Mormon temples compared to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals

[zaffiroborant]

You are Catholic. You are allowed to criticize your own buildings…and nobody is going to give you grief.

However, should I…or any other non-Catholic…do so, and the ranks would close very quickly indeed.

Well RealClearReligion doesn’t strike me a a Catholic site and no one here has problem with them calling Roman Catholic churches ugly, nor are they upset with the humorous comments leveled against the ugly churches. My favorite comment was about the church pictured below, Roman Catholic BTW.

Optimus Prime goes here.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide21.jpg

 

[dianaiad]

She won’t even touch this.

You are quite right. I won’t.

…and Paul knows why, even if you don’t.

 

[CarolNoel]

Carol…and I"m not speaking here as a Mormon, but as a long time investigator and critic of polling and statistical research…When you showed your husband the pictures, did you really say “would you like to stay here?”

If so, it wasn’t setting him up to suggest it was a hotel. It was outright TELLING him it was a hotel. I’m sure you didn’t intend to do so, but that is what you did if those were the words you used. People don’t ‘stay’ in places of worship or in temples or chapels or cathedrals. The ‘stay’ in hotels.

Let’s not be so technical. He thought it was a beautiful place. That was my point when we discussed it.

 

[dianaiad]

Well RealClearReligion doesn’t strike me a a Catholic site and no one here has problem with them calling Roman Catholic churches ugly, nor are they upset with the humorous comments leveled against the ugly churches. My favorite comment was about the church pictured below, Roman Catholic BTW.

Optimus Prime goes here.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide21.jpg

I think it’s because it’s an ‘equal opportunity’ clobberer. You notice that I actually agreed with them about the Provo Temple.

the DIFFERENCE here is that this site did not make any comparisons between the beauty (or lack of same) of the buildings and the truth/style/worthiness of the worshipers therein.

Whereas in here that’s all y’all are talking about. Comparing LDS Temples to Catholic Cathedrals to the obvious detriment of LDS Temples, from aesthetics to purpose, with a dismissive sort of ‘not our sort’ approach.

Now, if you had just come out and SAID that the Provo Temple looked like a high school woodworking salad bowl, I really couldn’t have argued…but that’s not what happened, is it?

The whole attitude has been a sort of “ewwww, what else can you expect from these people, and doesn’t that just show you how stupid/wrong they are, their most sacred buildings look like hotel lobbies…”

Sorry, but it has been rather obvious.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think it’s because it’s an ‘equal opportunity’ clobberer. You notice that I actually agreed with them about the Provo Temple.

**the DIFFERENCE here is that this site did not make any comparisons between the beauty (or lack of same) of the buildings and the truth/style/worthiness of the worshipers therein. **

Whereas in here that’s all y’all are talking about. Comparing LDS Temples to Catholic Cathedrals to the obvious detriment of LDS Temples, from aesthetics to purpose, with a dismissive sort of ‘not our sort’ approach.

Now, if you had just come out and SAID that the Provo Temple looked like a high school woodworking salad bowl, I really couldn’t have argued…but that’s not what happened, is it?
**
The whole attitude has been a sort of “ewwww, what else can you expect from these people, and doesn’t that just show you how stupid/wrong they are, their most sacred buildings look like** hotel lobbies…”

Sorry, but it has been rather obvious.

I think the site did do this in it’s comments, but that is a matter of interpretation, just as you interpret the hotel comment the way you do. You could take comfort knowing the LDS rarely build ugly temples where as Roman Catholics keep doing it and doing it.

Have to say I’m not seeing the salad bowl in the Provo Temple, an antennae array, or some sort of space needle before it’s raised maybe, but at least it doesn’t look like a hippopotamus head rendered in black granite or, Optimus Prime’s worship space or, a dystopian bunker.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are Catholic. You are allowed to criticize your own buildings…and nobody is going to give you grief.

BUZZ!!! Wrong again. You have no idea how much grief I received from fellow parishoners when I mentioned my opinion. But, hey, good try.

However, should I…or any other non-Catholic…do so, and the ranks would close very quickly indeed.

BUZZ!! Again, sorry, wrong again. I think you will find quite a few people who aren’t thrilled with alot of Catholic architecture, but, we look past it, and focus on worship.

I am not 'wound up in the aesthetics of a building." I didn’t begin this thread, after all. I am ‘wound up,’ if anything, in the idea that even though y’all might CLAIM that there are ‘epic fails’ in Catholic architecture, you also are quite adamant that, as you have just stated, you are ‘there to worship God,’ not architecture. That architecture isn’t the focus of your beliefs.

You’re not wound up about the aesthetics of a building? Have you read some of your posts? Just sayin…

Yet y’all have an entire thread devoted to criticizing the architecture of someone ELSE’S belief system, as if it has to be different for them: that of course a building that 'looks like a hotel lobby" must therefore be inferior for worship, and somehow evidence of the falsity of that worship.

You’re building quite a strawman here. Nobody has said anything even remotely close to it being inferior for worship, or evidence of the falsity of worship.

Please provide a reference for this. Just give us the post number. One is all we need. If you can’t, I suggest you retract your statement.

Indeed, that comparison in and of itself is a statement of disdain, one that I would not return, even if I were plunked down in the middle of one of the very interesting designs mentioned in the site to which you sent me.

You are reading way too much into what was actually said. Also, this goes right back to what I said about getting wound up about architecture, instead of worship.

BTW, I got curious…I don’t agree with all the choices of “Ugly churches” mentioned on either of the two articles about ‘ugly churches’ on that site, but I do have to agree with one of 'em…and yes, it IS the only LDS Temple mentioned, but I’ll admit to never having liked it, or its sister Temple in Ogden. The Provo Temple.

So, since you don’t agree with all of the choices on the site, does that mean we have to follow your view? Personally, I didn’t think the Provo temple was near as bad as some of the other churches on there. Who is right? See where I am going? It is a matter of personal taste, and that is all. There is no need to read more into it that what there actually is.

ETA: Since this is the “non-Catholic” section of CAF, there obviously would not be a thread about disappointing architecture of Catholic churches now would there? I’m sure if you do a search, there will be some thread somewhere on CAF about it. Here is a thread that has to do with the Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=820504

Happy hunting for more.

 

[dianaiad]

BUZZ!!! Wrong again. You have no idea how much grief I received from fellow parishoners when I mentioned my opinion. But, hey, good try.

BUZZ!! Again, sorry, wrong again. I think you will find quite a few people who aren’t thrilled with alot of Catholic architecture, but, we look past it, and focus on worship.

You’re not wound up about the aesthetics of a building? Have you read some of your posts? Just sayin…

You’re building quite a strawman here. Nobody has said anything even remotely close to it being inferior for worship, or evidence of the falsity of worship.

Please provide a reference for this. Just give us the post number. One is all we need. If you can’t, I suggest you retract your statement.

Let us begin with post #3, then 10, then 11…on the first page before I posted a single thing.

You are reading way too much into what was actually said. Also, this goes right back to what I said about getting wound up about architecture, instead of worship.

I don’t think I am, and those posts are pretty clear evidence of the intent of the critics.

However, I think…we are not ever going to see eye to eye on this one.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Let us begin with post #3, then 10, then 11…on the first page before I posted a single thing.

I don’t think I am, and those posts are pretty clear evidence of the intent of the critics.

However, I think…we are not ever going to see eye to eye on this one.

I’ve read a number of LDS posters who expressed the same thoughts about non-LDS churches ones that the poster in #3 expressed. I guess that’s the natural progression of some who feel they in the true church. But even so this was not a comment linking architecture to falseness of worship, just straight out saying the LDS church is not the true church. Post 10 and 11 are similar just not as harsh. It should come as no surprise on a Catholic site that the LDS church is viewed as teaching false doctrine and as I’ve said many LDS express the same view toward other churches and why shouldn’t they state this if they believe they are correct?

 

[twopekinguys]

Let us begin with post #3, then 10, then 11…on the first page before I posted a single thing.

I don’t think I am, and those posts are pretty clear evidence of the intent of the critics.

However, I think…we are not ever going to see eye to eye on this one.

Sorry, but, I am not seeing/reading what you evidently are.

#3 and #11 are essentially saying that there is no reference to mormon temples and what goes on there in the Bible, or any ECF writings. If you know or have proof that the mormon temple and what goes on there is in the Bible, by all means bring it out for all to gaze upon.

As far as #10, I don’t see where she misconstrued anything. What she related was factual was it not? The truth ain’t always pretty sista.

As far as seeing eye to eye on this, you’re absolutely right. We’re not even seeing eye to foot.

 

[Stephen168]

Yet y’all have an entire thread devoted to criticizing the architecture of someone ELSE’S belief system, as if it has to be different for them: that of course a building that 'looks like a hotel lobby" must therefore be inferior for worship, and somehow evidence of the falsity of that worship.

Let us begin with post #3, then 10, then 11…

Only post 11 mentions both Mormon temple architecture and Mormon practices, but does not compare them.

The comparison only took place in your mind.

 

[Stephen168]

the DIFFERENCE here is that this site did not make any comparisons between the beauty (or lack of same) of the buildings and the truth/style/worthiness of the worshipers therein.

That did not happen on this sight either, so it is not a difference.

The difference is that Catholics understand the difference between, their faith, their church’s history, their church buildings, and themselves.

 

[Jerusha]

Poor Diana. You guys have put her in a terrible double-bind, and you know it. You ask her to justify what goes on in Mormon temples, but she can’t, because it is a terrible secret that would mean her excommunication if she were to write about it. Of course, she can’t justify what goes on there, but that is besides the point.

Then, to make things worse, she tries to deflect the issue by talking about temple architecture and furnishings, because she is unwilling to even say that it is a secret. Then you call her on that. What I can’t understand is why she won’t admit that it is a secret. Even though we know, either through experience or second-hand accounts, and can recite it back to her.

Poor Diana.

Can we post links showing what on in Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals?. Maybe we ought to post some. Not expecting Diana to reciprocate, however.

 

[dianaiad]

Poor Diana. You guys have put her in a terrible double-bind, and you know it. You ask her to justify what goes on in Mormon temples, but she can’t, because it is a terrible secret that would mean her excommunication if she were to write about it. Of course, she can’t justify what goes on there, but that is besides the point.

Then, to make things worse, she tries to deflect the issue by talking about temple architecture and furnishings, because she is unwilling to even say that it is a secret. Then you call her on that. What I can’t understand is why she won’t admit that it is a secret. Even though we know, either through experience or second-hand accounts, and can recite it back to her.

Poor Diana.

Can we post links showing what on in Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals?. Maybe we ought to post some. Not expecting Diana to reciprocate, however.

Yes.

Poor Diana.

I made promises.

I keep them.

As for being ‘secret,’ How secret can they be if the CHURCH put them in the Congressional Record?

How ‘secret’ can they be when the church makes absolutely no move to shut down any publication of them, in any place, even when the scripts are copyrighted?

How ‘secret’ can they be, when some ‘spy’ from outside who comes to the Temple to deliberately film and record those ceremonies/ordinances, are not sued nor any action taken against them (well, other than excommunication, but hey, that’s fair).

but they are sacred, I promised…

and I wish I was surprised that a good Catholic would mock me for them, as if a promise made by a Mormon didn’t mean anything.

 

[OctobersOwn]

Diana, I really don’t think it’s healthy for you to be on these forum, these threads, these posts.

 

[twopekinguys]

As for being ‘secret,’ How secret can they be if the CHURCH put them in the Congressional Record?

Do you have a reference for this?

How ‘secret’ can they be when the church makes absolutely no move to shut down any publication of them, in any place, even when the scripts are copyrighted?

How ‘secret’ can they be, when some ‘spy’ from outside who comes to the Temple to deliberately film and record those ceremonies/ordinances, are not sued nor any action taken against them (well, other than excommunication, but hey, that’s fair).

The reason they haven’t sued him yet is either they are not sure who it was, or they can’t find him. However, they sure went after the publication of the church handbook of instruction didn’t they? Namely the Tanners.

Not really a good defense you have going there.

but they are sacred, I promised…

and I wish I was surprised that a good Catholic would mock me for them, as if a promise made by a Mormon didn’t mean anything.

Again, not seeing the mocking at all. Sorry, but this constant persecution card is really getting old. Especially when there is no persecution, attacking, or mocking going on.

Again, as you are aware, many of the people responding to you are former mormons. Many of which have as much knowledge of mormonism that you do. You just don’t want to give any creedence to anything they say, simply because they are ex-mormons.

ETA: I do have to agree with OctobersOwn. I’m not sure some of these threads are right for you. I have noticed a difference in your posting style since you were here last. Are you OK? (genuine concern)

 

[iepuras]

Again, as you are aware, many of the people responding to you are former mormons. Many of which have as much knowledge of mormonism that you do. You just don’t want to give any creedence to anything they say, simply because they are ex-mormons.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner here!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

To compare the modern Mormon temples to the beautiful historic Catholic churches that have been in existence for ages upon ages, is absolutely insane. There is nothing at all to compare. What a really dumb, insulting idea.

 

[Jerusha]

As for being ‘secret,’ How secret can they be if the CHURCH put them in the Congressional Record?

How ‘secret’ can they be when the church makes absolutely no move to shut down any publication of them, in any place, even when the scripts are copyrighted?

I don’t know, but maybe she is saying so because of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings ,
where a lot of information about the endowment was divulged. but the LDS church did not do it.

Yes, she seems to be more mellow, and, if anything, tired than she used to be. I would like to know, too, what is going on with Diana the person.

 

[Telstar]

Well RealClearReligion doesn’t strike me a a Catholic site and no one here has problem with them calling Roman Catholic churches ugly, nor are they upset with the humorous comments leveled against the ugly churches. My favorite comment was about the church pictured below, Roman Catholic BTW.

Optimus Prime goes here.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide21.jpg

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about that one!

I flipped through a couple dozen of the church pics (mostly Catholic) posted in the link, and I have to agree that they’re all pretty fugly. Some much more so than others, but I have to wonder what the designers were thinking (or ‘doing’) when they put them down on paper. :bigyikes:

 

[zaffiroborant]

Some of my favorites, though really not as churches:http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide31.jpg
http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide15.jpg

This one made me laugh out loud with it’s caption “Um, is that Presbyterian spider smiling at us?!”
http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide32.jpg

And this one, really did no one ever see the dunce/fools cap connection??
http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide34.jpg