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

[3DOP]

On 9/8/2026 at 7:32 PM, bluebell said:

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. 

I had gone six years to a Baptist Bible College, and pastored churches for another seven years. I think Navidad might have preached there once! But I wasn't taught about creedal issues, nor did I teach any. After that we visited at Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran churches which had been historically creedal. I wanted doctrinal clarity for about three more years before becoming Catholic.

It was and still is striking to me, that there is such a heavy emphasis on the Trinity in the Catholic Church. Until I became Catholic I would not have believed with confidence in any creed. I was consistently sola scriptura. I possessed a 66 book creed.

I still don't believe that the Scripture alone clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, the filioque, the hypostatic union, papal infallibilty, the Marian doctrines, or any other defined Catholic teachings that have become obligatory to Catholics over the centuries.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by 3DOP

[3DOP]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sorry. In talking about the changes, I was operating under the assumption that people had seen a mock-up of the proposed layout. I could have been more clear about what I meant.

When I said, "[m]oving the sacrament table to the center," I meant moving it to the center of the room, in front of the podium. And when I said "two rows of benches," I should have said two sections of pews (as opposed to the three section layout commonly used in meetinghouses today).

Here's an image that might make it more clear. While still different from other Catholic buildings I have attended, I think this kind of layout would seem more familiar to you should you happen to visit an LDS chapel that was organized in this manner.

Conceptually, I'm not opposed to using architecture to symbolically communicate whatever we want it to communicate (e.g., the primacy of the sacrament). 

But, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, I think there's something symbolically meaningful about having the pulpit at the front as well. Currently, I would say that it symbolizes the living Word of God continuing to be proclaimed through his children through revelation, through testimony, through scripture, etc.

Just like the table isn't Christ himself, but is supposed to point us toward Christ, so to is the current configuration - only with the emphasis being on Christ's continuing work in the Church.

 

Thanks Amulek. Not your fault. I figured I had to have misunderstood. 

 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

I hadn't thought of the table being in the way of caskets. Or performances etc. Another thing, shouldn't the Sacrament table be up high like it is now? 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I hadn't thought of the table being in the way of caskets. Or performances etc. Another thing, shouldn't the Sacrament table be up high like it is now? 

Height isn't a requirement, but I suspect it will likely need to be at least high enough to try and discourage all the littles from climbing on it.  

 

[Calm]

Will the sacrament table be in the floor or still elevated?

[bluebell]

The sacrament table in my stake center is currently on the floor, not elevated at all.  It At my old ward, the pulpit is not in the center, it is off to one side of the room.

I think that we sometimes forget the variety in our ward buildings and assume they are all set up similarly. 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I had gone six years to a Baptist Bible College, and pastored churches for another seven years. I think Navidad might have preached there once! But I wasn't taught about creedal issues, nor did I teach any. After that we visited at Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran churches which had been historically creedal. I wanted doctrinal clarity for about three more years before becoming Catholic.

It was and still is striking to me, that there is such a heavy emphasis on the Trinity in the Catholic Church. Until I became Catholic I would not have believed with confidence in any creed. I was consistently sola scriptura. I possessed a 66 book creed.

I still don't believe that the Scripture alone clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, the filioque, the hypostatic union, papal infallibilty, the Marian doctrines, or any other defined Catholic teachings that have become obligatory to Catholics over the centuries.

 

My experience was with nonLDS Protestants and the Apostles Creed.