Quantcast
Faith

LDS Church withdraws plan for 9-story Missionary Training Center building

Comments

Return To Article
  • Dauly Provo, UT
    Oct. 23, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    It saddens me that LDS members of a community would be opposed to the MTC expanding in the way the church best saw fit (for expenses, etc.) and dare to get in the way of God's work.

    I agree with Clark Moulton:

    "I think the orange balloons, like all balloons, are full of hot air," he said. "There's nothing more exciting than the work of the Lord. They could build it in my front yard."

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Oct. 15, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    SCANDRUS, the MTC is built at the edge of a residential area, not in it itself. I agree. Put the 9 story building right there across the street from the temple and ruin the view for those that live above the temple. We wouldn't even be able to see the temple from the Diagnal. The problem is, and the reason for the expansion is that there is no room left at the MTC to expand. It was built like, 35 years ago. I'll bet the zoning in the area has changed in those intervening years and most of the people that lived there then are gone. You live in Cedar Hills. Why do you care? I'll bet most of the homes in that area now house some of the student population. I know that is the case on Stadium Avenue.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Oct. 15, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    Sorry M. Butler, the football stadium is not a building. And from up the hill on Stadium Avenue, you can't even see it. Although you can see the lights.

    The missionary force is about to explode and they need the room to house the influx that will happen starting when school is out for the current high school seniors and women.

    They need the room (yes I said that again). Frankly these people are being selfish. If the Church wanted to build a 9 story building in Kearns, I'd say fine.

    With their attitude, they'd not like the temple either. Wait until the Provo temple re-build just like Ogden. Bet it comes, bet the temple gets expanded, bet the neighbors gripe.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Oct. 15, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    While I am firmly behind the church's plan and mission, I don't see any problem with any neighbor in the area voicing their concerns and working to make sure they are addressed. It is just a part of getting it right. No need to wield religion or antireligion for or against it.

    The only opposition to this I have a problem with are those who oppose just to oppose. There are those who will never, ever, ever want the church to lift its finger to do anything without first apologizing for the world's problems.

    The church has shown its willingness to work to try to get the best result. Of course, it takes two to tango. Let's work it out.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 15, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    Hmmm. I like the idea of a new complex in downtown SLC. Close to the Salt Lake temple. Easy access to the airport. Plenty of space available for a 9 story high rise...or more. That's where the "Mission Home" used to be.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Oct. 15, 2012 5:17 a.m.

    Perhaps this is an opportunity in disguise - an MTC in a location other than Utah might be that opportunity - perhaps back here in the Eastern US.

  • Zoniezoobie Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 14, 2012 8:57 p.m.

    Perhaps a 9-story MTC near the new Provo City Center Temple would be acceptable, and still have access to RMs at BYU. As mentioned earlier, I also like the possibility of locating English-speaking MTCs outside of Utah, in places such as Kansas City MO, and Buena Vista, VA. Rexburg would be great for a Sisters only MTC. I'm sure these ideas and others have been considered.

    Until around 1980, all missionaries spent a week in the Salt Lake Missionary Home, then language missionaries would go to the Provo LTM, Rexburg LTM for Scandinavian languages, or Laie LTM for pacific rim languages, while English missionaries would depart to their fields of labor.

  • Pendergast SLC, UT
    Oct. 14, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    @ SLars 7:58 p.m. Oct. 13, 2012

    Then, why did the church submit plans for a 9 story building?

    Even, the cast of the Jersey Shore knows 9 > 4.

  • cody360 Newton, MA
    Oct. 14, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    All of these ideas of moving the MTC just don't make sense. The reason the MTC works so well at it's present location, is the missionaries can walk to the temple when they visit once a week. If the MTC were place next to another temple in another city, the MTC would lose a lot of their employees which are BYU students. Where else could you get the concentration of members looking for jobs who speak so many different languages. No, the MTC isn't going anywhere.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 14, 2012 2:50 a.m.

    It's all rather confusing to me and I just have to trust the Lord. And trust that the Brethren are acting under divine guidance following sincere fasting and prayer. It's not clear to me whether this is a temporal issue or an ecclesiastical issue or a spiritual isse or what but either way, it seem it must be terribly important to God and I just hope we will all support our Prophets, Seers and Revelators as they do the right thing while acting with the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood. Some things are meant to try our faith.

  • donburi South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 11:11 p.m.

    I assume that part of the Church's change is that they need to revise plans due to the recent announcement in age reduction for missionaries. But it's interesting to see that the Church can work with other groups all over the world to build chapels and temples, yet in Happy Valley where there should be a shared vision and support, there is so much opposition.

    -Promise not to build tall buildings? No documented promise was ever found. In three different posts here, three different claims - no more than 3, 4, 5 stories. So the complainers can't even agree about the alleged promise.
    -Wanting to build higher than allowed? The zoning allows 9 story buildings.
    -Blocking a sliver of mountain view? Please.
    -gratefulmouse says that everyone agrees it shouldn't be built. Yeah right - not even remotely.

    It's interesting that there are many in the neighborhood who have promised to give all they own to the Church if it ever becomes necessary, but then they complain about a building. Well guess what - small things like giving up a small piece of your mountain view for a higher purpose are included in that promise.

  • gratefulmouse san angelo, tx
    Oct. 13, 2012 10:00 p.m.

    I think that everyone agrees on here that the church made the right decision in not putting up a huge 9 story building..I dont even like the idea of young men running up and down a huge building like that. so what I said earlier about maybe three buildings and have them form a geometric shape ..sort of connecting and having a middle courtyard...the buildings only being 3stores high as was stated earlier on....sounds good to me..I dont think any church authority has power to make anyone do anything....we have our free agency...and they need to follow the promises they made earlier and it seems they are...men are falliable...so we must forgive and work together to sort this out...

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 7:58 p.m.

    I think it's important for the Church to keep it's word. They told the neighborhood they would not exceed 4 stories when they moved there. I commend them for sticking to their word.

    The neighborhood had a right to remind them of the covenant they made.

  • emZ Mesa , AZ
    Oct. 13, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    While I can understand the neighbors concerns, I agree that there are many members around the world who would be thrilled to live near the MTC; the Spirit of God is strong there and in the surrounding areas and it would be a blessing to live there.
    Really though, now that the Church has decided not to build there, it's a moot point, and I am not in a position to judge any of the neighbors who opposed the building.
    I really don't think the Church made this decision because of the communities' opposition. I think they must have other plans in store.

    As a BYU-Idaho graduate, I would love to see an MTC built in Rexburg. I don't see that being any easier though than in Provo. BYU-Idaho's rapid expansion in recent years has caused tension with the local community. I don't know that it would be any different with a new MTC facility.

  • cwhcfi Las Vegas, NV
    Oct. 13, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    Tear down the football stadium that the people there worship and build the new MTC there.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    What is most discouraging to me about this issue is all of the comments submitted on this post several months back when plans were first announced. Several individuals said some pretty 'unkind' things about the church and it's bullying and high handed measures in always getting what it wanted in spite of public concerns. I did not see anyone recanting those earlier words and I doubt those individuals will respond.

    Building in Salt Lake is an idea, but the church has poured lots of energy and funds into a partnership relationship between the resources of BYU, the proximity to the temple and the MTC's needs and mission. I am sure that the church will come up with an even better solution. I don't think neighbors should be labeled in a negative way, and certainly not in any way resembling labels thrown at the church.

    Let's all try to get along and work towards solutions which will benefit everyone; even if compromise is required.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    How many returned missionaries work at the MTC in the various jobs or callings that people have for language, culture and other instructors that may be needed and especially available in Provo.

    The Ogden temple was a duplicate of the Provo temple and it has been completely remodeled and basically a new design. The temples in other locations such as Rexburg would have to be significantly larger to take care of missionaries as Provo is used now.

    There are so many logistical and other issues that are complex, it is definitely a complex issue that uses tithing monies to fix.

    Provo is still an ideal place due to the proximity to the BYU campus and Provo Temple. The new temple downtown would require many bus trips a day and that is a waste for missionaries time, which is logistical once again.

    It makes so much sense to have the MTC be where it is and the Church has worked more complex issues than this one with Salt Lake City's mayor in the 1990s for the downtown SLC area for all the building the Church has done there. Of course, that is commercial but most temples are residential areas, harder.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    well I would love to see regional MTC's those in between the rocky's and the Mississippi got to provo have one for the west coast one for thee east coast and that would help the influx.

  • milojthatch Sandy, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    The Church might have made a promise a long time ago about construction in this area, but if these neighbors are Temple recommend carrying members, they made a different kind of promise too. Which promise if more valid I dare to ask?

    If I lived up there, I would welcome this construction. It means more missionary work is moving forward, which is a good thing, and supposedly what we in the church want to see happen. It's our obligation to make sure that happens without interference. Some here say they should build in SLC. To them I say, there are strong reasons why it's in Provo. Where are they going to build now with the current MTC? There isn't much space there to build out. This is very disappointing news.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    minnie- you are right.There are LDS members from all over the world who would not only LOVE the chance to live in this neighborhood and have the 9 story building, they would also welcome and accept a 30 story building at the MTC if that was what Church Leaders needed.

    Pretty bold to call themselves believing active LDS members, who think they know better than the Prophet and the Twelve...

  • Donny Orem, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    This "neiborHOOD" opposition will not harm the Church's missionary efforts at all. I see MTCs being built in many other locations, close to Temples, closer to home, just like the Church does in many countries around the world.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    I'm sure the community concerns had something to do with it but I doubt the decision was made solely upon those concerns. I also trust that the Church has other options that may work better at this time. The work of the Lord goes on and will not be hindered by a change in location. I look forward to hearing of the new plans and location.

  • Big Blue Fan West Babylon, NY
    Oct. 13, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    This is known as the "Pleasant View" neighborhood. Each homeowner in the neighborhood should have been polled IN PERSON. The results would have been overwhelmingly FOR the MTC. Now we have to live next door to these sorry, selfish 1% who the media backed.
    Verily, they shall have their reward.

  • RE Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    After looking at the posted photos I really don't see what the big deal was. I don't think it would have changed much for the neighborhood.

  • tlaulu Taylorsville, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    Now since the barn (MTC) has been delayed being build. The farmers have no place to store the harvest. The shepherds(missionaries) of the Master will delay loading up their wagon loads of hay to go out and feed his sheep and lambs.

  • LookingatUtah Idaho Falls, ID
    Oct. 13, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    I too feel it may be time to locate a second center in the continental U.S. It could be a good time to split English speaking from language training or a facility just for sisters. The need for more facilities will be next to immediate. Facilities near Temple Square may need to be used, along with the Salt Lake Plaza Hotel for housing.

  • cwhcfi Las Vegas, NV
    Oct. 13, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    The missionary program is the work of The Lord. Too many people in the church put their own feelings ahead of the gospel today. I would think the people in that neighborhood would welcome such development. The church always designs buildings that are beautiful. This sounds like behavior we would expect to find in Missouri or somewhere else that anti sentiment is high. But in the heart of the happy valley? One person said anyone posting here would have done the same thing if they lived in that area. Obviously not or we would not be here saying the things we are. It would be an honor for me to live next door to a building that was inspired by The Lord. Yes, I said inspired. Every six months as members of the church we raise our hands and sustain the general authorities as God's chosen leaders of His Kingdom here on earth. The leaders of the church make a decision it comes from God himself. So this building decision came directly from God. Now the people in this neighborhood (if they are members) have chosen to argue with God.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    @Warrior Parent, MarkA, and the rest.

    re: "The voice of the few... damaging the hopes of many."

    Do you really think the Church is going refuse a single hopeful missionary because they were not able build this building? If you think that, then you don't have much faith in the Church's ability to fulfill its mission. The Church will build somewhere else, and anyone who wants to serve a mission will be allowed.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Oct. 13, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    The people of the neighborhood should consider that just because the Church is not going to build there doesn't mean that someone else might not go after the property.

    The LDS Church is a wonderful neighbor, maintaining their properties and bringing a positive, peaceful spirit. I, for one, would not mind them being near me, nor having my community help host the thousands of missionaries that would be nearby.

  • Scandrus Cedar Hills, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    @Prodicus, it is really to say it would only affect people marginally when it isn't your neighborhood or your house. Lets build a 9 story building a block away from your house and then see how you feel!

  • Scandrus Cedar Hills, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    For all you self righteous, judgmental tools, keep in mind that not every person in this neighborhood is a member and not everyone wants their neighborhood adversely affected because the Church cannot come up with a better plan or live up to the agreement they made. There are plenty of other suitable options for expanding the MTC, the huge grassy field across the street for example. Many people in the local the ward were outspoken in their opposition to the 9 story building until a letter was read in sacrament meeting making this an "ecclesiastical issue" not a zoning issue or community issue. The church threw down their trump card and instantly almost all of the opposition among members was silenced. My father came home from that sacrament meeting and said, "I will support it now that they say it is an ecclesiastical issue". I admire my fathers dedication and faith but personally the tactics the Church used disgusted me.

  • Scandrus Cedar Hills, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2012 6:53 a.m.

    My parents live in this neighborhood and knowing the impact this building would have I find it incredibly judgmental and ignorant for people who do not have all the facts or know the history to sit in judgment of the people in this neighborhood. My family lived here long before the MTC was built or BYU encircled our home and land. The Church made a promise when they built the MTC that they would not build anything over three stories tall and that was a condition the Church agreed to so the city council would give a zoning waiver for the MTC to be built in a residential neighborhood. There was no discussion, we had a plan for a zoning violation dumped on us and told to deal with it. The neighborhood wanted an explanation and alternatives not a mandate and veiled threats that it is an "ecclesiastic issue" so you better shut up and watch your property values and quality of life drop. The building would have completely blocked the view my family have of the mountains and been an eyesore. Why don't you consider what a 9 story building next to your house would look like!

  • San Diego Orem, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 6:13 a.m.

    Not a lot different than Billings, Montana or Boston where the neighbors tried to stop church construction. The spire of the temple had to be left off the Boston temple but later the city allowed it. I look at these neighbors as a bunch of childish, selfish, shortsighted kids that pouted until they got their way. The building would have been a nice addition and at nine stories isn't particularly tall. After all they were not asking to construct a junk yard or something. The temple across the street is most likely of similar height. Good thing the church built it when they did as they would have most likely stopped construction of it too.

  • Patrick Henry West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 5:44 a.m.

    If the Church needs more space, why not DIG deep and make a building with many levels underground? That is a win-win situation.

  • Grandpa B Kearns, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 5:27 a.m.

    When the MTC was originally built, the Church promised the neighborhood they would not build over five stories. It is good to see the Church realize that it has to keep its promise. It's hard to "Follow the Prophet" when the First Presidency isn't keeping its own promises. Even worse was the letter telling the neighborhood that it's time to "support the brethren" when 'the brethren' weren't keeping their promise. Cancelling the promise-breaking building was the right thing to do, and I congratualte the Church for realzing it and doing so. I just hope that the new plan isn't to rezone the protesting neighbohood, drive the land owners out, and build on former residential property.

  • Franjeado Lambare, Paraguay
    Oct. 13, 2012 4:50 a.m.

    For a lot of members of the Church, living out of the USA, there's a lot of reasons for our quality of lives to be derate, and we can't do anything about it; it's very strange that those people in Provo, can't see that there's a greater reason for that sacrifice to be done, the very work of the Lord.

  • AZJazzFan Gold Canyon, az
    Oct. 13, 2012 2:56 a.m.

    I would like to know why there were complaints/concerns about the proposed building. I am trying to understand why a neighbor would complain over a needed expansion of the MTC building, especially if they are LDS. It seems obvious there would be a need to expand, considering the amount of missionaries has increased significantly.

  • gratefulmouse san angelo, tx
    Oct. 13, 2012 2:41 a.m.

    I can understand a huge building not being appropriate maybe for that area...what about 3 story buildings but like maybe 3 of them...done in such a fashion as octagonal..making a center courtyard area..encased with in the buildings...its hard to go up that high anyway...and much better to have less floors...easier access...

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 11:39 p.m.

    Being not far from there myself, I think this is a really unfortunate outcome.

    One the one hand, I don't buy the claims that property values would plummet, I think a lot of people were getting awfully worked up about something that wasn't their property and would only affect them very marginally, and it always sounded to me like the people remembering a promise not to build higher had no evidence to back them up and may well have misremembered or misinterpreted what was said decades before.

    On the other hand, in dealing with zoning, permit, etc issues throughout the rest of the world, the Church's modus operandi is (as it ought to be) to work within the normal political process. MTC folks should have done better at engaging with that process, spreading the word about why property values wouldn't fall, why other options wouldn't meet their needs, etc. Most importantly, ecclesiastical mixed signals and/or intimidation don't mix well with that process.

    If both sides had been better prepared for constructive dialogue, I think either the planned building or some modification thereof could have been built without causing real harm or acrimony.

  • minnie, mapleton, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 11:31 p.m.

    I'll trade my home from Mesa Arizona to live there with that beautiful building. Missionaries tracked me out and I have a soft spot in my heart for them. This was the most obvious place to put them. The drawings were wonderful. I'd be honored to live there where angels walk. The early saints were much more agreeable. They suffered hardships for decisions the church made and were never the worse for it. The testimonies strong, they prayed about things that may troubled them. They got their answers. The work went forward. Like I said, I have a beautiful home here with a swimming pool. I can't wait to see the homes around the MTC. I hope they change their minds and keep it here.

  • minnie, mapleton, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 11:00 p.m.

    The neighbors are acting like they do when a Temple goes up. And these are LDS people. To me its strange. I think the new MTC drawings were fantastic. I could almost feel the angles there. I would trade homes with anyone living there. Its right where it all starts with our missionaries. I would have loved to live by the new updated MTC.
    Please tell me reasons against it? Provo is turning into a mature town with more tall buildings. Some will have to decide if that is what they want. Our environments are always changing.
    May be time to move. Others would like to live there.

  • bountifulmomofsix BOUNTIFUL, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 10:45 p.m.

    I think that many people have made great comments. Certainly the Church will come up with a much better plan. It will all work out for the best. I have heard that a majority of residents in Laie (who are also of the L.D.S. religion) have refused to allow BYU-H to expand. It is unfortunate that they seem to feel that their quiet way of life will be negatively affected. Expansion would allow more students to have an opportunity to attend the school. More jobs will be added to the area - much needed jobs. The model is beautiful and keeps with the culture of the area. I look forward to seeing BYU Hawaii tear down the old dorms and replace them with new, air-conditioned units and I hope to hear someday that they are able to improve the campus.

  • Pilot70 Orem, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 9:30 p.m.

    If the church decided it was best not to build the tall building, and the neighbors are pleased and grateful, why are others continuing to criticize the neighborhood? Whether one thinks the neighbors should have made sacrifices for this plan or not, the matter was not handled in a consistent way ... in the way the church usually addresses neighbor views. The church was right to step back and work with the neighbors rather than set aside their reasonable concerns. Plus, we have to remember there are quite likely non-LDS people living there too. When they are forgotten and set-aside, we justly earn the sometimes negative reputation attached to Utah / Utah Valley. The fact is there is very likely a solution that will work well for everyone, even if it isn't optimal. It's worth it to look further to find that solution.

  • PDonty Tooele, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    How is this a Win-Win situation? It sounds like the neighborhood won, and everyone else lost. That would be a Win-Lose situation. I guess if you're on the winning side it's easier to think of it as Win-Win. It wasn't even a compromise, which would have been better than Win-Lose or Lose-Win, but not as good as Win-Win or Win-Win-Win. But it definitely wasn't Win-Win.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    I don't see why anyone would feel so strongly about this that they can't help but express some kind of disappointment in either the community, the church, leaders, or the grasshoppers that live on the BYU campus just ruining the grass leaving no room for anyone else's enjoyment and good living.

    The only judgement I feel is adequate to pronounce is my disappointment in the existence of such little disputes that none of us gain from. Bad disputes, bad! Go away! (if only that actually worked...)

    In the meantime, I think the decision of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a respectful one and a good. If I can find anything to be said of it, I find it virtuous. It is my hope and prayer that what develops from this will be even better than we could have hoped for before. Knowing our Father in Heaven, I'm sure it will be.

    I hope we will try to be of good cheer. This is good news, not an excuse to fault each other and point fingers. The work goes on and more lives will be blessed. Be of good cheer!

    =)

  • Samwise Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    Although I would not have been against the new building if I lived in the neighborhood, I can see where their arguments are coming from. I think building another MTC either in or near SLC or in Rexburg as has been suggested would be a good idea. If they can't build tall buildings at the Provo MTC, there really isn't any room to expand the capacity of that MTC any more than it already has been.

  • keola787 Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 12, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    I am glad the church listened to the community. I would hate to have a nine-story building in my neighborhood as that is not what I bargained for when I bought here.

    We are asked to sustain our church leaders. That's two-way communication. If I see a problem in my ward, I should respectfully communicate it to my bishop. Same with my stake president for a problem in the stake. Having served in bishoprics and a stake presidency, I have seen this happen often. It is not a problem. If the neighbors were respectful, then there is no problem.

    There are solutions to this problem. The appointed persons just need to find them - even if it take help from above.

  • EightOhOne St. George, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 6:19 p.m.

    i can't believe their are people on here putting the blame on the neighborhood. someone already pointed out a promise made years ago about mtc buildings not exceeding a certain size. but because homeowners nearby voiced their opinions, and exercised their right to disagree with something the church wanted to do-they are made out to be the bad guy. just because we live in utah, doesn't mean the dominant religions needs come first.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Oct. 12, 2012 5:47 p.m.

    Sorry but here in AZ where we fight for every chapel and temple to be built, the thought of "good church members" fighting this expansion makes me shake my head.
    Would love to hear what brother Brigham would have said to those who didn't want the Salt Lake temple so tall.
    We are becoming a selfish self indulging people who think that sacrifice is good....you go first.

  • tlaulu Taylorsville, Utah
    Oct. 12, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    Hmmm! "Lovest thou me more than the value of your property and the view of the mountains?".

  • holly56 LOVELAND, CO
    Oct. 12, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    I'm thinking that perhaps the neighbors were not consulted prior to the decision for a 9-story building was made. And if the Church actually did make these plans without talking with neighbors then I am glad to see that it stepped back from plans to move on it; for such a tall building that is not in the immediate vicinity of the BYU campus with taller buildings would seem out of place.

    I don't think there is any need to be judgmental toward either side. It's important for any business, when planning to build, to consider and consult residential neighborhoods if possible if it will impact them. I don't live in UT but would be disappointed, indeed, if there were any hotheaded "threats" made by Church officials. And it's just as important for those in the neighborhoods not to be hotheaded and to speak respectfully with their concerns of opposition. I'm sure the Church will come up with a solution that will benefit all. After all, they are being led by the Lord and it is His work. Whatever is decided will probably be better.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    Kudos to the church for listening to the concerns of the local residents and not going back on previous promises.

    I fail to see how the local resident's concerns about this being built turns them into bad members. I am sure if there were no other options and this definitely had to be done to move the work forward than most of them would be okay with it. I don't think that's the case though, there are lots of others options to consider that may work better for everyone involved.

  • M. Butler Brooklyn, NY
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    There's already a large piece of land that has a huge building on it--on the other side of that same neighborhood. And it surely is a bigger eyesore and causes more trouble to the neighborhood than a few missionaries coming and going at the MTC--few relative to the numbers who go to that great and spacious building.

    The football stadium. Tear it down and build the new MTC there. As the dearly departed Steven Covey would say, it's "Win-Win!"

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    I don't know why the church doesn't just say why instead of saying "complexities" and "concerns". Just say the neighborhood didn't want a tall building and due to the recent missionary age requirement change we may need much more than 9 stories!

  • rattler Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    Every body here who thinks the neighborhood is in the wrong in opposing the tall building, would have done exactly the something if it were in your own neighborhood.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    Maybe the members in the surrounding area would be willing to house some missionaries in their humble abodes? Well,.................maybe.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    I can't help but wonder how many people this would have put to work in such a terrible economy. I hope the residents of Pleasant View neighborhood are happy.

  • RantBully Bend, OR
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    Maybe they should build an MTC near Rexburg, Idaho where more land is available?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    I know the Church won their cause in places where many temples and other types of buildings have been built, in very difficult locations. Hopefully, it is not the local neighbors as the neighbors in other non-church areas will state that is a good reason to not build a temple, which can be very tall, in their area.

    We all sacrifice for the cause, no matter where we live and where we work. That part of Zion is located at BYU Provo and people should expect growth and up is part of that growth. What a legacy that the MTC with the flow of missionaries to increase in the next year or two and to be part of that growth.

    This is a complex situation but people in Utah sometimes lose the vision for progress and growth. This Church is not the government and they work so well with people of all religious, languages, cultures, local leaders and nationalities and ethnic groups, everywhere.

    I know this was a difficult decision as the leaders are guided in their hard decisions in relation to missionary service and the mission of the Church.

    The Provo temple is a perfect location for missionaries.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    I don't see this as necessarily reflecting poorly on the members involved. It is legitimate to raise concerns about one's neighborhood. This was never an all or nothing scenario. There have always been additional options that might create more of a win/win situation. I was much more disappointed in the threats made by certain LDS church leaders in response to those concerns. It appears that cooler Church heads have prevailed and seen the value in discussion over dictation.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:52 p.m.

    I think that this would be a perfect building to be built on the parking lot just to the west of the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City. The LDS Church does own a lot of parking lots near the Temple Campus that would be great to use for expansion.

    With the coming Airport Trax line, this would save time and money if the missionaries would be able to both arrive and depart without needing to have trips to the airport. The missionaries could also be accompanied to the airport by their families on the Trax train.

    If the parking lot to the west of the Conference Center wouldn't work, there is the lot to the west of the museum and family history buildings (where they stored equipment and offices while building City Creek).

    I say bring it to Downtown Salt Lake City. At least there they could build higher and expand as needed.

  • CanuckFan Vancouver, BC
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    I suspect that a confluence of factors led to this decision such as the lowering of the minimum age of women which will result in a "permanent" increase in the number of sister missionaries. The increase in demand from this may have resulted in the realization that the 9 floor building is no longer adequate for the next phase in the MTC's growth. Neighborhood pressure seems to have also factored in. It may be that the demand will be such that it makes more sense to build a parallel campus somewhere else and that over time, this could replace the existing one if expansion were phased. There are both challenges and problems with having the MTC adjacent to BYU.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    This is a great thing the church has done. Back when they built the original MTC on that site, the church made a promise that buildings would not be very tall. I'm glad the church is not going back on their word. That location is not a good site for such a tall building, surrounded by residential.

    If the church wants to build up, perhaps they ought to build a new MTC campus in a different location that allows them to build tall buildings. Maybe they could build a new MTC campus on the west edge of BYU's campus on University Ave. near Bulldog Blvd or University Parkway. Those intersections are prime for redevelopment and would be able to sustain 9+ story buildings.

  • MarkA Logan, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    This decision reflects poorly on the members living in the MTC area.

  • Warrior Parent Belle Glade, FL
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    The voice of the few... damaging the hopes of many.

  • Thunder Orem, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    The details of this news were quite vague. I think the announcement may indicate a combination of trying to appease the neighborhood and reassess the needed expansion in light of the recent announcement regarding missionary service at General Conference. Though in general I think those living in this neighborhood need to be more understanding and cooperative with what appears to be an inevitable expansion of some kind when it comes back again. The level of rancor earlier was disheartening.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    Can't say I really understand the reason why. I hope it is not just because the neighborhood complained. I guess either way, the church proved to be the bigger man in giving in. I hope that the church can find a way to make missionary work progress and go forward despite of the neighborhood. I would have to say that beings that the neighborhood is right in the heart of BYU and Provo that several members are in this neighborhood, and they choose to put their views ahead of the church's motivation to move forward. Just don't get it.