Chapels…Temples?
Yesterday’s home teaching visit confirmed my suspicions: none of you read the Ensign. If you did, then I think this piece in March’s News of the Church would have been blogged about: “Standardized Meetinghouses Worldwide Give More Members a Place to Worship.”
Apparently, the Church is rolling out a new standard plan for its meetinghouses.
“Under the Worldwide Standard Plan Program, most building options can be expanded according to growth. If substantial growth is anticipated in an area, a “phased” building may be built. When the need arises to expand the building to accommodate larger or additional wards, the original building can be added to, with each phase being added like another puzzle piece.”
So, if the need arises, these new buildings can easily be expanded. The fact that the picture they used in the article is reminiscent of the Hong Kong and Manhattan temples — which also function as meetinghouses/offices — makes me wonder…if new chapels are built to look more aesthetically pleasing (hooray!), and if they can be expanded, can we envisage the day when such buildings could house ultra-mini-temples? Chapels with temples. Now that would be cool. (Happy 180th Kirtland Temple Dedication Anniversary.)
Ahh, the ol’ WSPP, purveyor of ugly paisley couches and reprinted church art. But yes, the expansion of existing buildings is a particularly good idea where meetinghouses exist and when land and construction costs for new temples are prohibitely expensive. Good thinking, so long as the regional flavor is not completely lost.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
According to the article (which no-one here as read), a regional FLAVOUR will be incorporated into the standard design. Buildings in France will have gargoyles of various apostate Mormons on them.
Comment by Ronan — March 27, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Given the recent posts indicating that the Church is shrinking I would think that there will be little use for these new designs…
Actually, it is a bit depressing to drive around Sandy and notice that all the chapels are the same building, just finished off with different materials on the outside. Come to think of it, our wardhouse in Sandy (two blocks from our house, the one one block from the house is a different stake, but same building) is pretty much identical to the one we went to in Boston.
I grew up attending a building errected in 1879 though, so I am probably more than a little biased.
Comment by a random Jon Krakauer — March 27, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
that previous post was written by little old me, not my alter ego. Darn auto fill feature…
Comment by a random John — March 27, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Looking at that rendering, I am reminded of LBJ’s comment about the architectural style of one of the congressional office buildings in Washington (the Rayburn?): Texas Penitentiary
Comment by Mark B. — March 27, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Put me down as being strongly anti-chapel/temples. There are too many temples now, with many of the best of them (built before 1980) unused. The Oakland Temple does about 10% of its capacity.
I prefer the idea of a temple one must make a pilgrimage to, perhaps one in each country. When I was growing up in the 60s, there were only 15 temples, and I can name them: Kirtland, Nauvoo, St. George, Logan, Manti, Salt Lake, Hawaii, Mesa, Alberta, Los Angeles, Idaho Falls, London, Swiss, and New Zealand, with Oakland coming along in about 1967, and Ogden, Provo and Washington in 1974.
The more that temples become chapels, the more utilitarian they will become. Perhaps this seems like a good idea to y’all, but not to me.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
D,
Pilgrimages are fine, but I think the days are happily over that members in Africa had to sell all their possessions to go to the temple in London. Anyway, it’s only my wild speculation that suggests chapels could become temples. As arJ points out, buildings such as this are going to be rare. Still, I suspect the Church, ever pragmatic, is thinking that if they’re gonna build a nice chapel, they should keep all options open.
Comment by Ronan — March 27, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Ronan,
I actually have the exact opposite sense. Two temples have been attached to stake centers (Hong Kong and New York), but as soon as we see a new stake center being attached to an existing temple, it will all be over. All new temples will henceforth have stake centers attached to them. And why not? The Church owns the land, presumably centrally-located.
Our temple (above our chapel) has one set of endowment rooms, and is almost precisely the same size as our chapel and classrooms. It makes sense to combine the building with stake functions, and I won’t be at all surprised to see this happen more and more.
But it will make me sad.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Interesting. Phased chappels have had their course before. Historically, you could get a phase I, II or III building (in the 80’s I think).
Comment by J. Stapley — March 27, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
D. Fletcher– what sounds like a good idea to me is having temples that it doesn’t take someone’s lifetime of earning to make the trip to. You may feel that there are too many temples and I suppose there may be, if every single member had a good-paying job and reliable transportation. I live only a few cities over from my temple but because I have no car, the public transportation doesn’t reach that far out and I can’t afford to take a taxi, I have been there only once in the two years I’ve lived here. The church has regular temple trips but they’re always “for endowed members only.” That one trip I went on was the one trip in two years that was open to all worthy members. I’m fortunate right now in that I have a fairly open schedule and so I could make provision to go almost any time. What about those with job and familiy commitments of the “I could feed my kids or pay rent but not both” variety?
The more temples, the more access for all members, the better. Nothing could make the House of the Lord utilitarian anyway.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — March 27, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
There were phased chapels in 60s. Our stake center in Caldwell, NJ originally started out a single space that functioned as chapel and cultural hall (had a tiled floor). Later, a new cultural hall was added to the back, and it became a stake center.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
…also untill 1978 the Bellevue, WA stake center had an altar in a dedicated room for prayer rituals. I think it was not that uncommon. The church also built a Stake center next to the Seattle temple 20 years after it was built.
Comment by J. Stapley — March 27, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
Proud Daughter,
I appreciate your sentiments, but I do feel that it will encourage temples to be utilitarian (their design). Instead of temples, why don’t we just add endowment rooms on the side of current chapels? Won’t that be the most convenient thing of all?
One reason the church doesn’t do this, is because the temple should remain a unique experience, not so regularized as church. When temple work becomes as regularized as church, it will lose its power, and actually fewer people will be motivated to do it. The Church leaders recognize this, so they’re trying to strike a balance between keeping the temple work quantifiably unique, and yet still available to everyone.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
I think that the real power of Temple work is yet to be imagined. While it’s important that the temple should remain as sacred as possible, there will be a time, probably during the millenium when we will need temples everywhere we can get them. We need to have as many people endowed and using temples as often as possible to prepare.
Keeping fewer temples is great, but in many ways that can make them novelties for many members. I think the church wants the temple to become as much a part of us as attending sacrement. Is it possible that something can be lost for the individual because of this? Defintely. The choice is left up to the individual.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — March 27, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
I was mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the experience. As more temples are built, they will, out of necessity, become more and more standardized, and hence, the experience will be utilitarian.
Here’s what the Church of the last century did with design:
http://www.northamptonhouse.com/company/history.php
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Stake prayer circles were fairly common until the mid 1970s. I am shocked that cookie-cutter buildings really don’t bother me. I know it is sort of a given that enlightened individuals scoff at the lack of imagination and the triumph of bland pragmatism evident in the standard building plans, but I just can’t rouse myself to object to this one. I suppose that part of this comes from my exposure to some exmo-types who rail unendingly about the boring buildings. The problem is that I can only imagine what they would say if the church spent tithing money on stylized, individually designed structures evereywhere. No doubt they would soon notice racist tendencies as rich white people got all of the cool chapels.
Comment by Costanza — March 27, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Ronan, If we’re going to read the Ensign on our own . . . then what’s the point of having home teachers come once a month? But, thanks for pointing out this article. I personally long for the grand architecture of Temples like Manti, Salt Lake, Logan, St. George, etc., as well as the Chapels of the early LDS era; but, I suppose with the type of world wide growth the Church has had, and will likely have in the future, we were eventually resigned to this fate.
Comment by Guy Murray — March 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
I don’t know why you guys are so pessimistic. The WSPP is responsible for many horrors, but this sounds like an improvement. I mean, that’s a nice chapel!
Comment by Ronan — March 27, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
I don’t see why we should blame the Church’s presence in other countries for aesthetic decisions. Usually, people who get exposed to more cultures become more self-aware and thus refine their taste.
As for the picture of the chapel, the proportions are off.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — March 27, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
I have heard a “rumor” for the last several years that the cookie-cutter stake centers were designed so that they could be easily converted to temples. I guess whoever started the rumor knew what they were talking about.
With the cost of real estate in a lot of places, it makes sense to expand one building instead of building another. It does increase travel time, though. No more neighborhood churches. For that reason, I think we’ll still be seeing a lot of new buildings rather than expansion of old ones.
Comment by Ariel — March 27, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
“One reason the church doesn’t do this, is because the temple should remain a unique experience, not so regularized as church.”
D.-
The irony is that the temple experience IS regularized by the very nature that it is the same every time. It’s up to the visitor to make it unique because it sure as heck isn’t unique on its own (that is, in comparison to any other time you go through the temple).
Church experiences, however, vary greatly based on many external factors: the speakers, testimony sharers, lesson instructors, etc.
Comment by Bob Caswell — March 27, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
Sadly, I also don’t care for the movie in the temple. Rituals, by their very nature, are live — humans performing ordinances over and over again make them rituals. The words may be the same, but each experience will be unique.
Movies, by nature, are illusions, essentially passive experiences.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 27, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Yeah, I was sitting up thinking, “Jon Krakauer’s a Mormon? Why did he leave out the first vision from his book?”
Okay, I actually read every post. Not well, but still…D., I have very mixed emotions about this. I live in Cedar City, only 50 miles from the St. George Temple, but my attendance has been sporadic the last few years. It seems like it would be nice to have one just down the road, but maybe I’d be just as lazy. Sometimes I don’t even make it to church and it’s a mile away.
Convenience, yes; beautiful, no. Although the last two churches built in our stake are really quite beautiful on the outside.
I think I would be quite happy if they suddenly decided to add a temple to one of them.
D, what do they do about basketball? You’re in New York, right? I went there last year and it was quite a busy building. How do they handle reverence? It was actually quite irreverent when one ward got out; those of us in the fast meeting that day could hear a huge commotion and a young boy walked in and walked all over looking for his scriptures, which he found. So there is that.
Comment by annegb — March 28, 2006 @ 12:22 am
Our new temple in Columbus was built on the same land as the Gateway building (not a stake center, but more or less the same size as the Columbus Ohio/Columbus Ohio North and Columbus Ohio South/East stake centers,) and they’re less than fifty feet from each other. Most of the people I’ve asked about it assume (without ever having been told) that the remaining “Columbus Ohio X” stake (West) to be created, will be centered in that building, which would have essentially the same impact as having a temple at your stake center, for the people in that stake at least. I think it’d be weird, and might diminish the “specialness” of the temple.
Interesting note (at least to me): most of the members that I know well enough to have seen the inside of their homes, still have the Washington, DC temple on their walls. As does our Primary room. Some people even decide to go back to DC for important occasions (first time going to the temple, getting married…) even though we have a mini temple right here. I don’t know how much of that is because the new temple is, well, new, and how much of it is because the DC temple is larger and prettier. When/if I get endowed/married, however, I doubt very much it’ll be at our local temple.
Comment by Sarah — March 28, 2006 @ 2:39 am
As much as anyone, I have hope that the church will be proactive in creating and building beautifully designed buildings - chapels and temples - although their record of doing so is somewhat sporadic. I am reminded, however, that the most important aspect of the temple experience is not the structure or the stone facing, but the priesthood authority and the ordinances that take place inside. As we kneel at the alter inside, hopefully our minds are not concerned with the pitch of the roof outside.
Comment by Lamonte — March 28, 2006 @ 7:58 am
I swear, if you take the steeple off of the chapel in the picture above the resulting building looks just like my mother’s condo bulding…
Comment by Tony — March 28, 2006 @ 9:18 am
I don’t like the concept picture.
It looks like a piece of old Philadelphia architecture mated with the space shuttle Discovery.
Comment by Seth R. — March 28, 2006 @ 9:19 am
LOL Seth!
P.S. It does have some unfortunate proportions, but it does look vaguely European, which is a good thing.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Hi, annegb!
Our building has been specifically designed to deal with acoustic problems. The temple is, apparently, completely quiet, even when I play the organ at full volume.
The basketballs in the gym can’t be heard in the temple, either.
I’m sort of delighted that the temple was added to our building, because the rest of the building was “upgraded” to more rigorous finishing standards, including a very expensive upgrade to our pipe organ, and I’m not going to complain about that.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 10:54 am
It’s a good idea that hasn’t always worked well in practice. When it came time to expand the Paso Robles, CA ward building it was discovered to be cheaper to tear it down and start anew than to bring it up to current building code standards.
Comment by Robert Durtschi — March 28, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Interesting info here.
http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/temple%20development.htm
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Another article.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/010502arch.html
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
And another.
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Cool article!
http://www.slate.com/id/2061977
Comment by D. Fletcher — March 28, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Also look at the Toronto temple - a stake center within a stone’s throw.
Regarding live ceremonies vs. movies — they have a hard enough time even finding people to be veil workers, let alone actors who won’t continually flub their lines.
Comment by queuno — March 28, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
chapels + temples = cheaples?
That’s my fear. I guess if Joseph Smith could perform ordinances in the rooms above his store, you could do them easily enough in an annex. but you might risk loosing something without the separateness of the temple space.
Comment by Rhetor — March 29, 2006 @ 6:19 am
Bob,
the temple ceremony is “unique” because it is highly symbolic, whereas our daily/weekly activities are not. We typically do not use “ritual” as such at church, which is part of what makes the first trip to the temple so jarring for many. But the fact that the symbolism is the same no matter which temple you are in should not detract from the experience–it would be very confusing if the meaning of the temple ceremony changed depending on your location…I do think that everyone should attend a live session at least once, because there are nuances in it which cannot be conveyed using a film.
Comment by Space Chick — March 29, 2006 @ 11:42 am