Video

Start Here: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/believe/jesus

It is my understanding, coming from multiple sources, that the design, which was fairly experimental, has numerous structural problems. The overall consensus appears to be that those problems could not be fixed. As to why make it look different, If the original design was structurally unsound, building an identical copy would probably have the same structural issues in the long run. Plus, there is now a chance to do things that the original temple likely could not have supported as well. For an example, I know that Provo Temple Presidents have been asking if it would be possible to add a second baptistry to the temple. They were always told no, but the new temple will have a second Baptistry.

​@@BrianOlsonPhotogent Yes this is correct, my Uncle worked at the department that was overseeing the Provo temple and other temples and the temple itself had a lot of issues, when it was built in the 1970s they built it with the latest and greatest building methods that existed at the time, but unfortunately many of them proved to fail in the long term. One of the main issues was with the foundation it would have to be removed in order to fix the problems, which you really can't do easily, and while that may have been possible the walls and other parts of the temple also had major structural issues as well, the temple also wouldn't withstand a large seismic event among other issues. In the end, it was simply a lot easier to demolish the whole structure than try to fix every single part of it's numerous issues (I mean if you take the foundation, walls, roof and everything else out to fix it... what are you really saving?), plus they can make it a lot bigger and more customized to match the needs of the area now, like that of the MTC and students. This actually has been known for a long time, while the church hadn't made the announcement on this temple plans for its demolition were even all the way back in 2011. The reason why is because the Provo and Ogden temples are sister temples and were built the same way so when they updated Ogden they planned for Provo too, but they needed to do work on the other temples first (Salt Lake, Jordan River, Manti etc...) as they said at the time, We can't have Jordan River, Salt Lake, and Provo all go down at the same time it will be a mess (remember there were also fewer temples then too), so they fixed Jordan first, then started Salt Lake, and after the Orem temple and the others were constructed they finally gave the go to touch Provo. So it's been in the plans for a LONG time. Fun fact though at the same time they were studying the Provo temple they were also working on the Provo Tabernacle as well and working to see if they could seismically stabilize it, it was REALLY not a safe building to be, in an earthquake BTW, well in the middle of trying to figure out what to do, the Provo Tabernacle caught fire and burned down. Thankfully they had already figured out how to stabilize the walls as that was part of the plans for helping the repairs to withstand an earthquake and so the plans changed from how do we seismically stabilize the tabernacle to how do we turn it into a temple and save the remaining walls. My uncle left working there just after the Provo Tabernacle caught fire so plans hadn't been made yet for what to do with the Provo Tabernacle, he was actually surprised when they said they were going to turn it into a temple because after the Church converted the Vernal Tabernacle into a temple they swore they would never do that again as it was far more painful than just building a temple from scratch, but it got the green light from the church so hence the Provo City Center Temple. But going back to Provo it's been known for over a decade now that it would need to be demolished, so this wasn't something that they just decided it's been a long time coming. As for the looks, I'm not sure why they picked this design, but if you look at Ogden despite what people think it's actually the same shape as the old one, it's just been squared. If you look at the two versions of Ogden next to each other they are the same dimensions and everything. I think a lot of it was this style didn't hold up over time, many people didn't like it. But also rounded buildings don't hold up as well in earthquakes, so that might have been a contributing factor. However in the end I think they just decided to change it because they needed it to be bigger and they just couldn't fit everything into the old design. Because initial plans were to make it a duplicate of Ogden, but they obviously didn't go with that route in the end so something between now and back then in 2011 made them change their minds to this design. It would be interesting to see how this design compares to Ogden's design to see what decisions were made, and how we got here. Thanks for the video btw! Also I think the Provo Temple was the last temple remaining to have escalators in it.

You are absolutely correct on being easier to start over. Can you imagine them doing what they are doing at Salt Lake to the previous version of Provo? The temple was built on the leanest, most cost-effective method possible. The expense being spent on Salt Lake would be unjustified at Provo. One of the big fixes and accommodations at Provo will be the fonts, of which there will now be 2. I have it on good authority that Provo Temple presidents have been asking if it was possible to add a second font since the 80s. Now they will finally get it! And I can't imagine shutting down all the Utah and Salt Lake valley temples at the same time. That would leave 4 temples to serve 2 valleys that are now slated to have 14! Escalators: I think Seattle still has its Escalators. It did in 2008 when I was there. Ogden: Floor 2 is larger, having been brought out to the size of the upper floor to eliminate the overhang. Floor 3 is slightly smaller, The corner hallways were moved in and reduced in size. That was done mainly for looks. I find it interesting that people complained about the cost of renovating Ogden in such a way, saying the Church should have rebuilt it instead. And now people are saying precisely the opposite at Provo.

@@BrianOlsonPhotogent I like the Original Provo Temple. It was peace and Unique. I like the fountain theme. It fit into the landscape very well. Change is not always good. It can weaken a culture and lead to its downfall. This is what is unsettling so many people about the tear down of the Provo Temple. I just know how to say it.

@@BrianOlsonPhotogent Agreed, people aren't happy with any sort of change, it's human nature I guess. It's true I had forgotten about people complaining about the cost of Ogden and how it was "unnecessary" even though Ogden asked them to do it. The funny quote I heard was when they announced plans to change Provo people were like "Okay I get it's an ugly dog... but it's OUR UGLY DOG". The one thing I did feel sad for though (in a strange way) The Provo temple is in the game Horizon Zero Dawn they of all things actually put the Provo temple as ruins in the game to give sort of a real-world location and now I'm like... it looks like that in a game but not in real life now. So now the real location isn't the real location anymore. Dumb reason to be sure but it's what I thought of. I know some people who work at the Salt Lake Temple and they're saying when it opens back up they are currently planning on between 6-9 months of open house. Glad we have more temples now, not only are they fun to see and visit, but my Dad works in Utah temples has said with Salt Lake and Jordan River closed (Jordan closed for cleaning 2 weeks) it's been so busy. Of course now with Taylorsville opening that helps a lot, although every temple now in the Salt Lake Valley has needed 700 additional temple workers or so to accommodate the expansion, so we have had to get a lot more volunteers working now. Then they announced Lehi and West Jordan and they are like "We train them and then they leave". lol!

Thank you for your interest in my work. I do not give out or sell my model files.

There is a canyon directly behind the temple (to the east) named the Rock Canyon. As to why the felt the need to add the Canyon to the name, there have been rumors that they might have plans int he works to announce a third temple for the Provo area, but that is just a rumor.

Historically, Brigham Young High School was started by Evan M. Greene. Evan built University Avenue and then used his income to purchase the land for the BY Academy and the land for the Provo Tabernacle "Provo City Temple." and donated both parcels to the Church. So, if anything, the Provo City Temple should be called the Provo BYU Temple. I don't think that will happen though. Nice idea though.

You're welcome, I am glad you enjoyed it.

All my sources say yes, and that's as good as gold!

The new temple will be further to the west than the current temple. Part of the reason for doing that is to put parking behind the temple. I have modeled it as it was presented to the city.

It's mostly a time thing. Before 1983, the architects most commonly chose if one would be included, and what order it would be displayed. Some temples only had one half or the other of the inscription.) The current layout kind of became standard when they first increased the number of temples being built in the 1980s. Since then it has been almost exclusively "Holiness to the Lord" first. ----- Es sobre todo una cuestión de tiempo. Antes de 1983, los arquitectos solían elegir si se incluiría uno y en qué orden se mostraría. Algunos templos sólo tenían la mitad o la otra mitad de la inscripción). El diseño actual se volvió estándar cuando aumentaron por primera vez el número de templos construidos en la década de 1980. Desde entonces ha sido casi exclusivamente en primer lugar "Santidad al Señor".

Thank you for your interest in my work. I do not give out or sell my model files.

I'm not sure if you are asking about the terraces or the stairs. Terraces were removed in 1906-1907, which is when the west stairway was built. The stairs were then removed in 1940. I have endeavored to produce a timeline on my wiki page for the temple. photogent.com/manti-utah-temple/wiki/

@@BrianOlsonPhotogent terraces! That’s the word I was looking for! Thanks!

The tradition of placing the statue atop temples has been discontinued. The closest to an official statement on this was from the Project Manager for the Lindon Temple, who, when explaining the absence of the statue to the Lindon City Council, said that "it is a change in focus."

The Kirtland temple was based off of this design.

My apologies on Vienna, I cannot do a model for that, as nothing has been released by the Church! Until the release a render, I have no idea what the temple will look like, I am afraid.

@@BrianOlsonPhotogent Oh, ok! That makes complete sense. Thank you for your response, and now I have something to look forward to. 😀

churchofjesuschristtemples.org/cape-town-south-africa-temple/aerial/

@@BrianOlsonPhotogent Thanks for responding. I don't think there are many Mormons in South Africa, so this is interesting to me.

Unnoficial Membership Statistics for South Africa can be found here: www.cumorah.com/countries/viewIntlLDSAtlas/South%20Africa

The existing temple also has a flat roof, which I always found odd. I'm sure they have it figured out now, after 24 years!

This renovation was THE renovation that divided the lower assembly hall. The hall was carved into 4 progressive endowment rooms, a Celestial Room, some small support rooms, and a grand staircase added. This was done by throwing up frame walls between the pillars of the assembly hall. Even in the modern temple, as you visit the endowment rooms and the celestial room, you can see the pillars that used to be the support pillars of that lower assembly hall.