New meeting house renovations with the idea of focusing on Christ.

[Tacenda]

Listening to this YouTube and it's not coming from the church but this guy, hopefully he's more pro LDS than not, and I will be okay with sharing. 

I just wondered about your thoughts if what he says is true. I think it would be nice to make our chapels really nice, somewhat like temples. But of course, the beautiful temples make one want to go inside them. So maybe a good step? Would nicer churches help people attend, plus the physical focus on Christ. Of course in the hallways and the foyers and RS/PH/Primary rooms have pictures of Christ. 

I haven't finished the video and am impatient to post. Hope I haven't misled anyone because of misinformation. 

 

[bluebell]

I’ve seen the same idea shared on the LDS Daily facebook page but couldn’t find anything official to back it up.

Im all for changing chapels to make them feel more worshipful and with the ordinance of the sacrament being the focus rather than the speaker. I’m doubtful of this announcement mostly because it seems like it would take decades to get all the chapels done and some areas would get the shaft, endlessly waiting, while others (Utah) would get it quicker.

My stake center right now is typical of those built in that era. The chapel has no windows, is different shades of brown and orange, and has burlap-type stuff on the walls. It’s utilitarian and not at all inspirational.  I can’t even see the sacrament table from our side of the chapel. 

[Calm]

Someone suggested this may be the root of the speculation:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/leadership-instruction-october-2023/summary-how-meetinghouses?lang=eng

“

We have been commanded to gather together often to remember Jesus and strengthen each other in Him:

“I give unto you … a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:74).

Meetinghouses provide opportunities for receiving ordinances, teaching and ministering one to another (see 3 Nephi 26:19; Moroni 6:5–6), and welcoming friends. They serve multiple functions:

• Worship and ordinances

• Teaching

• Activities

• Administration

Ongoing efforts are making meetinghouses more Christ centered and inviting. Some of these efforts include:

• Adapting to local culture and environment.

• Choosing meetinghouse art that is Christ centered and inclusive.

• Incorporating policy adjustments in the General Handbook for use of meetinghouses outside of Sunday meetings.

We are considering opportunities to improve the focus on the Savior and ordinances and provide a more joyful experience for members and friends. These opportunities include:

• Flexible and adapted designs for new construction.

• Adjustments to existing buildings.”

Someone else described this YouTuber as the LDS version of the National Enquirer, so accuracy is unlikely to be high if so.  

Edited September 3 by Calm

[Duncan]

I think its the Aberdeen Scotland Stake centre that has a wheelchair ramp right underneath the pulpit so if they build a sacrament table there they'd somehow have to move the ramp. I don't know why it was built like that

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

hopefully he's more pro LDS than not, and I will be okay with sharing. 

Seth is very pro-LDS. He does do quite a bit of reading between the lines though.

[smac97]

On 9/3/2026 at 11:52 AM, Tacenda said:

Listening to this YouTube and it's not coming from the church but this guy, hopefully he's more pro LDS than not, and I will be okay with sharing. 

I just wondered about your thoughts if what he says is true. I think it would be nice to make our chapels really nice, somewhat like temples. But of course, the beautiful temples make one want to go inside them. So maybe a good step? Would nicer churches help people attend, plus the physical focus on Christ. Of course in the hallways and the foyers and RS/PH/Primary rooms have pictures of Christ. 

I haven't finished the video and am impatient to post. Hope I haven't misled anyone because of misinformation. 

 

Our bishop announced last week that our building (in Provo) is shutting down in 2027 for substantial modification.  Apart from the boiler, which acts up now and then, the building is apparently in good repair, so a major shutdown to fix something may be less likely.  So I wonder if our building is one of the 17 to be retrofitted (assuming this report is accurate).

Our building hosts a multi-stake genealogy center (not really used much these days, I think), but otherwise it is a fairly standard late-60s/early-70s building.

One interesting note: The old-timers in the ward said that the building was built using, at least in part, funds raised by the ward.  The ward members collectively purchased three lots just down the street, purchased materials and built three houses, and then sold them.  The proceeds went to the construction of the building.

Here's the building: 

https://local.churchofjesuschrist.org/en/us/ut/provo/1120-n-850-w-st

Also, see this part of the above website for this building:

"Christian Church in Provo."

Kinda odd that a church with "Jesus Christ" in its name nevertheless feels obligated to identify itself as a "Christian Church."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4 by smac97

[Tony uk]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our bishop announced last week that our building (in Provo) is shutting down in 2027 for substantial modification.  Apart from the boiler, which acts up now and then, the building is apparently in good repair, so a major shutdown to fix something may be less likely.  So I wonder if our building is one of the 17 to be retrofitted (assuming this report is accurate).

Our building hosts a multi-stake genealogy center (not really used much these days, I think), but otherwise it is a fairly standard late-60s/early-70s building.

One interesting note: The old-timers in the ward said that the building was built using, at least in part, funds raised by the ward.  The ward members collectively purchased three lots just down the street, purchased materials and built three houses, and then sold them.  The proceeds went to the construction of the building.

Here's the building: 

https://local.churchofjesuschrist.org/en/us/ut/provo/1120-n-850-w-st

Thanks,

-Smac

The building, and area looks a very peaceful place. Have to admit I am almost envious. Hope the repairs needed are resolved.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

The building, and area looks a very peaceful place. Have to admit I am almost envious.

Yes, it's a lovely setting.  But still, this is hIgh praise from someone living near the Lake District!  My wife is a huge fan of Beatrix Potter, and would really like to visit there.  She watches "Miss Potter" at least twice a year, and reads the books.  We have a photo of Beatrix in her writing corner in our basement (alongside photos of Helen Keller and Laura Ingalls).

11 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

Hope the repairs needed are resolved.

Not sure if the work will be "repairs" or retrofitting/upgrade/modification sorts of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4 by smac97

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our bishop announced last week that our building (in Provo) is shutting down in 2027 for substantial modification.  Apart from the boiler, which acts up now and then, the building is apparently in good repair, so a major shutdown to fix something may be less likely.  So I wonder if our building is one of the 17 to be retrofitted (assuming this report is accurate).

Our building hosts a multi-stake genealogy center (not really used much these days, I think), but otherwise it is a fairly standard late-60s/early-70s building.

One interesting note: The old-timers in the ward said that the building was built using, at least in part, funds raised by the ward.  The ward members collectively purchased three lots just down the street, purchased materials and built three houses, and then sold them.  The proceeds went to the construction of the building.

Here's the building: 

https://local.churchofjesuschrist.org/en/us/ut/provo/1120-n-850-w-st

Also, see this part of the above website for this building:

"Christian Church in Provo."

Kinda odd that a church with "Jesus Christ" in its name nevertheless feels obligated to identify itself as a "Christian Church."

Thanks,

-Smac

Any remote chance you know or knew the Lundquists (Molens were the in-laws they were living with)? Uncle who lived near that church, I think my cousin lives there now, but ever since my mom and uncle died, contact has been minimal….which is too bad, because that was the family I was closest to in my extended family.   I can’t remember what church building they were assigned to when I hung out a lot over there (college years).  One of my cousins was my son’s age.  They were so cute together as wee ones.

Edited September 4 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Any remote chance you know or knew the Lundquists (Molens were the in-laws they were living with)? Uncle who lived near that church, I think my cousin lives there now, but ever since my mom and uncle died, contact has been minimal….which is too bad, because that was the family I was closest to).  I can’t remember what church building they were assigned to when I hung out a lot over there (college years).  One of my cousins was my son’s age.  They were so cute together as wee ones.

The names don't ring a bell, ward-wise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

The names don't ring a bell, ward-wise.

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s Utah Valley, it was a long shot even if not that far from the church (1/2 mile to the southwest)

Edited September 5 by Calm

[Tony uk]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it's a lovely setting.  But still, this is hIgh praise from someone living near the Lake District!  My wife is a huge fan of Beatrix Potter, and would really like to visit there.  She watches "Miss Potter" at least twice a year, and reads the books.  We have a photo of Beatrix in her writing corner in our basement (alongside photos of Helen Keller and Laura Ingalls).

Not sure if the work will be "repairs" or retrofitting/upgrade/modification sorts of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Lake District is definitely a great place, especially when the weather is good. The town of Kendal, seems to be the main starting point for visitors.

[mbh26]

On 9/3/2026 at 9:35 PM, Duncan said:

I think its the Aberdeen Scotland Stake centre that has a wheelchair ramp right underneath the pulpit so if they build a sacrament table there they'd somehow have to move the ramp. I don't know why it was built like that

So they don't get fined by the government for failure to provide access to wheelchairs?  

[Navidad]

I am certainly more pro-LDS than not. I would simply like to offer my thought. Putting statues, paintings, or mentions of Christ in the buildings and literature would not be nearly as effective, (in my opinion—nothing more) until the Church itself emphasizes Christ more than it emphasizes itself. I think I hear more about "the Church is" than I do about "Christ is." Of course, I say that from the place that my primary spiritual identity is as a Christian first and foremost. My Evangelical identity is a distant second and describes (when accurately understood) the branch of Christianity to which I belong. A distant third is my affiliation (membership) within Christianity, which most recently has been Mennonite.

Ok, and while I am in trouble, I would suggest that the beauty of a temple would never create within me more of a desire to worship there, than would a simple building. I guess that is my country and Mennonite roots. My guess is that Christ would have been more comfortable in the latter than the former.  I submit that in the same spirit that I recommend the missionaries get better training in missiology before hitting the road. I want the LDS Church to draw people to Christ, not to itself. I would love for the LDS Church to better minister to people based on the truths of their lives, not based on the truth, however unique or not, of the organization.

In our village there is a massive gap between the spiritual need and the spiritual thirst. No one is filling that gap (not any church, at least). Our new village priest came to visit us last week, but like the LDS missionaries, he didn't ask a single question about us or the truths we are living with right now. He pretty much got right into his truth . . . . They need new pews to make the sanctuary more comfortable. Our needs? Not so much. 

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have any comment, really, about retrofitting chapels, or what might be needed to do so.  Personally, if I'm not in the right headspace, my exterior surroundings cannot do anything for me to put me in a more worshipful mood.  I rather suspect that some of the most meaningful worship has been done in foxholes, or in grass huts, or in other, similar "facilities."  

Could our worship spaces be improved?  Perhaps.  But it does seem as though Latter-day Saints can't win.  On one hand, our chapels aren't ornate enough.  On the other hand, why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints blow such massive "fat $tax of ca$h" [my term, obviously] on Temples rather than feeding the poor?  (I say that when it comes to building Temples and ministering to the temporal needs of the poor, the Church of Jesus Christ can "walk and chew gum at the same time," but ... that's another subject for another day.)

This does seem like a very first-world problem to me.  For example, as humble as the Church "building" in the link below is, is it an improvement (and, in many cases, a vast improvement) over where these Saints worshipped previously?  I would say yes.  I think a healthy sense of perspective is in order.  [Note: I know someone posted previously on the "Meetinghouse Plus" project here, and I know I commented on that thread, but my efforts to find it have been unavailing.  Please pardon the duplication.]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2026/07/20/simple-meetinghouse-plus-project-remote-pacific-islands-light/

 

 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't have any comment, really, about retrofitting chapels, or what might be needed to do so.  Personally, if I'm not in the right headspace, my exterior surroundings cannot do anything for me to put me in a more worshipful mood.  I rather suspect that some of the most meaningful worship has been done in foxholes, or in grass huts, or in other, similar "facilities."  

Could our worship spaces be improved?  Perhaps.  But it does seem as though Latter-day Saints can't win.  On one hand, our chapels aren't ornate enough.  On the other hand, why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints blow such massive "fat $tax of ca$h" [my term, obviously] on Temples rather than feeding the poor?  (I say that when it comes to building Temples and ministering to the temporal needs of the poor, the Church of Jesus Christ can "walk and chew gum at the same time," but ... that's another subject for another day.)

This does seem like a very first-world problem to me.  For example, as humble as the Church "building" in the link below is, is it an improvement (and, in many cases, a vast improvement) over where these Saints worshipped previously?  I would say yes.  I think a healthy sense of perspective is in order.  [Note: I know someone posted previously on the "Meetinghouse Plus" project here, and I know I commented on that thread, but my efforts to find it have been unavailing.  Please pardon the duplication.]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2026/07/20/simple-meetinghouse-plus-project-remote-pacific-islands-light/

 

 

Those who are convinced that we are not doing things the “right“ way will often tell us we need to change and behave more like they behave and believe more like they believe.

We do the same. We are just honest enough to acknowledge it.  

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those who are convinced that we are not doing things the “right“ way will often tell us we need to change and behave more like they behave and believe more like they believe.

We do the same. We are just honest enough to acknowledge it.  

That is very well said. I had a friend who became rather well known for saying, "A true friend is one who offers you a different view of the world without making yours wrong." I really like that a lot. If I come across as offering my opinion/belief in order to make yours wrong, then I have failed my friend's test. That wasn't my intent. If your comment was in connection with my latest post, then I receive and accept the kind rebuke. I just hope that doesn't mean that I can no longer offer the same in the future. Please be assured that I will and have offered the same to any church or organization of every kind, just as I have done to organizations all my life. It is how I earned my living. Having said that, I don't want to be in denial because I have blind spots. @bluebell thanks for your comment whether it was offered to me, or not. You have made me think as you so often do. I appreciate that. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Those who are convinced that we are not doing things the “right“ way will often tell us we need to change and behave more like they behave and believe more like they believe.

We do the same. We are just honest enough to acknowledge it.  

Maybe my church's best days were underground (the catacombs of Rome). Today we can still see the primitive images of biblical stories painted on the walls. Thank God for our fathers and their best efforts under their circumstances. But when we could freely come out, it would have been unreasonable for my fathers to argue for continuing to worship in a truly dreadful and undesirable setting. 

Skeletons and skulls in the dark with a candle and Jesus where we gather, can be wonderful when persecuted. But when we can, the truths of the faith of the catacombs has inspired beautiful human art and architecture which in a different culture is an aid to worship too. Thank God for my later fathers who recognized that the Church adapts to every circumstance, and especially with our best efforts to honor and glorify the One that we worship.

Edited September 6 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Thank God for our fathers and their best efforts under their circumstances. But when we could freely come out, it would have been unreasonable for my fathers to argue for continuing to worship in a truly dreadful and undesirable setting. 

changed my mind

Edited September 6 by Navidad

[3DOP]

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

A truly dreadful and undesirable setting is quite a leap back in time, is it not?

In terms of the life of the Church, not at all! Less than two millenia.

I tried to emphasize that dreadful settings, necessarily endured with our Lord are wonderful. You might have missed my edit?

The importance has to do with necessity. When it became unnecessary to celebrate our faith in ancient tombs, it seemed to be inoffensive and even pleasing to God if we should celebrate in a more congenial atmosphere. 

I am saying that it might be good if none of God's people assume that a particular of worship, imposed by particular circumstances should be thought to be normative for all times and places.

I was giving an approval, for what my approval is worth, if the Latter-day Saints are being led towards a worship space that welcomed a more visual experience of God as well as the auditory. 

I am not forgetting that "faith that cometh by hearing". But I am thinking that all of our senses can come into play in our worship. 

 

PS: I see you changed your mind about posting. That's fair. I did not take your remark in an adversarial way. I hope that my reply clarifies my thoughts in a way that you and our LDS friends find to be reasonable.

 

Edited September 6 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

PS: I see you changed your mind about posting. That's fair. I did not take your remark in an adversarial way. I hope that my reply clarifies my thoughts in a way that you and our LDS friends find to be reasonable.

I posted within minutes of your non-edited post. I did not see the part about the catacombs. I assumed you were talking about unadorned simple Catholic churches where the mass either could or would not be as meaningfully experienced as in Notre Dame. I reacted, because my little community has two very non-adorned Catholic churches. They also have no heat or air-conditioning. So they are quite uncomfortable for the parishioners. Ditto for the Pentecostal Assembly of God church in our village. But I would not call them dreadful and undesirable settings. I thought you were doing so.

Then, I left the room for a few minutes and came back and deleted my post (still not having seen the catacombs part). I just decided that my one post today was one too many, so I deleted my second one. My truth about today is that my wife and I both are having very bad health days today. I regret it when I am not up to taking the very best care of her. I was worried that truth was eeking out into my posts. That in and of itself might be a dreadful and undesirable thing. Best, Navidad

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

regret it when I am not up to taking the very best care of her.

That is the hardest part of my health issues for me.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't have any comment, really, about retrofitting chapels, or what might be needed to do so.  Personally, if I'm not in the right headspace, my exterior surroundings cannot do anything for me to put me in a more worshipful mood.  I rather suspect that some of the most meaningful worship has been done in foxholes, or in grass huts, or in other, similar "facilities."  

 I get this idea and I somewhat agree with it and personally think that one can have meaningfull worship on a noisy, crowded bus too, but if the decorations, the music, the sounds, the design don't help people be in the right headspace why does anyone have them at all? It's because it helps those who are willing to try to get in the right space get there. 

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Could our worship spaces be improved?  Perhaps.  But it does seem as though Latter-day Saints can't win.  On one hand, our chapels aren't ornate enough.  On the other hand, why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints blow such massive "fat $tax of ca$h" [my term, obviously] on Temples rather than feeding the poor? 

I think what is wanted in chapels by those who complain is a change of focus. It wasn't all that long ago that the church said the hallways and foyers should have pictures that focus on Christ, yet the room where he is worshipped in a meeting house has no pictures/statues of Christ. So are most of those who are complaining they are not ornate enough really meaning they are not fancy enough or do they just mean the chapels themselves don't remind them of Christ?

 

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

(I say that when it comes to building Temples and ministering to the temporal needs of the poor, the Church of Jesus Christ can "walk and chew gum at the same time," but ... that's another subject for another day.)

This does seem like a very first-world problem to me.  For example, as humble as the Church "building" in the link below is, is it an improvement (and, in many cases, a vast improvement) over where these Saints worshipped previously?  I would say yes.  I think a healthy sense of perspective is in order.  [Note: I know someone posted previously on the "Meetinghouse Plus" project here, and I know I commented on that thread, but my efforts to find it have been unavailing.  Please pardon the duplication.]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2026/07/20/simple-meetinghouse-plus-project-remote-pacific-islands-light/

 

 

 

Edited September 6 by Rain

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I posted within minutes of your non-edited post. I did not see the part about the catacombs. I assumed you were talking about unadorned simple Catholic churches where the mass either could or would not be as meaningfully experienced as in Notre Dame. I reacted, because my little community has two very non-adorned Catholic churches. They also have no heat or air-conditioning. So they are quite uncomfortable for the parishioners. Ditto for the Pentecostal Assembly of God church in our village. But I would not call them dreadful and undesirable settings. I thought you were doing so.

Then, I left the room for a few minutes and came back and deleted my post (still not having seen the catacombs part). I just decided that my one post today was one too many, so I deleted my second one. My truth about today is that my wife and I both are having very bad health days today. I regret it when I am not up to taking the very best care of her. I was worried that truth was eeking out into my posts. That in and of itself might be a dreadful and undesirable thing. Best, Navidad

Best to you too, Navidad.

God brings good out of bad, out of weakness. I hope you and Mrs. Navi the best. God knows what that is for each individually. Its a tough life for most. Keep on. We are getting towards the end. Keep on. We still have maybe greater strength than ever we have known, when we are frail in body. 

God love you and Mrs. Navidad.

 

[smac97]

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

I am certainly more pro-LDS than not. I would simply like to offer my thought. Putting statues, paintings, or mentions of Christ in the buildings and literature would not be nearly as effective, (in my opinion—nothing more) until the Church itself emphasizes Christ more than it emphasizes itself.

This is an interesting perspective.  I would like to better understand it.  Back in July there was a By Common Consent article the critiqued the Church in quite the other direction:

Hot Take: We Need to Avoid Christolatry

Quote

“Christolatry” is not a term used very often in the Church. So, let’s start with a definition. As with any ‘…olatry’ (as used in religious settings), the term generally signifies an imbalance in our worship of God; when we put something ‘in front’ of God (see here for an article in which I discuss a few different kinds of ‘…olatries’ that might pop up in the LDS context). Thus, from my seat, Christolatry, put as simply as possible, is when our worship practices place Jesus ‘in front’ of God; or said differently, when our worship of Jesus ‘replaces’ the actions to which God has called us (through Jesus).

Originally used by skeptics, Deists, and rationalists in the 19^th Century to attack orthodox Christians, in the 1970’s the term was incorporated into feminist theology as a way to highlight the problematic nature of using Jesus’s ‘maleness’ as a justification for patriarchal church systems. Then, in the 1980’s the (remarkable!) theologian Dorothee Soelle used the phrase to describe the replacement of the radical Gospel Jesus taught (which, as Jesus himself said, he received from God) with the ‘far away’ and  comfortable worship of Jesus as a divine ‘icon’:  Jesus as figure we revere but from the safety of the pews and behind the closed doors of our privilege.

Yet, as Soelle puts it, “The goal of the Christian religion is not the idolizing of Christ.”[1]  But that is it increasingly feels sometimes in Church.

Now let me pause for a second. I’m not suggesting that the Church shouldn’t recognize Jesus’s role; I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t talk about Jesus; and I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t preach or teach about Jesus. We are Christian, after all. What I am suggesting is that if our message is only Jesus, and when all of our worship is Jesus-centric, then the stark reality is this: our worship is imbalanced. And when our worship becomes imbalanced, we risk turning Jesus into a revered icon, a symbol of our belief. And when Jesus becomes an icon, a symbol, every interaction becomes an effort to out-Jesus the person next to you (to show who is the most reverential and most devout worshiper) and that icon starts to reflect who we are and is no longer a message pushing us to become something new. One writer described it this way: with Christolatry “Christianity is reduced to a cult of personality that is little more than a reflection of the individualism and consumerism of capitalism.”[2]

I'm not sure either characterization (BCC suggesting we are focusing too much on Christ, your assessment that we are not giving Him sufficient focus) works.

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

I think I hear more about "the Church is" than I do about "Christ is." Of course, I say that from the place that my primary spiritual identity is as a Christian first and foremost. My Evangelical identity is a distant second and describes (when accurately understood) the branch of Christianity to which I belong. A distant third is my affiliation (membership) within Christianity, which most recently has been Mennonite.

I wonder if Latter-day Saints have something in common with Catholicism that is less apparent, or even mostly absent, from Protestant perspectives, namely, a visible, institutional "Church" that is part of their Christology.

For example, consider this CatholicAnswers article: 

Christ and His Church: It’s a Package Deal

The author, Hector Molina, argues you cannot take Jesus and leave the Church. They are one package.  Christ is the bridegroom; the Church is the bride (Eph. 5 / CCC 796). To love him while treating the Church as optional is like claiming to love a husband and despise his wife. Paul VI and Francis both reject “believing without belonging.” Cyprian’s line does the work: no Church as mother, no God as Father.  The Church, in this telling, is not a human club you can shop around. It is the communion God designed, the mother who gives faith. Rejecting her is rejecting him (“anyone who rejects you rejects me”).

The Latter-day Saints have their own similar, but still distinctive and separate, conceptualization of the Christ and "His Church."  

For us, Christ is the head of the Church. The restored Church is the body He authorized.  Not a second savior, and not a club one can skip in relation to the covenants He named.  Christ leads the Church (D&C 20; 107). D&C 1:30 calls it the “true and living church” because of keys and ordinances, not because only Latter-day Saints are loved. Baptism for the dead exists because they think people outside this pew can still be His.

Unlike the Catholic line (“no Church as mother, no God as Father”), Saints do not say you cannot have the Father unless you are on this roll. They do say baptism, endowment, and sealing—the order he restored—are done here, under living prophets. Faith in Jesus elsewhere is real; the wedding ordinances are not.  The Church can err. Handbooks change. The claim is revelation and priesthood, not a sinless institution fused to Christ.

Protestant Christianity is fairly eclectic and broad in what its constituent parts believe and why.  Protestants (broadly) believe that "the Church" is the company of those who belong to Christ by faith; it is not one earthly institution you must join to have Him.  The decisive bond is justification by faith, not a roster or a priesthood line. “The Church” in the creedal sense is often the invisible church: all true believers, known fully only to God. Visible congregations, denominations, and buildings are real and useful; they are not the same thing as Christ’s body in the Catholic or Latter-day Saint sense.

There is generally no single restored (Latter-day Saint) or Petrine (Catholic) office that holds the keys for the whole world. Authority sits in Scripture, then in local pastors and members (the priesthood of all believers). Sacraments/ordinances matter, but their number, meaning, and necessity vary (Lutheran and Anglican vs. Baptist vs. nondenominational).

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

Ok, and while I am in trouble, I would suggest that the beauty of a temple would never create within me more of a desire to worship there, than would a simple building.

Our everyday church buildings are fairly modestly appointed.  More functional than ornate.  Temples, for us, fulfill a different need.

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

I guess that is my country and Mennonite roots. My guess is that Christ would have been more comfortable in the latter than the former. 

I think He would be comfortable in both places.  He spent much time with regular people, but He also taught in the temple (Luke 21:37-38).

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

I submit that in the same spirit that I recommend the missionaries get better training in missiology before hitting the road. I want the LDS Church to draw people to Christ, not to itself.  I would love for the LDS Church to better minister to people based on the truths of their lives, not based on the truth, however unique or not, of the organization.

I think the distinction you draw here is different to reconcile with what we believe to be the Church's role and mandate.

I want the missionaries—and the rest of us—to bring people to Christ. If the Church is only collecting names for itself, that is a failure of discipleship, not a triumph of organization.

The part I cannot grant is the split you are drawing: Christ over here, the Church over there as a brand. In our own account they are not rivals. The restored Church is supposed to be the means he named—ordinances, covenants, a people—not a second object of worship. Drawing someone “to the Church” in that sense is supposed to be drawing them into his order, not into a logo.

“Minister from the truths of their lives” is quite right as pastoral posture. Start where they hurt, what they already know of God, the good they already have. Missiology that leads with “our franchise is unique” is often tin-eared. Agreed.

“Minister not based on the truth of the organization” is, however, a different sentence. If the Restoration claims are false, then yes: stop centering the institution. If they are true, then the unique elements of its mandates - priesthood keys, living prophets, open canon, continuing revelation, the covenant path - are not a marketing overlay on Jesus. They are how we think He has told us to come to Him. 

So yes, better training in listening is a good idea.  To the extent this is an issue, less "corporate self-reference" and more emphasis on Christ as "the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2).  Actually, I think the Church has already been working on this for quite a while.  We think the Bridegroom sent us to a particular house. The job is to make that house about Him, not to pretend the house was our idea.  And we maintain and make the house His by serving each other.

On 9/6/2026 at 5:13 AM, Navidad said:

In our village there is a massive gap between the spiritual need and the spiritual thirst. No one is filling that gap (not any church, at least). Our new village priest came to visit us last week, but like the LDS missionaries, he didn't ask a single question about us or the truths we are living with right now. He pretty much got right into his truth . . . . They need new pews to make the sanctuary more comfortable. Our needs? Not so much. 

What sort of "spiritual need{s}" do you think are being unmet, and how would you envision missionaries meeting those needs?

I appreciate your input here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 7 by smac97