The Changing World of Mormonism: Chapter 22

Temple Work

[NOTE: On May 3, 1990, the New York Times made the startling announcement that the Mormon Church had changed some of its secret temple ceremony. The penalties, which played such a prominent part in the ritual, have now been completely removed and other important changes have been made. In our book, Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony: 1842-1990, we give the complete text of the 1990 revised “endowment ceremony.” Also see #75 Messenger, Temple Ritual Altered and #104 Messenger, Temple Ritual Changed . . . Again.]

In order really to understand present-day Mormonism and the hold it has upon its people it is necessary to know about the work that goes on in Mormon temples. The ceremonies performed in these temples are secret, and only “worthy” members of the Mormon church may participate in them.

Baptism for the Dead

The Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead was first practiced in Nauvoo, Illinois. Wilford Woodruff reported that “Joseph Smith himself . . . went into the Mississippi River one Sunday night after meeting, and baptized a hundred. I baptized another hundred. The next man, a few rods from me, baptized another hundred. We were strung up and down the Mississippi, baptizing for our dead. But there was no recorder, . . . the Lord told Joseph that he must have recorders present . . . Of course, we had to do the work over again. Nevertheless, that does not say the work was not of God” (The Deseret Weekly, vol. 42:554, as quoted in Temples of the Most High, by N. B. Lundwall, 1962, p. 69).

On May 2, 1843, Charlotte Haven wrote a letter in which she told of watching the Mormon elders baptizing for the dead in the river which was “icy cold” at that time: “We drew a little nearer and heard several names repeated by the elders as the victims were douched, and you can imagine our surprise when the name George Washington was called. So after these fifty years he is out of purgatory and on his way to the ‘celestial’ heaven!” (Overland Monthly, December 1890).

The early Mormon leaders seem to have been very confused concerning baptism for the dead. Brigham Young once stated: “Hundreds and thousands, I suppose, were baptized before any record was kept at all, and they were baptized over, and a record kept . . . the Lord did not reveal everything at once; but I need not dwell on this any longer” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 18, p. 241).

512

The Mormon leaders teach that the spirits of people who have died cannot enter the celestial kingdom of heaven until a Mormon is baptized for them by proxy—i.e., a living person is immersed on behalf of the dead person. This information about baptism for the dead is found in Joseph Smith’s history:

Chrysostum says that the Marchionites practiced baptism for their dead. “After a catechumen was dead, they had a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the dead man, they asked him whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other answered for him, and said that he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead.” The church of course at that time was degenerate, and the particular form might be incorrect, but the thing is sufficiently plain in the Scriptures, hence Paul, in speaking of the doctrine, says, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” (I Cor. xv:29) (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 599)

Bible scholars are divided as to the meaning of the verse which is cited above. Mormons, of course, believe that it applies to temple work, where a living person is baptized in behalf of someone that has died. Even if this verse did apply to a living person being baptized for someone else, as the Mormons maintain, this would not prove that faithful Christians were practicing it. Paul does not say that “we” are baptized for the dead, but rather that “they” are baptized for the dead. The use of the word “they” instead of the word “we” could make a great deal of difference in the meaning of the statement. If a Protestant made the statement, “Why do they then pray for the dead, if the dead rise not at all,” it would not mean that he was endorsing the Catholic doctrine of prayers for the dead. If, however, a person made the statement, “Why do we then pray for the dead, if the dead rise not at all,” we would assume that he believed in prayers for the dead.

A good discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is found in the pamphlet Baptism for the Dead, by Charles R. Hield and Russell F. Ralston:

A careful reading of this epistle shows that the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthian Saints using the words “I,” “we,” “ye,” “You,” when referring to them and/or himself all the way through his message; but when he mentions baptism for the dead, he changes to “they.” “What shall they do?” “Why are they then baptized for the dead?” In the verses following, he returns to the use of “we” and “you.” Thus he seems to disassociate himself and the righteous Saints from the methods used

513

by those groups who at that time were practicing baptism for the dead.

The Apostle Paul did not urge his hearers to practice the principle, nor did he command it. He merely used the case as an illustration. Paul did not worship the “unknown God” of the pagans because he found an altar to the pagan unknown god (Acts 17:23). . . . There is no mention of baptism for the dead in the Bible up until Paul—and no mention afterward. Paul, as well as the other apostles, rather than endorsing baptism for the dead as then practiced, seems to have exercised a counteracting influence upon this ordinance, for it was perpetuated only among heretics.

The Bible contains no specific authorization of this doctrine. Christ does not mention it, nor do any of the apostles, save Paul; who makes only an indirect reference to it. (Independence, Mo: Herald Publishing House, 1951, pp. 23-24)

The fact that Christ never mentioned baptism for the dead is strong evidence that no such doctrine existed in the early Christian Church.

Orson Pratt admitted that the Bible does not contain any information as to how baptism for the dead should be performed. His excuse for the Bible not containing this information was that it was probably lost or taken out of the Bible. He claimed:

This doctrine of baptism for the dead must have been well understood by them. . . . Now when, and in what manner was this doctrine communicated to them? It may have been fully developed to them in the epistle which he says that he had previously written to them. This doctrine may have been as important as baptism to the living. Does the written or unwritten word of God with which Christendom are acquainted, inform them anything about how this ceremony is to be performed? Does it inform them who is to officiate? Who is the candidate in behalf of the dead? What classes of the dead are to be benefitted by it? Does scripture or tradition inform us in what particular baptism for the dead will affect them in the resurrection? Does it inform us whether baptism for the dead can be administered in all places, or only in a baptismal font, in a temple consecrated for that purpose? All these important questions remain unanswered by scripture and tradition. (Orson Pratt’s Works, 1891, p. 205)

Although Joseph Smith performed baptism for the dead in the Mississippi River, it is now performed only in temples. The Mormon people are very zealous about this work for the dead, for they believe they are saving their ancestors. President John Taylor stated: “. . . we are the only people that know how to save

514

our progenitors. . . . we in fact are the saviours of the world, if they ever are saved . . .” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 163). President Wilford Woodruff felt that he had saved John Wesley, Columbus, and all of the presidents of the United States except three:

. . . two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. . . . These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. . . . I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 19, p. 229)

The Mormons are spending millions of dollars doing genealogical research in order to find the names of those who have died so that they can do proxy baptism for them. Bruce R. McConkie wrote concerning this matter:

Before vicarious ordinances of salvation and exaltation may be performed for those who have died . . . they must be accurately and properly identified. Hence, genealogical research is required. . . . the Church maintains in Salt Lake City one of the world’s greatest genealogical societies. Much of the genealogical source material of various nations of the earth has been or is being microfilmed by this society; millions of dollars is being spent; and a reservior of hundreds of millions of names and other data about people who lived in past generations is available for study. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 308-9)

Heber J. Grant, the seventh president of the church, told of employing “a sister who devotes all her time to the preparation of genealogical records. . . . pertaining to the families to which I belong in direct descent and through marriage.” The Church Section of the Deseret News for April 23, 1966, tells of a woman who “searched 15 years” before she found the “names of four new ancestors” for whom she had been looking. Wallace Turner informs us:

This microfilming of records is a tremendous work, growing in scope continually, operated entirely for the benefit of the ancestor tracing that leads to the vicarious Temple ceremonies. As of July 1, 1965, the microfilm division had a total of 406,682 rolls of microfilm of 100 feet each. . . . The total microfilm load included 579,679,800 pages of documents. There were more than 5 billion names in the files. . . .

515

The church puts about $4 million a year into the Genealogical Society. It has 575 employees and is run by a board which includes two apostles. The microfilm unit sends crews all over the world to locate and photograph records. . . . The negative microfilms are stored in a great vault system dug out of the rocks of Cottonwood Canyon . . . southeast of Salt Lake City. This underground storage system was produced by the church at a cost of $2.5 million. It has six vaults, which each hold a million rolls of film. . . . During 1964, the microfilming units worked in fourteen countries. (The Mormon Establishment, pp. 81-82)

Apostle LeGrand Richards predicted that “in the not too far distant future, the Church Genealogical Library will not only be the best in the world but will also be a repository of most all other genealogical libraries” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 192).

Many people wonder why the Mormon church spends so much time and money searching for the names of the dead when there are so many people starving to death. It would seem far better to spend this money and time on the living and let the Lord take care of the dead. The Mormon leaders admit that in spite of all they can do they will never be able to find all of the names until the Lord gives them during the millennium. Since the Mormons believe that the Lord will have to provide most of the names anyway, would it not be better to spend this time and money helping the living instead of searching for the names of the dead? Because of this emphasis on work for the dead, one Mormon has compared the church to the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians, of course, spent a fantastic amount of time and money building pyramids and doing other work for their dead.

The Book of Mormon says that the false churches “rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries” (2 Nephi 28:13), yet the Mormon church is spending millions of dollars building beautiful temples. The Salt Lake Temple, for instance, cost millions of dollars and took almost forty years to build. The Salt Lake Tribune for August 31, 1974, gave this information about the temple that the Mormons built in Washington, D.C.: “. . . it is indeed marble, 288 feet high, $15 million worth, and that makes the new Washington Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only one of the most architecturally amazing but also one of the most expensive church edifices to rise in recent years. . . . It is the 16th temple to be built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .”

The Mormon leaders are planning to build temples in a number of other countries in the near future. Most of the “endowments” performed in Mormon temples are for the dead;

516

therefore, when we add the millions of dollars spent for temples and their upkeep to the millions spent on genealogical research, we find that the Mormons are similar to the ancient Egyptians in their attitudes toward the dead. This obsession with the dead approaches very close to ancestral worship. Adney Y. Komatsu, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy in the Mormon church, stated in the 146th General Conference of the Church:

May I share with you this afternoon an experience that happened to a young couple who were members of the Church in Japan. . . . the couple joined with others in seeking out their ancestors and in planning to have the temple work done for them. The girl searched diligently through shrines, cemeteries, and government record offices, and was able to gather seventy-seven names. . . . As this young couple joined their family members . . . they displayed their book of remembrance. . . . They discussed with those relatives assembled their ancestral lines and the importance of completing the genealogical research. It was difficult for their nonmember families to understand the reasons for a Christian church teaching principles such as “ancestral worship,” for this was a Buddhist teaching and tradition. . . . Through genealogical research and through doing temple work for their progenitors, and especially with a temple now becoming available in Tokyo, members can so live that the gospel will yet be embraced by many more in the Orient. (The Ensign, May 1976, p. 102)

Joseph Fielding Smith proclaimed that the “greatest commandment given us, and made obligatory, is the temple work in our own behalf and in behalf of our dead” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 149).

On page 146 of the same book, we read: “The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, ‘The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead.’ “

Jesus certainly never taught anything about baptism for the dead or seeking after our dead. In fact, he said that “the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31).

The Bible says nothing about doing extensive genealogical research to save the dead. On the contrary, Apostle Paul makes two statements which are often used against the practice: “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which

517

minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do” (1 Tim. 1:4). “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9).

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing to the Mormon church concerning the doctrine of baptism for the dead is the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon is supposed to contain “the fullness of the everlasting Gospel” (see Pearl of Great Price, p. 51, v. 34). In the Doctrine and Covenants 42:12 we read: “And again, the elders, priests, and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.”

Even though the Book of Mormon is supposed to contain the “fulness of the gospel,” it never mentions the doctrine of baptism for the dead, not even once! The word “baptism” appears twenty-five times in the Book of Mormon. The word “baptize” appears twenty-eight times. The word “baptized” appears eighty-five times, and the word “baptizing” appears six times, but the doctrine of baptism for the dead is not mentioned at all!

The excuse that the doctrine of baptism for the dead was removed from the Bible certainly would not prove true in the case of the Book of Mormon. The Catholics never had the Book of Mormon and therefore they could not be charged with removing it.

Actually, the Book of Mormon condemns the very ideas that led to the practice of baptism for the dead. It plainly indicates that there is no chance for a person to repent after death if he has known the gospel and has rejected it (see our previous chapter on “The Hereafter”).

Temple Marriage

The Mormon church teaches that it is necessary for a person to be married or sealed in the Temple so that he can obtain the highest exaltation in the hereafter. This work is done for both the living and the dead. The doctrine of Temple Marriage comes from Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a revelation given to Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843. Joseph Fielding Smith explains the need for Temple Marriage:

If you want salvation in the fullest, that is exaltation in the kingdom of God, so that you may become his sons and his daughters, you have got to go into the temple of the Lord and receive these holy ordinances which belong to that house, which cannot be had elsewhere. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 44)

518

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.

SORROW IN RESURRECTION IF NO ETERNAL MARRIAGE. 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 . . . (Ibid., p. 60)

On page 61 of the same book, the following statement appears: “CIVIL MARRIAGE MAKES SERVANTS IN ETERNITY,” and on page 62 we read: “CELESTIAL MARRIAGE MAKES GODS IN ETERNITY.”

The Mormon leaders teach that those who marry in the temple will have the power to continually beget children in heaven. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explains:

Those who gain eternal life (exaltation) also gain eternal lives, meaning that in the resurrection they have eternal “increase,” “a continuation of the seeds,” a “continuation of the lives.” Their spirit progeny will “continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.” (D.&C. 131:1-4; 132:19-25, 30, 55)

“Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the holy priesthood,” The Prophet says, “They will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 238)

Joseph Fielding Smith warned:

Restrictions will be placed upon those who enter the terrestial and telestial kingdoms, and even those in the celestial kingdom who do not get the exaltation; changes will be made in their bodies to suit their condition; and there will be no marrying or giving in marriage, nor living together of men and women, because of these restrictions .(Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 73)

Mormon theology teaches that even God Himself has a wife and that in the pre-existence we were spiritually born and lived as His sons and daughters. Milton R. Hunter claimed: “Jesus is man’s spiritual brother. We dwelt with Him in the spirit world as members of that large society of eternal intelligences, which included our Heavenly Parents . . .” (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1958, p. 21)

519

Mormon authorities teach that it is absolutely impossible for a person to receive the highest exaltation without temple marriage. Milton R. Hunter remarked: “Marriage is not only a righteous institution, but obedience to this law is absolutely necessary in order to obtain the highest exaltation in the Kingdom of God.” (Ibid., p. 119)

If the Mormon doctrine of “sealing” were true we would expect to find evidence that Jesus was married in the temple. No such evidence has been found. The Bible never mentions the doctrine of eternal marriage. In fact, Jesus seems to have taught just the opposite: “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34-36).

Apostle LeGrand Richards frankly admits that the “principle of eternal marriage did not come to the Prophet Joseph Smith by reading the Bible, but through the revelations of the Lord to him” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 195).

While Mormon apologists have a hard time explaining the fact that the Bible does not support the doctrine of temple marriage, they are faced with an even greater problem when they turn to the Book of Mormon. It is supposed to contain the “fulness of the gospel,” yet it does not contain even one passage to support the doctrine of temple marriage!

Temple marriage or sealing, like many other doctrines, was not part of the original Mormon faith. The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, published in 1835, page 251, said that “all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast. . . . All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.” This section on marriage was so diametrically opposed to the later teachings of the church, that it finally had to be completely removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Fielding Smith frankly admitted that this section was removed because it contained “false teachings” (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, p. 456).

Connected with Polygamy

The revelation which contains the information concerning temple marriage is also the revelation which contains the teaching of polygamy—i.e., section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Therefore, polygamy and temple marriage stand or

520

A photograph of the Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, page 296. Apostle Orson Pratt maintains that if polygamy is not true, then marriage for eternity is also false.

521

fall together. Charles Penrose, who was later sustained as first councilor in the First Presidency, made this perfectly clear at a conference in Centerville, Utah: “Elder Charles W. Penrose . . . showed that the revelation . . . was [the] only one published on Celestial Marriage, and if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other” (Millennial Star, vol. 45, p. 454).

Apostle Orson Pratt argued 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 ordinances 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” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296).

While the Mormon people are no longer allowed to practice polygamy, they have not repudiated the doctrine. They still teach that polygamy is practiced in heaven. Mormon writer John J. Stewart explains:

The Church has never, and certainly will never, renounce this doctrine. The revelation on plural marriage is still an integral part of LDS scripture, and always will be. If a woman, sealed to her husband for time and eternity, precedes her husband in death, it is his privilege to marry another also for time and eternity, providing that he is worthy of doing so. Consider, for instance, the case of President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve, one of the greatest men upon the earth. . . . After the death of his first wife President Joseph Fielding Smith married another, and each of these good women are sealed to him for time and all eternity. (Brigham Young and His Wives, 1961, p. 14)

Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed Mr. Stewart’s point when he said that if he was “faithful and worthy of an exaltation. . . . my wives will be mine in eternity.” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 67).

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried and was planning on living plural marriage in heaven. President Lee wrote a poem in which he reflected:

My lovely Joan was sent to me;
So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
“O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee.”
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

While Mormon men are allowed more than one wife in

522

heaven, a woman can have but one husband. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

When a man and a woman are married in the temple for time and all eternity, and then the man dies and the woman marries another man, she can be married to him for time only.

When a man marries a woman who was married previously to her husband in the temple but who has now died, he does so, or should, with his eyes open. If the children are born to this woman and her “time” husband, he has no claim upon those children. They go with the mother. This is the law. Certainly a man cannot in reason expect to take another man’s wife, after that man is dead, and rear a family by her and then claim the children.

If he wants a family of his own, then he should marry a wife that he can have in eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 78-79)

Because the Mormons believe that a woman can have only one husband in heaven a problem has arisen for those doing work for the dead. In a newsletter published by Sandy First Ward we find the following:

. . . Brother Christiansen talked about new rulings concerning sealings for the dead. It is now possible for a woman that was married more than once to be sealed to ALL her husbands, providing that in life she had not been sealed to any of her husbands.

The First Presidency of the Church has ruled that rather than try to decide which husband a deceased woman should be sealed to, she can be sealed to all of them. However, only one sealing will be valid and accepted before God. God and the woman will decide which one of the sealings will be accepted on Judgment Day. (Tele-Ward, Sandy First Ward, January 25, 1976, vol. V, no. 2, p. 5)

However this may be, at one time Brigham Young became so zealous to establish polygamy that he declared that a man who would not enter into polygamy would have his wife taken from him in the resurrection and given to another:

Now, where a man in this church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever. (Deseret News, September 17, 1873)

523

A Secret Ceremony

While the revelation commanding temple marriage is printed in the Doctrine and Covenants, the ritual itself is supposed to be kept secret. Nevertheless, throughout the years numerous Mormons who became alienated from the church exposed the ceremony. Over two dozen of these accounts have been printed. Because the ritual is kept secret many false impressions and charges of gross immorality have been circulated. On February 18, 1846, the Warsaw Signal charged that those who participated in the ritual were “in a state of nudity” throughout the ceremony. In response to this article a woman who had been through the endowment wrote a letter to the editor in which she stated that the ceremony had been misrepresented:

Mr. Sharp:—Dear Sir:—I discover by your paper, in what you have published in regard to the Mormon endowments. . . . that you have been wrongly informed. . . .

I went into this pretended holy operation . . . We were first received past the Guard into a private room . . . this was the room of preparation or purification—We were divested of all our apparel, and in a state of perfect nudity we were washed from head to foot,—a blanket was then thrown about our persons, and then commencing at the head we were anointed from head to foot with sweet oil scented (I think) with lavender. We were then clothed in white robes. All this was done by sisters in the church —none others were present—it is false to say that men and women are admitted together in an indecent manner. We were then conducted into a room called the Garden of Eden . . . After a considerable ceremony, . . . a very dandy-like fellow appeared with a black cap[e] on, that had a long tail attached to it; he . . . induced some of our sisters to eat of the ‘forbidden fruit.’. . . The Lord pronounces a curse upon him—he gets down upon his belly and crawls off. . . . We were then presented with aprons, . . . we passed into another room . . . This was called the Terrestrial Kingdom . . . After a considerable parade and ceremony, we passed into another room, or Celestial Kingdom. Here I saw . . . Brigham Young, with a white crown upon his head, and as I have since been told, representing God himself. We passed this room without much ceremony into another . . . we took upon ourselves oaths and obligations not to reveal the secrets of the priesthood. . . . In one place I was presented with a new name, which I was not to reveal to any living creature, save the man to whom I should be sealed for eternity, . . . and from all that I can gather, all the females had the same name given them, but we are not allowed to reveal it to each other, . . . I have forgotten a part of the penalties. (Warsaw Signal, April 15, 1846, p. 2)

Increase McGee Van Dusen and his wife exposed the temple ritual in 1847. Their account was reprinted many times. On

524

February 12, 1906, the Salt Lake Tribune published the temple ceremony. In 1931 W. M. Paden published a pamphlet entitled, “Temple Mormonism—Its Evolution, Ritual and Meaning.” While this was supposed to be one of the most accurate accounts of the ritual, Mormon leaders have made a number of important changes in the ceremony. Because of this fact we published an account in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? (pp. 462-73) which we felt was very accurate and up to date as of 1969.

Actually, we can get some idea of what goes on in the temple simply be searching through Mormon publications and journals. One of the most revealing statements by Brigham Young about the temple endowment was recorded in the diary of L. John Nuttall:

When we got our washings and anointing 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 key-words, signs, tokens, and penalties. Then after, we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo, 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 by Brigham Young, recorded in the “Diary of L. John Nuttall,” February 7,1877, as quoted in God, Man, and the Universe, p. 334)

It should be noted that Brigham Young mentioned washings, anointings, garments, the new name, key-words, signs, tokens and penalties. He also stated that there was a “veil” with certain marks on it.

According to a “Price List Issued by The General Board of Relief Society” on June 1, 1968, men who desired to go through the temple must have the following “Articles for Temple Wear”: robe, cap, apron, shield, garments (old style), shoes or heavy moccasins, trousers, shirt, tie, hose, and belt.

Those who have been through the temple are required to wear “garments” for the rest of their lives. William J. Whalen says:

The devout Mormon who has received his “endowments” in the temple will wear sacred temple undergarments at all times. Resembling a union suit, now abbreviated at the knees, the undergarments are worn by both men and women, awake and sleeping. It is said that older Mormons refuse to take off these garments

525

completely even while taking a bath; they will hang one leg out of the tub so that they will never lose contact with the garments. Mystic signs are embroidered on them to remind the wearers of their temple obligations. (The Latter-day Saints in the Modern Day World, 1964, pp. 18-19)

On page 168 of the same book, Mr. Whalen says that “the garment was a long union suit of muslin or linen with the specified cabalistic marks. It has been abbreviated in recent years especially in the interests of feminine fashions.”

The fact that the garments have been abbreviated is very interesting, for the early Mormon leaders taught that they could not be changed. President Joseph F. Smith declared before the changes were made:

The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin. (The Improvement Era, vol. 9:813, as quoted in Temples of the Most High, p. 276)

In 1918 the First Presidency of the church sent a message to the bishops in which the following appears:

FIRST: The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white, and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck.

Please inform all to whom you issue recommends that these requirements are imperative . . . 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. (Messages of the First Presidency, by J. R. Clark, 1971, vol. 5, p. 110)

Although the Mormon leaders vigorously maintained that the “garments” must be “worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck,” and that they could not be altered from “the very pattern in which God gave them,” women’s

526

fashions caused the arms and legs to be shortened and the neck line to be lowered. Until 1975, however, the Mormon leaders still required that members of the church wear the “old style” garments when they were taking part in the temple ritual. After the temple ceremony was over, members of the church would replace these garments, which came down to the wrists and ankles, with the abbreviated type. In our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 463, we have included a photograph of the “old style” garments.

The major change in the length of the garments was made in 1923. On June 14 of that year the First Presidency of the church sent out a message to various church leaders which contained the following:

For some time past the First Presidency and Council of Twelve have had under consideration the propriety of permitting certain modifications in the temple garment, with the following result

After careful and prayerful consideration it was unanimously decided that the following modifications may be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by those Church members who wish to adopt it, namely:

Sleeve to elbow.

Leg just below knee.

Buttons instead of strings.

Collar eliminated.

Crotch closed.

. . . It is the mind of the First Presidency and Council of Twelve that this modified garment may be used by those who desire to adopt it, without violating any covenant they make in the House of the Lord, and with a clear conscience. . . .

It should be clearly understood that this modified garment does not supercede the approved garment now in use, . . . those using either will not be out of harmony with the order of the Church. . . .

Will you kindly advise the Bishops of your Stake of these changes, being careful to give the matter no unnecessary publicity.

This letter is not to pass from your hands, nor are copies to be furnished to any other person. (Letter by the First Presidency of the Mormon church, dated June 14, 1923)

Such a change could not be made without the gentiles noticing it. The Salt Lake Tribune reported:

Coming not as an order, nor as a rule to be rigidly enforced, but rather permissive in character, is a recent outgiving of the first presidency . . . It concerns the garments. . . .

527

While minor modifications of the temple garment, it is said, have been made at various times during past years, the latest order in permission is regarded by younger members of the church as most liberal and acceptable. . . . Some of the pioneer stock look upon any deviation from the old order as a departure from what they had always regarded as an inviolable rule. . . .

In the old days the temple garment was made of plain, unbleached cotton cloth. . . . No buttons were used on the garment. . . . But despite these imperfections, the old-style garment is faithfully adhered to by many of the older and sincerely devout members of the church. These regard the garment as a safeguard against disease and bodily harm, and they believe that to alter either the texture of cloth or style, or to abandon the garment altogether would bring evil upon them.

One good woman . . . hearing of the change that has recently come about, went to the church offices and uttered fervid objection. “I shall not alter my garments, even if President Grant has ordered me to do so. . . . The pattern was revealed to the Prophet Joseph and Brother Grant has no right to change it,” she said.

Explanation was made that the first presidency had merely issued permission to those who so desired to make the modifying change . . . The change in style is permitted for various good reasons, chief among which are promotion of freedom of movement in the body and cleanliness. Formerly the sleeves were long, reaching to the wrists. While doing housework the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place for convenience, it was argued. Permission to abbreviate is now given, but it is not an order . . .

Encasing the lower limbs the old-style garment reaches to the ankles and is looked upon by young members as baggy, uncomfortable and ungainly. The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt. Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the lower garment. Also buttons are permitted to take the place of the tie-strings. (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 4, 1923)

Since 1923 the temple garment has been abbreviated even more. The sleeves no longer came down to the elbow, nor do the legs hang down over the knee. The Mormon leaders now seem to put more emphasis on the importance of the marks in the garment rather than the garment itself. On August 31,1964, the First Presidency of the Mormon church sent a letter to presidents of stakes and bishops of wards in which the following appeared:

528

The calling of men into military training renders it desirable to reaffirm certain observations heretofore made in the matter of wearing the temple garment.

1. The covenants taken in the temple and attached to the wearing of garments contemplate that they will be worn at all times. . . .

……………

3. Where the military regulations are of a character that “hinders,” that is, makes impossible the wearing of the regulation garments, . . . effort should be made to wear underclothing that will approach as near as may be the normal garment.

Where military regulations require the wearing of two-piece underwear, such underwear should be properly marked, as if the articles were of the normal pattern. If circumstances are such that different underwear may be turned back to the wearer from that which he sends to the laundry, then the marks should be placed on small pieces of cloth and sewed upon the underwear while being worn, then removed when the underwear is sent to the laundry, and resewed upon the underwear returned.

As we indicated earlier, until 1975 Mormon leaders required members of the church to wear the “old style” garments when they went through the endowment ceremony. On November 10 of that year a change was made that permitted members to wear the abbreviated garments in the temple. In a letter to “All Temple Presidents” the First Presidency of the church instructed:

In the future, while involved in temple ordinances, patrons will have the option of wearing either the “approved style” garment (short sleeve and knee length) or the garment with the long sleeve and long leg.

Patrons receiving their initiatory ordinances may be clothed in their own “approved style” garment.

It is suggested that temple presidents not purchase any more of the long-sleeve, long-leg garments for rental purposes.

This may be announced to all temple workers and posted on the bulletin boards in the locker rooms. Notice is going forward to Stake, Mission, and District Presidents suggesting that they notify Bishops, Branch Presidents and other priesthood leaders. No other announcement or publicity is desired.

The suggestion that “temple presidents not purchase any more of the long-sleeve, long-leg garments for rental purposes” leads to the conclusion that Mormon leaders are embarrassed by the “old style” garments and want to gradually phase them out.

Changes in the Temple Ceremony

We do not have room to include the temple ceremony in this book. Those who are interested in this ritual will find it printed in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pp. 464-73. The account we published there was written by a man who had been through the ceremony about 120 times, and even active Mormons who are familiar with the ritual have admitted that it is an accurate account.

The fact that changes have been made in the Mormon temple ceremony can be demonstrated by comparing earlier accounts with the one published in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? Some of these changes were made after the turn of the century.

Ebenezer Robinson, who had been the editor of the Times and Seasons, made this statement concerning the original endowment ritual: “Here was instituted, undoubtedly the order of things which represented the scenes in the Garden of Eden, which was called in Nauvoo, the ‘Holy Order,’ a secret organization. The terrible oaths and covenants taken by those who entered there were known only to those who took them, as one of the members said to me, ‘I could tell you many things, but if I should, my life would pay the forfeiture’ ” (The Return, vol. 2, pp. 346-48, typed copy, p. 153).

These oaths have been greatly modified since Joseph Smith’s time. The changes were probably made within the last sixty years. Below are comparisons of the oaths as they were published in Temple Mormonism in 1931 with the way they are given today. The first oath we will deal with was printed as follows in 1931:

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. (Temple Mormonism, p. 18)

This oath has been changed to:

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. (Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 468)

The second oath was printed as follows by Paden in 1931:

We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic

530

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. (Temple Mormonism, p. 20)

This has been softened to:

I, —— (think of the first given name), do covenant and promise that I will never reveal the second 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. (Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 470)

The third oath, as printed in Temple Mormonism, p. 20, read:

We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.

This oath now states:

I covenant in the name of the Son that I will never reveal the first token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or sign of the nail, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken.

Although the oaths are no longer as crude as they used to be, Mormons who go through the temple still draw the thumb across the throat, stomach, etc., as they take these oaths and are told that “The representation of the penalties indicates different ways in which life may be taken (Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 468).

To the early Mormon people these oaths were a very serious matter. In a discourse delivered December 13, 1857, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, declared: “Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. . . . they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.

” ‘I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.’ Do you understand me? . . . I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 125-26).

A person can only begin to imagine how serious these oaths must have been to the Mormon people when the doctrine of “Blood Atonement” was practiced. Now that the oaths have been modified and the practice of “Blood Atonement” abandoned, the Mormon leaders do not have as much control over their people.

531

One of the oaths which was formerly taken in the temple ritual was the source of so much trouble that the Mormon leaders finally removed it entirely from the ceremony. This oath was printed in Temple Mormonism, page 21, as follows: “You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.”

A great deal of testimony has been given concerning this oath, and although all of the witnesses did not agree as to its exact wording, there can be little doubt that such an oath was administered to the Mormon people after Joseph Smith’s death. John D. Lee related that the following occurred after Joseph Smith’s death:

. . . Brigham raised his hand and said, “I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.” . . . Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation. (The Confessions of John D. Lee, p. 160)

Some Mormon apologists have maintained that there was no “oath of vengeance” in the temple ceremony, but the “Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon” makes it very plain that there was such an oath. Under the date of December 6, 1889, Apostle Cannon recorded the following in his diary:

About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . . In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs. (“Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,” December 6, 1889, pp. 205-206)

Apostle Cannon went on to relate that Joseph F. Smith was about to murder a man with his pocket knife if he even expressed approval of Joseph Smith’s death.

532

The oath of vengeance probably had a great deal to do with the massacre at Mountain Meadows, in which about 120 men, women, and children were killed, and other murders which were committed in early Utah (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pp. 493-515, 545-59).

Just after the turn of the century the Mormon leaders found themselves in serious trouble because of the oath of vengeance. They were questioned at great length concerning this oath in the “Reed Smoot Case.” The oath of vengeance remained in the temple ceremony, however, even after the “Reed Smoot Case” was printed, for Stanley S. Ivins told us that he took it in 1914. It must have been removed sometime between then and 1937, because in a lecture delivered on February 28, 1937, Francis M. Darter complained that “The Law and prayer of Retribution, or divine judgment, against those who persecute the Saints, has been entirely removed from Temple services. . . . The reason why it was taken out, says one Apostle, was because it was offensive to the young people” (Celestial Marriage, p. 60).

In the books Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? and The Mormon Kingdom, volume 1, we discussed a number of other changes made in the temple ceremony. We also present a great deal of testimony showing that the oaths taken in the temple were originally very crude. We only have room for one example here—i.e., the testimony of J. H. Wallis, Sr., who had been through the temple about 20 times:

MR. WALLIS. The obligations of priesthood were taken, the two with the Aaronic priesthood and two with the Melchisedec. . . .

MR. TAYLER. Go on.

………………………

MR. WALLIS. (standing). “You, and each of you, do solemnly promise and vow that I will not reveal this the first token of the Aaronic priesthood with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Should I do so”—this is the sign [indicating]—I agree that my throat be cut from ear to ear and my tongue torn out by its roots from my mouth. . . .”

………………………

MR. TAYLER. That is called the Aaronic?

MR. WALLIS. That is called the first token of the Aaronic priesthood. The second token of the Aaronic priesthood.—its sign is that [indicating], and the obligation commences the same, only that “I agree to have my breast cut asunder and my heart and vitals torn from my body.”

Then the first token of the Melchisedec priesthood is this [indicating]; is this square [indicating], and about the same

533

words, only that “I agree to have my body cut asunder in the midst and all my bowels gushed out.” The second token of the Melchisedec priesthood there is no penalty to, but the sign is the crucifixion sign, and the words accompanying that are “Pale, hail, hail.” I do not know what it means.

………………………

MR. TAYLER. At any other stage of that ceremony is there an obligation?

MR. WALLIS. Yes, Sir . . . There are vows—the “vow of the sacrifices” is one—where we vow conjointly to give all our substance and all we might ever become possessed of to the support of the Church. . . .

………………………

MR. TAYLER. What other vow?

MR. WALLIS. Another is called the “vow of chastity,” by which we all vowed we would have no connection with any of the other sex unless they were given to us by the priesthood; and another vow was what we used to call the “oath of vengeance.”. . .

MR. TAYLER. Stand up, if it will help you, and give us the words, if you can.

MR. WALLIS (standing up). “That you and each of you do promise and vow that you will never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon the nations of the earth or the inhabitants of the earth.” (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 2, pp. 77-79)

The next day Mr. Wallis corrected his testimony concerning the oath of vengeance:

MR. WALLIS. In repeating the obligation of vengeance I find I made a mistake; I was wrong. It should have been “upon this nation.” I had it “upon the inhabitants of the earth.” It was a mistake on my part. (Ibid., pp. 148-49)

The Temple Ceremony and Masonry

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie says the ordinances performed in the temple “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, 1966, p. 779).

We have already shown that the papyri have nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. Now that it is plain that these papyri are pagan documents, Mormons must look elsewhere for the origin of the temple ceremony. It seems clear that at least part of the temple ritual came from Freemasonry. In fact, the similarities between the temple ceremony and the ritual of the Masons are very striking.

534

Joseph Smith Becomes a Mason

Although Joseph Smith’s early writings are filled with material that condemns secret societies, the presence of the Danite band among the Mormons indicates that by 1838 his attitude toward secret societies had changed. After Joseph Smith went to Nauvoo, he became a Mason, formed the Council of Fifty, and established the secret temple ceremony. Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted:

Many of the Saints were Masons, such as Joseph’s brother Hyrum, Heber C. Kimball, Elijah Fordham, Newel K. Whitney, James Adams, and John C. Bennett. . . .

With the acquiescence of the Prophet, members of the Church already Masons petitioned the Grand Master of Illinois for permission to set up a lodge in Nauvoo. In answer they were granted permission, in October, 1841, to hold lodge meetings; but it was March 15, 1842, before authority was given to set up a lodge in Nauvoo and to induct new members. Joseph Smith became a member. (Evidences and Reconciliations, one volume, pp. 357-58)

The following statement is recorded in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, volume 4, page 551, under the date of March 15, 1842: “In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office.” The record for the very next day reads: “I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree” (vol. 4, p. 552).

The Mormons who joined the Masonic Lodge soon found themselves in trouble with other members of the fraternity. They had inducted large numbers into the fraternity and had departed from some of the “ancient landmarks.” Finally, the Masons refused to allow the Mormons to continue “a Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo” (Mormonism and Masonry, by S. H. Goodwin, p. 34).

Although Joseph Smith found himself in trouble with the Masons, he is said to have given the Masonic signal of distress just before he was murdered. Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin stated:

When the enemy surrounded the jail, rushed up the stairway, and killed Hyrum Smith, Joseph stood at the open window, his martyr-cry being these words, “O Lord My God!” This was not the beginning of a prayer, because Joseph Smith did not pray in that manner. This brave, young man who knew that death was near, started to repeat the distress signal of the Masons, expecting thereby to gain the protection its members are pledged to give a brother in distress. (Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, p. 17)

535

On page 16 of the same book, Mr. McGavin quotes the following from the Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26: “Joseph, leaping the fatal window, gave the Masonic signal of distress.”

In Utah the Masons will not allow a Mormon to become a member of their fraternity because of the things that happened in Nauvoo. One of the most important reasons for this ban is that they feel Joseph Smith stole part of the Masonic ritual and included it in his temple ceremony.

Masonic Ritual in the Temple Ceremony

The relationship between the Mormon temple ceremony and Masonry is too close to be called a coincidence. The fact that both Mormons and Masons have a temple in which they administer secret ceremonies is striking, but when we compare the ritual and learn that Joseph Smith was a Mason, we are forced to the conclusion that he borrowed from Masonry in establishing his temple ceremony.

In our study we have had access to two books which give the Masonic ritual. They were reprinted by Ezra A. Cook Publications, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. The first is Capt. William Morgan’s Freemasonry Exposed, which was first published in 1827. (It should be remembered that the author of this book disappeared and that this set off the great controversy concerning Masonry.) The second is Richardson’s Monitor of Free-Masonry. This book was published some time after Morgan’s expose, but it is important because it gives some of the “higher degrees” not mentioned by Morgan.

In our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 486-89, we present twenty-seven parallels between the ritual of the Masons and the Mormon temple ceremony. We will include these parallels here, although we will not give the documentation to prove each parallel as we did in our larger work. Because some of the details of the temple ceremony have been changed in recent years, we are using the pamphlet Temple Mormonism—Its Evolution, Ritual and Meaning, New York, 1931, to make our comparison.

1. Both the Masons and the Mormons have what is called “the five points of fellowship.”

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:

536

“Health to the navel, marrow in the bones,

(Temple Mormonism, p. 22)

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)

2. When the candidate receives “The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood” he makes a promise similar to the oath taken in the “First Degree” of the Masonic ritual.

MORMONS:

. . . 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. (Temple Mormonism, p. 18)

MASONS:

. . . I will . . . never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots. . . . (Freemasonry Exposed, pp. 21-22)

3. In both ceremonies the thumb is drawn across the throat to show the penalty.

4. Those who receive the “First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood” give a grip that is similar to that used by the Masons in the “First Degree” of their ritual.

5. Some of the wording concerning the “grip” is similar.

MORMONS:

(. . . Peter now takes Adam by the right hand and asks:)
Peter—”What is that?”
Adam—”The first token of the Aaronic Priesthood.”
Peter—”Has it a name?”
Adam—”It has.”
Peter—”Will you give it to me?”
Adam—”I can not, for it is connected with my new name, but this is the sign.”
(Temple Mormonism, p. 20)

MASONS:

The Master and candidate holding each other by the grip, as

537

before described, the Master says, “What is this?”
Ans. “A grip.”
“A grip of what?”
Ans. “The grip of an Entered Apprentice Mason.”
“Has it a name?”
Ans. “It has.”
“Will you give it to me?”
Ans. “I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it.” (Freemasonry Exposed, pp. 23-24)

6. The oath of the “Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood” is similar to that taken in the second degree of Masonry.

MORMONS:

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. (Temple Mormonism, p. 20)

MASONS:

I . . . most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear. . . . that I will not give the degree of a Fellow Craft Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any other being in the known world. . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence . . . to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and vulture of the air . . . (Freemasonry Exposed, p. 52)

7. Both have a similar sign.

MORMONS:

The sign is made by placing the left arm on the square at the level of the shoulder, placing the right hand across the chest with the thumb extended and then drawing it rapidly from left to right and dropping it to the side. (Temple Mormonism, p. 20)

MASONS:

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, p. 53).

8. Both have a similar grip.

9. In both cases a “name” is used.

10. The promise made when receiving the “First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood” resembles the oath given by the Masons in the third or “Master Mason’s Degree.”

11. The sign of the penalty is similar in both cases.

12. In both cases a “name” is used.

538

13. The conversation at the “veil” in the temple ceremony is very similar to that of the “Fellow Craft Mason” when he is questioned concerning the “grip.”

MORMONS:

Lord—”What is this?”
Endowee—”The second token of the Melchizedek Priesthood—The Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.”
Lord—”Has it a name?”
Endowee—”It has.”
Lord—”Will you give it to me?”
Endowee—”I can not for I have not yet received it.” (Temple Mormonism, p. 22)

MASONS:

. . . “What is this?”
Ans. “A grip.”
“A grip of what?”
Ans. “The grip of a Fellow Craft Mason.”
“Has it a name?”
Ans. “It has.”
“Will you give it to me?”
Ans. “I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it.” (Freemasonry Exposed, p. 54)

14. Both the Masons and the Mormons have a vow regarding “chastity.”

15. The grip known as “The Sign of the Nail” seems to be similar to one given by Masons in one of their higher degrees.

16. The “Oath of Vengeance” which used to be found in the Mormon temple ceremony resembles an oath in one of the higher degrees of Masonry.

17. Both Mormons and Masons change clothing before going through their rituals.

18. Both Mormons and Masons use an apron.

19. In one of the higher degrees the Masons anoint the candidate. This is somewhat similar to the anointing ceremony in the Mormon temple ritual.

20. Both Mormons and Masons give what they call a “new name” to the candidate.

21. In the Mormon temple ceremony the candidate cannot pass through the veil until he has given certain signs and words. In the Royal Arch Degree the Masons use veils. The “Principal Soujourner” cannot enter the Third Veil except “By the words, sign, and word of exhortation of the Master of the Second Veil.” (Richardson’s Monitor of Free-Masonry, pp. 76-77)

22. In the Mormon temple ceremony a man represents Adam.

539

The Masons also have a man who personates Adam in the degree of “Knight of the Sun.”

23. In the Mormon temple ceremony a man represents God. In the Mason’s Royal Arch Degree a man “personates the Deity.”

24. Both the Mormons and the Masons consider the square and the compass to be extremely important. The marks of the square and the compass appear on the Mormon temple garments and on the veil.

MORMONS:

We now have the veil explained to us. We are told that it represents the veil of the temple. The marks are the same as those on the garments—the compass on the left and the square on the right side. (Temple Mormonism, p. 22)

MASONS:

“. . . the three great lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compass . . . the Square, to square our actions, and the Compass to keep us in due bounds with all mankind . . . (Freemasonry Exposed, pp. 22-23)

Even a Mormon writer, E. Cecil McGavin, is willing to admit that “Mormon temple clothing contain certain marks of the priesthood, including the square and compass” (Mormonism and Masonry, p. 72).

25. In the Masonic ritual the point of the compass is pressed against the left breast of the candidate. The Mormon temple garment has the mark of the compass on the left breast.

MORMONS:

“The marks are the same as those on the garments—the compass on the left . . . (Temple Mormonism, p. 22)

MASONS:

“The candidate then enters, the Senior Deacon at the same time pressing his naked left breast with the point of the compass . . . (Freemasonry Exposed, p. 19)

26. The angle of the square is pressed against the right breast in the Masonic ritual. The mark of the square appears on the right breast of the Mormon temple garment.

MORMONS:

” . . . the square on the right side . . .” (Temple Mormonism, p. 22)

MASONS:

“As he enters, the angle of the square is pressed hard against his naked right breast . . . ” (Freemasonry Exposed, p. 50)

540

27. A mallet is used by both the Masons and the Mormons in their ceremonies.

Other parallels between the Mormon temple ceremony and the Masonic ritual could be shown, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate to the reader that Joseph Smith borrowed from the Masons when he established the endowment ceremony.

Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin is willing to admit that there are some similarities between Mormonism and Masonry:

The Mormons, the American Indians, the ancient Essenes, and the early Druids are not the only ones who have “Masonic” symbols and practices in their rituals. . . . other fraternal orders have their secret signs, grips, tokens, and passwords. The Masons certainly have no monopoly on that vast field of ritual and symbolism . . . the Masonic ritual embraces a few features that resemble the rudimental ceremonies of the Temple endowment, yet these few points of similarity are largely restricted to the rituals pertaining to the Aaronic priesthood. (Mormonism and Masonry, pp. 196-97)

Masons who visit the Temple Block in Salt Lake City are impressed by what they call the Masonic emblems displayed on the outside of the Mormon Temple.

Yes, the “Masonic emblems” are displayed on the walls of the Temple—the sun, moon, and stars, “Holiness to the Lord,” the two right hands clasped in fellowship, the All-seeing eye, Alpha and Omega, and the beehive. Masonic writers tell us the Mormon Temple ritual and their own are slightly similar in some respects.

Without any apologies we frankly admit that there may be some truth in these statements.

Yes, the public is entitled to an explanation of these mysteries and coincidences (Ibid., Preface).

Mormon apologist Dr. Hugh Nibley has admitted concerning Mormonism and Masonry: “Among the first to engage in the Latter-day Temple work were many members of the Masons. . . . whose rites present unmistakable parallels to those of the temple” (What Is A Temple? BYU Press, 1968, p. 247).

Since many members of the Mormon church were Masons and were familiar with its ritual, Joseph Smith must have realized that he would be accused of stealing the ceremonies from Masonry. In what was apparently a move to offset this criticism, Joseph Smith claimed that Masonry once had the true endowment and that it had become corrupted through the passage of time. E. Cecil McGavin explains: “In the diary of

541

Benjamin F. Johnson, an 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.’ Elder Heber C. Kimball, who had been a Mason for many years, related that after Joseph Smith became a Mason, he explained to his brethren that Masonry had been taken from the priesthood” (Mormonism and Masonry, p. 199).

In trying to explain why their temple ritual resembles that of the Masons, some Mormons claim that the endowment was given in Solomon’s Temple and that the Masons preserved part of the ceremony. Apostle Melvin J. Ballard has been quoted as saying the following:

“Modern Masonry is a fragmentary presentation of the ancient order established by King Solomon. From whom it is said to have been handed down through the centuries.

“Frequent assertion that some details of the Mormon Temple ordinances resemble Masonic rites, led him to refer to this subject,” the speaker declared, and he added, “that he was not sorry there was such a similarity, because of the fact that the ordinances and rites revealed to Joseph Smith constituted a reintroduction upon the earth of the divine plan inaugurated in the Temple of Solomon in ancient days. . . .

“Masonry is an apostasy from the ancient early order, just as so-called Christianity is an apostasy from the true Church of Christ.” (The Salt Lake Herald, December 29, 1919, as cited in Mormonism and Masonry, by S. H. Goodwin, pp. 49-50)

Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin agrees:

Yes, there may be some similarities in the rituals . . . In the light of the evidence supplied by Masonic historians, the conclusion is forced upon us that some of the features of the ritual once administered in Solomon’s Temple have persisted in Masonry. . . .

Since some of the Masonic ritual has descended from Solomon’s time, altered and corrupted by the passing centuries, should one be surprised to find a few similarities when the Temple ritual is again established? . . .

If the facts were available and the original sources extant, it would doubtless be apparent that everything in the ritual of the Mormons that the Masons say was taken from their ceremonies, dates back to Solomon’s time. (Mormonism and Masonry, pp. 192-94)

William J. Whalen replied in rebuttal to McGavin’s statements:

542

McGavin accepts the most fanciful claims to antiquity put forth by such discredited Masonic historians as Mackey, Anderson and Oliver. These early Masonic writers were wont to claim Solomon, Adam, and most of the upright men of the Old Testament as early lodge brothers. Modern Masonic historians date the origin of the lodge in the early eighteenth century and recognize that these pioneer speculative Masons simply adopted the story of the building of Solomon’s temple as a dramatic background for their initiations. . . .

A few elements in modern Masonry here and there can be traced to the medieval guilds of working masons, but no one with a scholarly reputation would try to maintain that the degree system as it is worked now—and as it was worked in Nauvoo in 1842—could have possibly been derived from Solomonic rites. (The Latter-day Saints in the Modern Day World, pp. 203-4)

Historically there seems to be only one logical explanation for the many parallels between the temple ceremony and Masonry, and that is that Joseph Smith borrowed from the Masons. The reader should remember that it was on March 16, 1842, that Joseph Smith “was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree” (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 552). Less than two months later (May 4, 1842), Joseph Smith introduced the temple endowment ceremony. According to Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 1-2), it was in the same room “where the Masonic fraternity meet occasionally”:

Wednesday, 4.—I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office . . . and in my general business office, or lodge room (that is where the Masonic fraternity meet occasionally, for want of a better place) in council with General James Adams. . . . Brigham Young and Elders Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedek Priesthood. . . .

One woman who was questioned concerning the temple ceremony gave this testimony:

A.—. . . I said I received endowments in Nauvoo, in the Masonic Hall. . . . All the ceremony was performed in the Masonic Hall. The washing was done in the Masonic Hall, and the anointing with oil.

Q.—What furniture was in the Masonic Hall at the time the endowment was performed?

A.—. . . if you are expecting me to tell you all about the particulars of what was there in the way of furniture and what was done

543

there, you must not expect me to do it any more than you would expect a Mason or an Odd Fellow or any other member of a secret society to reveal the secrets of their order . . . (Temple Lot Case, pp. 353-54)

With this very close connection between Mormonism and Masonry, it is almost impossible to believe that Joseph Smith did not borrow from Masonry in establishing the temple ceremony.

The Mormon leaders find themselves faced with several embarrassing questions regarding the temple ritual and Masonry. Many members of the church wonder how they can believe in a secret temple ritual, when the Book of Mormon condemns all secret societies, bands and oaths. In fact, it plainly states that “the Lord worketh not in secret combinations” (Ether 8:19).

Further, there is the question of why Joseph Smith would become a Mason. Besides all of the statements in the Book of Mormon which condemn secret societies, Joseph Smith joined with four others in stating: “We further, caution our brethren, against the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies, by covenants, oaths, penalties, or secresies. . . . pure friendship, always becomes weakened, the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy” (Times and Seasons, vol. 1, p. 133).

Benjamin F. Johnson claims that Joseph Smith told him that “Freemasonry was the apostate endowment.” Why would Joseph Smith join an organization that he believed was in a state of apostasy?

Mormon leaders now claim that it is not right for members of the church to join the Masons or other secret societies. Anthony W. Ivins, who was a member of the First Presidency, counseled that “The Mormon Church . . . advises its members to refrain from identifying themselves with any secret, oathbound society . . . It is difficult to serve two masters and do justice to both” (The Relationship of “Mormonism” and Freemasonry, p. 8).

Joseph F. Smith said that those who “are identified with these secret organizations” are “not fit to hold” important offices in the church (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 491).

John A. Widtsoe added: “The activities of the Church, in all departments are sacred, not secret. This point of view makes it difficult for Latter-day Saints to look with favor upon secret, oath-bound societies. . . . Sometimes they cause loss of interest in Church duties, for no one can serve two masters with equal interest. . . . Divided allegiance is always unsatisfactory and

544

often dangerous” (Evidences and Reconciliations, vol. 1, pp. 213-14).

It is interesting to note that the same Apostle who made these statements against secret societies had to reverse himself and write a chapter entitled, “Why Did Joseph Smith Become a Mason?” He claimed that Smith joined the Masons to win friends among “the prominent and influential men of the state” so that the church would not be persecuted, but he had to admit that “the attempt to win sufficient friends through Masonry to stop persecution failed” (Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 114-17).

Joseph Smith’s own words about “the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies, by covenant or oaths, by penalties or secrecies” could certainly be used against the Mormon temple ceremony. Apostle Widtsoe, however, maintains that “the temple endowment is not secret. All who meet the requirements for entrance to the temple may enjoy it” (Ibid., p. 24). John A. Widtsoe’s reasoning with regard to this matter is very poor. All secret societies allow their own members to participate in their rituals. The Mormon temple ceremony is kept secret from outsiders, and, after all, isn’t this what makes a secret society? Many members of the Mormon church maintain that the temple ceremonies are sacred and not secret. The Mormons, of course, have a right to believe that their ceremonies are sacred, but this does not change the fact that they are secret. They are just as secret as the ceremonies of any other secret society.

At any rate, the connection between Mormonism and Masonry can be briefly summarized as follows:

Both Mormonism and Masonry have secret ceremonies that are performed in secret temples.
The “Masonic emblems” are displayed on the walls of the Mormon temple.
The Mormon temple ritual is similar in many respects to that used by the Masons.
Joseph Smith and many of the most prominent members of the Mormon church were also members of the Masonic lodge.
Temple ceremonies were actually performed in the Masonic hall.

Reed Durham, who has served as president of the Mormon History Association, has carefully examined the parallels between Mormonism and Masonry. Although Dr. Durham still maintains that Joseph Smith was a prophet, he has to admit that Masonry had a definite influence upon Mormonism:

545

. . . I am convinced that in the study of Masonry lies a pivotal key to further understanding Joseph Smith and the Church. . . . Masonry in the Church had its origin prior to the time Joseph Smith became a Mason. . . . It commenced in Joseph’s home when his older brother became a Mason. Hyrum received the first three degrees of Masonry in Mount Moriah Lodge No. 112 of Palmyra, New York, at about the same time that Joseph was being initiated into the presence of God . . . The many parallels found between early Mormonism and the Masonry of that day are substantial . . .

I have attempted thus far to demonstrate that Masonic influences upon Joseph in the early Church history, preceding his formal membership in Masonry, were significant. However, these same Masonic influences exerted a more dominant character as reflected in the further expansion of the Church subsequent to the Prophet’s Masonic membership. In fact, I believe that there are few significant developments in the Church, that occurred after March 15, 1842, which did not have some Masonic interdependence. Let me comment on a few of these developments. 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.

It is also obvious that the Nauvoo Temple architecture was in part, at least, Masonically influenced. Indeed, it appears that there was an intentional attempt to utilize Masonic symbols and motifs. . . .

Another development in the Nauvoo Church, which has not been so obviously considered as Masonically inspired, was the establishment of the Female Relief Society. This organization was the Prophet’s intentional attempt to expand Masonry to include the women of the Church. That the Relief Society was organized in the Masonic Lodge room, and only one day after Masonry was given to the men, was not happenstance. . . . included in the actual vocabulary of Joseph Smith’s counsel and instructions to the sisters were such words as: ancient orders, examinations, degrees, candidates, secrets, lodges, rules, signs, tokens, order of the priesthood, and keys; all indicating that the Society’s orientation possessed Masonic overtones.

It was true that in orthodox Masonry, . . . the inclusion of women was definitely prohibited and certainly unheard of.

The Joseph Smith Masonry was daily becoming less orthodox

546

and tended to follow more in the direction of some unorthodox Masonry which had been imported to America from France. In this type of Masonry, two different women’s groups operated….

The second type of unorthodox female Masonry was known as ‘Adoptive’ Masonry . . . The ceremonies for women in this order were quite similar to those later found within the endowment ceremony of the Mormons. . . . I suggest that enough evidence presently exists to declare that the entire institution of the political kingdom of God, including the Council of Fifty, the living constitution, the proposed flag of the kingdom, and the anointing and coronation of the king, had its genesis in connection with Masonic thoughts and ceremonies. . . . it appears that the Prophet first embraced Masonry, and, then in the process, he modified, expanded, amplified, or glorified it. . . . I believe he accepted Masonry because he genuinely felt he recognized true Ancient Mysteries contained herein. . . . The Prophet believed that his mission was to restore all truth, and then to unify and weld it all together into one. This truth was referred to as “the Mysteries,” and these Mysteries were inseparably connected with the Priesthood. . . . Can anyone deny that Masonic influence on Joseph Smith and the Church, either before or after his personal Masonic membership? The evidence demands comments . . .

There are many questions which still demand the answers. . . . if we, as Mormon historians, respond to these questions and myrids [sic] like them relative to Masonry in an ostrich-like fashion, with our heads buried in the traditional sand, then I submit: there never will be “any help for the widow’s son.” (Mormon Miscellaneous, October, 1975, pp. 11-16)

Conclusion

Although Mormon apologists would have us believe that Joseph Smith received the temple ceremony by revelation from God, the evidence is against it and clearly shows that he borrowed heavily from Masonry.

After careful examination of the temple ceremony, we have come to the conclusion that it bears unmistakable evidence of being a man-made ritual. The fact that so many changes had to be made in it to try to make it acceptable shows plainly that it is not from God.

547

Back

The Changing World of Mormonism: Chapter 22

Table of Contents

Discover more from Utah Lighthouse Ministry