:::Blueboar, please be civil and please avoid the appearance of interest in making and/or supporting personal attacks. 

 :::Yes, i did read the NRHP nomination document, including when I developed this article and found and developed that reference, and again now.  There is nothing "disingenuous".  I happen to be more familiar than many with the NRHP guidelines for NRHP naming.  For example as explained in this guideline.  See page 5 (PDF page 11) and further for discussion of name choice of NRHP listing.   

 :::The significance of this property for NRHP listing has mostly to do with its architecture, which was created by/for the original Masonic group, and which was largely unchanged by the later Jewish synagogue usage.  It is a pattern that I have seen before, for the NRHP nomination document to have been written mostly using one name (the synagogue name) in the drafted text, and then for the higher level decision of NRHP listing name to reflect a greater totality of information available, and to go with something different that better reflects the purpose of NRHP listing.