When it comes to reading the Old Testament, I have for the last few years liked to consider the Jewish perspective. It is, afterall, first and foremost, Jewish scripture. From time to time I will dip into the archives of the Jewish Bible Quarterly looking for perspectives. I also like the website of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. One recent post on the site gives a different perspective on the purpose of a temple. I’m going to include a couple of quotes here, but would really recommend reading Rabbi Sacks’ post to get a clearer picture.
The suggestion is that a temple was required to make it easier for us mortals to feel close to God. That although God can be accessed anywhere, imperfect humans do not always feel that to be the case.
“Why then did God command the people to make a sanctuary at all?
…
“The people made the calf after Moses had been on the mountain for forty days to receive the Torah. So long as Moses was in their midst, the people knew that he communicated with God, and God with him, and therefore God was accessible, close. But when he was absent for nearly six weeks, they panicked. Who else could bridge the gap between the people and God? How could they hear God’s instructions? Through what intermediary could they make contact with the divine presence?
“That is why God said to Moses, “Let them build me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.”
…
“What the Israelites needed and what God gave them was a way of feeling as close to God as to our next-door neighbour.” (Rabbi Sacks)
I like the idea of neighbour, though for me my nearest temple is 2-3 hours away. By global standards, that’s still quite close, but there’s not the cosiness of next door.
Rabbi Sacks further suggested that it is the gifts from the people in building the temple elevated them, rather than the fact of the temple itself. This particular section of the address reminded me of the sacrifices made by the early members of the church in building those first temples in Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake.
“The Torah therefore tells us something simple and practical. Give, and you will come to see life as a gift. You don’t need to be able to prove God exists. All you need is to be thankful that you exist – and the rest will follow.
“That is how God came to be close to the Israelites through the building of the sanctuary. … It was the fact that it was built out of the gifts of “everyone whose heart prompts them to give” (Ex. 25:2). Where people give voluntarily to one another and to holy causes, that is where the divine presence rests.” (Rabbi Sacks)
This also reminded me that in attending our temples, we believe we are giving a gift of ordinances to those who have gone before, bringing us closer both to them and to God. In this sense it seems to serve the same purpose as a Catholic Mass and prayers for the dead, for instance, and the sacrifices needed for the building of temples, not dissimilar perhaps to the building of churches and cathedrals throughout Europe over the centuries. I’m also left wondering to what extent the centralisation of finances, planning and design in Salt Lake, might mean we have lost that sense of connection, feeling, with our local church buildings and temples in recent times.
- What do you think about the idea that a temple makes God our neighbour?
- Does geographical distance of the temple play a part in your feelings for the temple?
- Do you feel that giving service in our places of worship brings you closer to God?
- How do you feel about the way centralisation affects our relationship with our places of worship, if at all?
- Does a building help you to access God, or do you find it easier to access God in other ways?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I agree with Rabbi Sacks, the act of building and sacrificing for a temple is key.
I’ve belly-ached for years that we do not have the same connection to temples as our ancestors did because we are no longer involved in building them. My hands were not needed, my family trade was not needed. Temples no longer reflect the unique culture or talents of the people in their shadow. Outside of the BoM belt they are built by a non-LDS mega-construction companies using the Utah ‘model A’ blueprints and furnished/decorated with stuff from Utah. Heck, the art on the walls is of Utah landscapes painted by Utah artists. Some small temples incorporate motifs in the decor or architecture from native plants and flowers, or from native products. I’ve noticed that many (including ours) do not.
We aren’t passing down a heritage of handiwork or sacrifice. It isn’t ours. I suppose we can be proud of our mini-temples because they are well-built and beautiful, but we aren’t personally connected to them any more. I think they are too perfect- too cookie-cutter. Wouldn’t it be cool if they were (once again) magnificent edifices of curious craftsmanship?
I think this point that we aren’t personally connected to our mini-temples is completely lost on the brethren from SLC, who are intimately involved in building them and who lend their personal talents(business and administrative skills). Goodie for them, they still get to help, but the rest of us really don’t.
I do not feel the way described above (previous comment); I helped in small but real and vital ways to complete the new temple that was dedicated in 2000 near us. I was the only left handed person who could crochet so I taught 3 left-handed people to crochet. I made a total of 3 squares. and I donated many hours of cleanup because I was very pregnant and felt the effects of cleaning up quite acutely. I made stuff for our temple.
Do the work you can, temple ordinances of those that have passed away. Every part of the body edifies the whole body of Christ. Some build temples others administer in its rites.
“What do you think about the idea that a temple makes God our neighbour?” The spiritual manifestations accompanying the dedications of early LDS temples convinced early members that temples made the spiritual realm more accessible. Yes, they had sacrificed for the building of the temples, but I don’t think people would say they experienced angelic manifestations (Christ, Elijah, Moses and others appearing to Joseph and Oliver) because they contributed china or labor to building the temple. Mormons tend to be more literal when talking about being in the presence of the Lord while in temples.
“Do you feel that giving service in our places of worship brings you closer to God?” Giving service any place brings us closer to God. Temple work for the dead is one kind of service that helps many feel closer to God. Honestly, I feel it more when I’m outside the temple doing family history research, especially when I’m able to help others locate their ancestors (whether those individuals are members or not).
“Does a building help you to access God, or do you find it easier to access God in other ways?” I have a special feeling around temples, but I associate it with the grounds (cemeteries also have that “other” feel, but it’s a little different). I tend to access God better at home through private prayer and study. In the past I tried attending the temple to get better personal revelation “reception” for difficulties (if that makes sense), but it never worked. When cool things happened in the temple, it was never when I was looking for it.
Mortimer, I feel a lot of that about our regular church buildings, never mind our temples. Our stake centre is mostly centralised architecture from the 60s, with a roof ill-suited to the British climate, but at least the local people were involved in the building of it at the time. Get no say in the refurbishments though which saw the the pulpit and amazing choir seats ripped out a few years ago and replaced because it was non-standard. Also generally only being able to hang approved art works on the wall in our buildings.
I believe for the Preston temple some effort was made by the architects in researching British and European architecture (I was lucky enough to attend a presentation prior to it being built). I think the Preston temple is the first of that ‘model’. I don’t know if other newer European temples are also based on that model, though a couple of the newer Brazilian temples are not dissimilar, going on the photographs. I do know that externally at least the London Temple looks little different to the Bern Switzerland and Hamilton New Zealand Temples (all from the 60s). So reuse of blueprints certainly isn’t limited to the new small temples. Certainly I haven’t noticed anything decorative about the London Temple that makes it particularly British.
Star, how lovely that you were able to do that, and members felt involved.
ron, yes that’s some of the service I was meaning in my question.
Mary Ann, thanks for raising that about the spiritual manifestations at the early temple dedications. I got the impression with the Rabbi Sacks post that the Israelites may have felt similarly literal about the presence of the Lord in their temples (even if that isn’t the way he himself sees it), as you describe LDS members as being. The temple being His dwelling place.
I know what you mean about ‘reception’. I’ve never found attending the temple to assist personal revelation either. My more profound experiences have all been away from the temple.
Star, I’m glad you were able to participate. I hope you appreciate how rare that opportunity was. Over the past 20 years we have been reassigned to 5 newly built temples (one after the other-each one closer than the last.) Not a single person in our large family was required to lift a finger for any temple. I can count on one hand the ward members who did anything at all in any open house/dedicatory process. I know that we can contribute to the rites and to genealogy work, I just feel disconnected from the edifice. I feel more connected to the pioneer temples in UT where we have family stories of sacrifice and craftsmanship than to my local “poof” temple. There is a story about the Marriotts wanting to donate extra money to the building of the DC temple, and being turned down. They asked how to help and somehow ended up wheeling cement around in a wheelbarrow with other saints on a volunteer day. I would assume that younger generations of Marriotts feel more connection to the DC temple walking on the sidewalks hand-built by grandpa than if they had merely donated. (That was in the 70’s, I’ve not seen volunteer building days since.) the same principle applies to general members.
Since so much of the art and craftsmanship of new small temples is imported in from elsewhere, there are few opportunities to contribute, especially since contemporary decor is much more simplistic than the Victorian French rococo of yester-years temples.
Hedgehog, I too was struck by how cookie cutter and un-Brazilian the new temples there are. On that note I had hoped that the Ukrainian temple (our first Slavic one) would have had an onion dome, or blue ceilings with stars (traditional eastern symbols of holy edifices). I had hoped to see something that spoke to Slavic culture and spiritual heritage (faith of our fathers as Elder Uchtdorf taught). Oh well.
But I do have to say that despite my belly-aching and poor attachment to the buildings, I have spiritual manifestations in any temple. I’ve also had experiences outside the temple which at times have been independent of my temple work, and at times are extensions of my temple experiences.
My nearest temple is Preston, and it is an extraordinary building. I did a photoblog on it here:
Whether or not we influence their construction, as Mortimer argues, we literally pay for them with our tithing, so they are “ours” in a certain sense, an expression of our faith. They are also a tribute to God, an offering. I’ve long felt it was a bit silly to take the whole baptism’s for the dead race literally, as if the dead really needed some teenager to butcher a baptism for just so they could get to some level of the Celestial kingdom. But as an offering for the dead, in the tradition of the offerings almost all religions have made for the dead, these baptisms are a wonderful tribute. If they are just as wasteful as the fancy chandelliers and bespoke carpets from some kind of literal perspective, it is nevertheless a powerful symbol of our faith in something beyond what is merely practical and parochial.
Lovely photographs Nate. I see you’d take issue with the cookie cutter description. However, as I glance through photographs of the current temples on lds.org, it does seem to be possible, at least superficially, to put them into groups according to the same basic design.
I tend to agree with you on the race to get temple work done, at least so far as the, ‘your ancestors have been waiting so long’ angle, which for me directly contradicts the whole ‘mortality is but the blink of an eye in eternity’ we also hear. And is time really the same for the dead as for the living?
I’m glad you’ve had the spiritual experiences, buildings not withstanding Mortimer.
Nate,
Love your blog! Can I trade lives with you? Thank you for sharing it!
Re your post, I feel we missed each other about the tithing/donation point that I was trying to make with the Marriott story in #8.
Hedgehog, glad for your experiences too.