LDS Temple Endowment Modifications

I never knew the substantial and repeated changes made to the LDS endowment ceremony.

After a "personal leave of absence", I return to the theme of the LDS temple ceremonies to cover how the endowment process changed from its original masonic origin, to what it is today. At some point after my mission I had heard that back in the day of Joseph Smith the endowment lasted all day long. Besides being greatful I could usually complete my session in under 2 hours, I was puzzled how this perfect ordinance could possibly have been longer. I rationalized that it must have just been redundancies that were removed to better fit our fast-paced life.

In Mormonism ordinances such as the endowment are eternal. They are revealed by God, This was a consistent theme in seminary and priesthood growing up, as we studied the importance of exact recitation of the words of ordinances, such as the sacrament. Any slip up of the words, and the ordinance is invalid. This is a foundation of Mormonism, that the ordinances that Jesus instituted when he was alive where perverted and corrupted by other churches, so only the LDS church had the valid ordinances.

In October 1979 General Conference, David Haight recalled teaching three newspaper reporters in Peru about the "eternal truths of the gospel":

...we explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men, and that today good people all over the world are confused with contending religions with differing doctrine and methods of worship.
David B. Haight, "Joseph Smith the Prophet", Ensign Nov 1979

It wasn't until doing objective research years later that I discovered that the temple endowment was apparently not included on the list of unchangeable ordinances. Given that the church considers these things "sacred, not secret" it is difficult to find documentation on these changes. The ritual underwent an evolution with each church presidency, until a standard script was created in the 1920's (ldsendowment.org). Other changes followed, including those to incorporate technological advances into the presentation.

The most drastic changes made recently to the endowment occured in 1992. Some of the elements that were eliminated that were most shocking to me include:

• Graphic Masonic gestures of the death penalty for revealing the secrets of the temple
• Intimate 5-Points of Fellowship full body embrace required of participants
• Indirect relationship of women with God, beig subservient to their husbands
• Representation of preachers of other sects being servants of the Devil
• Use of "Adamic" language in chants

There is some critics who theorize the changes are related to a survey that went out from church headquarters to members in 1988, inquiring among other things, what they did and did not like about going to the temple (lds-mormon.com). Apologists claim any changes made to the ordinance, when made with divine approval, are valid (FAIR).

The reason why the endowment was changed, whether inspired or not, to me seems fairly obvious...it was strange, sexist, and offensive. It did not fit the changing demographic of church membership nor the progressive American culture. My first time through the endowment was after the most drastic changes had been made, so it was relatively tame. Yet still, in my talking with others about their first experience in the temple (both before and after my leaving the church), many express having had feelings of apprehension and confusion with the ritual. To which the solution given by others is that you just need to go more often, "it's symbolic" so you won't understand it at first, and the popular "I still learn something new every time I attend." I felt well prepared for my first time after having taken the temple prep courses, reading the pamphlets and books, including "The Holy Temple." And yet this was much more bizarre than anything I ever experienced in Sunday School. I can only imagine what was going through the mind of those who went to the temple for the first time before 1990. Were they thinking about God and his plan of happiness as they simulated slitting their own throats?

Whatever the case, I do not believe a claim of "inspiration" can supersede a previous "inspired" statement that these ordinances are unchangeable.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.'
Dennis Neuenschwander, "Ordinances and Covenants", Ensign, Aug 2001, p22

...the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.
Senator Reed Smoot, Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p. 185

There never was but one gospel, and never will be but one delivered to the children of men, and that never changed and never will change in time or eternity. It is the same in every age of the world; its ordinances are the same.
Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, January 12, 1875, 1

Don't get me wrong, I applaud progression. We can see the benefit social progress has had as our culture adapts to changes in social needs and the discovery of new social evidences. I would expect a religious institution, or any institution for that matter, to change as the needs of its members change. What I have difficulty accepting is the selective issuing and retiring of "eternal decrees" to control members and eliminate subordinant inquiry.

LDS Temple Endowment Origin

I never knew the striking similarities between the temple endowment and Freemasonry.

To go along with the controversial episode of Big Love airing this weekend, my next posts will be on some of the elements of Temple worship that surprised and contributed to my questioning of the divinity of the LDS church. What goes on in LDS temples is indeed a touchy subject for Mormons, with the declaration that these activities are "sacred, not secret." Out of respect I will discuss the issue without specifics from the current temple ceremonies.

Although I never knew it before, and it is not openly discussed in the LDS community, there are indisputable similarities between the temple endowment and the rites of Freemasonry. Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason March 15, 1842. He then introduced the full endowment ceremony on May 4, 1842, just 7 weeks later. The similarities are varying, from subtle to blatant. A collection of some of the similarities can be found on Wikipedia.

Some examples:
The square and compass play a key role in both ceremonies and are both featured extensively in the architecture of each organization (along with other symbols).


Both use similar or identical language, handshakes, new names, keys, signs, and tokens. Both utilized the "Five Points of Fellowship" and graphic death penalties (although both have been done away with in the mormon ceremony...see my future post on changes to the endowment). Both use similar robes and progressive changes to the clothing during the proceedings. Both are presented as a dramatic reenactment.

Critics have gone as far as crying plagiarism. FAIR contends that the similarities are "superficial," and that at most freemasonry was just a "preparation" for Joseph Smith receiving the "true ordinance" by revelation. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains that the Freemason ceremony may have descended directly from Solomon's Temple, and was restored to its "true form" by Joseph Smith. This appears to be the theory espoused by Joseph Smith:

"In a letter to Parley P. Pratt, written three months after Joseph became a Master Mason, Heber C. Kimball observed that: 'There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from the Priesthood, but has degenerated. But many things are perfect.'

Later, he explained that:
'The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.'"
WAS FREEMASONRY DERIVED FROM MORMONISM? By Eugene Seaich

The problem here is that while at the time it was believed that Freemasonry dated back to Solomon's time, it is now believed the fraternal organization had its beginnings during the middle-ages. Could it be that the timing of the endowment's introduction and the similarities in ceremonies is merely coincidence? Possibly, but the evidence should be enough to make anyone skeptical. At best the endowment is an "adaptation" of the masonic rites using the doctrine and principles Smith had already taught.

For a long-winded response to critics, see Jeff Lindsey's Site.

This article in the Deseret News is also interesting as the Utah Grand Master discusses the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry.

The Hat Trick

One thing I never knew about Mormonism is... the true way in which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon.

I had always been under the impression (from church literature and art) that Joseph read the plates and dictated to his scribe what to write. There was sometimes mention of the urim and thummim being used, like a pair of glasses, but for the most part it was assumed to be like any modern translation. Surprisingly, it was an episode of South Park that first introduced me to how the translation actually took place. As I watched I thought, "these silly people don't even know what they are talking about," only to find out later that it was in fact me who was clueless in Mormon history.

Russell Nelson, in the only church publication I have found acknowledging the non-traditional translation process, explains:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61

Joseph Smith placed a seer or "peep" stone in a hat, put his face in the hat, and the characters and translation from the gold plates appeared to him. This stone was the same one he used to search (unsuccessfully) for buried treasure in the New York hills. This appears to be more a revelation process than translation, given that the plates weren't used during the process.

I think this hit me especially hard because I remembered back to our lesson in seminary on Hiram Page. I remember literally laughing out loud when we heard the story of this guy talking to a rock and receiving revelations for other people through his rock. Little did I know this was just a copycat of Joseph Smith's technique at the time. There has been increasing commentary by church historians on the method of translation, with Rough Stone Rolling and the recent PBS documentary. However, the church itself remains remarkably quiet on this magical translation.

The following is a more comprehensive review of the translation and underlying facts (with much better documentation) see: MormonThink

For a pro-mormon response to the criticisms of the translation process, please see: FAIR Wiki

First Vision(s?)

One thing I never knew about Mormonism is... there are multiple, differing accounts of Joseph Smith's "First Vision."

My first post on this blog warrants one of the discoveries about Mormon history that caught me most off guard and shot up red warning flags.

For as long as I can remember, I was taught the account of Joseph Smith's first vision, where he saw and spoke to God the Father and Jesus Christ. I learned about it in primary, sang about it in sacrament meeting, and ... I eventually taught it to others as a missionary. It was the very first part of the missionary discussions that I memorized, both in English and Spanish. I was taught in the Missionary Training Center how to recite "in Joseph's own words" what happened.

Former Church President, Gordon Hinckley, mentioned on several occasions that the complete veracity of the church rested on the first vision.

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.

Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5).

Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.
LDS.ORG, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith" Oct 2002 General Conference

The First Vision supposedly took place "early in the spring of 1820." The first written account of the experience did not occur until 1832, 12 years later. Joseph Smith, his family, nor any contemporaries (who aledgedly persecuted him for his assertion) mention it before this time. Eight more accounts were eventually written:

(1) the Prophet’s handwritten description in 1832, an attempt to start a manuscript history of the Church; (2) a Church secretary’s brief 1835 journal entry of Joseph talking with a visitor who called himself Joshua, the Jewish minister; (3) the 1838 history discussed above, published in 1842 and now in the Pearl of Great Price; (4) Orson Pratt’s publication, the first publicly disseminated, of the Prophet’s vision in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, issued in 1840 in Edinburgh, Scotland; (5) Orson Hyde’s revision of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, published in 1842 for German readers and adding some insights that may have come from his contact with Joseph Smith; (6) the Wentworth Letter, created in response to editor John Wentworth’s inquiry and published by Joseph Smith in 1842 in Times and Seasons; this account adapted parts of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet; (7) Levi Richards’s diary about Joseph Smith preaching in the summer of 1843 and repeating the Lord’s first message to him that no church was His; (8) a newspaper interview in the fall of 1843; (9) Alexander Neibaur’s 1844 journal entry of a conversation at the Prophet’s house
Richard Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision,” Ensign, Apr 1996, 1

It is unusual that the elements of Joseph Smith's experience became more detailed over time (as opposed to typical memories which fade over time). It is suspect that the changes in details better fit Joseph Smith's changing doctrinal philosophy and professed authority. This could be, as Mormon apologists suggest, that Joseph gained a better understanding of the experience over time. Or perhaps the second- and third-hand accounts do not do justice retelling Joseph's accounts. Regardless of the reasons for the differences, the potential conflicts are not discussed within the church, leading me (and an unknown number of others) to accept the 1838 version as absolute fact. For 27 years I never knew.


For a pro-mormon response to the criticisms of the First Vision, please see: http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accounts

A apologetic comparison of the written accounts can be found at: http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c1history.html

Wikipedia can always be helpful as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision