Temples

The book of Isaiah opens with a scathing rebuke of a people engrossed in blindness. They are spoken of as rebellious sons. He calls these people worse than dumb animals, totally incapable of an informed relationship with him. He calls them sinners, wrongdoers, perverts, and apostates. He says they are sick and diseased from their head to their heart to the soles of their feet, connoting that their gospel understanding, desires, and actions are wrong, from normal members to leaders. He says they are covered with bruises, wounds, and festering sores, intimating that despite the gravity of their condition, they aren’t aware of it. He says they are as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah.¹

Most Mormons shed off this condemnatory language as applying to some historical group, or some contemporary Christian sect. But the chapter continues, making the target of the rebuke more clear.

For what purpose are your abundant sacrifices to me? says Jehovah. I have had my fill of offerings of rams and fat of fatted beasts; the blood of bulls and sheep and he-goats I do not want. When you come to see me, who requires you to trample my courts so? Bring no more worthless offerings; they are as a loathsome incense to me. As for convening meetings at the New Month and on the Sabbath, wickedness with the solemn gathering I cannot approve. Your monthly and regular meetings my soul detests. They have become a burden on me; I am weary of putting up with them. When you spread forth your hands, I will conceal my eyes from you; though you pray at length, I will not hear—your hands are filled with blood. Wash yourselves clean: remove your wicked deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil. (Isaiah 1:11-16, Gileadi Translation.)

What religious group today practices temple worship? What group emphasizes the frequency of temple worship while de-emphasizing the purpose of temple worship² to the point that they can be compared to dumb cattle who trample the court of the temple, unaware of the reason they are there? What group has special meetings on the first Sabbath of the “New Month”? What group “spreads forth” their hands in prayer in temple worship, pleading for the Lord to hear them? Only the Latter-day Saints.

Is it possible that modern LDS temple worship is viewed by God much differently than it is viewed by modern Mormons?

Experience vs. Ordinances

Anciently, there were two main purposes of the temple. The more common purpose, both in the number of occurrences and the number of people to whom it was available, was to participate in ordinances that typified reentrance into the presence of God. The more important but less common experience was to actually re-enter the presence of God in the temple. Everything in the temple pointed to re-entering God’s presence.

Over time, the wickedness of the priests caused a cessation of God’s appearances in the temple. The inevitable outcome of such a transition is a reconstruction of the intent of the practice. In this case, the ordinances that taught one what to do to re-enter God’s presence became the end instead of a means to an end. Thus, the ordinances that typified the appearance of God took precedence over the actual appearance of God, until finally the typifying symbolism was lost and the ordinances became practiced without a recognition of what they represented, let alone an attempt to actually obtain a visitation from God.

In Jesus’ time, the Pentecost proved to be a restoration of the purpose of the temple, although the structure itself was dissociated from the event due to the apostate rulers’ control of the actual temple. On that day,

...when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (Acts 2:1-6.)

This, Joseph taught, was an endowment of power from on high, designed to give the disciples power in the priesthood, manifested by outward spiritual gifts, before they went out to preach the gospel to the world.³ As First Presidency counselor Charles Penrose later taught, although the receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost was an internal occurrence, it is always attended by outward manifestations of spiritual gifts.⁴

[The gift of the Holy Ghost's] internal fruits are faith, knowledge, wisdom, joy, peace, patience, temperance, long suffering, brotherly kindness and charity. Its external gifts are manifested in prophecies, visions, discernments, healings, miracles, power over evil spirits, speaking in various tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc. (Charles W. Penrose, “Mormon Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” p. 17.)

Jesus had commanded them to await this “endowment of power from on high” before leaving to preach the gospel.⁵

This pattern of endowment was renewed in our dispensation in 1831. On Jan 2, 1831 the Lord said,

Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high; And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; (D&C 38:32-33.)

In Feb 1831 he said,

Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit; And ye are to be taught from on high. Sanctify yourselves and ye shall be endowed with power, that ye may give even as I have spoken. (D&C 43:15-16.)

In the same month he said,

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, it is expedient in me that the elders of my church should be called together, from the east and from the west, and from the north and from the south, by letter or some other way. And it shall come to pass, that inasmuch as they are faithful, and exercise faith in me, I will pour out my Spirit upon them in the day that they assemble themselves together. (D&C 44:1-2.)

This promise was fulfilled prior to the building of the Kirtland temple. On June 3, 1831, a conference began where many Elders experienced Pentecostal experiences. Here are several first hand accounts:

It was clearly evident that the Lord gave us power in proportion to the work to be done, and strength according to the race set before us, and grace and help as our needs required. Great harmony prevailed; several were ordained; faith was strengthened; and humility, so necessary for the blessing of God to follow prayer, characterized the Saints. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 1:176-177.)

The spirit of the Lord fell upon Joseph in an unusual manner. And prophesied that John the Revelator was then among the ten tribes of Israel who had been led away by Salmaneser, king of Assyria, to prepare them for their return from their long dispersion, to again possess the land of their fathers. He prophesied many more things that I have not written. After he had prophesied he laid his hands upon Lyman Wight and ordained him to the High Priesthood, after the holy order of God. And the spirit fell upon Lyman, and he prophesied, concerning the coming of Christ, He said that there were some in the congregation that should live until the Savior should descend from heaven with a shout, with all the holy angels with him. He said the coming of the Savior should be like the sun rising in the east, and will cover the whole earth....He saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Father... (John Whitmer, History of the Church 1:176.)

Some curious things took place. The same visionary and marvelous spirits, spoken of before, got hold of some elders; it threw one from his seat to the floor; it bound another, so that for some time he could not use his limbs nor speak; and some other curious effects were experienced, but, by a mighty exertion, in the name of the Lord, it was exposed and shown to be from an evil source. The Melchizedek Priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders. In this chiefly consisted the endowment--it being a new order--and bestowed authority. (John Corrill, History of the Mormons (1839), p.18.)

In January 1833, the school of the Prophets at Kirtland opened with Joseph's washing of the Elders’ feet. Fasting and prayer followed the ordinance, and the participants witnessed Pentecostal experiences. Zebedee Coltrin reported “many powerful manifestation [sic] of the holy spirit...the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof.”⁶ In 1883, Coltrin reminisced that Jesus himself had appeared to the school of the Prophets.⁷

From the preceding examples, we can see abundant evidence that a temple is not actually necessary to obtain an endowment of power from on high. Yet, the Kirtland temple provides a wonderful example that they can co-occur.

On June 1, 1833, the Lord said to Joseph,

Yea verily I say unto you I gave unto you a commandment that you should build an house in the which house I design to endow those whom I have chosen with power from on high, for this is the promise of the Father unto you. Therefore, I commanded you to tarry even as mine Apostles at Jerusalem. (Kirtland Revelation Book, pp. 59-60.)

The construction of the Kirtland temple took 3 years. During that time the Lord repeated that the Elders would be “endowed with power from on high; for, behold, I have prepared a greater endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them...”⁸ During this time, the twelve apostles were chosen. In Oliver Cowdery's charge, he told them that although they were meant to go to all nations to preach, “you are not to go to other nations, till you receive your endowment. Tarry at Kirtland until you are endowed with power from on high.”⁹

Before the ordinances began, Cowdery prayed, “O may we be prepared for the endowment,—being sanctified and cleansed from all sin.”¹⁰ A few days later the brethren washed their bodies and anointed their heads with oil. Joseph then experienced the vision of the celestial kingdom recorded in D&C 137. Two days later, they sealed the anointings. These ordinances continued through the winter for all priesthood brethren (all ranks from deacons up). The ordinances themselves were not the endowment, but were tools to help the brethren prepare themselves through repentance so that the endowment could come. The understanding of the brethren that the endowment (not the ordinances) would bring power to perform miracles is captured in an article in the local paper: “They assure you, with the utmost confidence, that they shall soon be able to raise the dead, to heal the sick, the deaf, the dumb, and the blind...”¹¹ Joseph Smith was teaching that those who followed the gospel would receive the promised spiritual manifestations:

If you will obey the Gospel with honest hearts, I promise you, in the name of the Lord, that the gifts as promised by our Saviour will follow you, and by this you may prove me to be a true servant of God. (Joseph Smith, Journal History, October 16, 1834.)

Those going to preach this gospel would first have to obtain the spiritual manifestations before promising them to others.

The endowment came at the dedication services, when outwardly manifested signs were given in abundance to witness the internal dispensation of power through the Holy Ghost. The dedication came with reports of all sorts of Pentecostal activity: people spoke in tongues, angels were seen, prophecies were made, etc.. “The Savior made his appearance to some, while angels ministered unto others, and it was a penticost and enduement indeed, long to be remembered....”¹² One man said he “saw the Spirit in the form of cloven tongues as fire descend in thousands, and rest upon the heads of the Elders...”¹³ David Patten said “the heavens Was opened unto them. Angels & Jesus Christ was seen of them sitting at the right hand of the Father.”¹⁴ Erastus Snow reported seeing angels.¹⁵ These types of experiences reoccurred at each of the subsequent rededications necessary for lack of available seating.

Since the Kirtland temple, not one Pentecostal event has been recorded in church history, despite over 150 years and nearly 150 dedicated temples.

On November 12, 1835, Joseph gave his own explanation of what the endowment was:

You need an Endowment brethren in order that you may be prepared and able to over come all things. Those that reject your testimony will be damned. The sick will be healed, the lame made to walk, the deaf to hear and the blind to see through your instrumentality....But when you are endowed and prepared to preach the gospel to all nations, kindred and toungs in there own languages you must faithfully warn all and bind up the testimony and seal up the law. (Joseph Smith Diary, 12 Nov 1835, as recorded).

How is the endowment defined today? Instead of using Joseph’s definition, the modern church uses Brigham Young’s definition:

Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, 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. (Brigham Young, JD 2:31 Apr 6, 1853.)

In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we read

The endowment of 'power from on high' in modern temples has four main aspects. First is the preparatory ordinance, a ceremonial washing and anointing, after which the temple patron dons the sacred clothing of the temple. Second is a course of instruction by lectures and representations...Third is making covenants...Fourth is a sense of divine presence.... (Alma P. Burton, “Endowment,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow 1992 2:455.)

Under this definition, the actual divine presence is replaced by a “sense” of divine presence (or feelings instead of actual experience), and even that is relegated to the final part of the endowment, instead of the whole of it. In its place are informational ceremony and ritual.¹⁶ We have repeated the ancient pattern: Originally, the purpose of temples was to re-enter God’s presence. Now, ordinances given as a means to that end have become the entire focus of temple worship, with few if any remembering the original purpose of temple worship, let alone attempting to re-enter God’s presence.

Ordinances were not a part of any endowment in church history or scripture. The only time they are mentioned, as detailed above, is as part of the preparation of the individual for the endowment, not as the endowment itself.

Endowments are not about knowledge—they are about power. If you go to the temple to obtain knowledge, you are not obtaining anything that can’t be had without a temple. Of course, power can also be had outside of a temple, as it was given in the Pentecostal experiences of the meridian apostles and early saints.

While Joseph Smith’s endowment, like Jesus’ and all those who came before, was about power and experience with God, modern Mormonism’s endowment is about information. It is unclear how learning signs and tokens empower someone to teach the gospel by the Spirit in foreign lands. But this is no longer the stated purpose of the endowment. According to modern Mormonism, the things you are told and the things you are shown give you the ability to return to God’s presence after this life. There are no gifts, no angels, no tongues, and no manifestations of Jesus or the Father in this latter endowment. The word “endowment” seems to be the only commonality.

Ordinances Have Changed

Joseph taught,

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 temple 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. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:208.)

From the preceding we see that: 1) the ordinances of this dispensation must remain the same as those in prior dispensations,¹⁷ 2) the temple ordinances are to be “the same forever and ever,” and 3) when God gives these ordinances, he does so by sending Adam or other angels to reveal them to men. Furthermore, we can conclude that the temple ordinances prescribed by Joseph were received from angels—perhaps even Adam himself—with precisely the same format and content of prior dispensations.

Although these expressions by Joseph may seem contradictory to understandings today, it should be noted that Joseph’s positions were echoed by some early church leaders. Over 50 years after Joseph’s death, apostle Reed Smoot reported to Congress that “...the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.”¹⁸ The idea that Joseph was “the founder of the endowments” originates from our scriptures. The Lord told Joseph that “all things pertaining” to the temple would be shown him.¹⁹

Since Elder Smoot’s comment in 1905, there have been significant changes to the temple ceremonies in the 1920s and again in 1990, with many minor changes before, during, and after that interval. The task of listing all changes since Joseph’s death is impossible since not all changes have been recorded.²⁰ Still, the publicly documented changes would necessitate an entire book.²¹ Instead of listing out every documented change to temple ordinances, we will here highlight only a few to demonstrate the degree of changes made to the temple ordinances and the process by which these changes have occurred.

Of principle interest are the following questions: What portions of the ceremonies have been changed? Were these segments superficial, or did they concern the core of the ceremony (such as the covenants)? On what authority were the changes made? Did the changes come as a result of revelation, opinions from the brethren, or social pressure? If revelation, of what degree? Joseph taught that the manner in which God reveals the temple ordinances is through visitation of angels under the supervision (or participation) of Adam. Did an angelic visitation precede each change to the temple? If not, did an angelic visitation precede any of the changes?

The changes encompass almost every aspect of temple worship. For example, the gradations of the priesthood, robe dressing order, fashion, and timing, wording of the ordinances, and wording of the lecture were all changed in the 1920s.²² Before, during, and after those changes, covenants have been added,²³ removed,²⁴ and modified.²⁵

Although changes to the temple ceremonies began immediately upon Joseph’s death and have continued thereafter, the scope and frequency of changes did not increase substantially until the passing of the generation that knew Joseph. Contemporaries of Joseph attributed the temple ceremonies to God. It was seen as a one-time dictation, never to be changed. Brigham Young, for instance, felt the need to cast his changes as reversions to what Joseph had originally received in order to be credible.²⁶ Wilford Woodruff said,

I consider that if there ever was any man who thoroughly understood the principle of the Endowments it was Brigham Young. He had been with Joseph Smith from the beginning of the Endowments to the end; and he understood it if any man did. And before his death he required me to write in a book every Ordinance in the Church and Kingdom of God, from the first to the last...and President Young corrected it all until he got through. Then he said to me, 'Now, there you have a pattern of all the Ordinances and Endowments for every Temple we shall build, until the coming of the Son of Man.' Now if I ever have anything to do, or to say, in any Temple on the earth, concerning Endowments, I would say: follow the pattern that President Young has set us; and not deviate from it one iota....While on the other hand, if every man...introduces his own form and ceremonies, our Temple work would be as diverse as the sectarian world and God would not appro[ve] it. (Wilford Woodruff, June 8, 1887.)

In time, the effort to cast changes as restorative was dropped. Instead of claiming changes restored the ceremonies to what was revealed to Joseph, changes were made to bring align the material with shifting doctrines and sensibilities. Ironically, it was President Woodruff—the same who earlier testified of President Young’s revisions having brought the material into alignment with Joseph’s instructions—who later made perhaps the first significant change to the temple ordinances dissociated from Joseph’s original instructions. By changing the sealing process from a link between living Saints and the exalted fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others known to be saved) to links with genealogical fathers (father, grandfather, etc.), Woodruff obliterated the original doctrinal significance of sealing—a process that was intended to provide access for living members to the covenants made to the exalted fathers.

In his provided reasoning, we have a case study for how subsequent changes have and do come into play. In General Conference on April 8, 1894, President Woodruff stated:

I have not felt satisfied, nor has any man since the Prophet Joseph Smith who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt there was more to be revealed on this subject than we have received...and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is let every man be adopted to his father.

There was no “thus saith the Lord” and no claim of angelic visitation.²⁷ The motive was that he thought it didn’t seem right to seal a person to the fathers. His willingness to change the ordinance without even a minor attempt to review his own diary containing Joseph’s words on the subject²⁸ suggests a shift from the opinion that Joseph was the authority on the subject of the temple ceremonies. Had he bothered to review Joseph’s teachings, he would have seen that sealing an individual to a father who does not possess the covenant of eternal life is as effectual as a freefalling man grabbing another who does not possess a parachute.

Like President Woodruff’s changes to sealing, subsequent changes (as far as documented) came as the result of individual ideas and council votes without deference to Joseph’s teachings. When historical transcripts of the endowment disagreed with modern innovations, concerns were addressed with claims to authority, not with claims to revelation, and without one reference to angelic ministration.²⁹

Temple changes seem to have been motivated by a limited set of factors. Many temple changes came because the brethren felt the changed material did not make sense. The temple ordinances written by Brigham Young and featuring an hour long lecture at the veil on Adam God doctrine were not in accordance with the more recent changes to the doctrine of the Godhead.⁴³⁷ Perhaps motivated by this inconsistency, Elder George F. Richards spent years of the 1920s revising the temple ceremonies. He made clear that the changes were his “own suggestion”⁴³⁸ as a result of careful study identifying areas that he thought needed changing.⁴³⁹ This was not a case of carefully studying historic manuscripts to detect deviations from Joseph’s endowment. As with President Woodruff’s changes, this was wholesale revision. After changes were suggested, they were discussed as a council, and unanimously approved. The pattern continued. Years later,

President McKay indicated that he thought his own modifications would make the temple easier to understand:

[The endowment] is seldom, if ever, really comprehended by our young folks when they first go through the Temple. I think the ceremony can be presented more effectively, but before any changes are made they will be presented to the members of the Temple Committee. (David O McKay Diary, Oct 6, 1957.)

President McKay made no mention of angelic visitation or revelation. By his time, the pattern of changing the temple ceremonies to accord with the contemporary wisdom of men was well established.

Other changes were proposed to ease administrative burden. For example, on Jan 1, 1965, the church announced that patrons would no longer each be given a new name by revelation, but that the new name would be the same for each individual attending the temple that day in order “to facilitate record keeping.”³⁰ In another example, it was proposed that ceremonies for the dead be shortened to decrease the time needed for an endowment.³¹ In 1989, the church stopped recording the names of proxies, witnesses, and officiators of ordinances to ease record storage requirements.³²

Still other changes have come as a result of surveys of member opinions. The most substantial of these were the 1990 changes to the endowment. In 1987, the church issued a survey to 3,000 members to ascertain their opinion on the endowment ceremony. As a result, the temple ceremonies were overhauled in 1990. Large swaths of the ceremony that were offensive to modern sensibilities were removed, such as a Protestant minister who is paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine and the penalties associated with revealing the things patrons promise to keep secret. Covenants were changed, such as that made by women to their husbands. Elements of the ceremony, such as the physical exchange at the veil, and the words used in the true order of prayer, were changed. In 2005, the initiatory was further modified to remove any touching of the body of the patron by the worker, except on the head. The most recent set of films further de-emphasize the transgression of Eve.

In no case, it seems, were changes motivated by the suspicion that perhaps the ceremony had somehow deviated from the first written record from 1877 (which the church still possesses). In no case, it seems, were decisions made based on an assumption that the historical endowment was revealed by God. Changes were made without historical study or reference to the 1877 temple book. For example, President McKay observed that when considering whether

...the procedure which has been followed over the years as to the manner in which the garment should be placed on the individual, one leg at a time, etc., is a part of the ceremony. The brethren did not feel that this is a part of the ritual. It was agreed to announce this new policy regarding the garments to the General Authorities in their meeting on Thursday, March 27th. (David O McKay diary, Mar 18, 1969).

Instead of obtaining God’s word on the subject, or withholding changes until an angel visited to indicate the way to proceed, or even bothering to check the historical record, the brethren have made changes based on their own feelings, wisdom, and contemporary societal pressure.

Through frequent small changes, tremendous differences have accumulated in the ceremonies. For example, it was by small changes that the initiatory washing was changed from the literal bathing of a participant in a bathtub³³ as done in the Old Testament and Nauvoo to what is done today, where the patron receives merely a reference to the real thing. If it is sufficient to symbolically summarize multiple rites into one gesture, why not condense the whole endowment into one symbolic gesture? Obviously, that would not be valid. Who is to say, then, what degree of symbolic revision and condensation is valid?

These small changes seemed like a good idea to those who made them, without God’s voice and without deference to history, especially to Joseph Smith’s revelations. There is no historical evidence that suggests that the brethren responsible for the changes thought they were doing anything but God’s work. Ironically, among the men responsible for the changes, we see many interesting statements about the need for the ordinances and ceremonies to remain unchanged. It is unclear how the brethren who made the changes did not feel they were usurping God’s authority or committing apostasy. The same Wilford Woodruff who replaced sealing to the fathers with sealing to genealogical fathers wrote

I consider that if there ever was any man who thoroughly understood the principle of the Endowments it was Brigham Young. He had been with Joseph Smith from the beginning of the Endowments to the end; and he understood it if any man did. And before his death he required me to write in a book every Ordinance in the Church and Kingdom of God, from the first to the last...and President Young corrected it all until he got through. Then he said to me, 'Now, there you have a pattern of all the Ordinances and Endowments for every Temple we shall build, until the coming of the Son of Man.' Now if I ever have anything to do, or to say, in any Temple on the earth, concerning Endowments, I would say: follow the pattern that President Young has set us; and not deviate from it one iota....While on the other hand, if every man...introduces his own form and ceremonies, our Temple work would be as diverse as the sectarian world and God would not appro[ve] it. (Wilford Woodruff, June 8, 1887.)

The same Elder Richards who spent two entire years transfiguring nearly every aspect of the temple ceremonies railed against Catholics’ changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling:

For a century we have tried to show to the world from the scriptures that baptism is necessary to man's salvation; that baptism signifies immersion and that immersion was the only form of baptism known and practiced in the primitive Church until several centuries A. D., and that the changing of the mode of baptism from immersion to pouring or sprinkling is apostasy and fulfils the prediction of Isaiah with respect to the last times, “The earth, also, is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” (George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1930, p.76.)

The same President David O. McKay who made many changes to temple ceremonies through his “personal convictions” said:

...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 Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostasy. (President David O. McKay, The Prophet's Message, Church News, June 5, 1965.)

Through these means we have come to the point today that a temple patron from 1877 would not recognize the ceremonies as we have them today. They would not recognize the wording of the initiatory or the symbolic rituals. They would not recognize the garment. They would not recognize the wording, covenants, and symbols of the endowment. They would not recognize the sealing ordinance. In fact, it is hard to imagine just how foreign today’s temple would be to them. They would not even recognize the white clothing (an innovation of Wilford Woodruff begun on February 1, 1877).

The question is, does God recognize these changed ordinances? Apparently, Presidents Joseph Smith, David O. McKay, Wilford Woodruff, and Elder Richards would all say that he cannot, because the ordinances and ceremonies have been modified from what God gave to Joseph through Adam. Perhaps these brethren would quote Mormon 8:33, which asks “Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?” The Lord has been very clear that unauthorized ordinances are an abomination to him. For instance, in Malachi 1, the Lord equates turning away from the ordinances he has revealed to despising his name. He clearly states he will not accept modified ordinances:

A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible. Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord. But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen. (Malachi 1:6-14.)

The Lord makes clear that when men defile his temple by changing his ordinances, he will punish them, not bless them.

Wherefore, as I live, saith the Lord God; Surely, because thou hast defiled my sanctuary with all thy detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also diminish thee; neither shall mine eye spare, neither will I have any pity. (Ezekiel 5:11.)

If temples today are meant to be a continuation of what the Lord restored through Joseph, the contents of the ordinances must remain as they were revealed to him. If they have changed, there are only two possibilities: either they are a product of man’s invention and not revelation from God, or Joseph was wrong not only in teaching that ordinances never change and temple ordinances must be revealed from an angel, but also in his original instructions regarding the temple. If the first option is true, it must be concluded that the temple work of modern Mormons is not accepted by God, for, as apostle Charles Penrose said, “Christ will not accept the devices and ordinances and ceremonies ordained of men.” (Charles W. Penrose, “Mormon Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” p. 24) If the later option is true, it would indicate not only that Joseph made a tremendous mistake in what he said on the topic, but also that he had given a false revelation when he said that God said that the Lord would show him all things pertaining to the temple. Modern Mormons must choose which of these two scenarios is true.

“Saving Ordinances”

Modern church leaders counsel members to “fix our focus on the temple. There we receive the highest blessings that God has in store for His faithful children.”³⁴ According to them, exaltation is dependent, at least in part, upon obtaining and “remaining faithful to the ordinances and covenants of the temple.” This focus creates a lot of discomfort in members when analyzing the historical basis for such faith in modern temples. After all, one’s salvation and family is at stake. But is exaltation dependent upon the ordinances and covenants of the modern temples? Is the eternal integrity of one’s family at stake?

The scriptural basis for this focus is unclear. Perhaps most obvious is the point that if the temple ordinances are, in fact, the key to eternal life, which temple ordinances? Those that Joseph revealed, those that Brigham wrote in 1877, the very different ordinances we have today, or any version in between? If one is right, the others are not. From a different perspective, we note the absence of any requirement for temple ordinances in the scriptures.

LDS leaders quote Joseph Smith in an attempt to claim that temple ordinances are required for salvation:

If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308.)

But does this quote support the modern endowment? First, the ordinances of the Israelite temple at the time of Jesus were completely dissimilar to the modern endowment. If the Israelite temple ceremonies are “the ordinances of the house of the Lord,” then the LDS endowment is not, and vice versa. Second, the Israelites had long lost the fullness of the gospel by Jesus’ time. We know that Melchizedek keys are required for temple ordinances. Joseph taught that the Israelites in Jesus’ time no longer had even Aaronic priesthood keys.³⁵ Thus, if Jesus’ exalted status came from his mortal reception of apostate temple ordinances from priests without keys, why would God need to affect a restoration? Why couldn’t mankind be saved through receiving apostate ordinances from Catholic priests without keys?

If Jesus did not receive the fullness of the priesthood by obeying the religious ceremonies of the Israelite temple, how did he get it? It turns out the answer lies in the quote from Joseph. The original quote reads much shorter than the elaborated version reprinted above and found in TPJS. The original quote is found in Wilford Woodruff’s diary from 11 June 1843: “if a man gets the fulness of God he has to get [it] in the same way that Jesus Christ obtain it & that was by keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.” (See WOJS). In the doctored quote, the list for getting the fullness includes two things: keeping all the commandments and obeying the ordinances of the house of the Lord. A distinction is made between keeping God’s commandments and making and keeping temple covenants made in modern temples. Yet, the original quote has only one requirement: “keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.” Although the word “ordinance” can mean religious rite or ceremony (how it is used in the church today), the 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists this as the last possible definition. The first definition is a permanent rule of action established by authority; In other words, God’s commandments are ordinances. The word “house” is commonly understood to mean the temple. Though the Lord does use this meaning in the D&C (see D&C 124:23, for example), he also uses the meaning “family.”⁴⁴⁶ The house of the Lord can mean a building, or it can mean a group of people. Since Jesus received the fullness of the priesthood through “keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord,” and since that cannot refer to the apostate and limited Israelite temple ordinances, “the ordinances of the house of the Lord” has to mean something other than “receiving the ordinances of the temple.” For instance, Jesus could have received whatever this refers to on the Mount of Transfiguration. So instead of the typical interpretation, “the ordinances of the house of the Lord” could simply mean, “the commandments kept by those in the family of God.”³⁶

When preaching against the priests of King Noah, Abinadi asked them if it was obedience to the law of Moses that brought salvation. The priests believed it was. Abinadi explained:

And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses. And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:2728.)

Although the law of Moses was a tool that could assist in obtaining what (or who) actually saves, it was not necessary or sufficient in and of itself. After all, there are saved beings like Abraham and Seth who never had the law of Moses. The same can be accurately said of temples. The temple itself can save no one. The ordinances in the temple do not save, either. It is Jesus, and only Jesus, that can save.

O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. (2 Nephi 9:41.)

Though the temple can teach us how to come back to Christ, it cannot take us there. Nor can it be said that it is necessary to have access to the temple in order to make the journey. Jesus showed through his own mortal life that salvation is attainable without a temple.

Temples are a useful tool to help individuals come closer to Christ, but when they are adulterated in their ceremonies or become an end in and of themselves, they actually make the participants less likely to re-enter God’s presence than they would be without a temple. This is because, in addition to all the challenges of overcoming the natural man organic to this life, they must also overcome false traditions instilled in them through adulterated temple worship.

As for individuals, so for families. The spousal sealing ordinance is widely regarded as the means by which a couple becomes sealed for eternity. However, both in the wording of the ordinance itself and in leaders’ description of it, it is obvious that the modern temple sealing is conditional on the faithfulness of the couple to God.³⁷ Thus, in order to obtain the unconditional sealing described in D&C 132:19, something more is required. Upon receiving a temple sealing, the couple possesses nothing more upon exiting the temple than they had upon entering: an invitation (already in the scriptures) to remain true and faithful with the promise that if they do so, eventually God will seal them together eternally.³⁸ Would the same process still required of a couple after temple sealing not yield the same result for an unsealed couple?

Given that modern temples are not essential for salvation and do not provide anything unobtainable outside them, it is somewhat surprising that they are given pre-imminence in modern Mormonism. God gave Isaiah a vision of a time when men would cease to focus on dead ordinances, and remember that it is Jesus, and not temples, that saves.

In that day men will have regard to their Maker, and their eyes look to the Holy One of Israel, and regard not the altars, the works of their hands, nor look to things their fingers have made—the idols of prosperity and the shining images. (Isaiah 17, Gileadi Translation.)

Perhaps that day is soon upon us.

Prayer Circles

Endowments after the Kirtland temple did not feature an endowment of the Holy Ghost as witnessed by outward manifestations. However, one item patrons did receive post-Kirtland was instruction on the true order of prayer.

There was special power in this form of prayer, over and above normal prayer. This type of prayer is seen practiced by Jesus in 3 Nephi. Joseph called this the key by which you could ask and receive answers.³⁹ Modern Mormons do not attribute much weight to the true order of prayer, as witnessed by its restricted practice as a semi-prescribed single prayer towards the end of the current endowment. It is not mentioned in talks about the temple as temple covenants and ordinances are, suggesting the possibility that modern Mormons understand it to be an unimportant piece of window dressing. Yet, despite the scope of changes to the temple, it is still illustrated in today’s endowment as the penultimate step in the dramatized return to God’s presence. Even in its current relegated form, it really ought to get more attention than it does.

In former days, the true order of prayer was a focal point of the temple ceremonies. It was one of only three pieces of temple worship that extended beyond the temple (the others being the garment and a much limited portion of the second anointing ordinance). Not only did temples once have dedicated altars in private rooms where individuals could go and engage in the true order of prayer, but chapels did as well.⁴⁰ Some members even had dedicated altars in their homes.⁴⁰ Patrons, not temple workers, were the voice of the prayer over the altar in the endowment until at least September 1965.⁴¹ They prayed according to what the Spirit told them to pray for, not a rote repetition of roughly the same prayer. There were multiple opportunities for normal members to voice a prayer in the true order.

Now, however, the altar rooms have been repurposed, patrons are not even allowed to kneel in prayer anywhere in the temple,⁴² temple workers offer up a repetitive prayer at the altar, and practice of the true order of prayer has been prohibited outside of temples.⁴³

For those who dare exercise the key of asking and receiving in their own homes, they will find some difficulty in that what they have been taught varies significantly with what was revealed to Joseph. First, they will find themselves dressed differently than their forebears.⁴⁴ They will also find themselves using different words than their forebears.⁴⁵ Although the fact that the current form is different from the original is well documented, the oldest known documented form is the non-public 1877 transcript, safely hidden away in the First Presidency’s vault.

When one is offering different key words in different clothing than prescribed by God, it is little wonder that what Joseph called the key to asking questions and receiving answers results in no special attention by God.

Proxy Work

The modern narrative suggests that one of the main reasons the church builds temples is to perform necessary ordinances vicariously for the dead, enabling them to progress onward. However, Joseph’s described pattern was not for endowment ordinances to be performed for the dead, as we perform baptisms for the dead, but for the living to obtain election, and then seal their kindred dead to themselves. What good does it do to seal yourself to ancestors who themselves are not saved? What good does it do to seal them to you when you yourself have not been redeemed? This is like having a group of 10 people jump off a cliff without parachutes. They can link to each other as many ways as they choose, but unless they can tie themselves to someone who is still on the cliff, they will all likewise perish.⁴⁶

Joseph Smith never performed an ordinance for the dead outside of baptism. He did, on one occasion that I’ve found, state that the ordinances for the living would have to be done for the dead, but he did not describe the mechanism for how this was to be done.⁴⁷ Joseph did, however, explicitly describe exactly who the work could be done for. He said,

A man may act as proxy for his own relatives; the ordinances of the Gospel which were laid out before the foundations of the world have thus been fulfilled by them, and we may be baptized for those whom we have much friendship for; but it must first be revealed to the man of God, lest we should run too far. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:366.)

Brigham Young, whose only claim of authority in temple ordinances came from his implementing what Joseph had given, began the practice of initiatories, endowments, and sealings for the dead. From the opening of the Endowment House in 1855 until Wilford Woodruff began proxy endowments in 1876, only living ordinances were allowed for all ordinances except baptisms, which resumed in 1856 after a 20 year pause. The pause began when the Lord said baptisms for the dead would no longer be acceptable without a temple to perform them in. In 1856, without a temple to perform them in, they were resumed.

Instead of building the Nauvoo temple, as God had commanded, and receiving further light and truth through Joseph on the nature and form of proxy temple work, the Saints were cast out of Nauvoo and made their best guess as to how it would work. Without instruction or permission from heaven, they multiplied temple “offerings” in the form of vicarious ordinances, with over 150 million endowments performed since 1876.⁴⁸ Innovation of ordinances was not unknown in ancient Israel, but it was routinely condemned. God once said,

For I desired...the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood. (Hosea 6:6-8.)

How applicable this scripture is to the current situation. The purpose of the temple—obtaining knowledge of God through re-entering his presence—has been replaced with multiplying “burnt offerings,” strange incense that God has not commanded. As Gileadi described,

[Isaiah 1:12 reads] ‘When you come to see me, who requires you to trample my courts so?’ The question asked at the beginning of verse 11 is answered at the beginning of verse 12: God’s people go to the temple to SEE GOD. If they aren’t there for that purpose, then all else doesn’t count for much. This reveals an appalling paradox: instead of going to see God, his people resemble the dumb animals that were anciently brought for sacrifice, which were unaware of their reason for being there. Instead of making an offering of their whole souls to God—as symbolized by burnt offerings and the shedding of the animals’ blood—his people trudge about the temple’s courts defiling it. (Avraham Gileadi, http://www.isaiahexplained.com/isaiah_ch_01.html)

The focus on multiplying ordinances is not an issue of actually completing work for the approximately 70 billion dead who have never received them as much as it is a mechanism of providing ample opportunity for patrons to return to the temple.⁴⁹ Name shortages have been a staple ever since proxy work was changed from a mechanism for “saving” individuals known by the patron to a mechanism for getting the patron back into the temple repeatedly.⁵⁰ To alleviate the problem, the church has employed many means such as limiting ordinances,⁵¹ allowing work to be done for those of known sinful life,⁵² and employing teams to scrape historical records for names. The vast majority of names come from this final source (76% according to George Fudge’s 1976 report).

If the ordinances of the modern temple are essential to salvation, what of the billions upon billions who never received them? Several decades ago, the brethren were informed that temple ordinances were not even keeping pace with the current birthrate, let alone putting a dent in the estimated 70 billion people who have ever lived.⁵³ Every member of the church would have to do 1500 endowments over the course of their lives just to break even with the number of people alive today.⁴⁶⁵ But because active membership is about 1/3 of reported membership, that number is actually tripled. Some contend the work will be completed in the millennium. Even if the work were conducted around the clock without any breaks for eating, sleeping, drinking, or any other work, it would require 17.5 million people to complete the endowments for all who ever lived.

If the point of the modern temples isn’t to complete ordinances for the 70 billion dead (an impossibility due to time and information limitations), and it isn’t to see God in the temple (something not taught by the hierarchy in over 100 years), and if temple attendance does not provide an interaction with the Holy Ghost manifested by the outward signs that always follow, then what is their purpose? That only leaves the memorization of the lectures given, which simply does not require many trips to memorize and can easily be done at home. In reality, the point of attending for most people is either for service to the dead (which is not supported by scripture or Joseph’s teachings) or to receive emotional validation after being told how important it is to attend.

God Hasn’t Commanded Temple Construction When God wanted the Kirtland Temple built, he told Joseph:

...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 fullness 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 fullness 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. (D&C 124:27-28, 40-42.)

Since Nauvoo, no revelation has been published where God commanded a temple to be built. Instead, according to the church architect, “the Church looks for sites ‘that would have prominence, be in an attractive neighborhood, a neighborhood that would withstand the test of time.’”⁵⁴ Since Nauvoo, God has not specified the architecture of temples. Instead,

After the temple site is selected and the Church determines how large the building should be (based on the number of members in the area), a team of Church architects creates potential exterior and interior designs. [The architect] ‘want[s] to create something unique, something that has its own personality, and [Church leaders] allow us to do that’ with temples. He adds that much can be done to make a temple unique, including ‘the decorative motifs, the kind of furniture, the interior accouterments, how articulate it is. It could be anything from the modern look that you see in the Washington D.C. Temple to something like the gothic, neoclassical look that you find in the Salt Lake Temple.’ To create a look and feel that is just right for a specific temple, architects solicit a number of sources. For example, as the Church has designed its future temple in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Williams says his team met with locals to ‘understand the nature of the people, the country that they live in, the Mormons that are there and how we can better fit the temple’ to them. A critical aspect of the planning process is “sustainable design,” a concept...seeks to reduce a temple’s long-term operational cost. ‘Whatever we can do to make the environmental systems, the mechanical systems energy efficient, to make the interior materials have longevity so that they don't wear out straightaway, anything we can do to conserve water, it's great for us as the owner because it makes that long-term cost less. That's what it means to be sustainable.’465

Instead of God revealing the design in a moment, it is designed through architectural research, sustainable practice, and unique design—a process that “can take up to two years.”⁴⁶⁵ Although “the First Presidency is involved and provides final approvals,” the process is bottom up, instead of top down, and no mention of revelation is provided.⁴⁶⁵

The pattern of God specifying the location and layout of each temple he’s ever commanded built ended when Joseph died. Perhaps the most illustrative comparison is provided in the modern Nauvoo temple and the former Nauvoo temple, which was destroyed shortly after the Saints abandoned and attempted to sell it. While the modern temple is built in the same style as other modern temples, the original Nauvoo temple “contained two assembly halls, one on the first floor and one on the second, called the lower and upper courts.” It “had classrooms and offices in the attic.”⁵⁵

“Observers might have difficulty detecting differences between the” current and former Nauvoo temple exteriors.⁴⁶⁸ Every effort was made to create a façade that would be indistinguishable to most laypeople: “The stone on the outside of the new temple was carefully chosen to have, as nearly as possible, the same color and texture as the limestone of the original temple,”⁴⁴ although it was from quarries states away from the original. “The new temple was not built with stone piled on stone and cemented, as was the original.”⁴⁴ Instead, the stone is a façade attached to concrete walls. Every effort and expense was taken to ensure that the temple looked the same from the outside, even if it was completely different. “The interior of the temple, however, is a different story,”⁴⁴ because it features a completely different floor plan than the one revealed to Joseph.

It is reasonable to wonder what the Lord thinks of temples built without his commandment, in forms he has not provided, with great lengths employed to lead those who don’t know any better to assume that all is as it was revealed to Joseph. Because this is a pattern that appeared with frequency in the Old Testament, there is no need to speculate.

Come to Beth-el, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years: And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord God. (Amos 4:4-5.)

Beth-el and Gilgal were not appointed places to sacrifice. Despite having the same form as worship at God’s authorized temple, God considered worship there a transgression. God shows us that when his people do not hearken to his words or his law, even though they engage in temple worship, it is not acceptable to him.

Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it...your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. (Jeremiah 6:19-20.)

Unless temples are commanded by God, they cannot be his. Instead of worshipping him, temples built by the designs and commandments of men mock him and raise his ire.

Garments

Most members believe that wearing the garment entitles them to some sort of protection, as is promised during the initiatory. The question is whether the promise provided applies to any particular garment, or only the garment revealed to Joseph.⁵⁶ If the garment has undergone similar changes as the temple ceremonies under similar circumstances, can we really expect God to fulfill the promises recited in the initiatory?

The original garment was a one piece, full body (to the wrist and ankle⁵⁷ ) textile made of only white cotton, flax, or wool. It required being stepped into from the neck. It had tie strings to take out the slack. In 1894, the brethren decided to end the practice of cutting the marks into the garment through the shirt, reversing an instruction from Brigham Young, because “we think this unnecessary” (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith to Lorenzo Snow, Aug 31 1894). At that time, they also moved the garment marking from the veil portion of the ceremonies to the initiatory.⁵⁸ During John Taylor’s administration the original garment material was replaced with a knitted fabric. In 1923, the collar was removed and the tie strings were replaced with buttons. The women’s garments were shortened to the elbows and knees. These changes came “after careful and prayerful consideration,”⁵⁹ —not from the voice of God, but because “the living authority said we might.”⁶⁰ Erroneously, the First Presidency claimed that “no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given,” and concluded that they could change it without regard to Joseph’s garment. Ironically, the author of the commissioned temple instruction pamphlet wrote that same year that:

When Joseph Smith received the endowments and revelation from the Lord to be given to his people by authority, he also received instructions as to how to make this garment. None had ever seen anything like it and the sisters who made it were under his direction and when it was submitted to him, he said that it was right and the way it had looked to him [in his mind] and he accepted it. (Zina Y. Card, “Garments”, Temple Instructions.)

Just eleven years earlier, President Joseph F. Smith had said,

The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form, or in the manner of wearing them.

He reiterated in a joint First Presidency statement in 1915, “The pattern of the temple garment was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith.)

Apparently, there was some resistance to the significant changes of 1923. The temple instruction pamphlet recognized the changes from what God had revealed to Joseph, but assuaged concerns by citing the change as a valid use of authority by the brethren:

Thus the Kingdom of God rolls on and the living authorit[ies] are the ones who can make changes in the revealed work of the Lord to answer the purposes of the day in which they live. (Zina Y. Card, “Garments”, Temple Instructions, 1923.)

The “modified” garment, as it was called, was only permitted to be used outside the temple. Somehow in the minds of the people, it was wrong for a private member to fashion their own garment pattern, because it would “not [be] approved of nor accepted by the authority of God.” (Ibid.) At the same time, the modified garment, which came from men and not God, was somehow valid. In 1934, apostle John Widstoe dealt with the issue differently, at once admitting the garment was revealed to Joseph, but claiming that no changes had been made:

The temple ordinances were revealed as many other things have been revealed to the Prophet....There have been no changes in the garment. Fundamentally it is like it was in the beginning. Lengthening or shortening of the sleeve is not a change really. It is just a minor thing, in line with our needs, especially in the summer time; but that does not make any difference to the garment itself. (John A. Widstoe, “Answers to Seminary Teachers' Questions,” 1934 pp. 32-33.)

Widstoe contended, as many do with all temple changes, that the changes made do not affect the vital parts. After all, he reasoned, “It is [still] a covering for my body, representing covenants I have made. We make entirely too much of the so-called changes. There have been no changes to the ideas.” (Ibid). People using this line of reasoning are not surprisingly unable to enumerate the parts that are vital. The cognitive dissonance increases as these same people who contend that as long as the garment is a covering for one’s body (no matter how much or how little of the body) and represents covenants (no matter if those covenants change or not) it is still valid, also claim that any garment that covers the body and represents the covenants but is not prayerfully considered and unanimously approved by the brethren “desecrates the marks of the priesthood.” (Zina Card, Temple Instructions, 1923.) Thus, what is approved or abominable depends not on God’s word on the subject, but on whether the current brethren are currently favorable towards it or not. A telling example of dissent is found in then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith. One member wrote how on his 21 February 1964 visit,

I asked President [Joseph Fielding] Smith, 'Is it wrong to wear the string tie garments outside the temple?' President Smith looked at me for several moments and then unbuttoning the third button in his shirt, brought out one of the ties on a pair of old style temple garments and said, 'This is what we should be wearing—the Lord gave them to us, and so this is what I wear.' I said, 'I have worn the old style garments for two years now and some of the ignorant brethren have accused me, so now I wear a tee shirt over them.' President Smith then said, 'When the Lord gave the garments to us they had strings. I have never worn a button pair; however, I don't say those with buttons are not garments.' (W. Cleon Anderson, notarized statement, in Buerger Papers.)

Joseph Fielding Smith had inherited Hyrum Smith’s original garment, and thus knew firsthand what the differences were between modern and the original garments.⁶¹

In 1936, the garments were modified again to include a sleeveless pattern.⁶² The brethren expressed reluctance to the change, but agreed to it “only because we have convinced ourselves that it will tend to bring” more adherence to the instruction to wear the garment day and night without rolling up the sleeves. As with previous changes, it seems to have been instigated by women who wanted to accommodate current styles. The brethren insisted that “we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change.” At this time the committee also recommended providing an explanation for the symbols on the garment, something not then provided. The brethren wrote:

The best interpretation which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President McKay. It is as follows: A. The square: Honor, integrity, loyalty, trustworthiness. B. The compass: An undeviating course in relation to truth. Desires should be kept within proper bounds. C. The navel: That spiritual life needs constant sustenance. D. The kness: Revernce for God, the source of divine guidance and inspiration.⁶²

In 1965, the older garment used in temples was updated from strings to buttons, but not fully updated to the outside of temple garment.⁶³ The full update to bring them into parity was subsequently made.

Over time, the garment marking process was changed. By 1979, all symbolism of the marking of the garment was lost. Instead of placing the garment on the patron and cutting marks into the garment, the garments were manufactured already containing the marks, which had ceased to be cuts and become mere embroidery.⁶⁴ A December 1979 First Presidency letter announced the two piece garment, citing “due consideration” as the means of the change.

Like the 1877 transcript of the endowment, the church possesses an original temple garment (that belonging to Hyrum Smith). It could duplicate that garment to revert the modern garment back to the one that God revealed to Joseph. However, it defers to the opinions of Joseph’s successors, who never once claimed revelation in their changes, and the requirements of modern style and comfort, rather than trusting that God knew what he was talking about when he revealed the garment to Joseph. Those, like President Joseph Fielding Smith, who would prefer to wear the garment revealed to Joseph are prevented from doing so. They are not given the pattern, and even if they had it, they would be disciplined for creating and wearing the original garment.

If we are to accept that God honors the promises he offered with the garment revealed to Joseph with the current garment, we should also expect he will honor them with any set of underclothing, as the cut, cloth, manner of marking, and meaning of the garment have all changed. You would be hard pressed to change the garment more than it has been changed. Can the modern garment be viewed as anything but a mockery of God?

Multiplying Temples

Modern Mormonism asserts that temple work for the living and the dead is the principle mission of the church to which all other ends and means are subordinate. Therefore, it is reasoned, we must build temples all over the world to facilitate access. History shows, however, that rather than having originated with Joseph Smith, this position emerged gradually as Joseph’s temple doctrine was forgotten.

To understand the development of multiplying temples, you have to understand temples not in their modern context, but how they were revealed in Joseph’s day. Then, temple construction was commanded one at a time, with specific purposes in mind. There was no general program for ordinances for the dead, except baptism. There was no endowment as we have it today. The purpose of the Kirtland temple was not to expose members to a symbolic lecture or to make promises to God. It was to provide a Pentecostal experience for outgoing missionaries. Similarly, the purpose of the Nauvoo temple was to provide a place for Elijah to return and restore the high priesthood and sealing powers.⁶⁵ Temples were not spaces dedicated for repetitive experiences, but places set apart for an explicit one-time event.⁶⁶ After all, the purpose of these events was to dispense knowledge that would empower the people to come into the consistent presence of God in the normal course of their lives. In contrast to the modern temple experience, this did not necessitate numerous buildings or numerous visits to buildings. In Joseph’s day, this experience was extended to geographically dispersed members through the physical gathering, not the building of many temples. With Joseph’s death, the purpose of the Nauvoo temple was lost. Brigham Young did not know or understand what had been revealed to Joseph about its purpose. He repurposed the attic of that temple to reveal the original version of the endowment we practice today. That endowment, which was carried to Utah, was not an event. It was a repetitive experience.

Where Joseph gathered the saints and brought them into access to revelatory events for which a temple had been constructed, Brigham sent out the saints to establish colonies to which temples could be brought to provide repetitive experiences. Even still, the tradition of gathering was strong enough that all saints were commanded to gather to and around Utah. Therefore, the idea of building a temple outside of Utah did not emerge for decades after the Nauvoo exodus. This changed with the Hawaii, Cardston, Mesa, and Idaho Falls temples, all overseen under the radical administration of Heber J. Grant, the first president of the church who had not known Joseph.⁶⁷

At the outset of President McKay’s administration, the idea of building temples outside of Utah-Zion⁶⁸ was foreign. However, in an attempt to bolster flat conversions to the church, President McKay revoked the commandment to physically gather. International missionary areas had been burned over. Anyone willing to accept the gospel had already been converted and imported to Utah. As with many dramatic experimental changes during President McKay’s administration, building temples around the world was not about bringing temple blessings to global saints, but about increasing the number of converts, in this case by keeping strong members in their country of origin.

Today, the initial purpose of multiplying temples has been forgotten to history, replaced with a man-made doctrine that views the temples as ends instead of means.

Lavish Materials

Years ago, I attended the Draper, Utah temple dedication. The tour guide led us through the ornate building, describing various elements of the temple. The lavish wood panels, doors, and moldings are imported African cherry wood. The limestone coverings on the floor are imported from France. The white granite building exterior is from China.⁶⁹ In modern Mormonism it is understood that expensive and ornate finishings are required in order for a temple to be acceptable to God. Church members were taught in the October 2012 General Conference that no expense is spared in ensuring that every aspect of the building—visible or not—is as perfect as possible with the example of an entire expensive stained glass panel that was replaced because a single small square was off by an eighth of an inch.⁷⁰

Perhaps to the surprise of many members, this perspective is very much an innovation. In 2015 dollars, the Kirtland temple cost $68 per sqft.,⁷¹ the St. George temple cost $165 per sqft.,⁷² the Manti temple cost $247 per sqft.,⁷³ and the Salt Lake temple cost $364 per sqft.⁷⁴ Meanwhile, modern temples cost at least $1,400 per square foot.⁷⁵ Clearly, there has been a change. When and how did it occur?

David O. McKay, who began the modern temple building program, was very intent on building inexpensive buildings. He wrote in his diary,

It is not contemplated that an expensive edifice would be erected but that temples be built that would accommodate the people under a new plan whereby temple ceremonies can be presented in one room without moving from one room to another....It is felt that such a building could be erected and adequately equipped for about the cost of one of our present meeting houses, namely, two hundred or two hundred fifty thousand dollars. (Diary of David O. McKay, April 17, 1952.)

The change to expensive temples did not occur in the McKay administration. As near as can be seen, it did not happen all at once. The DC temple (1974 at $507 per sqft. in 2015 dollars⁷⁶ ) and the San Diego temple (1993 at $553 per sqft. in 2015 dollars⁷⁷ ) serve as trend points along the march to current temple costs. This tradition developed slowly over time. There was no one point where the church suddenly jumped from temples with the same cost of chapels (David O. McKay’s ideal) to what they cost today. Instead, it seems that the gradual building of more expensive temples predicated the development of a tradition that they had to be expensive. As that tradition developed, temples necessarily became more expensive. Thus we can contrast the inexpensive fake marble on the outside of the D.C. temple with the imported granite façade of the Draper temple.

With all this in mind, there are two problems with modern temple construction. First, there is absolutely no justified reason for such expensive construction materials and methods. If LDS temples from an equally wealthy church were acceptable to God at a much lower price tag in former years, why would they not be acceptable to him today, particularly when the difference could be used to help the poor? Second, given the tenuous historical support for post-martyrdom temple worship, the many modifications to Brigham’s ordinances, and the lack of any revelation from God commanding any post-Nauvoo temple to be built, can any new construction at all be justified?

These feelings seem to be echoed in prophetic scripture. It is easy for modern Mormons to condemn wicked King Noah. However, in doing so they unwittingly condemn themselves. When stripped of the defense of “the Lord wants us to build ornate temples,” it becomes apparent that modern Mormons also

...buil[d] many elegant and spacious buildings...ornament[ing] them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper...caus[ing] that his workmen should work all manner of fine work within the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass. (Mosiah 11:8, 10.)

Of course, we also ornament our temples with gold leaf, exquisite furnishings, highest end carpet, Chinese granite, and African wood.

God accepted Nephi’s temple, though it was humble, and rejected Noahs, though it was elegant and spacious. God accepted the humble Kirtland temple, yet has not provided experiences in today’s lavish temples. Moroni’s words undoubtedly apply to today’s temple-building Mormons:

For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?...Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?...Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer. (Mormon 8:37-41.)

The Temple as a Symbol of God’s Approval

Some consider the presence of modern temples to be a sign of divine approval. Elder Oaks recently said, “There are now more than 140 operating temples, just one fruit of the restored gospel and of our prophetic leadership.”⁷⁸ Does the number of temples,⁷⁹ or the fact that we have operating temples, signify divine approval? God said, through Jeremiah, Don’t be fooled by those who promise you safety simply because the LORD's Temple is here. They chant, ‘The LORD's Temple is here! The LORD's Temple is here! (New Living Translation, Jeremiah 7:4.)

Were there historic peoples who were inciting the wrath of God and still had temples? In the Book of Mormon, king Noah had a temple, yet was in an apostate state. The Old Testament contains countless examples of people who not only were apostate despite having a temple, but who actually summoned his wrath because of their temples. In Jeremiah we read:

Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these....Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; Don’t fool yourselves! My temple is here in Jerusalem, but that doesn’t mean I will protect you...You steal and murder; you lie in court and are unfaithful in marriage. You worship idols and offer incense to Baal, when these gods have never done anything for you. And then you come into my temple and worship me! Do you think I will protect you so that you can go on sinning? You are thieves, and you have made my temple your hideout. But I’ve seen everything you have done...While you have been sinning, I have been trying to talk to you, but you refuse to listen. Don’t think this temple will protect you. Long ago I told your ancestors to build it and worship me here, but now I have decided to tear it down, just as I destroyed Shiloh. And as for you, people of Judah, I’m going to send you away from my land, just as I sent away the people of Ephraim and the other northern tribes. Jeremiah, don’t pray for these people! I, the Lord, would refuse to listen. (Jeremiah 7:4,9,10,13-16.)

Temple worship in and of itself is not necessarily pleasing to the Lord. When we do not hearken to the ordinances God has given us, but replace them with the commandments of men, and build temples up to ourselves without God’s commandments, we anger God.

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. (Amos 5:21-26.)

As we learn with king Noah, leaders who disobey God can cause the temple to become polluted:

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the Lord; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. (Zephaniah 3:1-4.)

God said that Israel’s “sins are making my holy temple unfit as a place to worship me.” (Ezekiel 8:6, CEV.) The people in Jerusalem, including the leaders of the church, could not see that their acts of worship in the temple were an abomination before God. Perhaps this was because they were investing so much time, energy, and money in the effort of worship that they were blind to the fact that the worship had not originated from God but consisted of the innovations of man. What was God's reaction to the abomination? He commanded angels to slay all men, women, and children except those who were “truly upset and sad about the disgusting things” being done in the temple (Ezekiel 9:4, CEV). God will unleash the same judgment on those who similarly defile buildings allegedly built to be his house in our day, and he will only spare those who are “truly upset and sad about the disgusting things” being done in the temple.