For Zion Must Increase in Beauty, and in Holiness

Posted by Jennie | December 9, 2008 | 39 Comments

Last weekend I was on vacation in a very non-LDS part of the country. When Sunday rolled around I found myself feeling churchy, but as I was more than 60 miles from the closest Mormon chapel I decided I would have to worship with some of my Protestant brothers and sisters.

Driving around town I narrowed down my choices. The Methodists had a lovely New-Englandish white clapboard church surrounded by a picturesque picket fence. The Presbyterians had a cream-colored stone church that was the picture of simplicity except for a stunning wall of stained glass. However I decided to go with the Lutherans and their Gothic Revival jewel, complete with red velvet everything.

So how was the service? Nice. Lovely. But the thought kept passing through my mind, “my gosh, why can’t we have a church like this?”

Occasionally you’ll run into an old LDS chapel in a rural Utah town, and you’ll have to do a double-take; this is one of ours? Stained glass and marble and fancy woodwork? Hot diggity dog!

Maybe I’m wordly. Or just superficial, but I like a pretty church. It makes my soul sing to be in a place that is beautiful and so obviously special. I’m not saying we should spend 1000 years building a stone masterpiece to God. But walls that aren’t covered with acoustic carpeting might be a step in the right direction.

I realize we don’t want anyone to mistake our churches for the Whore of Babylon. No fine-twined linen here, thank you very much. Do we really need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though? Can’t we find a happy medium between ostentatious and utilitarian? Maybe more New England Shaker and less Utah Sensible?

A few weeks ago I had a chance to take my mother to the San Antonio temple. It is a tiny temple but each room (even the dressing room) features soaring windows of stained glass. The stained glass continues on to each wall of the Celestial Room, glittering like the inside of a jewel box. How can anyone fail to be inspired by that? Obviously the beauty is meant to touch our souls, otherwise why bother?

Why is all the gorgeousness lavished on the temples while our poor meetinghouses sit like architectural Jane Eyres, practical and plain? Can’t we splurge a little? Maybe a chandelier here or there? Or a few stunning windows? Why can’t our chapels inspire? Certainly I’m not the only one who would like a meetinghouse that is lovely and of good report.

Our churches certainly don’t need to be showy cathedrals, but I would love to have my spirit lifted by my surroundings. Sitting on a folding chair under a basketball hoop just doesn’t do it for me.

Category: Daily Special

Comments

39 Responses to “For Zion Must Increase in Beauty, and in Holiness”

Michelle in AR
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:01 am

Not to sound preachy, but perhaps you’re forgetting we belong to a worldwide church.
I’m sure the African Saints think their meetinghouses quite lovely and of good report.
Could the Church build as many if they were more ornate?
BTW, I have seen meetinghouses in UT that are way gorgeous compared to our plain-Jane stake center here in Arkansas.
But the old-timer Saints here are heard nearly every week thanking Heavenly Father for our lovely meetinghouse. They remember the times, not long ago, when members had to meet in a house.
My cousin asked a similar question–why is there art in the hallways of our meetinghouses, but not in the chapel?
There must be a reason beyond the cost. But I know our spirits don’t require beautiful surroundings to be uplifted. Buck up that pioneer practicality and feel the Spirit anyway!
Thanks for a thought-provoking read. I’ll be thinking about this for a while. . . .
Justine
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:02 am

When I was a wee lass, we lived in WAY northern Michigan. Our small branch bought an old protestant church and spent a year or so fixing it up for our own. It had beautiful stained glass and a balcony in the chapel. The members of the branch spent all our Saturday’s there, painting, sewing, scrubbing, hammering. I was only a child, but have tremendous memories of that building and that time.

It was so beautiful, and many facets of my testimony were shaped by watching my parents take tender care over its restoration, side by side with their brothers and sisters in the gospel.

I know we don’t do those kinds of things anymore, but it was a rich experience, and I miss worshiping in that beautiful place.
Harlene
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:14 am

I concur.
Michelle in AR
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:14 am

I just reread my comment, and I sound totally patronizing in that first sentence. I’m sorry! Should have left it out. . . .
Note to self: edit before publishing. edit before publishing. edit before publishing.
wendy
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:52 am

I’m probably going to sound annoying in some fashion with this post, but here goes anyway–and please forgive in advance for anything that sounds self-righteous, condescending or preachy.

As much as I enjoy stained glass and fine-twined linen, I prefer that our church buildings are simple . . . and I don’t mind the carpet on the walls because we’ve got some loud babies in our ward (ours included).

I honestly would feel bad if more money were spent to make more elaborate chapels, considering how much need there is in the world. It would bother me enough that my reverence would be disrupted, in spite of the extra beauty. I have noticed some of our churches being a little fancier than others and wondered why the extra expense? Is it because it’s a richer area or an area with connections? And I admit, I even got a little ruffled that the Joseph Smith Memorial Building was so elaborately restored back when it was just re-opened.

When I was a toddler, we lived in a ward that met in a house. In elementary school, our neighbor’s church met in “the grange.” On my mission, we served in a branch that met in a double-wide. There are so many buildings that are, in the world’s eyes, “less” than the typical LDS church building. We are greatly blessed to have such nice buildings.
Tiffany W.
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:02 am

I know I often preface my comments with “when I lived in Sweden”. Sorry, but it really shaped my experiences. So hear goes, when I lived in Sweden, I visited many beautiful churches. The town I lived in boasted a gorgeous cathedral that was very unique and elaborate. I visited that cathedral often, marvelled at the art work, listened to beautiful organ concerts, etc. But that building remained empty of worshippers virtually every Sunday. Sure, tourists visited it in vast numbers. But that’s all it was, a beautiful place to marvel at the artwork and architecture. The whole purpose of the building had been lost because the faith of the people had dwindled. In contrast, I attended church every Sunday at a very simple chapel, where the woodwork was the most beautiful thing about it. Clean, simple, elegant lines characterized the architecture. Yet, the building was bursting with people every Sunday, taking the sacrament, worshipping together, and feeling the spirit. The contrast has always been a profound one for me. We didn’t need the artwork or amazing architecture to have a spiritual experience. We needed the people more, serving and loving one another.

I, too, love beautiful artwork and architecture, but I’m not sure it is essential to sacred and spiritual experience.
PlainJane
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:08 am

If only we could have it both ways… Beautiful and thrifty. I, too, sometimes drive by other sweet little churches and admire their stained glass and uniqueness. But, since we are using tithing to pay for it, I suppose we have to be as money savvy as possible in building our churches. Plus, since so many of the buildings are similar, it isn’t hard to figure out where you should go when you visit another ward!
jendoop
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:30 am

There is a huge gulf between the quality of chapels in the US even. When we lived in CO we enjoyed a brand new multi-million dollar stake building with gorgeous artwork provided by donations from the members. Here in PA we have a ramshackle building that was constructed a piece at a time as the number of members grew. There are a few old pictures in the RS room, the photos of the first presidency are waterstained and sad because the ceiling keeps leaking over their heads. The primary kids fry and the RS sisters freeze. Don’t even get me started on the sick condition of the mother’s lounge.

It may be selfish, unrealistic or worldly but I want pretty back. It makes me sad to know that investigators walk into our building and see it’s sad ‘worldly’ appearance and have to get past that to see the real worth of our church.
Janet
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:36 am

I love cathedrals and stained glass and I have thought many of the same ideas you expressed.
Kerry
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:39 am

yeah, I’ve always wondered why the church population in general seems to be so unaware that our devotion to stark chapels has less to do with any doctrine (our temples are awesome, for example) and more to do with American protestant traditions established to differentiate from the papists.

a 1000-years-built temple would be beautiful. So here’s another vote to bring back the stained glass and papistry.
mormonhermitmom
December 9th, 2008 @ 11:57 am

I don’t mind the simple practicality of modern chapels, what I hate is the fact they are becoming McChapels. When my grandpa was a bishop, the ward members had to raise the money to build themselves. I think they constructed something practical, yet beautiful and unique. My other grandfather’s ward had a church (in Utah even) with a little stained glass and a huge portrait of Christ in Gethsamane behind the pulpit. I understand the need to keep away from suggestions of idolotry and worhipping the works of one’s hands. I understand the need to cut costs to provide chapels for as many members as possible. I just wish the local Saints could have more imput as to how their chapel looked so every chapels didn’t look like part of a franchise.
Michelle L.
December 9th, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

ooh, I love reading the comments here. keep em coming. Downtown Salt Lake also has some lovely buildings and I feel especially reverent when I attend those wards.
eljee
December 9th, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

I understand the issues of practicality and thrift, but I have to admit that being in a beautiful space moves me. I too wish there could be a touch more beauty. I’m an organist by profession, and I so wish that my own worship could be enhanced by the physical and aural awe of a good pipe organ rather (with an equally good organist) than an electronic fake. In my head I know everything people have said about being a worldwide church is correct, and in theory I agree. But my heart does long for beauty in architecture and in music. Carpet on the walls is great to muffle the sounds of children, but it not only does it look terrible, it also destroys the acoustics needed for a most sacred musical experience.
Katie
December 9th, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

In some sense, we can have it both ways. Our buildings are what they are, but we ‘re not banned from appreciating great (or quaint) architecture, stained glass, beautiful acoustics. Other churches welcome visitors, hold free concerts, give tours. Just because we’re mormons, doesn’t mean we can take part in those things, and feel the spirit too.
Liz C
December 9th, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

I do wish more room was left for individual touches and ward participation. Seeing the personal sacrifices in some of the older buildings is inspiring to me. Utility and frugality need not mean stark and office-like! My husband is not LDS, and really struggles with the generic “Build-a-Ward” plans, though I understand why the streamlined nature is important, worldwide.
cheryl
December 9th, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

If I went to Church in a huge Cathedral, I think I would be more focused on the stained glass then on what the teacher was saying. This is why my mind wanders more in the Temple.

There are good reasons as to why our chapels are plain in comparison, and they’ve been spoken of here. You know, things like: worldwide church, several churches being built at the same time all over the world, using the money for Temples and Humanitarian aid instead, a real life example of being Humble, etc. Sure, I like a pretty church, who doesn’t? But honestly, if someone is basing their testimony or decision to get baptized because the church looks a certain way (hey, isn’t it clean?), then that’s just…well…sad. Yeah. Sad.

As far as the McChapel? What is it we say about how no matter where we go in the world, the Gospel is the same? It feels the same? Why is that suddenly wrong when it comes to similar buildings? Makes sense to me…
Claudia
December 9th, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

In our area many of our buildings have been decorated with art works that hadn’t been there before. Flowers have sprung up where members are willing to take the time to cultivate and care for them. I also lived in a stake where the congregation raised the money for a pipe organ.

I’ve been inside the protestant church in Colonial Williamsburg and visited the Shaker village in Kentucky as well as the oldest Church in Middle Europe. They were/are all utilitarian and plain.

I have also been in modern protestant churches and cathedrals. Cathedrals are something special. Church meeting houses aren’t. One thing I am sure of though is our churches are not the only ones that are plain and utilitarian.

On the other hand I too lived in a ward where the members provided the labor to build a new building. I helped nail down the roof. It was a great experience. Building codes etc. make that pretty much impossible anymore.
Leslie R
December 9th, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

One of my favorite places to attend church is on the top floor of Jackson Lake Lodge in Jackson, Wyoming. It is a small branch, but after a week of hiking and camping it gives drink to the soul. I’m a little uneasy when we first arrive in our dressed-down apparel, but we are present and ready to partake of the sacrament.

My girls often wonder if it is okay to dress so casually, and I remind my girls that we are the vessels. We are the vessels who carry the spirit of Jesus Christ no matter what the building. My favorite part of any sacrament meeting is watching them partake of the sacrament, and at Jackson their hands are usually earth-stained from a week of building fires and playing in the dirt. My hope is that they realize it’s about the patterns in our hearts not about those in the windows.

I’ve stood in cathedrals in Italy, Paris, New York, and by far, Jackson Lake Lodge on a Sunday afternoon offers just as much sunlight through the panels of my heart than anywhere on earth. We are the vessels.
Melissa
December 9th, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

I think one of the reasons the members now clean the buildings is to help reinstate the sense of ownership that used to come when the members built the buildings themselves. The times our family has cleaned have helped all of us appreciate what we have and recognize our responsibility to care for it.

There are times when we can improve what’s there (though maybe we have to get permission?). Years ago I attended church in an old building with a dilapidated nursing room in the basement. One week when I went down to feed my baby, I found that someone had hung a cute shelf on the wall with a picture of the Savior on it and a wreath of flowers. There was also some much-needed air freshener. These simple efforts not only helped improve the room, they inspired me because of the love and concern someone had showed both for the building and the mothers who used that room.

Thank heaven for beautiful temples and old churches.
mmiles
December 9th, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

Great post. I agree. I wish, wish, wish we had a few stained glass windows with beautiful colors and scriptoral scenes, or some Bloch.
I have to say, people who are asking for thrift forget we have huge gymnasiums. That is hardly thrifty.
Shawn Cannon
December 9th, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

I just wish that the church would take over some of those Catholic buildings that have had to be sold because of—dare I say it—-dwindling churchgoers after the whole “priest and children thing”. The church that I attend in New England is one of the ugliest around, to my mind, and yet you have some of the prettiest New England looking churches here in Utah…from the outside anyway. I’ve never understood that. Of course, when my church building was built, they were just glad that they didn’t have to drive an hour to get to Boston to go to church—so I guess its relative.
But, yeah, I love beautiful churches—they make you feel serene and well…kind of in awe…
elizabeth-w
December 9th, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

“Why is all the gorgeousness lavished on the temples…”
This part made me laugh.
I just took out my endowments two weeks ago. My mother was sad (just a teensy bit) that it had to take place in our local temple. Let’s say it’s about as fancy as my chapel (and my local chapel is just about as cookie cutter as you can get). She planned a trip to Utah this past weekend just so I could go to the SLC temple–to see what a real temple looks like. She was doing it to be nice, to let me enjoy a live session. But, I have to say I felt more like a tourist than anything–it was hard to pay attention when I’m gawking at the ceilings.
So, now I’m back to my local temple. While there are no murals of lions attacking each other, or other ancient symbols adorning the walls, I don’t feel bad about it. It’s less of a distraction. Maybe after 20 years of temple attendance I’ll be ready for a distraction, but right now, I need to focus.
Maybe our chapels give us room to focus? I don’t know.
Diane
December 9th, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

I think our chapels cover the practical and provident living side of the gospel! I just wish ‘the committee’ would present a few more design packages to choose from and less floral couches!
Amanda
December 9th, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

I was thinking about this topic while I was reading about the pride of the hearts of the people of God in the Book of Mormon. How they began the pride cycle over and began to put too much thought into their meetinghouses. I thought… “Am I like that?” I began thinking all the while how I used to be annoyed by the walls in our building and then I thought how I ought to be grateful to have a place to meet. I have felt the spirit at church without the loveliest surroundings. Surroundings had nothing to do with it.
CatherineWO
December 10th, 2008 @ 12:56 am

I like beautiful churches too, but I am content to have the main architectural beauty in our temples instead of our meetinghouses. The thing I struggle with most in our own building is that the chapel has no windows. It’s very dark and depressing.
m&m
December 10th, 2008 @ 2:40 am

While I understand the underlying feelings of the post, I love the fact that decisions seem to be made in this regard that want to give the most people the most possible worldwide in the church.

Besides, I’m like others who talk about the predicable practicalness of our churches. Cathedrals are beautiful, but often echoey, and feel more cold and distant to me in a lot of ways.

I suppose no matter what stage of the Church’s growth we end up finding ourselves in, there are gives and takes. Earlier folks may have had the opportunity to pay for and build their churches, or to buy old buildings because that was easier, more economical, whatever. But now most of the world has a temple within a reasonable distance. And the Church has predictable building plans that streamline the work, cost, and time for buildings. I think that has its own excitement — that we are at a point in our growth when the custom approaches don’t work so much anymore for buildings. Rather than focus so much on the buildings, we are focusing on filling them and doing more temple work and building an infrastructure for growth and events yet unknown.

Cool.
sar
December 10th, 2008 @ 8:35 am

Utilitarian doesn’t have to be ugly. I’d love to attend in a bauhaus building.
daisy
December 10th, 2008 @ 10:54 am

I got to go to Portugal last year, with my husband who went there on his mission. We went to three very different church buildings. The one that stuck out in my mind the most though was where a small branch congregated. It looked like a warehouse from the outside. It looked like one because it actually was one. And the only thing that distinguished it from the surrounding buildings was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sign posted next to the door. I was shocked when I first saw it. The members went to church here? But once inside I found it breathtaking. Why? The appearance was actually quite plain, it was freezing inside, and the lighting was minimal. Why did I find it so beautiful then? It was because of the people. Here was a group of latter-day saints coming together to worship every Sunday. I did not speak the language but I could feel the spirit that was there and it was strong. This was a place where I could truly worship.
mormonhermitmom
December 10th, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

Mea Culpa. Maybe the “McChapel” comment went too far. It stems from going to Utah this last summer. We were in Washington County where I saw TWO of the “standard” chapels right next to each other, side by side. One faced west, the other faced east. Talk about a double take! There had been only one there when I last visited that area. It was a jaw dropper for me.
Jennie
December 10th, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

Mormonheritmom-My husband read the “McChapel” comment and just about died laughing. It’s too true.
justine
December 10th, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

daisy, many years ago, we met for church in the basement of a department store, surrounded by extra junk from the store. It was still a lovely place. I’m with you.
ali
December 10th, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

Apparently the ward i have just moved out of used to meet in a hall where they had to clean up beer bottles and cigarettes from whatever party was held there the night before, so i think they’re all pretty glad they have a chapel, even if it is plain
Leslie
December 10th, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

Amen! My mom said the first time she went to and LDS church it felt like an auditorum.
Arianne
December 12th, 2008 @ 11:44 am

Oh, I SO agree with you, Jennie! Functional CAN be beautiful. It doesn’t have to be downright UGLY, which I think most of our modern day chapels are. I also agree with the practicality of being able to build more churches, pay for more missionaries, build more temples, etc, etc. when we are more thrifty with our chapels. BUT, can’t there be a happy medium? A bit more attention to beauty, just a bit? Less rust colored floors, more stained glass, less flourescent lighting, more chandeliers, less golden oak and more cherry? I know from my time in Europe that when many of the great cathedrals were being built that the poor members often worked for years to build their churches, willingly and gladly giving up time and money to enjoy the beauty of a building that was a token of their love and appreciation for and their desire to worhip God. Can’t we be the same? Can’t we give a bit more money and time to build something inspiring and beautiful, a place worthy of the Lord’s attendance? I am so inspired when I’m in some of the older chapels that have even a tiny bit more attention paid to aesthetics, and also when I am in the temples. Surely there is something wonderful and good about worshipping in a place of beauty.
m&m
December 13th, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

As I read this, I also think about how in a sense, the more attention to ‘beauty’ goes to the temples. That is where we get chandeliers, and more detail, and higher-quality materials. And I think there is a reason for that. We aren’t like other churches in that regard — the highest and holiest of our worship is not in our Sunday meetinghouses, but in our temples. (And yet I know there are people who complain about those, too….)

I am never comfortable with the idea that our buildings are somehow unworthy of the Lord’s presence because they don’t meet some artistic standard or whatever.

It’s not that I don’t understand the sentiment about wishing for something more artistic, but to make that a requirement for worship to me misses something important.
wendy
December 13th, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

I really like your thoughts above, m&m. Very much.
Tiffany
December 14th, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

Forget the buildings. How about we make the PEOPLE that go there prettier? I mean, why not have some serious makeovers for some of these folks? The money we spent on helping people dress better will help spread the gospel to the people who go there. Maybe they’d be curious to see why all the beautiful people go to that plain building? Maybe they would want to be more like us. Then, we could focus on looking at the attractive speakers and teachers, and not be distracted by the ugly cinder block walls. (Old school chapels, pre-McChapel) When we read that the Savior had no earthly beauty that man would desire him, that was where the problem was? Isn’t it obvious? You’ve really missed the boat and focused on the wrong issue here. It’s the people that need makeovers, not the buildings…
Carina
December 15th, 2008 @ 3:13 am

Sar, I’d be so down with a Bauhaus building it’s not even funny. In fact, as I recall, there were a few modern-inspired chapels in Europe.

I’ve met in chapels that have run the entire gamut, from rented rooms above a store to a pioneer masterpiece. I think the one thing I wish would change is the current McChapel aspect. I love the chapels that are different from place to place–from the modest pink and coral chapel in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico to the stained glass wonder in downtown SLC. Making them all the same, while entirely understandable and even reasonable, hurts my soul a little.
Beth
December 23rd, 2008 @ 12:48 am

Jennie,

I have missed you, your beautiful family & your total honesty which used to crack me up and still makes smile a whole lot:) RS isn’t the same without you!
We recieved your perfect matching outfit Christmas card and YES I wanted to know MORE:)
My Mister feels so much like you do….and he is even over that part of the Lord’s vineyard in 15 states!!! He would love for the chapel’s looks to be able to change. It is innate within him. It drives him insane sometimes what the local architects to to standard plans. The Local priesthood leaders picks the colors. The church is growing too fast to make luxury changes for regular buildings.
The temples are a different story though. I am going to let him know what you had to say about the San Antonio Temple as it is one of the 8 temples built so far which he designed! He was over Architectural Services for the Church during that time and during the building of the 100 temple push.
I have heard San Antonio Temple is beautiful and someday I would like to see go through it if we could ever go somewhere on vacation other than to Virginia to see our family. Youngest will graduate from dental school in May and our oldest in two more years. We are going back there twice a year right now to see our grandchildren.
Mister has Texas and was in your neck of the woods two just weeks ago. He really should drop by for some of ‘Jennie’s delectables’! See you are missed…

I blog using my great grandmother’s name and so you possibly won’t recognize who I am unless you come take a look!