A most beautiful experience on this beaming saturday morning, overhadowed,
however by a stunning violation of security protocol, i.e.the overflight of a
single balloon. It was fun to watch it float over the ceremony, but in this
crazy world, how easy someone could have dropped something into the crowd... Sad
to even have to think about those things, but I hope it was 'under
Can someone (ANYone!!?) please explain WHY the old, burned-out tabernacle shell
is still standing, and WHY it has all of the bracing, scaffolding, tarping,
window masking and other preservation measures that have been used??Why wasn't it just demolished after the fire??? Are they planning to
KEEP the old shell and "restore" it/transform it into the new temple?
Otherwise, why was the old burned-out building even saved?I'm
confused! This might sound like a totally stupid question, but I just CANNOT
figure out what in the world they're doing there... and NO news media has
ever explained this issue (to the best of my knowledge.)
As a Utah Country native whose ancestors settled Provo, I still feel the sense
of history and roots. I hope that the true historical character of Provo and
surrounding towns will always be there. I am optimistic that this new temple
will be a contribution.
@InspectorCI think there is enough of the structure left standing
that they are able to use the original walls. They are trying to restore as
much of the original building as possible.
Of the many impressive things that Elder Holland said, one thing that really
struck me was something about the Tabernacle would now rise from the ashes and
become a temple of the Lord.How truly profound. Isn't that how
it is with all of us -- as we pass through the rigors and the heartaches of
mortality, having been battered and torn and singed, then, we too will rise more
glorious, like a temple to the Lord. We weep for those of our loved ones we
have lost, I wept inside for the destruction of this building which I, along
with many others, truly admired and had ties too. We will see our loved ones
again -- but this time, in a much better condition than they ever were before.
To "Inspector C",Why they have left the bracing and the
walls in place. I'm not sure. Clearly, with the walls still in place, it
would be irresponsible to remove the bracing ---Initially, I
don't think the First Presidency was sure what to do about the fire and the
burnt out remains. They wanted options, and to ensure those options, the
remaining walls were braced. Once they decided to rebuild the tabernacle as a
temple, then it now falls under the responsibility of the bid winning firm to
take charge of the construction, and where need be, demolition of the site.
Such a project will include a booklet with codes and liability issues and so on
and so forth. The firm which now takes over will consult with engineers and so
forth on how best to proceed. But again, until that moment, the walls remain in
place so that options are still available.
@InspectorC. The DN has reported several times on the ongoing plans for the
temple, with one of the latest saying "Church officials have previously
announced that the new temple will be designed to reflect the original design of
the Tabernacle." They have said that as much of the original structure will
be maintained, especially the outer walls, which were, for the most part,
undamaged in the fire. It's really not so hard to understand. The Church
has done extensive architectural and archaeological studies of the building
site, and apparently has determined that the outer walls are structurally sound
and worthy of preservation. I think it's a wonderful thing that the Church
has done so much to preserve the historicity of the site. Calm down. The Lord
knows what He is doing.
Hey InspectorC: It was explained quite clearly a few weeks after the fire. The
building was one of the oldest building in Utah. It is an historical landmark.
The church wanted to save as much as was possible so it would still have the
hisotrical value. I think a temple was just what was needed.
What does your statement mean, that this is "one of 29 announced by
President Monson" during his four-year presidency? Has he authorized the
building of 29 temples in four years?Wow! Can you explain this
statement, please? Thank you.
Filo: That statement means just what it says. 29 temples have been announced in
That means toooo many temples, tooo many poor in Utah and the Mormon world, yet
still you persist with your focus on the elaborate dwellings for the privileged
recommend holders.That's what it means to non-LDS.
Capella:If you are not Mormon why do you care. The money isn't coming out
of your pocket.