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

[bluebell]

On 9/6/2026 at 4:47 PM, Rain said:

 

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?

 

 

Exactly.  

[Navidad]

On 9/7/2026 at 2:29 PM, smac97 said:

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

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.

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).

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

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).

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.

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

I am not sure how to answer the various points or questions you raise. I am not adept at doing that with such a long and intricate post. I do not offer my perspective to make or suggest yours is wrong. I simply, as a colleague on this forum, offer you a different view on certain things. I would ask you to receive them; not necessarily to accept them. There is a significant difference. Those of us who have grown up in a church are pretty much all conditioned by that experience. It becomes part, perhaps a large part of our faith. I believe the more any of us turn away from that conditioning, the closer we can draw to the truth, at least our personal truth. 

I do not reject thee Church of gathered believers world-wide, inclusive of the LDS. I do think it unwise to equate or engage the doctrine of ecclesiology as being on the same theological level or importance as the doctrine of Christ. No organization died for our sins or by its virtue or efficacy grants redemption to humans. There is no salvation in any organization, only in a person. That person is Christ. If any authority is given to an individual, it is still Christ's authority, not the individual's. Kierkegaard, a contemporary of Joseph Smith once said, "The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever.” I really like that, but it might sound very strange to my LDS friend's ears. 

Your remarks about the Protestants are great. I would offer one difference. You use the word creedal - "In the creedal sense". . . . . I would suggest eliminating the word creedal if you are going to describe us. The majority of Protestant Christians are not creedal in any sense of the word. In fact, we reject creeds. Many of my LDS friends are conditioned to see all or most non-LDS Protestant Christians as creedal. I would simply propose that is an error in perspective. Not that a word makes much difference, but "creed" and "creedal" are often used in a pejorative sense by my LDS friends. It is a way to dismiss a belief once it is deemed creedal - going all the way back to the 1838 take on the First Vision. 

Physically constructed brick and mortar or stone and mortar temples for us serve no need. They may even be perceived as contrary to Biblical scripture. We take Hebrews very seriously. We take the priesthood of the believer very seriously. Of course we do not believe Christ's authority was granted to only one church. The onlyism of the LDS church is a big stumbling block for me. I cringe when I am told that that onlyism is nothing personal. It sure is. One of the men who assured me in our ward that my wife does not and could not possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit is now a higher-up in the CEC of the LDS Church. That (in my opinion) is problematic. Of course, a faithful member probably would not see it that way.  

Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there. 




 

Edited September 8 by Navidad
I deleted more than half of my reply. It was about missions and conditions here where I live. I still have friends here in the Church. I don't want to hurt those relationships.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The majority of Protestant Christians are not creedal in any sense of the word.

Most do not accept the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed?

Do you not define “Confessions of Faith” as creeds?  I don’t or I would have to define the Articles of Faith as a creed, I think***, but I remember one Protestant I discussed this with did view their church’s confession as their creed as well as saying they accepted the Nicene Creed.  Can’t remember their view on the Apostles’ Creed, but I remember discussions where declared Protestants did state they accepted both.  (Perhaps what you mean is it is not a requirement?)
 

How would you define “creed”?  As I understand it, it’s a formal statement of essential beliefs.  
 

***Some do see the AofF as a creed or creedish, so imo LDS need to get over our inclination to be pejorative about creeds in general and be more precise about why the Lord condemned creeds in the First Vision as reported by JS.

https://rsc.byu.edu/literature-belief/confessing-belief-thoughts-language-articles-faith

https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

Edited September 8 by Calm

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most do not accept the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed?

Do you not define “Confessions of Faith” as creeds?  I don’t or I would have to define the Articles of Faith as a creed, I think***, but I remember one Protestant I discussed this with did view their church’s confession as their creed as well as saying they accepted the Nicene Creed.  Can’t remember their view on the Apostles’ Creed, but I remember discussions where declared Protestants did state they accepted both.  (Perhaps what you mean is it is not a requirement?)
 

How would you define “creed”?  As I understand it, it’s a formal statement of essential beliefs.  
 

***Some do see the AofF as a creed or creedish, so imo LDS need to get over our inclination to be pejorative about creeds in general and be more precise about why the Lord condemned creeds in the First Vision as reported by JS.

https://rsc.byu.edu/literature-belief/confessing-belief-thoughts-language-articles-faith

https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

Hi @Calm: A creed is an official, normative confession of faith that articulates and defines the core doctrines of a religious body and serves as a standard for teaching, worship, and doctrinal identity. Therefore, it has to be an official, normative, confessional, and definitional statement of core doctrines of a religious body. Certainly there are groups, especially within the Mainstream branch of Protestant Christianity, that adhere to several creeds. However, the largest bodies of Protestant Christianity, the Evangelical and the Fundamentalist, as well as Pentecostals and almost all non-aligned Protestant groups, do not  adhere to such documents. I certainly don't. I might agree with most of what one says, but it is neither official, normative, confessional, nor definitional for me in any way.

The Nicene Creed requires belief in baptism as salvific, a method to achieve forgiveness of sins. I do not believe that. So it is neither normative, confessional, or definitional for me. I don't disagree with the points in the Apostles' Creed (depending on one's definition of a catholic church (small c, I believe). However, it also is neither normative, definitive, official, or confessional for me.

A Statement of Faith is just that. It claims none of the attributes of a creed. I have written down in threads on this forum over the years differing things I believe (statements of my faith). Listing them doesn't make them creedal because they don't meet the standards I mentioned above. Of course, others will perhaps have different definitions of creeds. OK. I have no problem with that. I have answered your question with my understanding and interpretation of a creed. Therefore, I stick to my statement that most Protestant Christians do not adhere to creeds. Some certainly do. I believe more don't. Take care, Navidad. 

Edited September 8 by Navidad

[Tacenda]

On 9/4/2026 at 2:27 PM, 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

Nice story about the sacrifice of the ward members to get their church building built, thanks for sharing and commenting. Hope your building turns out very nice and I'll be very interested if it's part of the subject of this topic.

[blackstrap]

Personally, I am not a fan of statues inside or outside of a chapel. It borders on bending the second commandment. Exodus 20:4-6: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of -__anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 

Then again there is that pesky AoF which says we allow folks to worship " how where and what they may "

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most do not accept the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed?

Do you not define “Confessions of Faith” as creeds?  I don’t or I would have to define the Articles of Faith as a creed, I think***, but I remember one Protestant I discussed this with did view their church’s confession as their creed as well as saying they accepted the Nicene Creed.  Can’t remember their view on the Apostles’ Creed, but I remember discussions where declared Protestants did state they accepted both.  (Perhaps what you mean is it is not a requirement?)
 

How would you define “creed”?  As I understand it, it’s a formal statement of essential beliefs.  
 

***Some do see the AofF as a creed or creedish, so imo LDS need to get over our inclination to be pejorative about creeds in general and be more precise about why the Lord condemned creeds in the First Vision as reported by JS.

https://rsc.byu.edu/literature-belief/confessing-belief-thoughts-language-articles-faith

https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

I haven’t personally spoken to a Protestant that didn’t claim to be creedal. But I don’t know how active they were in their own faith. Maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how to answer the various points or questions you raise. I am not adept at doing that with such a long and intricate post. I do not offer my perspective to make or suggest yours is wrong.

No worries.  I am overly verbose sometimes. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I simply, as a colleague on this forum, offer you a different view on certain things. I would ask you to receive them; not necessarily to accept them. There is a significant difference. Those of us who have grown up in a church are pretty much all conditioned by that experience. It becomes part, perhaps a large part of our faith. I believe the more any of us turn away from that conditioning, the closer we can draw to the truth, at least our personal truth. 

Understood.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I do not reject thee Church of gathered believers world-wide, inclusive of the LDS. I do think it unwise to equate or engage the doctrine of ecclesiology as being on the same theological level or importance as the doctrine of Christ. No organization died for our sins or by its virtue or efficacy grants redemption to humans. There is no salvation in any organization, only in a person. That person is Christ. 

I agree with this.  The Church does not "save" anyone.  Christ does.  We believe the Church, which He organized and heads, is there to facilitate ordinances and other components of discipleship in a communal sense.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your remarks about the Protestants are great. I would offer one difference. You use the word creedal - "In the creedal sense". . . . . I would suggest eliminating the word creedal if you are going to describe us. The majority of Protestant Christians are not creedal in any sense of the word. In fact, we reject creeds. Many of my LDS friends are conditioned to see all or most non-LDS Protestant Christians as creedal. I would simply propose that is an error in perspective. Not that a word makes much difference, but "creed" and "creedal" are often used in a pejorative sense by my LDS friends. It is a way to dismiss a belief once it is deemed creedal - going all the way back to the 1838 take on the First Vision.

I appreciate the clarification.  When we say “creedal Christianity,” we mean churches that treat the historic creeds—especially the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity—as the binding definition of God, and that treat the creed-making era as having closed the book on new public revelation.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Physically constructed brick and mortar or stone and mortar temples for us serve no need. They may even be perceived as contrary to Biblical scripture. We take Hebrews very seriously. We take the priesthood of the believer very seriously. Of course we do not believe Christ's authority was granted to only one church. The onlyism of the LDS church is a big stumbling block for me. I cringe when I am told that that onlyism is nothing personal. It sure is. One of the men who assured me in our ward that my wife does not and could not possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit is now a higher-up in the CEC of the LDS Church. That (in my opinion) is problematic. Of course, a faithful member probably would not see it that way.

Individual sanctimony/pride in gifts of the Spirit is antithetical to that Spirit.  I am sorry you have witnessed that in us.

I served my mission in Taiwan, where no small number of Christians and prospective converts balked at the "onlyism" of Jesus as the sole source of salvation.

There are elements in each of our faith traditions that rankle.  By "it's not personal" I think we would each mean that these are the doctrines as we have found them and believe them to be, in a "let the chips fall where they may" sort of sense.  They are not crafted to indict or offend, but to clarify.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quote

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).

Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there. 

I think we are viewing things through the lenses of our respective presuppositions.

Christ went to the temple as a young man (Luke 2:46-49), and characterized Himself as doing "my Father's business" while there.

He healed in the temple (Matthew 21:14).

He drove out the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:16).  That is, I think, the only recorded instance of violence by Him.

He referred to the temple as "My house" and a "house of prayer."  Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46.  He chastised those who had made it a "den of thieves."

He entered the temple as party of his triumphal entry (Mark 11:11).

At one point He taught daily in the temple (Luke 19:47; 21:37–38), and at other times (John 7:14, 28; 8:2, 20; 10:23; 18:20).

He paid the temple tax (Matthew 17:24–27).

I can't read these without feeling that Christ revered and honored the temple as a sacred edifice.  I don't see these passages as indicating He disliked or resented or rejected or was otherwise alienated from the temple.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 9 by smac97

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Personally, I am not a fan of statues inside or outside of a chapel. It borders on bending the second commandment. Exodus 20:4-6: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of -__anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 

Then again there is that pesky AoF which says we allow folks to worship " how where and what they may "

Do you find all statutes an issue, just religious ones, or just ones outside or inside worship areas.  
 

What do you think of the Christus or the Angel Moroni statues on temples? (Apparently the sculptor intended them to be Gabriel, thus the horn, but then an apostle suggested Moroni (think it was Marinner Merrill as I just looked this up yesterday as we drove by Provo’s temple) and that’s what stuck.  I never understood the horn before, book was obvious.

[blackstrap]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you find all statutes an issue

As long as people are not bowing to and worshipping said statue, I guess fine, as I said it ' bends the commandment' not breaks it. 

I have noticed that many of the LDS temples do not have a " Moroni " on top. 

I also notice that Muslims are much more strict about images than Christians. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

One of the men who assured me in our ward that my wife does not and could not possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit is now a higher-up in the CEC of the LDS Church. That (in my opinion) is problematic. Of course, a faithful member probably would not see it that way.  

I don’t see it that way as I agree with him (at least as written here).  But I suspect I have a different view of what the Gift of the Holy Ghost means than you possibly understand it to mean for us.

For me, it is one vehicle to facilitate our relationship with the Spirit.  It is only available in the here and now through receiving the specific authorized ordinance performed by an authorized priesthood holder, where authority and priesthood is defined by LDS standards.  I don’t equate it, for example, with what happened to John as described in Luke 1:15 or the Pentecost.***

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 1%3A15&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2&version=NIV

However, there are many, many other vehicles out there to facilitate our relationship with the Spirit and I suspect some are not available to LDS (I think a monastic life is one, living as full time clergy with no other career besides serving God’s children in a devotional way is another).  I believe doing volunteer work, prayer, scripture reading, caregiving, study of faiths, meditation, sacraments of many faiths, walking in nature and many more all can function as vehicles.  The most important factor imo (and there may be LDS who think otherwise, but I think they are wrong and I know other Saints who agree with me) is the individual, not the vehicle…how open they are to experiencing the Spirit; how strong of a drive they possess to seek out God; how willing they are to be humble enough to accept what they hear, learn, or feel; how physically or emotionally they are prepared for the experience; or if they then use such knowledge to grow closer to God or help his children.  I am sure I could come up with more variables that affect our experience, ones we have control over and others we don’t.  To say another does not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost in my head isn’t any more offensive than saying someone is not LDS.  Either they haven’t had the opportunity to receive either membership or the Gift or for what is likely a very reasonable reason, they have chosen not to take the opportunity.  Neither of those means to me they are rejecting God or his Spirit in any way.  Nor does either tell me how strong their relationships with God or the Spirit are.

Analogy alert…

Your wife chooses not to become a member of this message board to communicate with you through this medium.  No one in their right mind would assume she has therefore rejected a relationship with you or believe that somehow I have a better relationship with you because I can communicate with you through posts here while she cannot.   There are many vehicles of communication these days, email, message apps for texting, phones, face time, snail mail, DVD recordings or audio recordings, painting or sculpture for a more abstract form, body language, sign language, touching, and then face to face verbal communication.  I have probably missed some.  Each of these might be superior than the others for a specific purpose, but none of them tell us how well someone communicates or understands us and the choice of medium in no way tells us how deep or shallow that relationship is.  

There are people on this message board I know better and care more about than the neighbors across the street.  I probably know some better here than I know a certain close in blood relative who separated from the family decades ago.  I can’t think of a non superficial conversation I have had with them that I walked away from feeling good about since they were a teen.  One could use a message board like this or email or even snail mail to open up with someone in a very deep and intimate way while barely talking to someone they see across the office every work day of their life.
 

We make all sorts of assumptions about relationships based on the how a relationship occurs, but they may have little to do with reality.  I don’t know if that member who told your wife that was judging her relationship as inherently less than any active member of the LDS faith or if to him it was a simple observation of her not experiencing one form of encountering the Spirit…a form that many members don’t make much use of, btw, I would suspect, but hope I am wrong.  The Gift is certainly a blessing from God and I think it would be great if everyone had access to it, but it doesn’t appear to be high on God’s priorities in mortality given how few of his children he has ensured they have that opportunity.  I believe the Light of Christ is another vehicle for a relationship with God and the Spirit and God made sure to give that to each of us.  Those who make full use of that gift of the Spirit are going to have much deeper and stronger relationships with God than someone who has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but ignores any promptings of the Spirit.

From your comments, it sounds like your wife is a deeply spiritual woman, someone any LDS would do well to learn from.  She is not less spiritual or less valuable in that way just because she never partook of that specific ordinance.

BTW, I am not telling you or your wife not to be concerned with what that LDS member said.  I wasn’t there, you are likely to have a much better impression from tone, facial expression and other body language as well as their past behavior how he meant it.  I am just sharing why some of us might agree with the words that he said.

***The dedication of the Kirtland Temple was described as a Pentecost, but those experiencing this would have already received the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, so this must have been something different to that Gift.

Quote

“In the Revelation given on the 1st of June, 1833, the Lord indicated the special object for which this house was to be built: ‘I gave unto you a commandment, that you should build an house, in the which house I design to endow those whom I have chosen, with power from on high’ (Sec. 95:8). It was to be a place in which the Church would receive a Pentecostal baptism in the fire of the Holy Spirit [see Acts 2]. A special house, consecrated and dedicated, was needed for that purpose, hence the commandment of God to the Saints concerning this house…”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-109-prayer-of-dedication-for-the-kirtland-temple?lang=eng

Edited September 9 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

As long as people are not bowing to and worshipping said statue, I guess fine, as I said it ' bends the commandment' not breaks it. 

I have noticed that many of the LDS temples do not have a " Moroni " on top. 

I also notice that Muslims are much more strict about images than Christians. 

I believe it’s a Jewish prohibition as well, though not as encompassing as I thought.

https://aish.com/destroying-statues-and-judaisms-prohibition-of-making-graven-images/

Quote

The Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law, allows one to create two-dimensional paintings and images of the human body, as long as the entire body is not shown (Yoreh Deah 141-142) and Rabbi Moses Isserles, known as the Rema, wrote that even a statue of man is permitted as long as it is not complete. Today most traditional rabbinic authorities follow this ruling, sanctioning depictions of the human body that are somehow incomplete such as a sculpted bust or the armless Venus de Milo, one of most famous examples of ancient Greek sculpture. But the full depiction of a human being is undisputedly forbidden.

 

[Amulek]

On 9/3/2026 at 12:52 PM, Tacenda said:

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.

The mockups I've seen online make it look like the plan would be to orient the sacrament table to the front / center of the congregation. I suppose that is supposed to symbolically put Christ at the center of the meeting, but if it's below the rostrum then that's going to make the speakers look like they are 'above' the sacrament - probably not the look we are going for. 

Also, pragmatically, if the table is in front of the presiding authority, so how is the bishop going to signal to the Priests when they mess up the prayers?

Oh, and if there are really only going to be two rows of benches, like in many Catholic churches, I see that cramping a lot of families' style. 

There's also the bit about spending all the money it would take to renovate buildings that are already perfectly functional to begin with.

I personally think the negatives outweigh the positives, but hopefully they will test it out in a few places before trying to do anything more widespread.

 

[california boy]

If centering Sacrament meeting  on Christ requires rearranging the furniture in order for that to happen, perhaps there are bigger issues. 

[Tony uk]

The rearranging of furniture, especially in a place of worship, has the potential to cause more concern than being of a benefit. I get that impression from a few of the posts. Maybe if things have worked reasonably well as they are, then just leave things as they are, and just make necessary improvements where and as needed.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If centering Sacrament meeting  on Christ requires rearranging the furniture in order for that to happen, perhaps there are bigger issues. 

I would agree.

Fortunately, I've been attending the same building for the last 15 years, where the sacrament table sits on the rostrum, stage left, and Christ has been at the center of our worship the entire time.

 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

The mockups I've seen online make it look like the plan would be to orient the sacrament table to the front / center of the congregation. I suppose that is supposed to symbolically put Christ at the center of the meeting, but if it's below the rostrum then that's going to make the speakers look like they are 'above' the sacrament - probably not the look we are going for. 

Also, pragmatically, if the table is in front of the presiding authority, so how is the bishop going to signal to the Priests when they mess up the prayers?

Oh, and if there are really only going to be two rows of benches, like in many Catholic churches, I see that cramping a lot of families' style. 

There's also the bit about spending all the money it would take to renovate buildings that are already perfectly functional to begin with.

I personally think the negatives outweigh the positives, but hopefully they will test it out in a few places before trying to do anything more widespread.

 

I agree! I think where the Sacrament table is now is a great spot. But do remember an old picture of the early church's Sacrament table in the center. But you make good points about the cost of renovating chapels, if that's the route they'd take.  Maybe they'll start doing it in new buildings.

And the point about the bishop signaling to the young men that they said the prayer wrong is something to think about. 

I think putting in stained glass or a Christ portrait of some kind might help focus better perhaps. And thinking a little cheaper?

Edited 13 hours ago by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I tried the search feature to see if it had an older discussion of putting pictures of Christ in the chapel. Do any of you posters remember this. I vaguely remember discussing it and how some thought it shouldn't happen, for some or other reason. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I tried the search feature to see if it had an older discussion of putting pictures of Christ in the chapel. Do any of you posters remember this. I vaguely remember discussing it and how some thought it shouldn't happen, for some or other reason. 

I think we have discussed this before, but can’t remember any details.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think where the Sacrament table is now is a great spot. But do remember an old picture of the early church's Sacrament table in the center.

There were meetinghouses in the 1800's that were designed that way - largely, I suspect, because that's basically how everyone else did it, and it was what the early Saints were used to. But if you go here and jump to the section on The Bountiful Standard Plan (1969-72), you'll see a more recent style that has it set up that way as well. 

Personally, I like the fact that our chapels differ from the layout used in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or other traditional liturgical churches. Moving the sacrament table to the center would make us look a bit more like other churches - which isn't inherently bad, but it's a cultural shift that I don't really see the need for.

And, if I'm being completely honest, this all just feels very "Utah" to me. It feels like the sort of thing some pious LDS leader - perhaps not unlike the one in Bountiful - might propose as a visible way of signaling that we really understand the true meaning of sacrament meeting - "If the sacrament is the center of our worship, shouldn't the table literally be at the center?" - and then everyone immediately thinks, "Well, of course." Once you frame it that way, the symbolism is so compelling that the pragmatic questions can almost start to feel beside the point.

Realistically though, most of my objections are largely pragmatic. In addition to the ones I listed previously, I think moving it to the front would create visual congestion. Now you've got a layout that's more like: speaker -> giant table -> congregation, which isn't necessarily better, IMO.

And how are they going to deal with things like wheelchair access, little children approaching the front whenever they break free of their parents, and all of the other practical issues that would now have to be considered when using the chapel for something other than sacrament meeting. I mean, are they going to plop caskets right on top of it during funerals? Are they going to be able to remove it when using the building for orchestra / large choral performances, like the one our stake holds each Christmas?

A well-meaning theological idea can become a frustrating architectural solution if those kinds of things aren't taken into consideration and solved elegantly at the outset.

 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

Personally, I like the fact that our chapels differ from the layout used in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or other traditional liturgical churches. Moving the sacrament table to the center would make us look a bit more like other churches - which isn't inherently bad, but it's a cultural shift that I don't really see the need for

 

 

Hi Amulek. No harm done but...

Are you thinking that it is customary for a Catholic priest to celebrate Mass in the middle of the building? I am not saying it is never done. I have never seen it. 

Above you describe Catholics as having "two rows of benches" in many churches. Benches with no backs to them? Only two rows? I guess those are for folks who aren't able to stand? 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the picture you were trying to describe? Most of our churches have pews with backs and kneelers and enough of them for the ordinary capacity of the Sunday Masses. I think maybe some of the Eastern liturgies worship standing?

Benches would make it especially difficult for many of us older folks. I know I could not kneel longer than about five minutes without being able to support myself from the back of the pew in front of me. This is just a practical thing too. No one is required to, but most of us WANT to kneel at certain times during the liturgy, and perhaps for an extended time after communion, before our Savior (as we believe) is placed in the tabernacle.

Carry on with the subject. I find it very interesting to see how different church architecture reflects different beliefs and worship forms...and as you are wisely suggesting, practical logistics.

I have enough trouble with distractions at Mass, when we are all facing the same direction. I would be concerned that it would be hard not to be looking at our neighbors if the liturgy was provided while we were all facing each other in a circle. The kids would have to be taught not to wave at their friends. The center of the building can sound like a good idea. You all do well to consider practical problems.

 

Edited 58 minutes ago by 3DOP

[Tony uk]

22 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Are you thinking that it is customary for a Catholic priest to celebrate Mass in the middle of the building? I am not saying it is never done. I have

Hi 3DOP

The altar in Liverpool RC Metropolitan Cathedral is situated in a central position within the cathedral. With the laity benches positioned around the altar.

25 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Above you describe Catholics as having "two rows of benches" in many churches. Benches with no backs to them? Only two rows? I guess those are for folks who aren't able to stand? 

The only place where there could be two benches, are in the sanctuary are near to the alter. Normally used by altar servers, other ministers. The positioning may differ from various church to church.