Heber Valley Temple lawsuit: Judge hears arguments on temple construction
HEBER CITY, Utah () — A hearing for the lawsuit against Wasatch County involving plans for the Heber Valley Temple was held this afternoon. The judge is reviewing the details and information shared today and says she will issue a written ruling in the near future.
The lawsuit, filed in November 2023, asked that Wasatch County disallow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from building the temple on the set land in Heber City due to concerns of light pollution, blocking valley views for homeowners, and increased disturbances.
Judge Jennifer A. Mabey is the assigned judge on the case and began the motions for summary judgment hearing Monday afternoon. Attorneys discussed concerns from the residents who filed the lawsuit, the support from members of the community, and the Church's arguments for the development agreement.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: LDS Church files to be added as a defendant to temple lawsuit
Robert Mansfield, an attorney for the residents who filed the lawsuit, began by presenting the reason that they filed the lawsuit. Mansfield first explained that the temple, set to be over 80,000 square feet and roughly 210 feet tall, would be built in a residential zone.
He argued that 'special privileges' were offered by Wasatch County to the Church when it came to the section of land that was dedicated for the construction of the temple. Changes were made by Wasatch County to the general plan without the proper disclosure and without meeting public comment requirements, according to Mansfield.
'Approval under threats of litigation does not comport with fundamental fairness. Also, the land use actions do not protect property values; there's going to be increased traffic, noise, loss of privacy, loss of views, light pollution in the evenings, and that hurts values,' Mansfield explained.
PREVIOUSLY: LDS Church files to be added as a defendant to temple lawsuit
He further explained that there is nothing that demonstrates the temple project will protect property value, and that the Wasatch County ordinance amendments violated state law. Mansfield asked that the court grant their motion for summary judgment and deny the motion from the county.
Jonathan Woodard, Deputy County Attorney for Wasatch County, explained that under the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act (), Wasatch County was within its rights to make allowances for the construction of the temple.
Letters written to Wasatch County by residents were shared with the court. Woodard read off these public comments, which all involved residents expressing their excitement for a temple and explaining that it would end extra travel and support religious freedom. The nearest temple is located in Lindon, Utah, roughly 30 minutes from Heber City, Utah.
PREVIOUSLY: Wasatch County hears opinions on LDS Heber Valley Temple
Woodard said these considerations went into the ordinance changes that would allow the temple's construction. Under CLUDMA, he argued the temple would improve 'the morals, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics' of the county.
David Jordan, an attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, argued that the development agreement did not violate CLUDMA or any state or county codes. He further said that the public comment session held in October 2023 met the requirements for notice of amendments to the county ordinances and plan.
Manfield, in response to the arguments shared by Woodard and Jordan, argued that although the county and the Church were within their rights to make this development agreement, they did fail to go through the proper procedures outlined in CLUDMA and Utah State Code before beginning the project. He again asked for the injunction to stop development.
Judge Mabey told the court that she was going to take time to review the case and would issue a written ruling on the lawsuit.
Weber County School District considering tax increase
During the General Conference on October 3, 2021, the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M. Nelson, to the Heber Valley area. One year later, on October 8, 2022, a groundbreaking and site dedication was completed by Nelson.
In April of 2023, Wasatch County in an attempt to please both the Church and residents. According to the county, they received letters from residents for and against the regulation changes for the temple's construction. The Church said that these ordinances would be in line with industry standards, and they would adhere to a curfew to maintain dark skies.
Months later, on October 26, 2023, to a Wasatch County Council meeting to voice their concerns about the Heber Valley Temple. Residents were concerned about light pollution taking away the dark skies near their homes with the new regulations.
Utah lawyer sanctioned for court filing that used ChatGPT and referenced nonexistent court case
A group of residents called Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies led the pushback from the community. On November 29, 2023, a lawsuit was filed against Wasatch County by some residents who participated in this group. They asked that the development of the temple be halted by the judge.
In January 2024, the Deputy County Attorney for Wasatch County filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the individuals who filed it did not have enough legal backing to pursue the lawsuit. Days later, , saying that the county would only protect its own interests and not those of the Church.
On April 30, the court decided not to dismiss the lawsuit and allowed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . Since this, multiple revisions, arguments, discussions, and reviews of county ordinances and temple construction plans have been filed.
On the , the current plan listed for the temple says that it will be 87,626 square feet and 210 feet tall. It will feature two attached end towers, and inside will be four instruction rooms, four sealing rooms, and one baptistry.
SILVER ALERT: 69-year-old woman with dementia missing in Riverton
Smith's Pineapple Cheesecake Ice Cream
Dekliderm tackles 'tech neck' with targeted, affordable neck firming cream
Kids and parents: It's time to get involved in County Library's Summer Reading program
Brine flies make their home at the Great Salt Lake
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Pope Leo Faces First Major Test Over ‘Morally Corrupt' Bishop
Pope Leo XIV is set to face one of his first major tests with a petition addressed to him calling for the removal of Cologne Archbishop Rainer Maria Woelki over concerns about his handling of sexual abuse allegations. Newsweek has contacted the Vatican via email, for comment. As the newly elected pope, people will be watching how Leo handles concerns about sex abuse in the church. How the Vatican responds to the petition, which has more than 60,000 signatures, could set the tone for Pope Leo's leadership style and his stance on episcopal accountability worldwide. Woelki has long been a divisive figure in the church amid criticism of his handling of sexual abuse cases in the archdiocese of Cologne. In September 2021, Pope Francis decided to leave Woelki in office despite massive criticism over his handling of the sexual abuse cases. The pontiff instead gave the cardinal a "spiritual timeout" of several months after he made "major errors" of communication. Woelki had infuriated many local Catholics by citing legal concerns to keep under wraps a report on how local church officials reacted when priests were accused of sexual abuse. He commissioned a second report, and a German law firm produced an 800-page investigation. The report he commissioned absolved Woelki himself of any neglect of his legal duties with respect to abuse victims. He subsequently said he made mistakes in past cases involving sexual abuse allegations but made clear he had no intention of resigning. The Cologne public prosecutor's office had been investigating Cardinal Woelki since autumn 2022 for possible false testimony regarding his knowledge of abuse allegations, according to the Catholic News Agency. In summer 2023, his apartment and offices were searched. However, at the beginning of May 2025, investigations of the cardinal were ended after the payment of a 26,000-euro (about $29,700) fine. The Archdiocese of Cologne told Newsweek: "As is well known, the presumption of innocence public prosecutor's office has expressly confirmed that Cardinal Woelki did not make a deliberately false statement and therefore did not commit perjury." Munich priest Wolfgang F. Rothe, who started the petition on May 26, wrote that "in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, (Woelki) gravely violated his duty of care. "Against this backdrop, Cardinal Woelki is completely morally corrupt. He has lost all credibility, both in public and within the Archdiocese of Cologne and the Catholic Church in Germany," Rothe said. "Leaders in politics and society do not want to be seen with him, parishes are not visited by him, and confirmation candidates are not confirmed by him." "His behavior is a severe slap in the face to the many victims of sexual abuse and undermines efforts to address sexual abuse in other German dioceses and in the universal Church," Rothe added. In March 2022, after Francis ordered an official review of Woelki's archdiocese, the Vatican found no evidence of unlawful conduct-although it said major errors of communication had been made. It also praised Woelki's willingness to be investigated, the Catholic News Agency reported. Munich priest Wolfgang F. Rothe wrote in his petition: "Cardinal Woelki is largely isolated both within the Archdiocese of Cologne and within the Catholic Church in Germany. He is a shepherd without a flock. And the Archdiocese of Cologne is a flock without a shepherd." Riccardo Wagner, Head of the Media School at Fresenius University of Applied Sciences Cologne, was critical of the petition in an interview with the Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost. He said: "The platform and the petition act as if sacramental offices could be legitimized or delegitimized by digital public opinion – this fundamentally contradicts the nature of the Church, which is why this approach and means must be clearly rejected." The Archdiocese of Cologne told Newsweek: "For Cardinal Woelki, the end of the proceedings marks the end. He now wants to devote all his energy to the future of the Archdiocese of Cologne together with the faithful." It is yet to be seen how Leo will respond to this petition and what the impact of his decision will be. Related Articles Donald Trump Wants Pope Leo's Brother To Visit Him at White HouseJD Vance Has 'Exchange of Views' With Archbishop After Pope Leo MeetingPope Leo Offers Vatican to Putin, Zelensky for TalksPope Leo Issues Five-Word Message to the US 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Archbishop of Canterbury job advert seeks ‘servant leader of utmost integrity'
A job description for the next archbishop of Canterbury has stated the chosen person must be someone of the 'utmost integrity', able to speak on the issues affecting the society's most vulnerable, and could be a woman for the first time in the role's history. The Church of England post has been vacant since January when Justin Welby formally left office having announced his resignation the previous November amid safeguarding failures surrounding a Christian camp leader who had been a serial abuser. In a so-called statement of needs, published this week, the Diocese of Canterbury set out a lengthy list of requirements the chosen candidate should have. While, technically, the King is head of the Church of England, the person holding the role of archbishop of Canterbury is the most senior bishop and is the spiritual leader of the Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) – the body charged with nominating the new archbishop – held the first of three planned private meetings last month. It is expected there could be an announcement on a nomination for the 106th archbishop of Canterbury by autumn – a year after Mr Welby announced he was standing down. He said on November 12 2024 that he was to quit following failures in handling a Church abuse scandal involving barrister and religious camp leader John Smyth – thought to be the most prolific abuser associated with the Church. More than 11,000 people took part in February and March in a public consultation for the next archbishop of Canterbury – aimed at giving people the chance to influence the future of leadership within the Church, by submitting both names and the qualities they think are required. The Canterbury diocese said the statement of needs incorporates views from the public consultation 'as well as explaining what life in our diocese is like for those who live, work and worship here'. Among the requirements are a person with 'theological depth' who is a good communicator with people of different ages and backgrounds, someone of 'the utmost integrity who is able to speak honestly' about failures and injustices in the Church, and a 'servant leader, who shows compassion towards the disadvantaged and marginalised'. They must also be 'unapologetic about offering a Christian perspective to local, national and international dialogue', the statement says. Issues such as same-sex marriage and women's roles in the Church are also referenced. The chosen person must be someone who is happy to ordain and consecrate women and men and 'will unequivocally affirm and support the ministry of both, and may themselves be male or female'. While women have been ordained in the Church of England for a number of years, there has never been a female in the top role. The chosen person must also have 'worked and will continue to work constructively' around ongoing discussions around blessings services for same-sex couples, and 'embrace' both those who support and others who oppose same-sex marriage in the Church. On what has been a divisive and difficult debate in the Church, the person 'will recognise with honesty the complexity of the current situation and the strongly held, but different, convictions present in the diocese as in the Church of England more widely'. Rather than applying, it is usual that candidates are 'invited in' to the process. Historically, candidates have been people who already have senior leadership roles in ministry in the Church or elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. They must be at least 30 years old, and generally younger than 70. Chairman of the Vacancy in See Committee, the Venerable Dr Will Adam, said: 'The (consultation) responses gathered have helped us put together a Statement of Needs that captures the opportunities and challenges in our diverse corner of the country, reflecting the coastal, urban and rural communities and the church in all its variety in this diocese. 'The document will be enormously helpful to the Crown Nominations Commission and to candidates as we continue to discern who God is calling to be our next Archbishop.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Real Reason Trump Has Created This Autopen Scandal
When Richard III seized the English throne towards the end of the Wars of the Roses, he pressured Parliament to legitimize his usurpation of the crown from his nephews. Parliament responded by passing a law that accused the late Edward IV, Richard's brother, and his wife Elizabeth Woodville of all manner of misdeeds. The law, Titulus Regius, was an incendiary one. It claimed that Edward's reign had seen the laws of God and his Church, of nature, and of England left 'broken, subverted and disregarded, contrary to all reason and justice.' It denounced his marriage as invalid, in part because Elizabeth had allegedly bewitched him through 'sorcery and witchcraft.' And it conveniently declared that their children, who stood ahead of Richard in the line of succession (and had gone missing under his care), were bastards and automatically ineligible for the throne. The United States is a republic, not a monarchy. But that has not stopped President Donald Trump from taking a similar approach to declaring his predecessor's administration invalid. This week, he issued a memorandum to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Biden's White House advisors had used an autopen device to fabricate Biden's signature on official documents. Though the memo did not go so far as to accuse Biden officials of using sorcery to bewitch him, it argued that they took advantage of his allegedly compromised mental state to wield presidential powers. 'This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history,' it said. 'The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.' Trump had already signaled that his focus was on Biden's pardons of various people whom he sees as political enemies. 'The 'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,' he wrote in a post on his personal social-media website in March. 'In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!' Conservative media outlets have written extensively about the previous administration's use of an autopen in recent months, insinuating that it was a sign of Biden's incapacity. There is no evidence that it was used to sign things against the former president's will. Focusing on it is a throwback of sorts to the Obama years, when he began to use the device while traveling overseas. He first used the autopen to sign an extension of the PATRIOT Act in 2011 during a weeklong tour of Europe. In 2013, he used it to sign the bill that prevented the U.S. government from going over the so-called 'fiscal cliff' while vacationing in Hawaii. Less notable uses also followed, such as signing routine annual proclamations. Obama's autopen use initially raised some constitutional questions since Article I requires the president to 'sign' legislation before it can become law. Conservatives occasionally brought it up as part of their broader efforts to paint Obama's tenure as illegitimate in various ways. But a 2005 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel found no issue with a president directing his signature to be attached to a document as opposed to signing it by his own hand. It grounded its reasoning in ancient principles of English and early American legal tradition. 'Under the 'principle of signatures,' the common law recognized that one could sign a document not only with one's own hand, but also by the hand of another who was properly authorized to affix one's signature to the document on one's behalf or who did so in one's presence,' the office explained. 'Furthermore, a document signed in one's name by the hand of another in either of these manners was equally effective as a document signed with one's own hand.' It is worth noting that the original autopen controversy stemmed largely around the president's use of it to sign legislation, where the Constitution explicitly requires a signature. For practical reasons, presidents do not commit all or even most of their orders, instructions, or official actions to paper. A president's direct order to someone serving in the military, for example, carries the same legal weight whether delivered over the telephone, via videoconference, or in person. Since Trump's particular issue with the autopen centers around pardons, it's worth noting that the historical precedents for that power are much looser than for any other official act a president might undertake. The modern practice is for would-be recipients to apply to the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney, who reviews cases and makes recommendations to the president. If approved, the office gives pardon recipients a formal document bearing the president's seal and signature. That is a modern convenience rather than an actual legal requirement, however. Trump himself has ignored or bypassed the pardon attorney and issued almost all of his pardons at his personal whim. Past presidents have also wielded the pardon power by proclamation instead of individualized certificates. They have issued mass pardons to ex-Confederate officials, to formerly polygamous Mormons, Vietnam War draft evaders, and so on without difficulty. My favorite examples of the pardon power's ad hoc usage come from the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln developed a reputation during his time in office as a bit of a soft touch when it came to clemency. He was also strikingly informal about it. In one encounter, Lincoln once wrote out a pardon for a young boy accused of desertion on a nearby scrap of bandage. When General Joseph Hooker once sent a list of death warrants for 55 convicted deserters to the White House during the war, historian Ron Soodalter recounted, Lincoln simply wrote 'pardoned' on the envelope and mailed it back. Lincoln's current successor is familiar with this freewheeling approach to governance, albeit to achieve far different ends. Trump has often gone to great lengths to conceal or destroy government records, whether by tearing them up after he is done with them or absconding with them to his Florida golf resort. He notoriously does not use email or a computer and prefers to conduct business over the phone instead of putting anything into writing. This approach conveniently avoids creating a paper trail that could be used against him later. Trump has also argued before that a president's intent matters more than the precise physical or ministerial act that he performs when running the executive branch. He asserted in a 2022 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, that he could declassify documents telepathically. 'There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it,' Trump said. 'You're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it.' Naturally, part of Trump's argument is that Biden's intent was dubious because of his 'cognitive decline' while president. 'This was especially true of actions taken during the second half of his Presidency, when his cognitive decline had apparently become even more clear to those working most closely with him,' his memorandum stated. The 'investigation' appears designed to create a pretextual justification to nullify a wide range of official actions undertaken by the Biden administration. The White House's documents take pains to mention Biden's executive orders and judicial appointments as part of this alleged scheme. 'If his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name,' the memorandum claimed, 'that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden's name.' If someone forged Biden's signature on an official document that carried legal weight, that would indeed be a scandal and could be a criminal offense. But Trump's theory has a few flaws in it. For one thing, there is no evidence that any Biden officials took any actions without his approval or consent. Biden himself has also denied that it happened. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,' he said in a statement on Friday. 'Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' Trump's idea that a president could invalidate all of his predecessor's acts by claiming that predecessor was mentally incompetent at the time is also untenable, both practically or legally. There is no 'undo' button in the Constitution. A Democratic president could also do the same thing to the Trump administration's executive actions and judicial appointments upon taking office in 2029, perhaps even extending it to his first term. After all, Trump's own mental fitness is far from uncontested: He publicly defended himself from such claims in 2018 by boasting that he was a 'very stable genius.' For those reasons, Trump's own attempt to delegitimize his predecessor's administration would be unlikely to achieve any substantial legal goals. A Supreme Court where one-third of the justices were appointed by Trump is unlikely to agree that a mentally incompetent president's judicial appointees can be removed from the bench by executive fiat. As with Richard III's Titulus Regius, the memorandum's real effect may be as propaganda—grist for the content mills of right-wing media. That this is all arriving ahead of a summer simmering with bad economic headwinds is significant. Even so, it will be hard to distract from the damage wrought by Trump's own administration over the next four years.
