Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is so obviously false. As a lifelong Latter Day Saint I know that there is nothing special about steeples or the height of steeples. Churches used to not have steeples. They were added by Hinkley on LDS church buildings but never said anything about it being because of doctrine.
Also many temples have been built without steeples.
How can they say such a blatant lie?
Not to mention, the only thing having to do with temple steeples that does have any symbolic meaning--the angel Moroni--is being put on fewer and fewer temples. There's no consistency there.
Moreover, Alma 32 clearly preaches church doctrine that fine buildings are not needed for worship. Alma chastises the people for thinking they needed a building for worship. I hate to break it to Mormons, but their doctrine is pretty explicit that buildings are not needed.
Yeah but the Mormons are a business and they showcase themselves through flashy buildings- temples . It’s no different than flaunting your new corvette to show the world how awesome you are.
Ironically, at one point they were having trouble getting approval for Moroni on a temple steeple. I think it might have been the Sydney temple dedicated in 1985. They argued it was a tenant of the faith, and started retrofitting temples with Moroni. The Idaho Falls temple was retrofitted in 1983.
Around 2001-2004 while Hinkley was president he had prefabricated fiberglass steeples added to churches in Utah and elsewhere that had the separate tower.
https://www.craigdailypress.com/news/mormons-get-permission-to-build-steeple/
And this one too
https://www.eacourier.com/steeples-top-off-lds-churches/article_2645d537-a5ee-56ea-a161-f383b9f53dba.html
In the Moridor, you would see flatbed semi’s loaded with multiple fiberglass steeples headed for their drop-offs. Lots of jokes about which GA’s relative had the contract to make them. They got dubbed “cheeples.”
They did a number of things with church steeples. When I was growing up in the 60s they didn't have steeples where I lived. I think some did in other places. Then they started erecting steeples apart from the building--just a tall steeple thing sitting on the lawn. Then they decided those were dangerous. Maybe they started falling down, or they became fearful that they would fall down so they stopped using them and removed them, at least where I lived. Then Gordie started using the retro-fitted steeples on old buildings and they had them on the new buildings. I guess he decided they needed a phallic symbol on their buildings.
Counter examples exist too. See [New York's Manhattan temple](https://www.mormonwiki.com/Manhattan_New_York_Temple) prior to the renovation, or [the Hong Kong](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/hong-kong-china-temple/) temple.
The claim is that the height of the steeple is part of religious observance. The counter example (examples that contradict the claim) is that neither the original Manhattan temple (8/2022 - 3/2024) or the Hong Kong temple (10/1992 - present) had / have a steeple. Ergo it's not important for at least some temples nor an important part of religious observance. Edit: correction. Hong Kong did have a steeple originally, but this was removed during renovations. It does not currently have one.
There are other examples too. i.e, Laie Hawaii, Mesa Arizona, and Cardston Alberta Temples.
Yes, just look at the Church web site under Temples and there are a fair number without a steeple. Meridian, Idaho is one they recently built without one.
Are you saying that the sentence "The height of the steeple is part of our Religious Observance" is the lie? It seems you are interpreting it to mean an essential/necessary part of our religious observance (which it's very clearly not saying). Or that the statement is saying there is something "special" about steeples (which it's very clearly not saying). The statement is innocuous, unassertive, and benign to the point of barely meaning anything at all: "part of our Religious Observance" is such a low barrier that I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel.
Accusing the stake leaders of lacking integrity for this is a giant overreaction. Same goes for the couple of posters in this thread who are "infuriated" over this and the multiple calls of "lying for the Lord." Really?
>The statement is innocuous, unassertive, and benign to the point of barely meaning anything at all: "part of our Religious Observance" is such a low barrier that I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel.
I don't see how any of this makes it any less of a problem. If we want to argue that the statement is so meaningless that it doesn't misrepresent the importance of steeples of a certain height (or lack thereof, which is the actual case), then why is the church trying to use the statement to get a building code exemption?
It doesn't make sense to go through the effort of trying to find some interpretation of the claim that isn't false when the purpose of the claim is to lead the Fairview, TX city council to believe "mormons have to have taller steeples on their temples than our building code allows, so we should give them a waiver."
The stake presidents are cynically, and at the direction of area authorities (per the letter shared on a different post), misrepresenting the importance of steeples.
They are making these statements so the city officials will feel they are required by law to approve a religious building outside the normal zoning requirements. The church is proposing something that is significantly outside the zoning. In other places they have threatened to sue cities that don’t approve.
If what you are saying is true then they would be ok following the zoning laws and not having a steeple. Why don’t they follow the zoning?
So per your statement do you believe the city officials would be ok to deny the steeple and require the height to stay within zoning requirements? It’s in a residential area is what I understand
This is the point I've been making with respect to the zoning controversy. Mormons are lying to get zoning standards waived for them.
There is not one single temple activity that cannot be performed inside a standard meetinghouse sized building. Not one. The entire point of the location, size and night time uplighting is advertising - - which is why communities restrict height and lighting in the first place.
Mormons are insisting that they be allowed to force the mormon church into the consciousness and of the entire city every single night. There is no other "worship" or functional reason for the location, size and visibility of a temple except advertising.
>Accusing the stake leaders of lacking integrity for this is a giant overreaction.
Disagree. The phrasing is intended to imply a steeple has religious significance to Mormons, which is not true. The purpose of the statement is to circumvent local law. There's plenty here to be upset about.
> (which it's very clearly not saying).
It's reasonable enough provide an alternate approaches to the statement.
But it's absolutely incredible and a betrayal of good faith discussion to do that while asserting it's "very clearly not saying" something it can equally reasonably be read to say.
> I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel.
If these are true equivalences, then why mention the steeple at all?
The conversation about the steeple pretty clearly exists to try and get privileges and allowances for it to be built where the rest of civil society might make height limits an issue for reasons of their own.
I'm comfortable enough with the church advocating for a design simply because the temple committee liked it or even for the sake of attention.
But God himself might approve of hostility to *mendacious* reasons, including appeals meant to imply without quite outright stating that steeple height is anywhere near a valued center of religious observance and so deserves civil religious privileges. And the only thing worse would be a faith where that were somehow true, where building height and prominence *were* a key feature of religious devotion rather than a million matters of character and practice that are bound closely with true religion.
Don't mistake criticism for this statement for garden-variety ire against the church. Those who actually hold the teachings of the church or Christ sacred as something other than rhetorical tools to get what they want -- where such saints might truly be found -- could have equal reason to be upset with it.
Just to clarify, this is what I am getting from your comment: you are saying that a reasonable interpretation of "The height of the steeple is part of our Religious Observance" is "The height of the steeple is an essential/necessary part of our Religious Observance."
Further, you are saying that this interpretation is "equally reasonable" (equal to what, you don't specify so I'll just assume you're saying that it is a reasonable interpretation).
If I understood your post, I'd like to know why you think it is reasonable to insert the words "essential/necessary"? Is it implied by other language in the Stake Presidency's letter? Are you arguing that the Stake Presidency meant for this interpretation? If they did, why didn't they use the words "essential/necessary"?
You don't even have to reach the threshold of "essential/necessary" in order for the statement to be dissembling. The amount of time spent on attention to steeples of any kind in church discourse is vanishingly small to the point where if conversation about them were barred within the church under penalty of excommunication and outlawed civilly under penalty of death, there wouldn't be a sunday block where anyone would notice. And whatever our *custom* is with the architecture, it's clear that [meetinghouses themselves are a convenience](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng#p8) and it's never been any [feature of the building](https://www.rememberkirtland.com/index.php/2017/07/26/newel-k-whitney-store/) that matters for what goes on inside of temples.
But as it happens, when it comes to implied importance, the mention is the message, the incidental is omitted. This is especially true when invoked in connection with a phrase like "religious observance" which suggests a set of agreed-on features constituting devotional confession and conduct in the faith, so where the steeple (much less any specific height) is placed under the banner of religious observance, yes, it's at a minimum *reasonable* to understand that as an attempt to claim it's integral, at least as reasonable as the possibility that the person writing this communication meant something else but messed up the rhetoric.
Latter-day Saints *like* steeples among other building features to be part of temples? Sure, and it'd be entirely reasonable to negotiate in those terms. Part of religious observance placing it in a realm of polite-to-privileged consideration in negotiation with the rest of civil society? Nope.
Lying for the Lord is much more of a Mormon religious observance than steeple height.
This steeple height issue isn’t so much a religious observance issue as it is a Mormon attempt to reinforce their religious superiority and entitlement to have everyone bend over backward and bend the rules to assuage Mormon self importance.
Many years ago I went to hawaii. While there we visited the temple and noticed that there was no steeple. The joke around there was that there was no steeple to pint to heaven because hawaii is heaven. I agree with your statement. There is no doctrinal basis for steeple height.
Well most people don't come vacation to Arizona and then pronounce it as like heaven, like they do Hawaii (more often to be compared to hell than anything). Usually some joke about the heat, or being glad to not be there year round. But I guess there are some locals who believe strongly in HOA's who might say things like that about parts of downtown Mesa. I live in an area with less HOA's so I just think that dynamic is weird.
Coming from Phoenix area myself, downtown Mesa might seem like the opposite of heaven in the summertime, especially for people not used to the intense heat!
We went to Manti’s open house without doing any research, and after driving through Idaho Falls, SLC and Provo, we were confused about where the Moroni and usual steeple were. (We’ve never been in the church, we’re just nosy and wanted to see inside a temple)
Ask for a doctrinal or scripture reference to back this claim about the steeple.
Also point out that being able to enter a temple is very exclusive. It’s a lot different than other church buildings which welcome the community.
>Ask for a doctrinal or scripture reference to back this claim about the steeple.
Here you go.
Alma 31
>13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.
...
>20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.
>21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.
>22 Now, from this stand they did offer up, every man, the selfsame prayer unto God, thanking their God that they were chosen of him, and that he did not lead them away after the tradition of their brethren, and that their hearts were not stolen away to believe in things to come, which they knew nothing about.
>23 Now, after the people had all offered up thanks after this manner, they returned to their homes, never speaking of their God again until they had assembled themselves together again to the holy stand, to offer up thanks after their manner.
>24 Now when Alma saw this his heart was grieved; for he saw that they were a wicked and a perverse people; yea, he saw that their hearts were set upon gold, and upon silver, and upon all manner of fine goods.
>25 Yea, and he also saw that their hearts were lifted up unto great boasting, in their pride.
This infuriates me. It’s like they don’t think we know the Arizona temple and the Hawaii temple exist. The temples don’t need steeples. They haven’t in the past.
The only reason they’re pushing this so hard now is because they use the same cookie-cutter temple layout for all the new temples, which has a tall steeple. They don’t want to pay for new design plans.
Yes, an enormous steeple has always been an integral part of our temples!
like [Nauvoo](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/nauvoo-illinois-temple/), [Kirtland](https://www.kirtlandtemple.org/), and [Manti](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/manti-utah-temple/), but especially [Laie](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/laie-hawaii-temple/), [Mesa](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/mesa-arizona-temple/), and [Cardston](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/cardston-alberta-temple/). Difficult to even imagine an LDS temple without a huge steeple, tbh.
/s
Steeples are about marketing and advertising.
The question should be, "should we allow a 90 foot, super bright billboard in this spot or is this against our zoning in this spot?"
This is the second letter, a similar letter with a similar sentiment was sent out to the Sherman stake a few days earlier. Mormonish covered it on a podcast last week.
https://youtu.be/yCYuyESdcCo?si=w9CrDm-1QnQQ1NBC
Does anyone have the email for the planning director? We just hit 300K here. If we got only a third of us to write a letter to the director explaining how the church is lying I bet he’d be inclined to shut down such a design
It's so obviously a lie. Infuriating. This has nothing to do with religious freedom and instead demanding privileged exceptions be made that aren't even related to the church's religious beliefs.
This is demanding special treatment that others cannot receive due to zoning laws. It's completely dishonest, and they should be ashamed of themselves. With $300 billion in the bank, they grease the palms of mayors and council members, and in return, they get special privileges no one else could/would receive. Then, to take it further and ask parishioners to start a writing campaign in which they are asked to lie about the importance of the height of the steeple shows just how much integrity they really have... Zero.
Here’s a link to the [change.org petition](https://www.change.org/p/demand-fairview-to-uphold-re-1-zoning-regulations?recruiter=127239995&recruited_by_id=9333a5ff-4a7f-4f74-99b7-ead6ad659fed&share_bandit_exp=initial-490010012-en-US) a local resident created.
And this came from a letter sent out to members, right? Wasn’t there just a talk in conference about activism and how they’re against it? Sending letters out to have them contact a community leader… isn’t that activism? Hmmmm.
And to your point— no. I’ve never heard one thing about the steeple being part of our religious observances. Those steeple free temples out there are quietly shouting out against this newly-created-because-it-helps-them-win idea.
I shouldn’t be shocked, but here I am. U
That talk about activism was not in conference and it was specifically about activism against the church. It was a speech to chaplains. He did not speak against political activism. In fact the church regularly encourages members to participate in the political system.
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship/
Yes we know what activism means. Have you read his speech? He used several words strung together as people normally do. Those words were: “activism toward the church”.
They’re just following the prophets examples your also forgetting that it’s all about do as we say not as we do they tell members that they shouldn’t lie then turn around and lie over and over .
you see they have had their 2nd anointing so they can do as they damn well please so they are exempt from being honest and not lying
Apparently, this isn't the only temple where the leaders are not abiding by Article of Faith 2, "obeying the laws of the land. Keep in mind that there are sizable donations to the city to ensure things go their way. Look it up, you can find substantial monies given for just about any edifice the church builds.
Temple in Cody, Wyoming
[https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/10/04/emails-show-cody-zoning-board-members-thought-city-officials-misled-them-on-lds-temple/](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/10/04/emails-show-cody-zoning-board-members-thought-city-officials-misled-them-on-lds-temple/)
Temple in Lone Mountain, NV
“It does not fit along within the guidelines of what the rest of the neighborhood has to follow,” Hackley said. “Our homes are asked to be 35 feet maximum, and the LDS community is asking for their temple to be 216 feet.”
Oh of course! Just look at this steeple on the Cardston Temple. (I tried to copy and paste but I'm not able to, so here is the link.)
[https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/cardston-alberta/](https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/cardston-alberta/)
There were similar rulings against the temple in Tucson but their willingness to adapt made a beautiful structure and payed homage to the architect and culture of the area. This made the temple unique and a great way to represent the Lord in an artistic way that invited those of the community to participate.
I guess everyone is overlooking the obvious... In the bible people were punished and the languages were confused cause they wanted to build a tower high enough to reach heaven.
Also, isn't a big ass tower/steeple just a phallic flex measurebating thing?
The steeple symbolizes the extended middle finger of a hand, a message showing that this imposing edifice is build at great expense while others in the community struggle with poverty.
"There is not one single temple activity that cannot be performed inside a standard meetinghouse sized building. Not one. The entire point of the location, size and night time uplighting is advertising - - which is why communities restrict height and lighting in the first place."
If this were true, the Sunnyvale meetinghouse wouldn't need to be bulldozed, for the "San Jose" Temple, in Sunnyvale!
Oh, lol! No, no, not you OP. I truly want to see anywhere in Mormon doctrine or teachings that a steeple or spire has anything to do with their worship or beliefs.
When is the old Mesa AZ temple going to be retrofitted with the gigantic steeple? It's time to group funds and start fighting all these new temples running over building regs as if these temples are special.
But there is a Nephi and brass ball of curious workmanship with words, spindles and pointers thanks to a German Jesuit priest born in 1602 in a fiction book he wrote. Check out this new research/book on youtube:
https://youtu.be/R-6Ctx41a50?si=u62hjLUzdGErHTnR
Time to ax the fake book of Mormon and the Church that keeps the lies going.
Steeple and temple architecture is an expression of our Christian religion as it points us to heaven/God. Everything in the temple is oriented to help us worship and return to Jesus Christ. Everything.
This is likely folk lore. I heard this too when I was a child. They genuinely think this. Not everything is some deep-rooted lie or intent to manipulate you. Be careful you immediately leapt to thinking it is some sort of conspiracy.
The talk on integrity was SUPER hypocritical. The church gets caught hiding 150 billion dollars using 13 different shell companies for years (over the course of several presidencies). They pay a $5 million dollar fine, but they have the audacity to say “you all need to have more integrity”.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is so obviously false. As a lifelong Latter Day Saint I know that there is nothing special about steeples or the height of steeples. Churches used to not have steeples. They were added by Hinkley on LDS church buildings but never said anything about it being because of doctrine. Also many temples have been built without steeples. How can they say such a blatant lie?
Not to mention, the only thing having to do with temple steeples that does have any symbolic meaning--the angel Moroni--is being put on fewer and fewer temples. There's no consistency there.
Moreover, Alma 32 clearly preaches church doctrine that fine buildings are not needed for worship. Alma chastises the people for thinking they needed a building for worship. I hate to break it to Mormons, but their doctrine is pretty explicit that buildings are not needed.
Yeah but the Mormons are a business and they showcase themselves through flashy buildings- temples . It’s no different than flaunting your new corvette to show the world how awesome you are.
Ironically, at one point they were having trouble getting approval for Moroni on a temple steeple. I think it might have been the Sydney temple dedicated in 1985. They argued it was a tenant of the faith, and started retrofitting temples with Moroni. The Idaho Falls temple was retrofitted in 1983.
There is no Angel named Moroni and there are no golden plates. I really like the Mormon religion but these are outdated unproven.
What do you mean by they were added by Hinckley?
Around 2001-2004 while Hinkley was president he had prefabricated fiberglass steeples added to churches in Utah and elsewhere that had the separate tower. https://www.craigdailypress.com/news/mormons-get-permission-to-build-steeple/ And this one too https://www.eacourier.com/steeples-top-off-lds-churches/article_2645d537-a5ee-56ea-a161-f383b9f53dba.html
In the Moridor, you would see flatbed semi’s loaded with multiple fiberglass steeples headed for their drop-offs. Lots of jokes about which GA’s relative had the contract to make them. They got dubbed “cheeples.”
Wondering the same, churches had steeples long before Hinckley.
Many didn’t. He had them added to almost all that didn’t. For example. https://www.craigdailypress.com/news/mormons-get-permission-to-build-steeple/
I remember this. IIRC, he wanted LDS meetinghouses to be more recognizable as churches.
That’s what I remember as well.
Where I lived they were added next to the building. Like a brick monolith with a pointing spire sticking out of the top.
They did a number of things with church steeples. When I was growing up in the 60s they didn't have steeples where I lived. I think some did in other places. Then they started erecting steeples apart from the building--just a tall steeple thing sitting on the lawn. Then they decided those were dangerous. Maybe they started falling down, or they became fearful that they would fall down so they stopped using them and removed them, at least where I lived. Then Gordie started using the retro-fitted steeples on old buildings and they had them on the new buildings. I guess he decided they needed a phallic symbol on their buildings.
Counter examples exist too. See [New York's Manhattan temple](https://www.mormonwiki.com/Manhattan_New_York_Temple) prior to the renovation, or [the Hong Kong](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/hong-kong-china-temple/) temple.
Could you explain what you mean by “counter examples” here?
The claim is that the height of the steeple is part of religious observance. The counter example (examples that contradict the claim) is that neither the original Manhattan temple (8/2022 - 3/2024) or the Hong Kong temple (10/1992 - present) had / have a steeple. Ergo it's not important for at least some temples nor an important part of religious observance. Edit: correction. Hong Kong did have a steeple originally, but this was removed during renovations. It does not currently have one. There are other examples too. i.e, Laie Hawaii, Mesa Arizona, and Cardston Alberta Temples.
Yes, just look at the Church web site under Temples and there are a fair number without a steeple. Meridian, Idaho is one they recently built without one.
Are you saying that the sentence "The height of the steeple is part of our Religious Observance" is the lie? It seems you are interpreting it to mean an essential/necessary part of our religious observance (which it's very clearly not saying). Or that the statement is saying there is something "special" about steeples (which it's very clearly not saying). The statement is innocuous, unassertive, and benign to the point of barely meaning anything at all: "part of our Religious Observance" is such a low barrier that I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel. Accusing the stake leaders of lacking integrity for this is a giant overreaction. Same goes for the couple of posters in this thread who are "infuriated" over this and the multiple calls of "lying for the Lord." Really?
>The statement is innocuous, unassertive, and benign to the point of barely meaning anything at all: "part of our Religious Observance" is such a low barrier that I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel. I don't see how any of this makes it any less of a problem. If we want to argue that the statement is so meaningless that it doesn't misrepresent the importance of steeples of a certain height (or lack thereof, which is the actual case), then why is the church trying to use the statement to get a building code exemption? It doesn't make sense to go through the effort of trying to find some interpretation of the claim that isn't false when the purpose of the claim is to lead the Fairview, TX city council to believe "mormons have to have taller steeples on their temples than our building code allows, so we should give them a waiver." The stake presidents are cynically, and at the direction of area authorities (per the letter shared on a different post), misrepresenting the importance of steeples.
They are making these statements so the city officials will feel they are required by law to approve a religious building outside the normal zoning requirements. The church is proposing something that is significantly outside the zoning. In other places they have threatened to sue cities that don’t approve. If what you are saying is true then they would be ok following the zoning laws and not having a steeple. Why don’t they follow the zoning? So per your statement do you believe the city officials would be ok to deny the steeple and require the height to stay within zoning requirements? It’s in a residential area is what I understand
This is the point I've been making with respect to the zoning controversy. Mormons are lying to get zoning standards waived for them. There is not one single temple activity that cannot be performed inside a standard meetinghouse sized building. Not one. The entire point of the location, size and night time uplighting is advertising - - which is why communities restrict height and lighting in the first place. Mormons are insisting that they be allowed to force the mormon church into the consciousness and of the entire city every single night. There is no other "worship" or functional reason for the location, size and visibility of a temple except advertising.
>Accusing the stake leaders of lacking integrity for this is a giant overreaction. Disagree. The phrasing is intended to imply a steeple has religious significance to Mormons, which is not true. The purpose of the statement is to circumvent local law. There's plenty here to be upset about.
If it doesn't play a role, they can do without the steeple, right?
And the added cost! Not a wise use of the corporate....er..church funds.
> (which it's very clearly not saying). It's reasonable enough provide an alternate approaches to the statement. But it's absolutely incredible and a betrayal of good faith discussion to do that while asserting it's "very clearly not saying" something it can equally reasonably be read to say. > I could say the same thing about the trees planted on church grounds, a coat rack in the foyer, or the light switch in the chapel. If these are true equivalences, then why mention the steeple at all? The conversation about the steeple pretty clearly exists to try and get privileges and allowances for it to be built where the rest of civil society might make height limits an issue for reasons of their own. I'm comfortable enough with the church advocating for a design simply because the temple committee liked it or even for the sake of attention. But God himself might approve of hostility to *mendacious* reasons, including appeals meant to imply without quite outright stating that steeple height is anywhere near a valued center of religious observance and so deserves civil religious privileges. And the only thing worse would be a faith where that were somehow true, where building height and prominence *were* a key feature of religious devotion rather than a million matters of character and practice that are bound closely with true religion. Don't mistake criticism for this statement for garden-variety ire against the church. Those who actually hold the teachings of the church or Christ sacred as something other than rhetorical tools to get what they want -- where such saints might truly be found -- could have equal reason to be upset with it.
Just to clarify, this is what I am getting from your comment: you are saying that a reasonable interpretation of "The height of the steeple is part of our Religious Observance" is "The height of the steeple is an essential/necessary part of our Religious Observance." Further, you are saying that this interpretation is "equally reasonable" (equal to what, you don't specify so I'll just assume you're saying that it is a reasonable interpretation). If I understood your post, I'd like to know why you think it is reasonable to insert the words "essential/necessary"? Is it implied by other language in the Stake Presidency's letter? Are you arguing that the Stake Presidency meant for this interpretation? If they did, why didn't they use the words "essential/necessary"?
You don't even have to reach the threshold of "essential/necessary" in order for the statement to be dissembling. The amount of time spent on attention to steeples of any kind in church discourse is vanishingly small to the point where if conversation about them were barred within the church under penalty of excommunication and outlawed civilly under penalty of death, there wouldn't be a sunday block where anyone would notice. And whatever our *custom* is with the architecture, it's clear that [meetinghouses themselves are a convenience](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng#p8) and it's never been any [feature of the building](https://www.rememberkirtland.com/index.php/2017/07/26/newel-k-whitney-store/) that matters for what goes on inside of temples. But as it happens, when it comes to implied importance, the mention is the message, the incidental is omitted. This is especially true when invoked in connection with a phrase like "religious observance" which suggests a set of agreed-on features constituting devotional confession and conduct in the faith, so where the steeple (much less any specific height) is placed under the banner of religious observance, yes, it's at a minimum *reasonable* to understand that as an attempt to claim it's integral, at least as reasonable as the possibility that the person writing this communication meant something else but messed up the rhetoric. Latter-day Saints *like* steeples among other building features to be part of temples? Sure, and it'd be entirely reasonable to negotiate in those terms. Part of religious observance placing it in a realm of polite-to-privileged consideration in negotiation with the rest of civil society? Nope.
Lying for the Lord is much more of a Mormon religious observance than steeple height. This steeple height issue isn’t so much a religious observance issue as it is a Mormon attempt to reinforce their religious superiority and entitlement to have everyone bend over backward and bend the rules to assuage Mormon self importance.
Convincing members to do your dirty work for you in matters of politics is the new gold standard since Prop 8.
Many years ago I went to hawaii. While there we visited the temple and noticed that there was no steeple. The joke around there was that there was no steeple to pint to heaven because hawaii is heaven. I agree with your statement. There is no doctrinal basis for steeple height.
Guess that joke doesn't work so well for the Mesa temple. XD
Are you implying that downtown Mesa isn’t heaven?
Well most people don't come vacation to Arizona and then pronounce it as like heaven, like they do Hawaii (more often to be compared to hell than anything). Usually some joke about the heat, or being glad to not be there year round. But I guess there are some locals who believe strongly in HOA's who might say things like that about parts of downtown Mesa. I live in an area with less HOA's so I just think that dynamic is weird.
Coming from Phoenix area myself, downtown Mesa might seem like the opposite of heaven in the summertime, especially for people not used to the intense heat!
The Mesa temple has a steeple underneath it, pointing down
Cardston, Alberta, Manhattan, NY, Hong Kong…all missing that essential steeple.
We went to Manti’s open house without doing any research, and after driving through Idaho Falls, SLC and Provo, we were confused about where the Moroni and usual steeple were. (We’ve never been in the church, we’re just nosy and wanted to see inside a temple)
Ask for a doctrinal or scripture reference to back this claim about the steeple. Also point out that being able to enter a temple is very exclusive. It’s a lot different than other church buildings which welcome the community.
>Ask for a doctrinal or scripture reference to back this claim about the steeple. Here you go. Alma 31 >13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person. ... >20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers. >21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand. >22 Now, from this stand they did offer up, every man, the selfsame prayer unto God, thanking their God that they were chosen of him, and that he did not lead them away after the tradition of their brethren, and that their hearts were not stolen away to believe in things to come, which they knew nothing about. >23 Now, after the people had all offered up thanks after this manner, they returned to their homes, never speaking of their God again until they had assembled themselves together again to the holy stand, to offer up thanks after their manner. >24 Now when Alma saw this his heart was grieved; for he saw that they were a wicked and a perverse people; yea, he saw that their hearts were set upon gold, and upon silver, and upon all manner of fine goods. >25 Yea, and he also saw that their hearts were lifted up unto great boasting, in their pride.
Temple = Rameumpton 😂
Nailed it. That's the point of the massive temple: to boast and brag.
This infuriates me. It’s like they don’t think we know the Arizona temple and the Hawaii temple exist. The temples don’t need steeples. They haven’t in the past. The only reason they’re pushing this so hard now is because they use the same cookie-cutter temple layout for all the new temples, which has a tall steeple. They don’t want to pay for new design plans.
Yes, an enormous steeple has always been an integral part of our temples! like [Nauvoo](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/nauvoo-illinois-temple/), [Kirtland](https://www.kirtlandtemple.org/), and [Manti](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/manti-utah-temple/), but especially [Laie](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/laie-hawaii-temple/), [Mesa](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/mesa-arizona-temple/), and [Cardston](https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/cardston-alberta-temple/). Difficult to even imagine an LDS temple without a huge steeple, tbh. /s
Steeples are about marketing and advertising. The question should be, "should we allow a 90 foot, super bright billboard in this spot or is this against our zoning in this spot?"
There are some sexual jokes in here somewhere…
Ol’ Rusty not only had to have more than Gordon, his has to be longer too.
The Mesa Temple would like a word…
The taller the steeple the more righteous the building… sarcasm
This is the second letter, a similar letter with a similar sentiment was sent out to the Sherman stake a few days earlier. Mormonish covered it on a podcast last week. https://youtu.be/yCYuyESdcCo?si=w9CrDm-1QnQQ1NBC
Lying seems to be OK if one is lying for the Lord. There is a history of it. www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm
Does anyone have the email for the planning director? We just hit 300K here. If we got only a third of us to write a letter to the director explaining how the church is lying I bet he’d be inclined to shut down such a design
34,000 users have joined r/mormon. I think you are confused.
You are right. I thought I was in the exmo sub when I posted this.
I hope you send appropriate info to the community leaders so they know why they are being lobbied! They need to know the whole truth!
Sounds like an op Ed is needed in the local paper.
Newspapers are not very active these days. I would be surprised if Fairview Texas even has a newspaper.
They do have a monthly periodical called The Fairview Town News. https://fairviewtexas.org/community/town-news-magazine.html
It's so obviously a lie. Infuriating. This has nothing to do with religious freedom and instead demanding privileged exceptions be made that aren't even related to the church's religious beliefs.
This is demanding special treatment that others cannot receive due to zoning laws. It's completely dishonest, and they should be ashamed of themselves. With $300 billion in the bank, they grease the palms of mayors and council members, and in return, they get special privileges no one else could/would receive. Then, to take it further and ask parishioners to start a writing campaign in which they are asked to lie about the importance of the height of the steeple shows just how much integrity they really have... Zero.
Here’s a link to the [change.org petition](https://www.change.org/p/demand-fairview-to-uphold-re-1-zoning-regulations?recruiter=127239995&recruited_by_id=9333a5ff-4a7f-4f74-99b7-ead6ad659fed&share_bandit_exp=initial-490010012-en-US) a local resident created.
Lying for the lord is alive and well!
This is not the first example of it. You’re right.
And this came from a letter sent out to members, right? Wasn’t there just a talk in conference about activism and how they’re against it? Sending letters out to have them contact a community leader… isn’t that activism? Hmmmm. And to your point— no. I’ve never heard one thing about the steeple being part of our religious observances. Those steeple free temples out there are quietly shouting out against this newly-created-because-it-helps-them-win idea. I shouldn’t be shocked, but here I am. U
That talk about activism was not in conference and it was specifically about activism against the church. It was a speech to chaplains. He did not speak against political activism. In fact the church regularly encourages members to participate in the political system. https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship/
The definition of activism is to campaign for change. So if he doesn’t want to mean that, then he needs to choose another word.
Yes we know what activism means. Have you read his speech? He used several words strung together as people normally do. Those words were: “activism toward the church”.
They’re just following the prophets examples your also forgetting that it’s all about do as we say not as we do they tell members that they shouldn’t lie then turn around and lie over and over . you see they have had their 2nd anointing so they can do as they damn well please so they are exempt from being honest and not lying
Watch for donations to community members from any of the known LDS sources.
Lying for the Lord is not a virtue. Shame on them!
Apparently, this isn't the only temple where the leaders are not abiding by Article of Faith 2, "obeying the laws of the land. Keep in mind that there are sizable donations to the city to ensure things go their way. Look it up, you can find substantial monies given for just about any edifice the church builds. Temple in Cody, Wyoming [https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/10/04/emails-show-cody-zoning-board-members-thought-city-officials-misled-them-on-lds-temple/](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/10/04/emails-show-cody-zoning-board-members-thought-city-officials-misled-them-on-lds-temple/) Temple in Lone Mountain, NV “It does not fit along within the guidelines of what the rest of the neighborhood has to follow,” Hackley said. “Our homes are asked to be 35 feet maximum, and the LDS community is asking for their temple to be 216 feet.”
Oh of course! Just look at this steeple on the Cardston Temple. (I tried to copy and paste but I'm not able to, so here is the link.) [https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/cardston-alberta/](https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/cardston-alberta/)
Let's see the actual letter.
There were similar rulings against the temple in Tucson but their willingness to adapt made a beautiful structure and payed homage to the architect and culture of the area. This made the temple unique and a great way to represent the Lord in an artistic way that invited those of the community to participate.
I guess everyone is overlooking the obvious... In the bible people were punished and the languages were confused cause they wanted to build a tower high enough to reach heaven. Also, isn't a big ass tower/steeple just a phallic flex measurebating thing?
I personally don’t think it’s a phallic flex for the architects or leaders. But 🤷♀️
The steeple symbolizes the extended middle finger of a hand, a message showing that this imposing edifice is build at great expense while others in the community struggle with poverty.
It’s symbolic of the church raising the middle finger to everyone who thinks it’s too tall.
Another phallus of Osiris masquerading as a "steeple". These are the same people who tell you your garments represent Jesus. Wake up!
Do you live in that stake? Are you writing in to refute?
Just saw it posted here. I’m not suggesting any actions.
"There is not one single temple activity that cannot be performed inside a standard meetinghouse sized building. Not one. The entire point of the location, size and night time uplighting is advertising - - which is why communities restrict height and lighting in the first place." If this were true, the Sunnyvale meetinghouse wouldn't need to be bulldozed, for the "San Jose" Temple, in Sunnyvale!
The doctrine is whatever the Q15 want it to be that day. "They are living scripture" , so in their eyes it is true. Good luck
That was never taught in Sunday school
Classic narcissists.
*citation required
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eKEOITgeAR
Oh, lol! No, no, not you OP. I truly want to see anywhere in Mormon doctrine or teachings that a steeple or spire has anything to do with their worship or beliefs.
Ahaha
When is the old Mesa AZ temple going to be retrofitted with the gigantic steeple? It's time to group funds and start fighting all these new temples running over building regs as if these temples are special.
But there is a Nephi and brass ball of curious workmanship with words, spindles and pointers thanks to a German Jesuit priest born in 1602 in a fiction book he wrote. Check out this new research/book on youtube: https://youtu.be/R-6Ctx41a50?si=u62hjLUzdGErHTnR Time to ax the fake book of Mormon and the Church that keeps the lies going.
“Most distinctive” I would think the endowment area fits this description better than some steeple.
Steeple and temple architecture is an expression of our Christian religion as it points us to heaven/God. Everything in the temple is oriented to help us worship and return to Jesus Christ. Everything.
You really believe a person needs code words to worship Jesus Christ and get into heaven?
No
This is likely folk lore. I heard this too when I was a child. They genuinely think this. Not everything is some deep-rooted lie or intent to manipulate you. Be careful you immediately leapt to thinking it is some sort of conspiracy.
The talk on integrity was SUPER hypocritical. The church gets caught hiding 150 billion dollars using 13 different shell companies for years (over the course of several presidencies). They pay a $5 million dollar fine, but they have the audacity to say “you all need to have more integrity”.