In response to Fawn M. Brodie's book, No
Man Knows My History, the noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley
declared: "Yet of all churches in the world only
this one has not found it necessary to readjust any part of its
doctrine in the last hundred years.... How does
Brodie explain the fact that the doctrine which she claims was
the haphazard outgrowth of complete opportunism remains the
most stable on earth?" (No Ma'am That's Not History,
1946, pp.46-47)
Although most Mormons have always placed a great
deal of weight in Dr. Nibley's arguments, recent developments
within the church itself will undoubtedly cause many to wonder
about his claims concerning doctrinal stability. The New
York Times gave this startling report in an article which
begins on the first page of the issue dated May 3, 1990:
"The Mormon Church has changed some of its
most sacred rituals, eliminating parts of the largely secret
ceremonies that have been viewed as offensive to women and to
members of some other faiths.
"Last month the church... quietly dropped
from its temple rituals a vow in which women pledged obedience
to their husbands... and a portrayal of non-Mormon clergy as
hirelings of Satan.
"Church officials have confirmed that changes
went into effect in mid-April, but the ceremonies are considered
to be too sacred, they say, for them to comment further.... More
specific information on the changes has been provided to the
news media by Mormons participating in the rituals at the church's
43 temples around the world and by former Mormons who are critical
of the rituals. A number of Mormons who would not discuss details
of the rituals verified that these reports were 'pretty factual'
or 'not inaccurate.'...
"'Because the temple ceremony is sacred to
us, we don't speak about it except in the most general terms,'
said Beverly Campbell, the East Coast director for public communications
for the Church... she said 'the ceremony itself needs to meet
the needs of the people.' The revised ritual is 'more in keeping
with the sensitivities we have as a society,' she added.
"Lavina Fielding Anderson, who will soon
become an editor of the Journal of Mormon History, said
she 'greeted the changes with a great deal of joy,' and added,
'The temple ceremony in the past has given me a message that
could be interpreted as subservient and exclusionary.'
"In the place of an oath of obedience that
men took to God and the church, the previous ceremony required
women to vow obedience to their husbands...
"Although Ms. Anderson would not describe
any of the changes, she said the revision 'gives me hope and
renewed faith that changes will occur in the future as they have
in the past.'...
"The ceremony also contains elements resembling
the Masonic rituals current in 1830, when Joseph Smith founded
the church...
"The latest revisions diminish these elements,
including gestures symbolizing the participant's pledge to undergo
a gruesome death rather than reveal the rituals. Also dropped
is a scene in which Satan hires a non-Mormon 'preacher' to spread
false teachings....
"Ross Peterson, the editor of Dialogue,
an independent Mormon quarterly, said the unfamiliar elements
of the ritual frequently 'catches young Mormons cold' and disturbs
them. I've known an awful lot of people who went once and it
was years before they'd go back, especially women,' he said....
"Bruce L. Olsen, managing director of the
church's communications office in Salt Lake City, denied that
the changes were made in response to criticism or social pressure.
The Mormon Church believes 'in continued and modern revelation,'
Mr. Olsen said, so that practices might be changed when 'the
Lord clarified' church teaching....
"But some Mormons see the church as responding,
without admitting it, both to critics and to the church's growth
overseas....
"Among the critics are many conservative
Christians who complain that Mormonism features occult practices."
The Arizona Republic (April 28, 1990)
referred to the modifications in ceremony as "Revolutionary
changes." The same article went on to state:
"The changes in the Temple Endowment Ceremony
are seen as a move to bring the secret ceremony closer to mainstream
Christianity. The changes are the most drastic revisions of the
century...
"Church officials in Salt Lake City refused
to discuss the ceremony which is shrouded in secrecy. In fact,
the church has issued a directive to temple members telling them
to refrain from talking about the changes in the ceremony....
"Another prominent Mormon, who asked not
to be identified, confirmed that portions of the ceremony have
been removed.
"' The temple ceremony has been significantly
abridged,' he said...
"Changes in the ceremony include:... A modified
version of the woman's vow of obedience to the husband....
"I think this is in response to the feminist
movement in the Mormon Church," said Sandra Tanner, a former
Mormon who now heads Utah Lighthouse Ministries in Salt Lake
City. 'Many of the women objected to the obedience.'"
An article by Associated Press writer Vern Anderson
also note that the ceremony has "undergone what some view
as their most significant changes this century." He went
onto say:
"The revisions, effective April 10 in the
faith's 43 temples, are being greeted with enthusiasm by church
members who say they reflect a greater sensitivity toward women
and other religions.
"'The temple is an important part of my spiritual
life and the changes have allowed me to go to the temple with
renewed joy,' said Lavina Fielding Anderson...
"'The general consensus is that it's a breath
of fresh air,' said Ross Peterson, co-editor of Dialogue,
and independent Mormon journal...
"Peterson said many Mormons who never had
expressed a negative word about the endowment ceremony are thrilled
with the changes, indicating there had been elements that 'were
silently upsetting them.'
"'I think we're gradually moving away from
the subjugation of women,' Peterson said....
"Rebecca England... said the changes may
boost temple attendance.
"'I know quite a number of Mormons who stopped
going to the temple because they found it demeaning. And I think
this revised ceremony addresses many of the concerns...
"'The changes were not announced to the membership
at large, but temple attendees are being read a statement from
the governing First Presidency which says the revisions, following
long and prayerful review, were unanimously approved by that
three-member body and the advisory Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."
(Salt Lake Tribune, April 29, 1990)
On May 5, 1990, the Los Angeles Times printed
an article by John Dart. In this article we find the following:
"The central temple ceremony in the Mormon
Church has been changed to eliminate the woman's vow to obey
her husband... In the new version of the rites, women now pledge
to obey God and to merely listen to the advice of their husbands.
"'That's the most significant change in the
church since blacks received the priesthood in 1978,' said Ron
Priddis, vice president of Signature Books...
"The new version 'reflects greater sensitivity
and awareness of women and women's role in the Christian church,'
said Robert Rees, a Mormon bishop... Although unwilling to disclose
elements of the ritual, Rees nevertheless said that some parts
eliminate 'were historical and cultural anachronisms.'"
On June 2, 1991, The Salt Lake Tribune ran
an Article by Los Angeles Times writer John Dart. In
that article, Mr. Dart reported that, "Most Mormon Church
members quoted last month in news stories about revisions in
the church's confidential temple ceremony have been summoned
for interviews by church officials... One man said he was reprimanded
for talking to the press and another was asked to surrender his
'temple recommend'... The public communications office of the
Church... issued a statement Thursday, defending the questioning
of members and re-emphasizing the sacred confidentiality of the
temples."
REVEALED BY GOD
Mormon Leaders have always proclaimed that the
temple ritual-often referred to as the "temple endowment"
because the recipients are supposed to be "endowed with
power from on high"--was given to Joseph Smith, the first
Mormon prophet, by revelation. The ordinances in this ritual,
which are performed for both the living and the dead (by proxy),
are considered to be "most sacred." A person has to
go though these ceremonies before becoming a missionary and those
who desire to be married in the temple for "time and eternity"
must first have their "temple endowments."
Mormon theology teaches that those who are married
in the temple can eventually become Gods and rule over their
own creations. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie affirmed that the righteous
who are married in the temple "for time and eternity"
have "gained eternal life (exaltation), the greatest of
all the gifts of God... Those so inheriting are the Sons and
daughters of God... They are joint-heirs with Christ... becoming
gods in their own right." (Mormon
Doctrine, 1979, pp. 117-18) President Joseph Fielding Smith,
the 10th prophet of the church, made the matter very clear:
"It fills my heart with sadness when I see
in the paper the name of a daughter or a son of members of this
Church, and discover that she or he is going to have a ceremony
and be married outside of the temple of the Lord, because I realize
what it means, that they are cutting themselves off
from exaltation in the kingdom of God.... These
young people who seem to be so happy now, when they rise in the
resurrection--and find themselves in the condition in which they
will find themselves--then there will
be weeping, and wailing,
and gnashing of teeth, and
bitterness of soul...
"Civil Marriage Makes Servants
In Eternity.... Celestial Marriage Makes Gods
In Eternity.... it is open to us; it is a free
gift; it doesn't cost us anything: only righteousness, faith,
obedience; and surely we can pay that price." (Doctrines
of salvation, vol.2, p.60-63)
Mormons who go through the temple ceremony and
are sealed in marriage for eternity believe that they will not
only become Gods, but will also continue to have children throughout
all eternity. They will people other worlds with their spiritual
children and these children will worship and pray to the husband
as God. Mormons feel that the God of the Bible was not always
God and that he also had to pass through the same endowments
to achieve deity. Wilford Woodruff, who became the 4th prophet
of the Mormon Church, proclaimed that "the Lord had
His endowments long ago; it is thousands and millions
of years since He received His blessings... He is far in advance
of us." (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p. 192)
According to a revelation given by Joseph Smith,
those who will not submit to Celestial Marriage are "appointed
angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants,
to minister for those who are worthy of a far more,
and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory... these angels...
remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved
condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods,
but are angels of God forever and ever." (Doctrine and
Covenants 132:16-17)
Although faithful Mormons have written many articles
and books on temples, they have been very careful not to tell
what actually goes on in the endowment ritual. One of the most
revealing and concise statements, however, comes from comments
President Brigham Young made in 1877. These comments were recorded
in the diary of L. John Nuttall. The 2nd prophet of the church
remarked:
"When we got our washings and anointings
under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo, we had only
one room to work in, with the exception of a little side room
or office where we were washed and
anointed, had our garment
placed upon us and received our new
name; and after he had performed these ceremonies,
he gave the keywords, signs, tokens, and
penalties. Then after, we went into
the large room... Joseph Smith divided up the room the best that
he could, hung up the veil, marked it, gave
us our instructions as we passed along from one department to
another, giving us signs, tokens, penalties, with
the key-words pertaining to those signs."
(Statement of Brigham Young, recorded in the diary of L. John
Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877, as cited in God, Man, And The Universe,
by Hyrum L. Andrus, 1968, p. 334)
The reader will notice that President Young mentioned
washings, anointings, garments, the new name, the key-words,
signs, tokens and penalties. He also stated that there was a
"veil" with certain marks on it. On another occasion,
Brigham Young made it clear that the endowment contains secret
information that the initiated need to get into heaven: "Your
endowment is, to receive all those
ordinances in the House of the Lord... to enable you to walk
back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand
as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key
words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the
Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of
earth and hell." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2,
p. 31) Those who have actually been through the ceremony affirm
that secret grips, signs and key-words are learned during the
ceremony which will be needed after death for a person to gain
entrance into God's presence. It is at the "veil" that
the Lord himself questions the candidate who desires to enter
into his presence.
The fact that the temple ritual was changed by
the present leaders of the church will undoubtedly cause serious
problems for many devout members of the church who feel that
these ceremonies cannot be tampered with. They will probably
have a difficult time understanding how the General Authorities
can meddle with a sacred ceremony which was supposed to have
been given by revelation to Joseph Smith.
The inspired nature of the ritual has been impressed
on the minds of the Mormon people since the 1840's. Even before
the Nauvoo temple was built, Joseph Smith gave a revelation foretelling
that God himself was about to restore the ancient mysteries that
had been lost from the earth: "...build a house to my name,
for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not a place
found on earth that he may come to and restore again
that which was lost unto you, or which he hath
taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.... 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." (Doctrine
and Covenants 124:27-28, 40-42)
After Joseph Smith received the endowment ceremony,
it was accepted as a divine revelation from God. Since that time
church leaders have continued to stress that the endowment came
from heaven. Apostle John A. Widtsoe, for instance, wrote the
following: "Joseph Smith received the temple endowment and
its ritual, as all else that he promulgated, by revelation
from God." (Joseph Smith--Seeker After
truth, Prophet Of God, 1951, p. 249) Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
wrote the following under the title "Temple Ordinances":
"Certain gospel ordinances are of such a sacred
and holy nature that the Lord authorizes their
performance only in holy sanctuaries prepared and dedicated for
that very purpose.... They were given in modern times to the
Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation, many
things connected with them being translated by the Prophet from
the papyrus on which the Book of Abraham was recorded."
(Mormon Doctrine, p.779) The current prophet of the
church, Ezra Taft Benson, does not hesitate to affirm that the
endowment ritual are by revelation:
"The endowment was revealed by
revelation and can be understood only by revelation....
"This temple... is a place of revelation....
The laws and ordinances which cause men and women to come out
of the world and become sanctified are administered only in these
holy places. They were given by revelation and
are comprehended by revelation." (The Teachings of Ezra
Taft Benson, 1988, pp.250, 252)
In the past, Mormon leaders have not only taught
that the endowment came by revelation, but also that it was not
changed since the time of Joseph Smith. Just after the church
passed into the 20th century, there was an attempt to remove
Mormon Senator Reed Smoot from his seat. These lengthy hearings
are usually referred to as the Reed Smoot Case. Although Senator
Smoot retained his seat, the hearings proved to be very embarrassing
for the church because of the testimony given concerning polygamy
after the Manifesto and barges of Mormon Church interference
in politics. In any case, when Senator Smoot, who was also an
apostle in the church, was questioned about the
endowment ceremony, he responded: "...the endowments have
never changed; as I understand it;
it has been so testified, aud that
Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments."
(Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p. 185)
On page 140 of the same volume, the following
statements by President Joseph F. Smith, the 6th prophet of the
church, were entered into the record:
"It [the Nauvoo temple] was finished... and
was dedicated unto the Lord. The ordinances of the house of God
were administered therein as they had been taught to the leading
authorities of the church by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself.
The same gospel, the same ordinances, the
same authority and blessings that were administered by the Prophet
Joseph Smith, and taught by him to his associates, are now being
enjoyed by and taught to the Latter-Day Saints in the four temples...
When you hear anybody say we have changed the ordinances,
that we have transgressed the laws, or broken the
everlasting covenants which were entered into under the personal
administration of the Prophet Joseph Smith, tell them for me...
and for all those who are living today who received blessings
and ordinances under the hands of the Prophet Joseph Smith, that
they are in error. The same gospel
prevails today, and the same ordinances are administered
today, both for the living and for the dead, as
were administered by the prophet himself and delivered by him
to the church."
These statements by President Smith were originally
printed in the church's newspaper, Deseret Evening News,
Dec. 1, 1900. President Smith's son, Joseph Fielding Smith,
who served as the 10th prophet of the church in the early 1970's,
printed an affidavit by Bathsheba W. Smith which contained the
following: "Near the close of the year 1843, or in the beginning
of the year 1844, I received the ordinance of anointing... the
same day... I received my endowment... The endowments were given
under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith... there has
been no change, to my certain knowledge, in these ceremonies.
They are the same today as they were
then."(Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage,
p. 87)
Mormon leaders have not only taught that their
church has not changed its doctrines and ordinances, but they
have pointed to changes by other churches as evidence of apostasy.
In an editorial published in the Church Section of the Deseret
News, June 5, 1965, we find the following: "...God is unchangeable,
the same yesterday, today and forever... The great
mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity,
is that they have supposed they could place their own private
interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience
to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of [C]hristian
law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostacy.
"The Gospel can not possibly
be changed.... the saving principles must ever
be the same. They can never change.... the
Gospel must always be the same in all of its parts....
no one can change the Gospel... if they attempt
to do so, they only set up a man-made system
which is not the Gospel, but is merely a reflection of their
own views.... if we substitute 'any other Gospel,' there is no
salvation in it.... the Lord and His Gospel remain the
same--always."
In 1982, W. Grant Bangerter, executive director
of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of
Seventy, made it very clear that the temple ceremony could not
be changed:
"As temple work progresses, some members
wonder if the ordinances can he changed or adjusted.
These ordinances have been provided by
revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency.
Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."
(Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982)
It would appear that instead of protecting the
ordinances, the current First Presidency and the Council of the
Twelve Apostles have themselves been "tampering" with
them. It is interesting to note that the first Mormon prophet,
Joseph Smith, proclaimed that the ordinances could never be changed:
"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding
up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining
to that dispensation should be conducted precisely
in accordance with the preceding dispensations....
He set the ordinances to be the same forever and
ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal
them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
(History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208)
The Book of Mormon itself accuses the Catholics
of conspiring to alter the Bible. It bluntly states that "many
plain and precious things" have been deliberately removed:
"...thou seest the formation of that great
and abominable church, which is most abominable above
all other churches; for behold they have taken
away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which
are plain and most precious; and also
many covenants of the Lord have they taken away....
this they have done that they might pervert
the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and
harden the hearts of the children of men.... thou seest that
after the lamb hath gone forth through the hands of the great
and abominable church, that there are many plain
and precious things taken away from the book...
because of the many plain and precious things which hive been
taken out of the book... an exceedingly great many do stumble,
yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."
(Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:26-30)
Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., the son of the 10th
prophet of the church, charged: "The Bible alone is an insufficient
guide because the 'plainness of the gospel' has been
removed.... The early 'apostate fathers'
did not think it was wrong to tamper
with inspired scripture. If any scripture seemed
to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted
or completely removed from the biblical text. All
this was done that they might keep their traditions. Such mutilation
was considered justifiable to preserve the so-called
'purity' of their doctrines."(Religious Truths Defined,
1959, pp. 175-76)
Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen bluntly stated:
"Many insertions were made [in
the Bible], some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes,
while at times deliberate falsifications
and fabrications were perpetuated." (As
Translated Correctly, 1966, p. 4)
The current prophet of the church, President
Ezra Taft Benson, emphatically proclaimed: "The Book of
Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ... Unlike
the Bible, which passed through generations of
copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who
tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came
from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation."
(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, page 53)
Since Mormon leaders and apologists have freely
criticized other churches for making changes and have claimed
that their doctrines are "the most stable on earth,"
the General Authorities of the church must have approached the
question of changing the temple ceremony with a great deal of
caution. David John Buerger informs us that when some procedural
changes were suggested in the temple ceremony some years ago,
"initial opposition came from Elder Harold B. Lee due to
what he perceived as 'doctrinal tampering.' (Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1987, p. 63) Harold B.
Lee later became the 11th prophet of the church. While minor
changes have been made in the ceremony during the last few decades,
they appear insignificant when compared with those made on April
10, 1990.
We would suspect that the Mormon leaders must
have decided to make the present changes many months ago. Since
"motion pictures have replaced some of the live actors in
most of the temples, it follows that it would take time to make
new films containing the changes. The Salt Lake Tribune,
April 29, 1990, reported that the "new endowment film,
the fifth since the 1950s, incorporates the most recent revisions."
(The Story of the latter-day Saints, 1976, p.574) It
should also be noted that it would take time to make new translations
of the changes for the foreign temples.
We may never know for certain whether George P.
Lee, who was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, knew
of the proposed changes in the temple ceremony before his excommunication
was announced in the September 2, 1989, issue of the Salt
Lake Tribune. It is interesting to note, however, that in
a letter "To the First Presidency and the Twelve,"
Lee did mention his concern that other church leaders felt they
could change the gospel:
"7. I have heard a few of you declare that
you are greater than ancient apostles such as Moses, Abraham,
Noah[,] Is[a]iah, Isaac, Jacob and etc. This reflects the attitude
of all of you.
"8. I have heard one of [or?] more of you
declare that you can change anything Jesus had said
or taught. This also reflects the attitude of all
of you." (Letter by George P. Lee, photographically printed
in Excommunication of a Mormon Church Leader, page 54)
Less than two weeks before the changes were made
in the temple, President Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor
in the First Presidency, expressed concern about members of the
church talking about the temple ceremony: "I remind you
of the absolute obligation to not discuss outside
the temple that which occurs within the temple. Sacred
matters deserve sacred consideration. We are under obligation,
binding and serious, to not use temple language or
speak of temple matters outside... do not discuss
outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple.... when
you leave the doors of the House of the Lord, be true to a sacred
trust to speak not of that which is
holy and sanctified." (The Ensign, May 1990, p.52)
It seems obvious that President Hinckley gave this warning
in an attempt to keep members from talking about the changes
which were to be made in the ceremony ten days later. It is obvious,
of course, that Hinckley's admonition was not followed by many
members of the church and therefore accounts of the changes in
the ritual made their way to the news media. We had been told
that changes would be made some time before they actually took
place, and members of the church discussed them with us after
they were made.
It is interesting to note that the changes in
the temple ceremony were put into effect immediately after
the church's general conference had ended (the
conference ended April 1st and the changes were made on April
10th). The temple presidents were apparently given instructions
about the changes before they returned from conference to their
work in the various temples throughout the world. The general
membership of the church, however, left the conference completely
in the dark with regard to what was about to happen to their
sacred ritual. Since it would be six months before another general
conference would take place, any dissenting opinions or discussion
of the changes would have to take place on a local level.
Church leader Joseph Fielding Smith declared that
"One of the greatest blessings given to mankind is the gift
of free agency." (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol.3,
p.46) As far as we can determine, faithful Latter-day Saints
were given no chance to exercise their free agency with regard
to the changes made in the endowment ceremony. The method of
handling this whole matter, however, was in accord with a statement
which appeared in the official Mormon publication, Improvement
Era, June 1945 (p.354): "When our leaders speak, the
thinking has been done. When they propose a plan
it is God's plan. When they point the
way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction,
it should mark the end of controversy."
Although it is often ignored, the church actually
has a doctrine of "common consent" which should have
applied to the alterations made in the temple ritual. In a revelation
given by Joseph Smith in July 1830 we find the following: "And
all things shall be done by
common consent in the church, by much prayer and
faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen."
(Doctrine and Covenants 26:2) Section 28:13 reaffirms
that "all things must be done in
order, and by common consent in the
church..."
Joseph F. Smith, the 6th prophet of the church,
testified as follows in the Reed Smoot investigation: "Mr.
Smith. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no
revelation given through the head of the church
ever becomes binding and authoritative upon
the members of the church until it has been presented to the
church and accepted by them."
(Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1 p. 96) Apostle John Henry Smith
gave this testimony in vol. 2, p. 321:
"Mr. Smith. Yes,
sir; he [the prophet] receives revelations; but the
revelations must be accepted by his church by vote.
"Mr. Tayler. So
that what the Almighty orders depends on whether the people who
are ordered want to do it or not?
"Mr. Smith. Yes,
sir; there is no force on the Mormon
people."
Apostle James E. Talmage likewise testified: "If
it is a revelation it is a revelation, and amounts to just so
much; but as to being a binding law upon the church--a
law of practice and action--it would have to be first adopted
by the church to become such." (vol.3, p.
80)
From the testimony given by the Mormon leaders,
a person would certainly be led to believe that a major revision
of the temple ritual (a ceremony which was supposed to have been
given by revelation) would have to
be approved by church members before it would be binding on the
Mormon people and used in the church's 43 temples. For the General
Authorities to drop out important portions of a ceremony they
claim came from God himself, seems far worse than what they have
charged the Catholics with doing. After all, the Book of Mormon's
accusation that the "great and abominable church" removed
"many plain and precious things"
from the Bible (a charge which the Mormon leaders cannot prove)
relates to portions that would have been available at one time
to everyone that had access to the Biblical text. The items which
were removed from the temple ceremony were supposed to have been
so sacred that they were never revealed
to the world. These secret ceremonies could only be found in
the temples of the Lord. These rituals, in fact, purport to give
the information on how men may become Gods!
Mormon leaders who have now passed away would
have been shocked at what the present leaders altered or removed
from the temple ceremony. Apostle James E. Talmage emphasized:
"No jot, iota, or tittle of the
temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifying. In
every detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants
of morality of life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion
to truth, patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God."
(The House of the Lord, 1968, p. 84)
As the newspaper accounts have stated, the Mormon
leaders have removed the "penalties" which were previously
held to be extremely important and sacred. The reader will remember
that we have quoted President Brigham Young as saying that Joseph
Smith himself "gave the key-words, signs, tokens, and penalties."
Before the recent changes in the ceremony, it was
stressed in the ceremony itself that the penalties were sacred:
"We are required to give you the First Tokens of the Aaronic
Priesthood. Before doing this, however, we desire to impress
upon your minds the sacred character
of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with
its accompanying name, sign and penalty, together
with that of all the other Tokens of
the Holy Priesthood, with their accompanying names, signs and
penalties, which you will receive in the temple
this day. They are most sacred and
are guarded by solemn covenants and obligations of
secrecy to the effect that under no condition,
even at the peril of your life, will you ever divulge them...
The representation of the penalties indicates
different ways in which life may be taken." (Mormonism
Shadow or Reality? p. 468)
From this it is very clear that the penalties,
which have now been removed from the temple ritual, were previously
considered to be "most sacred."
Harold B. Lee, who later became the 12th prophet
of the church, compared the things found in the temple ritual
to the "pearls" that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 7:6:
"'But we say the ordinances are sacred as
contrasted with just being secret.... the Master said, 'Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again
and rend you.'... in temples like this, there could be revealed
that which couldn't be had otherwise.'"
(Improvement Era, Feb.1965, p. 123, as cited in Achieving
a Celestial Marriage, p. 202) Other Mormon leaders have
also identified the elements of the temple ceremony with the
pearls mentioned by Christ. If this were the case, it would appear
that the Mormon leaders have now thrown away some of their "most
sacred" pearls!
SECRETS LEAK OUT
Joseph Smith swore those who took part in the
endowments to secrecy, but because of his practice of plural
marriage and other doctrines he taught, many of his followers
became alienated from the Mormon Church and some of them revealed
the contents of the ritual. An account was published as early
as April 15, 1846, in the Warsaw Signal. Increase McGee
Van Dusen and his wife exposed the temple ceremony in 1847, and
their account was reprinted several times. Many other exposes
were printed in the 19th century. As we noted earlier, the Reed
Smoot investigation took place just after the turn of the century.
At that time many people who had been through the ritual were
questioned regarding its contents. While a number refused to
talk about it, others spoke concerning what went on in the temples.
Their testimony was printed by the United States Government in
four volumes.
In 1889 John Moore and W. J. Edgar were denied
citizenship because it was believed that they had taken "an
oath or obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship..."
As in the Reed Smoot investigation, Mormons or those who had
formerly been Mormons were called upon to give testimony concerning
the temple ceremony. In the "Temple Lot Case," a dispute
over the property on which a temple was to be built, additional
testimony was given concerning the ritual. Much of this testimony
appears in a large volume entitled, The Temple Lot Case.
On February 12, 1906, the Salt Lake Tribune
printed the temple ritual, and in 1931, W. M. Paden published
an account of the endowment ceremony in Temple Mormonism--Its
Evolution, Ritual and Meaning. In 1964, William J. Whalen
printed the ceremony (see Latter-Day Saints in the Modern
Day World), and two years later John L. Smith, a Baptist
minister, published the ritual in I Visited the Temple.
In 1964, we reprinted Paden's 1931 publication
concerning the temple ceremony. We suspected, however, that there
had been some changes in the ceremony over the years. Since we
wanted to publish the most accurate account possible, we had
a couple who had been through the ritual about fifty times revise
Paden's work. Later, however, a man who had been through the
temple approximately 120 times heard that we were preparing to
publish the ritual and felt that it was important that the most
accurate account possible should be given to the world. He, therefore,
volunteered to bring the ceremony right up to date. We published
this account in vol.1 of The Mormon Kingdom in 1969,
and later we incorporated this same account into our book Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? Tens of thousands of copies have been distributed
throughout the world since that time. It was our feeling that
Mormons should have the right to know what they were getting
into before they were sworn to secrecy and had to take part in
thedemonstration of the penalties. Although we felt that we were
performing an important service for the Mormon people, many people
were horrified that we would dare to print the ritual. Nevertheless,
a number of Mormon scholars verified that we had produced an
extremely accurate account of the ceremony. Many Mormons had
a difficult time believing that God would allow anyone to reproduce
the ritual and found it hard to believe that a printed copy actually
existed. Writing in the Los Angeles times, May 5, 1990,
John Dart commented: "Some candid Mormon officials have
acknowledged in interviews that the whole secret ritual was published
years ago by church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Salt
lake City."
The Salt Lake City Public Library obtained a number
of copies of Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? Unfortunately,
however, there was a continual problem with people ripping or
cutting out pages which related to the temple endowment. Some
people wondered if the church would allow us to continue to publish
the ritual. We shared the same concern, but, as it turned out,
the Mormons allowed us to continue exercising our freedom of
religion and of the press.
In any case, as far as the Mormon Church was concerned,
the situation turned from bad to worse. About eleven years after
our publication of the ceremony, Bob Whitte and Gordon H. Fraser
printed the ritual in a pamphlet entitled, What's Going on
in Here? Later, Chuck and Dolly Sackett published a pamphlet
with a similar title, What's Going on in There? The
Sackett's pamphlet was unique in that on page 4 of the booklet
they claimed that their printing was transcribed from a tape
recording made inside the temple during the actual Endowment
ceremony." While Mormons questioned the ethics of someone
secretly recording the ceremony, no one seemed todoubt that the
tape recording had actually been made. The Sacketts, who had
previously been deeply involved in genealogy and temple work
for the church, went a step further and began duplicating copies
of the tape recording so that others could actually hear what
went on inside the temple. These tapes were extensively circulated
and even played on radio stations.
Another member of the Mormon Church secretly recorded
the temple ritual in the Provo temple and a good number of copies
of this tape have also been circulated. Many others have published
material or made films concerning the endowment ritual. Still
others have given lectures about it. The cumulative effect of
all the audio and video tapes, lectures, radio programs, films
and printed copies of the ceremony being available to the general
public has placed the Mormon leaders in a very awkward predicament.
They had previously maintained that the temple ritual was so
holy that God kept the knowledge of it from the world. Apostle
Bruce R. McConkie declared: "So sacred and holy
are the administrations performed that in every
age when they have been revealed, the Lord has withheld
them from the knowledge of the world and disclosed
them only to the faithful saints in houses and
places dedicated and selected for that purpose." (Mormon
Doctrine, p. 227)
To an outsider, it would almost appear that the
Mormon leaders and the God they worship have lost all control
over the dissemination of the ceremony. The contents of the ritual
have been scattered to the ends of the world. Many non-Mormons
now know far more about the endowments than the average Mormon.
Only adults are permitted to go through the temple, and, according
to the Church Section of the Mormon newspaper, Deseret News,
Jan. 16, 1982, "two-thirds of the adult members have
yet to go through the temple for the first time, said Elder W.
Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department..."
The same issue of the church's newspaper also noted that Bangerter
said that "Through the history of the Church... only a fourth
of the members have received endowments..." It is certainly
ironic that a person can now easily obtain a non-Mormon publication
such as Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? or What's
Going On In There? and find out more about the temple ceremony
in a few minutes than most of the Mormons learn in a lifetime!
Furthermore, the material available to the public seems to be
proliferating as the Mormon Church grows larger.
Mormon leaders are not only faced with trying
to explain the availability of a ceremony which they previously
asserted was "withheld" from the "knowledge of
the world," but they also will find it very difficult to
explain why God did not protect his sacred temple from those
who brought in tape recorders to expose the ceremony. It has
been a common belief among the Mormons that God's hand protects
the temple and its rituals. Ezra Taft Benson, who is currently
the prophet of the church, stated: "I think the temple is
the most sacred spot on earth... Temples are places of personal
revelation." (The Teachings
of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 250-51) One would think that if
the spirit of the Lord flows freely in the temple, deceivers
would be detected. In the Old Testament, II Chronicles 26:17-21,
we read the story of a wicked king named Uzziah who "went
into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of
incense." He was warned that only the priests who were "consecrated
to burn incense" were allowed to do so. When he persisted
he was "smitten" by the Lord with "leprosy"
and was "a leper unto the day of his death."
Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie maintained that
"the discerning of spirits is poured out upon presiding
officials in God's kingdom; they have it given to them to discern
all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the
saints and practice deception.... There is no perfect
operation of the power of discernment without revelation. Thereby
even 'the thoughts and intents of the heart' are made known."
Apostle Mathias F. Cowley told how the gift of discernment protected
the temple: "On one of the three days during which the Dedicatory
Services of the Logan Temple was held, President John Taylor...
sighted a woman in the crowd whom he did not know but indicated
her to President Card and said: 'Don't let that woman come into
the assembly; she is not worthy.'... Brother Card said to President
Taylor: 'She couldn't pass the door keeper without a recommend.'
President Taylor replied, 'That matters not; she is not worthy.'...
Brother Card turned her back and later on he went to see her...
she said there was a man in the ward who was not worthy of a
recommend, but the Bishop gave him one... This woman happened
to meet the man on the street and he asked her how she would
like to go to the dedication... She said she would like to but
could not get a recommend. He said: 'I have a recommend and will
give it to you for one dollar.' And so she got her recommend
by paying this amount." (Temples of the Most High, p.
100)
One would think that if the temples were protected
by God and the current Mormon officials were really led by revelation,
those who used deception to obtain tape recordings to expose
the endowment ceremony would have encountered judgment from God
or at least been thwarted in their nefarious plans to discredit
the church. The Sackett's, however, report the following: "The
tape recording of the Mormon temple Endowment... was recorded
in the Los Angeles Mormon Temple, and was made using a personal
pocket-size tape recorder carried by one of the patrons... The
patron... entered the temple using his own personal temple recommend...
He was greeted by several temple worker acquaintances who obviously
did not know of his excommunication from the Mormon Church, which
had been at his own request several months earlier. One of the
objectives of this foray was to test the well-known Mormon claim
of divinely-assisted temple security.... Contrary to popular
Mormon belief, not one person in the
temple appeared the slightest bit spiritually or supernaturally
alerted to the presence among them of one whom they classify
as an 'apostate' and a 'son of perdition.' As he departed, the
patron was encouraged by a member of the temple Presidency to
return again soon."(What's Going On In There? p.
4)
When we think of this incident with the tape recorder,
we cannot help but remember a picture of Mark Hofmann, the man
who forged Mormon documents, standing in the presence of the
12th prophet of the church, Spencer W. Kimball, and four of the
apostles. In this photograph, which ve have reproduced in our
book, Tracking the White Salamander, p. 73, the prophet
and the apostles appear to be carefully examining what purports
to be the prophet Joseph Smith's copy of characters found on
the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. This document, of course,
was a forgery, but the Mormon leaders were completely oblivious
to that act. Mr. Hofmann continued meeting with church leaders
for about four years for the express purpose of deceiving them
so that they would give him large amounts of money in exchange
for his fraudulent documents. Church leaders, however, could
not discern the wicked plan that Hofmann had in his heart. While
the Mormon leaders claim to have the same powers as the ancient
apostles in the Bible, their performance with regard to Mark
Hofmann certainly does not match up to that of the Apostle Peter
when he caught Ananias and Sapphira red-handed in their attempt
to deceive the church with regard to a financial transaction:
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart
to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price
of the land?" (Acts 5:3)
From the time the endowment ritual was first revealed
in Nauvoo, Mormon leaders have feared that the contents of the
ceremony would become known. It now seems that all of their efforts
to stop the spread of knowledge concerning the endowment ceremony
have been completely in vain.
NO MORE PENALTIES
We have already noted that the Mormon leaders
have now removed the ''Most sacred'' penalties which have been
in the temple ceremony since the days of Joseph Smith. We feel
that this is a really vindication of our work and of that of
the 'many other ministries laboring with the Mormons.
We have always felt that these penalties were
not compatible with Christian teachings and have strongly opposed
them in print for over twenty years. We have continually expressed
our belief that Joseph Smith borrowed the penalties from Masonry
after he joined that secret organization. Although Masonry had
been very unpopular since the late 1820's, Smith was not ashamed
of his association with the lodge in 1842. The following appears
in Joseph Smith's History under the date of March 15,
1842: "In the evening I received the first degree in Free
Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge..." (History
of the Church, vol 4, p. 551) The entry for the following
day contains this statement: "Wednesday, March 16.--I
was with the Masonic Lodge and rose
to the sublime degree." (p. 552)
The Masons had some very bloody oaths in their
ritual. Capt. William Morgan, who had been a Mason for thirty
years, exposed these oaths in a book printed in 1827. After publishing
his book, Freemasonry Exposed, Morgan disappeared and
this set off the great controversy over Masonry which was still
raging when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. In any case,
on pages 21-22 of his book, Morgan revealed the oath that Masons
took in the "First Degree" of their ritual: "...I
will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or
points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasony...
binding myself under no less penalty than to have my
throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots..." On
page 23, Morgan went on to show that the Masons who went through
the first degree were also taught to draw "your
right hand across your throat, the thumb next to your throat,
your arm as high as the elbow in a horizontal position."
In the past, Mormon leaders have argued against
the charge by critics that changes have been made in the temple
ceremony. Our examination of the evidence, however, reveals that
their statements were not correct. Serious changes have been
made in the ritual, and these changes have tended to obscure
the fact that the penalties were derived from Masonry. For example,
it is clear from many early sources that the promise given when
one received "The First token
of the Aaronic Priesthood" was derived from the oath given
in the "First Degree" of
the Masonic ritual. In Temple Mormonism, published in
1931, p. 18, we find this information concerning the Mormon ritual:
"The left arm is here placed at the square,
palm to the front the right hand and arm raised to the neck,
holding the palm downwards and thumb under the right ear.
"Adam--'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.'...
"Sign--In executing the sign
of the penalty, the right hand palm
down, is drawn sharply across the throat, then
dropped from the square to the side."
The bloody nature of this oath in the temple endowment
was verified by an abundance of testimony given in the Reed
Smoot Case. For example, in vol.2, page 78, J. H. Wallis,
Sr., testified: "...I agree that my throat be
cut from ear to ear and my tongue torn out by its roots from
my mouth."
A very important letter has come to light which
also confirms the gory wording of this oath in earlier times.
It was written by the First Presidency of the Mormon Church (President
Wilford Woodruff and his counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph
F. Smith) to Lorenzo Snow, President of the Salt Lake Temple.
Some months prior to the time tile letter was written, President
Woodruff recorded in his journal that he had met with George
Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow and other church officials--including
representatives who presided over four temples--and "spent
three hours in harmanizing the Different M{ode?]s of Ceremonies
in giving Endowments." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal,
Oct.17, 1893, vol. 9, p. 267) The letter was written about
ten months after the entry in Woodruff's journal and contains
this revealing information:
"As a result of the conference of the brethren
engaged as ordinance workers in the several Temples, held at
Salt Lake Temple, some time ago, the following slight corrections
have been adopted by us...
"In the creation on the fifth day a grammatical
error occurs. The word 'their' is used instead of 'its,' the
word their, therefore, is changes [sic] to its....
"The words 'that my tongue be
torn from its roots in my mouth,' were substituted
for from the roof of my mouth.'" (Letter
from the First Presidency, August 31, 1894, LDS Historical Department,
CR 100, 14, #2, Volume 8:16-17, typed copy)
Some time in the first half of the 20th century,
a major change was made concerning the penalties in the endowment
ceremony. The bloody wording of the oath mentioned above was
entirely removed. Nevertheless, Mormons were still instructed
to draw their thumbs across their throats to show the penalty.
In the account of the ritual which we published
in Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 468, the reader
can see how the wording was modified to remove the harsh language
regarding the cutting of the throat and the tearing out of the
tongue:
"...we desire to impress upon your minds
the sacred character of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood,
with its accompanying name, sign and penalty, together
with that of all the other Tokens of the Holy Priesthood, with
their accompanying names, signs and penalties,...
They are most sacred and
are guarded by solemn covenants and obligations of
secrecy to the effect that under no condition,
even at the peril of your life, will you ever divulge them, except
at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter. The representations
of the penalties indicates different ways in which life may be
taken....
"Adam, we give unto you the First Token of
the Aaronic Priesthood...
"The sign of the First Token of the Aaronic
Priesthood is made by bringing the right arm to the square the
palm of the hand to the front, the fingers close together and
the thumb extended. This is the sign. The execution
of the penalty is represented by placing the thumb
under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by
drawing the thumb quickly across the throat, to
the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side....
"Now repeat in your minds after me the words
of the covenant, at the same time representing the execution
of the penalty.
"I, ________ (think of the new name) do covenant
and promise that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic
Priesthood, together with its accompanying name, sign and
penalty. Rather than do so I would suffer
my life to be taken."
This revised version, which remained in effect
for a number of decades, seemed to be more confused than inspired.
The Mormon leaders apparently desired to get rid of the most
offensive wording but still wanted to retain the idea that there
was a death penalty involved if the secrets were revealed. That
the penalty for divulging the "First Token" was still
the cutting of the throat would of course still be very clear
to those who had taken the oath before it was changed, but those
who received their endowments after the alteration of the ceremony
must have found the whole thing somewhat confusing. While they
were still instructed that the penalty was to draw "the
thumb quickly across the throat" and that the penalties
represented "ways in which life may be taken," they
did not have to agree that their "throats be cut from ear
to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots." All they
had to do was promise not to "reveal the First Token...
Rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken."
While some Mormons may not have realized exactly
what they were doing when they took the penalties upon themselves,
the more astute who paid careful attention to the ritual realized
what they were doing and many of them were very offended. John
Dart gives this information:
"In pledging to never reveal the ritual,
Mormons formerly made three motions--drawing one's hand quickly
across the throat, another indicating one's heart would be cut
out and the third suggesting disembowelment.
"'That's why I stopped going to the temple
because [the ritual] was so offensive,' said a former woman member
in Salt Lake City.
"The so-called penalty gestures were criticized
as 'outgrowing their usefulness' in a talk before a Mormon audience
about a month ago by Keith Norman... 'I had no idea this change
was about to take place,' Norman said after the modifications
were introduced." (Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1990)
The recent removal of the penalties from the endowment
ceremony by the Mormon leaders has been hailed by liberal Mormons
as a step in the right direction. In his article, published in
the Salt Lake Tribune, April 29, 1990, Vern Anderson
told of Ross Peterson's response to the removal of the penalties:
"It [the endowment] also includes sacred covenants... Graphic
depictions of penalties for breaking them, considered gruesome
by some, were among the recent deletions. 'It's not as harsh,'
Peterson said of the new version. 'It's more uplifting. It's
softer and gentler.'"
In completely removing the penalties from the
endowment ceremony, the Mormon leaders have taken out some important
vestiges of Masonry which Joseph Smith had borrowed from the
Masonic ritual.
The reader will remember that the article in the
Los Angeles Times mentioned two other penalties that
have been removed from the Mormon temple endowment. These were
also derived from Masonry. In the "Second or
Fellow Craft Degree," Masons bound themselves "under
no less penalty than to have my left
breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence and
thrown over my left shoulder and carried into the valley of Jehosaphat,
there to become a prey to the wild beasts of the
field, and vulture of the air... The sign is given
by drawing your right hand flat, with
the palm of it next to your breast, across your breast
from the left to the right side with some quickness, and dropping
it down by your side..." (Freemasonry
Exposed, pp. 52-53)
This oath and the penalty was incorporated into
the temple endowment in the "Second Token
of the Aaronic Priesthood." In the 1931 printing of Temple
Mormonism, p. 20, we find the following:
"'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, 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."
As in the case of the "First Token of the
Aaronic Priesthood," the offensive wording was deleted from
the Mormon ceremony a number of decades ago (see Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? p. 470). The "execution of the penalty,"
however, was still retained in the ritual until April, 1990.
In the "Third, or Master Mason's Degree,"
Masons bound themselves "under no less penalty
than to have my body severed in two
in the midst, and divided to the north and south,
my bowels burnt to ashes in the center...
The Penal Sign is given by putting
the right hand to the left side of the bowels, the hand open,
with the thumb next to the belly, and
drawing it across the belly, and letting it fall; this is done
tolerably quick. This alludes to the
penalty of the obligation: 'Having
my body severed in twain,' etc." (Freemasonry Exposed,
pp. 75-77)
Joseph Smith included this Masonic oath in the
"First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood." Mormons
who went through the endowment were instructed to say that if
they revealed "any of the secrets of this, the First Token
of the Melchizedek Priesthood... we agree that our
bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out."
(Temple Mormonism, p. 20.) These offensive words were
removed from the temple ceremony many years ago, but Mormons
continued to execute the sign of the penalty until just recently:
"The sign of the first token of the Melchizedek Priesthood
or sign of the nail is made by bringing the left hand in front
of you with the hand in cupping shape, the left arm forming a
square, the right hand is also brought forward, the fingers close
together, and the thumb is placed over the left hip.
This is the sign. The execution of
the penalty is represented by drawing
the thumb quickly across the body and dropping
the hand to the side." (Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?
p. 471) Finally, in April 1990, this penalty was entirely
removed from the temple ceremony.
As we have shown, Joseph Smith received the first
three degrees of Masonry on March 15th and 16th of 1842. Less
than two months later (May 4, 1842) he gave the endowment ceremonies
(see History of the Church, vol.5, pp. 1-2). The fact
that the bloody oaths appeared in the temple ceremony in exactly
the same order as in Masonry seems very suspicious. In both cases
the first oath mentioned the slitting of the throat and tearing
out of the tongue. The second spoke of the cutting open of the
breast so that the heart and vitals could be removed, and the
third mentioned disembowelment. Moreover, in all three cases
the same penalties were demonstrated. This all appears to be
too similar to be a coincidence.
Since many of those who took part in the endowment
ceremonies were already Masons, Joseph Smith had some explaining
to do. He, therefore, maintained that he was restoring the original
temple rites which had been lost from the earth. Smith further
explained that Masonry, which claimed to go back to King Solomon's
temple, originally had the same ritual but that it had become
corrupted. Heber C. Kimball who later became a member of the
First Presidency of the Mormon Church, could not help but see
the resemblance between the two ceremonies. In the book, Heber
C. Kimball, p. 85, Stanley B. Kimball gives this valuable
information: "Heber thought he saw similarities between
Masonic and Mormon ritual. In a letter to Parley Pratt, June
17,1842, Heber revealed: 'We have received some pressious things
through the Prophet... thare is a similarity of preas[t]Hood
in Masonry. Bro. Joseph Ses [says?] Masonry was
taken from preasthood but has become degenerated. But menny
things are perfect.' Later at a special conference... Heber explained
further: 'We have the true Masonry. 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.'
Mormon apologist E. Cecil McGavin wrote: "If
we manifested the belligerent spirit that many of the Masons
display, we might say that Masonry is a spurious
system descending from Solomon's Temple. Numerous
changes and corruptions have crept
in yet enough of the original remains to bear a few humble resemblances
to the true endowment.... In the diary of Benjamin F. Johnson,
and intimate friend and associate of Joseph Smith, it is recorded
that 'Joseph told me that Freemasonry was the apostate
endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate
religion'" (Mormonism and Masonry, 1947, p. 199)
Dr. Reed C. Durham, a Mormon historian who has
served as president of the Mormon History Association, was forced
by the evidence to admit that Masonry had a powerful influence
on Joseph Smith: "...I am convinced that in the study of
Masonry lies a pivotal key to further understanding Joseph Smith
and the Church... The many parallels found between early Mormonism
and the Masonry of that day are substantial... I believe that
there are few significant developments in the Church, that occurred
after March 15, 1842 [the day Smith became Mason], which did
have some Masonic interdependence... There is absolutely no question
in my mind that the Mormon ceremony which came to be known as
the Endowment, introduced by Joseph
Smith to Mormon Masons, had an immediate inspiration
from Masonry. This is not to suggest that no other
source of inspiration could have been involved, but the similarities
between the two ceremonies are so apparent and overwhelming
that some dependent relationship cannot be denied. They
are so similar, in fact, that one writer was led to refer to
the Endowment as Celestial Masonry." (Mormon Miscellaneous,
October 1975, pp. 13-14)
Some Mormon apologists who are aware of the devastating
parallels between Masonry and the Mormon temple endowment believe
that when Joseph Smith went through the Masonic ritual, God gave
him the spirit of revelation so that he would discern which portions
really went back to Solomon's temple and which parts had been
corrupted by later Masons. The prophet, therefore, only incorporated
the genuine God-given elements into the Mormon "endowment
ceremony."
Now that the Mormon leaders have completely removed
both the gruesome wording and the penalties from the temple ritual,
it places these apologists on the horns of a dilemma. If God
really instructed Joseph Smith to lift the bloody oaths and penalties
from the Masonic ritual and insert them into the endowment ceremony,
how can the present leaders of the church, who are supposed to
be guided by revelation, tear them out of the temple ritual without
offending God? It would appear that either the present leaders
of the church feel that they know more than the God who was supposed
to have spoken to Joseph Smith, or else they realize that Smith
made a serious mistake when he borrowed this embarrassing material
from the Masons.
The action of church authorities in dropping out
some of the elements which were once believed to be "most
sacred" will undoubtedly raise some serious questions in
the minds of many faithful LDS people. If Joseph Smith was in
error when he included these things, then it is obvious that
we have no assurance that the other material he took from the
Masons is really inspired. If a portion of the Masonic material
he plagiarized is found to be defective, it throws suspicion
on all the rest of the Masonic ritual which was incorporated
into the endowment, and since there is so much Masonry in the
ceremony, it would lead one to the suspicion that the entire
ceremony is manmade. In Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? pp.
484-492, we presented devastating evidence linking the Mormon
temple ceremony to Masonry. The parallels are too close to be
swept aside. This same information will be included in our new
book, Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, 1842-1990.
Those who maintain that the recent changes were
really made because of revelation given to church authorities,
should consider another interesting aspect with regard to this
question. On Feb. 18, 1987, the church's own newspaper, Deseret
News, reported that British Freemasons removed the bloody
oaths from their own ceremonies: "Beheading and ripping
out the tongue have been abolished by the British Freemasons
as penalties for violating the solemn code of the secret society,
it was reported. Such punishments have been on the books of Freemasonry
for centuries to enforce solemn obligations that inductees to
Masonic lodges swear on the Bible to uphold. But, the Daily
Telegraph said this week, it's the sort of thing that scares
people away from the secret society."
Now, if British Freemasons realized that their
gruesome oaths had a tendency to scare "people away from
their secret society" and decided to make a change to accommodate
themselves to current thinking, it seems very likely that the
leaders of the Mormon Church see "the handwriting on the
wall." If this process is termed "revelation,"
then it is obvious that the British Freemasons had the revelation
first.
IMPORTANT OMISSION
The Los Angeles Times. May 5, 1990, gave
this information concerning the removal of the "Five Points
of Fellowship" from the temple ceremony:
"Also dropped is an 'embrace' of a man representing
God, who stands behind a ceiling-to-floor veil. Reaching through
a slit in the veil, the church member puts his or her hand to
the hack of the deity and presses against him at the cheek, shoulders,
knees and feet with the veil between them. The contact at 'five
points of fellowship,; including the hand on the back, has been
omitted, although the member must still give a secret handshake
and repeat a lengthy password."
There can be no question that the "five points
of fellowship" were derived from Masonry. The reader can
clearly see this from the comparison which follows:
MASONS: "HE (the Candidate)
is raised on what is called the five points of fellowship,...
This is done by putting the inside
of your right foot to the inside of the right foot of the person
to whom you are going to give the word, the inside
of your knee to his, laying your right breast against his, your
left hands on the back of each other, and your mouths to each
other's right ear (in which position alone you
are permitted to give the word), and whisper the
word Mahhah-bone... He is also told that Mahhah-bone signifies
marrow in the bone." (Freemasonry
Exposed, pp.84-85)
MORMONS: "The five
points of fellowship are given by putting the inside
of the right foot to the inside of the Lord's, the inside of
your knee to his, laying your breast close to his, your left
hands on each other's backs, and each one putting his mouth to
the other's ear, in which position the Lord whispers:
"Lord--'This is the sign of the token:
"'Health to the navel, marrow
in the bones...'" (Temple Mormonism, page
22)
That the "five points of fellowship"
were in the temple ceremony while the Mormons were still in Nauvoo,
Illinois is verified by a reference H. Michael Marquardt pointed
out in Heber C. Kimball's Journal, Nov. 21, 1845 to
Jan. 7, 1846. Under the date of Dec. 11, 1845, a scribe wrote
of the "second token of the Melchizedek Priesthood and also
the key word on the five points of fellowship."
The Five Points of Fellowship remained a very
important part of the temple ceremony until the ritual was revised
in April 1990. In the ceremony as we published it in Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? pp. 472-73, the reader will find that when those
receiving their endowments arrive at the "veil" and
seek entrance into heaven, they are lacking one extremely important
key--i.e., the name of the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood,
The Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail. When the Lord
asks the recipient to "give it [the name] to me?" the
response is: "I cannot. I have not yet received it. For
this purpose I have come to converse with the Lord through the
veil." The Lord then responds: "You shall receive it
upon the five points of fellowship, through
the veil." The Lord gives the vital information and then
asks for the name again: "Will you give it to me?"
This time the recipient says, "I will, upon
the five points of fellowship through the veil..."
After the secret words are given, the Lord says "That is
correct." Shortly after this, the recipient is allowed to
enter into the presence of the Lord in the "Celestial Room."
In Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor, p.
120, we read that in Masonry the candidate can only receive "the
grand Masonic word on the five points of fellowship." The
reader will remember that Heber C. Kimball's journal for 1845
made it clear that in the Mormon endowment this important key
to the Celestial Kingdom was only given "on
the five points of Fellowship."We have also
shown that up until the revision of the ceremony in April 1990,
the Lord would only give this important information "upon
the five points of fellowship, through the veil."
Furthermore, the recipient had to give it back to the Lord "upon
the five points of fellowship, through the veil."
For almost a century and a half, therefore, the Mormon leaders
taught that these secret words could only be whispered in the
ear while the Lord and the recipient were touching on all "five
points of fellowship." From what we can learn, those who
participate in the ritual still put their "left hands on
each other's backs and whisper the words of the sign," but
they do not put their feet and knees
together and all the wording concerning the "five points
of fellowship" has been completely deleted. These words
previously appeared in four different places--the "Lord"
spoke of the "five points of fellowship" twice; "Peter"
referred to the "five points of fellowship" once, and
the recipient mentioned them once.
While it is good that the Mormon leaders removed
this Masonic element from the endowment ceremony, some people
who have been involved in temple work feel that the reason it
was dropped was because some of the women felt the five points
of contact (especially the placing of the "inside of your
knee to his") were too intimate. There were complaints that
the men playing the role of the Lord sometimes took advantage
of the situation. We were also told that even some of the men
felt they had a problem with the "Lord" behind the
veil. Since a large number of men have played the role of the
Lord in the various temples throughout the world, it is certainly
possible that complaints could have been made at various times.
The performance of this type of ceremony in any group of people
would probably result in some complaints. In any case, it is
very possible that the "five points of fellowship"
were removed because this part of the ritual seemed awkward or
embarrassing to some members of the Mormon Church.
Regardless of the reason for the change, it raises
serious questions concerning the inspiration of church officials.
If a person was previously compelled to receive the secret information
necessary to enter heaven on the five points of fellowship, how
can the church leaders now by-pass God's revealed way which was
given by the prophet Joseph Smith. Kim Sue Lia Perkes revealed
that: "...a former Mormon familiar with the changes said
the ceremony's climax has been eliminated. Removal of that part
of the ritual, he said, is the equivalent of taking
the Eucharist out of the Roman Catholic Mass.
"Not all Morons are happy with the ceremony
changes.
"'I certainly have Mormon friends who will
see it as a step toward apostasy and an accommodation to the
world,' said one practicing Mormon in Utah." (Arizona
Republic, April 28, 1990)
DEVIL'S MINISTER GONE
When we first printed the temple ceremony in 1969,
we commented on the fact that in the 1906 printing of the endowment,
the Devil offered a preacher four thousand dollars a year to
work for him, We said that in 1906 this was a great deal of money,
but that the Mormons had neglected to give the preacher much
of a raise. Therefore, when we printed the ceremony in 1969,
and subsequently in Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 468,
the preacher was still only receiving five thousand dollars
a year. In any case, this portion of the ceremony makes it perfectly
clear that in the eyes of the Mormon leaders the orthodox Christian
religion is the Devil's religion:
"LUCIFFR: Well, if you'll
preach your orthodox religion to this
people and convert them, I'll give you--let me see--five thousand
a year."
In Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, p. 66,
we wrote: "...the temple ritual tries to link Christians
and ministers of other churches to the Devil's work. We feel
that this is one of the most objectionable things about the ceremony,
and we do not feel that a Christian would want to give any support
to this type of thing."
Many other Christians protested against this part
of the ceremony, and a great deal of pressure has been put on
the Mormon leaders to change this part of the endowment. We understand,
in fact, that a petition signed by thousands of people demanded
that this portion of the endowment be changed.
After this portion of the ceremony was deleted,
Vern Anderson wrote the following: "Among the changes...
a portion of the ceremony with an actor portraying a non-Mormon
'preacher' paid by Satan to spread false doctrine has been eliminated.
'The general consensus is that it's a breath of fresh air,' said
Ross Peterson... 'You don't put down other churches, or imply
that they are Satan's children.' (Salt Lake Tribune, April
29, 1990) We have been told that all the material making fun
of both Protestants and Catholics has now been eliminated. The
ceremony as it was previously given, not only implied that Protestant
ministers were working for the Devil, but also had Lucifer claiming
he would buy up "Popes" to help him in his evil work.
Unfortunately, the removal of the portion of the
temple ceremony which implies that Christian ministers are working
for the Devil does not really solve the problem. The Mormon Church
still retains Joseph Smith's story of the First Vision in the
Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith--History, verses
18-19. In this account, Joseph Smith asserted that Jesus himself
told him that all other churches were wrong: "My object
in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the
sects was right... I was answered that I must join
none of them, for they were all wrong;
and the Personage who addressed me said that all
their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that
those professors were all corrupt..."
OTHER CHANGES
In the version of the temple ceremony which we
published in Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 467, the
men "covenant and promise" that they will "obey
the law of God." The women, however, agree to obey the law
of their husbands:
"ELOHIM: We will now put
the sisters under covenant to obey the law of their
husbands. Sisters, arise, raise your right hand
to the square. Each of you do covenant and promise that you will
obey the law of your husband and abide
by his council in righteousness. Each of you bow your head and
say yes.
"SISTERS: Yes."
We have already shown that since the church leaders
revised the endowment ceremony on April 10, 1990, there has been
some kind of a change in the covenant women are required to make.
It has been stated that they "no longer must vow to obey
their husbands." (Salt Lake Tribune, April 29,
1990) While we do not know the wording of the new version, it
appears that some of the women are pleased with the changes in
the ritual. In the Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1990, we
find this: "Lavina Fielding Anderson... said she received
the revisions 'with joy.' 'I anticipate further changes with
hope and faith,' she said... 'Some portions of the temple ceremony
have been painful to some Mormon women and, in some respects,
still are,' she added, without identifying what elements may
still be objectionable. Women, for example, still cover their
faces with veils at certain points in the ritual, sources said."
Another important change seems to have been made
in the sign for the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
In the ceremony, as printed in Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?
p. 471, we find this:
"The sign is made by raising both hands high
above the head and by lowering your hands to the side, saying:
Pay lay ale
Pay lay ale"
As early as 1969 we pointed out a problem with
this: "there seems to have been a change made in this part
of the ceremony, for the Salt Lake Tribune, Feb.12,
1906, gave the words as 'Pale, Ale, Ale,' and Temple Mormonism
used the words 'Pale, Hale, Hale.'" (The Mormon
Kingdom, vol.1, p.138)
However this may be, in another portion of the
ceremony (Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 468), it
is explained that "Pay lay ale" means "O God,
hear the words of my mouth!" In the early 1980's some critics
of the church began to proclaim that in Hebrew these words really
mean, "Wonderful Lucifer." If this were true, this
would mean that the Mormons were praying to the Devil in this
part of the ceremony. We took very strong exception to this claim
and pointed out that there is no way that these words can be
translated "Wonderful Lucifer." We still stand by this
research which we presented in detail in our book, The Lucifer-God
Doctrine, pp. 11-15, 85-86.
In any case, many Mormons must have been bothered
when they had to raise and lower their hands repeating the strange
words "Pay lay ale" three times during the ritual.
According to what we can learn, the Mormon leaders have now replaced
the mysterious words with the English words which were mentioned
earlier in the ceremony: "O God, hear the words of my mouth!"
The fact that four different versions of the sign of the Second
Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood have been given over the
years certainly raises a question concerning the claim that the
endowment was revealed by revelation.
We have been informed by two different sources
that the Lecture Before The Veil has been removed. This lecture
was previously given to all those who were going through the
ritual for the first time. It was not deemed necessary, however,
for those who were going through the endowment ceremony for the
dead. The words "penalty" or "penalties"
were used six times in this lecture, and it referred to the "sectarian
minister" who preached false doctrine (i.e., the minister
who was employed by Lucifer).
There probably were many other changes made in
the temple ceremony which have not been reported yet. There have
been different reports regarding how much material was actually
removed from the ceremony or changed in some way. The Salt
Lake Tribune, April 29, 1990, referred to the rituals "current
length of about 90 minutes." One man noted that just after
the changes were made, temple workers were having a very difficult
time with the new wording and felt that when they become proficient
in the use of the new script, the ceremony might be somewhat
shorter than when he went through.
REVELATION OR ACCOMMODATION?
Although the Mormon leaders have been extremely
quiet about the changes in the temple ceremony, John Dart reported
that the following appeared in a statement by church leaders:
"'We are a church that believes in modern and continuous
revelation, and the changes
that were recently made in our temple
ceremony are reflective of that process...'"(Los
Angeles Times, May 5, 1990)
An increasing number of Mormons are beginning
to believe that what is called "revelation" by church
leaders is not really revelation from God, but rather "accommodation"
to the views of the world. A number of things which have happened
since 1890 lead to that conclusion. The changes concerning polygamy,
the blacks and the temple endowment all point in this direction.
The process of "modern and continuous revelation" could
probably be summed up in the following formula: Criticism of
a specific doctrine or practice from without the church + acceptance
of that criticism by Mormon scholars and prominent people = "Revelation."
Take, for example, the practice of polygamy. Joseph
Smith claimed to receive a revelation from God on July 12, 1843,
stating that plural marriage was to be practiced by the Mormon
Church. This revelation is still published in the church's Doctrine
and Covenants as Section 132. Interestingly, this system
of marriage was an extremely important part of the sealing ceremonies
which are still performed in the temple for "time and all
eternity." For many years the Mormon leaders taught that
temple marriage and plural marriage stand or fall together. Apostle
Orson Pratt, for instance, emphasized that: "...if
plurality of marriage is not true, or in other
words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more
in this world, then marriage for eternity is not
true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinanc[e]s
and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless,
good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the
other also must be true. Amen." (Journal of Discourses,
vol. 21, p. 296)
Non-Mormons, of course, vigorously opposed the
practice of polygamy. In addition, the United States Government
prosecuted Mormons who were engaged in the practice. On Jan.
16, 1886, Lorenzo Snow, who later became the fifth prophet of
the Mormon Church, was sentenced to six months in prison. When
the prosecuting attorney predicted that if Apostle Snow was convicted,
"a new revelation would soon follow, changing
the divine law of celestial marriage," Lorenzo Snow emphatically
replied: "The severest prosecutions have never
been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience
to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison,
God will not change his law of celestial
marriage." (Historical Record, 1887, vol.6, p.
144)
Things went from bad to worse for the Mormon leaders.
Pressure not only increased from the outside, but members of
the church were swayed by the opposition. John Taylor, who was
the third prophet of the church, strongly denounced those who
would give up the practice: "God has given us a revelation
in regard to celestial marriage.... they would like us to
tone that principle down and change it and make
it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot
do... I cannot do it, and will not do it. I find
some men try to twist round the principle in any way and every
way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some way. Now God
don't want any kind of sycophancy like that.... If God has introduced
something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have
that kicked over by any improper influence, either
inside or outside of the Church of the living God."
(Journal of Discourses, vol.25, pp.309-310)
Apostle Orson Pratt argued: "God has told
us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not
enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then...
a brother or a sister say, 'I am a Latter-day Saint, but
I do not believe in polygamy.' Oh, what an absurd expression!...
If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the
Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give
a fig for all our other revelations that came through Joseph
Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them.... The
Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their
salvation, they shall be damned, saith
the Lord... I want to prophecy that all men and women who oppose
the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will
find themselves in darkness... they will finally go
down to hell and be damned if they do not repent."
(Journal of Discourses, vol.17, pp. 224-25)
Notwithstanding all of the strong rhetoric used
by Mormon leaders, in 1890, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth prophet
of the church, suspended the practice of polygamy when he issued
the Manifesto (see Doctrine and Covenants, Official
Declaration--1). President Woodruff proclaimed that the Manifesto
was given by revelation from God: "...the Lord... is giving
us revelation... The Lord showed me by vision and
revelation exactly what would take place if we
did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it... all ordinances
would be stopped... and many men would be made prisoners....
the God of Heaven commanded me to do
what I did do... I went before the Lord, and I wrote
what the Lord told me to write...." (Evidences
and Reconciliations, 3 volumes in 1, pp. 105-106) It is
obvious from the evidence we present in Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? pp. 231-34, that President Woodruff yielded
to pressures from both non-Mormons and members of his own church
and issued the Manifesto which eventually ended the practice
of plural marriage within the church.
Prior to June 9, 1978, the Mormon Church had a
doctrine which was referred to by outsiders as the "anti-black
doctrine" because blacks were forbidden the priesthood.
The basis for this doctrine was Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham
(published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four
standard works of the church). Joseph Smith wrote that "from
Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in
the land." Blacks were identified as descendants of Ham
and were "cursed... as pertaining to the Priesthood."
(Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, 1:21-26)
It was taught that even "one drop of Negro blood" would
prevent a person from holding the priesthood, marrying for eternity
in the temple, or even going though the endowment ceremony (see
Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, by Mark E.
Petersen, August 27, 1954). Bruce R. McConkie, who later became
an apostle, bluntly stated: "Negroes in this life are denied
the priesthood; under no circumstances can they
hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The
gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them...
Negroes are not equal with other races where the
receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned..."
(Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477)
There was a great deal of discussion regarding
civil rights in the 1950's. In 1959 we printed our first criticism
of the Mormon doctrine concerning blacks. As early as 1963. we
believed that it was likely that the Mormon leaders would have
a new "revelation" regarding blacks and printed a sheet
entitled, "Will There Be a Revelation Regarding the Negro?"
At the bottom of this sheet we predicted: "If the pressure
continues to increase on the Negro question, the leaders of the
Mormon Church will probably have another revelation
which will allow the Negro to hold the priesthood."
Over the years we continued to print a great deal of material
on the subject of blacks and the priesthood. Although there were
some Mormons who had doubts about the anti-black doctrine, at
that time very few were willing to publicly criticize the church.
We were ridiculed for the stand which we took, but we persisted
in challenging this doctrine and a number of Mormons began to
take our work seriously.
Pressure for a change in the doctrine concerning
blacks continued to mount both without and within the church.
Finally, on June 9, 1978, the Mormon church's Deseret News
carried a startling announcement by the First Presidency
which said that a new revelation had been given and that blacks
would be allowed to hold the priesthood: "...we have pleaded
long and earnestly... supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has
confirmed that the long-promised day has come... all worthy male
members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without
regard for race or color." Shortly after this revelation
was received, it became clear that the church's ban on marriage
to blacks had been lifted. On June 24, 1978, the church's newspaper
announced that "the first black man to gain the priesthood"
was allowed to go through the temple endowment and was sealed
to his wife for time and eternity.
Like the polygamy revelation, the revelation by
President Spencer W. Kimball granting blacks the priesthood was
given only after tremendous pressure was exerted by non-Mormon
critics and members of the church itself.
With regard to the recent revision of the temple
ceremony, it is clear that the "revelation" came in
the same way as the changes on polygamy and the black doctrine.
In the Introduction to our 1964 reprint of Temple
Mormonism, we pointed out that "there have been quite
a number of changes made since the Temple ceremony was first
introduced." We went on to predict that there would "probably
be other changes made in the Temple ceremony as time goes on."
As we have already shown, after printing Temple
Mormonism in 1964, we published an updated version of the
endowment ceremony in 1969 in The Mormon Kingdom, vol.
1. This same version was printed in Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality? in 1972 and is still found in that book. In addition,
in our book, The Changing World of Mormonism, published
by Moody Press in 1980, we included portions of the endowment
ceremony. We have mentioned also that Chuck and Dolly Sackett
published the ceremony in a pamphlet and distributed tapes of
the actual ceremony. Others also disseminated the ceremony or
portions of it in books, pamphlets, tracts, films and tapes.
Although the Mormon Church completely lost control
of the situation and had no way to stop the tens of thousands
of copies of the endowment which were being distributed throughout
the world, most members of the church who felt there was something
wrong with the ritual did not dare to openly protest. They feared
that they would be strongly reprimanded or even excommunicated
if they raised their voices on the issue. In 1987, however, a
remarkably frank article by David John Buerger was printed in
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a liberal Mormon
publication which is not controlled by the church. In this article,
Buerger acknowledged that there were "strong indications
that Joseph Smith drew on the Masonic rites in shaping the temple
endowment, and specifically borrowed the tokens, signs, and penalties."
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1987,
p.45)
Mr. Buerger went even further by suggesting that
church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in
the ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance at endowment
ceremonies:
"The number of operating temples has increased
dramatically... An analysis of ordinance data, however, suggests
that rates of temple work have remained relatively constant over
the last fifteen years.... Members of my own stake made 2,671
visits to the Oakland Temple in 1985, versus 3,340 visits in
1984--a 20 percent drop in activity.... Without comparing the
policies of stakes in other temple districts, it is impossible
to say how characteristic my stake might be.
"These declining rates suggest that many
Latter-day Saints apparently do not participate extensively in
either vicarious or living endowments. The need for reevaluation
can at least be discussed. As the history of the endowment shows,
specific content and procedural alterations were made in 1845,
1877, 1883, 1893, 1919-27, the early 1960s, and 1968-72....
"The feelings contemporary Saints have for
the temple certainly merit a careful quantitative analysis by
professional social scientists. I have heard a number of themes
from people who feel discomfort in one degree or another with
elements of the temple ceremony.... Probably in no other settings
except college organizations, with their attendant associations
of youthfulness and possibly immaturity, do most Mormons encounter
'secret' ceremonies with code handshakes, clothing that has particular
significance, and, perhaps most disturbing to some, the implied
violence of the penalties. Various individuals have commented
on their difficulty in seeing these elements as 'religious' or
'inspirational,' originating in the desires of a loving Father
for his children.... some are also uncomfortable at the portrayal
of a Christian minister as the hireling of Satan...
"Sixth, the endowment ceremony still depicts
women as subservient to men, not as equals in relating to God.
For example, women covenant to obey their husbands in righteousness,
while he is the one who acts as intermediary to God... Some find
the temple irrelevant to the deeper currents of their Christian
service and worship of God. Some admit to boredom. Others describe
their motivations for continued and regular temple attendance
as feelings of hope and patience--the faith that by continuing
to participate they will develop more positive feelings... Often
they feel unworthy or guilty because of these feelings since
the temple is so unanimously presented as the pinnacle of spiritual
experience for sincere Latter-day Saints.... The endowment has
changed a great deal in response to community needs over time.
Obviously it has the capability of changing still further if
the need arises.... From a strictly functional perspective, the
amount of time required to complete a vicarious endowment seems
excessive." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Winter 1987, pp. 63, 66-69)
The reader will notice that David John Buerger
felt there should be a "careful quantitative analysis by
professional social scientists" to find out why attendance
at temples has been declining. Although it could have been just
a coincidence, it is interesting to note that within months of
the publication of Buerger's article, the Mormon Church made
its own survey of the opinions of members concerning temple work.
In the Instructions for the Survey of Adult Members in the
United States and Canada, the following appears: "...we
have developed this survey to help us understand your thoughts,
feelings, and experiences relating to temple and genealogy activities....
along with you, approximately 3,400 other members in the United
States and Canada are being asked to participate in this project....
We hope that you will feel you can be candid and open in your
answers.... what you write will be anonymous. We will not be
able to associate your name with the questionnaire you complete."
This survey was to be returned in the mail "by MARCH 30th,"
1988.
Although Question 28 asked the person who had
been through the endowment ritual if he or she "felt spiritually
uplifted by the experience," it also probed to find out
if the experience was unpleasant" or if the person "was
confused by what happened. Q. 29 is worded, "Briefly describe
how you felt after receiving your own endowment." On the
photocopy we have in our possession, the respondent has written:
"Wierd [sic]." Q. 37-k inquired as to whether the person
found "it hard to go to the temple." Q. 39-b asked
if the individual fell "asleep during sessions." Questions
were also asked concerning whether the person really believed
"The president of the LDS Church is a prophet of God,"
or if "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
the only true church on the earth." (Q. 70a-b) There was
also a question with regard to whether there were any "doubts
about specific LDS doctrines and teachings." (Q. 77-g) A
page at the end of the Survey was left blank in case
the person had any additional things to write about your feelings
or activities in temple or genealogical work..."
Although our photocopy of the page containing
the "Comments" is faded out and difficult to read,
it appears that the woman who filled out the Survey admitted
she had lost faith in the church. This is supported by her answers
to Questions 77 and 78. The "main reason for not attending
LDS church services" was listed as: "I have some doubts
about specific LDS doctrines and teachings." From all appearances
it appears that the Mormon Church's Survey was a feeler
to find out what changes should be made in the ceremony and how
they would be received by members of the church.
While many Mormons will undoubtedly stand firm
in their faith that the decision to change the ceremonies came
by direct revelation from God, the evidence seems to indicate
that the publication of the temple ceremony and objections to
it by non-Mormons combined with criticism from within the church
(as evidenced by David John Buerger's article in Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought) forced the Mormon leaders to
issue a survey to find out why temple attendance had fallen off
and what members of the church actually felt about the endowment
ceremony. The results of that survey must have indicated that
a significant number of people were offended by parts of the
ceremony. Consequently, a new "revelation" was given
to make the ritual more appealing to the Mormon people. This
tends to verify the formula that the criticism of a specific
doctrine or practice from without the church + acceptance of
that criticism by Mormon scholars and prominent people = "Revelation."
In the early days of the Mormon Church, the word
"revelation" had a very different meaning than it does
today. Joseph Smith often used the word to refer to some new
doctrine or teaching which he claimed God himself had revealed
to him. Some of his "revelations" were extremely unpopular,
but this usually did not bother him very much. Take, for instance,
his "revelation" concerning polygamy. In spite of the
fact that many members of the church were violently opposed to
the doctrine, he continued to secretly advocate the practice
and to take plural wives himself. Unlike the current leaders
of the church, he did not feel that it was necessary to take
a survey and modify the doctrine to fit the opinions of others.
While we do not believe that the "revelation" on polygamy
came from God and are very opposed to the practice, we must admit
that Smith was not easily swayed by public opinion.
While Joseph Smith used the word "revelation"
to refer to controversial new doctrines he brought forth to the
church, later prophets have used the same word in an attempt
to destroy the very teachings which Joseph Smith claimed were
divinely inspired. When President Wilford Woodruff claimed he
had a "revelation" to stop the practice of plural marriage
in the church, he was not adding any
new doctrine. Instead, he was throwing overboard
a doctrine Smith taught was essential for salvation. If
the information that polygamy should not be practiced was a "revelation,"
then Christians actually received it first. Long before Mormonism
began, they were condemning the practice.
Some people now point to the "revelation"
which Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of the church, gave
concerning the blacks as evidence that the church is still led
by revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. President
Kimball did not reveal any new truth
to the world. Instead, he destroyed a
doctrine that came from Joseph Smith's own "Book of Abraham"--a
doctrine which the prophets of the church had stubbornly clung
to until pressure from within and without the church was so strong
that he was forced to yield on the issue. Millions of Christians
and even a large number of Mormons had received this "revelation"
many years before President Kimball received his answer.
As far as we know, the recent "revelation"
that the temple ceremony should be altered has not produced any
new or important material. Instead, it is a mutilation of what
was supposed to have been revealed by "revelation"
to the prophet Joseph Smith. Things that were formerly considered
to be "most sacred" were stripped from the ritual.
For many years Christians have spoken against the very things
which have now been removed. Why did it take so long for Mormon
leaders to obtain their "revelation" on the subject?
The liberal Mormon David John Buerger seems to have had the "revelation"
some time before church leaders changed the ceremony.
It seems that it is very difficult for most faithful
Mormons to grasp the significance of what is really going on
within the church. The implications are just too devastating
for them to face. The following hypothetical illustration may
help the Mormon reader put the matter into perspective: If we
were to say that God had given us a "revelation" that
baptism should no longer be practiced, members of the church
would protest that this could not be a true revelation. They
would undoubtedly claim that we were merely feigning a "revelation"
as a pretext to remove an important
ordinance from the teachings of Christ and might even suggest
that we were embarrassed about getting wet in front of a crowd.
To those who are paying close attention, it is
obvious that the word "revelation" is really being
used as a cover-up for what is going on. Church leaders are really
destroying the original teachings of Joseph Smith in a very sneaky
way. Each time they remove some part that Smith considered vital,
they clothe the action by saying it is a new "revelation"
from God. When will the people wake up and realize what is going
on? We, of course, agree that Joseph Smith's teachings are filled
with errors. We feel, in fact, that sweeping changes
need to be made, but we do not believe it is being
honest to do it under the guise of "revelation." Instead,
the General Authorities of the church should openly admit that
they feel Joseph Smith departed from Christian teachings and
then propose a plan to effect the changes that need to be made.
It seems obvious, however, that they will not do this because
they know they will lose power with the people. It is much easier
to say that the prophet has had a new "revelation"
and that, of course, marks "the end of controversy."
O. Kendall White has pointed out that the Mormon leaders' claim
of "continuing revelation" is really a mechanism which
they use to side-step acknowledging the "errors of the past."
This, of course, leads to the impression that "the church
is never wrong."
Although they would never admit it, it would appear
from the changes they made in the temple endowment ritual that
the current leaders of the church realize that portions of the
ceremony were not from God--at least we assume that they never
would have changed these parts if they truly believed they came
from God. They must agree, therefore, that we were correct in
our assertion that the penalties which they themselves removed
from the ceremony were really derived from Masonry. It is certainly
sad that with all the evidence they have in their possession
that the endowment ritual is man-made, they still choose to remain
silent.
A BAD EXPERIENCE?
Many people who have been through the Mormon temple
endowment later admit that they were shocked by the ceremony
because it was so different from anything they had previously
encountered in Mormonism. A prominent Mormon educator who served
at Brigham Young University told us that when his wife first
went to the temple to receive her endowments, she became so upset
with the ritual that she refused to go any further and the entire
session was delayed while temple workers tried to convince her
to go on. Over the years a surprising number of people have told
us that they had a very bad experience when they went through
the temple ritual. Many of them said that their first serious
doubts concerning the authenticity of Mormonism arose when they
went through the endowment ceremony. Couples have told us that
they both had very negative feelings during the ceremony but
at the time did not dare confide these doubts with each other.
We recently received a letter in which the following appears:
"We converted to Mormonism 16 years ago when
two delightful young missionaries knocked on our door.... I had
been raised in a Christian household... We subsequently married
in the Temple in New Zealand; an experience we found to be very
confusing and frightening and we both wanted to leave, but did
not mention this to each other... I became a Christian in October
last year and my husband followed shortly after.... We feel so
full of the spirit of God and we love Jesus with all our hearts."
(Letter from Australia, dated Jan. 11, 1990)
Many people who enter the temple are puzzled as
to why they should have to wear specially marked garments for
the rest of their lives and learn secret passwords, signs and
handshakes to enter into the presence of God. They feel that
this is rather childish. As we have shown, David John Buerger
has pointed out that these types of things are found in secret
lodges and also in "college organizations, with their attendant
associations of youthfulness and possibly immaturity." The
endowment ceremony actually gives the impression that God is
like a youngster who only allows those who know the secret passwords
and signs into his heavenly clubhouse. This is entirely different
from anything we find in the New Testament. In John 10:14, 27-28,
the following appears: "I am the good shepherd, and know
my sheep, and am known of mine.... My sheep hear
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall
any man pluck them out of my hand." Those who really know
Christ do not have to worry about remembering any secret words
or handshakes. As the Apostle Paul expresses it, those who are
alive at his coming will be "caught up together with them
[i.e., those who are raised from the dead] in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever
be with the Lord." (I Thessalonians 4:17)
This hardly allows any time for questions and answers and a ceremony
of passing through the veil. In I Corinthians 15:51-52, Paul
wrote that "we shall all be changed, In a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump..."
Apostle John added this comforting thought: "...when he
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
is." (I John 3:2) While the temple ritual leads Mormons
to believe that God is going to put them through the type of
test a Mason has to go through to get into the lodge, Christians
believe that at death they will be received immediately into
God's presence. We find great encouragement in this promise.
We feel that God is like the father of the prodigal son; he did
not make his son pass through some type of test upon his return
home. Instead, he "ran" out to meet him, and "fell
on his neck, and kissed him." (Luke 15:20)
As we have already stated, Mormonism teaches that
only Mormons who receive their endowments and are married for
eternity can obtain the highest exaltation in the hereafter.
While the Bible clearly proclaims that "whosoever believeth
in him [Jesus] should not perish, but have eternal
life." (John 3:15), Mormon leaders have taught
that "eternal life" only comes through temple marriage.
For example, President Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of
the church, emphasized: "Only through celestial marriage
can one find the strait way, the narrow path. Eternal
life cannot be had in any other way. The Lord was
very specific and very definite in the matter of marriage."
(Deseret News, Church Section, Nov.12, 1977) On another
occasion, Spencer W. Kimball bluntly stated that "the ordinance
of sealing is an absolute, and that without it there
can be no salvation in the eternal world, no eternal life."
("The Ordinances of the Gospel," as cited
in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, page 204) As we have
noted earlier, Mormon theology teaches that those who have been
married in the temple can become Gods, whereas
those who refuse to go through the endowment ritual become servants
for all eternity. These teachings are, of course,
very objectionable to orthodox Christians.
The fact that so many changes have been made in
the temple ceremony over the years provides powerful evidence
against the claim that it came to Joseph Smith by divine revelation.
While it is true that these changes have made the endowment more
palatable to the Mormon people, they do not bring the ceremony
into conformity to Christian beliefs. In Mark 2:21, Jesus said
that "No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old
garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from
the old, and the rent is made worse." The endowment ritual
not only has many patches in it, but it also has patches on top
of patches. Even though there have been improvements in the temple
ceremony, it is still filled with material taken from the Masonic
ritual and concepts that are not Biblical. Sewing new patches
on the many rents in this old garment will not really solve the
problem. The entire ceremony and the idea of men becoming Gods
needs to be abandoned.
While we do not know what the future holds for Mormonism,
we are very encouraged by recent developments. More and more
Mormons are beginning to reject the concept that "when the
leaders speak, the thinking has been done," and many of
them are turning to the Lord for help. We feel that the recent
changes in the endowment ritual will serve as a catalyst in bringing
LDS people to the truth. While the discussion of the temple ceremony
used to be almost completely taboo, active Mormons are now coming
into our bookstore and discussing the matter with us. A number
of them, who have recently gone through the temple, have provided
important details concerning the changes. We have also received
word that they are discussing these matters among themselves.
Those of us who have labored for years to bring the truth to
the Mormons are excited about the future. We have been ridiculed
in the past by those who did not believe our work could have
any affect on the leadership of the church. It is our belief
that a large number of Mormons are growing tired of blindly following
their leaders and that we will see tens of thousands
of them turning to the Lord.
For those who are interested in learning more
about the endowment ceremony, we recommend our new book, Evolution
of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, 1842-1990....