Guest Post: Specialness
This post was written by John Mansfield. John is a regular in the nacle and has contributed greatly to the tenor here at Splendid Sun. Enjoy.
President Hinckley has changed the place of temple worship in the lives of the Saints in the most profound manner since the creation of the Hawaii temple. In late 1997, he announced plans for the Church to increase its temples from fifty to over a hundred to usher in the coming millennium. There are now 119. This radical increase was accomplished by paring the structure of the temple down to the functional minimum. An inevitable consequence of this change in the number and size of temples is that the temple is no longer a special place in the way it was previously; it is a more common and ordinary part of our lives now.
Growing up around Saints who worshipped in the St. George temple 110 miles to the northeast, I remember conversations about how many proxy endowments a person could perform in a day depending on whether time was taken out for dinner or not. This was not idle theorizing; it was the planning of people who did a lot of genealogy and served their dead in the temple every few months. As a single adult in New Mexico, I was part of the Denver temple district. The one time I traveled there in winter was difficult due to ice, and I never went back in that season. There was something glorious, though, when spring came each year in returning to the temple. Because we couldn’t go there all the time, when we could it was, by definition, a special time.
Even when I lived near a temple, that privilege, since not generally available to the world, was special. Following counsel of my BYU ward bishop, I attended the Provo temple weekly knowing that I would not in the future be able to walk to the temple at will. Living in Los Angeles later, I would pass the temple once or twice a day and again counted it an unusual privilege.
Not so many years later, there is almost not such a thing as a distant temple for an American Latter-day Saint. Even for those in other countries, costly once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimages to distant countries are now part of our heritage, like pulling handcarts. I realize there are still exceptions, mainly involving people who are remote from everything, not just temples. Those are exceptions now, not the general experience. Ten years ago, Saints from North Carolina to Maine gathered to the Washington D.C. temple. Now, only a handful of western Pennsylvania stakes are more than three hours away.
So attending the temple has been made a less special experience by increasing the ubiquity of those structures. This was possible by making them less significant architecturally. The only millennial temple I know is the Detroit temple. For someone driving by on Woodward Avenue, the larger stake center with which it shares the parking lot is more likely to catch the eye. Most will drive by without seeing it at all, but if their heads happen to be turned the right way, and they catch a glance in the few seconds the sight lines make possible, there will be no lasting impression of that hallowed half acre. An office mate in Baltimore once asked what the spires of the Washington, D.C. temple symbolize. That building is so obviously to any passerby a symbol of something. The Detroit temple is not.
Creation of the Hawaii temple almost a century ago established that Zion can be anywhere, not just the Great Basin. The millennial temples make a case that Zion is nowhere, at least nowhere beyond our routine patterns. The Church is our particular stake, there is nothing beyond that. Our important worship forms are to be experienced routinely; there are no more special experiences.
I feel sad at the loss of the temple’s specialness, but it is questionable whether I should. The specialness of temple worship that I valued may have no real value, or its loss may be a small thing compared with greater access to the temples. When I lived in Michigan, I could still have chosen to spend a full day in the temple on rare occasions. I could still have traveled to a more distant temple if I wished to enter the sort of monumental structure that evokes titles like “mountain of the Lord.” The Detroit temple, though unimposing, is a holy place. Its creation made possible for a handful of stakes frequent service to the dead and experience with the endowment. That would seem to be the priority of our day.
As an adult member of the church, I’ve lived in a variety of settings, most within 30 minutes drive of a temple but once an 8 hour drive. While I think there was something special about driving 8 or 9 hours to do a couple of sessions and enjoy time with extended family before driving 8 or 9 hours to get home, I think that if we place too much emphasis on the ‘specialness’ derived from our sacrifice we run the risk of devaluing our current temple attendance. After the Boston Temple opened, our ward temple attendance dropped (as compared to when we had to drive to Washington, DC).
Since leaving the Boston area, we’ve spent time in Joplin, MO (4 hours to a ‘small temple’) and are now back in the Seattle, WA area (30 min to a temple). In both cases, we felt blessed to live ‘in the shadow’ of the temple. It’s a different kind of feeling though.
I loved being able to make a ‘short’ 4 hour trip with my family to spend a day at the temple. I loved planning a youth trip to do baptisms.
I love being able to go to the temple tonight with my wife without having had to do any more planning than making sure I have my temple bag ready. I love having 15 guys from my ward at the temple for our Stake priesthood temple assignment on Saturday morning.
Comment by pate — 3/18/2005 @ 4:12 pm
I think that this plays into the overall theme of diminishing sacrafice in modernity. I look back at the work families put in when they had to come up with money for the ward budget, the building fund, a missionary in Japan, the temple fund, etc.
People gave and the bonds that formed contributed to the cause of Zion. Now we pay our tithing and fast oferrings, sit back, and relax. Am I glad I don’t have to sacrifice as much? Yes. Do I think we are missing something? Yes.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/18/2005 @ 5:11 pm
John: The specialness of temple worship that I valued may have no real value
Yep, I think this statement is correct. I also think this “diminishing sacrifice of modernity” problem J. brings up is a farce.
This whole concept reminds me of that great Nibley line: In the Church today we think it is more valuable to get up a 6AM to write a bad book than to get up a 9AM to write a good one.
The point is that some sacrifices are easier than others. It is easier to drive five hours to a distant temple once a quarter or twice a year than it is to get to a close one twice as often or do an additional 10-20 hours of prayer, pondering, studying, etc. We get to much satisfaction from busy work in my opinion. Busy work is not particularly special, it just feels that way sometimes.
As far as I can tell the temple serve two main purposes after we receive our own ordinances — To function as the “Lord’s University” and to help save our dead. The size or exterior beauty of a temple does nothing to enhance those purposes. The distance of a temple only makes it harder for us to get there, not more valuable to us when we arrive.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 3/18/2005 @ 6:40 pm
I think this also falls into the category of suffering to become better that J brought up in a previous post. While it might be a challenge for us to stay committed when the temple is so close, I also feel like it allows us more opportunity to really explore the meaning and purpose of temple worship.
When we were 3 hours from the temple (a pittance, I know), it meant not going for a while just before and for a while after our last child was born. When we have another child, living jsut down the street from that temple in Laie, HI, we can still go often. There are also more opportunities for more saints to officiate or assist in temple ordinances. When I lived in Provo and worked as a vail worker for a while, I really felt like I had found a new dimension of temple worship. I think I understood for the first time how we stand in for the savior when we use the priesthood.
If Brigham Young was correct (I believe it was him.) that prosperity would be one of the great challenges for the saints, I think that it is at least a challenge, in this case, that will bring great blessings if we can overcome it.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/18/2005 @ 6:49 pm
I think that you guys are right. The sacrifice or suffering isn’t what we are missing. It is the commitment to serve with/for each other. I think maybe that when it is a bigger commitment it is easier to do sometimes (saddly).
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/18/2005 @ 7:47 pm
I think there is a lot to that. Further, look at tithing. Who seems more able to pay their tithing easily? The rich or the poor. I’ve heard tell that the rich often find it more difficult to pay a complete tithe. (At least that’s what accountants have told me)
Likewise I have heard (but can’t confirm) that when a temple was built close to many people, temple attendance actually went down. Part of that was, as many of you “mission field members” know, it often was a struggle to go to the temple. So you’d often take a week and spend much of it going to the temple. When it is close by, it isn’t as important, which means it is easy to put off. (Guilty conscience on my part alert)
Comment by Clark Goble — 3/18/2005 @ 9:31 pm
My thoughts above were about the impact of unique or rare events more than that of sacrifice. The celebration of anniversaries is an example of what I mean. The 50th anniversary of a wedding is occasion for a special celebration quite unlike how the 49th or 51st will be commemorated. A centennial year is a special time to celebrate a city’s founding. An annual birthday is a nice observance; we ignore that day of each month or the hour of each day when we were born.
The Endowment House came to mind last night. It and many other places were used to endow the saints when temples were not available. The Mississippi was an acceptable place to baptize the dead before a temple was available. The ordinances could go on without temples, but there was still a need to build temples.
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/19/2005 @ 7:02 am
Clark, was it disorienting when a temple was announced for Halifax? How did it change your perception and understanding to have a temple there to serve the two stakes and one mission district?
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/19/2005 @ 9:06 am
John: but wasn’t the temple so special because of the scrifice?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/19/2005 @ 10:27 am
Well since I hadn’t been in Halifax for about 10 years, it wasn’t that disorienting. My parents were excited and were called as temple workers there. (Funny story about my Dad’s gotee I’ll have to tell sometime) What seemed odd to me was hearing that the temple was basically part of the mission office / institute building. It was almost a room that was converted into a temple. Now that was weird and I’m still not sure what I think of it.
To me part of what makes a temple a temple is that spatial separateness. I’m not sure I like the dual use buidling. I can somewhat see Hong Kong or New York where a floor is at least set aside. But I really think an important symbolism of the temple is the spatial degrees of holiness.
I’m not sure how that fits in with your comments. But to me we are losing symbolism that I value. I fully support the brethren in this as well as changes to the ceremony. But I admit I try to remember the old pre-91 ceremony as there was a lot in it that was valuable. But that then raises the old issue of what is essential or non-essential. What is a trapping of Masonry, for instance, versus what is actually the core of the endowment? It’s a hard thing to discern. And I’m sure things I consider essential are probably non-essential trappings.
Justin, I don’t think the sacrifice alone makes something special, although it can. Rather I think it is the setting apart as “different” that makes it special. Thus my comments about spatial separation. But we ideally do it temporally as well. (The sabbath – although I suspect few of us keep it that way) Keeping the ordinance secret does it as well on a semantic level. Lots of ways to provide a specialness to things.
Comment by Clark — 3/19/2005 @ 2:29 pm
Well since I hadn’t been in Halifax for about 10 years, it wasn’t that disorienting. My parents were excited and were called as temple workers there. (Funny story about my Dad’s gotee I’ll have to tell sometime) What seemed odd to me was hearing that the temple was basically part of the mission office / institute building. It was almost a room that was converted into a temple. Now that was weird and I’m still not sure what I think of it.
To me part of what makes a temple a temple is that spatial separateness. I’m not sure I like the dual use buidling. I can somewhat see Hong Kong or New York where a floor is at least set aside. But I really think an important symbolism of the temple is the spatial degrees of holiness.
I’m not sure how that fits in with your comments. But to me we are losing symbolism that I value. I fully support the brethren in this as well as changes to the ceremony. But I admit I try to remember the old pre-91 ceremony as there was a lot in it that was valuable. But that then raises the old issue of what is essential or non-essential. What is a trapping of Masonry, for instance, versus what is actually the core of the endowment? It’s a hard thing to discern. And I’m sure things I consider essential are probably non-essential trappings.
Justin, I don’t think the s-crifice alone makes something special, although it can. Rather I think it is the setting apart as “different” that makes it special. Thus my comments about spatial separation. But we ideally do it temporally as well. (The sabbath – although I suspect few of us keep it that way) Keeping the ordinance secret does it as well on a semantic level. Lots of ways to provide a specialness to things.
Comment by Clark Goble — 3/19/2005 @ 5:57 pm
Clark, thanks for the the reminder on the other ways that temple worship is kept special. I didn’t know that any of the temples are as you describe the Halifax Temple, a small part of another building. I was thinking that the Detroit Temple is closer to being an endowment house than a temple. It sounds like the Nova Scotia saints have returned to the back room of the Joseph Smith’s red brick store.
J. Stapley, I see what you mean about sacrifice making things special, especially where it comes to our meetinghouses. I think the member cleaning program was meant to restore some of that lost attachment by having us give out a little time and labor.* I have never felt sacrifice in attending the temple, though. I seem to have viewed temple worship as a bonus, and never felt deprived when its availability was limited. Twelve years ago, I drew a map of the radii from the North American temples. I found then that the only parts of the contiguous U.S. that were more than 450 miles from a temple were North Dakota, Mississippi, and the northern tip of Maine. There were a few places that were more than 300 miles from a temple, and Clark and I lived in one of them in New Mexico. My discovery from that mapping was that while returning to the temple took some planning and a full weekend set aside for some American saints, it would not be a hardship for any of them to travel to receive the endowment and sealings. I don’t think the temples built in the last decade have reduced, for Americans, the financial sacrifice required to go to the temple much from the baseline of living the law of tithing. They have just made temple worship more frequently available.
* Funny story: When the member building cleaning program started up, I was living in the Santa Monica California stake. It came up in conversation with the stake president, that members in one ward who didn’t clean their own homes were wondering what to do. Could they send their maids to cover their assignments? The stake president asked the preventative maintenance supervisor to make up a list of Church custodians who would be interested in being hired on their own time by these well-off saints.0
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/20/2005 @ 8:03 am
I’ve enjoyed this discussion. It has been of particular interest since I just learned that I will be moving from Columbus, OH (where the temple is 15 minutes from my house) to Kansas City. All of the sudden, my wife and I are more anxious to go to the temple. Is it because we recognize how difficult it will be when it is no longer a short drive? Were we suddently made aware of the blessing it is to have a temple so close?
It’s also human nature to value something highly that is rare or mor difficult to obtain. This is reinforced throughout society.
For many people, the sacrifice involved with going to the temple helps to set it apart as a special occasion. Perhaps the effort required to make the trip fosters more personal preparation and personal reflection. My own actions this week taught me that my own value of the temple is, in part, related to the ease with which I can attend. I’d like to get to the point where such circumstances don’t play a role in my desire to serve in the temple.
Comment by Cameron Swinton — 3/22/2005 @ 12:53 pm
Cameron! I exort you to email me all the details…with your current phone number. My parents will do anything to get you in their ward. There is a room for you in their home if you want to go look for lodging.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/22/2005 @ 1:09 pm
Yes, I regret the devolution of temples from imposing “House of the Lord” structures to something like stake centers. On the other hand, I think it is the logical development of Mormon practice in light of the huge financial sacrifices many third-world Mormons previously had to make in order to get to a temple even once as a family.
Building megatemples worldwide in sufficient numbers while keeping up the architectural grandeur would have been prohibitively expensive. Changing the doctrine so temple ordinances in this life were optional for living Mormons was unthinkable, at least to the leadership. So the only option to ease the burden on third-world Mormons (who deserve a break) was to downsize and decentralize.
Comment by Dave — 3/22/2005 @ 2:42 pm
I was reading the comments by John Mansfield. I have lived in the Washington DC area in the past and what he said about the
temple there is probably true. The temple caputures you and makes you want to stand there and look.
I must disagree with him about the Detroit Temple. I grew up in the Detroit area and still live here. I know that stake center he is referring to like the back of my hand. It is true that the stake center over shadows the temple in size but it does nothing to compare in beauty with the beauty of the temple next to it. Alot of us always knew there would be a temple built on that 1/2 acre. The church had many opturnities to sell it but always turned them down.
I was coing out of the Detroit Temple the other night and in the car next to mine was a group of people who stopped and were admiring the temple. Their was alot of interest on their part. I’m sure this is a common occurance. I have also witnessed more than once, people stopping there thinking it was something other than a LDS temple. The temple does in fact attract many many people both members and non-members alike. There is enough land available behind the stake center for a small visitors center and I can see that being built some day. Last evening I went back into the temple and picked up a brochure about why the church builds temple and went out and gave it to the people in the parked car. They thanked me for it.
The Detroit Temple is very special and is as much of a temple as any of the other grand ones in the church Salt Lake included.
Those who dont agree with that are ones that do not understand the meaning of temples weither they are Latter Day Saints or not. Temples dont have to be grand buildings to accomodate the needs of the saints. They just need to function
so that the work of the Lord can move forward.
This is my personal observation regarding the Detroit Temple.
Comment by Keneth Little — 7/8/2005 @ 5:51 pm