The summer I turned 14, I was so excited to go to EFY. A summer baby, I was a year behind all my friends who despite being in the same grade, got to go one year earlier. I was excited to learn the dances, flirt with the boys. My parents tried to make it happen. My mom spent many hours on the phone, arguing her way up as far as she could go within CES.
She was told my presence simply would ruin the experience for the other youth.
You see, I use a wheelchair and need considerable help getting in and out of bed, dressed, showering etc. Once I’m up, I’m pretty independent, needing help with things like opening packaging or picking something up off the floor; tasks a campus full of LDS youth could have handled.
They went round and round, my mom trying to make concessions. They’d pay double for a caregiver to come with me, literally to sleep there and leave during the day. I’d stay at a hotel and just come during the day. Nothing worked. I never went to EFY. This is still a problem to this day (although a problem we are working on).
That year, at my public high school, I asked that the student section at the football stadium be moved to the side with the wheelchair accessible seating, so I could sit with my friends. I was told no because it would be too confusing.
I have been told my entire life, especially within the church, that other people, buildings, money, tradition are all more important than my ability to participate.
These last few weeks, I have read many pieces about the renovation of the Salt Lake Temple. Many people are very distraught over the removal of murals and the change in the live sessions. And I do truly feel for people as they grieve that loss. But I hope you can also understand some of my perspective as well.
I welcome changes that allow more people to access the temple. More instruction rooms will allow more people to attend the temple, especially people visiting from out of town. Staying in one room the entire time, instead of moving room to room keeps people with mobility issues safer and saves them the discomfort, and embarrassment of moving again and again, potentially holding up the group. A video presentation allows people who do not speak english or are Deaf or hard of hearing can now attend a session that fits in their schedule, instead of contorting their schedule to fit the temple’s.
There’s a saying in historical preservation that if the Coloseum can be accessible without damaging the integrity of the building, so can everything else. But we have to remember, it’s not acting as a Coloseum. If it were, it would be largely inaccessible. It’s a museum, a reminder of the past, not a vehicle to move work forward here and now. A temple is a building designed for us to do the work for our ancestors and to grow closer to our Heavenly Parents. It is not a museum, a shrine to our ancestors—who are ancestors to really only a small part of our worldwide church body. The Israelites worshipped in a portable Tabernacle for decades, in order to meet the needs of the people right then.
I worry when we start putting the preservation of a building, when we put the feelings of long-deceased, famous artists over the very real needs of real people right here and now, people largely anonymous and disconnected from the everyday experiences of largely white, American, able-bodied, middle class people along the Wasatch Front.
Many of the changes to the Salt Lake temple will not make temple worship easier for me personally. It will still be very difficult. But as someone who is already kept out and left out of many places—homes, camps, church buildings—I believe we should not put more barriers to the work going on in the House of the Lord and welcome changes that serve some of the most marginalized among us.
Shelby Hintze is a news producer in Salt Lake City. She grew up in the Seattle area and then went to BYU. You can find her on Twitter @shelbyhintze
24 Responses
I agree that putting artwork before people’s needs is problematic. However, it’s generally not a black/white, either/or situation, as you have implied. Please be aware that any building that undergoes extensive renovation is required to bring that building up to current codes–including accessibility regulations. In my practice as an architect, I have found that there is generally a way to preserve AND provide for current needs. Most often, when the beauty of an older building is destroyed in the construction process, it is the client who decided that retaining artistic/historic integrity was too hefty a price for them.
Yes, exactly. Including everyone, especially those with different abilities is growing the church.
Change is good, it is moving toward a more perfect body of Christ. How about reminding the complaining members that we are all part of one body and some have been waiting to be included for decades and longer. Are not we at the temple to be in service for others? I suspect some of these hurt feelings are masking bigots who are more comfortable with getting EVERYTHING their way. Time for the body of Christ to grow up. We are all getting older and with age will all need accommodation of some sort. Anyone could need to be in a wheelchair temporarily or permanently. Even the Apostles are going to need this sort of help
Soon or later. Let us put love and inclusion before buildings.
With all due respect, loving art doesn’t make you a bigot Teresa. The church has a lot of money, and brain power. They could probably figure out some ways to preserve the murals. The author makes an excellent points that there can be items of historical significance that need to be preserved in a formal academic setting. Why not move(at least some pieces) of the artwork to the church history museum so that more people(not just the temple worthy) can enjoy them?
No one is arguing against the positive benefit of making the temple more accessible. Christianity is steeped in a tradition of holy objects. The temple itself, is just a building except that we all agree that it has symbolic and spiritual value. It is physical part of our culture and ritutal. It is hypocritical to claim that people should be bound to the symbolism and physicality of the temple, and then shame them for mourning the loss of the artwork inside. Let’s allow people to mourn the loss of spiritually valuable objects.
I am not shaming anyone. But I have been shamed for being disabled. I have a very pronounced hunchback due to a spinal curvature. I sat down next to one of the ladies,
In relief society and asked if I could look on with her and share her scriptures during the meeting. She stood up and scolded me loudly for not bringing my own scriptures and told the value of the scriptures in general and dressed me down in front of the entire room of ladies. I was
Stunned by this treatment as HER husband was my home teacher, and he would be the person who had to Carry my scriptures around for me, he had picked me up for church and was going to return me home. I am not allowed to carry more than 5 pounds. I quietly reminded her that a I usual look on with another lady who was occupied with other duties, and I was sorry to trouble her. Then I moved away from her. No one came to my aid. I sat next to
Another lady who did share her scriptures with me kindly. I have let her and several others know how stunned and shamed I felt. She never apologized nor did anyone ever address the issue. She is a big deal in the ward. She has taken many other shots at me, and it is well known that she does this to others. No one will address this. She is one of many insensitive
Women who believe they have the right to dress down anyone “below” them at any time.
It may not surprise you that I don’t go to service often. I mourn the lack of kindness to others and myself who don’t meet the worthy enough standards of the holier than than me Mormons.
I decided they are right and I get my spiritual food elsewhere, mostly. It is sad to me that artwork has more standing in the temple than many people do. What does that say of the church and how Mormons are seen as people?
As an art historian, I am very interested in preservation, but I’m also concerned that the temple, which is a vehicle of *salvation* in Mormonism, is not available to folks with a range of disabilities. I can hear the pain of exclusion from so much of Mormonism in this post, from cultural experiences like EFY to the temple, which many would describe as the pinnacle of Mormon practice. I doubt that the church’s only choice, with many billions of dollars at its disposal, was to preserve the murals OR make the temple more accessible for folks with disabilities. To me, it looks like the church threw people with disabilities under the bus as an excuse for what was undoubtedly an unpopular decision about the murals. I do think that we need to hear in this post that the church has not made accessibility a priority and that Mormons with disabilities experience exclusion from ordinary church activities and ordinances that are supposed to be available to those with church membership.
Hey Shelby,
This isn’t going to be a long argument. Let me just say, thank you for sharing and helping me see another side of the discussion.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am so sorry to hear about your experiences with EFY, and I appreciate your perspective about the renovation project.
With all due respect, the SL Temple had operating elevators and wheelchair access long ago. The only place I knew that had problems with access on all of Temple Square was the Beehive House. The Lion House was also awkward. While some minor enhancements regarding access were included, the major renovations and the decision to discontinue the living endowment and pull down the murals have nothing really to do with access for the handicapped.
As a Salt Lake local, the real mystery is why the Church justified these renovations by claiming that there was a demand for more access to the Salt Temple. This is not true. The sessions were rarely full. Parking is horrific in that part of Salt Lake. Even General Authorities who live North of Salt Lake tend to attend the Bountiful Temple. Those who did attend Salt Lake wanted to see the live endowment ceremony in the historic rooms. These renovations do not create more opportunities for people to attend the Salt Lake Temple in the manner that the local members desired.
I think that Shelby’s point here is that making the temple and other church activities accessible for folks with disabilities goes far beyond elevators and wheelchair access.
I appreciate that accessibility in the SL temple may not have been an issue for you. Shelby graciously shared her experience, which was different than yours. Hearing those experiences helps us enlarge our field of vision and include all people in our community. As she pleads, “But I hope you can also understand some of my perspective as well.”
While I grieve the loss of the art, I rejoice in the ability others will have to experience the SL Temple thanks to these changes. I’m equally struck by the comment reminding us that often, art and accessibility can co-exist post-renovation. For whatever reason, it seems possible the First Presidency decided not to save the murals.
Thanks, Shelby. This post has given me a lot to think about. I’m sorry for the many ways you have been excluded from activities, especially those that could have been made accessible. I can see how important it is to make accessibility a central focus of renovating not just historic buildings, but ceremonies and traditions.
Thank you, Shelby, for sharing your experiences and ideas. Reading your words has helped me widen my perspective and I really appreciate your openness and generosity. I’ve not always been aware of how the spaces I occupy are exclusive to others, and hearing from you about what is inclusive to you versus not has helped open my lens. I’m going to do what I can to advocate for more inclusivity in my local buildings now that I can see ways we’re still falling short.
Sigh.
Exponent. Really?
Women are sometimes our own worst enemies.
Shelby, I understand your perspective for inclusion. That’s admirable. But I vehemently disagree that we should support volume at the expense of historical preservation and especially at the expense of women’s craftsmanship and art.
They are talking about doubling the volume of the SL Temple, but there are 18 or more other temples in Utah, and several more were announced this weekend. You can throw a stone in any direction and hit another temple. Volume is a moot point- there are several ways to accommodate the heft of practical temple work in the area and to share the historic temple experience with those who seek it without compromising that grand dame.
What about women’s voices and participation in the highest, most sacred center of Mormon ritual and culture? I think it was Margaret Thatcher Ulrich who made the point that women should spend more time writing their stories and engaging in historical research and less time developing talents in temporary and easily decayed pursuits like cake decorating (and other culinary arts) and fabric arts as has always been the focus of women. While the Exponent is one of the few venues for our voices (I’m female, despite my online name), I feel we have a duty to help preserve our grandmother’s hand-crafted and consecrated testimonies, meant to endure till the millennium. Women had a unique role in creating the interior of temples (sewing, upholstery, painting, etc.) and unlike efforts to tailor clothes or pipe stars of white frosting, they attempted to immortalize their testimonies specifically in temple craftsmanship.
Minerva’s murals, female characters in the temple script, and even our cherished alter cloths have now all been brushed into the trash. By men. Erasing not only women’s historical voices, but their current and future ones as well. And let’s not pretend that this wasn’t to make room for the male GAs that arrive twice annually from all over the world to participate in trainings, sit in the front rows of conference, and importantly- convene in the solemn assembly in the largest room of the Salt Lake Temple. Yes, all this loss was enacted by men to make more room for more men.
So, I don’t support the “inclusivity” that was achieved. And no, I don’t buy the narrative from the newsroom as being the whole story. Sadly, I’m afraid that the melee over this issue is truly about women’s voices (and those of basic rank and file craftspersons) being silenced.
I feel horrible about all of this, and hope my response isn’t taken as terse.
I wonder if the Exponent wouldn’t consider, or point me to other venues, where we could preserve the stories of women’s art and temple craftsmanship, that is now-a memory. For example, interviewing women who spent decades perfecting crochet or tatting, and then years creating a single alter cloth, often with inspiration about the sacred symbols and timing of the work. Or, the paintings, sewn temple veils, upholstery, interior design, etc. there are stories behind this work that may already be lost as it’s more and more rare for saints to be the actual temple builders. It would make a great book, or series.
Are you disabled and use a wheelchair? Have you been excluded from church activities and sacred ordinances because of your use of a wheelchair?
The church is choosing to not preserve the murals and the work of a woman. That’s on the church. Not on Shelby. The church has no problem bulldozing women’s contributions for the sake of progress.
Shelby offered her perspective as a person who uses a wheelchair. Many have mourned the loss of Minerva’s murals, but not many have been brave enough to offer a different perspective.
Hosting a guest post that adds nuance and context to the discussion does not mean the Exponent 2 wants to erase and silence women’s voice. If that’s what you got from the post instead of empathy for disabled people, I don’t know what to tell you.
I have so hoped that perhaps we would be able to find a middle ground. The Los Angeles Temple, for example, was renovated in a manner that stopped the entire company moving from room to room but kept the murals. (It was always fun to see which room you were going to get: would it be the Creation Room, with its vast planets, or the World Room—where a vulture consuming a rabbit was partially painted over because the prophet at the time thought it was “too gory.”) I too want our sisters of all abilities to be fully included, but does that require the cold, gray box-like rooms of the Mt. Timpanogos Temple? The whisking away of altar clothes (too burdensome to clean)? Can we not accommodate AND let our worship include the beautifully colorful worship of women?
Just some thoughts. Inclusion first, but preservation too?
The original SLT renovation plans included the addition of one multi-purpose (universal design) instruction room that would accommodate many different temple-goers, from those who speak other languages to persons with mobility requirements. This was in addition to the previously existing elevators that ALREADY accommodated users with mobility needs (which are a large number of the GAs and temple workers.) The last time I attended the SLT (with family who had mobility accommodation needs) they comfortably participated at every station, and even rode the elevator around with the Prophet and Apostles (who also could not take the stairs.)
When the switcheroo from “preservation” to “renovation” occurred, ALL the endowment rooms in The SL Temple were scrapped and turned into 5 generic multi-purpose instruction rooms. Everything was made generic. Everything was gutted. The same thing was planned, but is now in limbo in Manti.
The renovation didn’t have to be so sweeping- so black and white. The historic attributes could have been preserved while comfortably accommodating all temple-goers. My wish would have been for persons with and without accommodation needs to experience an historic pioneer temple’s spirit through its art, live endowment, pioneer and women’s craftsmanship, etc. I especially hoped that women’s testimonies could continue to “speak” (as they were consecrated and dedicated to do) in those sacrosanct places. For those who don’t want the historic pioneer experience, there are dozens and dozens of temples in the area that cater more to lazy-boy-esque comfort and efficiency. When I mourn the losses that have already taken place in our historic temples, the loss of women’s voices, I mourn a loss that hits all of us. All of us.
As far as my exacerbation w E2 (which I dearly love) I think that women are enculturated defer to others, to put their needs dead last, to make sure everyone else comes first. So, when faced with what seemed like a zero-sum situation, a women’s advocacy organization quickly set aside its mission and focus (LDS women’s voices) to make way for another minority voice. Don’t get me wrong, that voice is valid and essential, and I deeply sympathize with it (having spent much of 2019 and 2029 myself in a wheelchair). There ought to be solidarity for all underrepresented groups. Agreed. But we can’t let our own mission and values be snuffed in the process.
The erasure of women’s voices in historic temples was an inexcusable travesty. And as I advocated above, I don’t think that historic preservation and accommodation needed to be juxtaposed against one another in a one-side-wins-the-other-looses proposition. But, for the time they were perceived to be that way, the fact that we (as women) quickly deferred to others was predictable, and disappointing.
Oh, this does put a finer and sadly more real point on the matter. The men, aka the authorities are the ones who decide what is worth saving and what is worth spending money on. Again, I say this sadly, not on women, or beautiful things that women create by hand. Too bad these things are not seen as important enough to save for members of the future.
It sounds like you have been a part of the Exponent II community for a long time, Mortimer (thank you!); here, we are focusing on Exponent II’s mission of sharing women’s stories and experiences. Shelby’s life experiences are valid, preserving the murals is valid, and by holding space for both, we are enriched as a people building Zion.
By holding the complexities of how disabled folx are kept from being able to fully participate in Church ordinances and preserving the material culture of women who are artists in the temple, I believe we are encouraging the Church leaders to do better, to make room for both.
Sorry for the typo, I meant to say “much of 2019 and 2020…” I have no time machine ; )
This right here took my breath away, “I have been told my entire life, especially within the church, that other people, buildings, money, tradition are all more important than my ability to participate.”
Thank you for sharing this, Shelby.
EmilyCC,
Well bless your heart.
You have me a little bit of sugar before ganging up on me (or taking sides) in no less than two comments. (I tried it too, does “bless your heart” work as a compliment sandwich to negate the conflict? It feels a little icky to me.)
But back in point. It’s ok. We don’t have to all agree with one another.
Sometimes staying in a place of dissonance is difficult, especially when we want so desperately to sing Kumbaya together all the time. But, in life, there are paradoxes and complex issues that can’t be wrapped up in a bow. Admitting that there are competing values or priorities and wrestling with that fact can sometimes foster growth.
In this case, several conflicting priorities emerged: the individual versus the collective, women’s vs disabled persons’ needs/priorities, function vs form (temple purpose), preservation vs accommodation, people vs process, separate vs equal, participatory worship vs delivered/controlled worship etc.
Shelby poignantly said: “I have been told my entire life, especially within the church, that other people, buildings, money, tradition are all more important than my ability to participate.”
She is absolutely right in pointing out that people are the most important priority. This fact is often forgotten by religion, including Mormonism, as maintenance of the machinery reflexively becomes the priority. I read Shelby’s post as a counter-point to the push to preserve the status quo, in favor of the changes that made the experience more accommodating to differently-abled, non-English speaking, or mobility-challenged persons.
My first point, not Shelby’s and not E2, was that the issue didn’t have to be juxtaposed as an either-or. Accommodations were already in place (with elevators and ramps as well as a stationary and technologically equipped instruction room). Furthermore, if the interior had been preserved (instead of gutted/renovated) all people could have experienced the historic spirit and “voices” from the past. Now, no one does. We all get the same generic experience. Slow clap. Even though I pointed out that the preservation/accommodation dilemma is a false dichotomy, for the time it existed, we were so quick to defer women’s voices for another underrepresented position.
My second point was that this isn’t a question of putting stuff over people. To me, the historical elements in the pioneer temples aren’t “things”. They are the consecrated and preserved voices of other women (and men). And we should be making room for everyone’s voice, especially women’s voices, past, present and future.
But, if some people feel that all that history is just “stuff”, that the immediate temple goers are the only and most important element of temple worship, that temple service is purely functional; then I suggested that there are literally dozens of new temples in the valley that are more comfortable.
My last point for today is that this razing eliminates both the symbolic place of and the the precedent for women’s, rank and file, and even disabled persons’ voices in our temples. Those voices were and are being erased, by men, for (in my opinion) the purpose of function, efficiency, and correlation and importantly- control. I believe they are also erasing evidence of participatory worship in lieu of “on message” delivered/controlled worship. The rationale provided by the church that this was largely done to be accommodative is a red herring. First, accommodations were already in place. Second, it’s a false dichotomy that accommodation and preservation couldn’t co-exist. Let’s call it what it was, patriarchal control.
Enlightenment has arrived, lightbulbs turned on, the matriarchy must raise.
I wish you could have heard the tone I was trying to convey. Thanks for expanding your thoughts; I didn’t understand what your original intent was.
I too wasn’t very clear on this thread, and am glad I stayed with it. Women are and have always been the heart and work FORCE of the church. Ladies rule! It is good to talk and work through issues like this. And of course the sister art and craft should be saved for the enjoyment of all members. I hope the Authorities aka boys get the message that women’s work is worth saving. Thanks everyone.