Utah's Space Age Temples at Ogden and Provo

Mormon temple construction succumbed to the strains of economic depression in the 1930s and the distractions of World War II in the 1940s, a construction drought lasting nearly two decades. Construction resumed in 1945 with the completion of a temple in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Additional temples were constructed in Bern, Switzerland in 1955, Los Angeles, California in 1956, Hamilton, New Zealand and London, England in 1958, and Oakland, California in 1964. The temples in the post-war period were distinctly modern, vis-à-vis the early Utah temples, with their minimalist vernacular. This new breed was devoid of extravagant ornament, yet still suited to the established temple typology. The Idaho Falls Idaho Temple resembles a wedding cake with its progressive setbacks which eventually resolve into the central spire. The Bern Switzerland Temple, the London England Temple, and the Hamilton New Zealand Temple all formally exhibit a heavy and grounded rectangular main massing contrasted with a spire engaged in the front façade with a distinct vertical character. The Los Angeles California Temple exhibits a more elaborate base, in the form of a Greek cross, yet maintains the vertical spire on the front of the massing. The Oakland California temple is a derivation of the Los Angeles Temple but with five spires, with prominence given to the spire in the center of the massing. The four lesser spires act more as pinnacles, an extension of the main mass. Although these were modern temples, the interior spaces were designed for the traditional live ceremony with two important exceptions.


As if to usher in the modern era, in 1953 President David O. McKay commissioned a 16-millimeter film version of the endowment ceremony, up until that time it was a live ceremony, to be used in the one-room Swiss Temple. However, the Oakland temple was the first temple designed with the intention of modernizing the temple ritual by implementing 35-millimeter projection screens for a new film in the endowment rooms, thus altering the traditional interior plan and modernizing the temple ceremony. The Oakland temple bridged the transition between the earlier and less efficiently managed ‘live-action’ temples and the streamlined efficiency of the neo-modern temples, the first two being the Provo Utah and Ogden Utah temples, both of which were built in 1972 and designed by then Church Architect Emil B. Fetzer. Each exhibited a solitary central spire, vaguely reminiscent of the post-war temple typology, but embraced an obvious, yet highly abstract, ornamental program to embellish the exterior, something the immediately preceding temples lacked. Formally, both consisted of a rectangular massing with soft chamfered corners articulated with alternating attenuated windows within wider solid spandrels, all detached and elevated from its larger orthogonal base through the use of a narrow band of windows recessed from the face of the main block above. A tall central spire contrasted with the main form like a toothpick through a Reuben. These new Utah temples exhibited formal characteristics anathema to the traditional temple building typology. The new forms boasted of heightened efficiency of the ceremonies within and, therefore promoted a sense of fretful urgency to the work. Each served a large population center, relieving the stress on the overburdened Salt Lake Temple.

The Ogden and Provo Utah Temples both resemble a futuristic architecture and would greatly influence the architecture of the Washington D.C. Temple (1974), next in line and in design during the construction of the two Utah temples. An associative metaphor is a method whereby one comes to understand the unfamiliar modern building with something that one understands through familiarity. The Apollo Space program depended on the sleek and streamlined Saturn V rocket boosters to propel the astronauts’ module beyond the terrestrial frontiers and into the great voids of space. The Ogden and Provo Temples captured the same imagery in their architecture with the spires resembling the Saturn V breaking away from the earthly tether atop of pillar of fire and the main massing resembling the billowing exhaust from the powerful rocket boosters. This familiar imagery was seared in the collective memory of America in July 1969 as Apollo 11 targeted the Moon. Although the Saturn V symbolic imagery was likely unintended by the architect, the intended symbol of the new Utah temples, the Hebraic pillar of fire and the cloud God employed to stifle the Egyptian army as Israel made her miraculous escape, was very similar. The Ogden and Provo Temples are unlike any other temple, they are larger symbols, where the architectural systems of space, structure, and program are subordinated and suppressed by the overall symbolic form. As Robert Venturi alleged: “This type of building-becoming-sculpture we call the duck in honor of the duck shaped drive-in, “The Long Island Duckling.” The Provo and Ogden Utah temples are therefore ducks in Post-Modern theory.

Both temples occupy very diverse sites. The Ogden Temple is sited near the center of downtown, the Provo Temple at the foot of the craggy Y Mountain, atop Provo’s east bench. The Ogden Temple is seen from without the city and the Provo Temple is seen from within the city. Although the architecture of each reflects its time, both have been continuously impugned by architectural critics and church members alike for their lack of religious aesthetics worthy of Mormonism’s most important building type. The Church has made attempts to refine and standardize each of the outstanding temples in recent years by painting the gold colored spires a bland and boring white and perching a gilded Angel Moroni at the top. Each temple was designed and conceived of as a machine with a singular functional motive: to relentlessly churn out ordinance work for the living and dead. In that regard, each has been highly successful and despite the paucity of architectural acceptance, each has assumed an iconic presence and defined a sense of place.

However, in November 2009, the nonagenarian former architect Emil Fetzer died. As if signaling a green light, the Church immediately developed plans to update the Ogden temple and on February 17, 2010, ceremoniously announced plans to scrap the iconic Ogden exterior for one resembling the newly completed Draper, Utah temple, which is the new “standard plan” for temples. In other words, the iconic Ogden temple will no longer be iconic, but will become a bland and monotonous member of the new group.  Additional upgrades will include improvements to the old electrical, heating and plumbing systems with more modern, energy-saving systems. As well, the above ground parking will be eliminated and an underground parking garage will be constructed along with a complete redesign of of the temple block. The changes affect the adjacent Ogden tabernacle which will lose its spire in submission to the more hierarchically important building type. Paul Anderson, a Mormon temple scholar, opined that the Ogden Temple's look was controversial from the beginning. He added: “Some of the building materials were associated with commercial, not sacred architecture, and the location on a main city street, rather than elevated above it, added to that impression.” For one as conversant as Anderson, the precedent for siting the temple in an urban setting gained acceptance with the early temples, Kirtland, Ohio, Nauvoo, Illinois, and especially Salt Lake City, Utah, which functions as Mormonism’s primary architectural symbol.

Architectural preservationists should be up in arms about the planned changes. The Ogden Utah temple, along with its close twin, represent a paradigmatic shift in the way in which Mormons conceived and interpreted the temple, transitioning from the temple as a sacred structure to the temple as a machine. As the Church’s 14th and 15th operating temples, and two of four built in the 1970s, these were designed for ordinance work, and not as places of refuge and communion for the faithful adherents. As the sense of urgency for temple work increased, twenty-six temples were constructed in the 1980s, twenty-four in the 1990s, and sixty-one in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The update to the Ogden facade represents a rejection of the history associated with these specific temples.  Ironically, the Church made a gross error in the 1970s when it allowed architect Emil Fetzer to gut the interior of the historic Logan Utah temple and replace it with a disturbing 1970s interior, closely reminiscent of the Ogden and Provo interiors.  The same intentions seem to be at play with this planned renovation.

A member of the Church’s presiding First Quorum of the Seventy, Elder William R. Walker explained, “the Ogden Utah Temple has been a beacon of faith in downtown Ogden for nearly forty years and has blessed those who have served and worshipped within its walls. We hope these improvements will not only better serve Church members but also add to the beauty of downtown Ogden for all to enjoy.” He further explained that, "It basically is the same as building a new temple.” The decision to reinvent the exterior of the temple originated from the three members of the Church's governing First Presidency Walker added, because “they thought it somewhat dated.” One hopes that the First Presidency will moderate their extreme architectural urges when they consider the outdatedness of the Salt Lake, Manti, Logan, St. George, and for that matter any temple constructed prior to the Ogden Utah temple.

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Sources
1.  Buerger, David John. The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship. Smith Research Associates: San Francisco. 1994. 167.

2.  Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. 3rd Edition. Rizzoli: New York. 1977. 40.

3.  Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning From Las Vegas : The Forgotten Symbol of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1977. 87.

4.  Salt Lake Tribune. February 18, 2010. 'Somewhat dated' LDS temple to get new look.