I missed it by six years.

[Thinking]

Six years ago I predicted that the Provo Temple would soon be renovated.

I Have A Prediction

Quote

The Provo City Center Temple is scheduled to be dedicated on March 20, 2016. I think that soon after that dedication it will be announced that the original Provo Temple will undergo a renovation (or rebuild) much like the Ogden Temple. I know that in 2010 the LDS Church said there were no current plans, but that was before fire gutted the Provo Tabernacle - which was renovated and will soon be dedicated as the Provo City Center Temple. (October 26, 2015)

Is six years soon enough for my prediction to be valid?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Six years ago I predicted that the Provo Temple would soon be renovated.

I Have A Prediction

Is six years soon enough for my prediction to be valid?

I don’t regard six years as being soon, but aside from that, yes, you called it. 👏 
 

I didn’t love the idea of, in essence, doing an entire replacement (not just a renovation) of the Ogden temple, and I don’t love the idea of doing the same thing with the Provo one. Changing out an entire edifice just because some regard the old one as “dated” or unfashionable strikes me as extravagant. 
 

Added later: I recognize the possibility that there might be other reasons. Maybe the building is not seismically up to par. Or maybe the existing structure can’t be enlarged enough to accommodate missionaries at the nearby MTC, which has come into being (and expanded over time) since the temple was constructed back in the early 1970s. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t regard six years as being soon, but aside from that, yes, you called it. 👏 
 

I didn’t love the idea of, in essence, doing an entire replacement (not just a renovation) of the Ogden temple, and I don’t love the idea of doing the same thing with the Provo one. Changing out an entire edifice just because some regard the old one as “dated” or unfashionable strikes me as extravagant. 
 

Added later: I recognize the possibility that there might be other reasons. Maybe the building is not seismically up to par. Or maybe the existing structure can’t be enlarged enough to accommodate missionaries at the nearby MTC, which has come into being (and expanded over time) since the temple was constructed back in the early 1970s. 

I don't know that this would be the only reason, but I heard that no one was wanting to get married in the ogden temple or have it be the place they had their endowment because of the design.  It could be that the remodel was in part to help get more people into those temples so they could spread the load more evenly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that this would be the only reason, but I heard that no one was wanting to get married in the ogden temple or have it be the place they had their endowment because of the design.  It could be that the remodel was in part to help get more people into those temples so they could spread the load more evenly. 

Seems quite plausible. Still strikes me as extravagant. 
 

Choosing against marrying or being endowed in your own district’s temple because you don’t like its design seems like a first-world problem to me. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t love the idea of, in essence, doing an entire replacement (not just a renovation) of the Ogden temple, and I don’t love the idea of doing the same thing with the Provo one. Changing out an entire edifice just because some regard the old one as “dated” or unfashionable strikes me as extravagant. 

Alright, who has hijacked Scott Lloyd's profile? 

First you complain about a Tabernacle Choir arrangement, and now you criticize the prophets decision in regard to a temple.  I bet you are on your way to that Starbucks right now.  I knew the slope was slippery, but dang!    

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Alright, who has hijacked Scott Lloyd's profile? 

First you complain about a Tabernacle Choir arrangement, and now you criticize the prophets decision in regard to a temple.  I bet you are on your way to that Starbucks right now.  I knew the slope was slippery, but dang!    

😆 

Actually, I think I’ve said before that I didn’t like the decision to do a total rebuild in Ogden. So this is not unprecedented behavior for me, even if unusual. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems quite plausible. Still strikes me as extravagant. 
 

Choosing against marrying or being endowed in your own district’s temple because you don’t like its design seems like a first-world problem to me. 

Definitely. But in Utah with many different temples to choose from I can see how an unpopular one could easily start to be a problem.

In an area where you only had one temple, it wouldn’t even be an issue if the members liked the architecture or not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely. But in Utah with many different temples to choose from I can see how an unpopular one could easily start to be a problem.

In an area where you only had one temple, it wouldn’t even be an issue if the members liked the architecture or not. 

The Church’s functional equivalent of a first-world problem. 
 

When the Draper Utah Temple was announced, I was spouting off at work about how I didn’t like being placed in a new temple district that would require I drive farther away and halfway up a mountain to get to the temple. I said I would probably continue to go to the Jordan River Temple. 
 

A member of the Church Correlation department, in the office to proofread the Church News, heard me and said, “No you won’t. You’ll be obedient and attend the temple in your district.” 
 

He was right. 

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church’s functional equivalent of a first-world problem. 
 

When the Draper Utah Temple was announced, I was spouting off at work about how I didn’t like being placed in a new temple district that would require I drive farther away and halfway up a mountain to get to the temple. I said I would probably continue to go to the Jordan River Temple. 
 

A member of the Church Correlation department, in the office to proofread the Church News, heard me and said, “No you won’t. You’ll be obedient and attend the temple in your district.” 
 

He was right. 

I haven't ever really considered going to a temple outside of your district to be something you needed to repent of.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't ever really considered going to a temple outside of your district to be something you needed to repent of.  

Maybe not. But deliberate disobedience (as was contemplated in my rash remark, whether or not I would have admitted it at the time) is. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

😆

Actually, I think I’ve said before that I didn’t like the decision to do a total rebuild in Ogden. So this is not unprecedented behavior for me, even if unusual. 

And by decision you mean God-given revelation right? 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe not. But deliberate disobedience (as was contemplated in my rash remark, whether or not I would have admitted it at the time) is. 

I've never actually been told that if I lived near multiple temples I needed to only attend the temple in my temple district.  Where does it say that?  (not arguing, sincerely wondering).

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And by decision you mean God-given revelation right? 

Have they claimed revelation for those changes?  I honestly have no idea.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never actually been told that if I lived near multiple temples I needed to only attend the temple in my temple district.  Where does it say that?  (not arguing, sincerely wondering).

I’ve never explored the question that deeply. I just took the word of the man in Correlation (whose job entailed being well acquainted with Church doctrine and policy) that it’s a matter of obedience generally to attend the temple in one’s own district. 
 

I can see how it would make sense In locales where there is easy access to multiple temples, to have everyone as a general rule attend their assigned temple. Otherwise, planning and day-to-day operation could be far more difficult. 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have they claimed revelation for those changes?  I honestly have no idea.

Probably not.  But dear Scott seems to make that assumption any time anyone disagrees with a Church decision.
I wondered if he did the same with decisions he doesn't like.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems quite plausible. Still strikes me as extravagant. 
 

Choosing against marrying or being endowed in your own district’s temple because you don’t like its design seems like a first-world problem to me. 

I was going to say now that's a world class first world problem! 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And by decision you mean God-given revelation right? 

As a receiver of covenants, I’m bound to accept revelation whenever and wherever it is given. 
 

But I don’t have to always like the conditions or circumstances that render the revelation necessary. 
 

For example, it was revelation that permitted Joseph Smith at last to let Martin Harris take the 116 manuscript pages from the Book of Mormon translation. I don’t have to approve of what led up to it, namely Martin’s (and Joseph’s) failure to take no for an answer the first time. 
 

It was revelation that permitted ancient Israel to have a king. I don’t have to approve of their clamor that finally led to the Lord granting them their foolish hearts’ desire. 
 

If there was a revelation to do a tear-down and rebuild of a temple, and if said revelation was occasioned by the desires of business owners who thought the existing temple didn’t fit their downtown redevelopment plans, or the wishes of fussy brides and grooms who thought the temple looked too “dated,” or jealous patrons who wanted a temple that was more like the newer ones within easy driving distance in neighboring temple districts, well, I can disapprove of the circumstances that led to the revelation even as I accept the revelation itself. 
 

Does that make sense? 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably not.  But dear Scott seems to make that assumption any time anyone disagrees with a Church decision.
I wondered if he did the same with decisions he doesn't like.

Please see my response above. 

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recognize the possibility that there might be other reasons.

The aliens keep showing up thinking the Provo Temple is a space ship. They knock on the door and are turned away.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a receiver of covenants, I’m bound to accept revelation whenever and wherever it is given. 

But I don’t have to always like the conditions or circumstances that render the revelation necessary. 

For example, it was revelation that permitted Joseph Smith at last to let Martin Harris take the 116 manuscript pages from the Book of Mormon translation. I don’t have to approve of what led up to it, namely Martin’s (and Joseph’s) failure to take no for an answer the first time. 

It was revelation that permitted ancient Israel to have a king. I don’t have to approve of their clamor that finally led to the Lord granting them their foolish hearts’ desire. 

If there was a revelation to do a tear-down and rebuild of a temple, and if said revelation was occasioned by the desires of business owners who thought the temple didn’t fit their downtown redevelopment plans, or the wishes of fussy brides and grooms who thought the temple looked too “dated,” or jealous patrons who wanted a temple that was more like the newer ones within easy driving distance, well, I can disapprove of the circumstances that led to the revelation even as I accept the revelation itself. 
Does that make sense? 

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

How often do you think changes and revelations come because of our sins and errors as opposed to God's will?
How often is continuing revelation related directly to D&C 58:32?

Frankly, I'd be very happy if they never had to receive that kind of revelation again.  It makes members unable to recognize their errors.  Continuing revelation isn't a plus if it comes because we are increasingly out of order.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Choosing against marrying or being endowed in your own district’s temple because you don’t like its design seems like a first-world problem to me. 

Brides want what brides want. My daughter did not want her reception in a gym (cultural hall). I opened my wallet. IMO an exterior design error is much less significant than a doctrinal error and should be allowed to be changed. I believe there was a talk (by somebody with a lot of authority) about the changes in the presentation of the endowment. Certainly the exterior appearance of a temple can be changed to fit with the times.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Definitely. But in Utah with many different temples to choose from I can see how an unpopular one could easily start to be a problem.

In an area where you only had one temple, it wouldn’t even be an issue if the members liked the architecture or not. 

I remember feeling a little sad back when my district was the Salt Lake Temple but decided to do Jordan River Temple because my husband had more family members that could attend in his district. Sorta was bummed, but all was well. And sad that most of my siblings had to wait outside. ETA: I was bummed because that would have been pretty cool to go to such a historical temple, and the pictures too. 😊

Edited October 4, 2021 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember feeling a little sad back when my district was the Salt Lake Temple but decided to do Jordan River temple because my husband had more family members that could attend in his district. Sorta was bummed, but all was well. And sad that my most of my siblings had to wait outside.

Billings Montana had only had a temple for a few months when I was married so I was just really happy we didn’t have to travel. Before that one our temple was Idaho Falls, five or more hours away. 

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that this would be the only reason, but I heard that no one was wanting to get married in the ogden temple or have it be the place they had their endowment because of the design.  It could be that the remodel was in part to help get more people into those temples so they could spread the load more evenly. 

I was married in the Ogden temple and the design didn't bother me or my wife at all. We just wanted to get married. 

The Ogden Temple is even on our grave marker.

Edited October 4, 2021 by JAHS

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How often do you think changes and revelations come because of our sins and errors as opposed to God's will?

I don’t know. I’m not inclined to think about it that often. It’s only rarely that something comes along that rubs me the wrong way — such as a tear-down and rebuild of a temple, or altering MTC renovation plans or an announced temple site because of clamor from local residents. 
 

It’s an interesting scriptural passage you cite, by the way. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd