I’m angry about the loss of those pine pews!
America’s newspaper of record, The New York Times, today picks up two unrelated history-related stories out of Utah, instantly giving them broader importance.Â
The first story concerns the LDS Church’s apparent decision to replace some of the Tabernacle’s original pews–which were made of pine but finished to look like oak–with, oddly enough, oak reproductions (see the Messenger & Advocate’s coverage here).Â
The second story surrounds the battle in Salt Lake City over the future of the Deseret Bank Building, a classic skyscraper completed in 1919. In early October, church officials announced that that the structure would be demolished in November to be replaced with a brand new office building. Recently, however, church officials have stated that the decision is being revisited. Negative public reaction to the original announcement seems to have played a key role in the latest developments (I covered the details here).
What’s interesting about the Times‘ coverage is the emotion that the reporter injects into the story.  He writes:
The loss of the original, and uncomfortable, pine pews, handmade in 1867 and meticulously etched and painted to look like oak, angers many Mormons, whose religion is strongly defined by its history and its forebears’ hardships.
The reporter’s evidence that “many Mormons” are angered by the loss of the pews? Well, he manages to find one person who seems angry, a retired schoolteacher named LaMar Taft Merrill Jr. who grew up in Salt Lake City but now lives in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Merrill, the reporter tells us, is “a descendant of an early church apostle” who says that the loss of the pews “would be a ‘shameful act’ by the church’s ‘misguided top echelon’” (it’s not clear how the reporter got in touch with Merrill, but it’s clear that the church’s Strengthening Church Members Committee will be in touch with Merrill’s church leaders very shortly).Â
Other people quoted in the article, though, seem more mellow about the whole thing. A University of Utah academic who is a Presbyterian notes that he does not have strong feelings about the pews. Non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps doesn’t directly address the pews, insteading talking about the fervor of the early Saints and their conviction that “they were building a holy ‘kingdom in the tops of the mountains,’ a place to live and welcome their savior with suitable edifices.” A Salt Lake City art dealer communicates some lament, calling the pews “the character-defining attribute” of the Tabernacle, the loss of which means that “you lose your access to that indigenous past,” but he doesn’t come across as angry. Â
A retired newspaper editor living in Logan may provide the article’s only other illustration of anger among Mormons over the pews (assuming that he is Mormon and that he is, in fact, angry). “It’s an issue of values….We glorify our pioneers. We talk about their travails and bless their devilishly hard work. We laud them on the one hand and run roughshod over them on the other. We’re dishing up ersatz history and throwing away the real thing….You can’t ever replace what’s original….And an oak bench is no more comfortable than a pine bench.”
If the reporter wanted to find an angry Mormon, he could have started and ended his search at the Messenger & Advocate (see my comment here).  Â
Justin, I’ve been meaning to chastise the New York Times reporters for their apparent failure to follow the Messenger and Advocate, and Mormon Wasp specifically and the Bloggernacle Times generally for angry Mormons, not to mention great posts about just about everything Mormon!
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 10:38 am
I’m not angry, but I am sad. I think it is a little odd that no official reasoning for getting rid of the benches has been offered.
Comment by a random John — October 26, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
I wouldn’t worry too much about those benches lest one become like unto those described in Matt 23:23 or perhaps Mormon 8:37.
Comment by Mark Butler — October 26, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
Those pews were way too small for how tall people are. Back when the average height was 5′ 4″ they might have been OK. But they sure are horrible for 6′ folks.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 26, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
Mark, I actually think you aren’t kidding. Whoa.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 26, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
I want cushy theater seats with beverage/tray holders.
But they have to be historic too.
Otherwise I’ll be mad. Really really mad.
Comment by danithew — October 26, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
I don’t think that those benches were ever a good fit for anybody’s anatomy. Maybe they were designed specifically to keep people awake during less than scintillating sermons. (One ancestor’s journal consistently describes John Taylor’s sermons as “long and dry”.)
But the desire to preserve them isn’t a matter of concern for the “adornment” of our churches. If so, then Brother Brigham and his fellows are the ones who should bear the opprobrium.
Rather, it’s a desire to preserve another fine example of pioneer craftsmanship. Few today appreciate real craftsmanship, in large part because we have so little experience in working with our hands, but also because we are accustomed to seeing the computer-aided design and manufacture of furniture and cabinetry, and forget that those pews were shaped by hand and “grained” (itself a lost art) to look like oak by hand. The blood and toil and sweat of our pioneer forbears went into those pews. Should we toss them on the rubbish heap in favor of some machine-designed and manufactured pews?
Comment by Mark B. — October 26, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
I’m with Mark B. I had a chance to visit the Tabernacle just before university and I was struck by the dedication of the pioneeers who painted those pews and the “marble” pillars. I’m disappointed about the loss of those pews. They are precious and unique as well as important for emotional and historical reasons. It is a shame to replace them.
On the other hand, maybe they’re so termite-damanged or what have you that they’re not safe. In that case, I think they ought to be replaced with real oak. The pioneers were trying to build something as beautiful and worthy as they could with the materials available. To replace them with imitation oak now seems like just the cheap thing to do.
(And as a 5’1″ person in a world mostly designed for people about half a foot taller than I am, I love the idea of pews that would be right for me!)
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — October 26, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Those benches were always horrible to sit on for more than a few minutes. Pity the countless thousands of paralyzed butts over the years of conference sessions. Sitting for three hours at a time on one of those old benches — long-suffering indeed.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 26, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
What, nobody had invented the pillow?
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — October 26, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
The issue fundamentally is whether the Tabernacle is a museum piece, not really intended for use or whether it is more dynamic where we use it yet try to preserve the artifacts within that use. One could point to the SLC Temple as an other example of this problem.
Personally I have no trouble with the pews going.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 26, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Clark, you would buy one if offered for sale? I would.
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
I would too, if I had the money and the place to put it.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — October 26, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
I’m confused. Since when was the New York Times America’s newspaper of record? At least, not since they decided to only print news that fits…
Comment by queuno — October 26, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
The issue is fundamentally not what Clark Goble says it is, and he sets up a false dichotomy.
It’s not necessary to toss the old pews in order to maintain the functionality of the tabernacle.
There’s nothing at all about the old pews that would require their replacement. As I understand it, they are in generally good condition and with the normal refurbishing that would be required of any century old furniture, they could be reinstalled.
PDoE, I don’t think that the new pews would be imitation oak–they’d be real oak, but it would probably be slab sawn oak. The old ones are pine, but are painted–”grained” to resemble oak, but quarter sawn oak.
Now I realize that I’ve lost 99% of you in drawing the distinction between slab sawn and quarter sawn lumber–and I don’t do it just to be a snob, but to show how in modern culture we have lost the knowledge to know what real craftsmanship is.
Kudos to anyone who can explain the difference and why it matters.
Comment by Mark B. — October 26, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
Mark, they’re too small to sit on comfortably. So it’s not a false dichotomy.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 27, 2006 @ 12:00 am
The discomfort (and, frankly, I don’t remember how uncomfortable they were–but it’s been 20 years and I was only 6’1″ and 165 lbs back then) didn’t seem to stop folks from lining up to get in.
So, it was in no danger of becoming a museum piece six years ago before the Conference Center was built, and wouldn’t be today if the old pews were reinstalled.
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Mark, don’t you think that their lining in was due to the fact it was the only live venue for conference? Everyone I’ve been at conference with in the old tabernacle complained mightily about the pews.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 27, 2006 @ 11:14 am
To add, I’m not sure replacing the pews is worse than putting in carpet in the SLC temple and moving the entrance.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 27, 2006 @ 11:15 am
I went to the SLC temple in Jan. This year, and they’ve done some great new stuff, repainting, etc. It looks great. I’m very happy with it.
Comment by Matt W. — October 27, 2006 @ 11:28 am
My father is a member of the Orchestra at Temple Square and actually demolished part of one of the pews with his ribs. He was hurrying towards the front of the Tabernacle after chatting with some friends after a performance, lost his balance and crashed into one of the pews, ripping it off its base. I don’t know if they repaired it and replaced it with the original but I wonder how many of the pews are still the ‘originals’ from the pioneers. Surely there’s been some aritrition due to random mishaps like my dad’s?
Oh, and the huge bruise and cracked ribs didn’t need to be replaced.
Comment by Jon in Austin — October 27, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
I’m just glad that he didn’t damage his instrument. That could have been an expensive trip.
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 3:36 pm