Assuming you are regularly in an LDS ward and stake buildings in the U.S., and likely other places as well, signs like this one are probably familiar. The Church uses uniform and consistent materials in buildings, and most, if not all, rooms have a label like this on them. The size, font and orientation of these signs are all consistent, which makes it easy for most of us to figure out where we should go in the building. Of course, you may have noticed something added to this particular sign.

This picture is from the ward building where I attend church. Two wards share the building, one an English-speaking ward and the other a Spanish-speaking ward. A few years ago the bishop of the Spanish-speaking ward noticed that the signs were only in English, and asked the church building professionals about labels in Spanish. He was told that the Church doesn’t add labels for other languages. So, he added labels himself.

Looking at the labels it’s clear that this isn’t ideal—over the years cleaning has discolored and frayed the paste-on labels. But they serve their purpose. I’m reminded of an old Brazilian saying, Se não tem cão, caça com gato (If you don’t have a dog, hunt with a cat) — or make do with what you have.

Is this rebellious? Did the bishop break some rule? I don’t think so. It’s my understanding that the professional, support areas of the Church bureaucracy are told to follow the local priesthood as much as possible. If the local bishop or stake wants something within reason, they should be accommodated. In the long run, telling the bishop no needs to come from the stake or area, not from the building bureaucracy — although the building people don’t always have the resources to do what is wanted and often will talk to higher levels of priesthood leadership if there’s a problem. And they are more likely to do so if the issue is one of safety, significant expense or legal liability. I don’t think language labels are likely to be a problem.

While I get the need for consistency across the church — its more efficient, avoids many problems with things like liability and building codes, and gives members and others an idea of what they can expect — I worry sometimes that we assume that this consistency is always based on clearly thought out rules or that exceptions can’t or shouldn’t be made.

The art on the building walls is another area where there is more flexibility than the average member thinks. I don’t think I’ve seen many buildings with artwork beyond the standard set provided when the building was constructed. In fact, the Church has a catalog of artwork, and buildings can have more than they are initially given. But few local leaders or members think about it or know to ask for anything more. [See Meetinghouse Facilities Handbook.]

There are and should be limits to what we should do ourselves. The era of member-constructed buildings is gone (and that’s probably good for many reasons). But there are many things we can “do many things of [our] own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.” I wish we were more willing to explore other possibilities — especially with things like signs in other languages, where there is clearly a need.