Talk:Provo City Center Temple

Merge discussion

I am not completely opposed to a merge that User:Phileasson proposed, but I do have some concerns. At this movement they are (but new ones may come up as others comment)

1. These will be two competently different building with different purposes. How are we to make that clear?
2. One was on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places the other may or may not be. How do we separate them in that regards?
3. How to separate the Historical building from the Current Temple as they will not be exactly the same. They will look similar on the outside, but they will not look exactly the same, nor will they be on the interior.
4. I'm not sure which should be merged into which. The current Temple will, as time goes by become more "Notable", while the older building will be part of it's History and less "Notable". Ie, should at what point should the "Provo Tabernacle" be the redirect into the the "Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple" instead of the other way around?

If a satisfactory merge can be made, then by all means merge them. They are very related, however, I don't think just sticking in a section on the New Temple into the "Provo Tabernacle" page will cut it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I think the temple should be just a section on the tabernacle page. In the future, after the temple is dedicated, I would support moving to the new name. Changing the purpose of the building, and even making extensive interior changes, doesn't make "two completely different buildings". These are really just two phases of the history of the same building. Remember that notability is not temporary. This building has long been of historic significance, and that is only going to increase—even if the NRHP were to delist it, but I see that as unlikely in the extreme. Ntsimp (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree that these are the same building. They have completely different purposes and will have a completely different interior. A tabernacle is a meeting hall open to the pubic. A Temple is a Mormon's only worship building where completely different activities go on. It would be like saying that St. Peter's Basilica is the same as a Parish church, if the looked the same. Even though these two will be similar in appearance (but not exactly) and in the same location they will not serve the same purpose in any way.

Yes, while "notability is not temporary" (ie the historic significance of the tabernacle is not temporary) once a Mormon Temple is announced it is Notable on it's own, independent of what the building was in the past. If you see the four example of Mormon Temples being build from existing structure (ie Vernal Utah Temple (former Tabernacle), Copenhagen Denmark Temple (Church), Manhattan New York Temple (Church), and Apia Samoa Temple (burned down)) the preexisting building is mentioned in the page on the temple, not the other way around. While what was done on those pages doesn't necessarily mean it should be done here, It dose suggest that the more "Notable" Temple should be the main page with the "Tabernacle" the redirect. The building of a temple is not a "minor" event to Mormon and non-Mormons alike (ie many community and anti-Mormons fight it's construction). Once announced it is just as "Notable" as the past building was. That make the "Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple" a WP:Notable event just by being announced independent of the "Provo Tabernacle".

Again, I am not saying that they cannot be merged, but I don't think that putting the "Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple" a subheading on the "Provo Tabernacle" is completely appropriate either. I do see the argument that, since the temple isn't yet built, it could be a subheading into the the Tabernacle page, but again, once announced a Temple is Notable (or there would be no "Annouced" temples on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). That is why I created a separate page, since they are both "Notable" for different reason. it seemed to me to be the easiest way to address the notability of both the building. Thoughts???--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ntsimp that for now, edits should be in a subsection of the Tabernacle page at least until there is a groundbreaking ceremony or some physical change. For now, the temple plans are in the future/planning stages (possibly for years to come), and they hardly merit their own page. Once we have more details (i.e. whether there will be major expansions to the building or annexes), and there is actually an official name for the new complex/building/temple site, it will merit further discussion. If, with more details, we know that it's more or less the same external structure, I'd say we'd eventually rename the article, and if it's to be a larger complex, etc., the articles should remain separate.~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion to say that I agree completely with what seems to have been the consensus on this matter: the Provo Tabernacle and Provo City Center Temple articles should remain forever separate, since, as has been observed, though similarly designed and housed in the same shell of a building, they serve very different purposes. One noticeable difference between the two: When it served as a tabernacle, it was open to all at any time during its hours of operation. The temple version of the building was only open to the public during its six-week open house, and, starting on Sunday, is only open now to those whom the LDS Church deem worthy. I would be unalterably and implacably opposed to any additional attempt or argument in favor of merging these two pages. Should we then say that pages that relate to the LDS Church, which I've repeatedly observed, are specific to the largest of the splinter groups that resulted from the succession crisis, be merged with those discussing all facets of the larger Latter Day Saint movement, of which the LDS Church is by far the largest but still a splinter part? I don't think so. And yes, the complexity of the above question did give me a headache, thanks for asking. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Construction progress

The Salt Lake Tribune also ran an article here [1] on the construction progress on this temple. I am not sure there is anything worth adding to the article there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Section listing participants

FWIW, the Church usually provides an exact list of the participants in all Utah temple dedications. In my mind, it would be very helpful for our purposes if such a list was provided every time a temple was dedicated. Then the question of who did what at each dedicatory session might be more easily settled. In my list of the participants, because the official list has yet to be released (though it should be very soon), I have drawn up a tentative participant list. This is based largely on information available in the photo gallery of the temple dedication, which is in the cited source, and also on who was in attendance at the cultural celebration last night. I respectfully ask my fellow editors to NOT unilaterally remove this list until a source can be cited to verify the truth. As I said, the list is forthcoming (within the next day or two) and the common-sense approach in my mind would be to hold off any edits to this list unless and until it can be verified. (Though in the same breath I gratefully acknowledge all who have tirelessly worked on getting this section up to snuff so far.) I should mention that the list is somewhat speculative on the points of Russell M. Nelson being the presiding official at one or more sessions of the dedication and as to whether Michael T. Ringwood is indeed an assistant Executive Director of the temple department. My gut feeling? That Ringwood's presence had more to do with him accompanying his aging apostolic father-in-law (President Nelson). President Nelson's health might have been a consideration in Elder Ringwood's abrupt reassignment to Church headquarters a couple of years ago. Thanks, friends! --Jgstokes (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes, you probably had me in mind when you posted this discussion item. :) Yes, I was going to revert it. Not as much for refs and verifiability as much for whether the detail is needed. I just don't think it adds all that much value to try and capture in the article every general authority or general officer who may have been in attendance, coupled with the issue that not all who were in attendance spoke or contributed in some way. The article on the dedication of the Payson Utah Temple, as the most recent temple in Utah previously dedicated, does not include the excessive detail either. To your point, I noticed yesterday that KSL.com had a story about Oaks presiding at all three sessions, which as you noted, is not correct, given Nelson's presence in the third session. As a side note, there is always the issue of whether it's best to be speculative or wait. Nelson is in good health as well and given the number of children he has that could assist him if needed, there's more speculation in that part as well. So, I have resisted the urge to revert to the version that was there, prior to your good faith edits, in an effort to be respectful of your specific request. In the end, I don't think it's needed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

ChristensenMJ, I had no one specific in mind to which I directed this topic. I am absolutely mortified to learn that you think it was directed to you. I assure you, that was not my intention at all, and I never meant to slight you. All I wanted was to gain some type of consensus as to whether or not such a list is helpful. I understand and fully appreciate your honest expression of your opinion. That's all I was after. I would ask that we perhaps hold off on any removal of this list until more people have had a chance to comment. I want to keep an eye out for the list so that the question of who presided at this temple dedication can be properly settled. Oaks is said to be the presiding official at the dedication, but the Church News photo gallery clearly shows President Nelson in attendance at one session at least, which would make him the presiding official for that session. As there has been some confusion in the past on this point, such a list would serve to clarify the matter for all concerned. That's all I'm after at this point. At the end of the day, I just want a consensus decision on whether or not to include this section. I am of the opinion that such a list, if available for every temple dedication, would be good to include. Do you have any information as to whether or not Elder Ringwood is an Assistant Executive Director of the Temple Department, as I surmised he was from his attendance at this event? The articles available are not specific on this point, and if the matter is ever clarified, Ringwood's assignment would need to be included under his name in this article. In regards to that point, I have contacted Rick Satterfield, the webmaster of ldschurchtemples.com to see if he has any information. I also took the liberty of using the Feedback feature on lds.org to inquire as to whether we could get a complete list of general authority assignments to include on that page, not implying that I was representing Wikipedia in any official capacity, but just as a matter of general interest. Based on what they are able to tell me, that information might be able to be added to that article. I have also requested fair use images of the current apostles that we have not yet been able to find. I will keep you posted on all that good stuff. Thanks for the comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I didn't mean to cause any alarm. I was just joking, as my :) tried to indicate. I just know I was ready to head straight for reverting the additional detail, so it was applicable. Yes, Nelson attended just the third session. Thanks for your continuing efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Provo City Center Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101142949/http://provo.org/img/File/Tabernacle_Executive_Summary1.1.pdf to http://www.provo.org/img/File/Tabernacle_Executive_Summary1.1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025181808/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/provocitycenter/ to http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/provocitycenter/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)