Talk:Salt Lake Temple

message: I was wondering what the group would think about my adding a link to an on-line tour of temple square to this article. The link is located at http://www.allaboutmormons.com/templesquare.php. I should disclose that I am the creator of the site, which is why I wanted to make sure it was alright with the group before posting the link myself. I hope I've proceeded appropriately, as I'm new to Wikipedia and don't understand all of its policies.
:Because I was the first person to post to this discussion, and because no one has responded, I’m going to assume this page has no associated active discussion and that I may never get a response. I’ve gotten positive responses to my request to post a link to my on-line tour of temple square at Temple Square, so I’m going to assume it’s alright to proceed here as well. Please let me know if I’m mistaken.
::I tried following your link to allaboutmormons.com and the link was broken. User:Loveonearth  — Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's fairly common for links for get changed, especially one like this that was added almost eight years ago (2006). I went to the site and found the new link at http://www.allaboutmormons.com/ENG_templesquare.php. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

text: the temple was expanded to include an Annex area to the North.  Look at the photos of the temple more closely.  it is massive, but doesn't really look it unless you see the people at the base of it.  Also check out the Los Angeles California Temple which is the only temple even close to the size of the Salt Lake Temple.  From my understanding it follows the Kirtland/Nauvoo style with a priesthood assembly hall, on the upper level, but ordinance rooms below.  I would love to find some floorplans, but check out the floor plans on the Nauvoo Temple. Bytebear 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquiry

message: I tagged the naming policy as dubious because the building officialy called Preston is in fact in Chorly (Uk) 92.40.254.95 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the naming convention described in the article is correct based on simply looking at the list of temples.  Whether it's in the specific city it's named after is a different story (it can often be referring to the greater metro area as opposed to the central city).  The general convention is "city name-state-Temple" (like "Columbus Ohio Temple") or city name-country-Temple ("Preston England Temple"). In many cases, the temple is located in the suburb of the city it is named after (the Washington DC Temple is a good example; it's located in Kensington, Maryland, not Washington, DC) or in a nearby city, but still in the same metro area.  There are several other instances for temples just in the US, where the temple is located in a suburb: Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago, San Diego, Nashville, Boston, Atlanta, etc.  --JonRidinger (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Either the policy stated in the article is incorrect or it was not followed in the instance that I described. At the time the temple concerned was built, Preston was not a city, so it cannot be that it was named after the nearest city. In any case, the temple is in the town of Chorley, which has its own district that is not part of Preston. To say Chorley is part of Preston is like saying Lancaster is part of Columbus (relying on my Atlas for a good example) (PS I raised the initial comment. I see that I forgot to login, just to clear up any confusion) Op47 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming convention listed in the article is, as noted, generally correct.  The article about the Preston England Temple indicates that it is in Chorley.  That article also notes some of the early origins of the LDS Church in the general Preston area, so there is historical significance that make it more recognizable to church members than would the Chorley England Temple.  The dubious tag seems to be used more when things are verifiably or blatantly wrong and I don't believe this is the case in this instance.  The policy, or guideline, for naming temples is given in the way that it is generally done.  Striving to be overly precise does not likely warrant reflection of dubious material.  ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Chorley is also all of 10 miles from Preston, so it's hardly a stretch there.  It is the same as the Washington DC temple being in Kensington or any of the other temples I mentioned that are named for the nearest large city, but aren't actually located in them.  None of those suburbs are "part" of the central city either, though they are all usually considered part of the greater metro area either in general practice and/or in an official sense.  The difference with the name of the Salt Lake temple is that it's simply that: the "Salt Lake Temple".  It does not include the state name, which is now the standard practice.  Nowhere does it state that the naming policy adheres to strict precision of what city a temple is actually located in.  That Preston wasn't an official city until 2002 or even that Chorley isn't really considered part of the Preston metro area (though they are both in Lancashire) is irrelevant.  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I think I understand what you are saying. A reference would be appreciated if you can find one. Op47 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag 

message: The floor area is given as 253,015 sq feet. The newspaper cutting (3rd box down RHS) gives a length of 186 feet and width of 99 feet giving a ground area of 18414 sq feet. There are 4 proper floors + balconies in the assembly room giving (say) 4.5 floors in total. This gives a floor area of 82,863 sq feet. If there is an annex then it would have a floor area of 170,152 sq feet or (say) 914x186 feet (keeping 1 dimension the same as the main temple). On the aerial views (e.g. on google maps) I can see no building or group of buildings that would fit that description.
Can anyone shed any light on this? GlassWax (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floor area 

message: The citation given is problematic for 2 reasons:
*1) It gives a list of temples and does not state that there is a naming convention.
*2) The announced "Provo City Center" temple also does not follow the alleged naming convention.
If it is speculative that there is a naming convention then I would be happy to delete the paragraph. The reason given for the anomaly is speculation in any case.
GlassWax (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already discussed in a previous thread, under "Dubious tag".  The temples do follow a general naming convention (which can easily be seen by loking at the list of temples), however, there are notable exceptions.  Exceptions, though, are just that: exceptions.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That there is a pattern is not in dispute. That the CJCLDS has the right to call the temples whatever it wants is not in dispute. I am not even particularly disputing that the pattern is a deliberate policy of the church. What I am disputing is whether the material meets the wikipedia policy on verifiability (i.e. WP:V). At the moment, with this citation the statement is synthesis (WP:SYNTH), because the source merely states a list of names without explicitly stating that it is a policy. GlassWax (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go.  Did some digging and found a Church News article from 1999 that talks about the "new" naming policy.  What's interesting is that originally, the Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple was also supposed to be an exception to the rule as simply the "Winter Quarters Temple", but obviously that was changed.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats brilliant. Thankyou. There are a number of places where this policy has been mentioned. Good to get it sorted. GlassWax (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: The article says the Temple is oriented towards Jerusalem.  It appears from Google Earth it is oriented directly East/West and not toward Jerusalem.
Google Earth has the center of the Salt Lake Temple N40 degrees 46' 13" while Jerusalem is N31 degrees 46'.
Can anyone cite a reference where the temple is oriented towards Jerusalem?
Lloyd
216.146.122.236 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record (7 years later), I agree.  It's oriented due east, and Jerusalem is in fact east of Salt Lake City, but not DUE east (on the same latitude).  As a practicing Latter-day Saint (that was married in the Salt Lake Temple), I've never heard this (about the orientation), let alone as being a reason that it's reminiscent of Solomon's temple, let alone know of a source for it.  I would concur if this sentence were deleted. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientation of the Temple - it is not oriented towards Jerusalem 

message: The article says: "The uppermost stars on the temple's constellation align with the actual North Star.[33]" (Source provided: Lyon, Jack (December 5, 2016). Understanding Temple Symbols: Themes of the Temple in Scripture, History, and Art. Deseret Book Company. ISBN 1629722448.)
How's that supposed to work? The two "uppermost stars", according to the picture, point diagonally into the sky - sooner or later quite a variety of stars will pass by where they're pointing?! Or what's the sentence supposed to mean? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  uppermost stars aligning with the Polar Star? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion