So what should the Provo Tabernacle/Temple be called?

October 1, 2011 | 78 comments
By

0--provo_tabernacle With the announcement today that the Provo Tabernacle will be reconstructed and made into a Temple, I wondered what its official name will be? Or in other words, how will its name be different from the other Provo Utah Temple?

There are other potential questions following this announcement — like where the concerts and other events that the Tabernacle once hosted will go and, perhaps more importantly, how unfortunate it will be to have a Temple so near to NuSkin’s ugly monstrous eye sore across the block from the Tabernacle.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time that two LDS Temples will be so close together (less than 3 miles apart). Normally, a Temple is named for the city or town it is located in. But since Provo, Utah already has the Provo Utah Temple, the Tabernacle either won’t have this name or the current Temple will have to be re-named.

For those who don’t know, the LDS Church has official naming conventions for everything from Missions and Temples to Wards and Branches. I assume that the Temple name will have to follow the convention for other entities, and will follow the pattern:

City State (optional neighborhood or compass direction) Temple

or, outside of the U.S. and Canada:

City Country (optional neighborhood or compass direction) Temple

The optional neighborhood or compass direction could also be a nearby landmark or feature that is compatible with the Church and reflects well — which is one of the reasons that, as much as some of us think it would be cool, we aren’t likely to see the Hell’s Kitchen Ward here in New York City.

So, if the current Provo Utah Temple retains its name, then the new Temple might be named something like:

Provo Utah Central Temple, or

Provo Utah South Temple, or

Provo Utah NuSkin Temple (well, no, not really a possibility).

Anyway, what do you think the name of the new temple should be? And, while we’re at it, let’s have some fun and see what the oddest suggested name is (excluding names that are offensive). Lets see some creativity, folks!

Tags: , ,

78 Responses to So what should the Provo Tabernacle/Temple be called?

  1. Kent Larsen on October 1, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    In keeping with popular Utah nomenclature in recent years, perhaps it should be the Provo Utah Legacy Temple, or the Provo Utah Heritage Temple.

    But, to me it would make more sense to let the Tabernacle become the Provo Utah Temple, and call the Temple near the MTC the Provo Utah University Temple or something.

  2. jsg on October 1, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    Some Utah temples are (fittingly) named after mountains these days: Mt. Timpanogos and Oquirrh Mountain. Alas, I don’t think I will be able to campaign for the new Provo temple to be named after the mountain I grew up with in California (Mount Diablo).

  3. Cameron N on October 1, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    Old temple – Squaw Peak Temple? Rock Mountain Temple? Provo(st) temple?
    New Temple – renamed Provo Temple?

    Doesn’t feel right to change the name of an existing temple though. Too confusing.

  4. Jonathan Green on October 1, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Why not, “Provo Tabernacle Temple”? That maintains the continuity of the name, and the association of tabernacles and temples has a nice OT ring in any case.

  5. Sam Brunson on October 1, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Normally, a Temple is named for the city or town it is located in.

    In my experience, temples are generally named for the biggest city that they’re near to (e.g., the San Diego temple is in La Jolla, the Chicago temple is in Glenview, etc.). Under that naming convention, could it be the Spanish Fork temple, or could the Provo temple be renamed the Orem temple?

  6. anita on October 1, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Provo Central Temple since it’s near Center Street–although my vote is also with the Provo Tabernacle Temple, that has a nice ring.

  7. Christopher Bradford (Grasshopper) on October 1, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Isn’t it obvious? It will be called the Provo templenacle. Oh, wait, were you meaning the official name?

  8. Chad Too on October 1, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    I vote “Provo Tabernacle Temple” ‘cuz then we can all refer to it as the Protab.

  9. Jacob M on October 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Provo the Sequel is my choice.

  10. Bro. Jones on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Provo Templenacle. Because it’s nicer than Provo Taberple.

  11. Idaho Guy on October 1, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    With Pioneer Park just a few blocks away, perhaps it could be named the Pioneer Utah Temple. That seems more fitting than a name inspired by a physical feature like the Provo River Utah Temple, the Utah Lake Temple, or the East Bay Utah Temple.

    I could see the Provo Utah Temple undergoing an Ogden-style transformation and possibly being renamed to avoid confusion with the other temple, perhaps the Rock Canyon Utah Temple.

    Fun names? How about the “Y” Utah Temple and the 3 Amigos Utah Temple?

  12. sk on October 1, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    Old temple keeps it’s name, new temple called the Provo Peak Temple

  13. H. Bob on October 2, 2011 at 12:12 am

    I think, in keeping with one of the recent exceptions to the nomenclature rules, the new temple be named “The Utah Valley Utah Temple,” including the “The.” (See “The Gila Valley Arizona Temple” for the only example. Well, except for “The Hague Netherlands Temple,” but that’s somewhat different.)

  14. ceej@y on October 2, 2011 at 12:17 am

    “Seven Peaks Temple” or the “Tempernacle” or “LaVell Edwards Temple”

  15. Left Field on October 2, 2011 at 12:54 am

    I don’t know what they should call it. However, the only justification for using audio and video recordings is the ability to easily present the ritual in multiple languages. Since Provo already has a temple with language capability, this one absolutely should present the live endowment. Please?

  16. Mark B. on October 2, 2011 at 5:04 am

    How about the “Fort Utah Temple”? Named after the original settlement of Utah Valley just a few blocks west of the site?

    Since the interior won’t be restored to match the old Tabernacle, could the architects/designers please incorporate some of the old design into the new interior? Please!

  17. Jax on October 2, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Unless the Provo Temple (old one) is renamed, I would veto anything with the name Provo in it as to avoid the confusion I can see happening with two temples with ‘Provo’ names.

    I’m curious if naming will follow lines of use. If the old one is designated for use by the MTC and BYU students and the new one by other provo residents then they could be named appropriately BYU Temple and Provo Temple. Otherwise I would choose a name for the new one that is unique, I liked the Fort Utah Temple name.

  18. Ardis E. Parshall on October 2, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Call it the Phoenix Temple …

    (They couldn’t move the Provo Utah Temple name from the original to the Tabernacle without causing confusion with hundreds of thousands — millions? — of ordinance records in genealogical databases. May sound insignificant to some, but I’ll bet the farm they consider details like that.)

  19. Bob on October 2, 2011 at 9:09 am

    To me__The Endowment House.

  20. Neal on October 2, 2011 at 9:26 am

    I agree – anything that does not have “Provo” in it. I like the idea of something that evokes the original, historical demographics of the area, like ‘Fort Utah Temple’. Good Suggestion.

    Hopefully that nasty NuSkin building will be razed. They should never have allowed it to be built next to a historic structure in the first place.

  21. Grant on October 2, 2011 at 9:31 am

    They’be been naming Temples after mountains, Oquirrh Mountain and Mount Timpanogos instead of “The American Fork Temple” in the same county. Why not “Provo Y Mountain Temple.” The existing one could even be changed officially or colloquially to the “Provo Rock Canyon Temple.” (Best to avoid any mention of “Squaw Peak.”

  22. Grant on October 2, 2011 at 9:40 am

    It could be the “Utah County Courthouse Temple” too. One of the funniest incidents associated with my wedding (and there were a few) was in the crowded little room where the clerk lady was telling all us newly licensed-to-be-married couples that our license DID NOT mean we were married yet, clearly implying no fooling around. That was right across the street. Maybe they can figure out a way to facilitate a safe crosswalk or something so couples could rush across the street to the Temple.

  23. Kevin Barney on October 2, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Minor threadjack here: What are they going to do about parking? Being in the downtown area, the Tabernacle is already surrounded by development. Is the theory that whatever ambient parking sufficed for the Tabernacle will continue to suffice for the Temple?

    As for the question in the original post, even though it sounds a little redundant (since in the OT the tabernacle was a temple), I like Jonathan’s idea, because it will always be the Tabernacle to me.

  24. Jacob B. on October 2, 2011 at 9:45 am

    I don’t really understand why discussion has even continued after ceej@ay’s comment (14). FTW.

  25. Janell on October 2, 2011 at 9:51 am

    My husband is already proposing a “Temple to Temple 5k race.”

    I’ve been refering to it as the “Provo South Temple” and the “Provo Tabernacle Temple.”

  26. Michael on October 2, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Provo II: The Reboot.

  27. Zach on October 2, 2011 at 10:09 am

    South Jordan has two temples, neither named “South Jordan Temple”. Rather they are named off geographic landmarks in the city – Jordan River Temple and Oquirrh Mountain Temple. I do like the above mentioned “Seven Peaks Temple” :)

  28. Ben S on October 2, 2011 at 10:27 am

    “Provo II: The Reboot.” Now with 45% more tradition!

  29. Joseph S. on October 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    @23 – the church has already begun purchasing surrounding lots. There will probably be plenty of parking, along with some very nice temple grounds and maybe even a visitor’s center. You can say goodbye to Los 3 Amigos.

  30. Cosmo on October 2, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Lord’s University Temple

  31. Sam Brunson on October 2, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Kevin, it would rock if the Church didn’t make a parking lot, instead, letting patrons take public transportation. (It’s what we did in Manhattan, and I’d kill for a temple in Chicago that was near a bus or train line.)

  32. Tim on October 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Any news on the size of the new Provo temple? Smaller size would mean smaller temple district and less parking need.

    I spent two years of college living in apartments just 2.5 blocks from the Provo Tabernacle. Not only close enough to walk, but rather silly to drive that distance. It was actually a pretty diverse neighborhood (religiously and racially). The only downside to having a temple there is the decrease in diversity in that neighborhood, which I imagine will happen largely due to increased demand leading to increased rent. I do like the fact, however, that this new temple is not being built in an affluent neighborhood.

  33. Visorstuff on October 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    it would be difficult to re-name the existing provo temple, (although i like “rock canyon temple”) as that would cause all kinds of problems with temple codes in our genealogy work.

    seven peaks temple will make too many kids think they can go on a water slide instead of baptisms for the dead.

  34. Alison Moore Smith on October 2, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Ardis, you are a certified genius. My whole family voted for Phoenix…after we stopped crying

  35. Pete on October 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Downtown Provo Temple.

  36. Wawho22 on October 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Did the probability of the current Provo Temple being re-modeled a la Ogden just go up significantly?

    I agree that Provo should not be in the name. “Seven Peaks Temple” has my vote.

  37. Jax on October 2, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    I like phoenix as well… reborn from its own ashes… has a nice symbolic meaning. Won’t it cause some confusion with the town in AZ though?

  38. Rachel on October 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    I vote for Provo Tabernacle Temple.
    I’m sad that we won’t be able to have concerts at the Provo tabernacle anymore. It was such a beautiful space, and I loved that it was open to the community. A temple is not. But I hope that having the temple there will help in our downtown redevelopment and revitalization. NuSkin is developing to the west of its great and spacious building, and the new convention center is nearing completion. I do wonder if there will continue to be city events in the tabernacle park–festivals and marathon finish lines. Those parties may be too indecorous to be so close to a House of the Lord.

  39. Travis on October 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    There’s already a Phoenix Temple under construction. It’s in … drum roll … Phoenix.

    Cool though it would be to have another temple that does live endowments, multiple languages is not the only reason for film. Doing the endowment live takes longer and requires many more temple workers. But wouldn’t it be cool if they designed it so that the endowment could be presented by film most of the time, but presented live once a week or so?

  40. anita on October 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    How about the Utah Lake Temple? Goes with the Salt Lake Temple theme. I love the temple to temple 5K idea. Or a marathon around the valley to hit a bunch of them?

  41. Hans in California on October 2, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    How about the Provo Pumpernickel Temple?

  42. James on October 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    The Downtown Provo Temple. Probably what it will be called by everyone whether they name it that or not.

  43. callida on October 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    My votes: Provo Tabernacle Temple and maybe Downtown Provo Temple. I hate to take the Tabernacle name out of it, since it has always been the Tabernacle to all of us and will always be.

    While I am filled with joy about the announcement in so many ways, I am sad to think that we have lost a great community center, open to everyone. I really hope the Church will work in a Visitors’ Center, possibly with a recital hall or auditorium (maybe a separate Assembly Hall of some kind?) that could be used for some concerts and other community events, like the Living Nativity, etc. As for parking, let’s hope the additional land bought won’t all turn into asphalt parking lots. I read something about an underground lot. I am planning to ride my bike whenever possible. Lots of people will be able to do that now. Better plan for bike racks! :)

  44. Travis on October 3, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Confusion with the temple codes on ordinance cards need not necessarily be a problem. If the Tabernacle were named the Provo Utah Temple (because “Tabernacle Temple” sounds redundant) and the current Provo Temple were renamed the Provo North Temple or the Rock Canyon Temple, the current Provo Temple could still retain the PROVO code, and the new one could get something like PRVUT or PROV2.

    It wouldn’t be as confusing as it seems. There are already two temples, not far apart, with bafflingly similar names: The Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Mexico Temple (code: COLJU) and the Ciudad Juarez Mexico Temple (code: CIUJU).

  45. Jim on October 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

    The Provo Tabernemple.

  46. H.Bob on October 3, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Okay, so I’m a geek–looked up the distance between the Provo Temple and the Tabernacle on Google Maps, and it’s 3 miles–easy to make a 3.1 mile 5k course out of that. Or even a there-and-back 10k. Spooky.

  47. Whizzbang of Winnipeg on October 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Call it the Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple or PUTT for short

  48. j.a.t. on October 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    FYI- the shoal creek (kc) temple has changed its name to the kc temple, shoal creek is essentially forgotten. Technically, there should be many more “kc” temples to name or number.

  49. Geoff on October 4, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Simple. As I predicted weeks ago, name it after the properties recently purchased by the Church in homage to them: The Tres Hermanos Utah Temple or (but not as good) The Travelodge Temple. I opt for the former. May its Mexcellenece rest in eternal glory.

  50. Joseph S. on October 4, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Hotel Roberts Temple

  51. Shaun on October 5, 2011 at 2:17 am

    I am a fan of the Provo Utah Taburnemple, but I think it will probably end up being the Provo Utah South Temple. We also have considered the LaVell Edwards Temple, the Wasatch Mountain Temple, and the Wymount Temple. Interesting to guess, fun to make stuff up…

  52. Dustin W. on October 6, 2011 at 5:17 am

    LOL I’ve been wondering about this myself and am thrilled to find other people talking about it! I live in Cedar City, and am not even Mormon. I LOVE old Mormon buildings though and was very sad when I learned of the near total destruction of Provo’s beautiful tabernacle. I’d never been in it, but just loved driving by it when I had a chance when I was in town. I’m so happy the LDS church is restoring it, and how awesome to make such a special, beloved building into something that will be so sacred to the community. I look forward to going to the open house!

    It’s just great that it’s not being torn down. Since I’ve lived in Utah, I’ve lived in Cedar City and Price, and both communities once had beautiful LDS tabernacles that are now long gone, I’m sure other tabernacles in Utah have suffered the same fate. It’s great they’re keeping this one and “Vernaling” it LOL!!!

    As for the name, I think since it’s such a special building that represents the pioneer heritage of the area, that should be incorporated into the name somehow. Terms such as “Legacy” and “Heritage” are nice though, but they’ve been used in Utah to death, from everything from highways to elementary schools. Let’s come up with something original that will represent the pioneer heritage of the building. “Provo Pioneer Temple” or something sounds cool, but it wasn’t a temple for the pioneers, so I don’t know if that’d be real fitting. I just hope LDS church leaders avoid drab directional names, like Provo “South” Temple or something. That building deserves better than that. Even the “Tabernacle Temple” would be cool! I think changing the current Provo Temple’s name to “Rock Canyon” temple would be cool. I’ve seen so many beautiful pictures of the temple with Rock Canyon in the background, that’d be totally fitting. I’d avoid “BYU Temple” or something, because that’d make it seem exclusive to BYU students, when it’s obviously there for all worthy temple-going Mormons! Also, please don’t call either temple the “Lavell Edwards” Temple LOL!!! I get that you Mormons love the guy and BYU’s stadium is named after him, but a temple shouldn’t be named after a person like that LOL!!!

    I also hope they don’t Ogdenize the Provo Temple. I think it’s sad they’re doing that to the Ogden temple. Sure, it’s a funky design now, but in 30 or 40 years, that look might be back in style, plus it just seems really superficial. I’ve obviously never taken endowments out or done any other temple activities since I’m not Mormon, but from what I understand, the importance of a temple is the work performed in it, now how fitting or nice it looks from the outside. There seems to be a very eternal significance about temple work, and changing the Ogden temple that severely just seems really out of place and shallow, no offense intended. It makes it seem the church is more worried about outer appearances than what’s on the inside. Sure, the new Ogden temple will be beautiful, but not original and unique anymore, it will be very similar to Draper and the style of many other newer temples. I sincerely hope they don’t make the same, in my opinion, mistake with the current Provo Temple!

    This new Provo Temple will be great though. Won’t they have to add a floor in the middle where once was open space to accommodate all the areas of the new temple? I really look forward to the open house of the new Provo Tabernacle Pioneer “Tabernemple” LOL!!!

  53. el oso on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    I do not think that the current Provo temple will get an extensive remodeling like Ogden. That would be a big tragedy. Unfortunately, I think that this new temple will likely get a relatively boring name: Utah County Temple or Utah Lake Temple.

  54. Mike Christensen on October 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    No, not the “Provo Utah Central Temple”! That would errantly imply that there was a third temple in Provo–even farther south!

    No. Let’s just rename the old one as Provo Utah North Temple and this one as the Provo Utah South Temple (Provo North Temple and Provo South Temple for shortness).

    Anything wrong with that? I didn’t think so.

    Mike

  55. Mike Christensen on October 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    (I leave that suggestion even with as much as I actually don’t want the tabernacle to become a temple; I prefer that it would be restored to how it was just before the fire [within reason]. Yeah, because… no more concerts, other shows, special stake conferences, etc… :( …)

  56. Mike Christensen on October 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Hey-uh… Dustin, you sound so interested in our temples that I think it would be fitting for you to talk to a couple of guys from the church. Oh, and maybe you’re right about not just calling this one “Provo South.” Something more elegant might really be worth looking at. Even so, I’d want to set the old one apart properly by calling it “North” or something like that… not just “Provo Temple” or “Provo Utah Temple” like it is now, because then that would errantly imply that “there still is only one temple in Provo.”

    I really think you should read the Book of Mormon and then speak with the missionaries. You sound like an interested enough guy!

    Mike

  57. Robert on October 9, 2011 at 10:56 am

    PUHLEASE just call it the Provo Tabernacle. No “Temple.” The word already connotes something both permanent and temporary, permanent in terms of covenant, and temporary in terms of how the word has historically been used. It just has such a pleasant ring to it.

    Even if they do change the name, I’ll probably continue to call it such.

  58. Robert on October 9, 2011 at 10:58 am

    I meant to add the idea that our current temples are both temporary (temporal) and permanent structures, and tabernacle has historically been used as a place of covenants (among other things), so using “Tabernacle” is poetic and significant. It doesn’t HAVE to be “Temple.”

    Can we be an artful Church?

  59. Mike Christensen on October 9, 2011 at 11:16 am

    First off, I hope they remount and reframe that partially burned picture of the risen Christ and hang it in a prominent location in the temple–preferably in the waiting area that everyone can still come and see regardless of recommend status. Anyone agree?

    Robert, they have to include “…Temple” in the name so that people who aren’t in the know don’t just think they can walk inside with any level of righteousness or lack thereof and watch a Christmas concert or whatever, still. And temples are so important as a part of God’s big plan that we don’t want to negate the fact that this will be a temple now.

    But I’d still say that I’d rather it would still just *be* a tabernacle like before.

    Let me just ask everybody one thing: Did God not whisper to the security guy who was checking out the alarm that there might be a fire about to start because he wanted to just let the place burn, because it would be less expensive to just do that than it would be to remodel without burning? Hmm… maybe not, because I don’t think he’d want to have let the organ and all that stuff that belonged to the Azevedos and others get destroyed just for that, too. But it does make ya wonder at least a bit, doesn’t it?

  60. Robert on October 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Mike, it may be Church protocol, but “have to” seems a bit pedantic. The Lord often does things that are quite surprising to mortals because we can’t fathom how things are done. (So many stories in the scriptures are about mortals who wrestle with God because they have to adjust their understanding of his dealings with them.) The correlative effort of the Church has made the leaders rather square in some cases — don’t get me wrong, I love these cultural elites, and I am also a sworn believer in the prophetic mantle of general authorities — but many of us have to go through biblical trials to learn such lessons.

    The Church is still struggling to understand the importance of art. This may seem an odd thing to say, but I think it’s the easiest way to summarize the didactic arm of the Church. That is to say, I don’t think the Church is entirely aligned with the Lord in terms of art (such a strange notion), but I know it will through time as the Church rises out of obscurity.

    It’s a bit trivial for me to argue over terms “temple” versus “tabernacle,” which I’m sure is why Kent adopted a slightly farcical tone in his above post. :) I don’t think it’s likely they’ll call the Provo Tabernacle anything other than a temple. Still, I’m just pining that they will, and feel that such rigidity is indicative of a larger lesson the Church (in general?) is struggling to learn.

  61. Left Field on October 9, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    You may call me a cynic, but I hope that cheap and partially burned copy of a painting has already found a home in a landfill. If God’s priorities are so messed up that he took the trouble to preserve the center of a $40 mass-produced copy found in any of thousands of LDS buildings, while watching an original Teichert and irreplaceable architectural gem go up in smoke, then I sure don’t want to be reminded of the Almighty’s poor aesthetic sense every time I walk into the building.

  62. Dustin on October 9, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    No way Left Field! That shouldn’t be in a landfill. Why focus on just the cost of things? That’s a little superficial. It’s the sentimental value of the painting to the members of the church and all who are inspired by it now that matters! I hope it is put in the church museum or something! What are the odds that that painting would burn like that, that’s amazing! And it could be an inspiration to new converts / investigators to the LDS faith, as well as current members! It’s just as inspirational as how Brigham Young didn’t like the spire on the St. George temple, and after he died, lightning struck it and burned it off and it was rebuilt in the way he had wanted it! Don’t focus on cost here, it’s what happened to the painting that’s important, and it seems like more than just a mere coincidence to me!

    Of course it’s bad that other valuable and historic items got destroyed in the fire. I don’t really think it was God’s plan though. I think that God and the leaders of the church are just good at “making lemonade out of lemons” or however the saying goes!!! Fires and disasters and tragedies happen in life, it’s how you deal with them and rebuild that’s important.

  63. Kent Larsen on October 10, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Dustin, I don’t think Left Field is focusing on the cost of the reproduction as much as the artistic value of the work. He’s suggesting that the painting isn’t very good.

  64. Left Field on October 10, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I’m not an expert on how flat objects burn in fires, but I suspect the odds that a painting (real or fake) would burn like that are pretty good. It seems to me that charring of a object would normally occur from the edges towards the center. Typically, the main subject is in the center, so partial charring would leave the edges blackened, and the main subject unharmed.

    It’s not just the cost. In fact, it’s not the cost at all. It’s that copies exactly like it are available by the hundreds in some warehouse in Salt Lake. The thing is completely replaceable. If the faux painting had burned completely, we’d have thought nothing of it, and just ordered another one from lds.org. Displaying a valueless damaged copy as a sacred relic would be decidedly uninspiring and to me, would be a mockery of everything of real (not monetary) value that was lost in the fire. I can’t see investigators being inspired by the Mormon equivalent of Jesus’ image in a grilled cheese sandwich. That we would venerate such an object does not speak well of us.

  65. Dustin W. on October 10, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Oh I suppose you make some good points, Kent Larsen and Mr. Left Field, but I think it’s neat, and I think it made some people feel better after the fire. Yes, I suppose it could happen to any painting like that in a fire, but it’s still neat! I’m not suggesting putting it front and center in the new temple’s lobby or something, but just keep it in the church museum in SLC, or the new temple’s visitor center, if it has one, even just up in a corner somewhere. I’m not suggesting making a Catholic Style Shrine out of the object, that would be against LDS beliefs and teachings clearly, but keeping it around, as a reminder that Jesus perseveres through all tragedies, and just as a unique piece of Mormon history, is kind of interesting. Surely there’s other things in the church museum that don’t need to be kept, but are anyway for posterity’s sake and as interesting keepsakes of the church.

  66. Mike Christensen on October 10, 2011 at 9:21 am

    No, Robert. That was not pedantic. I was just saying what it needs to be called in order to avoid confusion. Not calling it a temple would cause too much confusion for those people who aren’t very familiar with what temples are. And it wouldn’t be accurate, either. A temple is a temple whether it was a tabernacle before or not. It needs to be called a temple, period.

  67. Mike Christensen on October 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I don’t think they should throw that print into the garbage, either, Dustin! I agree.

    But I think I can understand Left Field’s frustration, too. As she or he said, that Minverva Teichert painting was an original! It’s obviously much worse to lose an important original to a fire than a print, obviously. I’m very saddened by the loss of a very valuable original! It is HIGHLY too bad that nothing was left over from those (if I understood right)!

    (Early on in the story of the fire, I was thinking that I had heard that the *original* He is Risen painting–or whatever it’s called–was the one that burned, but apparently I heard or/and understood wrong–and thank goodness. But I still don’t want that print thrown out.)

  68. Dustin W. on October 10, 2011 at 9:49 am

    I was not familiar with the Tichert painting, so I did a little research and found a good picture and description of it. Yes that is too bad to lose an original like that, nearly 80 years old. This website: http://www.provotabernacle.org/ contains a lot of good information about the tabernacle. For instance, it had a beautiful spire on the center of the roof that was removed in 1917 due to being too heavy for the structure of the building. From the pictures I’ve seen of the artist’s rendering of the new temple, the building will once again have a central spire, which is nice! It was a shame to lose such a beautiful old organ too! Also, that website said that people in the city even considered tearing down the tabernacle in the 1960s, no surprise there, that was an era when historical buildings didn’t hold as much significance to people as they do now. I know of many beautiful old buildings that came down during that time, including the Carbon Tabernacle in Price, Utah. At least Provo’s tabernacle made it through that period!

  69. Dustin W. on October 10, 2011 at 10:22 am

    How many historical tabernacles are left in Utah, or anywhere, for that matter? I can think of St. George, Vernal (templenacle), Provo, Salt Lake, Granite, Logan, Brigham, and I just found out that Bountiful has one too! Ogden has a tabernacle, but it replaced a beautiful old historic one and was built in the 50s I think and is not much to look at. As I said in my previous postings, the Price (Carbon) and Cedar City tabernacles did not make it. – I also found out that another tabernacle also called the Granite Tabernacle also did not survive, it was torn down in the 50s and now a movie theater stands in its place. What a shame! What a stunning building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/2476076037/

    I’vd love to know of any other current of former tabernacles in Utah or anywhere though, if I’ve missed any!

  70. Frank Pellett on October 10, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I know of the Alpine tabernacle, now in American Fork, built around 1911.

  71. Dustin W. on October 10, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Oh that’s a nice one, just did some image searches for it! I like how it seems to be very original to when it was built, doesn’t look like it’s been altered or modernized too much! Thanks! I wasn’t familiar with that one!

  72. Robert on October 10, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    “It needs to be called a temple, period.”

    That is a rather rigid thing to say. It can be fun to debate semantics of words (such as “tabernacle” and “temple”), and the artful use of language, but the debate loses its savor when those in the know assume didactic stances that go beyond useful conversation.

  73. Doug on January 9, 2012 at 1:47 am

    I hope when the Church says it will restore the building, it means it will tear down the old brick structure and totally redo the foundation and walls with new materials with the traditional look of the old tabernacle. I like the name: Rock Creek Provo Utah Temple or the Provo University Temple for temple near the mountain and the Provo River Temple for the one in town.

  74. clark on January 9, 2012 at 11:29 am

    I can’t see them renaming the old Provo temple. I’m more curious as to whether it shuts down for more extensive renovations once the new one opens. While I much prefer a white steeple to the gold one they had before the whites unfortunately don’t remotely match. It’s pretty jarring when you get near the Provo temple.

  75. Cameron Benedict on February 2, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    On temple codes: PROVO2 would be a possibility since our temple currently uses NAUV2 (or something like that) to differentiate from the original Nauvoo Temple (even though it looks about the same and is in the same place, give or take a few feet.

    That being said, I see the church’s web site is calling it the Provo City Center Temple, probably PROVOCC).

  76. gary on February 6, 2012 at 1:04 am

    One building that was not mentioned is the assembly hall on temple square, although it is not called a tabernacle, its size and features are similar to other tabenacles in the state. The provo tabernacle was compared to the Assembly Hall.

  77. BetsyH on February 8, 2012 at 1:33 am

    Another Utah tabernacle that’s still standing is no longer owned by the Church. It was built in Heber (dedicated in 1889) and was called the Wasatch Stake Tabernacle until the Church sold it to Heber City in 1980. It’s a community center now.

  78. Frank Pellett on March 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Well, there we are, it’s official – it is to be the Provo City Center Temple

WELCOME

Times and Seasons is a place to gather and discuss ideas of interest to faithful Latter-day Saints.