystifying
but you could probably query people who manage Home Owners Associations (HOA)
for some answers.
I think it is more about power and control than anything. They
are trying to control how and where people worship according to their
definition of what is appropriate, despite having very few facts.
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that the Church
thoroughly investigates the law – local, state and federal when doing anything.
Critics generally have to twist something obscure or borderline in order to
accuse it of any wrong-doing. Naïve or complicit journalists often help them
along. When you can truly obtain all the facts, you often get a very different
picture of what is happening.
Here are some quotes from a
recent article:
One of the concerns community
members have about the temple development is that the proposed Site Plan
violates city code and Cody’s Master Plan. The Church says, “That determination
is made by city leaders. We feel we are in compliance with both federal and
local law.”
The Church also stated, “We have
compromised on a number of items in good faith. The opposition only seems to
offer one option, no temple in Cody. We are hopeful we can find a mutually
agreeable solution for all of Cody and avoid the division being raised by
opponents to the temple.”
The LDS Church remains hopeful that
the temple will be able to be developed at the proposed address of 555 Temple
View Lane, stating, “In addition, the Church has reached out to the
representatives of those expressing concerns and were told on several occasions
they were simply unwilling to meet or talk. We remain willing and anxious
to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.”
When one side won’t talk or budge on anything, that’s
generally a sign they are not bargaining in good faith.
My Advice to Cody Officials
Those of you who must make decisions on this issue would
undoubtedly have an easier time of it if you can point to something being
technically illegal and saying your hands are tied.
I seriously doubt that is the case here.
Using your personal preferences and interpretation of the
law is problematic in making decisions on this or anything. You are setting
yourself up for future quandaries and dilemmas.
If you do that, you open yourself up to pressure and
influence from any and all sources on just about any imaginable subject. It
will increase your problems in the future, not alleviate them.
It’s like giving in to your children on a particular issue
that you’ve already set up established guidelines for. Exceptions are for
things you can’t or didn’t anticipate when you set up the guidelines. Abandoning
the guidelines once simply emboldens the kids to pressure you in the future on
additional things. It’s a quagmire.
Also, you could too easily argue yourself into something
that isn’t legally sound like denying the Church the ability to build on its
own land because you personally think the steeple is too high when there is no
legal restriction against it. Legal precedent, legal and technical advice is a
better guide to rely on.
Disputing the city planner’s determination on the steeple
because it doesn’t align with your view or because he is a Latter-day Saint is
an emotional decision if you would accept his determination if it supported your
view and he was a Methodist. He’s the city planner. Evaluate his view on the
basis of his technical expertise and the proof he offers.
Having the courts decide will get you individually off of
the hook but it will cause extra expense for the city of Cody and ultimately,
its citizens. That doesn’t help anybody.
So, make the decisions you were elected to make in a timely
manner with the best information you have. Paralysis by analysis is expensive
and it is just delay. You don’t need to review or study anything more. You have
the facts you need.
Don’t make up the rules as you go along. You must follow the
rules currently in existence, otherwise you are opening yourself to legal
challenges, which apparently you have done already. If you need to change the
rules in the future, do it in the future. Otherwise, you are being capricious
and arbitrary. History and the law will condemn you for it.
Put your personal preferences aside and make the best
decisions you can consistent with law, fairness and equity uncluttered by
preferences or pressure. Your integrity is on the line.
Short-sighted decisions that are safe for you now can
imperil other people and other things down the road. History will hold you
accountable even if gets you off the hook for consequences in the short-run.
Yes, making these decisions could get personally unpleasant.
The controversy has turned into a power struggle. People could target you for
persecution if you decide something they don’t like.
The temple itself will last longer on the earth than the
people currently against it or for it.
However, what usually happens is that emotion eventually
dies down and reason prevails, at least in the long term. Ultimately,
you want to be on the right side of reason. Make your decisions without
emotion.
Remember, you are making decisions for the ages.
Addendum: 2023-08-17
I've been reflecting on the "lighting" issues. It's hard for me to consider this a legitimate concern and not just a reason to scare people into resisting the temple. Concerns over lighting are certainly understandable. They are a reason to work something out with a property owner, not a reason to prevent them from building in the first place.
A comment from Facebook: "In 1987 I spoke to a guy who didn't know I was LDS. He said he used to live in Oakland just below the Mormon Temple. I asked what that was like. He said, "The construction noise wasn't fun but I loved it when I sold my house for much more than even a few streets away.""
Continue reading at the original source →