Footnotes
The package was sent from Kirtland, Ohio, on 26 June 1833 and consisted of the following documents: Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 25 June 1833; Plat of the City of Zion, ca. Early June–25 June 1833; and Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833. John Whitmer acknowledged receiving these building patterns in his 29 July 1833 letter. (Letter from John Whitmer, 29 July 1833.)
Cowdery concluded the written explanations of the revised plan with personal remarks to his associates in Missouri, meant to buoy them in the traumatic and chaotic aftermath of the recent violence they had suffered in Jackson County. The immediacy and poignancy of Cowdery’s comments on the revised plan echo a letter he wrote to Missouri on 10 August 1833, the day after he arrived in Kirtland. (See Historical Introductions to Letter from John Whitmer, 29 July 1833; and to Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1833.)
For a discussion of these features, see Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.
For a detailed architectural comparison of the two plans, see Robison, First Mormon Temple, chap. 2.
Robison, Elwin C. The First Mormon Temple: Design, Construction, and Historic Context of the Kirtland Temple. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1997.
Oliver Cowdery, Kirtland, OH, to John Whitmer, Missouri, 1 Jan. 1834, in Cowdery, Letterbook, 14–17; see also Letter to Vienna Jaques, 4 Sept. 1833.
Cowdery, Oliver. Letterbook, 1833–1838. Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.
See Letter from William W. Phelps, 6–7 Nov. 1833; and Letter from Edward Partridge, between 14 and 19 Nov. 1833; see also Historical Introduction to Letter, 30 Oct. 1833.
Oliver Cowdery handwriting begins.
The original explanation for the plan of the House of the Lord sent in June read, “This house of the Lord for the Presidency.” This revised plan added the words “to be built first in Zion,” indicating that, of the twenty-four temples to be built in Jackson County, this one was to be constructed first. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
In the June plan, the length of the building is eighty-seven feet. Both plans allocate ten feet at the east end for the vestibule, or entry foyer, where the stairway to the upper floors was to be located. This directive also clarified the original dimensions by noting the interior width, supplanting the ambiguous wording in the June plan that simply stated that the building was to be sixty-one feet wide. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
TEXT: “[Page torn]nd”. Because of several page tears, some text is missing from this document. In such places, text has been editorially supplied. The supplied text here and in the rest of the transcription is based on syntax and common spellings.
The following explanations for “No. 1” through “No. 20” correspond to numbers marked on the interior floor plan on the second page of this document.
In the June plan, the seats were to occupy a space measuring eight by fourteen feet. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The “inner court” refers to the main assembly hall. This same term was used in the early June revelation describing the temple to be built in Kirtland. (Revelation, 1 June 1833 [D&C 95:15–17].)
The June plan numbered the east pulpits for the lesser priesthood 1, 2, 3, and 4—the same as the west pulpits for the higher priesthood. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
TEXT: Possibly “done”.
For more information on the design of the pulpits and the various priesthood “grades” the pulpits were to serve, see Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.
In terms of location, orientation, and elevation, the specifications for these choir pews in the revised plan are the same as in the June plan, except that their overall width is shorter by one foot. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The shorter building length of the June plan allowed for only twelve rows. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
TEXT: Possibly “feet”.
The aisle width between the pulpits was not specified in the June plan.
The June plan called for this swing, or drop-leaf, table to be four feet wide, which would have allowed for only one foot between the front edge of the raised table and the beginning of the center pew section. In this revised plan, the longer building and narrower table dimensions allow for a three-and-a-half- foot space, thus facilitating distribution of the emblems of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The purpose of these two single seats, one on each end, facing the pulpits, is unknown.
The June plan gave no dimensions for these inner doors.
The June plan called for fourteen-foot stories. The extra foot given here seems insufficient for the second-floor girders and joists.
This window might have been made “blind” to provide privacy for the two east-end vestry rooms.
Such extensions were neither depicted nor discussed in the June plan.
This instruction is not found in the June plan.
With four layers of carefully detailed hewn stone, this drawing doubled the amount of stone that the June plan called for. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The June plan had clearer instructions for this feature: “Let the under part or foundation of the house be of stone let it be raised sufficiently high to admit of banking up so high as to admit of a descent every way from the house.” In addition to serving as useful drainage for rain and snow melt, the ground sloping down and away from the house might have served aesthetic purposes in that it would have hid the roughstone portion of the foundation. (Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
“Houses” refers to the twenty-four temples planned to be built in the two central city squares on the revised plat of the city of Zion. (See Revised Plat of the City of Zion, ca. Early Aug. 1833.)
The horizontal line that runs through the middle of the east-end view of the building marks the location of the interior floor and is not an exterior feature. Triangular slope lines running from the top of the foundation to the ground are also visible, though Frederick G. Williams or someone else apparently tried to erase them from the plan.
TEXT: Possibly “them”.
More detail is given here than was provided in the June plan. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The drawn specifications of the interior view on the second page show that the doors were to be five feet wide. Thus, the statement “each door to be 2½ feet wide” refers to each of the doors’ two panels.
Given the dimensions of the middle window, including the side lights, here specified for the first time, the middle window would have been more than sixty percent larger than the other windows.
Detail of the gable window in the shape of a fan appears on this document’s third page, on the drawing of the east-end view of the building.
“Draft” refers to the June plan, which called for the roof to have a “one fourth ptich.” (Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The “outer court” refers to the ten-foot vestibule on the east end where the stairways and vestry closets were to be located. The “inner court” refers to the main assembly hall. The window mentioned here was meant to allow the light entering through the large central window in the outer east wall to pass through the vestibule and into the inner court.
More detail regarding the second-floor balcony on the east end is given here than in the June plan. (See Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
This provision, necessitated by the window in the wall directly behind this upper row of pulpits, had been overlooked in the original plan.
The drawing for the east-end view of the House of the Lord was created with more color and detail than the drawing of the west-end view. This statement suggests that Missouri church officials were to add color and detail, similar to what appeared on the east-end sketch, to the west-end drawing.
The June plan omits any guidance regarding the interior pillars or support columns.
The “patterns”—including the plan of the House of the Lord and the plat and explanation of the city of Zion—were sent from Kirtland on 26 June 1833 and reached church leaders in Jackson County on 29 July 1833. (Plat of the City of Zion, ca. Early June–25 June 1833; Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833; Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 25 June 1833; Letter from John Whitmer, 29 July 1833.)
“They” probably refers to the members of the presidency of the high priesthood, all of whom shared a vision of what the House of the Lord should look like, though Frederick G. Williams alone drew both the original plans and these revised plans. (See Historical Introduction to Plan of the House of the Lord, between 1 and 25 June 1833.)
The “form of the city” refers to the explanation of the plat of the city of Zion, which was sent to Missouri on 26 June 1833 and arrived there on 29 July 1833. The revised city plat and modified temple design were sent to Jackson County with Orson Hyde and John Gould. (Plat of the City of Zion, ca. Early June–25 June 1833; Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 25 June 1833; Letter to Vienna Jaques, 4 Sept. 1833.)
Cowdery arrived in Kirtland on 9 August 1833. (Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1833.)
It is not clear what information, if any, was lost.
The tenor of these comments reflects a long history of Missouri leaders’ periodic dissatisfaction with and suspicion of the Church of Christ leadership in Kirtland. (See, for example, Letter to William W. Phelps, 31 July 1832; Letter to William W. Phelps, 11 Jan. 1833; and Letter to Edward Partridge et al., 14 Jan. 1833.)
See Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 18 Aug. 1833; and the JS postscript in Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1833.
After Oliver Cowdery arrived in Kirtland, JS wrote that Cowdery “will or aught rather to stay with me or in this land until I am permitted to Come with him.” (Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 18 Aug. 1833.)
Missouri had been Oliver Cowdery’s home from 1831 to late July 1833. JS similarly wrote that Cowdery’s “heart bleeds as it were for Zion yea never did the hart pant for the cooling streem as doth the heart of thy Brothe[r] Oliver for thy salvation.” (Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 18 Aug. 1833.)
Oliver Cowdery expressed similar sentiments in a letter he wrote to Missouri the day after his arrival in Kirtland. (See Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 10 Aug. 1833.)
See Isaiah 11:9; 56:7; 57:13.
See Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 36:36, 38; Psalm 48:11–12; and Revelation 21:21.
See Old Testament Revision 1, p. 16 [Moses 7:24].
Around the same time the explanation featured here was drafted, JS likewise prayed, “O God I ask thee in the name of Jesus of nazereth to Save all things concerning Zion and build up her wait [waste] places and restore all things O god send forth Judgement unto victory O come down and cause the moutans [mountains] to flow down at thy presance.” (Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 18 Aug. 1833.)