Comments on: Ogden Temple to Get Architectural Facelift

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:51:14 +0000

You may already be familiar with it, but I just discovered a ‘blog about LDS architecture, here: http://thetrumpetstone.blogspot.com/

I particularly like the article he has on the doors of the Washington DC Temple.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:27:29 +0000

When I lived in Provo years back, I was surprised to see a new double stake center built with beehives featured on the exterior. It’s still there, not far from the football stadium.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:38:17 +0000

In reply to ltbugaf. I hope youâ€re right. I havenâ€t been to see any of the temples President Hinckley announced. Even so, it would be cool to see symbolism even in meetinghouses.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:37:13 +0000

By the way, Kim, you remarked “I wish there was more symbolism in LDS architecture today.”

I think there has been something of a revival in architectural symbolism in newer temples. Upon close examination, you’ll find a lot of them contain sun, moon and star stones in various forms. That wasn’t true in the 70s and 80s.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:37:13 +0000

In reply to ltbugaf. Thatâ€s precisely what I was talking about.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:30:23 +0000

Kim, I’m sorry it took me so long to come back here and notice your comment. I don’t think I understand what you mean when you say, “the inspiration between the Ogden and Provo temple designs.” Are you talking about the pillar of fire/cloud idea?

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:12:02 +0000

In reply to ltbugaf. Completely agree, ltbugaf. When I heard of the inspiration between the Ogden and Provo temple designs, they took on a completely different look in my eyes. I wish there was more symbolism in LDS architecture today.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:02:07 +0000

My personal feelings about this are just so sad. It isn’t that I don’t absolutely respect the authority of the Church’s leaders to do this; it’s just what I think is going on in people’s minds about it: I hear people say all the time how they think the Provo and Ogden Temples are ugly. I wish people could see beyond their own short-sighted opinions about a style of architecture that isn’t fashonable at the moment. The architecture of other periods has been hopeless out of fashion before, too–including that of the great pioneer temples. But we’ve shown respect for it anyway. Now this temple, which I believe is actually one of the most beautiful (though not quite as good since the gold spire was changed to white, turning the “pillar of fire and cloud of smoke” motif into a wedding cake), is to be replaced with another temple that’s more or less a Xerox copy of others that are being built, rather than retaining its original beauty. Somehow we’ve picked up the idea that if a building isn’t granite with at least one spire and with a gold-leafed statue of an angel on top, it’s somehow less of a temple. Not true, but a very popular notion for some reason.