The temple is the house of the Lord. It is a sacred place where covenants are made. It is exclusive to a few righteous members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To Latter-day Saints, temples are the most sacred places on Earth. They provide a way for families to be together forever.
“The temple is the house of the Lord. In temples, God’s children draw nearer to Him and His Son Jesus Christ by making sacred promises with Him. Temples are the only places on earth where families can be united eternally. Those who worship in the house of the Lord receive peace, inspiration, joy, and spiritual power.” [1]
Temples are considered an ancient structure. We believe them to be similar to the temples constructed in King Solomon’s day. Inside, we believe that ancient rituals are practiced. Symbolic rites and passages are performed.
If there was one thing that God should not be keen to change, it is his saving ordinances. Why should the things which happen inside of a temple ever change?
If they were truly sacred, truly ancient, would we not then practice the same rituals that King Solomon practiced? Or, at least the same rituals that Joseph Smith practiced?
That which is sacred, that which is God’s, must not change. God does not change. If the signs and tokens of the temple are so sacred, they must not change. If the truths we learn in the temple are truly true, they must not change. If the requirements to enter such a sacred place are so vital, they must also not change.
Yet, we will see that all of these things have changed. The temple, if it was once a beautiful and sacred building, is now bare wall and plain white carpet. The holiness of it all, the essence of the House of the Lord is gone.
I must make a preparatory statement: included in this section are words and symbols taken from the Latter-day Saint temple. The things mentioned are no longer in practice, or included in the temple ceremony.
That is to say, they should no longer be considered sacred.
I will speak of them freely, and I do not think that any guilt should be felt for reading them. They were not important enough to remain in the temple, and thus, they are not important enough to avoid speaking about.
The endowment ceremony of the temple is a sacred ceremony, in which a person (be it by proxy or not,) is endowed with blessings on high, blessings of the priesthood, and blessings of salvation.
The endowment ceremony was first inaugurated in 1842. Joseph proposed the ceremony to a few of his closest leaders.
“…instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of Keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of Melchisedec Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles, by which any one is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings, which have been prepared for the Church of the first born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the Eternal worlds. In this Council was instituted the Ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.”
For a time, at least, the endowment ceremony was considered finished doctrine. It was the “Ancient order of things,” and it was complete. There weren’t any changes needed.
Now, I will lend some credence to the concept of imperfect revelation. It is possible, surely, that Joseph’s first introduction to the temple ceremony was incomplete. For that reason, I can understand some minor additions, or even some small changes made to streamline the ceremony.
For example, in 1842, the temple ceremony was open to just a few, and it was not open to endowment by proxy. In other words, the temple ceremony was for the living, and the living only. Two years later, Joseph Smith would add a feature: dead men and women could be baptized and make covenants by proxy.
“…But there must be an express place built for that purpose & for men to be Baptized for their dead for every man who wishes to save their Father & Mother— Brothers Sisters & Friends must go thru the same— Baptism— Anointing Washing & all the protection. of the powers of the Priesthood same as for themselves [spelling corrected]” [2]
This change is warranted, and, I think, righteous. The ceremony didn’t change. It just expanded to include more benefactors.
The endowment ceremony remained relatively consistent for a few years. Joseph died. Soon, Brigham began to alter the doctrines taught inside, and the ways the ceremony was performed.
His first major change was to incorporate the Adam-God doctrine to the ceremony. In those days, rather than a video (this was the 1800s, remember,) actors performed the narrative elements of the endowment ceremony. John Nuttall, close friend of Brigham Young, and member of the Council of Fifty, recorded Brigham’s lecture at the veil.
“We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve how they were formed and some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read: “from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but of another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on the earth.
He had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the priesthood and keys thereof and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he came through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth and Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living, bore those spirits in the Celestial World and when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael who is Adam our common father…
Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews but upon partaking of the fruits of earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood courseing through their veins as the action of life….
Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams’ first begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the Spirit World, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.” [3]
The Adam-God doctrine remained in the temple for a while. God made no attempt to stop it.
In 1894, Wilford Woodruff made a landmark change. Until that time, men and women were sealed to Church leaders, rather than to their parents. This practice was known as the “Law of Adoption.”
The Law of Adoption originated in 1846.
It did not originate with Joseph Smith.
Brigham Young sealed himself to the Prophet Joseph Smith, as his son. Many others were sealed to Brigham Young. The sealings formed “families,” or groups of Saints (men, usually,) sealed to the same man.
“President Brigham Young met with his Company or family organization or those who had been adopted unto him or were to be, & organized than into a company out of which may grow a people that may yet be Called the tribe of Brigham.” [4]
It wasn’t a great system. Being adopted as sons to Brigham Young meant preferential treatment for some, with subservience from others.
“I have come to the conclusion that it is the policy and intention to put down every spirit in the Camp of Israel that would seek to establish independence, and that Brother Rookwood is to be made an instrument to accomplish that thing as he is Brother Brigham’s eldest son by adoption.”
Other arguments were to be had between adopted sons of the Prophet Brigham.
“Andrew Little was in the battalion, and at the request of Brigham I let his family have two hundred and fifty-eight dollars’ worth of goods. Brigham said I should have my money when Little returned, but I never got any of it. Little was also an adopted son of Brigham, and did about as he pleased.” [5]
Brigham’s policy of spiritual adoption meant favoritism and, to some extent, tribalism in the early days of the Church. Brigham was at the head. He was the All-Father. He, by nature of his own sealing policy, rose above his status as mere Prophet, ascending to fatherhood in the eyes of his adopted sons.
The policy didn’t last forever. Wilford Woodruff published his own revelation, putting a stop to Brigham’s Law of Adoption.
“When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles,) the Spirit of God said to me, “Have you not a father, who begot you?” “Yes, I have.” “Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?” “Yes,” says I, “that is right.” I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowment, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people.” [6]
Thus, the practice ended. Until 1894, for a man to be sealed in the temple, he must have the Melchizedek Priesthood. That meant that very few proxy sealings were being had: a Melchizedek Priesthood holding man could not be sealed to his non-Melchizedek Priesthood holding dead father.
In 1903, Reed Smoot was elected to Utah Legislature as a senator. From 1904-1907, Smoot underwent intense scrutiny in a set of hearings called the “Reed Smoot Hearings,” due to his involvement in the LDS Church. At that time, some high ranking members of the Church were suspected to be participating in plural marriage, a practice which had been federally illegal for many years. Many legislators believed that Smoot’s involvement in the LDS Church rendered him unfit for service as Senator.
His hearings revealed much about the Church. They revealed important details about secret polygamous marriages being had at the time. They also revealed important details about the temple ceremony at the time.
Until the early 20th century, the temple ceremony included a rather heinous bit, regarding the future hoped-for destruction of the United States officials on whom Joseph’s death could be blamed.
“It was testified by a number of witnesses who were examined during the investigation that one part of this obligation is expressed in substantially these words:
You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.”
“The obligation hereinbefore set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at least encourage, every member of that organization to take.”
“There can be no question in regard to the taking of the oath of vengeance by Mr. Smoot. He testified that he went through the ceremony of taking the endowments in the year 1880 and the head of the Mormon Church stated in his testimony that the ceremony is now the same that it has always been.”
“It is difficult to conceive how one could discharge the obligation which rests upon every Senator to so perform his official duties as to promote the welfare of the people of the United States and at the same time be calling down the vengeance of heaven on this nation because of the killing of the founders of the Mormon Church sixty years ago.” [7]
Surprisingly, that little section of anti-nationalism remained in the ceremony until 1927. In that year, Apostle George F. Richards, under the direction of Heber J. Grant and the First Presidency, sent a letter to the Saint George Temple President, instructing him on new changes to be made to the temple ceremonies.
“At request of President [Heber J.] Grant[,] we have already adopted some of the changes decided upon, and it will be in order for you to do the same.
In sealing for the dead, whether one or both be dead, omit the kissing. Omit from the prayer in the circle all references to avenging the blood of the Prophets.
Omit from the ordinances and lecture all reference to retribution. This last change can be made with a day’s notice to those taking part that contain such reference.
This letter is written with the approval of the [First] Presidency.” [8]
These weren’t the only changes made by the Presidency. Until the early 20th century, the temple ceremony was not considered “peaceful.” It was not warm. Today, we think of the temple ceremony as happy, spiritual, and fulfilling. It’s a ceremony of respite. A place to go to avoid the strictness and violence of the world outside.
This is a relatively recent thought.
Before the ceremony was changed in the 1920s, it contained immensely harsh penalties. The penalties were contained in the endowment ceremony, and were to be completed if the secrets contained in the temple were revealed.
The penalties included the following:
“We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.”
“As the last words are spoken the right hand is drawn swiftly across the throat and the hands dropped from the square to the sides.”
“We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.”
“The Sign is made by placing the left arm on the square at the level of the shoulder, placing the right hand across the chest with the thumb extended and then drawing it rapidly from left to right and dropping it to the side.”
“We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.”
“As the last words are spoken the hands are dropped till the thumbs are in the centre of the stomach and drawn swiftly across the stomach to the hips, and then dropped to the sides.” [9]
The content of the endowment ceremony is not a matter of speculation. It was quoted in the Reed Smoot hearings by J. H. Wallis, who spoke against Reed Smoot’s election.
“Mr. Wallis — ‘That is called the first token of the Aaronic priesthood. The second token of the Aaronic priesthood— its sign is that [indicating], and the obligation commences the same, only that ‘I agree to have my breast cut asunder and my heart and vitals torn from my body.’
Then the first token of the Melchisedec priesthood is this [indicating]: is this square [indicating], and about the same words, only that ‘I agree to have my body cut asunder in the midst and all my bowels gushed out.’” [10]
That grisly bit was removed sometime before 1930. In its place, until 1990, are the words, “Rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken.” Along with the removal of the suicide penalty, the gestures were abandoned as well. The symbolic gestures of cutting ones throat, the cutting of one’s breast, and the self-disembowelment of an offender, were removed.
1990 was a dramatic year for the temple ceremony. Until then, wives were instructed in the making of a covenant to be obedient to their husbands.
“Eve, because thou hast hearkened to the voice of Satan, and hast partaken of the forbidden fruit, and given unto Adam, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; nevertheless, thou mayest be preserved in childbearing. Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee in righteousness. Adam, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast partaken of the forbidden fruit, the earth shall be cursed for thy sake.
EVE: Adam, I now covenant to obey your law as you obey our Father.
We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of their husbands.
You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husband and abide by his counsel in righteousness.” [11]
This bit was removed in 1990. In its place, women were commanded, instead, to take the counsel of their husbands. No covenant of obedience was made.
From the years 1852 to 1976, black members of the Church were not allowed to participate in the endowment, in sealings, or in any ordinance therein.
Prior to the 1920s, the “Washings and Anointings” of the temple ceremony contained a fair bit of nudity.
Participants removed their clothing, sat in an empty bathtub, and awaited the temple worker, who, while speaking the words of the washing ritual, would wash the participant clean with a rag.
Then, the participant would rise and walk to a separate room, where another temple worker would touch the participant’s body in specific areas with oil. This was the “Anointing.” The oil was applied to many parts of the body, but, controversially, it was applied to the participant’s naked groin. The nudity of the ceremony was removed in the 1920s. The washings were done symbolically, and the anointings were done to a naked participant, covered in an open robe. The robe did not conceal much. It was, in essence, a “poncho.” The temple worker still placed his finger on the naked groin of the participant. The poncho was replaced by the temple garment in 2005, eliminating all nudity inside the temple.[12]
Before 1990, the endowment ceremony rather explicitly called all religious leaders of other churches “hirelings of Satan.” That part was removed in 1990 as well.
1990 marked a very crowd pleasing year for the LDS temple. The uncomfortable parts were removed. Were they instituted unrighteously in the first place? If they were eventually going to be removed, what was so sacred about them? God makes it seem as though the signs, the gestures, the penalties, the doctrines, the covenants—all of them were put there anciently, restored there by the Prophet Joseph. All of them were ancient principles, necessary for mankind’s salvation. But then, with a snap of his fingers, he removed them.
“And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein . . . For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times. And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.” [13]
The Lord doesn’t mince his words: Joseph would be taught all things pertaining to the temple.
One of the most recent changes to the temple has been to remove the covenant made to avoid “loud laughter.” Goers to the temple no longer make that covenant.
So, I must ask, what happens to the covenant breakers of the years before 1990? If a woman who received her endowment in the year 1976, and was later married, disobeyed her husband, and loudly laughed on a rare occasion, she would be in sin. She’d have broken a covenant.
Now, imagine a luckier woman, born in the year 2004, who received her endowment in 2024 and was later married, who happened to disobey her new husband, and found herself loudly laughing on many occasions.
Simply by coincidental virtue of the year she was born, the younger woman would not be considered a covenant breaker. She’d be fine. For the older woman, laughing loudly was a sin. For the younger woman, laughing loudly was not a sin.
“If some night, you don’t want to go to sleep, read the scriptures and learn what happens to covenant breakers. I guarantee you, you will not go to sleep!” [14]
How can these things coexist? I am not saying that the temple ceremony cannot change: the leaders of the Church could add a break in the middle, they could change the video every once in a while, they could alter the order in which the covenants were made, in which the tokens were given. That would not matter much to me. But to remove covenants entirely! To remove a promise that one makes to commit suicide! These things cannot simply be taken away. Why would God have allowed them into His house in the first place?
Survey
The temple ceremony after its 1990 changes was a fundamentally different one. The teachings remained, but the ordinances were changed.
Why did all of this happen?
Why did the temple experience such changes?
President Russell M. Nelson, the Prophet, spoke of changes to the temple. He cited God as the source of the changes. He cited President Harold B. Lee’s claim that God sometimes changes his principles. “Revelation,” Nelson said, was the means by which the temple changes.
“From that time forward, temple ordinances were gradually refined. President Harold B. Lee explained why procedures, policies, and even the administration of temple ordinances continue to change within the Savior’s restored Church. President Lee said: “The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are divine. Nobody changes the principles and [doctrine] of the Church except the Lord by revelation. But methods change as the inspired direction comes to those who preside at a given time.” . . .Current adjustments in temple procedures, and others that will follow, are continuing evidence that the Lord is actively directing His Church.” [15]
Deceptively, the Prophet, quoting Harold B. Lee, added the word “doctrine” into Lee’s list of things which the Lord could change.
This was a remarkable claim! For what might be the first time in Church history, Russell M. Nelson admitted that his God, the God of the LDS Church does change. His doctrine changes. And, its called revelation when it happens.
But the 1990 changes were far from revelation. In 1988, a survey was sent out widely to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was called “The Survey of Adult Members in the United States and Canada.”
The first words of the survey made its purpose clear: it was being used to evaluate members’ preferences in regards to the LDS temple.
“In cooperation with the Temple and Family History Departments here at Church headquarters, we have developed this survey to help us understand your thoughts, feelings, and experiences relating to temple and genealogy activities. You may be interested to know that along with you, approximately 3,400 other members in the United States and Canada are being asked to participate in this project.”
The demographics section of this survey was quite un-unique. It asked things like, “How often do you study your scriptures?” Or, “How often do you pray?”
The questions became more specific. They focused on the surveyed person’s reception of the endowment.
“When and where did you receive your temple endowment?”
“What do you wish you had done or known before you went to the temple for your own endowment?”
“Briefly describe how you felt after receiving your own endowment.”
“Since receiving your own endowment, how many times have you returned to the temple to do work for the dead?”
“Please indicate how you feel about the following statements:
- “The ordinances of the temple were revealed by God to latter-day prophets.”
- “Temple ceremonies take too much time.”
- “Going to the temple is a rewarding spiritual experience.” [16]
Remarkably, just two years after this survey was completed, the temple ceremony changed drastically. It was shorter. The violence was gone. The subservience of the wives was gone.
“Revelation.”
What would be the need for a survey if revelation had occurred? Are we to assume that God does not know the hearts and minds of His children? That he is unable to make decisions for His church without a questionnaire?
The Church, even today, uses frequent surveys, as a method of determining the needs of its members. Changes are made as a result. Sometimes, those changes take place, first, in pilot-programs, in a ward here or a stake there. One must ask, of what need are surveys in a Church led by an omniscient God?
[1] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “See What Happens Inside Temples”
[2] Discourse, 8 April 1844, as Reported by Thomas Bullock
[3] Excerpt From the Diary of L. John Nuttall, 7 February 1877
[4] Wilford Woodruff Journal,19 January 1847
[5] John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled, p. 198
[6] Wilford Woodruff, “The Law of Adoption,” Discourse Delivered at the General Conference of the Church, in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, April 18, 1894
[7] Julius C. Burrows, “Report,” June 11, 1906, Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat, 4 vols. 4:495-97
[8] George F. Richards Letter to St. George Temple President, 15 February 1927, in Devery S. Anderson ed., The Development of Temple Worship 1846–2000: A Documentary History, 2011, p. 218
[9] The Temple Endowment Ceremony of 1930, as recorded by William M. Paden, in Temple Mormonism, 1931, pp. 18-20
[10] Committee on Privileges and Elections, of the United States Senate, in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah to Hold His Seat, 1906, Vol. II, p. 78
[11] The Law of Obedience, Temple Endowment Ceremony pre-1990
[12] Duffy, John Charles, “Concealing the Body, Concealing the Sacred: The Decline of Ritual Nudity in Mormon Temples”, Journal of Ritual Studies, 2007, p. 21
[13] Doctrine and Covenants 124:40-42
[14] David A. Bednar, Elder David A. Bednar of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, with the Young Single Adults of the South America South Area, 24 Feb 2016
[15] Russell M. Nelson, “The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation,” October 2021 General Conference Address
[16] “The Survey of Adult Members in the United States and Canada,” 1988
