I missed it by six years.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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.

I was endowed in the Provo Temple (the Salt Lake Temple was closed at the time, and there were no other ones closer). Kind of sad to see the original one go away. 
 

Added later: Its twin, the Ogden Temple was the first one I ever toured in an open house for a new temple. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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.

Got it. A tear down and rebuild to suit fashion whims still strikes me as extravagant. 

[bearhoof]

I'm fine with the remodel, just keep the exterior the way it is. The neighborhood loves its distinctiveness. We don't want a cookie-cutter update (see Ogden) which is indistinguishable from it's neighboring temples.   

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bearhoof said:

The neighborhood loves its distinctiveness.

I bet most would vote for a re-design.  It is the least popular temple in Utah for weddings. Very few want to get married in the 70's vibe "spaceship", or "cupcake" temple.  It even made one list of "ugliest churches". 

I grew up in the Provo temple district and always disliked the aesthetics and was overjoyed when the Timpanogos temple was dedicated and became my temple, both because it was closer to me, and because it was more visually inspiring to me.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Are you talking about the MTC in Provo when they were going to make it with some higher stories which would block views? I just remember it being on the news. Don't know what happened, thinking that the church did what the neighbors wanted.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Are you talking about the MTC in Provo when they were going to make it with some higher stories which would block views? I just remember it being on the news. Don't know what happened, thinking that the church did what the neighbors wanted.

Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. And the Church did revise its plans to accommodate neighbors’ demands. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bearhoof said:

I'm fine with the remodel, just keep the exterior the way it is. The neighborhood loves its distinctiveness. We don't want a cookie-cutter update (see Ogden) which is indistinguishable from it's neighboring temples.   

But it won’t be just a remodel. President Nelson termed it a “reconstruction.” I don’t see any way to read that other than a tear-down and rebuild, especially considering what happened with its twin sister, the Ogden temple. 

[MiserereNobis]

Thinking, if only you had set a timer like @Scott Lloyd used to do (do you have any of those still running, Scott?).

I looked up the Provo Temple. As an outsider, I'd say... not attractive. It makes me think of how some Catholic Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s tossed out beauty in favor of some sort of weird "modern" aesthetic. In some cases, beautiful churches were torn down because they were "old" and the Catholic Church was trying to be new. This includes the church in the town next to mine (Las Cruces). Here is St. Genevieve's at its dedication October 15, 1887:

The church was sold to the city in the late 1960s and then torn down so the city could develop a downtown mall (I wish I could have some words with the bishop who made that decision, even if just from a historical point-of-view). Another church with the same name was built a few blocks away and looks like this:

Give me the original 150 year old beautiful church over this.... weirdness.

I'm in favor of beauty. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all lead toward God.

So in a literally superficial way (since all I know is the outside of the building), I'm going to disagree with you Scott and say that temple should be upgraded. Your church has the funds, so go ahead and use the spikenard now  

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Give me the original 150 year old beautiful church over this.... weirdness.

I like the look of the building as I like straight lines and other geometrics emphasized in architecture (both Art Deco and Craftsman and similar styles appeal to me for that reason, they both use lines well), but this version doesn’t communicate “sacred” to me very well.  I have the same problem thinking of the Provo Temple that way.  I also don’t get the sensation of being drawn upwards as I do with cathedrals and such in general.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thinking, if only you had set a timer like @Scott Lloyd used to do (do you have any of those still running, Scott?).

I looked up the Provo Temple. As an outsider, I'd say... not attractive. It makes me think of how some Catholic Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s tossed out beauty in favor of some sort of weird "modern" aesthetic. In some cases, beautiful churches were torn down because they were "old" and the Catholic Church was trying to be new. This includes the church in the town next to mine (Las Cruces). Here is St. Genevieve's at its dedication October 15, 1887:

The church was sold to the city in the late 1960s and then torn down so the city could develop a downtown mall (I wish I could have some words with the bishop who made that decision, even if just from a historical point-of-view). Another church with the same name was built a few blocks away and looks like this:

Give me the original 150 year old beautiful church over this.... weirdness.

I'm in favor of beauty. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all lead toward God.

So in a literally superficial way (since all I know is the outside of the building), I'm going to disagree with you Scott and say that temple should be upgraded. Your church has the funds, so go ahead and use the spikenard now  

The symbolism of the design of the Provo temple is pretty cool, I just don’t think it translated well to architecture.

I’m with you on keeping old beauty, but we’ll probably have to let things designed in the 60s-80s go. Those eras struggled!

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thinking, if only you had set a timer like @Scott Lloyd used to do (do you have any of those still running, Scott?).

I looked up the Provo Temple. As an outsider, I'd say... not attractive. It makes me think of how some Catholic Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s tossed out beauty in favor of some sort of weird "modern" aesthetic. In some cases, beautiful churches were torn down because they were "old" and the Catholic Church was trying to be new. This includes the church in the town next to mine (Las Cruces). Here is St. Genevieve's at its dedication October 15, 1887:

The church was sold to the city in the late 1960s and then torn down so the city could develop a downtown mall (I wish I could have some words with the bishop who made that decision, even if just from a historical point-of-view). Another church with the same name was built a few blocks away and looks like this:

Give me the original 150 year old beautiful church over this.... weirdness.

I'm in favor of beauty. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all lead toward God.

So in a literally superficial way (since all I know is the outside of the building), I'm going to disagree with you Scott and say that temple should be upgraded. Your church has the funds, so go ahead and use the spikenard now  

Looking at you, Crystal Cathedral.

[Tacenda]

For those that live in my district, what do you think of the Layton temple? Does it remind you of the FLDS temple in Texas? I hope by the time they are done it doesn't. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

For those that live in my district, what do you think of the Layton temple? Does it remind you of the FLDS temple in Texas? I hope by the time they are done it doesn't. 

Besides it being white and a rectangle, very basic design, not seeing much resemblance myself. Added:  windows are arched, but that is common in temples and goes back to our shared heritage (see Nauvoo).  Once the spires and other finishing touches are done,I will be surprised if you still see it as similar. 
 

Unless you are thinking of something else?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Maybe you saw pictures or the building when the Layton temple didn’t have its windows in, perhaps it was the darkness in the windows contrasted with the white stone that made you think of the FLDS temple with its very plain exterior. 
 

see construction pictures here:

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/layton-utah-temple/photographs/

The flds one is from wiki. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

For those that live in my district, what do you think of the Layton temple? Does it remind you of the FLDS temple in Texas? I hope by the time they are done it doesn't. 

I think it's beautiful.  I don't see a resemblance at all, other than that they are both white.  What do you see that reminds you of the FLDS temple?

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's beautiful.  I don't see a resemblance at all, other than that they are both white.  What do you see that reminds you of the FLDS temple?

I think it's shape, but you're right it's not this ugly. And I shouldn't have compared them. I'm sure when it's finished it will be awesome with some stained glass etc. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's shape, but you're right it's not this ugly. And I shouldn't have compared them. I'm sure when it's finished it will be awesome with some stained glass etc. 

I think the FLDS temple looks so ugly because it doesn't look like there is any glass in the building, so it looks a little abandoned.   I bet it was prettier at night when it had lights on.

 

[cinepro]

To add some history, here's the section about the Provo Temple design approval from "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism."

 

Quote

Unlike the other [Utah] temples, all four of which were architectural monuments representing the best of nineteenth-cnetury Utah craftsmanship, the Ogden and Provo temples were to be strictly utilitarian. Emil Fetzer, who made virtutally identical designs, recalled in detail in a later interview McKay's charge to him and how he fulfilled it:

Quote

 

He said to me, "Brother Fetzer, I'd like you to design an *economical* and *functional* temple for Ogden and for Provo." Those were my instructions. He didn't say they were going to be this big or this high - he said they were to be economical and functional temples. He said, "We can't continue to build huge monuments. We have to have temples that the membership can use to do efficient temple work."...

A week after this assignment had been given to me by President McKay, it was necessary for Brother [Fred] Baker and me to go to Europe on the meetinghouse program....After we had settled in our seats and had a little meal at midnight, Brother Baker and I started to talk about this assignment that I had to design these temples....All of a sudden it was in my mind as if I were walking through a building, and I started to describe to Brother Baker what I was seeing - the recommend desk, the inner foyer, the locker room, and then on the upper floor the sealing rooms. But the most important thing was on the floor above the sealing rooms. There was a central room surrounded by a cluster of six ordinance rooms....I knew exactly how it was functioning, from the way I saw it.  This was a very intriguing thing, a central Celestial Room surrounded by a cluster of six ordinance rooms. The idea was that the whole ceremony would be in one room, instead of going from room to room like in the Salt Lake Temple....Well, when I was telling Brother Baker about this plan, the Celestial Room surrounded by a cluster of rooms, I looked out the window of the plane and it was daylight, and we were landing in Frankfurt. We had been discussing this temple all night long on the plane.

 

Having addressed the mandate of functional temples, Fetzer made them economical by taking a minimalist approach on the exteriors. The result was not universally acclaimed, either in his initial presentation to the First Presidency or later:

Quote

I took the perspective of the building and put it up on the easel. You know how Ogden and Provo are, they are a little different than anything else. When I put it up, there was just a gasp! You could hear them suck in their breath. They were surprised and amazed at the design of the temple. After they took in their gasps, one of the counselors said to President McKay, "Does this design offend you?" I thought, "Oh boy, I could have said it a lot of ways, but that isn't the way I would have said it." Can you imagine that? It just about floored me. Well, as soon as he said that, there was a deathly silence in the room. Nobody said anything, and I think we all stopped breathing. In my mind I was turning it over, "How do I change this design to make it look like the Salt Lake Temple?" There was just this deathly silence, and it seemed like we all stopped breathing. " Does this design offend you?" Oh, I'll never forget that!

Then all of a sudden President McKay, in a strong and firm voice-before that you had to listen very carefully to hear what he was saying-said, "No, I like it very much." And all of a sudden I was on the side of the majority! It really didn't matter what anybody else said; the Prophet of the Lord had accepted it. That finished it! We went along those lines and built them like that.

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by cinepro

[gtaggart]

I was at BYU when the Provo Temple was dedicated. I can't say I was particularly fond of the design then. I am now in love with it--though I wish they'd paint the spire gold again. It's beautiful, distinctive, and a culturally significant edifice. Whenever I descend the hill into Provo, especially at night, my eyes always look first towards the Provo Temple standing at the opening of Rock Canyon. I hope the powers that be do what they must but leave the exterior as is.

Greg Taggart

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/5/2021 at 4:53 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Thinking, if only you had set a timer like @Scott Lloyd used to do (do you have any of those still running, Scott?).

I looked up the Provo Temple. As an outsider, I'd say... not attractive. It makes me think of how some Catholic Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s tossed out beauty in favor of some sort of weird "modern" aesthetic. In some cases, beautiful churches were torn down because they were "old" and the Catholic Church was trying to be new. This includes the church in the town next to mine (Las Cruces). Here is St. Genevieve's at its dedication October 15, 1887:

The church was sold to the city in the late 1960s and then torn down so the city could develop a downtown mall (I wish I could have some words with the bishop who made that decision, even if just from a historical point-of-view). Another church with the same name was built a few blocks away and looks like this:

Give me the original 150 year old beautiful church over this.... weirdness.

I'm in favor of beauty. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all lead toward God.

So in a literally superficial way (since all I know is the outside of the building), I'm going to disagree with you Scott and say that temple should be upgraded. Your church has the funds, so go ahead and use the spikenard now  

There is also no shortage of newer temples that have been built in the vicinity of the Provo Utah Temple. 
 

These include a second temple in the city, the Provo City Center Temple, an adaptive re-use of the historic Provo Tabernacle, which was destroyed by fire (a tabernacle, unlike a temple, is a general meetinghouse). In a remarkable engineering feat, the Church salvaged the tabernacle’s exterior and created a whole new interior for use as a temple. 
 

In addition to this other temple in Provo, there will soon be a temple in the adjacent city of Orem and one in nearby Lindon. Also, there are newer temples just up the freeway to the north in American Fork and just down the freeway to the south in Payson. 
 

I get your point, and it’s well taken, about aesthetics. Certainly, the Church spares no expense in making the temples beautiful in keeping with their spirit and purpose. 
 

But I don’t find the Provo Temple, as it is, all that repellant. Many people have treasured memories associated with it. I mentioned here that I received my endowment in the Provo temple (the nearer one in Salt Lake City being closed at the time for routine maintenance and cleaning). It was the temple I attended during my later years as a BYU student. 
 

And one wonders where it ends. To me, the older temple in England and the one in Switzerland each have a rather utilitarian appearance reflective of the early 20th century and could be replaced by more dazzling, modern edifices. But I would regard that as a regrettable waste. 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is also no shortage of newer temples that have been built in the vicinity of the Provo Utah Temple. 
 

These include a second temple in the city, the Provo City Center Temple, an adaptive re-use of the historic Provo Tabernacle, which was destroyed by fire (a tabernacle, unlike a temple, is a general meetinghouse). In a remarkable engineering feat, the Church salvaged the tabernacle’s exterior and created a whole new interior for use as a temple. 
 

In addition to this other temple in Provo, there will soon be a temple in the adjacent city of Orem and one in nearby Lindon. Also, there are newer temples just up the freeway to the north in American Fork and just down the freeway to the south in Payson. 
 

I get your point, and it’s well taken, about aesthetics. Certainly, the Church spares no expense in making the temples beautiful in keeping with their spirit and purpose. 
 

But I don’t find the Provo Temple, as it is, all that repellant. Many people have treasured memories associated with it. I mentioned here that I received my endowment in the Provo temple (the nearer one in Salt Lake City being closed at the time for routine maintenance and cleaning). It was the temple I attended during my later years as a BYU student. 
 

And one wonders where it ends. To me, the older temple in England and the one in Switzerland each have a rather utilitarian appearance reflective of the early 20th century and could be replaced by more dazzling, modern edifices. But I would regard that as a regrettable waste. 

We need to save the living as well ☺️

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We need to save the living as well ☺️

Not sure I get your point. 

[Rain]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:40 AM, bluebell said:

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

I've never heard that idea either,  but as I continued reading I remembered something I half heard a few years ago while I was in Grenada.  I say "half heard" because I could have missed something in the conversation.

Grenada is a small island.  You can travel round the whole perimeter in about 5 hours.  Many of the people struggle financially and don't have cars .  They have one branch there on one side of the island.  Most Sundays a group meets on the other side because the "bus" doesn't run on Sundays in most parts of the island.  Then about once and month of two the people on the other side put their money together to hire cars/taxis to attend church all together.

The conversation I half heard was about going to the temple. One young, beautiful new member became a friend with my daughter.  She desperately wanted to go to the temple.  She was telling how much she wanted to go to one temple that was half the distance and cost (much greater than I've ever had) of going to one temple than the temple that was assigned to them, but the bishop told her to have patience and they would soon go to the right temple.  

I totally would have no problem telling her to go the closer temple, but some people feel otherwise.

[Rain]

On 10/7/2021 at 4:28 PM, gtaggart said:

I was at BYU when the Provo Temple was dedicated. I can't say I was particularly fond of the design then. I am now in love with it--though I wish they'd paint the spire gold again. It's beautiful, distinctive, and a culturally significant edifice. Whenever I descend the hill into Provo, especially at night, my eyes always look first towards the Provo Temple standing at the opening of Rock Canyon. I hope the powers that be do what they must but leave the exterior as is.

Greg Taggart

I know there are lots of Taggarts, but I have been thinking much of my 7th grade art teacher the past few months.  Any chance you taught art in Logan about 35 years ago?

[gtaggart]

No, but President Glenn Taggart is (was) a cousin.