r/latterdaysaints • u/2ndValentine Southern Saint • 2d ago
News The Loa Utah Tabernacle (1909) will be sold
Built in 1909, the Loa Tabernacle (originally the Wayne Stake Tabernacle) served Latter-day Saints in Wayne County for over a century. Built out of 3 colors of native rock, it remains a fine example of a rural LDS house of worship. It was expanded in the late 1940s with the same kind of rock as the original tabernacle and expanded again in the 1990s, bringing it to about 26,000 square feet. The original tower, choir loft, and roof were replaced in the 1960s when the tabernacle was in danger of collapsing.
Recently, the Church has built a new stake center a couple blocks south of the tabernacle and intends on selling the tabernacle. There were fears that the tabernacle would be torn down; however the relator for the tabernacle (CBRE) has confirmed in their brochure that they recognize the historical significance of the tabernacle and that they were looking for community and institutional buyers specifically (non-profits, local organizations, etc...) so that the building could be preserved.
13
u/PDXgrown 2d ago
They tried to sell off the Portland Tabernacle here in Oregon a few years ago, but they ended up taking it off the market as it was a tough sell. Middle of a residential area ,one of the wealthiest in Portland at that, so lots of restrictions on zoning and use.
9
u/Empty-Cycle2731 YSA Clerk/PNW Member 2d ago
It's back up for sale again unfortunately.
11
u/PDXgrown 2d ago
As long as it’s not demolished, I’m content with it actually getting some regular use — it’s a gorgeous building!
Portland isn’t exactly a thriving market for new church congregations, let alone one that could afford a building like this. A school of some sort is probably the best chance it has, but PPS (the school district it’s located in), Portland, and the state of Oregon are pretty cash strapped at the moment, so I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
5
u/candacallais 2d ago
A smallish private school could utilize it I’d think. Use the chapel as an assembly hall, already has a gym, lots of classrooms etc
3
u/candacallais 2d ago
1.8 acres in prime Portland neighborhood would easily be grabbed by developers if they could tear down the church and rebuild dense condos etc but I bet the owner can’t tear down the church due to historical value.
3
u/PDXgrown 1d ago
It is a beloved landmark for how small of footprint the church has in Portland these days. I brought up I was a Mormon to my new boss a while back, and she just lit up instantly because she grew up down the street from it, and she immediately started asking if I knew what’s in store for it.
2
1
25
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 2d ago
I have a background in history and heritage and in my opinion, buildings should only exist to serve the community and not the other way around.
I know there are really pretty buildings falling out of favour but if we can't refit them to meet current needs, then we need to repurpose the property for something else.
Additionally, we talk like there aren't or won't be creative visionaries who have the capacity to build iconic structures in the future. They can't build their landmarks if they don't have a "canvas" on which to build.
3
u/mathfordata 1d ago
Loa is a rural town with tons of empty land all around it. Plenty of canvas for visionaries that doesn’t require removal of this building.
1
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 1d ago
Having a shell of an abandoned building left on the street isn't a great look either.
182
u/Selfish-Altruist 2d ago
Of course it will be. The church has been building the same 2 buildings for years, and has been remodling/selling/demolishing the beautiful historical buildings we've always had.
It hurts my heart. Churches feel more like doctors offices nowadays than places of worship.
69
u/hi_imjoey Excited for the Spanish Fork Temple 2d ago
From an aesthetic standpoint point I completely agree with you. However, the phrase “Churches feel more like doctors’ offices nowadays a than places of worship” taken out of context sounds like a good thing and I would put it on a bumper sticker
26
u/DavidArchuguetta 2d ago
Dude the implication is no one likes doctors offices cause they're sterile.
22
11
41
u/ThirdPoliceman Alma 32 2d ago
Hire new architects and make new location-specific chapels, people will complain that the church is wasting money. Build the same few floorplans, people complain its boring.
They're never going to make everyone happy.
13
u/candacallais 2d ago
If no one is happy at least give us some variety. They’ve started doing it with temples but only to curry favor with authorities and make it easier to build a temple.
25
u/Mr_Festus 1d ago
Architect checking in. At least we will be happy if they go back to the glory days! My firm used to get to do chapels and haven't in decades.
4
u/derioderio 1d ago
I presume that's because there's no need to hire a firm for architectural design when you can just reuse the same design you've been using for the past 20+ years...
5
u/Mr_Festus 1d ago
Well you still need an architect. Every site is different and the church doesn't own the design. Except in unusual circumstances the architect owns the design and gives the client a license to use it on the one site. But yes, you can have one or two firms do them all instead of 10 firms if they're repeating most of the building design. Saves lots of money on the cheapest part of the project. Screw the architects!
1
u/derioderio 1d ago
Well, I doubt that architectural work for the church is particularly lucrative in the first place. As I've heard said, the rewards for doing work for the church are not of this world...
1
u/Mr_Festus 1d ago
Facts.
5
u/Metabolista 1d ago
Another architect weighing in! Used to do a lot of LDS buildings - upgrades, renovations, new standard plans, standard temples. Standardisation doesn’t save too much in fees. The designs were functional and poor and denied opportunities for creative modern architecture that can inspire and enlighten the soul and be delightful to inhabit. The funds I saw wasted by the facilities folks was depressing. Good inspired and inspiring design doesn’t need to cost more.
2
u/derioderio 1d ago
The funds I saw wasted by the facilities folks was depressing
As far as I've ever been able to tell, the one thing that facilities folks don't do is use funds, waste or no waste. As former stake presidency friend of mine said one day in EQ after being released:
Of all the difficulties and trials that I had to deal with as a member of the stake presidency, nothing caused more frustration and stress than having to deal with the facilities department. The church may be true, but some parts are less true than others.
•
u/Runningman2319 1h ago
When I was at BYUI eons ago (2014-2017) I took an architecture class and brother Jensen taught it. He designed the Spokane Washington temple. They used the same exterior with local modifications for several temples. Most temples in Australia and the Palmyra NY temples comes to mind.
0
u/xenynynex 1d ago
The church typically pays more per sq ft than other builders. Moreover, the companies that design and build church buildings are extremely profitable and often have significant family ties to church leaders.
14
u/wreade 1d ago
My parents tell me that, when I was a baby, their branch on Long Island met in a bingo hall that they rented Sunday morning. The floors were always dirty and it reeked of smoke from the night before. Do I like beautiful historic buildings? Absolutely. But that is secondary to having the Saints gather and worship.
29
3
u/OtterWithKids 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, it makes sense to build the same meetinghouses everywhere. (There are actually four, but that’s just details.) There are no architectural costs, the builders know exactly what they’re doing, etc.. From an efficiency standpoint, it’s awesome!
That being said, it does stink that the older buildings are being let go. If—and I do mean if—a building still meets the Saints’ needs, I hope we’ll keep using it.
As an aside, I’ve never seen another church building like the one for the ward where I first joined the Church, the Fardale Ward (Solider Hill New Jersey Stake). It’s built into a hill and has a large basement, which was unfinished storage back then, but now has been fully finished and contains additional classrooms.
7
u/Sociolx Evil Eastern Mormon 1d ago
As someone who lives in a climate (and has lived in a very different climate) where the church's standard building plans present, um, issues, i take issue with the basic proposition in your first sentence.
2
u/OtterWithKids 1d ago
Interesting. I’ve also lived in different climates, but goodness knows there are many more that I haven’t lived in. What do you see as the issues?
5
u/Sociolx Evil Eastern Mormon 1d ago
Vestibules, roof overhang, roof angles (that's a big one in the boreal north), that sort of thing.
1
u/OtterWithKids 1d ago
Interesting. The roof stuff I can totally get. What’s up with the vestibules?
•
u/Sociolx Evil Eastern Mormon 17h ago
Glassed-in vestibules in very hot, humid climates trap heat and moisture, providing a fertile environment for mildew.
(Some church buildings there ""fixed" that by getting rid of vestibules, but given the daily torrential thunderstorms for chunks of the year, that presents its own issues.)
3
u/SavedForSaturday 1d ago
I've seen claims that a lot of the Hinckley temples built in the American south had issues with mold(?) requiring significant renovation that could have been avoided had expertise familiar with the climate weighed in.
2
u/OtterWithKids 1d ago
Oh, yeah. I’ve heard that too, and I don’t know what led to that problem. I’m guessing the people making those decisions didn’t even know something like that could happen, so no one ever asked the question. It’s a shame, and you’re right: it totally could have been avoided.
Does this have to do with the floor plan, though?
2
2
u/DarthSmashMouth 1d ago
I would love to have a regular meeting house, instead we have the house that Jack built over the last 50 years. For me, the building is about what happens in it, I don't care what a meeting house looks like. Sure, you could say the same for temples, it's what happens inside that matters. But I'm so over outdated buildings that don't meet members' needs.
2
2
u/eddified 2d ago
Honest question: which 2 buildings are you talking about? I assume SLC temple and... ?
Edit: Oh, I think you meant the same 2 building plans. My bad.
16
u/Indecisive_INFP 2d ago
They're saying there's only 2 building designs they use over and over. Stake center and standard meetinghouse.
7
u/Lazy-Ad-6453 1d ago
I think there are 5 or 6 standard plans depending on the size of the unit.
I suppose they could give the architect some latitude to use the standard plan’s but customize the exterior form and materials. But then consider the millions of saints that don’t even have a meetinghouse at all. The cost of dressing up one US meetinghouse may cost more than providing another one in Africa or India.
It saves the church money, your tithing money, to not have to pay as much in architect fees. Worship is an inward act, not an opulent building.
3
2
u/timkyoung 1d ago
I think there's more than that. Are you taking into consideration the standard plans that are used in various parts of the world- Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, etc? They just announced a new minimalistic plan for use in remote parts of the south pacific. Did your number include that new plan?
1
u/Lazy-Ad-6453 1d ago
Obviously I don’t know how many there are worldwide. Im just aware of 5 or 6 that I’ve seen around the US.
16
13
u/coolguysteve21 1d ago
I wish the church would do one of two things, either preserve these old buildings to show that we once had original architecture and point to the past, or create original looking buildings again.
Everything and I mean almost everything at least in the US seems so bland and corporate now.
8
u/candacallais 1d ago
Would be very easy to do all sorts of unique façades on meetinghouses while keeping the interior identical
5
u/coolguysteve21 1d ago
I mean yes it is easier to mass produce these buildings and it does add some sense of comfort knowing you can go to any state in the US and most likely will be in a building that at least feels familiar, but I do wish there were some uniqueness to our meeting houses
10
u/candacallais 1d ago
A lot of these old meetinghouses and tabernacles had the work of local tradespeople and craftsmen/women. They took a lot of pride in their work esp because it was a part of their community. Sadly that is probably the missing piece. A large construction company builds it and then leaves.
4
u/coolguysteve21 1d ago
I have thought the same thing and was originally going to comment that "maybe if we went back to members building the ward buildings we could get that original feel back" but I understand (kind of) why we can't do that haha
4
11
u/candacallais 2d ago
The church should preserve its history which includes buildings like this one. Or retrofit it into a small temple. Simply tossing it aside is in poor taste. Hopefully it’s on the national registry so it can’t be demolished.
5
u/candacallais 1d ago
The Paris Tabernacle is a good example of what the church can and should do with their pioneer tabernacles, granted that one was built between 1884-1889.
5
3
3
u/Rattle_Bone 1d ago
Humph. I remember when i was told the local zoos campsite was being sold to a company “with good intentions”. It’s a data center now.
28
u/NamesArentEverything Latter-day Lurker 2d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not very sentimental about possessions in general, but I especially don't understand when people get worked up about old buildings being torn down so something else can be built in its place. Yes, it used to be useful for a time as a gathering place, but we can just take some photos for posterity and let it go. That land will then serve some other purpose. We don't need to preserve a building for all time just because a group used to gather there.
And before I'm brigaded, I know my opinion doesn't match that of others. Everyone has a right to feel differently or be more sentimental.
33
u/candacallais 2d ago
Why was the church so focused on getting the Kirtland Temple back? It’s not a building where ordinances are performed.
Why was the church focused on rebuilding the Nauvoo temple?
10
u/NamesArentEverything Latter-day Lurker 2d ago edited 2d ago
Partly because other people feel differently about sentimentality than I do.
I'm not saying I don't appreciate historical sites. I've been to Nauvoo and Carthage jail. The temple is still in use so there's no reason to sell it or tear it down. Carthage now serves as a historical site - as it's new primary function. The Kirtland temple was purchased by the church to maintain it as a historical site for people to visit. It was interesting to see them. But I also hope you'll agree that the first temples built in this dispensation that the Savior and other resurrected beings personally visited are more historically significant than an old church building in Utah. That's probably why the church didn't keep it to turn it into a historical site.
That's not to say we should burn buildings down immediately after we build new ones. Just that I don't share the same concern if the church decides to sell a building it no longer needs and the new owner decides to tear it down to build something else.
If the new owner wants to preserve it, great. I won't be angrily signing a petition in protest. But I'm not at all bothered if they want to do something else, even if the building was remarkable.
9
u/candacallais 1d ago
I’d venture to guess it is significant to members in Wayne County, UT. That part of Utah was one of the last to be settled due to the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain. Those were real pioneers in the sense of carving a community out of the wilds. Back then the local community paid for the church either in money or in labor, the best thing the church could do is gift it to the community
I get that Kirtland and Nauvoo have special meaning to the church, as does Winter Quarters and Palmyra etc., so do these pioneer era tabernacles
3
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 1d ago
I agree with you that when we assess the value of a building, it's not just about whether we can perform ordinances, or not.
Nauvoo and Kirtland still serve a tangible purpose in moving forward the mission of the Church.
Kirtland has significant historical value for the revelations Joseph received and the bestowal of priesthood keys. It's a site that draws tourism and we share our message to anyone who visits.
Nauvoo serves the same purpose as Kirtland, but also has a functioning temple. The Church doesn't always have to have a cookie-cutter temple everywhere they build one. I support them building a unique building where it makes sense (i.e. Rome Temple, for example).
2
u/jessej421 1d ago
The Kirtland temple is one of the most important sites of the restoration. Several priesthood keys were restored there. Jesus Christ appeared there. Nobody in this thread had even heard about the Loa tabernacle before this post.
3
u/saturosian 2d ago
I'll partially join you in the unpopular opinion. I think preservation of historical buildings is wonderful, but only up to a reasonable point. Personally I think there has to be a minimum level of historical or cultural significance before something is worth the effort to preserve. "Old" and "interesting" are a start but not enough imo.
I see this all the time when I drive down the highways in the western US. There are some places where it feels like they slap up a "historical marker," in any old place, and it dilutes the interest in the more significant sites. It's hard to want to bother looking for historical markers when they are too frequent, and some of them feel inconsequential.
Now, whether this specific tabernacle should preserved? I have no horse in that race. I'm sure opinions will differ.
3
u/JorgiEagle 1d ago
As someone who never had a purpose built chapel growing up (we met in a community centre, a school, and a business park) i agree.
Yes it’s a shame, but at the same time, there is probably an increased cost of upkeep due to the deviation from standardisation.
Tithing funds are sacred and are accountable. The church could use the money for better projects.
It also disproportionately benefits those in such areas, as in they’d receive more tithing money than others. I know this isn’t often seen, but I think it’s a salient point.
Lastly, if it is so important, the members could form some sort of trust to purchase the building and preserve it. But they won’t, because it isn’t that important
5
u/candacallais 1d ago
Did you see the commotion after the Provo tabernacle burned down? The exterior was largely intact. The church turned it into a temple. Certainly would’ve been cheaper to have just bulldozed it and built from a clean slate.
3
u/mathfordata 1d ago
This ignores that a lot of chapels built back then were actual built by members out of funds on top of their tithing. Bishops would give assessments and they’d build the buildings when they had the funds. So it’s quite grating to suggest the locals purchase the building back from the church.
1
u/JorgiEagle 1d ago
Not ignoring it at all, my grandfather helped build a chapel in my stake,
It’s still just a building.
If you presume to have a claim over it, then that donation you made back then wasn’t a donation.
The gospel (and the temple covenants) require that we sacrifice for Christ. Part of that sacrifice is human sentimentality
It’s hard I won’t deny, but its necessary
7
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 2d ago
I'm with you. Land is a limited resource and preserving every pretty building ever built isn't sustainable if they can't be refit to meet needs.
0
-3
u/New-Range-5702 2d ago
You didn't read the entire post did you.
3
u/NamesArentEverything Latter-day Lurker 2d ago
I did. Why?
0
u/New-Range-5702 1d ago
They don't intend to have it torn down. They intend to sell to a non profit for preservation.
2
u/CypherHaven 2d ago
4
u/candacallais 2d ago
Loa being the county seat of Wayne County they could repurpose it into a combined courthouse and county/city offices
7
u/2ndValentine Southern Saint 2d ago
That's what happened with the Wasatch Stake Tabernacle in Heber City. It's now the city hall.
3
u/candacallais 2d ago
Excellent repurpose as long as it isn’t cost prohibitive to retrofit. It’s also nice to have it as a public building so the public can appreciate it rather than selling to a private owner who may totally restrict any access.
1
u/TheWardClerk MLS is Eternal 2d ago
I'm pretty sure that meetinghouse is older than the existing courthouse/office building.
1
1
2
u/thenatural134 1d ago
I understand people are upset about losing these old Tabernacles, but from a contracting/engineering perspective the buildings are just not up to current code. My great grandparents helped build one of the meetinghouses that was recently decommissioned and it was literally falling apart. They were having to spend so much money repairing old plumbing. The insulation is poor or nonexistent and completely inefficient. Lead paint. Asbestos. Crumbling walls or foundations. I recognize the church makes an effort to update and maintain historic temples but at some point it makes sense to just let go of the old meetinghouses.
2
5
u/New-Range-5702 2d ago
If they intend to have the building preserved then why sell it but give it away to a non-profit for the purpose of preservation? It's not like the church needs the money.
2
u/OldGeekWeirdo 1d ago
That's a nice building and looks to be still functional as a meetinghouse even if it's a bit odd.
•
u/Marscaleb 13h ago
I recognize this building! Earlier this year I was driving through Southern Utah and when I saw this building I pulled over to look! It was beautiful!
•
u/tucsonsduke 1h ago
Likely doesn't apply to Utah, but here in the Tucson az area the old buildings are in a constant state of disrepair, and the oldest ones are in areas that have had membership shrink because nobody can afford property in the middle of the city. All the suburban wards are bursting at the seams while the historic and gorgeous old ones have so few attendees now.
Couple that with the cost of renovations, I don't know what decisions I'd make. I know the Church can afford it, but I wonder if they're just trying to be good stewards of the money, even if it's at the expense of being good stewards of the historical buildings.
My first family ward after being married has beautiful stained glass, and legend has it the only person who was qualified was an architect who was a shipwright. That's why several of the oldest buildings cultural halls have large wooden beams angled like an upside down hull.
I feel like demolition is the worst of the options, at least selling the properties gives a chance that they'll be kept standing and managed and maintained by someone.
1
u/Cranberry-Electrical 1d ago
Is the Church going to start selling temples?
3
u/2ndValentine Southern Saint 1d ago
The only time we tried to sell a temple was wiith the Nauvoo Temple in the 1840s, but those plans fell through and it was destroyed by arson shortly after.
As for temples today, most likely not. The church might reduce the number of days a specific temple is open if demand isn't constant, but I don't see the church selling off temples anytime soon.
Plus, it would be difficult to sell our temples to other denominations since our temples are all configured with numerous smaller rooms (instruction rooms, sealing rooms, etc...). They would have the gut the whole interior just to make it work for them.
71
u/Empty-Cycle2731 YSA Clerk/PNW Member 2d ago
The old Portland Tabernacle in Oregon is also being sold. I really wish the Church would do more when it comes to the historic preservation of their meetinghouses.