PLEASE NOTE: This post is based of a poor quality copy of a copy of an image, and is not meant to be Official. It is all speculation.
This weekend while in Canada, President Nelson showed off a new render for the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple. Someone posted a blurry copy of the render on Facebook, and I have poured over it all morning. I have been comparing it to the old official render so that I can update my model. (If anyone has a higher resolution image, I would love it, by the way.)
I have made a preliminary render with changes to my model, and I wanted to share a few things I have noticed.
First and most obvious, the new design appears to be brick with precast concrete trim, whereas the old temple was to have been Tyndall stone. In the Tyndall version, the inscription (Holiness To The Lord, The House Of The Lord) was in a rectangular inset in the base of the spire, above the door. In the brick temple, this inscription is now in what appears to be a pre-cast concrete panel above the door. The base of the tower is shorter on the new brick temple temple, about 2/3 the height of the old one. This in turn makes the whole spire a little bit shorter. The spire itself appears to be tin, rather than copper now. Where the Inscription used to be, there is now a circle with keystones. It appears there might be similar details on the other gables of the temple as well.The entryway and the spire appear to have been moved forward about 6-12 feet.
The edges of the gables now have a new column detail that the Tyndall version did not have.
The primary stained glass on the front of the building has been divided into smaller panels. as a consequence, it is most likely that the crocus pattern that appeared in the Tyndall version of the temple will be replaced with something less intricate.
I appreciate the time you have put into this image and the thoughts behind it. I am fascinated by the temples, and in particular the planning and building of new temples. I would suggest that render is a verb, as in to render, and the word you have repeatedly used should have been rendering, which is a noun. You have given us a nice rendering of what you believe the temple will look like.
Thank you for your comments on my work. I appreciate it!
In regards to your suggestions on grammar, in the 3D community it long ago become the accepted practice to refer to the image created from 3D models as a render, or to several images as renders. So much so that by the time I got into computer modeling 13 years ago it was already an established practice. Similarly, the process of creating those images is known in the CG/Animation/3D community as rendering. During my years at school, no one ever referred to either images or movies created from a model as a rendering, but rather, as a draft render, or a final render. This is just a case of words taking on a slightly different meaning in newer applications, as happens to the English language all to frequently.
Brigham Young saw the Salt Lake Temple in spirit whenever he looked at the site from his earliest visit; it is more than just likely that future temples exist this way now. In other words, since Brigham Young saw those thousands of temples the Lord has also seen them! Why would there suddenly be a switch in quality? He knows about each of them and He will continue to be prepared for their building like He has always been. The numbers of His children are not too much for Him to manage. Are 10 temples at once too much for Him, or 50? Whose work is temple building and Whose houses are they? Is this “the days of our poverty,” more than for the Saints who built the original temple in Nauvoo? And, why would materials be economized now, while dedicating about 5 a year?
Even having seen the Salt Lake Temple in spirit, Brigham Young believed for years that it would be adobe block with a stucco cover scored to resemble stone blocks. He said when granite was discovered, “this material, enduring as the everlasting hills, was a fitting emblem of the eternal nature of the sacred ordinances to be administered within the Temple.” (Houses of the Lord, Ensign, July 1997) In the same article the author said, “In the meantime, today’s temples continue to utilize the finest in new materials and technologies as they become available.” That should never cease to be the case. Sacrifice in temple building should never be thrown out. Symbolism cannot be neglected on or in temples. Meetinghouses can be cookie-cutter to reduce cost, but temples are designed by the Lord and are His houses. In some locations more simple temples are built; Canada is not historically one of those places. Monumental temples will still be built as will small temples; we can anticipate future temples, as a group, looking a lot like the current collection in diversity and individuality – Zion will increase in beauty over time, not decrease.
Most of the work of Truman O. Angell on the Salt Lake Temple was to plan for every stone in the structure, beginning with the stones at the quarry and no stone was unnecessarily transported. The needed dimensions of every stone were known and no stone could take the place of another. (See Autobiography of Truman O. Angell) Remember Elder J. Golden Kimball, “…every stone in it is a sermon to me … every rock in it, preaches a discourse.” And, on a non-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints note, think of how Ruskin waxes on about documenting and preserving every stone. Stones are symbols of indispensable and unique individuals made by God.
But, some temples are faced with man-made stone! The problem is specifically with brick. Pink Floyd used the phrase “you’re just another brick in the wall” which resonates with people. Jews, Catholics and other Christians have a similar Genesis-influenced position on the symbolism of brick. From the Vatican: ; something brief from a Jewish perspective: , and an even more brief Lutheran one: . The symbolism is: falsity, indistinguishable sameness of individuals, expendably cheap individuals, exchangeable individuals that can be anywhere in the structure without keystone or cornerstone. This temple might be faced with brick. But, it can’t be divorced from the symbolism of it and how heartbreaking considering the symbolism!
The Winnipeg Temple was peculiar, beautiful and permanent in the copper, the custom-looking art glass window and Tyndall stone. So, given the symbolism of brick and this change from the nicer-looking temple; I’m hopeful that it’s an ongoing process and I’ll be just a little bit in mourning if not. I’ll be okay.
Despite the traditions that we hold around temples, no temple has ever been seen “in its entirety” the way that members tend to think it was before being built.
Joseph and his councilors saw a very detailed vision of the Kirtland temple, inside and out. However, many details on the temple, including trim-work, window shapes, and the design of the pulpits were taken Architectural plan books, such as American Builders Companion, published 1806, and Practical House Carpenter, published 1830. In fact, 2 different individuals designed the upper and lower stories of the temple. See Elwin C. Robison’s excellent book The First Mormon Temple for more info on the inspiration for the design of the Kirtland Temple.
On the St. George Temple, Brigham Young changed the design of the tower from a tall spire to a short dome early on in construction, and was not completely satisfied with the end result, feeling he should have requested something taller. See Blaine M. Yorgason’s book All That Was Promised for a more information.
At Salt Lake, while Brigham Young did see the overall design of the temple, he said in conference prior to the groundbreaking that he would layout the general design, and if any man could improve it, they were welcome to submit suggestions. To that end, suggestions for star stones, sun stones, moon stones, and earth-stones were incorporated, as were other details like the rays breaking through the clouds and the all seeing eye. Other suggested details were included, then later eliminated due to difficulty or changing taste, such as the Saturn stones and the images of the hemispheres of the earth that were planned for the earth-stones at one time. Brigham Young knew of the granite-like Quartz Monzonite when he proposed the adobe temple. He felt that adobe, made with green straw, would cure into a much harder and resilient material than even the granite. He relented to the granite when the material selection was put to a vote in conference and the body of the church selected granite-like alternative.
Brigham and Truman Angell planned a temple that was made of stone with wooden spires covered in tin. This plan remained in place until Don Carlos Young convinced John Taylor to change the spires to stone well after both Brigham and Truman Angell died. Brigham and Truman planned a temple that had the Garden Room in a separate outbuilding in the form of a Victorian era style greenhouse south of the temple and connected by tunnel. Again, it was John Taylor that changed the plan for that room and removed it, moving the Garden Room inside the temple. Brigham and Truman designed a temple with dual assembly halls, the multiple endowment rooms being in the basement only. It was not until after the Logan Temple design was finalized that John Taylor allowed the Design of the salt Lake interior to change to a single Assembly hall.
For more details on the design changes to the Salt Lake Temple check out Wallace Allen Raynor’s Thesis History of the Construction of the Salt Lake Temple,
Paul C. Richards’s work The Salt Lake Temple Infrastructure: Studying It Out in Their Minds, and Charles Mark Hamilton’s The Salt Lake Temple: An Architectural Monograph.
The St. George temple was built with endowment rooms in the basement at Brigham Young’s Direction, and remodeled to replace the lower assembly hall with larger rooms at the direction of Heber J. Grant. The Logan Temple was built with progressive rooms, built one so far above another that the endowment took in excess of 4 hours under the direction of Truman Angell Jr. and John Taylor, and it was remodeled under Spencer W. Kimball in order to accommodate an increase in efficiency, lower endowment wait times, lower endowment times, and disability affordances.
Temple building has always been an experiment, with the Lord Giving some direction, and the rest left for us to reason out in our minds. The Lord has never given all of it. The Kirtland temple is falling apart now, not because Community of Christ does not take care of it, but because the Saints had no one involved in the design of the temple that knew how to build a stone building of such size and it’s support is inadequate. (Frankly, it’s a miracle it is still standing at this point at all!)
I’m sorry that Pink Floyd ruined brick for you, but I have no such imagery come to my mind when I see it. For me, brick has permanence and stability. Brick was on the face of many of the homes where I have some of my fondest memories, It is a happy material for me. I absolutely love the Provo City Center Temple and the thought of it being in anything other than brick is inconceivable for me.
Keep in mind, my render of the temple is based off a very fuzzy image, and it may be that they are using a brick that has a good historical feel, with a shallow mortar joint like these older temples. I don’t know. I made my model the brick style it is because it was quick and easy to do. It may have marbling or variation like the other brick temples. It might have keystones or alternating depth in its courses. The spire appeared to be brushed nickel or tin in it’s finish, not white, and I may have done a poor job expressing that. I just don’t know. My aim with this model was to just get it out there that the design has changed, and let people get a sample of the new design.
In regards to Cookie cutter, we have done cookie cutter temples, in the time of Spencer W. Kimball and the time of Gordon B. Hinckley. It is most obvious in the small temples, 40 of which were built world wide. There are 2 variations in window location, and about 3 variations in exterior materials, 4 different window types were used, and many of the temples throughout the south east US ended up only distinguishable by their landscaping.
This is not the end of the world as temple construction goes. It is a potential change in style and pace. Which is not to be mourned, for every temple, regardless of the material finish, lessens the hold of the Devil in this world.
Bricks on temples have so far only been on historic brick buildings that were originally meeting houses or tabernacles. I hope it stays that way; it’s inappropriate to use brick on a temple when it is a temple from the beginning. But, I see what you’re seeing — there are notable buildings in red brick and the blonde Tyndall stone all around; so brick is a good assumption, as opposed to guessing or hoping that some beautiful red stone is being shipped in from Germany.
The spire’s white metal color, the brick with concrete trim, the heavy window mullions like storefront system — these changes remove anything temple-like. It was already small, dressed like this it looks like an area-appropriate stake center next to a mass-produced stake center.
I’m going to keep hoping this is just a proposal along the way and not the final.
Update: I have realized that some of what I said herein is wrong: Specifically, the Johannesburg South Africa has a brick exterior, was not a historic building, was not made from a historic building, and was dedicated in 1985. Additionally, the Hamilton New Zealand Temple, dedicated in 1958, has a n exterior of hand-made bricks painted an off white color. So it is not true that prior to the Winnipeg Temple, only converted Historic Buildings were temples with brick exterior.
This is true that bricks typically have been only on temples made from other buildings. However, other buildings used as temples temporarily also were brick from day one, like the Endowment house, or the Red Brick Store.
A temple is not the marble and granite and velvet we typically put into them. A Temple can be a tent in the wilderness, or any building, these days, that has a font. A Temple is decorated with fine things because we want to give our best to our Father in Heaven, but a temple is not those fine things.
Brigham Young said that someday we would have THOUSANDS of temples. Currently we are building temples at an average rate of 5 per year. At this rate it will take us 160 years to build 1000 temples total. It is my opinion, not having access to anything that is not already out there and available tot he general public, that temples will have to be done cheaper, more affordably, more frequently, and more conservatively in there design in order for us to build the numbers of temples we will need to perform the work our Father in Heaven requires us to.
So yes, I think this is the final for the Winnipeg Temple, or something rather similar to it.
Edit: Originally in this comment I said 360 years, due to me hitting the wrong key. I have fixed it.