1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 23412 [post_author] => 2281 [post_date] => 2019-05-13 22:53:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-13 22:53:45 [post_content] =>

My grandfather, Delbert Groberg, was told by his grandmother that a temple would be built in Idaho Falls. In fact, she showed him the land which God had ordained for it. At that time, the LDS Church did not own the property. But Grandpa eventually became a realtor in Idaho Falls and quietly began researching the provenance of the designated land. He sometimes met with owners and negotiated either purchase or donation of the land. My mother was present when the temple’s cornerstone was laid in 1940, and again when the temple was dedicated in 1945. She and my dad were married there in 1954, when the endowment ceremony was performed with live actors and included revivalist singing.

I was born the next year, 1955, in Provo, Utah. I remember the 1969 stake conference meeting in which we were asked to donate money towards the building of the Provo Temple. One family donated the money they had been saving for a trip to Disneyland.

The groundbreaking happened on September 15, 1969. Exactly one month later, October 15, 1969, the consequential protest of the Black Fourteen began when Willie Black, president of the Black Student Alliance at the University of Wyoming, proposed a protest against Brigham Young University and the LDS Church’s “race policy.”

This was our environment in Provo as Herb Albert and Jennifer Warren announced that they would not perform at BYU, and as racist rumors spread throughout the area. It was a fearful, fear-mongering time.

I attended the Provo Temple dedication on February 9, 1972 and was moved by the solemnity of the occasion. The dedicatory prayer praised God, “the man of holiness” who would make us “unto our God kings and priests.”

Though the prayer was identifiably male, focusing on “priests” without including “priestesses,” and though the 1970s were filled with feminist agitations (including Sonia Johnson’s defiance of patriarchal norms and her subsequent excommunication), these realities did not affect my beliefs. I had my own “Urim and Thummim” (as everyone does) which was my filter and interpreter for all outside events. The framework of my faith was Mormon, and its load-bearing walls were more hymns than dogma. The hymns which most affected my childhood were those which I now have memorized: “I Know that My Redeemer Lives”; “I Am A Child of God”; “Teach Me to Walk in the Light.” Over the years I became aware that there was also a Mother in Heaven, that the name Elohim was plural and that Heavenly Father was surely partnered with Heavenly Mother.

The Latter-day Saint framework was open-ended in many ways. The hymns and scriptures all encouraged imagination, which filmmakers and artists freely used in depicting the Savior, the pre-existence, post-mortal reunions, and mortal intersections with the divine.

When I first entered the Provo Temple to do baptisms for the dead, I was met with a swell of peace. I frankly did not notice the men, but I noticed the women, all in white, all smiling. My eyes filled with tears—something I wasn’t used to at age sixteen. The tears were embarrassing, and I tried to hide them.

Was my response to the temple simply because I had been raised to revere it? Perhaps my upbringing played a part, but my reaction to being inside the building went beyond what cultural expectations could manufacture. My mind, my own vivid imagination opened to the divine. I was endowed in the Provo Temple in 1979. Its essential vision of mortality as one phase of eternal life was beautiful to me. It was a different endowment ceremony than it would be twelve years later, when significant changes were made. Three new films would debut just a few years after that, two of which showed women as powerful, insightful, intuitive beings, understanding the necessity of suffering before the dutiful, law-bound men did, recognizing Satanic lies immediately, intuiting the identity of the apostles, dropping their fishing nets (or baskets) instantly when called.

My 1979 endowment was preparatory to my first marriage—a marriage which would fail quickly. I had not learned to identify the signs of misogyny, or conditions like Asperger’s. My first husband told me just two weeks after our marriage that I repulsed him. He consistently compared women to cows. He used the word “Woman” like the vilest of epithets. His misogyny was pathological.

I left him after three years. I did what was unthinkable in my family with its long history of long marriages. I filed for divorce. Things I had never thought possible became my reality.

Not long thereafter, I received a letter from the only person in my extended family who had also gotten a divorce—my great Aunt Elaine. Though we didn’t know each other well, she had felt an urging to write to me. She said this in her letter:

Dear Margaret:

Many years ago, as I was trying to decide whether to get my divorce, I had a strong sense one night as I was praying of the presence of many of my ancestors, and of their concern for me. There was no attempt by them to make my decision for me. I only sensed their concern.

Last night, as I said my prayers, the same sensation came. I wondered why I would be feeling this, and then I realized I was feeling it for you. There are many—both in this world and in the next—who are deeply concerned over you. They do not wish to usurp your free agency or influence your decision in any way, but they love you very much.

I felt I should tell you that.

Love, Aunt Elaine.

There it was within this letter—my essential Latter-day Saint faith. My framework. I was a part of a world which transcended time and included angels and ancestors. In addition, the message came through a woman, who understood me because of her own experience. All of it felt maternal—my great aunt and perhaps my many grandmothers. Regardless of the Hell I had just been through, regardless of the unthinkable mistake I had made in my marriage choice, regardless of how thoroughly I condemned myself, I still believed that I was living part of eternity; that I had lived in a place of love before my mortal life; that I would learn vital lessons during mortality and then live afterwards; that I and all men and women—and all institutions they would create—could change and progress, even after behaving stupidly, believing falsehoods, choosing easy fantasies over hard realities. Though I would soon cancel my sealing to my first husband, the temple remained the symbolic con-

vergence of every dimension of my faith.

I was certainly aware of the temple language which made women subservient to their husbands, though it didn’t affect me much even when I was married to a man who expressed his anger through misogyny. I understood the scriptural model: that the Church was the bride and Christ the bridegroom. Nonetheless, I was aware enough of the problems inherent in the gender division that when I served as an ordinance worker in the Provo Temple, I chose which words I would emphasize to let the patron know that her primary relationship was with God, and that she was to serve with her husband.

When I went to the temple on Wednesday, January 2, 2019, I had heard rumors of changes. I participated in the initiatory and endowment ceremonies. When I heard the first change—one which removed all wording suggesting that a woman must listen to her husband’s counsel—my head jerked up to the ordinance worker, my eyes questioning what she had just said. She smiled and nodded. I had Kleenex in my pocket, and brought it out to wipe my tears. It was not a change I had lobbied for, but I was aware that the earlier wording had been painful for some women, including some of my friends and one of my daughters. I was profoundly grateful for the new words. The gratitude remained as I noted changes throughout the endowment and later in the sealings. I was also deeply affected during the first part of the endowment, when the creation scene showed people of all ethnicities and from many centuries. Oh, I had longed to see diversity in the garden! I still believe that someday, we will see an African cast. That casting will send a message throughout the Church which will be ripple more widely than the Gospel Topics race essay could. A visual testimony that “All are alike unto God” would move us in strides rather than baby steps towards becoming a Zion people.

I also acknowledge the lovely changes I have seen in the Provo Temple’s art over the past forty years. There are some important pieces which show an African American woman from the nineteenth century; Native American children standing close to the Savior; a black man giving a priesthood blessing to his son, perhaps ordaining him to the priesthood. The art also speaks of the LDS trajectory towards unity and equality.

I am convinced that more changes will come to the temple rites. Besides the inevitable casting of multiple ethnicities in the creation story, I believe that the time will come when “the gods” will include The Mother, perfectly placed amidst the raw essence of creativity and the varied blooms in the garden. My imagination easily allows for these possibilities, though my faith insists on patience. Nonetheless, within temple walls, my imagination is generous, forever unfolding, and expectant. I have long believed that I could learn something new every time I attended the temple. Over forty years, that belief has proved true. I have a general assumption that I will experience a miracle every time I’m there, whether the miracle comes as a message to me or whether I am used as a messenger for another. I never expect anything grandiose, but the miracles (as I define them) have been constant.

I recognize, however, that not all have pleasant experiences in the temple. We are not required to love a sanctuary which is evocative and inspiring for another. When Church lessons rhetorically ask why some of us don’t attend the temple often, the standard, anticipated answer is that we don’t carve out the time to attend. Generally, we don’t deal with the more common reality: that some people simply do not like temple worship, that they find it strange.

Even with the recent changes, the temple will not be universally inspiring. For some, however, it will be a significant refuge and a place of communion with the divine. I speak subjectively and as a woman in her sixties who has loved the temple for all of her life. Acknowledging that my own experience differs from many others’, I here share a few of my temple-based memories.

From Guatemala:

Because my father was a Mayanist, we lived in Guatemala during 1975, where Dad taught missionaries how to speak the Mayan dialect Cakchiquel. I returned there six times after our first stay. Through Dad and my own acquaintances in Patsun and Patzicia, I met most of the people who had saved their money for years in order to travel by bus to the Mesa, Arizona Temple in 1966. It was a heroic journey, something which bonded them and created a small community from which church leaders would eventually be chosen. One woman who participated was Rosalia Tum, who told me how impressed she was by the fact that everyone in the temple was dressed the same—Latinos, indigenous people, white people. Nobody appeared richer than anyone else. “There was no difference,” she told me in Spanish. Another woman, Josefina Cujcuj, had a warty birthmark around her eye. Though she spoke only Cakchiquel, she agreed to go with me to Guatemala City to see an eye doctor. While we were in the city, Hna. Cujcuj pulled her huipil from her shoulder to show me her garment—gray with age and threadbare. It occurred to me that she had had that garment since her trip to Mesa a decade earlier. The mission president gave her new garments.

From a Mexican Institute Student:

I taught Spanish Institute for ten years and was frequently in awe of my students. One female student, a Mexican returned missionary, told me with some hesitation—not wanting to make sacred things common— about being deathly ill during her teen years. At one point, she felt she was dying. In a dream or a vision, she saw Jesus, who embraced her and called her by a different name. She recovered from the illness and shared her vision sparingly. Years later, when she went through the temple for the first time, she received her new name, which was the same one the Savior had called her by. She was startled and asked that it be repeated. Yes, it was that name. The Lord knew her and knew details about her life which she was yet to discover.

Temple in the Congo

I have been working in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 2014, going once or twice a year to pursue various initiatives. I have found a deeply vulnerable population in my work center—Lodja. Just sixteen years ago, they were at the end of a long war in which militia from five countries had invaded their village, conscripting child soldiers and committing every inhuman act we know happens in wars. The people were demoralized and traumatized. I heard horror stories and frequently encountered people who did not want to talk about it, saying only, “It was death. Death and more death.”

The temple in Kinshasa, DR-Congo will be dedicated on April 14, 2019. It will be a center of service and a place where people who could not even be ordained to the priesthood or enter a temple prior to 1978 will be trained in all ordinances and asked to serve each other.

I am convinced that the temple will bless the entire Congo. Because I am a Latter-day Saint, believing that God, angels, and our ancestors yearn to comfort, bless, and guide us, I am certain that a new day for the Congo is symbolized more by the temple than by the recent presidential election there. The “armies of Heaven” bring peace and promise to a place where other armies have brought “death and more death.”

The Kinshasa Temple was announced in 2011. In 2014, I stayed at a hotel next to the temple-site property. No construction had started. Negotiations were ongoing. But, like my grandfather before me, I could look at the expanse of land and imagine something. Architects had not yet presented drawings, and there was conversation over whether it should be a large or a small temple. My imagination could not go into detail, but I knew that the land before me had been chosen and would be sanctified.

In 2017, construction was well underway, and we could see the architect’s vision of what it would become.

In 2018, it was nearly finished. Visitors could not go beyond a certain point, so I had no idea of what the interior looked like. A friend and I went to the site, where I suddenly heard my name called. It was Aime, who embraced and welcomed me.

Aime and I have a long history as friends. He was the companion of one of the missionaries my husband and I served in the Missionary Training Center before they left for the DR-C Kinshasa mission. That missionary requested that I email Aime, as his family didn’t have internet, so he was always on his own when the Americans had time at the internet café.

Thus began my friendship with this remarkable Congolese man who had once been in a revolutionary group—and whose story was the foundation for the film we’re wrapping now, Heart of Africa. I even helped him apply to BYU–Hawaii—and he was accepted with a work scholarship. However, a month later, I received a strange email from Aime, indicating that his acceptance had been rescinded. He sent me a copy of the letter, which was almost certainly written without oversight, as it was politically unthinkable. It said that the personnel at BYU-H had decided that Africans did not meet “the cultural expectations” of the university, and he would therefore not be admitted.

My activist impulses were instantly triggered. Within a half hour, I had contacted a few powerful people to assist me in responding. I don’t know how much trouble my actions caused, how many conversations and admonitions resulted, but I have no regrets.

Ultimately, Aime was re-admitted to BYU-H, on the condition that he be married. His girlfriend’s father thought she was too young to marry, and Aime briefly considered marrying someone else in order to go to the university. But after just one day, he let me know that he loved his girlfriend and would wait for her. He sent a remarkable letter to BYU-H declaring that they had presented him with an impossible choice, and he had elected not to pursue acceptance there but to wait until he could marry his girlfriend, Steffy. That bold move was the very thing which showed Steffy that he truly valued her, that he was willing to put his education on hold.

It’s hard to ignore the rejection letter’s insulting, presumptuous word choice. That letter was written in 2013. In 2014, Aime married Steffy with her father’s full approval and the two were sealed in the Ghana Temple. In 2017, Aime sent me this news:

I am happy to announce to you that I have been appointed to the Kinshasa Temple facility manager position. I will be working for the Temple department. This Job will allow me to visit the temple every week or maybe have my office there. I am so thrilled to start. I will start in July. I will travel to Ghana for two weeks in July, then in Nigeria for other two weeks and in South Africa for another two weeks before going back to Ghana again. I will travel a lot for trainings before the Kinshasa Temple is ready.

On the temple grounds in 2018, Aime said to me, “I know why I didn’t go to BYU-Hawaii. The Lord needed me to take care of His house.” Those of us on the outside might rail against the clear injustice Aime suffered when his acceptance was rescinded, but that was not his focus. He had to wait for his wife. He had to wait for his education (he now has a degree from a university in Kinshasa which is partnered with Beulah Heights University in Atlanta, Georgia). He had to wait for the temple. Patience and faith were and are his watchwords.

I will be with Aime and Steffy in Kinshasa for the temple dedication. I have seen the waving of palms several times when guests were welcomed into a Congolese village. Palm waving there is not calm. The smiles, the dancing, the spontaneous singing, the irresistible rejoicing is glorious. I wonder if the Hosanna Shout will be a bit different in Kinshasa than it is in the USA. Regardless, I plan on singing and shouting with my friends and with the armies of Heaven as the temple is given to God.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Patience, Faith, and the Temple in 2019 [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 52.1 (2019): 169–178
Young shares her testimony of temple work even though she found some wording in the endowment ceremony sexist. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => patience-faith-and-the-temple-in-2019 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-13 20:00:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-13 20:00:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=23412 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 23348 [post_author] => 3256 [post_date] => 2019-05-12 03:01:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-12 03:01:04 [post_content] =>

Editor’s note: The following is taken from a Q&A discussion that followed a presentation on “LDS Women and the Temple in Historical Context.”

Provo, Utah, February 25, 2019[1] (excerpted and edited for length and clarity)

Dialogue: It’s a rare pleasure to get together with Maxine Hanks for a private discussion about the place of women in the LDS Church. She has done research and writing in Mormon studies for a long time, and she’s been standing on the front lines of Mormon feminism for more than three decades. I know you all—as Mormon feminists— have questions for her about feminist issues in the Church, and her thoughts about the temple. I also asked her to share some of her personal journey with us.

Maxine: Thanks, I’m happy to answer any questions or discuss what- ever topics you have in mind. First, to give some background, in 1992 I published a book about the history of Mormon feminism and women’s relationship to priesthood and theology.[2] I found feminist voices from the beginnings of the Church to the present; women like Emma Hale Smith, Eliza R. Snow, and Emmeline B. Wells were talking about their own authority independent of men’s, and their own relationship to priesthood. I used women’s writings from the Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes, the Woman’s Exponent, Exponent II, Relief Society Magazine, Mormons for ERA, Algie Ballif Forum, Mormon Women’s Forum, Voice club at BYU, and other sources. I republished a few feminist articles and asked feminist scholars to write new articles about LDS women’s history and theology for the book. I also interviewed women and men to collect their experiences with the divine feminine.

So, it was a lot of new and bold feminist research in one book at a time when most Mormons didn’t even use the word “feminist” in public. The result was that five of my writers and myself faced Church discipline; four of us were in the September Six.[3] We lost our Church membership, but we knew that was the risk and the price for publishing feminist work that questioned traditional or institutional views at that time.

Today all that information is mainstream on the internet, often used or cited by LDS historians, scholars, and members. So, nineteen years later, I came back to the Church in 2012. I felt compelled to do that for my own healing, as a feminist historian and theologian in the Church. I wanted to foster belonging for myself and others who’ve been silenced or disciplined for feminism or scholarly work.

I didn’t recant anything I’d said or written in the past or change my feminist views or work. I simply wanted to restore my membership, as I am. Obviously, I had help from supportive Church leaders. It was one of the best decisions of my life. This week is the seventh anniversary of my rebaptism. It’s been extremely healing and allowed me to explore a new territory of faith and ministry.

In the 1990s, we were navigating new territory by publishing Mormon feminist history and theology. We were talking about women’s relationship to priesthood in public; yet we couldn’t do that without danger of Church discipline then. Today it’s commonplace to talk about women’s priesthood and theology in public; everyone is doing it. I’m not saying it’s entirely safe, and some feminists still encounter leaders who try to silence or discipline them. Yet Mormon feminism is now understood as inherent in our history and culture. It’s normal, mainstream.

Now, I find myself sharing women’s history and theology in Church as a temple-going member because we realize that women’s theology has been there the whole time, embedded in Mormon origins. You can read it in the original Relief Society Minutes and other historic feminist writings on the Church web site. Today, members want more information about women’s history and theology. My ward asked me to share research about women’s relationship to priesthood. I see tremendous positive change and hunger for women’s theology. I anticipate more feminist work and healing in the Church to come. I’ve seen major changes in my lifetime. I know that policy can shift dramatically.

For example, when I was young, I wanted to be a missionary, but women were told not to apply, so I had to push and wait for approval to submit my application in June 1978. A few days later, the Church announced a revelation extending priesthood to black members. It was so sudden, so huge, it blew our minds and changed the Church overnight. I remember wondering if women might someday get the priesthood too. I entered the missionary home in Salt Lake just before October General Conference in 1978, where I voted with thousands of members to accept priesthood ordination for black men and extend all priesthood and temple blessings to black women.

That same week I first received my endowment in the Salt Lake temple, before leaving to serve a mission in the South where I worked in black neighborhoods. So the Church voted to lift the priesthood ban against blacks one week before I went to teach in black homes. My first experience on arrival in the mission was the baptism of a black woman. The meaning of that event was enormous, knowing she could have all the blessings, rites, and ordinances of the Church.

Fast forward to October 2013, a year after my rebaptism in the Church. I returned to the Salt Lake temple for the first time since October conference of 1978, a span of thirty-five years. Coincidentally, it was October General Conference weekend again, in 2013. It was also the same weekend that Ordain Women held their first action on Temple Square. Many of my close friends were involved in that event. I was supportive of them in many ways, yet my place was in the temple that weekend rather than on Temple Square.

When I went through the endowment that day in October 2013, a black man filled the role of Jehovah, and he also took me through the veil. So, for me that day, God was black. It was extraordinary, realizing that in 1978 there were no black people in the temple, but in 2013, God was black. Afterward, I called Darius Gray to tell him about it, and we both cried. For me, the shift in my temple experience between October 1978 and October 2013 signified a major healing in the Church. And, I thought that day, if God can be black in the temple, surely God can be female there, as well.

Being in the temple that day coincided with an historic call for women’s ordination outside. It was a watershed moment, a shift in Church consciousness about priesthood, like the change in 1978. Feminists on Temple Square were seeking priesthood and reclaiming the word “ordain”—because historically LDS women had possessed both. Women had received five or six kinds of ordinations from 1830–50—in ministry, the Relief Society, and the temple. Yet yet in LDS tradition those were female priesthood offices, women’s own line of authority. That weekend, I felt my place was inside the temple recovering my ordinations. It was an example of how we each have our own unique role or place to be. I found empowerment privately in the temple by seeking my endowment, while my friends on Temple Square found empowerment publicly by seeking entrance to priesthood meeting.

So that’s enough background. I’d like to hear from you all—about your own path, where you’re at, and how you feel about the temple or the Church.

FHE: I’m impressed that you find the temple empowering as a feminist. Can you elaborate more on how you find it empowering, personally?

Maxine: Sure, when I first entered the temple in 1978, I was surprised to discover that it wasn’t about marriage. All the men were sitting on one side, and all the women were sitting on the other side, rather than in couples. So, I didn’t feel awkward being single. That was a big deal in the 1970s, given the intense pressures to be married and have kids. I was trying to find out who I was, independent of marriage. The temple ceremony was about our individual relationship with God, not about couples. It was about my own path to God, not marriage. It was my own initiation into sacred rites. I was thrilled by all of that. I never saw the temple ceremonies through the lens of marriage or being dependent on a husband. I received the initiatory and endowment feeling empowered and consecrated to God, not inadequate or incomplete in any way. I didn’t pay attention to the one or two brief references about a husband because they didn’t apply to me nor to the ceremony. The initiatory and endowment are inductions into priesthood and your own ascent to God. That’s empowering.

I had a spiritual experience about priesthood in the temple, my first time in 1978. When I was “set apart” as a missionary, I felt something tangible conferred on me, a spiritual authority or mantle that stayed with me throughout my mission experience. However, when I went through the initiatory and endowment in the temple, I felt a bigger spiritual mantle descend on me, of the priesthood. I had no idea what type of priesthood it was, but I knew spiritually that I had just received priesthood in some form. I had no historical knowledge of that idea in 1978, it was only a spiritual sense, yet I knew it was real. And that sense of priesthood stayed with me all through my mission, and beyond. It gave me confidence and ability to minister, with power. In fact, my experience in the temple that day in 1978 drove me to research women’s priesthood and theology in the 1980s.

Today, I love the symbolism of the ritual, the spiritual and esoteric meanings. The endowment is a rite of redemption, a sacred pattern of salvation—about the soul’s descent from the realm of God, its awakening within the fallen world, and its ascent back to heaven. This is the archetypal journey of the soul, to discover its true self or nature, the “hero’s journey” through departure, testing, and return. It feels ancient, like entering a mystery rite in a temple from another time. I love the initiation rites and white vestments of temple priesthood. I see them as ordination rites into “highest and holiest priesthood,” and the fullness or “pleroma” of the Gods.

I see the endowment as an inspired midrash of Genesis that finishes or completes the theological story of Adam and Eve. It redeems them from the Fall via gnosis or spiritual knowledge of their divine identity, which returns them to God’s presence. It also redeems us, the human family, along with Adam and Eve, via knowledge of our true identity as divine beings, co-eternal with God, which brings us into communion with God. I see Adam and Eve as theological beings. They emerge from an androgynous being of clay, “Adamah” whom God divides into male and female humans, Adam (man) and Havah (life) before they fall into mortality. They are archetypal figures representing duality—male and female, masculine and feminine, physical and spiritual, mortal and eternal aspects of human being. The temple rites unite men and women in rituals that integrate the masculine and feminine and resolve duality into unity. On a literal level it joins couples in sacred marriage. On a theological level it returns the fallen human to heaven, marries the genders, mends duality, unites the mortal and eternal, reunites our souls with God. On a psychological level it symbolizes the integration of parts of Self into wholeness, masculine and feminine, conscious and unconscious the alchemical marriage of self, or “individuation.”

FHE: You talked about how you’re in the Church, you left for a long period then came back and there was something different. Where I’m at right now, I have historical background and knowledge, and personal experience through feminism, that I know is true, but I know that the Church is not there. Every time I go to church, it’s just like this pain—it hurts, that tension I always feel. It’s not like I want to leave the Church, but it’s so hard to be there and see where we could be yet where we are. Could you speak to what was different exactly that second time, of being back in the Church, and how you deal with those tensions?

Maxine: Yes, I wrestled with that dilemma for years before I returned. Could I really go back or not? I had a whole list of things I didn’t agree with or didn’t support. Then, I had a spiritual sense of reassurance that it would all work out okay because it was simple—“you need them, and they need you.”
It’s been better than I imagined. It works because I find a spiritual connection or resonance with members seeking God in our lives. Sure, we sometimes have different views on theology or doctrine or history, but that’s true at a scholarly conference or a family reunion. I don’t expect anyone to hold my view. I don’t go to church for shared ideology, I go for the shared spiritual experience of a group of souls gathered to pray and seek God’s love, light, inspiration. That works.

Also, returning works because enough had changed to create a new relationship. I didn’t go back to something I left behind, I went forward to something new. In twenty years’ time, I evolved and so did the Church: everything had changed. The Church is now publishing topics and materials that caused my exit—women’s feminist history and theology are online and in new books. Compared to 1993, this is Camelot. BYU offers feminist classes with theories and topics that Cecelia K. Farr and Gail Houston were fired for teaching, even a minor in women’s studies. BYU professors and LDS leaders share views that were once feminist and talk about women’s priesthood in public. There are still points of disagreement between my views and Church curriculum or policies, but those our opportunities to work on our relationship. However, today I find a higher degree of compatibility with the Church than before, which is encouraging.

I feel empathy for your dilemma—feeling pained or alien at church. There are days when I can’t avoid the distance between my view and theirs. So I focus on our bond as human beings, our shared spiritual struggles. That dissolves the social gaps. We’re all God’s children seeking our true home. Belonging can be situational depending on your ward and leaders. Yet I think one key to belonging is your own empowerment, within. That’s not something anybody can give you or take away. It’s your connection to God. Every person who tries to shut you down is an opportunity to strengthen your connection to God.
It’s also an opportunity to practice ministry, by addressing others’ fears. One day, I was quoting from the “Doctrine of Inclusion” in Relief Society and a sister objected to my sharing something secular. I explained that it was Elder Ballard’s talk in the 2001 Ensign, and she was truly grateful to know about it. Another time, I was teaching the Young Women about Miriam, Moses, and Aaron as the three prophets who led Israel together. The bishop looked doubtful and worried, so I read Exodus 15:20–21, Micah 6:4, and Numbers 12:1–8, which consoled him. The young women loved it, they were saying, “Miriam was a prophet? That’s so cool!” It empowered them.

FHE: In the Doctrine and Covenants, it seems like Joseph Smith in certain places asserted his ultimate authority to quell attempts at receiving revelation from people who weren’t the prophet. You seem to view him as someone who wanted his authority checked or balanced by other leaders. Do you think that’s a more accurate view of him than this authoritarian version of him in scriptures?

Maxine: I see both sides of Joseph—the authoritarian and egalitarian; they both show up in his relationships and leadership, and his dictation of scriptures. Everything is filtered through his personality, his lens. Some passages in the D&C speak in ominous patriarchal authoritarian voice and other passages speak with a sublime spiritual quality of wisdom. Section 132 reflects the best and worst of Joseph’s prophetic voice—it asserts his authority over Emma and threatens her with destruction if she doesn’t practice polygamy, yet it envisions a true equality of Gods, the equal exaltation of men and women in heaven. Joseph radically empowered women in ministry and priesthood, yet disempowered or harmed women in polygamy. I see both as real. Regarding who gets to receive revelations—in D&C 28, Joseph appeals to that story in Numbers 12 that I was teaching the Young Women—about God appearing to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. They’re all prophets, but Moses has a different relationship: “With him I speak face to face clearly.” This definition of prophetic role is invoked in D&C 28:2–3, and D&C 8 to answer the question of who gets to receive revelation. Joseph’s revelations are saying that we all have visionary or prophetic potential but we each have different callings, offices, and abilities.

Anyway, I recognize both sides of Joseph, positive and negative, the inspired and tragically flawed. It’s not realistic to choose one extreme, saying Joseph was only an abuser, or always pious. There’s evidence for both, but neither is the sum total of him. Joseph had higher visions of life and people that lifted them to new heights; yet he also harmed people. We need to see both sides, I think.

FHE: We got a new stake president and they invited him and his wife to speak. They didn’t allot specific time to either. His wife took two minutes and he took twenty. I had this thought “Why are you sitting down? Take your time.” It was her decision. There’s no doubt there’s this patriarchal system, but we’re half the problem I think, if we’re not rising or claiming our own power.

Maxine: I agree

FHE: I ask myself all the time—how do I feed into this patriarchal system? I think this has been indoctrinated in me since I was two. How do I, as a woman, claim my power, even if that system wasn’t there? I don’t know if I would rise to claim it.

Maxine: That relates to empowerment, which I see as inner validity or authority. I call it the “inner ordination” from God, who loves you and gave you existence. Your validity comes from your own eternal spirit. We peel back layers of social conditioning to discover we are divine beings of light—and how precious we are, how deserving to be ourselves and express our unique existence in this world. You have a divine right and responsibility to find your own voice and place. Validity is truly inner. Others can certify us with status, office or degrees, but where it happens is inside.

This is the lesson I learned outside of the Church. I took a path of ministry seeking ecclesiastical ordination, yet I found it in the solitary journey of self, alone with God. I experienced the inner spiritual ordination. Once you find that spiritual anointing or chrism or grace, you’ve got it and nobody can extinguish that, unless you let them. That’s what enabled me to come back to Church and find my authentic space neither shut down nor driven out.

You don’t have to leave the Church like I did, to find inner ordination—it’s a private process, between you and God. It doesn’t matter where you’re located. Once you experience the inner chrism, you’re empowered, regardless of what others do. The Gospel of Philip describes this beautifully—“when it is revealed, then the perfect light will flow out on every one. And all those who are in it will receive the chrism… And none shall be able to torment a person like this, even while he dwells in the world... The world has become the Aeon (eternal realm) . . . fullness for him . . . it is revealed to him alone.[4]

This passage is talking about the mystery of the “bridal chamber” within us, where our soul discovers its oneness with God’s divinity. That’s what Joseph Smith was talking about in his King Follett sermon, and in the temple endowment—that when we discover God’s spirit is like ours, we “ascend” to God. He said that was the whole purpose of temple rites—our ascent. I think this unity of our spirit with God’s, or “bridal chamber,” is a higher meaning of the temple rites. The “celestial marriage” necessary for exaltation with God may be our own soul’s relationship or oneness with God. On a literal physical level, a sealing rite between two human beings at the altar is incredibly beautiful and real, sanctifying a relationship of soul mates. Yet it also has symbolic meaning about recovering your spiritual union with God, which is eternal and core to your being. You and God are made of the same uncreated light—“intelligence or the light of truth was not created or made” (D&C 93:29). So at the innermost level, you are married to God.

FHE: That really helps a lot, thank you. Ok, then how do you handle it when someone objects to the views you share or your way of participating?

Maxine: I validate both sides, theirs and mine. There’s no fight when both sides are valid. We’re both children of God, I honor that, which allows us to be different. If someone has a problem with me, I talk with them to figure it out together. If that doesn’t work, I go home and pray for more insight, to see what I’m not seeing. Sometimes I’m prompted to hold my position, other times to concede. Conflict can relax when your refuge is found in God, not in approval from the other person. I try to find higher wisdom and listen, hear it.

FHE: I’m appalled that you were even excommunicated. I know it was a different time, but something I’ve been talking about with my roommates is that it still happens. Like that former bishop [Sam Young] who was excommunicated for publicizing the problem of sexual abuse. I find myself a little bit in fear of excommunication because my stake president has taught and made homophobic comments. So, in my own stake, in my own ward, I don’t feel safe to express myself. I feel like there’s so much inconsistency, depending on who your local leaders are, you can be excommunicated for anything. I don’t want to keep reinforcing this patriarchal mess.

Maxine: That’s an awful place to be in, that fear of discipline; it’s not fair or healthy. You don’t want to feed into that dynamic of fear. How do we break out of that? We change the dynamic from fear to compassion. We stop seeing each other as the enemy; in reality we’re spiritual siblings, and we need each other. That was the shift I made between 1993 and 2012. I changed my view of male leaders, which in 1993 was polarized. I lacked compassion for them, I thought they were the enemy. Seven years later, when working together on the Olympics, I realized they weren’t the enemy—they were my brothers. That radically changed our relationship to a far more realistic and positive one. This came up recently with Gina Colvin in New Zealand. She and her bishop got into a polarized tension that felt unsolvable, and excommunication seemed unavoidable. Then it completely reversed at the last minute. She did deep soul searching and praying, while hundreds of friends wrote letters to her stake president and bishop. Their perspective of Gina shifted to realizing she wasn’t the enemy—she needed their support. They told her, “We should be building a bridge with you, not a wall.” The discipline dissolved.

It’s a whole different narrative to find an unexpected bridge between feminists and male leaders. It reminds me of that scene from Indiana Jones, where he has to step into an abyss, relying only on faith that he won’t fall—then suddenly an unseen bridge appears. There’s an invisible bridge hiding between us and the opposite side. It’s Christ, the true mediator. If we pray for His help, an invisible bridge may appear. A bridge doesn’t mean you give in, go along with the other side. You have to find your own position first, you can’t find a middle ground or a bridge without both sides holding their own ground. Then, in that tension between two different places, a bridge can appear—if you’re both seeking a vision beyond your own positions. When I returned to the Church, my leaders and I were in unknown territory, wondering how do we do this? We both turned it over to Christ and the invisible bridge appeared. That’s the best answer I have for the fear between feminists and leaders.

FHE: What do you think is the best way to communicate frustrations to the Quorum of Twelve or the First Presidency—the decision makers—in a way that won’t turn them off or invalidate your own voice, but that actually inspires changes? We have these conversations only in small, very safe groups, with people who think like us. I am pained by not seeing Heavenly Mother in the temple and I’ve talked to many people who have that same pain.

Maxine: I feel that pain too, every time I’m in the temple.

FHE: What do you think is the most effective way to communicate that there is a large sector of the church population that has that frustration? Are the decisions makers aware of how widespread our frustration is on that, or other issues?

Maxine: Leaders in Relief Society, the Quorum of Apostles, and Public Affairs are all listening to women, including feminists, they’re hyper-aware of women’s concerns and complaints, and using that info for positive changes, which will continue. Public voices are noticed, read, considered. They also pay attention to private letters; they read their mail and often respond. I didn’t learn that until 2012.

How can you be heard without taking it so far you are alienating? Since they are paying attention, you don’t have to overstate or hammer your point. Just be honest and thoughtful, pray about it, and share information they can use. You can simply record a podcast, write a blog, or an article—like our discussion tonight for Dialogue.

For example, when Lester Bush wrote an article in Dialogue about the exclusion of black members from priesthood, it was 1973, not a progressive time. Yet President Kimball read and studied that article; his copy of Dialogue was covered with red marks.[5] That article prompted him to pray about the topic, and he received a revelation, changing the Church policy about black members.

FHE: In my previous ward I was put on a do not ask to speak or teach list, which I didn’t know until my current bishop told me about it. He called me to be a teacher for the Saints book, which I was so excited about. Anyway, this bishop shared with me experiences that he’s had with Heavenly Mother in the temple.

Maxine: What a great bishop.

FHE: He really is. Yet, there are many who abuse their power or are stuck in their white male privilege and have no idea what’s happening in our lives.

Maxine: That’s a vestige of women’s lost authority which male leaders subverted, starting with Brigham Young in 1845, then priesthood correlation in 1908–1970. Eliza R. Snow held onto female authority until her death in 1887. One of her last statements asserted “The Relief Society is designed to be a self-governing organization . . . to deal with its members . . . instead of troubling the Bishop.”[6] From Emma to Eliza to Emmeline, women were organized to work through the R.S., not through male leaders. It was a female line of authority from the ward to the top of the Church, where the Relief Society President and LDS President conferred. So, I don’t see a solution, other than restoring the Relief Society’s full authority.

FHE: I’ve been really trying to navigate this. I was open with my ministering brothers about all my struggles then I went to my bishop and I feel this fear, at the core—is God sexist? I know that in my communion with Him, He’s not, and She’s not, and They are not. I want to thank you for bringing in so much history and the spirit of our male and female Gods to show there is no sexism in the true plan of it all.

Maxine: I really believe our history reveals a theology of gender equality, on all levels of the Church, from missionaries to ward and stake leaders, to the temple rites, to male apostles and female disciples. That blueprint of equality keeps me going.

FHE: Learning more about that gives me the strength to try to find my place. If you could share more of your experience of how to negotiate that equality—it seems like you have the inner ordination that you talked about. You gave me words for what I’m trying to find and trying to understand. I want to be a change maker in every part of my life, but I can’t do that in the same way in the Church. Or, at least I don’t know how to. Some of us live our lives at this higher level of equality so we’re trying to bring the Church there. But how do I or how do you do that? What do you choose to say or not to say? Can you expound on that?

Maxine: First, I remember that we’re all learning and growing together. So, I pray for help and it comes. The best advice I can give is turn to God. Also, you’re a lay minister, every member is confirmed or“ordained” to the ministry, according to D&C 25. We’re all co-ministering the ward and stake, so what we do affects many others. Too often we focus on what we lack, not seeing the power of our voice or participation. Being aware of your effect on others enables you to be a better minister. Also, learning ministry skills is crucial, for every member and leader. I studied ministry and chaplaincy, to learn what it means to minister. It’s not about trying to convert anyone, or provide any answers. Ministry is giving others support to find their own answers. It’s listening to them and learning what they need in this moment. When you do that, you’re ministering.

A minister is a facilitator for others to work through their struggles. You hold a safe space for them to dig deep, face fears, hard issues, private trials. If they aren’t safe to deal with whatever comes up, that’s not ministry—which is unconditional support to face life’s hardest moments and not be alone. We all need someone to hold that space for us. You never know when you might be the only one who can do that for another person.

When you need ministering, choose someone you trust who will listen to your struggle and honor where you’re at, not judge you or impose their views on you, but allow you to find your own breakthrough. Ministry is knowing the difference, between our needs and others’ needs, so we don’t impose or transfer our views onto another, and we don’t allow them to impose their views onto us.

FHE: One of the things I love about the changes in the temple was that it took things that I was not able to reconcile in my relationship with God and adjusted most of them. It’s kind of confirming the relationship I have with my Heavenly Father. But it’s also given me pause to wonder about the other side of that. I don’t want to think that my relationship with God is what is right for the Church—or, that every thought I have is from the spirit or is doctrinal.

Maxine: Yes, it’s healthy to know the difference between your own personal path and the collective path of the Church, and not impose them on each other.

FHE: I know the answer to this is building a relationship with God and the spirit and learning how it’s talking to you. Is there a time, an experience you could share when you went too far, or realized that there was a boundary?

Maxine: Yes, my excommunication. On one hand, I definitely felt divine guidance to compile the book, I felt aided by higher wisdom. On the other hand, I could have navigated the book’s relationship to the Church more sensitively. I was out of sync with the Church, ignoring the chasm between my position and the Church status. It’s important to recognize where the group as a whole is located, relative to where you are as an individual—and to deal with both, not just your own.

The freedom to follow your own path is a gift from God. It’s crucial to listen to your soul and follow its call—don’t shut it down. Yet that’s different from the group journey. The individual and the group each have their own developmental journey. Both deserve respect.

I was at odds with the Church in my twenties, thirties, and forties, but now I’m more in sync with it than I’ve ever been, which amazes me. Still, there are differences between my perspective and the Church’s, which I honor. My interpretation of women’s history and priesthood overlap a great deal with Church materials, yet they may never fully align. I honor my own work and inspiration by writing and publishing, and I honor the work of the Church by supporting its efforts to empower women.

FHE: Your work in the past, your research and writing received some backlash. I recently did some historical research on a difficult aspect of Church history and I started to get backlash from people at BYU about it and it made me a little afraid to continue with it. I was wondering how you continued with your work in face of external pressure and backlash against it?

Maxine: I’m so sorry to hear that. Is it the department that’s having a hard time, your professors?

FHE: No, it’s peers.

Maxine: It’s often peers who put pressure on us, since they want us to be where they are. Are they more conservative than you are?

FHE: Yes.

Maxine: That’s hard. Peers can be intolerant sometimes. Backlash is often shadow projection and scapegoating, which can be destructive, harmful. It’s wise to protect yourself; don’t own projections. You’re the expert on you. Stay close to God, find others who support you, and stand firm in the truth of who you. Then just keep being you and doing your own work.

I try to heal the conflict via common ground. I look for areas where we agree, to build bridges, while allowing our differences. But if others’ efforts are harmful or unethical it’s time to stand firm, not compromise. I get backlash from critics about my return to Church membership.

Critics focus on the problems, harms, what’s wrong with the Church. Seeing the Church’s shadow is necessary, but it can go too far, consume you. I grew tired of talking about the problems long ago. I focus on the inspiring and empowering aspects of LDS theology and practice because that’s where I prefer to work these days, that’s where the life is.

FHE: You mentioned not depending on authorization from others. I’ve been thinking about that in the context of the temple changes and the role of revelation in the temple changes, or at least in the way the temple changes were released. What do you think of that intersection and how that plays into progression?

Maxine: So, the intersection of revelation and change?

FHE: Yeah, with revelation, when it actually happens, or how a lot of women already have been living or believing these things prior to the “revelation” of these changes.

Maxine: So, how do we view a new revelation, when it changes or reverses past policy that negatively shaped our lives, or didn’t shape our lives because we didn’t believe it?

FHE: Yes.

Maxine: Should we base our beliefs and decisions on current teachings that may change? That’s a crucial question in a Church that gives great authority to current revelation, teachings, and policies. The simple answer is—if a new revelation or teaching or policy is healthy and positive, it’s worth supporting. Obviously, it’s wise to choose teachings that resonate God’s love, feed our souls and improve our lives, over teachings that harm lives or shut down souls. The burden of safety is on us, to discern true or good teachings from erroneous ones.

This returns to the question of who can receive revelation. Leaders receive inspiration for their Church callings. Members receive inspiration for their own lives. The responsibility for our decisions is ours and ours alone. Leaders have authority over Church functioning but not over members’ lives. From an early age, I took my questions and decisions to God, rather than to my parents or to the Church. A few times, my parents or the Church were right, and I was wrong, but I made my own decisions. When I followed my own conscience, things went well, but when I followed others’ advice against my intuition, I regretted it, majorly. When we give our decisions over to someone else, we lose our divine guidance.

FHE: As a follow-up comment, I approach things in a similar way. I study religious history, specifically the Reformation and I somewhat identify as a Reformation spiritualist—the institution isn’t what is going to shape me, it’s going to be my relationship with God and my understanding of theology.

Maxine: Well, they both shape us, profoundly, but it’s our decision how much we let the Church or God shape us. That means taking responsibility for our spiritual progression, as Joseph Smith envisioned and the endowment implies. LDS faith relies on revelation, both personal and institutional, in tension with each other. This tension is always presenting itself. Church revelation leads one direction and your inspiration may lead another direction, until you’re out of sync with the Church, and you have to decide how far you’re willing to go. I was willing to follow my own spiritual path outside the Church— that was my decision. Excommunication was a revelatory “shattering of the vessels” opening a doorway to new knowledge and realms I had never known, with overwhelming positive results. Likewise, my spiritual path back home to the Church was equally revelatory and transforming. I don’t regret either path, at all. So, our relationship with God may take us out of sync with the Church, or back into sync with it—depending on where we feel God is calling us. I value both equally—my relationship with God and with the Church.

FHE: I have two very separate questions. My first question is, kind of touching on what was discussed before. I feel like I’ve sensed for a long time a kind of a benevolent sexism. How do you address that one, when your sex has kind of put you on a pedestal? And the perfectionism that goes with it, you know, is this weird thing.

Maxine: Gender in the LDS Church is complex. The dual tendencies of sexism and feminism are in tension with each other in Church history and ministry. This requires separating the sexism from the feminism in our tradition.

Women’s status in the Church reflects both tendencies of feminism and sexism. We have a gendered ministry, which can be experienced as feminist or sexist—depending on who’s managing it. Female ministry that is defined and managed by women themselves is “difference feminism” (a focus on women’s different needs as a gender). Yet when female ministry is defined and managed by men, that’s sexism, patriarchy. If men uphold gendered spheres, then manage both male and female spheres, that’s sexism, patriarchy. Female identity is defined by women themselves.

LDS tradition has an empowering theological blueprint that combines both gendered and ungendered authority, both separate and inclusive ministry, which evoke both difference feminism and equality feminism (a focus on women’s equality with men), in balance with male authority. This original blueprint placed women in parallel partnership with men, from the ward level to the top of the Church. Yet this theological gender balance has been obscured by organizational sexism accrued over time. Our blueprint of gender balance is skewed by male privilege, which diminishes the gender equality embedded in our theology.

Yet, the theological blueprint for equality envisioned by Joseph and Emma is still visible in the Church today. We have an ungendered lay ministry of men and women preaching, teaching, leading, and managing the congregation together. We have a gendered ministry of women and men working in separate spaces and authority for gendered mirroring and mentoring. We have an inclusive temple ministry that brings men’s and women’s gendered authority together in an inclusive priesthood order.

Women’s gendered authority was established in 1830–44, via a series of “ordinations.” In 1830, Emma Smith was “ordained” to lay ministry and high Church office of Elect Lady. [D & C 25] In 1842, the Relief Society presidency were “ordained” to “preside over the Society . . . just as the Presidency, preside over the church.”[7] In 1843, women were “ordained” as a “Priestess to the Most high God” in the temple, and also “ordained” to the “fullness” or “highest & holiest order of the priesthood” in the temple.[8] Additionally, in 1850, Louisa B. Pratt was “ordained” a full-time missionary, which was an ungendered office.[9] Today, women leaders in the ward, the Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, and in the temple still have their own offices, authority, keys, revelation, and “setting apart” or ordination to lead the gendered ministry of the Church. These are ways women are ordained.

If women were ordained by men giving them Aaronic and Melchizedek orders and offices, women’s authority would come from men rather than from women’s connection to God. Our LDS tradition of female seers, visionaries, societies, ladies, presidents, counselors, boards, prophetesses, priestesses, and mother god arose from women’s own spirituality, inspiration, and innovations, as feminist theology. There is a hidden narrative within the dominant history of men’s authority, where women’s own relationship with God gave rise to their authority. Women shaped Mormon origins and development via their own spirituality and agency.[10] Lucy Mack, Emma Smith, Mary Whitmer, Eliza Snow, Sarah Kimball, Zina Young, Bathsheba Smith, Emmeline Wells all envisioned, organized, and led women’s ministry. Joseph Smith didn’t give them spiritual power—they had it themselves.

FHE: I do think it’s a pretty consistent observation that benevolent patriarchy intrudes on us. Just all the pedestaling of women and overgeneralizations—like “my wife can do no wrong” or “women do everything better.” I feel like there are weird dynamics that feed into this, there’s anxiety, and lack of recognition of women’s reality.

Maxine: Yes, the need to pedestalize and generalize women erases their individual voice, agency. Gender differences can’t be generalized, and that’s not the purpose of separate gendered space, which is to explore that gendered identity. Benevolent sexism claims to value female gender then co-opts it. Some feminists toss out gendered spheres altogether saying, ‘Men and women should have all the same options, just treat us all the same.’ Yet research shows that women and men need gendered space, as well as inclusive space, for growth. LDS Church ministry wisely uses both gendered and inclusive spaces, which provide balance. On one level we have inclusive ministry and authority. Men and women both are confirmed to the lay ministry, then set apart or ordained to whatever callings, roles, or offices they receive. We have inclusive worship spaces—sacrament meeting, Sunday school, youth activities, stake and general conference, and the temple endowment where men and women receive the same vestments and rites, culminating in the celestial room, which brings everyone together.

On another level, we have gendered ministry and authority that focus on the needs of women or men as a group. Research on female development and education shows that women learn and perform better in female settings. Relief Society and the Young Women program provide gendered space for women to process female identity and ministry. The women’s session of general conference does the same.

Also, the temple initiatory rites are sacred female space for consecrating women’s personal relationship to God, which includes the Mother. The Church provides both gendered and inclusive spaces for women’s and men’s spiritual development. However, some of our women’s ministry and female spaces are under the direction of men—which erodes the purpose of gendered space. This is due largely to changes made by Brigham Young in 1845, when he asserted men’s authority over women in the Relief Society and the temple—and we’ve been stuck there ever since.

FHE: Thanks for that explanation. My second question has to do with the positive outlook. We talked about President Kimball, his healing of the Church. I resonate with President Nelson bringing back some of the same kind of beautiful, prophetic, hopeful statements. How do you think changes in the temple, now and future, will potentially function with how women in the Church can have a more influential role in the growth and movement of the Church?

Maxine: That’s a big question and topic, because women’s status in the temple is connected theologically and historically to women’s status in the Church. Temple priesthood and Church ministry affect each other because the temple priesthood was the culmination of ministry and priesthood in the Church. Women’s ministry began in 1830 and grew through stages in Kirtland 1833–36 and Nauvoo 1842–44, building upon itself until it culminated in temple priesthood 1843–44. We need a full recovery of women’s 1830–44 ordinations and authority in the Church, along with a full recovery of women’s ordination rites in the temple prior to 1845. Only that will complete the picture of women’s original authority and its blueprint for equality and fullness.

Originally, in 1843–44, women were “anointed and ordained” to priesthood in the temple. For example, in 1843 Joseph and Emma were “anointed & ord[ained] to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood (& Companion) D[itt]o).”[11] In 1844, Heber and Vilate Kimball were both anointed and ordained as “Preast and Preastest unto our God.”[12] Likewise Eliza R. Snow reported that women were made “priestesses unto the most high God.”[13]

However, in January 1846, this ordination rite was drastically changed by Brigham Young and re-administered to couples who had received the original rites under Joseph Smith. Brigham Young re- anointed Heber C. Kimball, “a king and a priest unto the most high God” but re-anointed Heber’s wife Vilate “a queen and priestess unto her husband” with all blessings “in common with her husband.”[14] Likewise Brigham Young was re-anointed “a king and a priest unto the most high God” while his wife Mary Ann was re-anointed “a queen and priestess unto thine husband” and “inasmuch as thou dost obey his counsel” would receive ”exaltation in his exaltation.”[15]

This catastrophic change removed women’s direct personal relationship with God, and subordinated women’s priesthood under her husband’s. Women were no longer a priestess to God, but a priestess to their husband, exalted through him, not through God. Women’s own authority as “priestesses to the most high God” was erased. Also gone was women’s direct unmediated relationship with God.

This temple change in 1846 was only part of a larger diminishment and erasure of women’s authority and priesthood that occurred immediately after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. Brigham Young erased women’s independent authority and priesthood in both the Relief Society in 1845 and the temple in 1846, subverting both under men’s authority and priesthood.

Women had been “ordained” not only in the temple, but also ordained in the Relief Society. The Relief Society president was a prophetess with keys to receive revelation for the women and their organizations. This included revelation about the Divine Mother, as Eliza R. Snow received in October 1845. Joseph Smith didn’t articulate much about female orders or offices or theology of the Mother, because he left those tasks to the women themselves. Joseph turned the key of revelation over to female leaders to receive their own direction from God to define women’s priesthood order and offices.[16]
It might be the ultimate patriarchal act if men claimed revelation from the Mother to define female theology. I think it shows great wisdom that male leaders haven’t done that. In 1991, President Hinckley admitted that regarding the Mother in Heaven, he could find no precedent for prayers to “her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.”[17] I remember thinking what an honest confession that was from a leader of a worldwide religion—no knowledge of our divine Mother? I saw his admission as an opening for female leaders to receive revelation from Her.

Today in 2019, new changes to the temple ceremony are beginning to address and reverse the historical loss of women’s direct connection to God. We have been waiting for this needed correction since 1845–46. Today in the temple, instead of men and women making different covenants (men to “God” and women to “husband”) they make the same covenants and they both make their covenants directly with God. No longer are women queens and priestesses their husbands; now they are queens and priestesses in the new and everlasting covenant, which refers to the fullness of priesthood and gospel—not to marriage.[18]

This change recovers women’s parallel status with men from their subordination under male authority, and it restores women’s direct unmediated relationship with God. This is a momentous and welcome change. It corrects women’s loss of authority—to a degree. However, it doesn’t restore their full ordination as a “priestess to God” nor the full individuality of their priesthood. We have yet to recover women’s original and independent authority in both the temple and the Relief Society, and to yet discover the fullness of both.

However, this change is an enormous move in the right direction. The restoral of women’s original rites and ordination to priesthood in the temple could reverberate onto women’s preparatory ministry in the Church—the Relief Society, and Young Women—encouraging a full restoration and articulation of our historic female ministry and ordination. The keys, ordinations, orders, and offices of Relief Society and Young Women could return from the pages of our history, along with women’s sacred rites and ordinances, including blessings and healings. Perhaps we could also recover the presence of our Mother in the temple, the female Elohim. We have an extraordinary women’s ministry of theological equality that has survived and is still functioning—even though perhaps not fully self-aware, named, or articulated, and not fully enacted or empowered, yet.

FHE: Amen. Can I say thank you for fighting for us, for paving the way? Thank you for coming back. I feel inspired by your example and your spirit. I’m interested in your faith transition and progression. It doesn’t seem like you ever lost faith in God or in Christianity or the restoration, even. How was that in your twenty years away? And do you think there’s a spot in Mormonism for just cultural Mormonism?

Maxine: Yes, there are countless people who are inactive LDS yet still identify as part of the “Mormon” tradition culturally or ethnically. I think there’s space in Mormon culture to be whoever or wherever you are in the Mormon journey.
Actually, I went through a journey of extremes, beginning on my mission in the 1970s, then going inactive from Church in the 1980s, then publishing my book and leaving the Church in the 1990s, then finding oneness with God in the 2000s, then returning LDS in the 2010s. Each decade held a new paradigm. I went through many stages including atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism, and mysticism, which taught me to find my own light in the face of emptiness and darkness. It was gnostic Christianity where I found my inner spiritual core; and in the Christian liturgical year, I found my spiritual formation path. I found oneness with God, exactly as Joseph Smith described it in the King Follett sermon. Then I felt spiritually called to come back to the LDS Church and bring everything I’d learned, to see if I could integrate it all, somehow. I thought, “thanks a lot God, that’s a big job,” but I’m back, and trying to integrate it.

Long story short, I honor everyone’s journey of the soul. Nobody can tell you how it’s supposed to go; the map is within you. All you can do is try to listen to your highest most reliable guidance and see where it takes you. My path gave me what I was looking for, everything I wanted and needed. It transformed me. I would not have been able to come back and do what I’m doing now if I hadn’t taken that journey. And it’s not over, the inner path is still moving me forward into new knowledge and larger vistas, every year.

Dialogue: Thank you everyone for this great conversation. Before our closing prayer, I have a couple of final questions. One is, if you could go back and talk to the young feminist Maxine—trying to navigate and come to terms with her religious community and spiritual self—what would you tell her? The other is, what other changes do you see happening that you’re inspired by or excited about in the Church?

Maxine: I would tell her, don’t doubt yourself, have confidence in your work, you’re on the right path, go for it. You deserve the best things in life, college degrees, a career, a great husband. Do not diminish yourself.

What am I excited about? All the new women’s history coming from the Church, resources and books from Kate Holbrook, Jenny Reeder, Lisa Tait and other Church historians, and the Joseph Smith Papers.

I’m excited about the new ministering emphasis in the Church, which evokes the 1830 lay ministry in D&C Section 25, where the promises given to Emma are ours. Every member is a lay minister, and we’re beginning to grasp the power of that and learning how to minister. I’m excited to see women’s ministerial authority coming back and I hope we recover the “fullness” of 1842–44. I can’t imagine a more exciting time in the Church and Mormon studies, as we’re recovering our women’s history and our empowerment.

I’m excited for you young women and men because of where you’re at right now—the knowledge and sophistication you have is far beyond anything I had at BYU in the early 1980s. The courage and verve of your generation, where you’re starting from is so powerful, you can do anything.
Today, you have freedom we did not have, freedom to find your- selves, to be what you want to be, to express yourselves. You have tremendous opportunity. I hope you seize it and dare to be yourself fully, share with the world what only you can bring to it.

Thanks for letting me share some of myself with you tonight.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Feminist FHE (Family Home Evening), first organized in Provo, Utah in 2012, by Hannah Wheelwright, and restarted in 2017 by Tinesha Zandamela, is a group of young Mormon Feminists that meets and talks about the intersections between Mormonism and Feminism. Since its founding, the group has spread to other locations. Current Feminist FHE (Provo) organizers include Laurie Batschi, Halli Bowman, Sydney Bright, Mallory Matheson, Jenna Rakuita, Rebecca Russavage, Charlotte Schultz, and Olivia Whiteley.

[2] Maxine Hanks, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992).

[3] Contributors to the book who were excommunicated: Maxine Hanks, Michael Quinn, Lavina F. Anderson in 1993; Janice M. Allred in 1995 and Margaret M. Toscano in 2000; Lynne K. Whitesides was disfellowshipped in 1993. The September Six were six scholars and feminists all disciplined in 1993.

[4] The Gospel of Philip, translated by Wesley W. Isenberg in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), 139–60; the text is available online.

[5] Rebecca England related this story to me on Nov. 13, 2018. “Jordan [Kimball, grandson of Spencer] and I found the marked-up Lester Bush article in SWK’s copy of Dialogue when we were sorting through their house on Laird Dr. after Camilla’s death. When he studied an article, SWK would underline in red pen or pencil—red underlining, meant he studied the article carefully. None of the other Dialogues or articles were marked up like that. We looked through all the Dialogues to see if any others were marked up similarly and none were except Lester Bush’s article. So, it made a strong impression on both of us. This would have been about 1989. We mentioned this in a conversation in 2009 and Greg Prince followed up with questions. One of Jordan’s cousins inherited the Dialogue.”

[6] Eliza R. Snow, “To the Branches of the Relief Society,” Sept. 12, 1884, Woman’s Exponent 13, no. 8 (Sept. 15, 1884): 61.

[7] Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, Mar. 17, 1842, 7, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[8] Phinehas Richards diary, Jan. 22, 1846, LDS archives, and “Meetings of anointed Quorum [—] Journalizings,” Sept. 28, 1843, both cited in D. Michael Quinn, “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843,” in Hanks, Women and Authority, 368, fn. 20, fn. 25.

[9] George Ellsworth, ed., The History of Louisa Barnes Pratt (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998), 100-10, 128; available online.

[10] Maxine Hanks, “‘A Beautiful Order’—Revisiting Relief Society Origins,” LDS Church History Symposium, Mar. 3, 2016, session 3A; also Maxine Hanks, “Visionary Sisters and Seer Stones,” Sunstone Symposium, Kirtland, Ohio, 2015; also Ian Barber, “Mormon Women as Natural Seers: An Enduring Legacy” in Hanks, Women and Authority, 167–84. Also see Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835–1870 (New York: Knopf, 2017).

[11] Joseph Smith, Diary, Sept. 28, 1843, LDS Church Archives; Meetings of the Anointed Quorum, Sept. 28, 1843, both cited in Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera, eds., Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed 1842–1845: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005), 25–26.

[12] Anderson and Bergera, eds., Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed, 54.

[13] Eliza R. Snow, “An Address,” Woman’s Exponent, 2 (Sept. 15, 1873): 62.

[14] First entry in the “Book of Anointings,” Jan. 8, 1846, quoted in David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (San Francisco, Calif.: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 87–88.

[15] “Book of Anointings,” Jan. 11, 1846, quoted in Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness, 88–90.

[16] “He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society . . . I now turn the key to you in the name of God . . . and intelligence shall flow down from this time” (Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, Apr. 28, 1842, 36–37, The Joseph Smith Papers).

“Those ordain’d to lead the Society, are authoriz’d to appoint to different offices as the circumstances shall require” (Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, 8, 38, 40, The Joseph Smith Papers).

[17] “I have looked in vain for any instance [of] a prayer to ‘our Mother in Heaven . . . I may add that none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Gordon B. Hinckley address, Oct. 1991, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1991/10/daughters-of-god?lang=eng).

[18] “‘The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations. . . . Marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant’ . . . This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel” (Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980], 158; Packer is here citing Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954], 156).

[post_title] => LDS Women’s Authority and the Temple: A Feminist FHE Discussion with Maxine Hanks [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 52.1 (Spring 2019): 45–76
A Feminist Family Home Evening discussion with Maxine Hanks regarding women in the church as seen through temple theology. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => lds-womens-authority-and-the-temple-a-feminist-fhe-discussion-with-maxine-hanks [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-04 18:41:56 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-04 18:41:56 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=23348 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9433 [post_author] => 2524 [post_date] => 2018-03-14 18:59:30 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-14 18:59:30 [post_content] =>

This interview was conducted on July 4, 2013, in Community of Christ’s Kirtland Temple Historic Site Visitor and Spiritual Formation Center, located next to the temple.

A third generation Mormon from La Plata, Argentina, Hugo Olaiz has a degree in Letters from Universidad Nacional de La Plata and a Master’s in Spanish from Brigham Young University. Hugo has published both fiction and scholarly pieces in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and miscellaneous articles in Sunstone magazine. He recently completed an 11-year stint as news editor for Sunstone and lives with his family in Oxford, Ohio.

David J. Howlett is a visiting assistant professor of religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York where he teaches about American religious history. He is the author of Kirtland Temple: The Biography of a Shared Mormon Sacred Space (University of Illinois Press, 2014).

Of all the Mormon historical sites that ended up in the hands of the RLDS Church (today known as the Community of Christ), none is more significant for the LDS Church than the Kirtland Temple. Despite its contrast, both in form and function, with all other LDS temples, the Kirtland Temple is still claimed by the LDS Church as the first temple of this dispensation and the setting of glorious visitations that form a crucial part of Mormon history, ritual, and doctrine. Although the building is not owned by the LDS Church, over 90 percent of visitors are LDS. This means that members of the Community of Christ, acting as hosts and guides, find themselves sharing this space with visitors who may interpret it differently than they do. LDS visitors are sometimes baffled that their church doesn’t own this sacred site, and some are confused by the differences between current LDS temples and their Kirtland precursor, which doesn’t even have a baptismal font.

How is it that the RLDS Church ended up owning the Kirtland Temple?

The ownership goes back to a broken chain of title in the 1830s. Over the course of the 1840s and 1850s, many different Latter Day Saint denominations occupied the Kirtland Temple. By 1862, the Kirtland Temple was auctioned off to settle outstanding debts of the early Church in the area, and it was bought by a man named Russell Huntley for $150. Huntley put a new roof on the temple, he painted it, re-stuccoed it, and re-plastered it. If he hadn’t done that, the temple would have fallen into ruin. By 1874, Huntley had associated himself with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and he sold the temple to Joseph Smith III for $150—the same price that he had paid in 1862.

Because of the broken chain of title, Joseph Smith III was advised to simply wait until 1883, when Ohio law would grant legal possession after having used a property for twenty years. Joseph Smith III, however, wanted to get the Reorganized Church recognized as the true successor of his father’s church in a court of law. So in February 1880, the Reorganized Church fi led a lawsuit in a small county court over the possession of the temple and named John Taylor as one of the defendants. Of course John Taylor was not going to show up—he was in hiding and never even heard about the case. The RLDS Church got the judge to say almost everything they wanted him to say—that the Reorganized Church was the true church because of its continuation of the original Mormon doctrines, etc. The judge’s statement was published in The Saints Herald—except for the last two sentences, which actually threw out the case!

So for over 100 years RLDS historians in good faith thought of the 1880 lawsuit as the reason why the RLDS Church owned the Kirtland Temple. Then in the early 2000s, Kim Loving, president of the then Kirtland Stake of the Community of Christ, conducted research for his master’s thesis and discovered that the process had been more or less propaganda by Joseph Smith III, and that the lawsuit had been thrown out.[1]

So the real reason the Community of Christ today owns the Kirtland Temple is what is called “adverse possession”: They were here for the longest period of time as the continual possessor of the temple, having a local congregation and meeting in the building.

I’m sure the LDS Church, and possibly other branches of the Latter Day Saint movement, would like to be seen not only as the legitimate successor of Joseph’s church but also as the owner of the Kirtland Temple.

For nineteenth-century Community of Christ members, the Kirt-land Temple legitimized them in their own eyes and, they hoped, in the eyes of other Americans. By the 1880s, there was a sign on the second fl oor of the temple which literally said, “We are not the Mormons.” “We, 30,000 [members of the RLDS Church], are not associated with that Utah group whose doctrines are an abomination to us, working all manner of iniquity,” and went on and on distancing the RLDS Church from Utah Mormons. Then by 1899, the RLDS painted an inscription on the front of the temple that said, “HOUSE OF THE LORD—BUILT BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, 1834.” They added: “REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS IN SUCCESSION BY DECISION OF COURT, FEB. 1880.” That same sign stayed on the Kirtland Temple until 1986.

Let’s talk about what the early Reorganized Church did in the Kirtland Temple. What would they use the building for?

They used it a variety of purposes. By the 1880s, there was a congregation that met every Sunday and on Wednesdays for prayer meeting. This went on until 1959. There were also conferences. In 1883, for example, there was a general conference, during the period when the RLDS were holding general conferences once a year. Priesthood conferences were also held at different times, all the way to the present.

Starting at least in the 1910s, continuing into the 1950s, traditional RLDS “reunions” or “family camps” were held on the temple’s property. This is a tradition that LDS don’t have. The origins go back to the 1880s, out of a desire to have general conference twice instead of once a year. These reunions were regional conferences that functioned similarly to a week-long revival: There was preaching, praying, and testifying all day long, with services in the evening. By the early twentieth century, it took on more of a recreational feel. Imagine the Kirtland Temple, by 1911, surrounded by people camping out in tents—that’s the scene you would have seen in the summer. Worship services were held during the day in the temple, and the cooking was done in the yard. Eventually the reunions lost some of their rural feel when showers were built across the street, in a building that is today part of the local congregation.

I like the image of the temple surrounded by tents. Yet I assume the RLDS Church never saw Kirtland as the central place of the church?

It was seen as it was in the 1830s: a stake of Zion, but not as Zion itself or its capital. Kirtland was a center for the people of this particular region, but not the center to which people would be encouraged to gather. The RLDS followed the LDS doctrine of gathering into the 1970s, and for many families even into the 1980s. The RLDS were encouraged to gather in Independence, Missouri, because that was the place for the New Jerusalem.

That meant moving your family to Independence?

For twentieth-century RLDS, it meant exactly that. For nineteenth-century RLDS, it may have meant moving to Lamoni, Iowa, which was seen as “on the edge of Zion” because it’s near the border between Iowa and Missouri. Then in the 1880s, RLDS started slowly moving back into Independence itself. The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) had been the first group to gather back to Zion, but they were so small that they did not make a major impact. The RLDS were the first ones to make a major impact in terms of numbers. By the early twentieth century, they were by far the largest church in Independence, and that continued all the way into the 1980s.

Who were some of the early Utah visitors who toured the Kirtland Temple?

One of the most famous Mormon visits in the early twentieth century was a group of LDS leaders who came through in December 1905. They had been to Sharon, Vermont, to dedicate a granite obelisk to Joseph Smith Jr. on the centennial of his birthday, and on the way back they stopped in Kirtland and took a tour of the temple.[2] And since they kept journals, there are at least four or five accounts that I’ve read of what they experienced on their tour.

The visitors showed different levels of politeness as they described what happened on that visit. I think they had a good time, but there was definitely tension. They visited the unheated temple on December 27, and Edith A. Smith said that it was evident there were two types of coldness in the building: “One the result of the temperature and the other a lack of [God’s] Spirit.”[3] There was already tension when Edith walked in, and I think she was looking in part to be offended. At the same time, they felt that the RLDS guide, who was an RLDS apostle, was a jovial individual, and they seemed to get along fi ne with him. They tried to get pictures in the temple with their Kodak Brownies, and their guide asked them to desist. But “before Brother B had been discovered,” Edith writes, “the Kodak had already got its work.” So even then there was tension about the control of that space and what happened inside the temple as the RLDS tour guides were taking you through.

The LDS guests who went through in the nineteenth and early twentieth century had the notion that this temple was used much as they understood their temples. So as they listened to the RLDS guide explain the use of the temple in the 1830s, they thought he had no idea what he was talking about. “To hear their [RLDS] explanations,” wrote Anthon H. Lund in his journal, “it was easily understood that they had no conception of the real uses of a Temple.”[4] Actually, what LDS visitors didn’t understand was the evolution of the temple space. So there was that misunderstanding as they were going through the tour. They were polite about it, but there was definitely this sense of ecclesiastical rivalry between the two groups.  That had happened throughout the nineteenth century as well.

And as the twentieth century progressed, more and more LDS guests would visit the temple—not just leaders. By the 1930s, there were groups of average LDS people coming to the Kirtland Temple in big tours. And that really increased after World War II, when the number of people coming on bus tours and with their families on family vacations just exploded.

It seems to me that generations of Mormons have visited the Kirtland Temple wondering, “Where the heck is the baptismal font?”

I think any person who has guided tours through the Kirtland Temple has been asked that at a certain point. LDS temples have baptismal fonts to perform proxy baptisms for the dead, and this is something which was done in Nauvoo in the 1840s, i.e., after the Kirtland period. In the 1830s, this was not yet part of their theology.

An increasing number of guests, though, are informed enough to realize that didn’t happen here. In part they know that because since the 1980s the LDS Church canonized a vision that Joseph Smith had in the temple of his brother Alvin, who died in the 1820s (D&C 137). In the vision, Joseph sees Alvin in resurrected glory in the celestial kingdom and wonders how this could be, given the fact that his brother hadn’t been baptized. Joseph is told that those who would have received the gospel, had they been given a chance to hear it, will be heirs of the celestial kingdom.

So Joseph Smith is assured that you don’t need baptism, which kind of undercuts the whole reason for this ordinance of the baptism for the dead. But it is re-interpreted, of course, in contemporary LDS belief, as meaning that Joseph Smith was coming to understand that there would be a future time in which these ordinances could be administered. So Mormons have this idea that Joseph had this experience early on as an intimation of something that would come later. To that extent, they may be aware that there were not baptisms for the dead in the 1830s in the Kirtland Temple.

In terms of contemporary LDS temple rituals, my understanding is that there was a hint of starting washings and anointings in the Kirtland Temple.

That is correct. Washings and anointings are part of LDS temple rituals today, and there is a hint of that in what these early Saints were doing in Kirtland. They didn’t anoint different parts of the body and say prayers or blessings over them—that wasn’t happening in the same way as in LDS temples today, as a liturgical or set form. The Kirtland washings and anointing were less structured. Here they were washing feet, and they were washing their bodies with whiskey mixed with cinnamon, to give some aromatic scent to it, and the feel of the whiskey evaporating from the body produced a bodily sensation, too. The Holy Spirit was in that way felt, experienced, and ritually mimicked. Mormons felt they were re-living the ancient order of things, so they were trying to re-create priestly anointings described in the book of Exodus.

Even before the temple was finished, they performed these washings and anointings in the print shop, which was close to the temple. And when the temple was completed, the washings and anointings became part of the Kirtland endowment ceremony, which was not a secret ceremony. There were no parts of that ceremony which anyone took a covenant not to reveal, and they didn’t regard these rites as something they couldn’t talk about. They certainly talked and even sang about them! In the hymn “The Spirit of God like a Fire Is Burning,” one of the verses says,

We’ll wash, and be wash’d, and with oil be anointed,
Withal not omitting the washing of feet.
For he that receiveth his penny appointed
Must surely be clean at the harvest of wheat.[5]

What was the Kirtland endowment?

In the broadest sense, it seems to me that the Kirtland endowment was a recapitulation or reenactment of the Passion narrative and Pentecost.[6] So during the ceremony you had the washing of feet, as Jesus did with his disciples, and you had communion, which was a reenactment of the Last Supper.

This ceremony, by the way, was for priesthood holders, and it happened between the Sunday dedication and the second dedication that happened the following Thursday, so probably March 29–30, 1836. Leaders went through it first, and then all the priesthood holders who were in Kirtland went through it. It consisted of a kind of mass revival meeting where they prayed and prophesied. During the day they performed the rituals of washing of feet, anointing with oil, and laying on of hands to bless people, to “seal” them, as they used to say. The older notion of sealing was the salvation of the assured, but now there’s this assurance that you have this extra gift of power from the Holy Spirit.

For the Kirtland Saints, this endowment was what other Protestants would have called a second work of grace—something beyond baptism, what Methodists would have called sanctification. The Saints were looking for something similar. They felt that as priesthood, as ministers, they needed more of the Holy Spirit to go out to preach with power and authority, evangelize the entire world, and redeem the kingdom of God on earth into these gathered communities that they would create with just relationships, and bring to pass the wrapping up of the world before the Second Coming, which they whole-heartedly believed would happen in their lifetimes.

Tell me more about what happened during the Kirtland endowment.

The ceremony mimicked the high point of Christian redemption. It even included the Methodist-like practice of a “watch night” or vigil: they stayed up all night on the third floor of the Kirtland Temple. Staying awake all night in prayer and resisting sleep is, in a sense, a re-enactment of Gethsemane. They had been up already twenty-four hours when the gathering ended at four or five in the morning. And as they were in prayer, they spoke in tongues and felt that they had this Pentecostal power. They did the Hosanna Shout, which now LDS do at the dedication of all their temples. The early Saints performed it frequently in the Kirtland Temple, both around the dedication and in the Kirtland endowment. “Sealing up a covenant with Hosanna and Amen,” they would say.

These covenants were not the set promises that would develop later in Nauvoo, but were more informal. For instance, one of the darker things that they promised was to avenge themselves on their enemies in Jackson County if anyone should come against them again. This is biblical vengeance, Psalms-like vengeance; this, too, was part of the Kirtland endowment. I’m not sure if this carried over as they repeated the endowment subsequently, but it was certainly part of the 1836 ceremony.

The chorus of “The Spirit of God like a Fire Is Burning” was an approximation of the Hosanna Shout: “Hosanna, Hosanna to God and the Lamb.” And that’s an intimation of Jesus coming into Jerusalem, riding in, and the people greeted him with, “Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”[7]

More radical Methodists shouted Hosanna when the Holy Spirit fell upon them. A radical Methodist thought that, any time the Spirit was present, a person couldn’t be quiet and had to shout Hosanna. So this was part of the worship experience that many of the Kirtland Saints were already familiar with, since maybe half of them had been Methodists at one point in their life. And this in a way is ritualized in the new Kirtland Temple.

In our day, when someone gets sick, we anoint them with oil and pray for them. In the Community of Christ we call this an administration, and in the LDS Church you may call it a blessing. And that began to occur with much more frequency after the Kirtland endowment, which included so much washing and anointing. So a whole sacrament in the Community of Christ, or an ordinance in the LDS Church, was born out of this experience. After the Kirtland endowment, elders everywhere were anointing the sick with oil and praying. So it became routinized, a regular part of their worship life.

A lot came out of the Kirtland endowment in terms of ritual. Some parts evolved in some inchoate form into the first part of the LDS endowment as administered in Nauvoo, but other parts were never performed again in the same exact way.

Was the Kirtland endowment performed only once?

At fi rst they intended to do it once. But then they realized that not everyone was there, so they repeated the endowment several times in 1836. And by 1837 they realized that they had new people who weren’t around in 1836, or who weren’t yet part of the Church, so they went through this endowment again. Wilford Woodruff, who was at that time ordained to be a Seventy, wrote in his journal that the Kirtland endowment was to be practiced every April 6 until the Second Coming of Jesus.[8] So they anticipated doing this over and over again, almost like an annual revival meeting.

Christopher Jones has done some great work in comparing the Kirtland endowment to what Methodist ministers experienced in revival meetings.[9] Methodist ministers would often go to revival meetings to be themselves renewed, and in some ways the Kirtland endowment was a rough equivalent to that: priesthood holders could come to be renewed again through this ceremony. So what the early Saints did was to take the Methodist revival meeting and add a heavy ritual emphasis,  in this way making it their own.

Let’s move forward to the history of Kirtland since the 1950s. What are some of the developments worth mentioning?

As the number of LDS traveling to historic sites increased, the LDS Church started thinking about buying sites in Ohio. They first purchased the John Johnson Farm, which is about thirty miles from Kirtland. With that purchase, they were slowly re-establishing their historical presence. Then in the 1960s a private LDS investor, Wilford Wood, bought the Newel K. Whitney store, located about a quarter of a mile north from the temple. Wood kept that property in trust for the LDS Church until a certain point in time when they wanted to interpret Kirtland as a historic site.

The RLDS Church also moved toward expanding its interpretative center in Kirtland. In the late 1960s, the RLDS Church built its first visitors center. It was tiny, but it meant that they could show a film and display some artifacts. They were trying to mimic what you see across America. Visitors centers were growing everywhere. With the expansion of the interstate system, many middle-class families who owned automobiles were going on vacations. All of these factors set Kirtland as a destination not only for Latter Day Saints, but also for people interested in Ohio history.

So people continued to flock to Kirtland. By the 1970s LDS members had established a presence in Cleveland, with probably several thousands in the Greater Cleveland metropolitan area, and they decided that they wanted an LDS visitors center in Kirtland. That started a process that eventually resulted in Historic Kirtland, an LDS campus around the Newel K. Whitney Store, which was dedicated in 2003.

It was a fascinating case: The impetus started with local members clamoring for a visitors center, rather than top-down instructions from the hierarchy. The hierarchy had to agree, of course, but it was the local people who convinced the hierarchy that the Church needed a presence in Kirtland.

What is the “Kirtland Curse”?

It’s a complicated story. By the 1970s, key LDS local leaders began believing that Kirtland had been cursed in the 1840s by the Lord. This group included Karl Anderson, a well-known local LDS leader who became stake president. They based this belief on statements by Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One of the statements by Joseph Smith is in the current LDS Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 124:82–83). It was canonized by the LDS Church in 1876, so it’s not part of the Community of Christ’s Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 83 declares that the Lord has “a scourge prepared for the inhabitants” of Kirtland.

Hyrum Smith’s statement is an 1841 letter that he wrote to the Saints who were living in Kirtland. British converts stopping in Kirtland were being persuaded by local Saints that Kirtland was a great place to live. So they were settling there, instead of going to Nauvoo. The problem was that the Church at the time had invested an enormous amount of money in land in Nauvoo, and if they were not going to default on their loans, they needed Church members to buy that land. So Hyrum Smith issued a “thus saith the Lord” statement in which he commanded all the Saints living in Kirtland to go to Nauvoo, adding that their Kirtland properties would “be scourged with a sore scourge” and that many days would pass before they could possess them again in peace.[10]

The Saints in Kirtland wrote back and said to Hyrum, “Actually, we’ve organized ourselves quite well here. We’re taking care of the poor. We’d like to continue on here in Kirtland.” Hyrum wrote back and said “O.K., you can stay, but don’t expect Kirtland to rise on the ruins of Nauvoo.”[11] So the matter was at the time more or less settled. But if you don’t have the rest of the story, if all you have is the Hyrum Smith letter, and if you think that it was literally a revelation from God, instead of being part of this drama of trying to convince the Saints to move to Nauvoo, then you’re going to look back and read that letter and say, “Kirtland is cursed!”

In 1974 Karl Anderson read these and other Mormon writings and became convinced that Kirtland was cursed. I think for local LDS members this worked as an explanation as to why the LDS Church didn’t own the Kirtland Temple, i.e., because the Lord cursed it in the 1840s. And they thought, “If the temple is cursed, but we will possess it in the future, maybe then we are part of redeeming Kirtland.” So suddenly these Mormons felt they were an important part of God’s redemptive action in the world.

What did Karl Anderson and other Mormons do to “redeem Kirtland”?

Karl Anderson came up with a three-fold solution for how to redeem Kirtland from the curse. First, they would bring missionaries so that the gospel would be preached in Kirtland for the first time since the 1840s (which of course was an insult for the RLDS because they had been there continually). Second, they decided that they needed to establish a ward and a stake in Kirtland. Third, they concluded that they needed to establish a visitors center. Karl believed that this plan would be an integral part of lifting the curse on Kirtland—helping God reclaim the place and, if you read between the lines, eventually redeem and get back the Kirtland Temple for the LDS Church, with everything in its own order and in its own due time.

This story of the curse was not widely known by LDS members, but Karl began talking a lot about it. In 1976, Donald Brewer, president of the LDS Cleveland Ohio Mission, arrived here, heard Karl talk, and got really worried. He read and prayed about it, and he was convinced! “There’s a curse, there’s a scourge here in Kirtland, and we need to lift it.” So he was totally on board, and Karl and President Brewer worked together to try to lift the curse. They got missionaries to walk around Kirtland, evangelizing again. And when they got an RLDS family to convert, they were ecstatic and believed that the curse was indeed lifting!

When LDS General Authorities were in the area, Karl would take them to Kirtland on tours, show them around, and if they hadn’t known about the scourge before coming to Kirtland, they certainly knew by the time they left. By 1979, Karl and other local LDS members had a local architect draw plans for a visitors center, and they printed a brochure about it that looked very professional. But it got lost in the bureaucracy of Salt Lake and never got the attention of the apostles.

Did they eventually get the attention of Salt Lake leaders?

Because of his unique access to General Authorities, Karl eventually managed to get the proposal on the desk of the right apostle, who then brought it to the Quorum of the Twelve. Some of the apostles were opposed. “We’ve already put so much money into Historic Nauvoo,” they complained. “We should be spending more money on the missionary program—not historic sites and buildings.”[12] But Ezra Taft Benson, who was at that time president of the Quorum of the Twelve, had become a great advocate for the project and broke the deadlock. “We will not have another Nauvoo,” he said, “but we will have a Kirtland, and it will be as it should be.” And that’s how they authorized the construction of the visitors center.

By October 1979, the last part of Karl’s plan to lift the curse was in place: they broke ground in Kirtland for a new LDS chapel that would become a stake center. Ezra Taft Benson attended the ceremony. “The curse that the Lord placed on Kirtland,” he told the congregation during his speech, “is being lifted today.” And during his prayer, he formally lifted the scourge that was on Kirtland. Latter-day Saints saw this as a redemptive process of remaking Kirtland.

By 1984, the Whitney Store was restored and re-dedicated, becoming a more prominent historic site for the LDS Church. Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley attended the dedication, and they talked about the spiritual visions and dreams that happened there: John Murdock seeing Jesus in the Whitney Store, and Joseph Smith organizing the School of the Prophets.[13] Thus Church leaders were starting to assure LDS that they may not have the temple, but they did have a place where Jesus appeared in Kirtland.

I think this was part of the greater narrative in which people believed that the curse was being lifted. It wasn’t just Karl Anderson who believed that this was happening—it was widespread at that time among Cleveland LDS members who had heard Karl talk about this and now felt part of God’s redemptive plan in Kirtland. The RLDS were vaguely aware that LDS held this belief, and yes—the notion that their own activities were part of a curse was mildly insulting to them. It implied that they were on the wrong side of God! But it seems to me that this was a way for LDS to attempt to explain why they were not in control of the temple.

And then as time went on, I believe Karl himself began thinking. “Maybe also the RLDS have been part of lifting the scourge on this place.” So he eventually included them as part of this process by which God was redeeming Kirtland and making it into a holy place again, thus creating a more generous narrative of curse and redemption.

Could another factor have been the process by which the RLDS Church has become less obsessed with its past?

I think that happened only in the 1990s. Through the 1980s, the RLDS focused heavily on its past. And then in the 2000s there was a reinvigorated emphasis on Church history in Community of Christ. As much as LDS would like to think that Community of Christ no longer values Church history (and at least some LDS believe that), if you look on the ground, people are still interested in the history of their church, and there was even a greater emphasis in the 2000s. This visitors center in Kirtland, where we’re having this interview at, is one of the results of that—it was built in 2007 after a long process of raising money. Community of Christ is small, it’s not even as large or financially powerful as it was in the 1970s, so I think this visitors center is a statement that they still value the heritage—in a different way. They can’t value it in the same way—no one ever does!

So there’s a renewed emphasis on history in Community of Christ. If Nauvoo represents a problematic, uncomfortable time period for Community of Christ—because of issues such as militarism, theocracy, and plural marriage—Kirtland, even with the conflicts that happened here, with the breakup of the bank and arguments around that,[14] is seen much more positively. People can still rally around and think of the dedication of the first worship building, the first temple in Community of Christ tradition, and what it means to them, and almost universally they have a positive image of Kirtland. And that’s true whether you’re talking about Saints in Independence, Missouri, or Saints in Manihi, French Polynesia. They universally think of the Kirtland Temple as a sacred place.

In 1994, the Community of Christ dedicated a temple in Independence. How does that edifice relate to the historic Kirtland Temple?

The modern temple in Independence was built on a portion of the land dedicated by Joseph Smith Jr. in Missouri in the 1830s for a temple site. When they drew up the plat for the City of Zion in 1833, they placed twenty-four temples in that plat—they drew up the plans right here, in Kirtland, probably only a few yards away from where we’re having this interview. And the Independence Temple is on the footprint of at least three of those planned temples, so it’s literally on land that was intended for temples in the 1830s, for that redeemed city of New Jerusalem.

The Independence Temple functions in some ways like its Kirtland ancestor. For instance, the Kirtland Temple had Church administrative space—an office for the Church president. The Independence Temple has the offices for the president and the apostles who live in that area. (Some apostles now live in their fields, which could be as far away as Honduras, French Polynesia, or Zambia.) The Independence Temple, like the Kirtland Temple, also has a space for education: the Community of Christ Graduate Seminary, which amounts to a Masters of Arts and Religion, where people gather for classes. And we also have the Peace Colloquy, which happens every October in Independence.

The Independence Temple is also a place of worship. The Daily Prayer for Peace happens in the Independence Temple. (By the way, we also do the Daily Prayer for Peace in Kirtland, but we do it in this visitors center, instead of the temple, in part because we light candles and we don’t want to create a fire hazard in the historic temple.) So doing the Daily Prayer for Peace in the Independence Temple is a continuation of the notion that the temple is a special worship space. Also from the Independence Temple, Steve Veazey, Community of Christ prophet, gives an annual address to the Church that is then broadcast via the web.

So I mentioned three areas of correspondence between the Kirtland and the Independence temples: administration, education, and worship. And even though we don’t do a Kirtland-style endowment, all the sacraments of the Church, except for marriage, can be performed in the Independence Temple. People may go there for their evangelist blessing, which is the equivalent of an LDS patriarchal blessing, or an administration (health blessing), or communion, which in the Community of Christ consists of bread and “wine” (grape juice).

And the Kirtland Temple here is also used today much as it was in the 1830s, minus the Kirtland endowment. In the 1830s the temple was a space for public worship, and they also had tours of the temple—not only before it was dedicated but also after; at that point we did not yet have the notion that only people who have made certain covenants should be allowed in. In the 1830s they charged 25 cents, which was actually pretty expensive for just a tour! And you saw everything in the temple, they took you floor by floor. And on the third floor, which is the top floor, they had the Egyptian mummies associated with the Book of Abraham. By 1837, tourists were going through the Kirtland Temple, and some published their accounts.

Let’s move to the recent past. What was the process by which Community of Christ started to share the Kirtland Temple with the other branches of the Restoration?   

That process happened in the 1990s. In the era before that, the Kirtland Temple was basically a worship space for the RLDS congregation. In 1959 the congregation moved across the street to their present space, but even at that era the temple continued to be used at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter for community services in which the entire Kirtland community came together in ecumenical worship. Through the 1940s, the temple was the center and the symbol of the community, and in the 1940s most of that community was RLDS—though there were also Catholics, Congregationalists, and other faiths. So at least since the 1940s, all those groups traditionally have come together for community services in the Kirtland Temple.

Then in the 1990s, the building was opened up for the LDS also to have services there. That was in a sense a community outreach by the Community of Christ. At first they allowed it on a limited basis, but now they allow it a lot more frequently. In the course of a year, there might be fifty services in the Kirtland Temple; a couple dozen will be sponsored by the Community of Christ, but another couple dozen are going to be LDS.

We always have staff to accompany LDS groups, and LDS would probably use it more if we could schedule more staff to be there. LDS can have a sacrament meeting there, but we ask the groups not to perform any sacrament or ordinance other than the Lord’s Supper. Testimony meetings are very popular—especially with LDS youth groups. The temple is scheduled for both local LDS groups and cross-country pilgrimages that come through Kirtland by bus all the time, especially in the summer.

What percentage of the visitors you receive are LDS?

A realistic estimate is that 90–95 percent of our visitors are LDS. The official number is 50 percent, but that’s calculated only from those who fill out a comment card and indicate their religious affiliation. In any given year we have approximately 25,000 people going on a tour of the temple, although the year Historic Kirtland (the LDS site) opened, we had close to 40,000. Even in the 1920s, a significant percentage of visitors, though less than half, were LDS. In the 1970s, a larger percentage of visitors were Community of Christ, because there were more RLDS in this area and there was an extensive program of weekend retreats which every year would bring as many as thirteen RLDS congregations to Kirtland. That ended in the mid-1970s, when the local congregation who was sponsoring these visits got burned out on the program.

After having been through several tours of the Kirtland Temple, my perception is that LDS visitors tend to be very gracious guests, but on occasion they cannot help it and they have to ask a question that attacks the Community of Christ.

Most people going to historic sites across the country know relatively little about them when they step in the door. At the Kirtland Temple, we generally have the opposite. LDS visitors might not know the views of current historians, but they know stories about the temple, and it’s already part of a narrative that they have of their spiritual past and their spiritual ancestors. This makes it a different experience—this is a pilgrimage site for many people. That generates a sense of reverence and sometimes discomfort—especially around the fact that this is a pilgrimage site that they, the LDS, don’t own.

Add the fact that this is not exactly like the tour they would experience at an LDS site. Some LDS frankly don’t like LDS historic site tours; some love them. I think the majority love them and a growing minority don’t like them. The majority of LDS tourists who come have been through an LDS tour where someone is testifying along the lines of “I know this happened, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.” LDS visitors will notice that this doesn’t happen in our tours. So that already creates a sense of tension. Many of them may feel that it’s more like a historical tour, so they may not get exactly the religious experience they were looking for.

And at times there’s adversarial tension too, along the lines of, “Let’s see if we can trip up the guide.” A few visitors may think, “These Community of Christ guides don’t really know Church history—let’s see if we can make them look silly.” That occasionally happens. But the vast majority are very gracious and very kind. And even if they have questions, sometimes they don’t even ask them: they hold back or they ask the LDS tour director—and who knows what the tour director answers! I think it’s a way of being polite and saying, “OK, we have our differences, and I won’t try to make my discomfort public and make the guides uncomfortable.” So I think there’s a good deal of graciousness that happens, too, in these interactions.

I was once touring the temple with an LDS family, and they were all very polite—except for the Grandpa! As soon as we sat in the lower court, he asked the guide in an accusatory tone, “Why is it that you guys no longer tell the story of Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph Smith in the temple?”

Some guests will come out and say that, but the vast majority won’t. When I was a regular temple guide, I sometimes guided junior high groups. As you know, junior high kids sometimes believe they know everything! And some of these kids would treat me harshly. Maybe that had to do with the way their leaders prepared them, too. The entire time they were asking me questions like, “Why don’t you believe in the First Article of Faith?” Apparently the intent was to rebuke me for not believing that God the Father has a physical body, which of course is not what the First Article of Faith says.

And these kids went through all the hot-button social issues and made me defend the Community of Christ on women, and LGBT issues, and peppered me with questions. So I finally said, “You know—I’m happy to answer these questions, but I would like to talk about the temple, too. So let’s go downstairs and talk about the 1836 dedication.” And things ended a lot better on that tour. So on occasion we have tours where people want to argue.  And I understand that, because when I was a teenager, I was a very conservative RLDS member raised in a very conservative RLDS home, and I would go with my youth group friends down to the LDS Visitors Center in Independence to argue! So I can be empathetic when people sometimes come at me—I can imagine what I was like, too, at a certain point in my life.

You describe the Kirtland Temple not only as a place of contestation, but also cooperation.

That’s right. Besides the services where LDS worship on their own, there are cooperative services through the year. Since the 1980s, the LDS staff of Historic Kirtland will help out with the Christmas and Easter services.

In a few days, we’ll have the Emma Smith Hymn Festival that began in 2004, on the 200-year anniversary of Emma’s birth, which is July 10. The hymn festival has a little script, and some parts are read by sister missionaries from Historic Kirtland. These missionaries are also part of the choir that sings “The Spirit of God like a Fire Is Burning” and “Redeemer of Israel.” The congregation, which is mostly LDS and local Community of Christ folks, is invited to join in singing these hymns. So it’s another example of those ecumenical traditions of cooperation that have grown up at the Kirtland Temple.

Certainly the relationship with the LDS has grown less adversarial over time, and the points of contention have changed over time, too. I think that shift reflects the changes in American denominations. Some sociologists and religious studies scholars talk about religious realignment, not just over denominational differences, but differences along a liberal/conservative social divide. And since the 1980s, the Community of Christ has been squarely on the progressive side, and the LDS Church has been on the conservative side, so that produces a new set of tensions. I do not think many Community of Christ members today care too much about arguing over nineteenth-century issues such as presidential succession, but they would really care about social issues. This provides a new area of contestation on temple tours—although not as frequently as in the mid-2000s.

So there’s still a sense of construction of otherness, not only by LDS visitors but also on the part of the Community of Christ guides giving the tour. If LDS missionaries go on missions and come back converted, a Community of Christ guide who gives tours every day in the Kirtland Temple comes back from that experience thinking that the Community of Christ is awesome, and probably thinking they never want to be LDS!

After a while, a sense of difference develops in these guides. And I’m sure that happens as well to some LDS who go through the temple tour. They may end up thinking, “No doubt the Community of Christ has lost the authority and gone off on this apostate road,” etc. Other LDS visitors come out thinking, “These guys are our friends.” So it’s a way for them to make kinship with the group, or extend a more limited notion of ecumenical encounter, even if brief. And I think, for a lot of LDS, the Kirtland Temple tour experience is a combination of both—a way of making friendship while at the same time establishing difference.

---

[1] Kim L. Loving, “Ownership of the Kirtland Temple: Legends, Lies, and Misunderstandings,” Journal of Mormon History 30, no. 2 (2004): 1–80.

[2] See Proceedings at the Dedication of the Joseph Smith Memorial Monument (Salt Lake City: 1906), 68–69; see also Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), chap. 5.

[3] Edith Ann Smith, “Journal,” December 27, 1905, MS 1317 FD.1, LDS Church Archives.

[4] Anthon H. Lund, Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890–1921, edited by John P. Hatch (Salt Lake: Signature, 2006), 328.

[5] Fourth verse of 1835 LDS hymnbook. Most of the twentieth-century editions of this six-verse hymn, both in the LDS and RLDS traditions, present the hymn in shortened versions that skip this verse.

[6] See Gregory A. Prince, Power from On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 115–49 and David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 11–34.

[7] Matthew 21:9, Mark 11:9, and John 12:13. See Jacob W. Olmstead, “From Pentecost to Administration: A Reappraisal of the History of the Hosanna Shout,” Mormon Historical Studies 2 (Fall 2001): 7–37; Steven H. Heath, “The Sacred Shout,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (Fall 1986): 115–23.

[8] Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1993), 13.

[9] Christopher C. Jones, “‘We Latter-Day Saints Are Methodists’: The Influence of Methodism on Early Mormon Religiosity,” MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 2009.

[10] Times and Seasons 3 (November 1, 1841): 589.

[11] Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Journals, Volume 2: December–April 1843 in THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 340.

[12] The LDS Church had been investing heavily in Nauvoo since the 1960s by buying land, restoring historic properties, and building many new structures. See Julie Dockstader Heaps, “Nauvoo ‘Beautiful’ Once Again,” Church News, June 29, 2002.

[13] “Restored Whitney Store Dedicated in Kirtland,” Ensign 14, no. 11 (November 1984): 110–11.

[14] The 1837 failure of the Kirtland Bank, with its ensuing conflict and dissent, is widely considered the main reason why Joseph moved Church headquarters from Kirtland to Nauvoo.

[post_title] => The Kirtland Temple as a Shared Space: A Conversation with David J. Howlett [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 47.1 (Spring 2014): 104–123
An oral interview between an LDS Member and a Community of Christ member regarding the history of the Kirtland Temple. They explain that despite differences in religious beliefs, people can still form friendships and cooperate. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-kirtland-temple-as-a-shared-space-a-conversation-with-david-j-howlett [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-04 13:04:18 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-04 13:04:18 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9433 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9532 [post_author] => 1812 [post_date] => 2018-03-16 00:27:49 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-16 00:27:49 [post_content] =>

In one of the most beautiful songs ever written on the Low Countries, the Belgian chansonnier Jacques Brel sang about his flat motherland: “Where men are dwarfs under the heaven, with cathedrals as their only mountains.”[1] Indeed, the classical landmarks of the cities on the old continent are the churches and cathedrals, whose spires rise above the houses, dominate the cityscape, and fill the towns with the sound of their bells, adding a Christian “soundscape” to their visual dominance. European Mormons sometimes feel that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints they have been dealt a short hand in architecture, as in this sense, Mormonism does not have churches. Instead it has two other types of sacred buildings. Using the LDS Church as a central example, the religious scholar Harold Turner[2] distinguished between the domus dei and the domus ecclesiae. The latter is the building where the congregation meets; the former is the abode of the divine. The Roman Catholic cathedrals—the “mountains” of the Netherlands—combine features of both; in the LDS church the domus ecclesiae, the meeting house, is quite different from the domus dei, the temple. The one is functional but does not quicken the architectural spirit, being in fact standardized, but the second, the much rarer temple, exudes intricate design and architectural pride.

Dutch Mormons now have a domus dei in their midst.[3] Living in their secularized country, far from the center of Mormon gravity, what does a temple—their temple!—mean for the Dutch members? In this article I want to analyze the Dutch temple experience on three levels. First, the history of the temple project will be shown from the Dutch perspective, with a discussion of some of the observable effects on the Dutch saints, one of them being a large drop in temple attendance. Second, I will explore the connection of hierarchy and the sacred, exemplified in the absolute control over the temple from the church centre, and in the hierarchy as sacred itself. Third, I will consider the routinization of the sacred, as exemplified by having a local temple, and I will try to characterize the difference between a temple in Deseret and one in the international church. Here I find echoes of the First and Second temples in Jerusalem, which tie our understanding of what constitutes the sacred in Mormonism into the wider academic debate on the sacred.

Ever since Rudolph Otto and Mircea Eliade, the notion of the sacred (in Mormonism the term “holy” is used, which I treat as a synonym) is an old fascination of comparative religion,[4] but in the last decennia the field has increasingly acknowledged the importance of the religious space. A major debate arose within ritual theory between Jonathan Z. Smith[5] and Ronald Grimes[6] on the primacy of place versus the dominance of ritual. Smith holds that “sacrality is, above all, a category of emplacement”;[7] Grimes stresses the creative aspect of ritual transforming the mundane into the sacred;[8] after all, rituals have to be done somewhere, a spot which then becomes a special place.[9] Present thinking stresses that the attribution of sacredness both to a ritual and a place is so universal that a more productive inquiry into the sacred requires us to balance the properties of the place with the characteristics of the ritual.[10] In this article I will follow this approach, hopefully providing a productive insight into Mormon temple sacrality, with its very own balance between ritual and place, between the “ordinances”[11] and the “House of the Lord.” For Mormons, temple “holiness” is tied into the rituals performed inside, but neither can exist in isolation, as ordinances are not possible outside the temple, nor would a temple be holy without the rituals.[12] Thus, speaking about the temple experience for Dutch Mormons requires us to consider their definition of the sacred—both the authority embodied in the temple rituals and the place of this new holy Mormon building in the Dutch denominational landscape.

A short methodological note is apt here, as the data presented stem from various sources. My own positions in the Church[13] allowed me access to many of the experiences of and conversations on the temple mentioned below, supplemented by specific interviews with civic and temple officials[14] and written documents, including the documented history of the Dutch temple.[15]

A Lowlands Temple

Officially, the name of the Dutch Mormon temple is The Hague Temple, but no Dutch Saint ever calls it that, as for them it is the “temple in Zoetermeer.” Zoetermeer is a sizeable municipality of its own, and as all cities are close to each other, the Dutch are quite precise in their geographical indications. Likewise they tend to speak about the temple in Friedrichsdorf and in Zollikofen; the other terms (Frankfurt, Bern) are seen as Americanisms. But in the Dutch case there is an additional reason for renaming the temple after “Zoetermeer,” as the name literally means “Sweet Lake,” so this is the temple of “Sweet Lake City.” In fact this translation had been already used by the former mayor of Zoetermeer when he visited Salt Lake City,[16] and it was picked up by newspapers in their reports on the temple as well. The gentle quip stuck. The present mayor of Zoetermeer, Jan Waaijer, commented in an interview that whatever its official name, “For us it is a part of Zoetermeer.”[17] The mayor appears to appreciate having a Mormon temple in his city: “As an architectonic object it is quite complete. It exudes a certain discipline: Everything under control, a sense of order which is not foreign to the group as such. The slightly cubist building is constructed with superior materials, which heightens the image of a church that is well organized. For us as Zoetermeer city, this is one of the sights to be seen, an object to be proud of.” The mayor then remarked that he would expect the temple presidency, as those responsible for one of the major institutions in Zoetermeer, to be active in Zoetermeer civic life: “At the very least they could come to the New Year’s reception at the City Hall.” None of the men that manage the temple have ever attended this official reception, a question I will address later.[18]

So, for the Dutch saints this is the temple in Zoetermeer, but for them it is not the location that counts but the fact that it is a temple, something they had never expected. At the time of its dedication, the Dutch website of the LDS Church[19] sported a reflective piece about the temple’s presence in the Netherlands, exemplifying Dutch LDS feelings:

It seemed a dream, when it started: The Dutch speaking church would get its own temple? That was a boon we were not ready for, not by a long shot. But numbers seemed not to be all-important,[20] and gradually we saw the plans take form: Blue print, maquette and then the exciting months of the actual building. The open days were extremely well attended: Never before have so many people had a first-hand contact with the church, and never before did we see so many positive reactions to the Mormon presence in the Netherlands. All Dutch and Belgian Saints vividly remember the dedication services in September 2002 as their spiritual high point, both for the start of their temple and the rare occasion to see the prophet in the Low Countries.

The Dutch had never expected to have their own temple because of their limited number of members and the lack of growth. During a stay at the Frankfurt temple, I heard people “explain” that the country’s constitutional monarchy would prohibit a closed building; after all, the story went, the queen has the right to enter any building in her realm. This is an urban legend as many buildings are closed to outsiders and no king or queen of the Netherlands has ever found it problematic. This kind of urban legend, however, is not a reflection on the absolute power of the queen—which she does not have—but on the LDS regard for the absolute holiness of the temple. For example, many of the Lowlands Saints thought that all people connected with the temple would have to be church members in good standing, i.e. with a temple recommendation. However, reality is always more mundane than esoteric mythology. The temple in Zoetermeer was constructed by a large building firm in the Netherlands. The builders appeared to appreciate the special task. In an interview, the project manager remarked, “There was to be no swearing, no smoking, and no alcohol on the job, and all our people showed respect and understanding for this. More and more, I felt that what we were building was unique; this was going to be a temple in which members of your church would find inner peace.”[21] Apart from this, the building process as such was like any other and after dedication, security, maintenance, and fire personnel would of course have to enter the building when needed, according to normal safety regulations.

Another reason for the Saints’ astonishment was that there seemed no pressing practical need for the temple. From 1955 onward the Dutch went to the temple in Zollikofen (“Bern”), and beginning in 1987 the Dutch church province fell in the Friedrichsdorf (“Frankfurt”) temple district. The four- or five-hour drive from the Netherlands to Friedrichsdorf was not considered a great problem. Nevertheless, some Dutch stake presidencies were convinced that a Dutch temple had to come, and took action. First, they tried to convince the area presidency in their semi-annual briefings of the need for a Dutch temple, and then they started scouting for a suitable location. Ultimately, the Rotterdam/The Hague area in the southwest of the Netherlands (the true “Holland”) was chosen by the Salt Lake hierarchy as one major priority for any temple is staffing: the staff at a small temple should be able to commute to the temple and this region accounted for the highest number of members. In addition, the Zoetermeer ward, right in the center of this region, was housed in a former Protestant church building on a suitable site with the appropriate zoning provisions, so the choice was in the end not very difficult.

The official announcement of the temple, on August 16th, 1998, created a stir in the Dutch LDS community and generated the setting up of a national temple committee and an enlarged PR committee.[22] Dutch members followed the building process closely, and announcements about the temple were frequently made in the Dutch wards. In the Zoetermeer temple there was no first cornerstone but—in very Dutch style—the first foundation pole was ritualized, the building site being in a polder some four meters below sea level. At present, this is the only temple in Mormondom to be built that low, and some members expressed concern. Dutch society is very interested in issues surrounding climate change and sea level rise, so it was natural to ask what would happen to the temple if the polders flooded. The central leadership never spoke about this risk, as discourse on climate change is absolutely non-existent inside the wider LDS church.[23]

The first spade ceremony (August 26, 2000), the first pole (December 26, 2000), the placement of the angel Moroni (September 21, 2001), the open house (at the end of August 2002), and the final dedication (September 8, 2002) were high points in the Mormon life of the Dutch Saints. Many visited the site regularly to see the building rise and witness the “birth” of “their temple.” For public relations this too was a high point in the history of the Dutch church, as the local, regional, and national press maintained an interest in the project, with reports of all types. The building of the temple was used to introduce the church to as many Dutch people as possible, both in Zoetermeer and in the wider region. The open house drew some 33,000 visitors to the temple, as well as a considerable amount of press coverage. For the members, the apogee was the dedication by the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley on September 8, 2002,[24] when he delivered the dedicatory prayer in a series of four dedication sessions, three in Dutch and one in French.[25] Two days earlier, the “cornerstone box,” containing the scriptures of the church, books, periodicals, newspaper articles, and other articles, had been placed in a niche in one corner of the temple.[26]

On the express wish of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the temple at Zoetermeer started operations immediately, on the Monday after the dedication. As the temple president and his wife had been called just two weeks earlier, and his counselors and the temple workers even later, this was quite a challenge for the fledgling Dutch temple organization, but the appointees had already been temple missionaries at the Friedrichsdorf temple and quickly settled into the job after a first few hectic weeks. Naturally, during these weeks many Dutch Saints were eager to experience their “own” temple. A routinization of the complex procedures necessary for the running of the temple was quickly and efficiently established, although gearing the opening hours of the temples to the needs of all the patrons was more difficult. Small temples are usually open by appointment only, but it was soon clear that this was not going to work in Zoetermeer, and eventually the new temple presidency decided on being open five days a week at specified times. This proved to be a large window for a small temple, and the risk of under-attended sessions became a reality under subsequent presidencies, and now the temple is open for half a week only.

Where Have All the Pilgrims Gone?

What were the effects of the Dutch temple on the Dutch LDS Church? The initial effects surfaced during the construction phase. The temple was never more present for both the members and the outside world than during that year of building. All wards and branches made their pilgrimages to the site and members kept each other abreast of the progress in construction. Each ward had its representatives either on the committees or among the many volunteers for the open house. In terms of public relations, the construction year, which culminated with the open house, was the most productive time ever for the Dutch Saints. The amount of publicity generated self-confidence for a minority group used to general press neglect and occasional bad reporting.

Has the Dutch LDS Church changed more permanently following the arrival of the temple? Quite a lot was expected, at least by some authorities during the dedication. However, since at least the 1980s the level of membership in the Netherlands—as in most of Western Europe— has been stable: the number of new members matches the numbers who leave the church. In a church used to growth, this calls for an explanation.[27] One is the degree of the secularization of Western Europe;[28] another is the decreased popularity of the U.S. in Europe, where Mormonism is still seen as an essentially American religion.[29] Despite this, voices in the church’s administration cry out for a “second harvest” in Europe. Has the temple in the Netherlands stimulated church growth? At the time of writing, after ten years, it would not seem to be the case.[30] The main body of converts in Europe now comes from immigrants, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean, but they form a more transient church population than do the ethnic Dutch.[31]

However, the temple has generated a feeling of “coming of age” of an organization with self-sufficiency and maturity, a feeling helped by the gradual transformation of a church of converts into a body of second- and third-generation members. It has also helped to establish a gradually emerging Dutch Mormon culture.[32] The media attention helped to stimulate this self-awareness, as the gist of newspaper reports has been more positive than the Dutch Saints had been used to. Attendance at the main press conference was massive at a time when religious matters were considered less than interesting for the Dutch general public. The overall impression is that the press coverage has resulted in a normalization of the Mormon presence in the Netherlands and of the church becoming one of the country’s many Christian denominations,[33] at least during the days of intense publicity. The reactions of visitors were also gratifying for members, as positive astonishment colored many of the oral and written reactions.[34] The processes around the Dutch temple resembled to a large extent the Finnish temple experience, a temple that was built at about the same time and also serving a rather small body of members. In the Finnish case, public attention resulted in a lasting reduction of “otherness.”[35] In the LDS church in the Netherlands, the effect of publicity seemed to be a more generic improvement in the general awareness of the Dutch public.[36] The number of referrals has not increased, however. Attention does not seem to translate into a receptiveness to missionary endeavors.

One curious effect has been on temple attendance. The church’s general policy is to bring the temples to the people, and not the reverse. The end of the twentieth century saw an explosion of temple building and dedications, and in between 1999 and 2001 no fewer than 53 temples were dedicated.[37] When it was dedicated in 2002, the Zoetermeer temple was LDS temple number 114, one of the many new small temples. The goal of building more and smaller temples is to facilitate temple attendance. However, in 1994 David Buerger argued that as far as the available statistics showed, the average attendance per member was slowly dropping throughout the church despite the huge building program.[38] The 1990 changes in the endowment might have affected this trend, but as endowment figures are hard to come by, this still would have to be substantiated. Our experiences from the Zoetermeer temple indicate no incremental effect of the 1990 changes in the ritual. On the whole, Zoetermeer shows no increase in temple attendance compared to the Dutch attendance in Friendrichsdorf; in fact, the contrary has been the case. In its first year, 2003, not only was temple attendance in Zoetermeer by Dutch Saints lower than in the previous years of the Frankfurt temple,[39] but each following year the Zoetermeer temple has also shown a marked decline in attendance.[40] Zoetermeer endowment figures seemed to reach a stable level in 2006 and 2007, but then dropped again, to reach a nadir in 2010. The number started to climb again in 2011 and in the first half of 2012, but in no way is Dutch temple attendance expected to regain its pre-2003 level at the Friedrichsdorf temple; the present attendance is estimated at about half of the former Friedrichsdorf attendance.

The sacred building for the Dutch Saints is not only a boon but also a burden. The Dutch temple district is small (the main reason for not having an accommodation center on the premises) and the church already demands a large investment in time from its few members. Although temples run mainly on “grey power,” i.e. retired people, the temple finds itself in logistical competition with the “everyday church”; the temple is often seen as an extra. This contrasts with those parts of the church with a large membership, where the temple offers a place for retirees to spend their time within the church. And, of course, the genealogical research needed to supply the temples with names is just as time-consuming. In a low LDS-density situation such as the Netherlands, temple callings, with the exception of callings as temple presidency, have to cede priority to this “everyday church.”

Some of the Dutch church leaders had in fact foreseen both the problems concerning time allocation and the lower attendance rates. It was clear in the days of the Frankfurt temple that several stakes on the outskirts of the temple district were more active in temple work. And in the London (Newcastle) temple before the building of the Preston temple, according to a temple president of the Newcastle temple, it was the Scots who led the British stakes in temple attendance in London, so the members at the greatest distance might well be the most active temple goers. This was routinely interpreted in terms of faithfulness but in fact a different process is at work here, namely pilgrimage. The LDS Church has no pilgrimage, at least none institutionalized,[41] but this has not stopped members from inventing their own: visits to temples some distance away, such as Bern, London, or Frankfurt, for example, served as quasi-pilgrimages. Because of the distance, most members went for an entire week, and performed endowments all day, interspersed with other ordinances. They would stay in the adjoining hostel and experience an intense “holy week.” It was usually a highly social week as well, interacting with members from other wards and stakes. Plus, being in a foreign country, the temple trip provided the chance for some sightseeing and shopping. Distance was not seen as a problem, as members mostly traveled together, and sometimes buses were hired, increasing the experience of “social traveling.” As in any true pilgrimage, the journey counted at least as much as the destination, and arrangements for travel dominated the discourse inside the wards for a long time in advance. After the temple week, all talks and testimonies were about the trip, about the spiritual experiences, and all social ties that were made were couched in terms of spirituality.

This unofficial form of pilgrimage ended with the building of the temple. Temple attendance in Zoetermeer is for one day, often one evening, and then people return home. For many older members today it is more difficult to attend the Zoetermeer temple than it had been formerly to attend the German one, because of the absence of adequate accommodation near the temple and a lack of group travel.[42] Additionally, the Zoetermeer temple is located in one of the most congested traffic areas in the Netherlands, which may present another obstacle to attendance. In the final calculation this amounts to fewer endowments.[43] The temple pilgrimage is sorely missed. Occasionally members organize short trips to Frankfurt or London to regain some of the temple spirit best experienced in intensive cooperation for a whole week. Members are free to go but going beyond one’s district is not encouraged by the church hierarchy. A few members make their own pilgrimage route by visiting other temples in Europe, and Zoetermeer too is getting its—admittedly small—share of visitors from abroad. Most are Americans, including U.S. servicemen based in Germany, traveling through Europe and “doing the temples.”

In 2009 the Dutch temple presidency sent out a letter with new instructions for patrons in an effort to stimulate attendance at Zoetermeer. The tone of the letter was one of strictness and discipline, which provoked a negative reaction from the members. The temple presidency had to rescind the letter, and wrote a new, friendlier version. In their subsequent conversation with the local leadership[44] they did give instructions but also cultivated a free exchange of ideas: slowly, the notion seems to be arising that the temple is a buyers’ market as the members vote with their feet. Thus, what seems to matter most for the Dutch Saints is that they have a temple, not so much that they attend it.

Hierarchies of Sacredness, Sacred Hierarchies

In order to better understand the impact of the temple, the notion of the hierarchy of sacredness is important. The Dutch temple itself is part of such a hierarchy. Though there are differences in small and large temples, this does not count much for the members. A temple is a temple, and the stature of a huge temple, such as the Los Angeles one, and a much smaller temple, such as that in Zoetermeer, is not relevant for patrons.[45] However, the Salt Lake temple is still a case apart. The “Central Temple” carries a different status, as it is the temple the prophet and apostles attend. Its special status was highlighted in the Netherlands by a scholar from the Religious Education department at BYU at a recent well-attended fireside. He talked about ancient and latter-day temples, and the main recent temple in his presentation was the Salt Lake one, for which he claimed an inspired architecture. One other reason for the special place of the Salt Lake temple is that the ceremony is not on film but is dramatized by volunteer temple workers.[46]

This hierarchy of temples underscores the central position of the General Authorities as the representatives of the Church and the holders of the “priesthood keys.” The central control of the temples is an effective expression of the general control of the Church, and the control of the General Authorities—sometimes referred to by the synonym “Salt Lake”—over temple issues is at the front of everybody’s mind. I once suggested moving a chair in one of the rooms of the temple, and received the dry commentary: “Brother, you do not comprehend how things work here.” All details come from America and are not allowed to change. In all practical matters, Dutch ownership of “their” temple is very limited indeed.

Central control evidently holds a fortiori for any changes in temple ritual. No Dutch Saint, however maverick, would dream of introducing changes in the endowment, as all ritual instructions come from Salt Lake and are implemented in all temples around the world without discussion or explanation. In fact, imagining a temple presidency adapting the ritual to local culture—an option that is standard in many other denominations[47]—can only be a thought experiment. In practice, the notion is unthinkable. Control by the General Authorities over the ritual is absolute, just as is their control over where temples will be planned and built. At the semi-annual general conferences the announcement of new temples is one of the highlights of the conference. A special case was the announcement of the Rome temple. It created an audible stir in the usually quiet audience, as the LDS Church was, through the announcement, seen to be advancing into the heart of Roman Catholicism. But in all other respects the Rome temple followed normal procedure: the announcement came from the First Presidency, not from the European Area Presidency, let alone from the Italian stake presidents. And new temples are announced, not proposed for a sustaining vote.

The debate on the origin of sacredness mentioned in the introduction—the relative weight of ritual versus place—gets its own solution in Mormonism. Here ritual is the first mover as the new temples are constructed to allow the Saints easier access to the rituals. But the temples are also a constructed sacred place, a built environment with little regard to any inherent holiness attached to the building site. Thus the debate is resolved in Mormonism through the hierarchy itself, the notion of authority flowing downward, installing—and changing—the rituals as well as deciding, designing, and building the sacred places to perform them in.

This hierarchy and its control are unchallenged, and this is clearest in the changes in temple ritual. Modifications of ritual are not announced in General Conference—it is a public occasion and the Church does not discuss temple matters in public—nor are the changes announced through the regular ecclesiastical line, through area presidencies, stake presidencies, and bishoprics. In its long history temple ritual has often been modified,[48] and the routine of changing anything in ritual and presentation has become standardized. The implementation of these changes completely skirts ecclesiastical lines of authority, and the following description is based upon the experiences in the Dutch temple with the 2005 changes in the initiatories.[49] The communication stems directly from the Temple Department, which has a direct and direct continuously manned telephone line with all temples. The procedure is as follows: the Temple Department telephones the temple that a certain representative of the department will arrive at the airport and has to be met. The names of the welcoming party are given, and when they meet the representative at the airport all have to present identification. Then a DVD is handed over and signed for and the representative returns with the next flight. In the temple the DVD is put into the central temple computer and the DVD installs through its own programming all relevant changes, as well as some instructional films for the temple staff. Then, witnessed by a few temple staff, the DVD is destroyed in a special machine.[50]

Most Dutch members knew nothing of any possible changes until they attended the temple after the changes had been implemented. If some changes affect rituals they seldom engage in, they will notice the changes much later still. For instance, the 2005 change in the preparatory ordinances is well known by those who perform and undergo them, but a large number of the temple patrons only do endowments. Even now, several years later, some members remain unaware of the change.

Not only is there a hierarchy in and of sacredness, hierarchy itself has some “[Editor’s Note: See PDF for this word],” holiness, as well. The Dutch church leadership operates in the shadow of the prophet’s mantle, sharing some of his authority. Comparing the church with other similar institutions, it is striking how visible LDS leadership is, especially the top tiers, and how well-known. Max Weber’s notion of positional charisma is apt here: a General Authority, an apostle, and above all, the prophet, have tremendous charisma based upon the positions they occupy, but charisma is also attributed to them personally. The authority of the Brethren is unchallenged and any appeal they make to the membership should not and does not go unheeded, even in the far reaches of the international church such as the Netherlands. Thus, if representing the church and by implication Jesus Christ, the leadership deems it wise to make a change in temple ceremonies, members will not raise any objections. In fact, most of the changes consist of gently ousting the overt Masonic elements,[51] a change welcomed by a continental European membership, where Masonry was never an important influence and that is, anyway, much less interested in this kind of symbolism than was nineteenth-century America. But given the sacredness of the hierarchy, changes are readily accepted, meaning that the control of the hierarchy, and thus the perceived sacredness of the hierarchy, is in no way diminished.[52] It is considered their right to change the ceremony and, by exercising that right, their span of control is increased.

Control is also exercised when the Church tries to minimize the somatic aspects of the initiatory and of the main endowment, but European Mormons have fewer problems with somatic elements,[53] considering prudish American culture at odds with straightforward body symbolism. As John-Charles Duffy correctly argues, present western European culture is rather sexualized and has generally accepted homoerotic expressions that still are frowned upon by American society and even more so by the LDS leadership.[54]

Dutch saints never challenge the hierarchy of holiness that is implicit in the temple. On the contrary, they use their temple to define their own distinctiveness from other denominations. After all, the European Saints, including the Dutch, live as tiny minorities in a landscape that is increasingly secular but whose secularity is shot through with the deep roots and former power of the mainline denominations. The visual icon of the cathedral in the inner cities in the Netherlands comes to mind here: from my study I can hear the bells of several churches, but nothing “Mormon”; in Europe, Mormonism is Other. One dominant symbol of that otherness is indeed the Mormon temple, which is a stranger in the world of Christianity. This is what it means to be Dutch and Mormon and this is what the presence of the temple in Holland symbolizes.

The Dutch Temple and the Experience of the Sacred

Having one’s own temple can lead to the routinization of the sacred. No longer going on pilgrimage, Dutch Saints are exhorted to fix temple attendance into their weekly schedules and attend frequently. In Dutch understanding, this notion of routinization stands perpendicular to the notion of the sacred itself, pilgrimage events being much more apt for the experience of the holy. The temple ritual may be an act out of time, yet patrons still have fit it into a daily and weekly schedule. So for them it is no longer a “time out of time,” i.e. something “sacred,” but an item in their agenda. The sacred is not only routinized, it has also become “work,” mundane. This is even stressed by the leadership:

In recent temple dedications President Hinckley has suggested we not focus so much on the personal benefits of attending the temple but rather focus on temple work as “work.” While the personal blessings resulting from temple attendance are numerous, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is work and requires commitment and duty.[55]

The end of pilgrimage, as mentioned above, has contributed to this shift. A pilgrimage as such is “time out of time,” but driving through traffic to the temple, after phoning home to check whether someone still has to be picked up, and just making it to the temple in time—to be gently chastised by temple staff for coming so late—is not conducive to an experience of sanctity. That is work indeed. Also, members tend to see temple service as work for others, more than for themselves, which sounds like a good piece of altruism but detracts from their own religious experiences.[56]

With the “holy week” of the temple pilgrimage gone, the very nature of the temple experience has changed as well, into the direction of work—and for the Dutch the notion of work is not sacred at all. This dilutes the holy and detracts from the special position of the temple. This might be one additional factor for the decline in attendance. The temple experience has become more mundane, shifting from a holy week in a foreign country to temple work on Thursday evening in Zoetermeer (a little bit like home teaching). The Church hierarchy operates as if new temples increase the “special work” of holiness that is found within them, but in fact with a proliferation of temples an inevitable dilution sets in. Terryl Givens points at a general paradox in Mormon religious culture, the reduction of the distance between the sacred and the secular, commenting on “Mormonism’s tendency to thoroughly infuse sacred space with seemingly pedestrian elements, or to conf late heaven and earth,”[57] or in Armand Mauss’s terms, the tension between the “angel and the beehive.”[58] When the Saints have to work like “industrious bees” in their most sacred place, the sacred character suffers, since the sacred has a necessary scarcity that cannot be reduced without cost. After all, the experience of the sacred, like any religious experience, almost by definition is distinct from everyday life, with an intermittent character that precludes planning and repetition. So, the paradox holds that planning and inspiration do not travel well together.[59]

This routinization of the sacred seems to hold mainly for the patrons. The experience is different for those who are called to serve as temple presidencies, where their service is a long, liminal time that is experienced deeply. The three couples that make up the temple leadership experience their calling as a real time out of time, three years for the small temples. Looking back on their experience, the first presidential couple in Zoetermeer[60] fondly remember their temple years, love to speak about them, and express their deep, heartfelt gratitude for that special time. An interesting category here is the temple workers, situated as they are between patrons and presidents, serving part-time but for long periods. The ones I interviewed had their own solution for the paradox of the routinization of the sacred. They seem to have shifted the definition of their membership in the direction of the temple. For them the Sunday worship has become more marginal, a ritual to pass through in order to get at the temple, and it is at that very temple that they “live” spiritually. They are “temple dwellers,” and equate church service with temple work first, and ecclesiastical service second. Sitting out the Sunday, they can go “home” during the week. This is reinforced by the fact that they are assigned to one specific temple only, but in the Netherlands there is no alternative at hand anyway. Their attachment is to one particular sacred building. One temple worker formulated it thus: “When you go to the temple, you go to the House of the Lord; when I go, I join my spiritual home.”[61]

Final Thoughts: The Internal and External Functions of the Zoetermeer Temple

With routinization accounting for a dilution of the intensity of the ritualized sacred, the Zoetermeer temple has taken on new functions. The temple in Nauvoo and the temples in Utah stood at the heart of a Mormon community, where people met under the direct aegis of spiritual leaders.[62] The temples reinforced their self-definition as a special people, with a definition of specialness that linked past and present in ethnic terms. Jan Shipps has remarked that with the introduction of temple endowments, the covenants of the new dispensation interwove with those of ancient times,[63] while John Brooke highlights the way Joseph Smith through the temple rituals put Mormonism inside a long tradition of mystery religions.[64] But it was an ethnic mystery religion first of all, binding together a close-knit community by enhancing their identity and, above all, by transforming their worldly marginality into a spiritual boon. The temple ceremonies succeeded in redefining that marginality, transforming the rim into the centre, and turning virtual outcasts into a chosen people. Even though the U.S. overtook the Mormon Zion and Utah entered the Union,[65] the function of the temples in sacralizing the home territory remained. The litmus test of being not only a church but also a people was essentially the temple: a temple of Zion, a temple in Zion.

This ethnic ritual definition became less vital when the church moved out of its desert confinement and grew into an international institution, no longer the colony but itself colonizing,[66] a colonization process that eventually led to the Zoetermeer temple. The temple is a new place of sacredness in the Netherlands and whether they perform the rituals frequently or not does not matter any more: the sacred place has conquered the ritual. The Dutch church province has come of age with its own temple, no longer dependent on temples in foreign countries.

The temple also has the potential to subtly change the relationship of the Saints to Dutch and Belgian society in a way that is somewhat at odds with its ritual otherworldliness. Dutch and Bel-gian Saints wish for recognition as valid members of their national religious scene. It is not the status as a peculiar people that is being sought but the status of a normal people, respectable Christians, good citizens. To some extent, they still have to learn that they are already there, that they have indeed arrived on the public scene. For Dutch Saints it is so normal to be marginal that they readily define their religion as private and irrelevant for the public space, a dominant trend in the past decade of Dutch religion anyway. This is the reason why the temple presidency, while commanding a building that is very present in the Zoetermeer public space, has never thought of really engaging in Zoetermeer civic life. They never showed up at the New Year reception at the town hall as it simply never occurred to them. If this changes in the future, this twin function of the temple will be confirmed: as a geographic symbol of sacred otherliness (internal) and a sign that Dutch Mormons are now part of the Dutch religious landscape (external).

This observation calls to mind, more than anything else in the LDS temples, the function of the temple in Jerusalem. The relation between Deseret and the temples in the “mission field,” such as Zoetermeer, in many respects reproduces the difference be-tween the First and the Second Temple. The temple of Solomon was meant to be the only place of worship, and as such was in constant competition with other gods such as Baal or Astarte.[67] This First Temple was built upon a place which was already sacred, but which also accrued huge sacrality through the temple itself and helped define the Israelite people. Likewise, the first LDS temple united the people, sacralized not only its building space but also the ethnic habitat, its living space, and produced the imperative for ethnic gathering.[68] Kirtland, Nauvoo, Salt Lake, and the mythos attached to the Missouri temple site sanctified that part of America where the gathering could take place, transforming a wilderness into a garden.

The Second Jerusalem Temple, built after the Babylonian exile and later expanded by Herod, functioned in combination with local congregations and synagogues. No longer was it the centre of a religious polity, but it became the focus of an internationalized Jewish population, all part of a much larger realm. In the Mormon case, its self-imposed exile in the Salt Lake Valley eventually produced a combination of chapel and temple, but the main change occurred during the days of expansion when the church moved out of its Rocky Mountain homeland. It took over a century to build its first temple outside the Mormon culture area,[69] but with that move out of Zion, the temple became a firm link between centre and periphery and a means for local denominational maturity. During the Second Temple period, the Jews in the Roman Empire saw their temple as a mark of identity. In the eyes of the Dutch Saints, the Zoetermeer temple, like other international temples, does not sanctify the city or the province but does mark their identity as Mormon-Dutch citizens of the European Mormon “empire.”

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] “Waar onder de hemel mensen dwergen zijn, waar de kerken de enige bergen zijn,” translation from the French by Ernst van Altena.

[2] Harold W. Turner, From Temple to Meeting House: The Phenomenology and Theology of Places of Worship (The Hague: Mouton, 1979).

[3] The temple district also includes Belgium and northern France and, unless otherwise indicated, the term “Dutch” Saints includes members from these stakes as well.

[4] For two comprehensive treatments see Matthew T. Evans, “The Sacred: Differentiating, Clarifying and Extending Concepts,” Review of Religious Research 45, 1 (2003): 32–47; Arie Molendijk, “The Notion of the ‘Sacred,’” in Holy Ground: Re-inventing Ritual Space in Modern Western Culture, edited by Paul Post and Arie L. Molendijk (Leuven: Peters, 2010), 55–89.

[5] Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1987).

[6] Ronald L. Grimes, Rite out of Place: Ritual, Media and the Arts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

[7] Smith, To Take Place, 104. Emphasis added.

[8] Grimes, Rite out of Place, 15.

[9] Paul Post and Arie L. Molendijk, “Introduction,” in Holy Grounds in the Netherlands, edited by Paul Post and Arie L. Molendijk (Leuven: Peeers, 2009), 4.

[10] David Brown, God and the Enchantment of Place: Reclaiming Human Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

[11] Like most denominations, Mormonism likes to indicate its own rituals with a term that distinguishes them from the others. Catholics use “liturgy,” Mormons “ordinances” or “ceremonies,” but both are of course examples of the more generic term “rituals.”

[12] The cases of the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples are illustrative here.

[13] Such as branch president, stake president, high counselor, bishop’s counselor, teacher in various organizations including CES Institute, and member of the Dutch Public Affairs Committee.

[14] Some of them are mentioned in the notes, but special thanks go to Paul van’t Schip, a former counselor in the temple presidency.

[15] Bij Michael Butter, incorporated in Antonie A. Vreven, Predik alle volken; de Geschiedenis van de Kerk van Jezus Christus van de Heiligen der Laatste Dagen in Nederland, 1861–2011 (Groningen: private printing, 2012). For a detailed description see Vreven, Predik alle volken.

[16] Prof. van Leeuwen was the mayor of Zoetermeer while the temple was being built. At the ceremony of the first pole, which was also a new experience for him, he mentioned his visit to Salt Lake City in 1991 when he presented the Salt Lake City mayor with a Zoetermeer present, a salt and a sugar shaker, out of respect.

[17] Interview with Mr. Waaijer, April 4, 2004.

[18] The New Year reception is open to the public.

[19] http://www.kerkvanjezuschristus.nl, accessed May 5, 2005.

[20] The Dutch-Belgian LDS Church province has 11,000 members of record.

[21] Vreven, Predik alle volken, 171-183.

[22] For a detailed description see Vreven, Predik alle volken, 175–183.

[23] At present, December 1, 2012, another hazard of polder construction appears: the grounds are sinking and the temple is slightly cracking at several spots.

[24] Hinckley came from East Germany where, on September 7, he had rededicated the Freiberg temple in former East Germany, a temple which largely eclipsed the Zoetermeer one in internal Church publicity as the only temple ever built behind the Iron Curtain.

[25] For the text see Vreven, Predik alle volken, 180–3. The Zoetermeer dedication prayer fits in well with the pattern set by Hinckley at other temples. For an analysis, see Samuel Brown, “A Sacred Code: Mormon Dedicatory Prayers 1836–2000,” Journal of Mormon History 32, no. 2 (2006): 173–196.

[26] The list is in Vreven, Predik alle volken.

[27] Mormons are not only used to growth, but operating under an ideology of growth as well. For some factual critique of this growth ideology, see Henry Gooren, “Analyzing LDS Growth in Guatemala; Report from a ‘Barrio,’” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 2 (2000): 97–116; and David Knowlton, “How Many Members Are There Really? Two Censuses and the Meaning of LDS Membership in Chile and Mexico,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 2 (2005): 53–78.

[28] The leadership often blames the free sexual mores and liberal soft-drugs policy of the Netherlands for the lack of growth but this is not a hindrance to proselytizing at all since other Protestant groups, such as the Evangelicals, have no problem recruiting large numbers of youth in the same socio-cultural environment.

[29] When the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003, some chapels in the Netherlands were smeared with tomato ketchup and for several nights members slept in some of the meeting houses to guard them.

[30] Bruce Van Orden, Building Zion: The Latter-day Saints in Europe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 219, 222.

[31] Gary Lobb, “Mormon Membership Trends in Europe among People of Color: Present and Future Assessment,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 4 (2000): 55–68.

[32] Walter E. A. Van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons? An Afro-European Look at Religious Colonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (2005): 3–36.

[33] Personal communication from Ineke den Hollander-Kirschbaum, then member of the Public Relations Committee, with the press portfolio, June 23, 2003.

[34] Visitors could note their impressions on forms after the visit. The general impression was very favorable.

[35] Kim B. Östman, “Esotericism Made Exoteric? Insider and Outsider Perspectives on the 2006 Mormon Temple Open House in Espoo, Finland,” in Western Esotericism, edited by R. Ahlbäck (Abo, Finland: Donner Institute for Research in Religious and Cultural History, 2008), 124–38.

[36] Ineke den Hollander-Kirschbaum in an e-mail reaction to me on Kim B. Östman, “‘The Other’ in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40, no. 4 (2007): 85–106.

[37] Sociologist Rodney Stark has developed a hypothesis for the growth of the Mormon Church in general. See Rodney Stark, “The Basis of Mormon Success: A Theoretical Application,” in Mormons and Mormonism: An Introduction to an American World Religion, edited by E. A. Eliason (Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 207–42.

[38] David J. Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 174, 175.He notes that in 1987 the Church stopped publishing endowment figures.

[39] This figure was hard to estimate, as the data in the Friedrichsdorf temple do not allow for a precise breakdown on patron provenance. Through interviews with former temple missionaries at Friedrichsdorf and with officers of the three stakes in the Netherlands I arrived at a “guesstimate” of 9,000–10,000 Dutch endowments for 2002 in Frank-furt, including Flemish Belgium, as do the Zoetermeer figures. The first year in Zoetermeer, 2003, reported over 7,000 endowments, tapering off toward 4,000 in 2010. In 2012 they are expected to rise just over 5,000.

[40] Measured in endowments performed for the dead, the majority of the temple work. The years 2004, 2005, and 2006 showed an annual decline of about eight percent. In 2007 the decline halted, to continue in 2008.

[41] There are a few Mormon journeys, however, such as trips to see the pageants and the phenomenon known as “trek” wherein Mormon youth re-enact pioneer crossings. On Mormon historical sites as “Mormon Meccas,” see Michael Madsen, Mormon Meccas: The Spiritual Transformation of Mormon Historical Sites from Points of Interest to Sacred Space (Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 2003) and for Europe, Ronan James Head, “Creating a Mormon Mecca in England: The Gadfield Elm Chapel,” Mormon Historical Studies, 7, nos. 1–2 (2006), 89–101.

[42] The Dutch temple committee tried to have some kind of hostel arrangement near the temple but this was not allowed by the central authorities as it did not fit the standards for a small temple.

[43] The temple presidency used to report attendance numbers to the stake presidencies in their temple district but were advised no longer to do so because it would be discouraging for members. Reporting to the temple department was considered sufficient.

[44] Rotterdam stake on October 12, 2009.

[45] A small temple can only accommodate one group at a time, usually by appointment. Its presidency should live within commuting distance and it has no temple missionaries. Nor does it have hostel or cafeteria facilities. Most of the temples built in the last decade are small temples.

[46] In some older temples this is done as well, such as in Manti and Logan, but few people in the Netherlands are aware of that.

[47] For instance, denominations operating in Africa show numerous adaptations to local norms of worship, such as drumming and dancing as part of services. The LDS church in Africa does not adapt in this way, not in the regular services and surely not in temple ritual.

[48] Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness.

[49] These changes have been analyzed also in terms of ecclesiastical control of the body; see John-Charles Duffy: ”Concealing the Body, Concealing the Sacred: The Decline of Ritual Nudity in Mormon Temples,” Journal of Ritual Studies 21, no. 1 (2007): 1–21.

[50] This information stems from interviews with members of the temple presidencies of the Zoetermeer temple.

[51] For such a subtle denial, see G.W. Scharffs, Mormons & Masons; Setting the Record Straight (Orem, Utah, 2006). For a more balanced reaction, see Armand Mauss, “Culture, Charisma and Change: Reflections on Mormon Temple Worship,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 4 (1987): 77–83.

[52] Duffy’s analysis regarding the power of Church authorities over the members’ individual bodies is both productive and interesting, See John-Charles Duffy, “Concealing the Body, Concealing the Sacred.”

[53] Many ex-Mormon blogs register the shocked reactions of young American LDS on the embodied aspects of the endowment. In Europe this kind of reaction is seldom mentioned.

[54] The LDS stance on California’s Proposition 8, which exerted heavy public and political pressure against gay marriages, was accepted among most LDS in the U.S. but created problems of conscience for the few European Mormons that were aware of it.

[55] www.lds.org (accessed August 17, 2009).

[56] Ann Taves, Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 81.

[57] Terryl Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 46.

[58] Armand Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).

[59] Ibid., 121.

[60] Anne and Elly Hulleman, interviewed by the author on January 10, 2008.

[61] Bauke Elzinga, in a conversation with the author in August 2012.

[62] Richard D. Poll, ”Utah and the Mormons: A Symbiotic Relationship,” in Mormons and Mormonism: An Introduction to an American World Religion, edited by E. A. Eliason (Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 164–79.

[63] Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 63–64.

[64] John L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644–1844 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

[65] The classic treatment is Armand Mauss’s The Angel and the Beehive.

[66] Van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons?”

[67] The Reformation of Josiah (2 Chron. 34–35), in which the major part of Deuteronomy was produced, forms the best illustration of that struggle for ritual hegemony. See Erik Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomic History (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

[68] Armand Mauss, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage (Urbana/Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

[69] This was the Bern, Switzerland, temple (which actually is in Zollikofen), built in 1955.

[post_title] => The Temple and the Sacred: Dutch Temple Experiences [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 47.1 (Spring 2012): 104–123
First, the history of the temple project will be shown from the Dutch perspective, with a discussion of some of the observable effects on the Dutch saints, one of them being a large drop in temple attendance. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-temple-and-the-sacred-dutch-temple-experiences [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-09-09 19:58:01 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-09-09 19:58:01 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9532 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10140 [post_author] => 2058 [post_date] => 2018-03-21 01:36:49 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-21 01:36:49 [post_content] =>

Media attention is a two-edged sword with the potential for both positive and negative publicity. Still, many societal actors find it important to stay in people’s minds through media exposure. Religious movements, for example, often want their share of attention in order to shape public attitudes and attract converts.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception. In the United States in recent years, the Mormon Church has been given the broadest exposure through events not directly related to it, such as the candidacy of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. The Mormons and their faith also had worldwide coverage during the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Furthermore, the Latter-day Saints tend to surface in mainstream media through their missionaries, humanitarian projects, and sometimes features perceived as peculiar.

At the local level, new Latter-day Saint temples are probably one of the largest single sources of media attention. The stated purpose of temple building is, of course, to give devout Mormons easier access to their most sacred religious ceremonies. Nevertheless, these building projects are always accompanied by media attention as a highly welcome side dish, especially during the public open houses that are organized before the completed temple is dedicated. Thus, while the Church spares few means to make the temple construction project itself successful, it also expends great efforts to make the public open house a success in terms of public relations. With temple open houses as interesting intersections between the esoteric and the exoteric, the Church also takes great care to train temple tour guides (usually local Latter-day Saints) and to give an understandable picture of its sacred and partly secret temple tradition to the public.

According to Jan Shipps, interested observers have of late been able to witness a “templization” of Mormonism.[1] While this means, among other things, an increased focus of Mormon discourse and religious practice on the faith’s temples, templization can also be seen in the accelerated pace with which Latter-day Saint temples are being built around the world. During five-year periods from 1987 to the present, the number of new temples dedicated has been four, five, fifty-eight, and seventeen, respectively.[2]

The result of this proliferation is that public open houses at temples occur much more frequently than they did a couple of decades ago. Thus, the general public is more frequently exposed in its own locale to Mormonism, often a foreign faith phenomenon. Considering how frequently open houses currently occur and how important a role they play in introducing individuals to Mormonism (and, not least, in shaping the Latter-day Saint image through the media), research literature on the topic is surprisingly silent.

The purpose of this article is to begin filling that gap by discussing some of the publicity accompanying the recently built Helsinki Finland Temple, located in the southern Finland city of Espoo. Discussions of the public open house among Latter-day Saints in Finland have understandably tended to emphasize positive feedback from the general public. After years of rejection and difficulties, many saw the great interest of the public as something miraculous. In order not to skew the overall picture, however, it is important to also discuss the wider variety of thoughts Finnish people had concerning Mormons and their temple. While many visitors had highly positive things to say, most Finns did not visit the temple, nor was every visitor’s experience positive.

This article represents one attempt to nuance the picture by focusing on Mormons as the cultural or religious “other” in media stories related to the Helsinki Temple building project. The analyzed discourses can be roughly divided into an otherness-promoting hegemonic discourse and into a counter-discourse that seeks to remove the Mormon image of otherness. By otherness-promoting discourses, I refer to modes or manners of speaking that seek to construct an image of something as foreign, as not belonging to one’s own group, “not us,” as simply “the other.” By counter-discourses or otherness-diminishing discourses, I refer to those modes or manners of speaking that seek to eliminate mental images of “the other” and to construct an image of familiarity, normalcy, and something related to and part of “us.”

My material consists of more than 100 newspaper and magazine clippings, radio stories, and television news reports from around Finland.[3] The greatest interest in the temple project was naturally displayed in the media of the capital city region around Helsinki. However, bulletins by the Finnish News Agency or other writings on the Mormons were published in general newspapers around Finland and in professional, religious, and other magazines or periodicals.[4] Chronologically, the material begins in May 2001 when the location of the projected temple was announced and ends in December 2006. It is most abundant for the fall season of 2006. As a general observation, the spectrum of Finnish media where information about the temple appeared is fairly wide geographically and especially wide ideologically.[5] Billing it as “Finland’s first Mormon temple” also naturally aroused interest outside the capital city region.

The context of the publicity is a culture in which a stereotypical and passive Lutheranism is thought of as the most characteristic form of religiousness. Lutheranism often forms the base against which all other religiousness is evaluated.[6] In the case of foreign religions, the media have often concentrated on what is appropriate in Finnish society.[7] My discussion is thus theoretically anchored to the religious and cultural identity of Finns and to the power of the media to maintain boundaries between “us” and “them”—in this case, between average Finnish religiosity and Mormonism.

I will first discuss ways in which the foreign image of the Mormons was brought up by the general media, the religious media, and ecclesiastical representatives of other churches in Finland. Second, I will discuss how Finnish Latter-day Saints sought to diminish or remove images of themselves as “the other.” The subheadings in this article are actual quotations from the publicity and exemplify the themes and attendant discourses. Due to the mass of material, I will limit my discussion and perspective to only a few recurring main themes. One should thus keep in mind that this article is not a general overview of the publicity related to the new Helsinki Temple. Rather, it discusses the publicity from a very specific perspective.

Before engaging with the material, however, I will first build a context by describing the Finnish religious landscape and Mormonism’s place in it, discuss the Helsinki Temple project and open house, and evaluate the role of the media in discussions of phenomena perceived as foreign by the cultural mainstream.

Religion and the Mormon Church in Finland

Finland is a country with 5.2 million inhabitants. About 80 percent are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. According to some sociologists of religion, however, the situation can most aptly be described as the Finns believing in belonging to rather than believing in the tenets of the Lutheran Church.[8] One must also keep in mind that only a fraction of Finns who are Lutherans are active churchgoers. In general, Finland can be said to be a highly secularized country, where membership in the Lutheran Church is more a sign of cultural belonging than a mark of religiosity.

In addition to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church (comparatively small), both of which hold the status of state church, several smaller churches and religious movements operate in Finland. These can be roughly divided into older Christian or Christian-based churches, the religious traditions of immigrants, and new religious movements. Studies show that Finns often have reserved feelings toward religions that deviate from the mainstream.[9] Although the reasons for these feelings have not been studied in depth, I surmise that the negativity is a reaction to proselytism, popularized images of brainwashing, and the culturally foreign.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been present in Finland in one way or another ever since the first missionaries entered the country in 1875. The country was first dedicated for the preaching of the Latter-day Saint gospel in 1903, with a rededication following in 1946. Since that year, missionary work has continued without interruption. According to the Church’s own statistics, there are currently approximately 4,500 Mormons in Finland, assembling in thirty congregations around the country. LDS meetinghouses have been constructed since the 1950s. Approximately half of the membership is “active” by Latter-day Saint standards, meaning that they attend at least one religious service per month. The Church is ecclesiastically divided into the Helsinki and Tampere stakes in the south while the Finland Helsinki Mission’s districts cover the rest of the country.

Finnish Mormons have often been described as very dedicated temple attendees. They have regularly organized temple excursions since the dedication of the Bern Switzerland Temple in 1955 and, since 1985, to the temple near Stockholm, Sweden. With a temple now completed in their own country, Finnish Mormons have entered an interesting new era, the effects of which remain to be seen.

In spite of the relative normalcy of individual Finnish members who compare well to the general Finnish population, the Mormon Church in Finland has never shaken off its foreign image. Finns are accustomed to religion that is historically tied to Finland and led by their own countrymen. The Mormon Church, in contrast, is transnational but strongly American. LDS leaders who visit Finland are usually American. Mormon missionaries working in Finland are mostly Americans who speak Finnish with clearly perceptible accents and very limited vocabularies. In the past, these American missionaries have even been suspected by some of being spies for the U.S. government.[10] Compared to Lutheranism, the Mormon Church is conservative in biblical interpretation, sexual ethics, and its male-only priesthood. In addition to its non-Finnish features, then, the image of the Church’s otherness in contemporary Finnish society is strengthened by the values it espouses.

The foreign image is, of course, not unique to Mormonism in Finland. Mormonism fights an identity of otherness and foreignness in all new host cultures into which it spreads. To conquer these difficulties, Latter-day Saints would have to arrive at unique acculturation solutions in each country. So far, however, the operating model has emphasized the international unity (and, by extension, the American nature) of the Church. Policies and operating models are formed in the United States and spread worldwide to other countries and cultures through a hierarchical leadership and organizational structure. Thus, it may be said that the Mormon Church, when detached from its culture of origin, operates to some extent as a colony; the organizational model, methods of action, and Church culture are American-influenced, and there is relatively little leeway for cultural adaptation.[11]

Attitudes toward Mormon otherness are ambivalent among the general population in Finland: some want to draw strong boundaries, while others champion religious pluralism. Globalization and immigration have increased Finnish tolerance for and understanding of other cultures, even though these processes have not removed the traditional feelings of foreignness and otherness. It is clear, for example, that membership in the Mormon Church is not thought of as normative Finnish religiousness. Rather it is something foreign that creates an identity of otherness.

Mormons themselves generally seek to remove boundaries. Undoubtedly, their purposes vary from promoting mutual respect to creating cultural continuity in Christian host cultures and thus lowering the threshold of conversion.[12] In this, the Mormons are not alone; most churches that seek to increase their membership numbers and their influence in society court acceptance by the mainstream to various degrees. Some sociologists of religion speak of a search for optimum tension. A church has to be sufficiently different from the mainstream to be an attractive alternative. On the other hand it cannot be too different, as that would lead to the church’s societal marginalization.[13]

The New Temple in Finland

New buildings have great symbolic power because they change the existing physical landscape. They serve as landmarks and visible reminders of changes in a country’s culture. People sometimes voice objections to building projects if they find them unsuitable for one reason or another. Examples of this are the “not in my backyard” objections encountered by the building projects of foreign religions. In the southern city of Turku, Finland, for example, some people have objected to the construction of an Islamic cultural center with its minarets.[14] Difficulties with mosque-building projects have been reported also in Sweden, a country similar to Finland in many respects.[15]

The southern cities of Helsinki and Vantaa responded unenthusiastically to the prospect of a Mormon temple for reasons that have not been made public. However, a building site was eventually found in the neighboring city of Espoo, where assistant city manager Olavi Louko voiced his own feelings that Mormonism was a foreign religion, explaining to a newspaper reporter that “Espoo had just included multiculturality and tolerance in its values. I thought that values must be lived by and promised to find a site.”[16]

The Helsinki Temple was completed in the fall of 2006, about six and a half years after the temple project was announced.[17] An open house was scheduled for September 21 through October 7, 2006,[18] with local Latter-day Saints serving as guides. The temple tour consisted of a short introductory video in the nearby accommodation building, a walk through the temple itself, and refreshments and possible further individual discussions after the tour in a tent outside the temple. Depending on the number of people and the length of queues at the temple site, the tour lasted anywhere from about one to three hours. The temple was open from 10 A.M. to 9 P.M., with the evening hours often extended to 10 P.M. to accommodate those who had been waiting.

A press conference was held on September 19, 2006, during which both local and American LDS officials spoke. The conference and the temple tours for the media that followed resulted in television and newspaper stories across Finland, which in turn attracted visitors. In addition to small pass-along invitation cards, the Church also prepared an eight-page advertisement in tabloid form, financed largely by local Latter-day Saints. It was distributed professionally to homes in the Helsinki region and, to a lesser extent, by local congregations elsewhere in Finland. Three weeks after the open house had begun, a total of 55,791 visits to the temple open house had been logged. Some of these visitors were, of course, local Mormons and repeat visitors from Finland and other countries in the temple district. Still, a very large number, mostly Finns, visited the temple of a religion often thought of as foreign and as “the other” on the Finnish religious landscape.

The high number of visitors is, in fact, an interesting and to some extent a puzzling phenomenon, because recent studies show that the Latter-day Saints do not have a good public image in Finland. A poll from 2003 shows that 57 percent of Finns had a negative attitude toward the Latter-day Saints.[19] The figure is 40 percent for the fifteen-to-twenty-nine-year-olds who were interviewed for the 2006 Youth Barometer.[20] In view of the Church’s own goal of 25,000–30,000 visitors, from the numbers alone, the open house was a resounding success. (See Table 1 for a daily breakdown of visitors.)

The Media’s Role in the Discussion of Otherness

In discussing the media’s presentation of “the other,” the media themselves cannot be thought of as the primary source for discrimination or images of otherness. Instead the media reflect attitudes already present in the mainstream of society. The real origin of otherness must be sought in other social processes.[21]

Table 1: Number of Visits by Day at the Helsinki Temple Open House

September 16, Sat.	248	September 28, Thu.	2,809
September 19, Tue.	615	September 29, Fri.	2,993
September 20, Wed.	552	September 30, Sat.	4,432
September 21, Thu.	1,518	October 2, Mon.	3,280
September 22, Fri.	2,127	October 3, Tue.	3,688
September 23, Sat.	4,180	October 4, Wed.	4,490
September 25, Mon.	2,710	October 5, Thu.	4,828
September 26, Tue.	2,706	October 6, Fri.	5,837
September 27, Wed.	2,774	October 7, Sat.	5,846
		October 8, Sun.	158
		Total	55,791

However, there is a sort of symbiotic relationship between concepts of otherness and the media, a relationship in which one feeds the other. The media affect individual attitudes and may thus promote an image of various minorities as groups that are foreign to the culture. The media also have a primary position as an actor that articulates the host culture’s relationship to “the other.”[22] Moreover, the religious media in particular interpret and evaluate current events from the perspective of a certain religious worldview.

The media are usually thought of as an objective news producer and thus become crucial when reporting on minorities, since they often function as the majority’s primary contact with the minority. If the image they construct is distorted, the actual reality of a minority group remains inaccessible except to individuals who have special knowledge of it through, for example, an acquaintance who is a member of it. In short, the media occupy a responsible position, as the information they transmit strongly impacts the construction of the minority’s public image.[23]

The role of the media is especially problematized in the case of churches and religious movements. While the media should provide a neutral and objective look, religious movements often seek to mediate a growth-promoting image of themselves. This characteristic, of course, also holds true for any non-religious group with a special interest or bias to promote. In such cases, the media must tread carefully to avoid stereotypical views and to give correct information based on credible sources. At the same time, the media should not function as a critiqueless propagator of the interests of either minority groups or their antagonists.

Achieving a balance can be difficult, and reporting on minority faiths has often been negative, even to the extent that a negative public image can become part of a religious movement’s identity.[24] This is probably true to some extent in the case of the Latter-day Saints in Finland. After the public open house at the Helsinki Temple, for example, the official Church News, a special weekly section of the Church-owned Deseret News, stated in a somewhat black-and-white manner that Finnish media had been the Church’s “long-time detractors” but that things had now changed.[25] Actually, however, Finnish media had already earlier balanced negative descriptions with neutral and positive information on the Latter-day Saints.

Even with good intentions, the media often produce discourses that follow the perspective of the mainstream population. This can occur, for example, due to the private feelings and thoughts of the reporters themselves. Hence, discourses about the Mormons often show features that deviate from average Finnish culture. Furthermore, media reporting can construct an image that creates differences between society’s majority and minority, between “us” and “them.”[26] For example, when Finnish media describe “the Mormon way of life,” it is hard to imagine that they would similarly employ such a blanket generalization in speaking of “the Lutheran way of life.” That way of life is thought of as part of the mainstream’s attributes, and it is therefore not necessary to speak of it in the same way.

Although journalists strive to be fair, their manner of speech can easily promote a foreign image of various groups. Smaller churches may be called religious “communities” or “societies,” while the Evangelical Lutheran Church is often merely called “the Church.” In this kind of discourse, the Lutheran Church becomes familiar and safe, while other churches and movements are something out of the ordinary. In some cases, a sinister label can be implicitly attached to smaller churches. For example, when reporting on the recent suicide of a religious person, a journalist wrote that “no particular denomination or sect was found” behind the matter. Instead the believers accused of aiding the now-deceased person to commit suicide had become acquainted with her in “a completely regular Lutheran Bible circle.”[27]

As a simplified summary, then, it can be said that the choice of topics and words by the media affects the image of familiarity or foreignness attached to churches and religions. At the same time, it must be remembered that the point of analyzing discourses is not to criticize individual reporters; they function within the larger discourses of society and may thus maintain images of otherness without noticing it themselves.[28]

A few clarifying words on the media specifically in Finland are appropriate to contextualize the following discussion. The television media in Finland consist mostly of a handful of nationwide channels and a larger number of small regional channels which, in general, are less popular than the nationwide channels. The radio media similarly consist of a handful of nationwide stations with both nationwide and local broadcasts and a fairly large number of local stations. The print media consist of three truly nationwide newspapers, some larger regional newspapers, a multitude of smaller local papers, and a wide variety of secular and spiritual newspapers, magazines, and periodicals. Material for the news media is distributed nationwide by the Finnish News Agency (Suomen Tietotoimisto, STT) and is often printed in the same form in newspapers around the country. In addition to this source of news, every news outlet also creates its own stories in normal fashion. (See Appendices 1–2.)

The General Media: “The Feeling Is Different Than in Churches Usually”

The purpose of this section is to illustrate Mormon-related discourses of othering in the general media. While these media are aimed at the general Finnish population, even Finns who are not actively religious are likely to be members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and therefore likely to accept it as an element of the national identity of Finland. As sample themes, I have chosen the special nature of the Helsinki Temple as a construction site, the temple as a closed place of worship, the American image of the Mormon Church, and distancing reactions to the religious ceremonies performed in Mormon temples.

“The Week’s Special: The Mormon Church’s New Sanctuary”

Temples are especially sacred to Latter-day Saints. Whereas weekly worship services are held in ward and branch buildings, temples can be interpreted as sites of pilgrimage that are visited less often. The sacredness of the temple can be seen in, among other things, the special arrangements at the construction site and the entry requirements of a completed temple. Both of these issues received attention from the Finnish media.

On the construction site, the Mormon Church instructed its contractors not to smoke, swear, or listen to the radio. Moreover, the press juxtaposed this unusual site with regular worksite conditions by commenting that “not even a girlie calendar hangs on the walls of work site booths.”[29] The quality requirements for the work were extremely high, and the site was lauded widely as a place of high quality where professionals could utilize the full range of their skills and do their jobs properly.[30]

In contrast to Lutheran churches, Mormon temples are closed places of worship. According to a Finnish LDS public affairs representative, the temple is “isolated from the world and a protected space. Only the worthy may enter.”[31] Many newspapers emphasized the significance of the open house in contrast to its future inaccessibility: “This building is not open for everyone,”[32] and after the open house, “the temple will be dedicated, and those not of the religion have no business in the temple after that.”[33]

People in Finland are used to seeing the symbol of the cross associated with buildings of Christian churches. The cross is perhaps the most important symbol creating unity among the Christian ingroup. Latter-day Saints do not use it, however. Some media outlets noticed this omission: “There is something like a Church tower seen on top of the trees [as you approach], but there is a golden angel on the top.”[34] The comment shows the surprise concerning this element. The ban on photography inside the temple also differs from many other religious buildings and was a regular comment in articles about the temple.

Finnish churches often contain a large hall where the congregation gathers. When looked at from the outside, Mormon temples give the impression of containing such a spacious assembly room instead of the numerous smaller rooms they actually contain. One reporter in the capital city region commented: “By the way, the temple doesn’t, to the surprise of many, have any large undivided hall space like our churches do, Lutheran churches and others.”[35] The innocuous contrast between “our churches” and the Mormon temple implicitly labels the temple as part of “the other.”

“Light for the People in the American Way”

While it may be quite difficult to exactly and objectively define the essential differences between American and Finnish culture, many reporters thought they saw Americanisms as they visited the open house. The practical arrangements of the temple open house were taken care of by Finnish Mormons. The general instructions, however, came through supervision from Church headquarters—in effect, from Americans, and perhaps were thus culturally slanted.

Some reporters thought the temple felt American due to its architecture and its furnishings. One journalist noticed artificial flowers and even pondered in a lighter mood, based on the general impression, whether the teeth of the visitors were possibly whitened,[36] whereas a radio reporter noticed the “American [interior], . . . deep carpets and shiny thick panels, light and space like . . . in Hollywood props.”[37] The totality was, in one writer’s opinion, “undeniably ‘American’ and has little in common with cool Nordic or austere Finnish design.”[38] As another writer put it, “There is just something too American in it, even if most of the building work is Finnish.”[39] Indeed, a reporter thought the Mormons were now offering “light for the people in the American way.”[40]

Many open house visitors met—especially on the day of the press conference—foreign Mormon leaders and missionaries in addition to Finnish temple tour guides. The reporter of a nationwide tabloid newspaper wrote that he was greeted in English as soon as he entered the temple site, and “along a strip of 20 meters I meet at least three young men speaking broad American English.” In addition, he wrote, a “slew of American brothers” presented “in the beyond-the-puddle style what felt like an unending amount of thank yous.”[41] The experience implicitly mediates a message depicting Mormonism as a foreign phenomenon. This foreign image was strengthened by a news feature shown on nationwide television, which included an American Mormon leader’s comments in English.[42]

A radio reporter in the capital city region commented on his positive experience among the visiting crowd by saying that “the Americans are splendidly competent at handling large crowds punctually and efficiently. . . . [The crowd] is kept in control very well, and the atmosphere is upheld in a really professional manner.”[43] The comment is interesting, considering that Finnish Mormons handled the local arrangements. Does the comment represent the reporter’s subjective assessment, preconceived notions, arrangements that really deviated from Finnish norms, or something else?

“A Foreign Sect Enters Finns’ Forefathers into Its Baptismal Registers”

Latter-day Saint temple ceremonies are esoteric and Mormons do not normally speak of them in public in a detailed manner. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, the practice of proxy baptism in particular generated negative feelings in some of the general print media, mostly during the spring of 2004 and usually in the more popular media rather than traditional “quality” papers.

An article in a nationwide tabloid newspaper was headlined “The Deceased Will Soon be Baptized Here” and stated among other things that Adolf Hitler had received Mormon proxy baptism.[44] A regional newspaper stated shortly thereafter in a small piece on its front page that the “baptism of the deceased” and other proxy ceremonies that Hitler had received were “hair-raising rituals.”[45] A column in a newspaper distributed free, mainly in the capital city region around Helsinki, was headlined “Baptized against One’s Will.” The writer thought that “the fact that the sect has already married Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun by proxy should ring the warning bells.”[46] A nationwide magazine article reinforced the image of Mormonism as a foreign and strange religion by stating that “the American Mormon Church is going to baptize into its own faith the forefathers of the Finns.”[47] The writer, identifying former Finnish president Urho Kekkonen as an icon of the nation, stated that a proxy baptism had been performed for him, too.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Latter-day Saints financed microfilming parish registers of the Lutheran Church in Finland.[48] While the Church advises its members to perform proxy ceremonies in behalf of their own ancestors, such ceremonies have also been performed without regard for kinship relationships through Church-sponsored “name extraction” programs. Some Finns have voiced their disappointment and their irritation that their Lutheran forebears have received Mormon proxy baptisms. Said one: “My forefathers have been members of the Lutheran Church as far back as parish registers are available. It is therefore very insulting that Mormons in their temple rites use the names of my ancestors.”[49]

The juxtaposition of Finnish forefathers and foreign Mormons has been strengthened by stating that many people find “detestable the thought that a foreign sect is entering their forefathers into its own baptismal registers” and that “the sect” in so doing forgets the will of the deceased.[50] The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman stated that it is a surprise for many Finns “that the information of their relatives is in the Mormons’ books.”[51] A former Mormon stated that she had gotten upset about the doctrine of proxy baptism a number of years ago and that the Lutheran Church “awoke to the newcomer too late” to prevent the construction of the temple near Helsinki.[52]

In summary, some see proxy baptisms as a practice offensive to Finnish customs and even as dishonoring the deceased. Such an emotion-invoking discourse can be seen as a strong reinforcement of images of otherness. Its main message seems to be that “Mormon activity is not within the bounds of good taste and offends Finnish identity.” This and the aforementioned otherness-promoting discourses support my original assumption that the Mormons are to some degree regarded as foreign in Finnish society.

The Religious Media and Ecclesiastical Representatives: “Interest Can Be Dangerous”

The religious media reflect the attitudes of the general media toward Mormonism but with a particular emphasis and from a different perspective. While the general media may be more interested in the position of religions and churches as actors in society at large, the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives are often interested more in questions of faith content and theology.

In the case of the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives, word choice and particularly its mental associations create a window into the religious values of the person who employs the particular discourse of othering.[53] And since religious newspapers, for example, are often the organs of specific churches, they may emphasize the drawing of boundaries between themselves and other churches and religious movements. Ecclesiastical representatives may also feel that the drawing of such boundaries is necessary in their public comments.

One could surmise that religious actors in a secularized society would show understanding and less prejudice toward other churches that are also fighting the common problem of secularization and indifference toward organized religion. However, these religious actors also take part in discourses of othering and in drawing distinct boundaries. Their reasons lie in matters such as mutually contradictory truth claims, cultural differences, and perceived rivalry.[54]

Examples of both affinity and rivalry can be seen in connection to the Mormon temple in Finland. A former minister of the Lutheran Leppävaara Parish in Espoo gave some positive public statements concerning the temple. For example, he thought that the temple was beautiful to the point of nearly arousing envy and that the Mormons were dedicated people with high morals. He “doesn’t see the Mormons as competitors.”[55]

On the other hand, about a dozen signatories announced to Espoo city officers that they objected to “the Mormon heresy’s coming to their home area.”[56] The boundary between Lutherans and Mormons is also clear when the parish minister hopes that the Lutheran Church will be believable enough, so “that people won’t feel the need to change religion.”[57] One writer thanked the Espoo Parish Union for drawing a clear boundary in its newspaper “on the strange doctrine that has become situated in the area of its parishes.”[58]

In the next section, I describe some discourses of othering brought up by the religious media and by ecclesiastical representatives. For thematic examples, I have chosen the contested Christian identity of Mormonism, the drawing of boundaries, and the temple’s religious ceremonies.

“The Mormons’ Doctrine Deviates Greatly from Christianity”

The term “Christian” is problematic due to its multiple definitions. Parties can define the term in a way suitable to them in order to make their own division between Christians and non-Christians or, sociologically speaking, between “us” and “them.” Protestants, for example, often want to draw a boundary and create a dichotomy with Christians on one side and Mormons on the other. Mormons, on the other hand, regard themselves as clearly Christian and sometimes wonder how anyone can think differently. The situation is problematic: Who has the right to judge which definition of the term “Christian” is correct and which definitions of Christian terminology and symbolism are correct? An analysis of religious newspapers shows that some Finnish Protestants do not like the Mormon way of using familiar terminology with meanings different from Protestant custom. Mormons may in those cases be thought of as misleading evangelizers and may even be accused of “duplicitous ecumenism.”[59]

The religious media and ecclesiastical representatives sometimes connect Mormons with new religions that have their basis in Christianity. However, sometimes they say clearly that the Mormon Church is not Christian,[60] basing their exclusion, for example, on theological arguments concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ or on the Mormons’ rejection of the traditional Christian creeds.[61] Sometimes they justify their exclusion in part by arguing that “Christian churches” do not accept the Mormons as Christian.[62] This appeal to majority opinion is an example of the difficulty of making a judgment based on objective criteria.

One representative of the Free Church compares Protestantism with Mormonism and uses the expression “the thing that makes Christian truth superior” in referring to the crucial difference.[63] By doing so, he creates an interesting dichotomy; the wide diversity of the Christian ingroup is diminished, perhaps owing to the crucial importance of maintaining the boundary. In reality, of course, “Christian truth” is not a monolithic whole but rather consists of a great variety of diverging opinions. The diminishing of the differences within one’s own ingroup can be done for effect in a discourse of othering.

Finally, the relationship between Protestants and Mormons may sometimes feel uncomfortably unclear for the Protestants themselves. The following comment shows the uncertainty that can surface when boundaries are unclear: “Christ has a very central place in their doctrine. Then again their concept of God is very different than the one people are used to in Christian Churches. . . . Many Christians think that it is easier to deal with religions clearly different from one’s own faith, such as Islam or Judaism, than with the kind of ‘cousin’ of the Christian faith as Mormonism. In the latter case one contradictorily feels both close and far away at the same time.”[64]

“Mysteries and Secrets, Closed Temples and Unknown Religions”

In addition to denying the Christian identity of Mormonism, the religious media found other reasons to be suspicious of the temple construction project. According to one observer, the project meant that “an American faith is conquering Finland.”[65] Finland was seen as a mission field “where souls are fought over”[66] and where the Mormons would begin to operate more eagerly than before.

Half-humorously, one writer mused on the difficulty of abstaining from alcohol, coffee, and tea and decided that she would “remain Lutheran after all.”[67] A letter to the editor stated: “I cannot refrain from informing Kyrkpressen’s Christian readers that the Mormon Jesus is a brother to Lucifer. The one with the horns.”[68] The writer did not attempt to describe the Mormon belief in a premortal existence in which all beings, mortal and supernatural, Jesus and Lucifer included, are brothers and sisters. Thus, the letter creates an even more strongly alienating image of Mormon theology.

As might be expected, the religious media tended to be suspicious of the secret Mormon temple ceremonies. One writer characterized the Church as “nearly like a sect of freemasons.”[69] Another reporter stated that “a Mormon has to perform secret oaths and rituals in the temple.”[70] The depiction is technically accurate, but a Mormon would probably have chosen the words “sacred ordinances” instead of the more frightening words “oaths and rituals.” As a parallel example, an outsider perspective of the Christian communion could create an even stronger image of foreignness by depicting it as a cannibal feast, where believers eat and drink their god’s flesh and blood. The depiction is technically correct but generates strong feelings of otherness and completely ignores the symbolic and well-known meaning of the communion to the believers themselves.

One writer regarded the Mormon form of church government with suspicion, calling it an “aggressively authoritarian” organization that sought to “control the entire lives of its members.”[71] Another writer described it as a “syncretistic composite religion,”[72] possibly meaning that it was a compound of elements from Christian and non-Christian sources. From a larger perspective, one can, of course, view Christianity itself as a syncretistic composite religion. In any case, one-sided choices of words and perspectives distance and alienate Protestant readers from Mormons and create sometimes alarming images of otherness.

“Next to Desecrating Graves and Tampering with the Deceased”

The concept of proxy ceremonies was dealt with in the religious media and by ecclesiastical representatives with greater disapproval than by the secular media. Christian baptism has been thought of as a once-in-a-lifetime event, and proxy baptism can thus be seen as meddling with the faith choices of a deceased person. In Finland, proxy baptisms aroused such strong feelings that their compatibility with legislation on religious freedom has been called into question. In answer, an officer of the Ministry of Education, which is the highest authority in matters of religion and state in Finland, pronounced proxy baptisms as being within the bounds of the law.[73] A letter to the editor reported that a feud among some older persons in an extended family had broken out due to proxy baptisms having been performed by a young LDS relative.[74]

Representatives of the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches have at times been very critical of proxy baptisms. For example, the archbishop of the Finnish Orthodox Church was reported as stating that proxy baptisms are “a completely impossible and unbelievable thing: baptizing popes and marrying nuns. Just preposterous.”[75] The bishop of the Lutheran Church’s Kuopio Diocese felt Mormon activities were “dubious” and that proxy baptisms were akin to “desecrating graves.”[76] A representative of the Tampere Parish Union stated that the Lutheran Church “does not in any form approve of the Mormon custom of baptizing the dead.”[77]

When criticizing Mormon proxy baptisms, the Protestant mainstream does not usually acknowledge that Christian theology itself could be criticized on the same basis: It requires belief in the doctrine of a Savior who atoned in behalf of every person. An officer of the Ministry of Education came up with another similarity: “I don’t know if we’re talking about anything much different from a Christian praying for somebody who is dead even though that person may not be a Christian.”[78] Regardless of these similarities, many religious writers have portrayed proxy baptisms as foreign and unsuitable in the Finnish religious landscape.

Thus, generally speaking, it can be said that the otherness-promoting mode of discourse used by the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives is stronger than that employed by the general media, although there are exceptions.[79] They feel that more is at stake than just relaying information on the Mormons. In their eyes, the Mormons are not only culturally foreign but also religiously heterodox actors who compete for the same resources and individuals, and against whom one’s own troops must be “vaccinated.”

Finland’s Mormons: “We Would Like for This Veil of Mystery to Be Taken Away”

During the nineteenth century, Latter-day Saints tended to withdraw from the rest of society and define their identity by differentiating themselves from others. The internal discourse often maintained an image of the rest of the world as evil and of their own group as the only place of salvation. During the twentieth century and especially toward its end, Mormonism changed and, at present, seeks to identify itself to some extent in the general population’s mind with Protestant and Catholic Christianity, normal “mainstream Christianity.” Ignoring their polygamous past and other eccentricities, Latter-day Saints seek to generate an image that emphasizes the general Christian features of their faith.

To some extent this desire is justified, because much misleading and sensationalistic information on the Mormons has been distributed throughout the years, a problem Mormonism shares with many other religious minorities. On the other hand, this mainstreaming discourse may in itself create a misleading image of the Latter-day Saints, because Mormonism also has clear differences from traditional Christianity. Latter-day Saints have also been accused, often on solid grounds, of withholding their higher and more controversial teachings from the general public through this mainstreaming discourse.

The public open house at the Helsinki Temple gave the Mormons in Finland an opportunity to employ their otherness-diminishing discourse in public outside their own publications. According to a public affairs representative, the open house was a clear opportunity “to increase knowledge concerning the Mormon religion and to rectify flawed views.”[80] In a nationally televised interview prior to the open house, another public affairs representative hoped that the forthcoming publicity would improve the Mormon Church’s image in Finland: “We believe that the completion of the temple will bring at least good publicity. The completion of the Copenhagen Temple in 2004 didn’t really bring new members, but attitudes toward the Church changed. The Church became a better match with society. This will hopefully happen also in Finland.”[81] In the following section, I will deal with some LDS ways of utilizing an otherness-removing counter-discourse in connection with the Helsinki Temple open house. As themes, I have chosen the emphasis upon the normalcy of the Church and its members, the temple and its ceremonies, and Mormon Church relationships with Finland.

“When They Learned to Know, the Prejudice Departed”

One way that the LDS Church sought to promote a familiar image of itself was by referring to its worldwide dimensions. One newspaper article quoted a foreign Mormon leader at the temple open house as stating that the Mormon Church is “one of the fastest-growing churches in the world.”[82] The Mormon-produced press package also claimed that the Church is “one of the world’s fastest-growing Christian churches.”[83]

The Church’s growth since the second half of the twentieth century has, in fact, been numerically impressive. It has grown from a 1 million member denomination to a worldwide church with more than 12 million members. However, claims of rapid growth are to some extent misleading. The Church typically reports only numbers of members of record without acknowledging informal disaffiliations or even that some members’ whereabouts are unknown. Unless members formally resign or are excommunicated, they continue to be counted as members, even though they may no longer regard themselves as Mormons. This is one reason that Mormonism is still in many ways a North American phenomenon, although large numbers of baptisms have been performed elsewhere.[84]

In some highly secularized countries including Finland, actively religious individuals of whatever denomination is sometimes thought of as peculiar. In connection with the temple open house, Mormons sought to emphasize their normalcy. An American sister missionary working in Finland, for example, commented on claims of peculiarity by saying that “we do, for example, use makeup and watch TV; we do normal things.”[85] A Mormon public affairs representative on national television described herself and her husband as attending “all kinds of places” and social events without, for example, drinking coffee or alcohol. But “we haven’t been considered oddities in any way.” She also emphasized that Mormons do not use external religious symbols, that they invest in education, and that they belong to all classes of society. She tries to “live as probably every other Christian person tries to live,” thus emphasizing the Mormon identification with Christianity.[86] “The Church offers a healthy way of life that fits with modern times,” commented a Mormon bishop in Espoo. He continued: “The Church is at its best when it offers its members solace and safety.”[87]

In Finnish society, the most easily recognizable Mormon image is the missionary stereotype: Dark-suited Americans who speak Finnish with a distinct accent and go from door to door explaining their faith and Church. Their presence has even made its way into Finnish popular culture.[88] During the temple open house, the Mormons emphasized that the door-to-door technique was less utilized at present as “not so suitable in Finnish culture.” For example, missionaries had been serving as officials in the Jyväskylän Suurajot rally.[89]

Religious evangelization is sometimes thought of as negative and pushy with a message that people are not really interested in. Although the ultimate goal of LDS missionaries is for individuals to accept the doctrines of the Mormon Church and join it, this purpose can move to the background in normalcy-emphasizing discourses. According to a public affairs representative, for example, the missionaries are “not so much seeking to convert, but to help people find a new lifestyle.”[90] She is speaking of the same thing, but the mainstreaming discourse presents the matter in a more neutral manner.

Mormons have also emphasized their Christian identity,[91] explaining the lack of the Christian cross in Mormon iconography as a desire to concentrate on Jesus as a living person. A typical explanation is: “Although we are a Christian Church, we don’t use the cross, since we want to remember Jesus as a living person, not as a dead person.”[92] However, since the presence of the cross does not prevent Christians from believing in the resurrection (and, hence, in Jesus as a living person), it seems reasonable to ask to what extent the omission of the cross represents early Mormonism’s efforts to draw a boundary between itself and mainstream Protestantism.[93]

“There Is Nothing Secret [in the Temple]”

The ceremonies of the temple are very sacred to Latter-day Saints. The ceremonies are not discussed in detail with persons not of the faith, with Church members who have yet to participate in them, or even with other temple-going Mormons outside of the temple itself. The esoteric, symbolically “unwritten” nature of the ceremonies promotes an experience of sacredness and strengthens the social ties of the members.[94] Consequently, in the minds of the non-Mormon public, Mormon temples are a mystery. Moreover, narratives concerning temples by former Mormons may reinforce the foreign and mysterious image.

A public open house at a new temple is thus always an interesting challenge for the Mormon Church: how to inform the public in an understandable, clear, and normalcy-emphasizing manner, while at the same time preserving the esoteric nature of the ceremonies. Latter-day Saints themselves emphasize the sacred nature of the temple and usually sidestep the esoteric nature of the ceremonies. The Church’s spokesman in Finland,[95] for example, stated in a nationally televised news interview, “There is nothing secret there. We think there are sacred things there, and now we have the chance to show it and tell about it to people.”[96] Similarly, a public affairs representative said in another nationally televised interview, “There are no mysterious rituals connected with visiting the temple, but instead everything is very beautiful, simple, symbolic, and pure.”[97] In practice, the ceremonies are partly secret chiefly because of their sacredness, as was clear during the guided tours during the open house. Of course, a reasonable question is the practical issue of trying to engage laypersons in discussions of ceremonies and symbolism that require a deep understanding of Mormon theology, especially in an open house setting where time is limited and conditions are crowded.

Latter-day Saint explanations of temple ceremonies usually emphasize the “family-centered” nature of the ceremonies and often mention eternal marriage and proxy baptisms for the dead. Mormons think of these ceremonies as uniting families for eternity, and the person in the street can connect marriage and baptism with his or her own experiences. Allusions to the endowment ceremony proper are more vague, while initiatory ceremonies are even rarer in public descriptions of the temple ceremonies by Mormons. LDS spokespersons usually stick to a general explanation that the temple teaches the purpose of life.

As has been mentioned, proxy baptism has been met with criticism as tampering with the religious choices that the deceased made during his or her lifetime. Mormons themselves have acknowledged that people may consider such a state of affairs offensive, and a public affairs representative in Finland commented: “Because of that we neither baptize or perform marriages for other deceased persons than our own relatives,”[98] and “The custom is that our Church’s members want to give their deceased relatives a chance” to accept the gospel in the next life.[99] This limited and misleading picture, which ignores the hundreds of thousands of ordinances performed by nonrelatives through name extraction programs, is probably motivated to promote a discourse of mainstreaming.

In contrast, other Latter-day Saints have sometimes clearly explained that, while proxy ceremonies are primarily performed in behalf of the deceased relatives of Mormons, the activity is not limited to them. Another Church public affairs representative commented that “the purpose is to give everyone a chance, and they will then decide whether they accept baptism or not. There should not be anything stranger in it than that.”[100] Mormons have emphasized that proxy ceremonies do not bind the deceased in any way nor change their religious choices against their desire. Mormons have also compared proxy baptisms to the universal nature of Jesus’s atonement.[101]

However, the universal nature of proxy work has sometimes placed the Mormons in difficult situations. For example, because God’s justice in principle requires that salvific ceremonies be performed by proxy for all those that did not take part in them while alive, in order to give the same chance to everyone, they have been performed also in behalf of Adolf Hitler. From the Mormon point of view, such a step is theologically consistent because Hitler was, despite his atrocities, a human being like everyone else. Others have been shocked that Mormons consider such a person worthy of salvation and would be willing to associate with him on any basis. Perhaps partly due to the difficulty of explaining this theological point, the Church has erased these ceremonies from its records and stated that it is not appropriate to perform proxy work for persons such as Hitler.[102] Some Finnish Mormons have mistakenly denied, for example, that a proxy sealing has been performed for Adolf Hitler and his mistress, Eva Braun, although such a ceremony has in fact been performed. When a newspaper reported this fact and a Mormon spokesperson requested a correction, the newspaper that reported these “hair-raising rituals” obliged by stating that “the article’s claim that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun would have been married later is not accurate, either.”[103]

Latter-day Saints maintain a database of those in whose behalf proxy temple ceremonies have been performed. In contrast to other genealogical information provided by the Church which is openly available on the internet, the temple ordinance files are not. Attempts to obtain the information have raised suspicion in the minds of some non-Mormon Finns.[104] A Church public affairs representative sought to erase this suspicion by claiming that “all information is freely available to everyone. There are no secret registers, only normal genealogical information.”[105] This statement is accurate except that it applies only to genealogical (i.e., birth, marriage, and death dates) information, not temple ordinance data. In summary, although it is true that the symbolic meaning of the temple ceremonies would be difficult to explain in a brief, clear way, it can also be claimed that the Mormon Church does not explain its temple ceremonies in a more detailed manner to defuse its image of otherness. Nonetheless, despite the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to appear normal, the secrecy of their temple ceremonies maintains a boundary between them and the Finnish population in general.

“The Atmosphere in Finland Used to Be Different. . . . Fortunately Things Are Different Now”

In their mainstreaming discourse, the Mormons have also emphasized the connection between the Church and Finland. During the guided tour at the Helsinki Temple, for example, the introductory video explained how Finnish President Tarja Halonen had met LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley in connection with the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and how Mormon missionaries helped out in the 1952 Helsinki Summer Olympics. Presumably these items were mentioned to reduce the boundaries between the Finnish identity and Mormonism and bolster the credentials of Mormonism among the Finns.

The Church’s spokesman in Finland also emphasized how architects worked to make the temple’s architecture compatible with Finnish designs. He stressed a common element: “This kind of rising, strong tower stands out on Finnish churches.”[106] He also commented reassuringly that “there were no problems with obtaining the building permit.”[107] No Mormon mentioned the earlier less-than-enthusiastic general reactions from the cities of Helsinki and Vantaa in any media reports that I have seen, thus muting a source of possible differences.

However, some Latter-day Saints also acknowledge their label of foreignness on the Finnish religious landscape. According to the Church’s spokesman, “General lack of awareness of us is perhaps our greatest problem.” A Finnish Mormon who had been to the United States compared the religious atmospheres of both countries and contrasted the U.S. acceptance of religious pluralism with Finland’s general uniformity and lack of religious interest. “In Finland you do not talk that much about religion. If you do not belong to the state religion, then it is something different,” she stated in an interview on a national television network.[108]

At the same time, Mormon discourse lowers boundaries by emphasizing that the atmosphere has changed and that diversity is better tolerated nowadays. “Contemporary youth have a lot of knowledge and they are open-minded, which reduces unnecessary prejudice,” a Mormon bishop commented in a newspaper interview.[109] When people “learn to know,” prejudice departs.[110] The open house at the Helsinki Temple gave the Latter-day Saints an excellent opportunity to help Finnish people “know.”

Summary and Discussion

This article has dealt with the Helsinki Finland Temple open house through the perspective of discourses on Mormon otherness in Finnish society. I have focused on three different viewpoints, each with a limited number of representative themes: the general media, the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives, and Latter-day Saints themselves.

Themes in the general media dealt with matters such as the temple as an atypical building and construction site, American features in the Mormon Church and the temple’s architecture, and proxy ceremonies performed in the temple. The religious media and ecclesiastical representatives dealt more deeply with Mormonism by approaching its theology, comparing LDS doctrines with “Christian” doctrines. The result was usually to distance Mormons from what was seen as the Christian ingroup. In all, the entire spectrum of media contained fairly similar and clear discourses that strengthened the foreign image of Mormons in Finland to varying degrees.

Mormons themselves sought to reduce their image of otherness and to be regarded as a legitimate and normal part of Finnish religiosity. They emphasized the sacred nature of the temple and its meaning to them, downplaying or not mentioning the temple’s symbolic ceremonies but instead presenting them in general statements about the purpose of life and the important family-building ceremonies of proxy baptism and eternal marriage. Mormons also reminded the public that they consider themselves to be part of Christianity.

Although Mormons are thought of as foreign and as representatives of “the other” in Finnish discussions, they are not unique; any religion different from Lutheranism probably must explain its doctrines and existence. This is true for Christian minorities, immigrant religions, and new religious movements. Mormonism’s status as “foreign” in Finland is also interesting because, while the highest leadership mostly comes from the United States, the local membership and leadership in Finland consists of Finns. Those adhering to Islam and Hinduism in Finland, in contrast, are usually immigrants and often of visibly foreign origin. Does this Finnish element diminish the image of Mormons as foreign in Finland? Or, in contrast, does Mormonism in Europe practically demand that its adherents replace pieces of their own national culture with American-colored features—becoming, in anthropologist Walter van Beek’s terms, “European Mormons” instead of “Mormon Europeans?”[111]

On the whole, it can be argued that the wide media coverage of the open house at the Helsinki Temple tended to make Mormons less other. Invisible psychological barriers about visiting the temple diminished as generally positive news reports came out and as early visitors told friends about their own experience. The success of the open house had a snowball effect (indications of which are seen in Table 1), resulting in more visits than the popular fair featuring summer vacation homes, arranged that year in Koli, northern Finland (approximately 56,000 versus 38,000). Many visitors even had to queue in the rain, but they still wanted to see the Mormon temple. Of course, the temple’s location in the well-populated capital city region certainly helped produce the relatively high number of visitors.

It is important not to skew the overall picture, keeping in mind that most Finns did not visit the temple and that some visitors had a negative or indifferent experience (not reported in this article). Still many people clearly felt very positive about what they saw and the peace and beauty they experienced. Church members were mostly happy about their friends visiting and reckoned that the experience had reduced feelings of foreignness. A Finnish Latter-day Saint explained: “For years, family and neighbors have thought us to be different. A group of 10 colleagues came. They felt the spirit of the edifice and shed tears. Now they understand my life. It is not strange to them anymore.”[112]

The Church gathered comments from visitors by making available a feedback form in the refreshment tent after the guided tour. Nearly 6,000 forms were returned and would constitute an interesting corpus for further study. What did people think about what they saw? Did their image of the Mormons become less or more foreign, or was it foreign to begin with? Were their preconceived notions strengthened or did their thoughts change? The source material is not, of course, representative of all Finns because of the method through which it was gathered; but such a study could nevertheless provide interesting perspectives on Finnish religiosity and Finnish people’s thoughts as they got acquainted with a religion many perceive as being foreign.

However, one must also be cautious not to overemphasize the degree to which the Mormons actually are thought of as foreign in Finnish society. Much reporting was positive from the Mormon point of view, praising the aesthetics and peacefulness of the temple. Articles also mentioned features of Mormonism that were thought of as “normal” in Finnish society, such as routine Mormon participation in military service.[113] A fairly lengthy radio interview with a Finnish Mormon lawyer profiled him as a well-educated and busy professional man and father in whose life faith is an important component.[114]

Conversely, it is also important to acknowledge that the Mormons themselves maintain boundaries between themselves and mainstream Finnish society. Accompanying the mainstreaming discourses emphasized in this article, the Church has practices that clearly strengthen an image of otherness. For example, the LDS Church in Finland does not participate in ecumenical cooperation with Christian churches except in providing humanitarian aid, rarely takes part in societal activities in a visible way, and does not usually announce its local activities through established information channels such as newspapers. The temple tradition is itself exclusive. Not even all believers are automatically welcome in Latter-day Saint temples.

The Mormon Church is thus, like other churches, continuously facing the challenging problem of optimum sociocultural tension mentioned earlier. How may it balance inclusiveness and exclusiveness so that its own doctrine and core identity are not excessively diluted and so that the tension between itself and society at the same time is not so strong as to inhibit growth? This question in and of itself would form an interesting field of research with regard to changing Mormon identity and avoiding an otherness-promoting public image in Finland. Comparative data already exist from the perspective of Mormonism in the United States.[115] It must also be kept in mind that the rough division into general and religious media that this article used for reporting convenience disguised nuances among different actors that belong to the same group. In general, looking at media groups as monolithic entities can be misleading. Nevertheless, I have chosen this approach to provide a detailed overview from one particular sociological perspective. In the future, it would be interesting to compare a broader report of publicity associated with the Helsinki Temple with publicity connected to new temples and their open houses elsewhere. Scandinavia alone, for example, would provide comparisons with the 1985 open house of the Stockholm Sweden Temple and the 2004 Copenhagen Denmark Temple, at least the latter of which used approaches, models, and publicity materials very similar to those employed in Finland. Comparisons with temples in other countries and on other continents would provide further illumination.

Conclusion

In this article, I have discussed otherness-promoting and otherness-removing discourses related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Finland. My data came from publicity related to the newly completed Helsinki Finland Temple, specifically comments and statements by professional media journalists, religious entities and representatives, and the Latter-day Saints themselves. The findings show that the Latter-day Saints do indeed have a foreign image in Finland. Finnish media projected an image of the Latter-day Saints as “the other” through, for example, evidence of American culture, allegations of suspicious activities, and deviation from traditional Christianity. Latter-day Saints, for their part, often employed a counter-discourse intended to emphasize the normalcy of Mormons as Finnish citizens with a worldview slightly different from that of the mainstream.

The completion of the Mormon temple in Espoo and the accompanying publicity thus provided a clear example of the existence of otherness-promoting and otherness-diminishing discourses for one religious minority in Finland. The participants looked at matters from their own perspective, which framed and shaped their comments. The mainstream Finnish population finds the Mormons foreign in many ways, while Mormons themselves feel that they are simultaneously part of the regular mainstream population in many ways yet different from it. As is so often the case when constructing an image of society and evaluating the place of various groups in it, the problem culminates in difficult questions. Where should the boundaries of a questionably homogenous mainstream be drawn? And perhaps most important of all, who is authorized to draw them?

[Editor’s Note: For the Appendices, see the PDF below.]

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Jan Shipps, “No More ‘Mormon’ Church?,” Sunstone Symposium, Washington, D.C., 2001. Audio online at http://www.sunstoneonline.com (accessed October 1, 2005).

[2] Data from the chronological listing, http://www.ldschurchtemples. com (accessed January 21, 2007).

[3] I sincerely thank all those individuals who have helped me compile the database of material that served as the basis of this study and without which it would not have been possible to conduct the study. The English translations of most of the quotations from Finnish or Swedish in this article are mine. I have also provided English translations of newspaper article headings in parentheses and of newspaper names or broadcast program names in brackets on first usage.

[4] The temple district consists of the countries of Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia (partly). I’ve limited my material to items published in Finland, although there was some publicity in at least neighboring Estonia.

[5] I have collected much of the material by monitoring media outlets closely, especially during the public open house, assisted by several interested individuals located around Finland. Additionally, I have been in contact with Mormon Church Public Affairs in Finland in order to benefit from that office’s findings. The resulting database seems more than sufficient, especially as the purpose of this article is not to give a full overview of all media attention to the new Mormon temple, but rather to give examples of certain types of discourses related to the Mormons.

[6] Martti Junnonaho, “On Religious Otherness in Finnish Discourse,” in Beyond the Mainstream: The Emergence of Religious Pluralism in Finland, Estonia, and Russia, edited by Jeffrey Kaplan (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2000), 191–99.

[7] Tuomas Martikainen, “The Houses of Foreign Gods,” in Urbanism and Globalization, edited by Frank Eckardt and Dieter Hassenpflug (Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 2004), 180.

[8] Grace Davie, Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3.

[9] Kimmo Kääriäinen, Kati Niemelä, and Kimmo Ketola, Religion in Finland: Decline, Change and Transformation of Finnish Religiosity (Tampere, Finland: Church Research Institute, 2005), 79.

[10] Kim B. Östman, “The Mormon Espionage Scare and Its Coverage in Finland, 1982–84,” Journal of Mormon History, 33, no. 1 (Winter 2008).

[11] Walter E. A. van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons? An ‘Afro-American’ View of Religious Colonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (Winter 2005): 3–36.

[12] Rodney Stark, “Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Model,” in Cults and Religious Movements: A Reader, edited by Lorne L. Dawson (Malden, Eng.: Blackwell, 2003), 259–70.

[13] For a theoretical discussion of the concept of sociocultural tension, see, for example, Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 19–24.

[14] Martikainen, “The Houses of Foreign Gods,” 175–89.

[15] Pia Karlsson, “Making Room for Islam—Mosques in Sweden,” in Islam and Christianity in School Religious Education: Issues, Approaches, and Contexts, edited by Nils G. Holm (Åbo, Finland: Department of Comparative Religion, Åbo Akademi University, 2000), 183–202.

[16] “Kirkko valittiin mallikirjasta” (“Church Chosen from a Model Book”), Helsingin Sanomat [Helsinki Gazette], July 21, 2006, A10.

[17] Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Time of New Beginnings,” Ensign, May 2000, 87.

[18] In addition to the public open house, tours were also organized for construction workers and their families on September 16, for VIPs and the media on September 19–20, and for workers at the Stockholm Sweden Temple and their families on October 8. I include the number of visits from these days in the total number of visits. The temple was closed on Sundays, which is interesting, considering that Temple Square and the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City are open on Sundays.

[19] Kääriäinen, Niemelä, and Ketola, Religion in Finland, 79.

[20] Sami Myllyniemi, “Nuorisobarometri,” in Uskon asia—Nuorisobarometri 2006, edited by Terhi-Anna Wilska (Helsinki: Nuorisoasian neuvottelukunta, Nuorisotutkimusverkosto ja Nuorisotutkimusseura, 2006), 79.

[21] Sari Pietikäinen and Heikki Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” in Vähemmistöt ja niiden syrjintä Suomessa, edited by Taina Dahlgren et al. (Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1996), 172.

[22] Junnonaho, “On Religious Otherness in Finnish Discourse,” 196.

[23] Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 178.

[24] See Markku Ihonen, “Mediakummajainen? Herätysliikkeen julkisuusongelmien äärellä,” Tiedotustutkimus 23, no. 4 (2000): 68–78, for the case of Laestadians in Finland.

[25] “Open Hearts Abound: Some 56,000 Finns Attend Open House of New Temple,” Church News, October 28, 2006, 7.

[26] Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 175, 184.

[27] “Uskonystäviä syytetään naisen surmanhypystä parvekkeelta Kangasalla” (Faith Friends Accused of Woman’s Death Jump from Balcony in Kangasala), Aamulehti [Morning Paper], November 7, 2006, A7.

[28] Stephen Harold Riggins, “The Rhetoric of Othering,” in The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, edited by Stephen Harold Riggins (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1997), 25.

[29] “Mormonitemppelin rakentaminen on kolmen vuoden urakka: Temppelin työmaalla ei kiroilla eikä tupakoida” (Building of Mormon Temple is a Three-Year Job: No Swearing or Smoking on Temple Work Site), Länsiväylä [Western Route], May 25, 2005, 4.

[30] “Millintarkka temppeli” (A Millimeter-Precise Temple), Rakentavasti [In a Constructing Manner], Summer 2005.

[31] “Mormonitemppelin rakentaminen on kolmen vuoden urakka.”

[32] “IHAN vähän amerikkalaista” (JUST a little American), Vartti [Quarter], September 24, 2006, 6.

[33] “Helsingin uuteen temppeliin tutustuu tuhansia ihmisiä: Lars Gröndahlilla fantastinen tunnelma” (Thousands of People Getting to Know New Helsinki Temple: Lars Gröndahl Feeling Fantastic), Loviisan Sanomat [Loviisa Gazette], September 29, 2006, 12.

[34] Horisontti [The Horizon], Yle Radio 1, September 24, 2006, emphasis added.

[35] Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi, October 3, 2006.

[36] “IHAN vähän amerikkalaista,” 6.

[37] Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi, October 3, 2006.

[38] “Tung utanpå, prålig och glittrig inuti” (Heavy on the Outside, Fancy and Glittery on the Inside), Hufvudstadsbladet [Capital City Paper], September 20, 2006, 4.

[39] “IHAN vähän amerikkalaista,” 6.

[40] “Valoa kansalle Amerikan malliin: Suomen ensimmäinen mormonitemppeli häikäisee prameudellaan,” (Light for the People in the American Way: Finland’s First Mormon Temple Dazzles with Its Glitter) Iltalehti [Evening Paper], September 20, 2006, 12–13. In contrast are other glowing descriptions of the interior that make no reference to American architecture. See for example “Kirkko kuin koru” (Church like a Piece of Jewelry), Seura [Company], 72, no. 39 (September 29, 2006), 14.

[41] “Valoa kansalle Amerikan malliin,” 12. “Rapakon takana,” meaning “beyond the puddle,” is a Finnish saying sometimes used when referring to the United States on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

[42] Seitsemän uutiset [Seven o’clock News], MTV3, September 19, 2006.

[43] Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi, October 3, 2006.

[44] “Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä” (The Deceased Will Soon Be Baptized Here), Ilta-Sanomat [Evening Gazette], April 17, 2004, 12–13.

[45] “Vainajakaste” (Baptism of the Deceased), Satakunnan Kansa [The People of Satakunta], April 23, 2004, 1.

[46] “Kastettavana vastoin tahtoaan” (Baptized against One’s Will), Metro [Metro], April 29, 2004, 6.

[47] “MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen: Esi-isämme kastetaan mormoneiksi” (LDS Church Erecting Temple in Espoo: Our Forefathers Are Baptized as Mormons), Nykyposti [Modern Post], 27, no. 5 (2004): 14–18.

[48] Maria Ollila, “Käsin kopioinnista mormonien rahoittamaan mikrofilmaukseen: Suomalaisten kirkonkirjojen jäljennystyö 1924–1955” (M.Th. thesis, University of Helsinki, 2003).

[49] “Sex gånger döpt” (Baptized Six Times), Vasabladet [The Vaasa Paper], September 23, 2006, 11.

[50] “MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen: Esi-isämme kastetaan mormoneiksi,” Nykyposti 27, no. 5 (2004): 16.

[51] “Mormonien kasterekisteri arveluttaa tietosuojavaltuutettua” (Data Protection Ombudsman Iffy about Mormon Baptism Register), Ilta-Sanomat, April 20, 2004, 11.

[52] “Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä.”

[53] Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 184.

[54] Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 444–57.

[55] “Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli” (Large Center also Serves Russia and Baltic Countries: Mormon Temple Rises in Espoo), Kotimaa [Homeland], 101, no. 28 (July 14, 2006): 3. A new parish minister has also been positive. Quoted in “Miten seurakuntaan lisää jäseniä Leppävaarassa?” (How to Get More Members in Leppävaara Parish?), Länsiväylä, January 17, 2007, 4.

[56] Espoo city planning board minutes, September 11, 2002. Nonetheless, in comparison with many other planned Mormon temples (e.g., Boston), the Helsinki Temple project seems to have proceeded with minimal protest-related problems.

[57] “Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli,” 3.

[58] “Mormonien ja kristinuskon erot” (The Differences between Mormons and Christianity), Verkko-Esse [Net-Esse], http://www.esse.fi accessed October 3, 2006).

[59] “Emävale-ekumeniaa” (Duplicitous Ecumenism), Sanansaattaja [The Messenger], 131, no. 40 (October 5, 2006): 2.

[60] “Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli,” 3; “Kirkko ei hyväksy” (The Church Does Not Accept), Aamulehti, October 30, 2006, A4; “Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta: Kuolleiden puolesta kastaminen ei ole lainvastaista” (Ministry of Education Representative on Mormon Proxy Baptism: Baptizing in Behalf of the Dead Is Not Illegal), Kotimaa 101, no. 40 (October 5, 2006): 3; “Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?” (Does Mormonism Thrive Here?), KD Kristillisdemokraattinen viikkolehti [Christian Democrat Weekly], 40, no. 41 (October 12, 2006): 3.

[61] “Mormonismi kiinnostaa Espoossa” (Mormonism Interests in Espoo), Uusi Tie [New Road], 42, no. 39–40 (September 28, 2006): 4.

[62] “Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?,” 3.

[63] “Mormonikirkko ei ole kristillinen kirkko” (The Mormon Church Is Not a Christian Church), Länsiväylä, October 22, 2006, 16.

[64] “Mormonit uskovat Kristuksen julistaneen Pohjois-Amerikassakin” (Mormons Believe Christ Preached in North America Too), Esse [Espoon Seurakuntasanomat, Espoo Parish Gazette], 34, no. 36 (September 28, 2006): 10.

[65] “Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?,” 3.

[66] “Emävale-ekumeniaa,” 2.

[67] “Jos olisin mormoni” (If I Were a Mormon), Vantaan Lauri [The Vantaa Lauri], 11, no. 34 (October 5, 2006): 12.

[68] “Missförstånd? Nej!” (Misunderstandings? No!), Kyrkpressen [The Church Press], 36, no. 40 (October 6, 2005): 5.

[69] “Melkein kuin Vapaamuurarien lahko” (Nearly Like a Sect of Freemasons), Ristin Voitto [Victory of the Cross], 95, no. 38 (September 20, 2006): 13.

[70] “Mormonismi kiinnostaa Espoossa,” 4.

[71] “Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?,” 3.

[72] “Melkein kuin Vapaamuurarien lahko,” 13.

[73] “Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta,” 3.

[74] “Kuolleiden kaste repii perhepiiriä” (Baptism of the Dead Tears Family Circle), Kotimaa [Homeland], 101, no. 49 (December 8, 2006), 31.

[75] “MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen,” 17.

[76] “Haudan häpäisemistä ja vainajiin kajoamista” (Desecrating Graves and Tampering with the Deceased), Ilta-Sanomat, April 21, 2004, 10.

[77] “Kirkko ei hyväksy,” Aamulehti, August 30, 2006, A4.

[78] “Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta,” 3.

[79] Two particularly strong examples of promoting otherness are “MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen,” 14–18, and “Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä,” 12–13.

[80] “Avoimien ovien suosio yllätti mormonitemppelin väen” (Open House Popularity Surprised Crew of Mormon Temple), Turun Sanomat [Turku Gazette], October 8, 2006, 11. This brief piece by the Finnish News Agency was published in varying lengths in several newspapers around the country on the same day.

[81] Aamu-TV [Morning TV], Yle TV 1, July 24, 2006.

[82] “Mormonitemppeli valmistui Espooseen: Avoimet ovet kaksi ja puoli viikkoa” (Mormon Temple Completed in Espoo: Open House for Two and a Half Weeks), Pohjolan Sanomat [Gazette of the North], September 20, 2006, 7.

[83] “Helsinki Finland Temple Media Kit” (n.p.: Myöhempien Aikojen Pyhien Jeesuksen Kristuksen Kirkko, n.d.), 5, also available at http://www.mormonit.fi/docs/Media_english.pdf (accessed January 27, 2007).

[84] Rick Phillips, “Rethinking the International Expansion of Mormonism,” Nova Religio 10, no. 1 (August 2006): 52–68.

[85] Quoted in “Saarnaaja kulkee myös hameessa,” (Preacher Walks Also in Skirt) Helsingin Sanomat, July 21, 2006, A10.

[86] Interview, Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1, July 24, 2006.

[87] “Pyhien profeettojen polulla: Suomen ensimmäinen mormonitemppeli vauhdittaa MAP-kirkon sanomaa” (On the Path of Holy Prophets: Finland’s First Mormon Temple Speeds Up the LDS Church’s Message), Helsingin Uutiset [The Helsinki News], September 22, 2006, 4.

[88] Juha Itkonen, Myöhempien aikojen pyhiä (Helsinki: Tammi, 2003).

[89] “Pukumiehet pois ovilta” (Men in Suits away from Doors), Iltalehti, September 20, 2006, 13.

[90] “Saarnaaja kulkee myös hameessa,” A10.

[91] “Mormontemplet färdigt i Helsingfors” (Mormon Temple Ready in Helsinki), Östra Nyland [Eastern Uusimaa], October 3, 2006, 14, and “Emävale-ekumeniaa,” 2.

[92] “Pyhien profeettojen polulla,” 4.

[93] On early Mormon thoughts concerning Christian identity and boundary maintenance, see my “Kristillisen identiteetin ongelma varhaisen mormonismin aatemaailmassa,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 111, no. 2 (2007): 123–134. Also forthcoming as “The Problem of Christian Identity in Late Nineteenth-Century Mormon Thought” in a Joseph Smith Summer Seminar anthology edited by Richard L. Bushman.

[94] Kathleen Flake, “‘Not to Be Riten’: The Mormon Temple Rite as Oral Canon,” Journal of Ritual Studies 9, no. 2 (1998): 1–21.

[95] This person is usually the senior stake president in Finland, in this case, the Helsinki Finland Stake president.

[96] Uutiset [News], Yle TV 2, September 19, 2006.

[97] Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1, July 24, 2006.

[98] “Släktforskaren fick en chock: Mormonkyrkan hade döpt och vigt döda anhöriga” (Genealogist Got Shocked: Mormon Church Had Baptized and Married Dead Relatives), Kyrkpressen, 36, no. 24 (June 16, 2005): 7.

[99] “Några missförstånd” (Some Misunderstandings), Kyrkpressen 36, no. 38 (September 22, 2005): 5.

[100] “Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä,” 13.

[101] See, for example, “Kuolema ei ole raja” (Death Is Not a Border Barrier), Ilta-Sanomat, May 3, 2004, 4, and “Sijaistyöllä on suuri merkitys” (Proxy Work Has Great Significance), Metro, May 5, 2004, 17.

[102] “LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 9, 1999, C1.

[103] “Vainajakaste,” Satakunnan Kansa, April 23, 2004, 1, and “Oikaisu” (Correction), Satakunnan Kansa, May 8, 2004, 6.

[104] “Släktforskaren fick en chock,” 7, and “Sex gånger döpt” (Baptized Six Times), Kyrkpressen 36, no. 36 (September 8, 2005), 5.

[105] “Kuolema ei ole raja,” 4.

[106] Päivän Peili [The Day’s Mirror], Yle Radio 1, September 19, 2006.

[107] “Uusi mormonitemppeli palvelee Venäjää myöten” (New Mormon Temple Serves All the Way to Russia), Kirkko ja Kaupunki [Church and City], 64, no. 36 (September 27, 2006): 5.

[108] Uutiset, Yle TV 2, September 19, 2006.

[109] “Pyhien profeettojen polulla,” 4.

[110] Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1, July 24, 2006.

[111] van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons?” 3–36.

[112] Quoted in “Open Hearts Abound,” 7.

[113] “Helsingin uuteen temppeliin tutustuu tuhansia ihmisiä,” 12.

[114] Radiohuset [The Radio House], Yle Radio Vega, October 13, 2006.

[115] Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).

[post_title] => "The Other" in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 40.4 (2007): 70–105
The purpose of this article is to begin filling that gap by discussing some of the publicity accompanying the recently built Helsinki FinlandTemple, located in the southern Finland city of Espoo. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-other-in-the-limelight-one-perspective-on-the-publicity-surrounding-the-new-lds-temple-in-finland [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-11-02 01:26:32 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-11-02 01:26:32 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10140 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10620 [post_author] => 2558 [post_date] => 2018-03-26 15:40:32 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-26 15:40:32 [post_content] =>

In this paper I will attempt to consider priesthood as portrayed in Old Testament texts. One of the common fallacies of historical interpretation is to base our understanding of an early phenomenon on later under standings and institutions, which generally reflect a changed, developed point of view and which may have gained wide currency for any number of reasons. The earliest documents, reflecting a somewhat unfamiliar state of things, are then treated with benign neglect, at best. In religion, an institution often achieves a successful doctrinal-historical synthesis (after years or decades or centuries of difficult work, development, and change), but then institutional historians project that synthesis back into early history. If one analyzes the early documents carefully, however, the pattern of development and change is clearly found. In my opinion, the institutional church could regard the process by which the church came to its synthesis as an inspiring story of man seeking guidance from God and getting it bit by bit, step by step, through a process of human striving (including possible mistakes) mixed with divine revelation. Looking at the earliest sources is first a matter of scholarly honesty (and of course, honesty is never antithetical to the gospel); second, it provides an au thentically faith-promoting view of men and women's struggles as they receive guidance from God, step by step, line by line.

Mormonism started out as a "restorationist" church—intending to restore the realities of the Old and New Testaments to nineteenth-century America. It arrived at a powerful, successful synthesis throughout the nineteenth century, culminating in the doctrinal teachings of Joseph F. Smith and James E. Talmage; but then, Mormons—in matters of Biblical interpretation—began projecting their twentieth-century synthesis of the gospel into the Old and New Testaments. This has prevented them from experiencing the full complexity and beauty of the scriptures so important to early Mormons, and it has led them to a less than perfect understanding of the Biblical backgrounds of many key Mormon doctrines.

In the case of priesthood, for instance, early Mormons, leaning more toward Catholicism than the Protestants who surrounded them in frontier America, developed a strong emphasis on ecclesiastical priesthood. Indeed, the concept of priesthood found in the Old Testament contains aspects of the Mormon doctrine and practice of priesthood, but not the totality. In this paper, I will attempt to look at the Old Testament view of priesthood in its own terms.[1] Then I will discuss the implications of the Old Testament view of priesthood for Joseph Smith's restoration of temple worship in Kirtland and Nauvoo, open to both males and females, with no limitation to the male. 

We will see that priesthood in the Old Testament was overwhelmingly connected with sanctuary and temple, cult and ritual. The Old Testament priest, an especially holy and pure person serving as a mediator between God and man, was virtually always connected with a temple and performed ordinances connected with it—sacrifice, purification, prayer. As priesthood was introduced for the purpose of the temple, according to Exodus, only priests entered the temple. As priests were exclusively male, no females entered the temple. This was the priesthood which Joseph Smith had as Biblical paradigm when he restored the Old Testament concept of temples. How he dealt with the issues of temple, priesthood, and women is one of the most significant, interesting, and least understood stories in Mormon history.

I. Priest and Temple Service

The question of priesthood in the Old Testament is extremely complex.[2] I accept that different editors and strands of tradition contributed to the Pentateuch and the books of the Old Testament, and that later editors used early texts and sources, and put their own stamp on them. However, I do not accept the details of any particular scholar's interpretation as authoritative or final.[3] One of the basic textual strands scholars have posited in the Pentateuch is a "priestly" source, P, which emphasizes matters relating to the priests, temple, and ritual. Julius Well hausen, in his classic of source criticism, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel,[4] argued that the institution of priesthood was entirely post-Exilic; however, later scholars have taken issue with this position and have concluded that pre-Exilic traditions in P have historical valid ity.[5] Scholars have emphasized that the priesthood changed from pre monarchy, to monarchy, to post-exile. According to N. H. Snaith, "There are many passages in the Old Testament which show that the Aaronic priestly caste of later days was a development from a very different state of affairs. Once, all Levites were priests and not the sons of Aaron only. Earlier still, it was not even necessary to be a Levite in order to be a priest. Any man could be a priest, provided that he had been properly consecrated."[6] For the purposes of this paper, it is enough to note that even in the early history of the priesthood, there was always a close connection between priest and sanctuary. See for example, a text often cited as evidence for early priesthood, Judges 17-18, the story of Micah's Levite. Micah had a shrine and had his own son serve in it, but when a Levite moved into the area, "Micah inducted the Levite, and the young man became his priest and remained in Micah's shrine" (Judg. 17:12). Here Levites, not just descendants of Aaron, serve as priests; and when a Levite is not available, non-Levites can serve. But the priest's connection with sanctuary is basic. 

A place to start for gaining an understanding of priesthood in the Old Testament is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. They give accounts of the "preliminary," movable temple in the wilderness, the "Tent" (in the King James version, "Tabernacle"), the description of which is revealed by God in Exodus 25-27. Inside the Tabernacle the holy of holies, containing the ark of the covenant, is behind a curtain; on the other side of the curtain is a larger room with altar of incense, table of acacia wood, and lamp. Pillars delimited an outer court, and in this court was a bronze basin and an altar on which sacrifices could be performed. This pattern was later followed when a stationary temple was built in Jerusalem. 

Then in Exodus 28:1, the Lord instructs Moses, "You shall bring for ward your brother Aaron, with his sons, from among the Israelites, to serve Me as priests." After the temple pattern is revealed, priests must be consecrated to serve in it. To begin the consecration, they must be washed at the door of the tabernacle (Exod. 40:12). A long description of the special vestments of the priests follows in Exodus 29, including a "fringed [checkered, NRSV] tunic of fine linen. . .the headdress [turban, NRSV] of fine linen. . .[and] the sash of embroidered work" (Exod. 28:39)[7] The priests are then anointed (Exod. 40:15; Lev. 8:10, 30). "This their anointing shall serve them for everlasting priesthood throughout the ages."[8] Sacrifices are also part of the ordination of Aaron and his sons. Blood was taken from a sacrificed ram and put on the "ridges" of the priests' right ears, on the thumbs of the right hand, and on the "big toes of their right feet"; the rest of the blood was dashed "against every side of the altar round about." This rite strikingly illustrates how the priest was tied to the sanctuary (Exod. 29:19-21). 

In Exodus chapters 30 and 31, some of the rites and duties priests carried out in the temple are revealed. According to the Bible dictionary included in the LDS Bible, "The priest exercised his office mainly at the altar [within the innermost temple court] by offering the sacrifices and above all the incense [at the altar within the temple building]."[9] In blessing the priestly Levite tribe, Moses says, "They shall offer You incense to savor / And whole-offerings on your altar" (Deut. 33:10). Sacrifices were often rituals of atonement for the sins of the people. According to the book of Numbers, when non-priests (though Levites) offered incense in the temple, they were destroyed (Num. 16-17). Aaron and his sons are priests and can enter into the tabernacle proper; Levites can perform lesser duties connected with the temple, but "they must not have any contact with the furnishings of the Shrine or with the altar, lest both they and you [Aaron and his sons] die" (Num. 18:3). "You and your sons shall be careful to perform your priestly duties in everything pertaining to the altar and to what is behind the curtain. I make your priesthood a service of dedication; any outsider who encroaches shall be put to death" (Num. 18:6-7). In the later temple in Jerusalem, only the high priest went behind the curtain, the "veil," to the Holy of Holies, and he did it only once a year (Lev. 16). Entrance into the temple is strictly only for those who hold priesthood. 

The Hebrew word for priest is kohen. The etymology of this word is not completely certain, but the most commonly attested Hebrew cognate is kun, which means "stand (before God)," "serve," or "lay down, set forth (a sacrifice)." Ritual service to God in the sanctuary is emphasized.[10]

While priests in the Old Testament had functions beyond temple and ritual service (which we will touch on briefly below), temple and temple related ritual were central. Cody, author of the standard book on Old Testament priesthood, writes that "priestly duties and activities varied somewhat, but primary in the early period, and always basic, was the idea that a priest is a person attached to the service of God in a sanctuary, God's house."[11] Dommershausen, in his article on kohen in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, lists as the priests' first function, "Guarding the sanctuary." The earliest priests "were thus charged with guardianship of the sacred precincts and what went on there. Sacrifices are offered by the worshippers themselves, but the priests are permitted to take a portion of the offerings for their sustenance."[12] "The priestly ministry is thus primarily an altar ministry," he writes.[13] Ringgren, de scribing the priests before Solomon's temple, writes, "In the pre-monarchic period, the priest appears as the attendant of a sanctuary and a giver of oracles."[14]

The priest's cultic duties—largely tied up with the sacred place and structure, the temple—included animal sacrifice, burnt offerings, cereal offerings, incense offerings, "wave" offerings, firstfruit offerings, atone ment sacrifice, "replacing the bread of the presence on the Sabbath (Lev. 24:8), dressing lamps in the holy place (Ex. 30:7), maintaining all the temple appurtenances, sounding the festal trumpets (Num. 10:8, 10), and 'blessing in the name of Yahweh' (Deut. 10:8; 21:5; 1 Chron. 23:13)."[15]

Priests alone entered the temple and its innermost court to perform ordinances. Non-priests, carefully ranked in sacrality, were allowed only into the outer courts of the temple. Josephus gives descriptions of the Jerusalem temple which show this system of increasing sacrality with only priests officiating in the sacred center.[16] The outermost court has been designated by moderns as the "Court of the Gentiles" because both Jews and Gentiles were allowed to enter into it. Within this was the court which Gentiles were forbidden to enter on pain of death. In Jewish War 5:193, Josephus refers to this as the "second court" and the "holy place." There was one gateway to this court "through which those of us who were ritually clean used to pass with our wives" (Antiq. 15:419). In Jewish War 5:199-200, he describes a special court on the east called "the women's court." Then there was "the sacred (court) which women were forbidden to enter, and still farther within was a third court into which only priests were permitted to go. In this priests' court was the temple, and before it was an altar, on which we used to sacrifice whole burnt-offerings to God. Into none of these courts did King Herod enter since he was not a priest and therefore prevented from so doing. But with the construction of the porticos and the outer courts he did busy himself. . . the temple itself was built by the priests in a year and six months" (Antiq. 15:419-21). Only priests entered the temple building; only priests entered the court surrounding the temple building.[17]

II. Other Functions of Priests

Cody explains that the Hebrew priest was "server or minister of God in the sanctuary," just as there was a regal minister in a palace.[18] Growing out of this function were other duties of priests, including divination and teaching, both functions showing the priest's role as intermediary between God and the people. In a discussion of the Old Testament priest, de Vaux mentions "the priest and sanctuary," then moves on to "priests and divine oracles," "the priest as teacher," "the priest and sacrifice" (actually an aspect of temple work), and "the priest as mediator."[19] Priestly consultation of oracles was only found in the early history of the priesthood; although this was a prophetic function, it was very limited even in early days of the priesthood, usually involving casting lots for answers with the Ephod or Urim and Thummim.[20] When "prophetism" became dominant in Israel, prophets (usually not priests) ascertained the will of Jehovah through very different means, through visions and moral in sight. Tensions sometimes arose between the prophets and priests, and prophets could accuse priests of not teaching the law, or teaching it in sincerely for gain (Jer. 2:8, cf. Mic. 3:11).[21] Other prophets were priests themselves (such as Ezekiel) or closely connected to priests.

Teaching by priests is attested in Deuteronomy: "They [the priestly tribe of Levi] shall teach Your laws to Jacob and Your instructions to Israel" (Deut. 33:10). In Deuteronomy 31:9, Moses instructs the priests to recite the Law every seven years at the Feast of Booths. Yet even the priest's teaching relates to his temple, cultic functions: Ezekiel (Ezek. 44:23-24) writes that priests "shall declare to My people what is sacred and what is profane, and inform them what is clean and what is unclean. . .they shall preserve My teachings and My laws regarding all My fixed occasions." Teaching the people concerning pure and impure will allow the people to bring the correct sacrifices to be offered when they need to be cleansed of sin or impurity. 

III. Who Could Become a Priest?

Only a select few were allowed to become priests in ancient Israel. Many of the reasons for disqualifying a person from priesthood in the Old Testament, based on laws of ritual purity, were contradicted by Jesus's later teachings of compassion, "justice and mercy," inclusiveness, and sincere religious feeling. 

First, as we have seen in Exodus, only Aaron and his descendants could hold priesthood. This reflects an understanding that Levites—descendants of the tribe of Levi—were confined to serving as lesser temple functionaries, and were ambiguously priests. The other eleven tribes could not hold priesthood of any sort. Since priests were by definition holier than other men, they were "holy" by heredity, rather than through ethical and spiritual qualities. Other passages in the Bible suggest that at one time, all Levites could be full priests. Still, even with Levites included, this is an exclusive, hereditary view of priesthood. 

In addition, within the tribe of Levi and family of Aaron, ritual purity or standards of physical perfection were necessary. Disabled per sons—the blind, lame, or a man "who has a limb too short or too long," or who is "a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes"—could not serve as priests: "[H]e shall not enter behind the curtain or come near the altar, for he has a defect. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me, for I the Lord have sanctified them" (Lev. 21:16-23, Deut. 23:2-3). If a priest were physically imperfect, he would "profane" the sanctuary. 

In the Old Testament, holiness was to a remarkable extent reckoned by laws of ritual purity. All Israelites were required to live by these laws and to seek atonement or purification through sacrifice if they participated in a ritual defilement, such as touching a dead person. Priests, who had to serve in the temple, were to live by even higher standards.[22] They were not allowed to marry a widow or a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7, 14)—perhaps a commentary on the perceived impurity of a woman who is not a virgin, or the assumption that a divorced woman had been put away because she had been sexually sinful; however, they might marry the widow of a fellow priest by Ezekiel's time (Ezek. 44:22). If a daughter of a priest "defiles herself through harlotry," she defiles her father (and by extension, the institution of priesthood), and she is to be "put to the fire" (Lev. 21:9).[23]

As we examine such views of ritual purity, we can see how revolutionary were Jesus's teachings rejecting reliance on such conceptions and directing the religious person to moral, ethical principles and to greater inclusivity as having central religious importance.[24]

What is said about women and priesthood, if anything, in the Old Testament? It is striking how separated women are from priesthood in the standard Old Testament understanding of the role: "We. . .hear occasionally of female prophets" (2 Kings 22:14; Neh. 6:14) writes Dommershausen, "whereas there were never any female priests in Israel."[25] Thus, women never entered the temple (recall Josephus's description of the Court of Women outside the inner courts of the Jerusalem temple), which is another way of saying they were not priests. 

What were the reasons for such a ban of women from the temple and from priesthood? One might simply accept that Hebrew culture at the time was openly, unselfconsciously patriarchal. Important roles in the community were given to men without question or reflection. However, we have also seen how women—divorced daughters of priests—could be seen as impure because of their sexuality. A woman in childbirth was also regarded as impure for seven days if she bore a male, for two weeks if she bore a female! (Lev. 12:1-5) Some scholars have suggested that because of menstruation and childbirth, a woman would always be disqualified from acting as a priest. Milgrom writes, "The woman's ineligibility for the priesthood is based on purely practical grounds: the impurity of her menses disqualifies her from serving for one week out of every four (and as much as three months during parturition)."[26] Vos mentions that women generally began having children soon after reaching puberty, and thus would have found it difficult "to find time for the full-time profession of the priesthood."[27] This is a practical, rather than a theological, explanation. 

Some scholars have argued that certain evidence suggests that women once had some connection with cultic (i.e., priestly) functions.[28] For instance, women performed cultic singing and dancing (Exod. 15:20; 1 Sam. 18:6, 21:11). Nevertheless, the Old Testament overwhelmingly portrays woman as separated from serving in the temple and from priesthood.

IV. Priesthood in the New Testament

Priesthood in the New Testament is not the focus of this paper, but I will look at it briefly.[29] First of all, priesthood during the ministry of Jesus was essentially a continuation of Old Testament priesthood: It fo cused on serving in the temple, it was hereditary (the favored family of Zadokite priests traced their lineage back to Aaron; Levites were sub servient priests), and priests sometimes served as teachers in Israel. The Sadducees were a priestly party whose name derived from Zadok. There were tensions between Jesus and the priests of his day—for instance, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite are viewed in a negative way.[30] However, while Jesus might denounce individual priests or groups of priests as unworthy of their office (which reminds us of tensions between prophets and priests in the Old Testament), he did not reject the priestly system.[31] For instance, after he healed the leper in Mark 1:44, he instructed him to "go and show yourself to the priest" to offer Mosaic offerings for cleansing. John the Baptist was of priestly lineage and his parents were viewed sympathetically. 

When the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, the institutions of priesthood—Sadduccees, priests, Levites—came to an end. Pharisees, teachers not priests, gradually became dominant religious leaders, and they gave rise to the system of rabbis.

What of priests and priesthood in the early New Testament church? The initial surprise for LDS readers, whose doctrine and practice includes such an overwhelming emphasis on priesthood, will be how in frequently priests and priesthood are mentioned in the context of the early Christian church. Mormons may read priesthood into early church offices: For instance, they may assume that the offices of apostle, bishop, and pastor included priesthood. However, the New Testament text does not use the word "priest" or "priesthood" in this context.[32] Some scholars believe that the early Christian church was in a "process of separation" from "all association with the priestly and sacrificial institutions of Judaism."[33] They emphasized the prophetic over the priestly traditions in the Old Testament. 

Nevertheless, the early Christians came to re-interpret priesthood in the light of Jesus's teachings and the destruction of the Temple. The one book in the New Testament that is largely concerned with priesthood, Hebrews, emphasizes Jesus's priesthood.[34] In other passages of the New Testament, priesthood seems to be applied to the whole church, a radical contrast to the hereditary priesthood of the Old Testament. Peter, for in stance, writes, "Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . .You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Peter 2:5, 9).[35]

V. Restoration: 1836–1845, Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo, Illinois

The Mormon religion is restorationist. Joseph Smith—and generations of Mormons after him—felt he was restoring and revalorizing institutions and experiences from Biblical times. Another term for this kind of religion was Biblical primitivism: restoration of the "primitive" church (i.e., in the Sixth Article of Faith, we read, "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church").[36] Mormonism was not alone in nineteenth century America in striving to restore Biblical realities. Many Protestant groups, such as the Campbellite movement and even Methodism, were likewise striving to regain the Biblical ecclesiastical forms and purity of spirit. However, Mormonism was distinguished by its thoroughgoing and literal restorationism and by the fact that it paid attention to both Testaments rather than focusing mainly on the New Testament as did many Protestant groups. 

Joseph Smith was especially influenced by the Old Testament, and many characteristic Mormon institutions have their primary pattern in the Old Testament: prophet, temple, priesthood, polygamy. In the case of Protestant restorationism, priesthood was not an emphasized institution, except in generalized, non-hierarchical form (Luther's "priesthood of all believers").[37] This was partially a reaction against Roman Catholicism where hierarchical and authoritarian priests were an important part of the ecclesiastical framework. As we have seen, the New Testament does not use priesthood terminology in referring to officers of the early Chris tian church. Only the book of Hebrews is largely concerned with priesthood, and then mainly with Jesus's priesthood. So this Protestant lack of interest in institutionalized priesthood is an interpretation of the New Testament that is entirely possible. 

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, developed a theological under standing fairly close to that of the Roman Catholic Church, accepting authoritative priesthood as the structure of the church. This emphasis on priesthood is what one might expect from someone strongly influenced by the Old Testament. For a leader concerned with temple restoration, as was Smith, it would be logical that priesthood would have to be restored with temples. A temple would need people to enter it and carry out its rites and ordinances. As we have seen, in the Old Testament the priest is above everyone who performs ritual service at the temple. 

The Kirtland temple is something of a proto-temple in Mormonism: It was referred to as the House of the Lord, not a temple, at the time of its building and early use.[38] Nevertheless, in later Mormonism it was accepted as a temple, and certainly some of the rituals first performed in it, including a proto-endowment, later became part of Mormon temple ritual. 

For our purposes, the most important aspect here was allowing women to enter the Kirtland temple; we will discuss this more thoroughly in relation to the Nauvoo endowment and temple experience. Women entered the temple and participated in the charismatic meetings inside the building. For example, Presendia Huntington Buell (later Kim ball) wrote, 'At another fast meeting I was in the temple with my sister Zina." As the congregation prayed, kneeling, they heard "from one corner of the room above our heads, a choir of angels singing most beauti fully." Buell wrote, "We were also in the Temple at the pentecost."[39]

Another important event was the restoration of washing and anointing as a temple ordinance.[40] These ordinances first took place on January 21, 1836, when the First Presidency and a few other church leaders received their washing outside the temple, then moved into the temple, where they anointed their heads with oil.[41] Later, other male members of the church, including "priests, teachers, and deacons," received this same washing and anointing. That this was regarded as a restoration of events from Exodus is shown by a statement by Oliver Cowdery: "[they] were annointed [sic] with the same kind of oil and in the manner that were Moses and Aaron."[42]

The church subsequently moved to Missouri (where plans for temples in Independence and Far West did not reach fruition), then to Nauvoo, Illinois. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith directed the building of a major temple and began to introduce further temple ordinances. While he did not live to see the temple completed, he presided over the first performance of a number of ordinances that have since become the basis for modern Mormon temple practice. 

Smith did not introduce these ordinances publicly, but—in keeping with the Mormon concept of an esoteric temple (and in keeping with the Old Testament idea of a temple where Gentiles were strictly excluded from entrance into even the inner courts of the temple, let alone the building)—he introduced them to a small, elite group of trusted followers, starting on May 4, 1842. This group was most commonly called the Holy Order or Anointed Quorum, but it had a number of other names, among them simply "Quorum" or "Priesthood."[43] And Holy Order, in fact, was a term closely associated with priesthood. The Book of Mormon refers to "the high priesthood of the holy order of God" (Alma 4:20, cf. 2 Nephi 6:2), and in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Melchizedek priesthood is referred to as the "holy order of God" (D&C 77:11, 84:18).[44] Likewise, D&C 84:18 mentions Aaron, so the Holy Order was again seen as a restoration of Aaron's priesthood—not, confusingly, the LDS Aaronic priesthood, but the "high priesthood" which Aaron received and which Mormons refer to as the Melchizedek priesthood. These naming references to Holy Order, "Priesthood," Quorum, and Anointed Quorum show clearly and explicitly that this quorum was a priesthood organization. Since the ordinances introduced in this group were temple ordinances, it was entirely fitting, given Old Testament practice, that this had to be a priesthood group. In the Old Testament, as we have seen, to enter the temple and perform rituals in it or just outside it, one had to be a priest.[45]

Once again, as in the Kirtland House of the Lord, members of the Anointed Quorum received a washing and anointing just before receiving the ordinance called the endowment.[46] In addition, during the endowment they were given ritual temple clothing associated with priesthood.[47] A conservative historian has described the rites of the Holy Order ("Joseph Smith's private prayer circle"): 

They were initiated into the [Anointed] Quorum through a "washing and anointing" that symbolized the spiritual cleanliness and progress they sought to attain. At the meetings [of the Holy Order], dressed in special priesthood robes, they went through the endowment ordinances that consisted of religious instruction, learning certain symbolic "signs and tokens," and taking upon themselves sacred covenants pertaining to their personal lives and conduct. All this was held to be a most sacred part of the restoration of the "ancient order of all things." They also participated in fervent prayer concerning the problems of the day.[48]

It was at this point that Joseph Smith was faced with one of the most momentous and least understood decisions of his prophetic mission. The Holy Order was a pre-temple group: They met in a space that was a sort of temporary temple, like the Tabernacle, and the ordinances they were given were meant to be performed in the temple. Thus, the group was explicitly a priesthood group, a quorum, with ordinances that were regarded as restorations of the priesthood ordination ceremonies of Aaron (as high priest) and his sons (as priests): washing, anointing, investing in priestly clothing. Thus, they became priests who were qualified to enter the sanctuary. 

Now, with full temple ordinances available and a major temple nearing completion, how would Joseph Smith view women in this context? As we have seen, introducing women into the temple by Old Testament definition would have made them priests, and so no women were al lowed to enter the temple anciently. Certainly, Joseph Smith had not included women in any of the offices of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods, as they had been understood up to this point. One might have expected Smith to follow the Old Testament pattern and let only men enter the temple. 

What Smith in fact did, with little fanfare, is shown by an entry in his diary that recorded an Anointed Quorum meeting: 'At 7 eve met at the Mansion's upper room front with W L[aw] W M[arks]. Beurach Ale [Joseph Smith] was by common consent and unanimous voice chosen President of the quorum and anointed [second anointing] and ordfained] to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood (and companion [Emma Smith]) Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Geo Miller, N K. Whitney, Willard Richards, John Smith, John Taylor, Amasa Lyman, Lucien Wood worth, J M. Bernhisel, Wm Law, Wm Marks. President led in prayer that his days might be prolonged, have dominion over his enemies, all the households be blessed and all the church and world."[49] Thus, Emma Smith was introduced into the Anointed Quorum; she was also anointed and ordained "to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood."

More women were introduced into the Quorum in subsequent meetings. Heber C. Kimball, for instance, wrote on January 20, 1844, "[M]y wife Vilate and menny feemales was recieved in to the Holy Order, and was washed and inointed by Emma [Smith]."[50] Brigham Young wrote in his diary, on October 29, 1843, that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were "taken into the order of the priesthood."[51]

Joseph Smith, thus, introduced women into temple ritiual—a revolutionary action, given the Old Testament's complete ban on women entering the temple. However, this action also has significant implications with regard to priesthood, for we have seen that entrance into the temple and service therein inescapably defines the central aspect of priesthood in the Old Testament. 

For those who may have difficulty accepting that entrance into the temple has such a meaning, we should look at important aspects of the temple ordinances Joseph Smith shared in the Anointed Quorum meetings. Washing and anointings were always the beginning of the series of temple rites he introduced. We have seen that washing and anointing in Exodus was a rite of ordination to priesthood, and we have seen that the early Latter-day Saints understood these as restorations of the washings and anointings given to Aaron and his sons. 

In addition, another crucial part of the rites revealed by Joseph Smith was clothing in special robes. I will not describe these in detail, but it has been accepted that these temple robes are based on the descriptions of priestly robes in the Old Testament (though not on the high priestly robes, which are more elaborate). Hugh Nibley, in his article "Leaders to Managers: the Fatal Shift," wrote: "There is another type of robe and headdress described in Exodus and Leviticus and the 3rd Book of Josephus' Antiquities, i.e. the white robe and linen cap of the Hebrew priesthood, which have close resemblance to some Egyptian vestments. They were given up entirely however, with the passing of the temple and were never even imitated after that by the Jews. Both their basic white and their peculiar design, especially as shown in the latest studies from Israel, are much like our own temple garments."[52] In Exodus, donning those priestly clothes was a part of the rite of ordination to priesthood. "Next you [Moses] shall instruct all. . .[those skilled in making clothing], to make Aaron's vestments, for consecrating him to serve Me as a priest . . . .They shall make those sacred vestments for your brother Aaron and his sons, for priestly service to Me" (Exod. 28:3-5). By the standards of the Old Testament, when women are clothed in such priestly clothing, they are being given a consecration to priesthood. 

Furthermore, early church leaders clearly and unselfconsciously connected women with priesthood in their statements. Joseph Smith told the Relief Society that he was "going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as Enoch's day."[53] Perhaps he was looking forward to their en trance into the temple and participation in ordinances within it.[54] On February 1,1844, Kimball "Myself and wife Vilate was announted Preast and Preastest [Priestess] unto our God under the Hands of B. Young and by the voys [voice] of the Holy Order."[55] Of course, in entering the Holy Order, women entered a group that was called "Priesthood" and "Quo rum" and even "the Quorum of Priesthood."[56] It is hard to escape the logical inference that the group was a priesthood quorum. All of this makes perfect sense in the light of Joseph Smith restoring temple and priesthood, and introducing women into the temple, giving them the same consecration rites—washing, anointing, and clothing in ritual clothing, rites of ordination to priesthood in Exodus—as men.

This restoration of temple and related ordinances with women included is one of the most remarkable aspects of Smith's work of restoration in the modern dispensation. One might have expected only men to enter the temples, to receive washing, anointing, and ritual clothing, and to perform rites in the house of the Lord. With little fanfare, Smith introduced women into the temple, to equally receive washing, anointing, and ritual clothing, perform rites in the house of the Lord. Yet that intro duction had enormous implications for how a Mormon might look at the connection of women and priesthood. 

In addition, the inclusion of women in temple service shows that Joseph Smith often did not restore Biblical institutions completely and precisely. Though he restored many aspects of temple and temple rites (such as washing, anointing, and clothing) modeled on Biblical patterns, introducing women into the temple is absolutely contrary to Biblical practice because women were never accepted as priests in Jewish tradition and culture. 

A significant divide between LDS conservatives and liberals exists on the issue of women and priesthood, with conservatives generally affirming that women and priesthood are concepts which are absolutely and strictly separated.[57] Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that women could have priesthood, have indeed had priesthood since 1843, or that priesthood could be defined in such a way as to include women.[58]

The liberal-leaning Community of Christ (RLDS) church has openly recognized the priesthood of women and now has women at every level of priesthood, including apostle. 

I believe the most important argument for the connection of women and priesthood is based on the absolute justice of God and on an ethical, non-legalistic view of priesthood (we remember that both in the Old and New Testaments, inspired writers hoped that God's people, all of them, would be a kingdom of priests).[59] However, it is striking how much evidence there is from Mormon history to suggest that Joseph Smith and early church men and women accepted a connection of women and priesthood.[60] Bringing women into the temple—into a priesthood quo rum, into the performance of priestly ordinances—is one of the most re markable aspects of Joseph Smith's restoration of the temple. 

---

[1] I will quote from Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985). I also use Michael Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

[2] For general introductions to priests and priesthood in the Old Testament, see George Buchanan Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971, orig. 1925), 179-270; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962, orig. 1957), 1:241-49; Han Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966, orig. 1962), 93-100; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, orig. 1963), 204-19, 324-30; Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) and "Priests and High Priest," in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 608-11; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961, orig. 1958,1960), 345-405; Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan, eds., Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (Sheffield, U.K.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1991); Richard A. Henshaw, Female and Male, The Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East (Allison Park, Penn.: Pickwick Publications, 1994), 24-28; Moses Buttenwieser, "Priest," in The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1905- 1916), 10:192-97; Menahem Harem, "Priests and Priesthood," in Cecil Roth, ed., Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971), 13:1070-86; Merlin D. Rehm, "Levites and Priests," in David Noel Freedman, et al., eds., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:297-310. 

[3] Once again, I accept this kind of textual analysis within a context of faith in God's inspiration behind the totality of scripture (and I accept that no scripture is infallible, but a combination of God's inspiration and human weakness and cultural limitation). See James Barr, "Modern Biblical Criticism," in Metzger and Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 318-24. I am interested in "canonical criticism," which is concerned with the "the final text, not in earlier stages that have led up to it," (324) but canonical criticism must still work with source, form, and redaction criticism.

[4] Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: Black, 1885), 121-52. 

[5] See R. Abba, "Priests and Levites," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962) 3:876-89. 

[6] "The Priesthood and the Temple," in Thomas Walter Manson, A Companion to the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947), 418-43, 418.

[7] See Menahem Haran, "Priestly Vestments," in Roth, Encyclopedia Judaica, 13:1063- 69; Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), ad loc.

[8] Lev. 8:12, 30; Exod. 29:41, 30:30, 40:15. See E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1963), 1-26; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible series (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 553-56. Milgrom feels that the royal anointing took place after the pattern of the anointing of the high priest, thus making the king a priest of sorts.

[9] "Priests," in The Holy Bible (SLC: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), 753.

[10] See W. Dommershausen, "kohen," II, in Joannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Joseph Febry, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 12 vols, trans. David Green (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans: 1995, orig. 1982-84), 7:60-75, 66.

[11] Cody, "Priests and High Priest," 608. 

[12]  Dommershausen, "kohen," 66-67. See also, de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 348: "Every priest was chosen and installed to serve in a sanctuary."

[13] Dommershausen, "kohen," 69.

[14] Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 205. See Judg. 17,1 Sam. 1-4, 7:1; Josh. 3. 

[15] Dommershausen, "kohen," 69-70.

[16] See Antiq. 15:419ff.; 8:95ff.; Jewish War, 5:184ff. Trans. Thackeray. Cf. C. T .R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), 142-43.

[17] In the ancient world, the ground surrounding a temple was part of the sacred space it was associated with. Nevertheless, we can see by Josephus's description that there were degrees of sacrality: The innermost, highest sacrality was found within the building and was reserved for priests. Gentiles and women were allowed some limited contact with the temple's sacrality, but only at the outer fringes.

[18] Cody, "Priests and High Priest," 609.

[19] de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 348-58. Dommershausen lists the two other major functions of the Old Testament priest, beyond "guarding the sanctuary" and the closely related "cultic duties" (which are primarily performed at the temple), as "dispensing oracles" and "teaching." 

[20] For a discussion of these methods of oracular consultation, see Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 205-6; Kraus, Worship in Israel, 97; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 352; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 507. According to Milgrom, the Urim and Thummim were only consulted in the Holy of Holies near the Ark, so this form of revelation is connected with the temple. 

[21] See S. H. Hooke, Prophets and Priests (London: Oxford, 1938). Adam C. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel (London: SCM Press, 1936); H.L. Ellison, The Prophets of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969), 26-28, 112; Marvin A. Sweeney, Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile (Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 2001).

[22] For the Levitical "Holiness Code" (accepted by scholars as a separate stratum in the Pentateuch, "H"), see David P. Wright, "The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity," in Ander son and Olyan, Priesthood and Cult, 150-82.

[23] The NRSV grimly translates this as "she shall be burned to death." For historical examples, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, Anchor Bible series (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1811. For similar punishments, see Deuteronomy 22. If a lay woman was found not to be a virgin when she married, she was stoned at her father's home, showing the father's perceived culpability.

[24] Mark 7:1-23; Matt. 15:1-20. Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8, Anchor Bible series (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 454.

[25] Dommershausen, "kohen," 74. See also see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 384, "no woman ever held a place among the Isrealite clergy"; Clarence J. Vos, Women in Old Testament Worship (Delft: Judels & Brinkman, 1968), 192-93. For further on female prophets in the Old Testament, see Vos, 174-97, and Grace I. Emmerson, "Women in Ancient Israel," in R. E. Clements, ed., The World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 371-94, 374-76. These are Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), and Isaiah's wife (Isa. 8:3); see also Ezekiel 13:17 and Joel 3:1. 

[26] Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22,1811. See Lev. 15:19-24: Menstruation caused a woman to be unclean for seven days. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2:348; Vos, Women in Old Testament Wor ship, 193; Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah (Ox ford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 162-65; Ruth B. Edwards, The Case for Women's Min istry, in the Biblical Foundations in Theology Series (London: SPCK, 1989), 27; Donald G. Bloesch, Is the Bible Sexist? Beyond Feminism and Patriarchalism (Westchester, 111.: Crossway Books, 1982), 41.

[27] Vos, Women, 207.

[28] See Gray, Sacrifice, 184-93; 203-4; Henshaw, Female and Male, 27, who cites especially, Vos, Women in Old Testament Worship; Ismar J. Peritz, "Women in the Early Hebrew Cult," Journal of Biblical Literature 17 (1898): 111-48; Mayer I. Gruber, "Women in the Cult ac cording to the Priestly Code," in Jacob Neusner et al., eds., Judaic Perspectives in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 35-48; Johannes Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture, 2 vols, trans. Mrs. Aslaug Muller (London: Oxford University Press, 1926-1940), III/IV:166ff. 

[29] See M. H. Shepherd, Jr., "Priests in the NT," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 3:889; Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest: According to the New Testament, trans. J. B. Orchard (Petersham, Mass.: St. Bede's Publications, 1986, orig. 1980).

[30] Luke 10:31-32; cf. Matt. 3:7.

[31] Shepherd, "Priests in the NT," 890.

[32] Cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6; Exod. 19:6 ("a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"); Isa. 61:6. These last two scriptures show that even in the Old Testament there was a non-exclu sive view of priesthood, as extended to all members of God's community. See also Ernest Best, "Spiritual Sacrifice: General Priesthood in the New Testament," Interpretation 14 (1960): 273-99.

[33] Shepherd, "Priests in the NT," 890. 

[34] See John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1991). While Scholer sees Hebrews as referring to Jesus explicitly as a priest, he argues that the cultic language of Hebrews, applied to the book's readers, also implies that members of the church have priestly aspects. 

[35] Cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6; Exod. 19:6 ("a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"); Isa. 61:6. These last two scriptures show that even in the Old Testament there was a non-exclusive view of priesthood, as extended to all members of God's community. See also Ernest Best, "Spiritual Sacrifice: General Priesthood in the New Testament," Interpretation 14 (1960): 273-99.

[36] See Jan Shipps, "The Reality of the Restoration in LDS Theology and the Restoration Ideal in the Mormon Tradition," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, ed. Richard T. Hughes (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 181-95; a version of this was reprinted in Shipps's Sojourner in the Promised Land: Forty Years among the Mormons (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 229-43.

[37] See Kathryn H. Shirts, "Priesthood and Salvation: Is D&C 84 a Revelation for Women Too?" Sunstone 15 (Sept. 1991): 20-27.

[38] Gregory A. Prince, Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 122, n. 24.

[39] Interview with Presendia Kimball, quoted in Edward Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom (New York: Tullidge & Crandall, 1877), 207-8. The Kirtland temple was used for general church meetings and for schools, and was thus an "open" temple.

[40] See Donald W. Parry, "Washings and Anointings," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan Co., 1992), 4:1551.

[41] See Dean Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith (SLC: Deseret Book, 1993), 2:155-59; Prince, Power from on High, 125-26,184.

[42] Oliver Cowdery, "Oliver Cowdery's Kirtland, Ohio 'Sketch Book,'" Leonard Arrington, ed., Brigham Young University Studies 12 (1972): 410-26, 419, entry for Jan. 21,1836; see also Prince, Power from on High, 184.

[43] For the Holy Order/Anointed Quorum, see Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera, "A Season in Prayer": Meetings of Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845 (forthcoming), which attempts to supply all the primary sources; D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake: Signature Books, 1994), 399-402, 491-519, 634-54; Andrew Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Succession Question," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1982.

[44] See discussion in Quinn, Origins of Power, 114. 

[45] Heber C. Kimball seems to summarize the whole endowment as an ordination to priesthood. He wrote that in June [May] 1842, "I was aniciated into the ancient order was washed and annointed and Sealled and ordained a Preast. . .in company with nine others, Viz. Josph Smith, Hiram Smith [and others] . . ." On the Potter's Wheel, 55-56.

[46] Prince, Power from on High, 186, citing History of the Church 5:2; Brigham Young Manuscript History, May 4,1842, LDS Church Archives; L. John Nuttall diary, Feb. 7,1877, LDS Church Archives, with excerpts available on New Mormon Studies CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), see "Temples" section. This is quoted in David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 39. 

[47] See Evelyn T. Marshall, "Garments," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:534-45, who properly refers to LDS temple clothing as "priestly robes"; Ebenezer Robinson, "Endowment Robes in Nauvoo in 1833-44," The Return 2 (Apr. 1890): 252-54, see also Quinn, Origins of Power, 350. Carlos E. Asay, "The Temple Garment: 'An Outward Expression of an Inward Covenant,’" Ensign (Aug. 1997): 19-23; Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (SLC: Deseret Book, 1980), 75-79.

[48] James B. Allen, Trials of Discipleship: The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 127, cf. Quinn, Origins of Power, 114; Alma P. Burton, "Endowment," and Allen Claire Rozsa, "Temple Ordinances," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:454-56; 4:1444-45.

[49] Joseph Smith diary, Scott Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake: Signature, 1989), 416.1 reproduce some but not all of Faulring's annotations.

[50] "Strange Events," in Stanley B. Kimball, ed., On the Potter's Wheel: The Diaries of Heber C. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1987), 56, cf. Prince, Power from on High, 204. 

[51] Brigham Young, diary, LDS Church Archives, as quoted by D. Michael Quinn, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843," in Maxine Hanks, ed., Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake: Signature Books, 1992), 365-410, esp. 368.

[52] Hugh Nibley, "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift," Dialogue 16 (Winter 1983): 12-21, 13. See also Hugh Nibley, "Sacred Vestments," in Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos, ed. Don E. Norton (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book/FARMS, 1992): 91-138. For these temple robes and priesthood, see pp. 97,102. 

[53] Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Minutes, LDS Church Archives, at March 30, 1842.1 consulted this in a microfilm copy at Lee Library, BYU; Andrew Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), 110. See discussions in Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant: the Story of Relief Society (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 42, 53; Quinn, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood," 365. 

[54] Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. James Mulholland et al., 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902-1912; revised edition, 1956), 4:492-93. See also Derr, et al., Women of Covenant, 53, where Joseph Smith connected the "kingdom of priests" generalized concept of priesthood with the completion of the Nauvoo temple. 

[55] "Strange Events," in Kimball, On the Potter's Wheel, 56. This is probably a reference to the "fullness of priesthood" ordinance (see Prince, Power from on High, 187-92). 56. William Clayton diary, Feb. 3, 1844, LDS Church Archives, see George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 125.

[56] This is probably a reference to the "fullness of priesthood" ordinance (see Prince, Power from on High, 187-92). 56. William Clayton diary, Feb. 3, 1844, LDS Church Archives, see George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 125.

[57] See Rodney Turner, Woman and the Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Com pany, 1972). See a review of this by historian Claudia L. Bushman, "Women: One Man's Opinion," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 7 (Winter 1972): 85-87. Bushman states that Turner writes "from a scarcity of information," then "distorts the sources he has."

[58] Important contributions are Anthony Hutchinson, "Women and Ordination: An Introduction to the Biblical Context,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14, no. 4 (Winter 1981): 58-74; Margaret Merrill Toscano, "The Missing Rib: The Forgotten Place of Queens and Priestesses in the Establishment of Zion," Sunstone 10 (July 1985): 16-22; Linda King Newell, "The Historical Relationship of Mormon Women and Priesthood," Dialogue 18, no. 3 (Fall 1985): 21-32; Melodie Moench Charles, "LDS Women and Priesthood," Dialogue 18, no. 3 (Fall 1985): 15-20; Maureen Ursenbach Beecher and Lavina Fielding Ander son, eds., Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987); Linda King Newell, "Gifts of the Spirit: Women's Share," in Beecher and Anderson, Sisters in Spirit, 111-50; Paul and Margaret Toscano, Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology (Salt Lake: Signature, 1990), 179-97; Margaret Toscano, "If Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843, Why Aren't They Using It?" Dialogue 27, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 219-26; Quinn, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood"; Bushman, "Women: One Man's Opinion"; Hanks, Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism, which includes important essays by Meg Wheatley, Ian Barber, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Carol Lynn Pearson, Sonja Farnsworth, Edwin Brown Firmage, Marian Yeates, and Margaret Toscano; Shirts, "Priesthood and Salvation: Is D&C 84 A Revelation for Women Too?"; Prince, Power From On High, 201-10.

[59] Needless to say, Joseph Smith did not restore the hereditary aspects of Old Testa ment priesthood or the ban of lame or physically imperfect persons from priesthood or temple.

[60] I accept Gregory Prince's cautions that many offices that Mormons connect with priesthood, such as apostle, stake president, or bishop, were not associated with women in early Mormonism. (Power From On High, 201-10.)

[post_title] => "Kingdom of Priests": Priesthood Temple and Women in the Old Testament and in the Restoration [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 36.3 (2003): 53-80
Compton considers priesthood as portrayed in Old Testament texts and how women are underrepresented in today’s discourse. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => kingdom-of-priests-priesthood-temple-and-women-in-the-old-testament-and-in-the-restoration [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-03-30 23:36:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-03-30 23:36:40 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10620 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11139 [post_author] => 2466 [post_date] => 2018-04-01 15:12:57 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-01 15:12:57 [post_content] =>

The Salt Lake temple, some forty years under construction, represented to the Saints in 1893 a literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesy (2:2–3) regarding the temple in the mountains,[1] and many believed its dedication signaled the imminent commencement of the Millennial Era, an era which would witness the church's return to Jackson County, Missouri, and the advent of the Savior. Thus, for the members present, the dedication of the Salt Lake temple constituted one of the most important events in the history of the world.

Due to the sacred nature of temple dedications, the church does not grant access to the official records of these events; however, by reading the diaries of Saints who participated in the Salt Lake temple dedication, one can almost attend the ceremonies vicariously. As viewed through the pages of the contemporary diarist the dedication emerges as a spiritual event unparalleled since the dedication of the Kirtland, Ohio, House of the Lord.

For Wilford Woodruff, president of the church, dedication of the Salt Lake temple was one of the most important experiences of his life, an event for which he believed the Lord had protected and preserved him, and over which he had been foreordained to officiate. Woodruff's experiences regarding the temple began with a vision he received while the Saints were still in Nauvoo, Illinois, following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith in 1844. During dedication services in Salt Lake City, Woodruff "related his vision he had in Boston some 50 years ago. How the Lord showed him the Saints would move to the Rocky Mountains and build this Temple, and [that] he would be called upon to open it to the people and dedicate it to the Lord."[2] "I anticipated the dedication of that Temple for fifty years," he proclaimed shortly after the dedication," for I attended the dedication of that Temple fifty years ago in a vision, and when I got through that work, I felt that I had arrived at the end of my work in the flesh."[3] Another time he recounted that "I was ordained to dedicate this Salt Lake Temple fifty years before it was dedicated. I knew I should live to dedicate that Temple. I did live to do it."[4]

Woodruff's experiences with the temple increased as construction progressed. In August 1862 President Brigham Young toured the temple lot with Woodruff and Isaac Morley. While inspecting the temple foundation,[5] Young said: "I expect this Temple will stand through the Millennium & the Brethren will go in and give the Endowments to the people." Turning to the two men, Young then declared, "I do not want to quite finish this Temple for there will not be any Temple finished until the one is finished in Jackson County, Missouri pointed out by Joseph Smith. Keep this a secret to yourselves lest some may be discouraged.”[6]

The impact of this statement on Woodruff is evident by the fact that he recorded Young's words in both his personal diary and in the historian's office journals.[7] Young's statement no doubt impressed Woodruff with the millennial nature and significance of the Salt Lake temple and further heightened in his mind its prophetic destiny.

In 1887 Woodruff recorded a dream in which he received what he felt was an important message from Brigham Young:

I dreamed last night that the L D Saints were holding a great Conference at Salt Lake City at the great Temple and thousands of Mechanics were laboring hard to finish the Temple. I was requested to open the Conference As I was an Exile and they might not have me with them long. The Key of the Temple was given me to open it. As I went to the door A large Company were assembled and I overtook Presid[en]t Brigham Young and He asked what the matter was with the great Company at the Door. Some one Answered the Elders did not want to Let the people into the Temple. He said Oh, oh, oh and turned to me & said let all[,] all into the Temple who seek for Salvation. I saw several who were Dead and among the Number my wife Phebe. I Believe there is some meaning to this dream.[8]

Following dedication of the Salt Lake temple, Woodruff reflected on the message he felt he was intended to receive from these nocturnal visitations. As he contemplated his accomplishments following the dedication in 1893, Woodruff interpreted his dreams from six years earlier in a new context. “Two nights in succession before John Taylor[']s Death President Young gave me the Keys of the Temple and told me to go and dedicate it which I did."[9] These visitations by Young had evidently impressed Woodruff with the need to hasten the temple's dedication and had effectively reversed the policy he understood to have been established by Young twenty-five years earlier of delaying the temple's completion until the Saints began to return to Jackson County.[10] At the capstone ceremonies held during April 1892 general conference, Woodruff instructed Apostle Francis M. Lyman to place the Saints under covenant to hasten the temple's completion. This resolution, adopted by the unanimous vote of the gathered Saints, also alludes to the change in policy regarding completion:

RESOLUTION

Believing that the instructions of President Woodruff respecting the early completion of the Salt Lake Temple is the word of the Lord unto us, I propose that this assemblage pledge themselves, collectively and individually, to furnish, as fast as it may be needed, all the money that may be required to complete the Temple at the earliest time possible, so that the dedication may take place on April 6, 1893.[11]

The date for the dedication was thus set to commence the following April, forty years after the cornerstones were laid and building begun. "We have been as long building that Temple as Moses was leading the children of Israel through the wilderness to the land of promise,” observed Woodruff, "and I would like to see it finished."[12]

The following year was spent finishing the interior of the temple in anticipation of the dedication. Following the laying of the capstone, Woodruff walked through the interior and noted in his journal that "a great Deal of work [is] yet to be done in order to get the work done by next April Conference.”[13]

In the various settlements, the diligence of the Saints was exerted in a more spiritual direction. With the dedication now less than one year away, the Saints sought ways to prepare themselves for what many expected to be a pentecostal event not witnessed since the days of Kirtland. A wave of community cooperation and forgiveness swept over the settlements. In order to foster this spirit further, many church authorities toured the settlements, admonishing the Saints to put aside their differences, especially regarding politics. Great spiritual manifestations were promised as a reward for the years of suffering and persecution the members had undergone defending plural marriage. On one occasion Lorenzo Snow “spoke of the great sacrifice made by the saints in the issuance of the manifesto relinquishing the practice of plural marriage. He felt that the Lord had accepted it, and would bless the people. It was one of the greatest sacrifices made by any people since the days of Enoch. Upon this and other accounts he was of [the] opinion the Lord would grant some interesting manifestations in the Salt Lake Temple."[14]

Two weeks prior to the dedication, the First Presidency called on all the Saints to set aside Saturday, 25 March, as a day of fasting and prayer. The Saints were instructed "that the Presidencies of Stakes, the High Councils, the Bishops and their Counselors, meet together with the Saints in their several meeting houses, confess their sins one to another, and draw out from the people all feelings of anger, of distrust, or of unfriendliness that may have found a lodgment; so that entire confidence may then and there be restored and love from this time prevail through all the congregations of the Saints.”[15] Apostle Marriner W. Merrill records that he "went to meeting at 11 a.m., met with the people of Richmond, confessed my sins, and—asked forgiveness of the Saints if I had done anyone any wrong."[16]

As the Saints gathered in attitudes of forgiveness and penitence, Woodruff repeatedly gathered with his counselors to the temple to view the work being done on the interior. Woodruff records that his heart was heavy as they viewed the work that still remained to be completed. "We are in hopes to get it ready for Dedication,” he wrote in his journal three weeks before the dedication, "but it is a load upon us."[17] On the afternoon of 5 April, a scant twelve hours before the dedication services were to begin, the temple received the finishing touches and was ready at last to be presented to the Lord.

Dedication, 6–24 April 1893

A large crowd gathered around the temple on the morning of 6 April 1893. Admission to the temple was through a narrow gate at the west end of the temple block, admitting only one person at a time onto the grounds.[18] As the Saints entered the grounds, a gentle breeze blew across the square. Overhead clouds were visible, with an occasional ray of sunlight adding to the beauty of the day. Promptly at 8:30 a.m. the Saints were conducted through the temple's interior, touring each of the various rooms, until they gathered in the fourth floor Assembly Hall. One participant described what no doubt was experienced by all:

We were surprised and filled with wonder at the beauty and finish of every room as it was more costly and grand till we came to the upper when we were struck dumb as it were with astonishment at the heavenly grandeur of this room of rooms, it defies description by pen of mortal as to the effect it produced in the mind and, heart of the true latter day saint it was indeed the Holy of Holies, and we felt the majesty of heaven was there. . . .[19]

John M. Whitaker, private secretary and reporter for Church Historian Franklin D. Richards, described his tour as one of "awe, wonderment and glory."[20]

At 10 a.m., after the crowd of over 3,000 had been seated, and with many more left standing in the aisles, the services began. Following the singing of “Let Israel Join and Sing” by the Tabernacle Choir, Woodruff arose to deliver the dedicatory prayer. The prayer, described by many as comprehensive, requested the blessings of the Lord to rest upon the temple and everything located therein.[21] "The prayer was simply grand," wrote one witness, “and caused all hearts to overflow with praise and thanksgiving to our heavenly Father, and so manifest was the Spirit of God that the vail was almost rent and we indeed felt we were in the presence of our God and Jesus Christ our Redeemer and hosts of heavenly beings."[22]

The peace and tranquility of the dedicatory services being conducted inside the Assembly Room stood in sharp contrast to the terrible wind storm then raging outside the temple. "The worst windstorm, perhaps, which ever visited Salt Lake, prevailed between 10:30 and 12 o'clock noon," declared the Deseret News in describing the storm, “the destruction . . . was beyond precedent here."[23] "The air was filled with dust, gravel and debris of many kinds and pedestrians sought shelter in the nearest buildings. Outhouses and small barns were blown down and trees uprooted in all parts of the city. Many fences were badly damaged by falling shade trees."[24]

The timing of the storm with the dedication was not without spiritual overtones. To many who witnessed it, the raging storm stood as a manifestation of the anger and fury of Satan and his angels. One member wrote:

It is claimed that Heber C. Kimball once predicted that when the Salt Lake Temple should be dedicated the power of Satan should be loosed and the strongest wind storm ever witnessed in Utah should be felt on that occasion. In pursuance and fulfillment of this prediction, a strong breeze began blowing upon our entering the grounds at 9 a.m. and increased to a hurricane of great violence at the precise time the dedicatory prayer was being offered by Pres[ident} Wilford Woodruff.[25]

The storm took on added significance when seagulls were sighted hovering over the temple. "The Evil One seemed mad," wrote one observer, and "gulls came and hovered over the House; [they} have not been seen here before for many years. They saved the crops in 1847 by devouring the crickets."[26] Thus the twin manifestations of the gulls and the gale became a powerful symbol of the ongoing battle between God and Satan, a battle centered on the Lord's Saints gathered at the temple.

There were other manifestations, of a personal character, that accompanied the dedicatory services. Elder Rudger Oawson recorded in his journal that his wife, Lydia, "heard some beautiful singing that seemed to come from the N[orth] E[ast] corner of the room," even though there was no choir in the area.[27] Apostle Francis M. Lyman also heard this music and declared that he saw "a beautiful light cross the building above the chandeliers."[28] Some witnessed the apparent transfiguration of Wilford Woodruff into the likeness of Brigham Young,[29] while others observed a halo of glory surrounding Woodruff.[30] One individual reported seeing on the stand Brigham Young and several members of the Quorum of the Twelve who had passed away, as well as other spirit beings.[31]

Another unusual event that occurred following the second day's services was the delivery of a baby boy in, the font room of the temple.[32] The Contributor described the circumstances of the birth of the child as follows:

An unusual incident occurred in the Temple on Friday, April 7, shortly after the close of the evening session. Benjamin F. Bennett and his wife, Emma, had attended the meeting. The journey from Provo had doubtless hastened an event that had not been expected on that particular occasion. Before Mrs. Bennett could leave the building she gave birth to a son. She was attended by Mrs. Julina Smith; and as soon as mother and child could be safely moved they were taken to the residence of Andrew J. Gray and given all necessary care. On the evening of Saturday, April 15, the infant was carried into the Temple, to the room where it first saw light in mortal probation, and was there blessed by President Joseph F. Smith, the name conferred being Joseph Temple Bennett.[33]

The circumstances surrounding the boy's birth provided much discussion for the Saints, many speculating "who that boy could be, born in the Temple."[34]

The program of each of the thirty-one dedicatory sessions, held between 6 and 24 April, was essentially the same. Woodruff delivered the dedicatory prayer at the first session. He then allowed the prayer to be read by his two counselors, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, and by the Quorum of the Twelve at the remaining sessions. Thus each apostle received the opportunity to deliver the prayer.[35]

Following the dedicatory prayer, Elder Lorenzo Snow arose to lead the Saints in the Hosanna Shout, an act he performed at each of the dedicatory services. “This was truly the grandest sight my mortal eyes ever beheld," recorded one participant, "it seemed the heavenly hosts had come down to mingle with us."[36] "The Shout was given with such vehemence and force," wrote another, "as to almost shake the building on its foundations."[37]

Following the Hosanna Shout, the choir sang the "Hosanna Hymn,"[38] after which the congregation arose and joined in singing "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning." The rest of the session was then set aside for various members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to address the Saints. "The Lord has accepted this House as an offering from the Saints" was the common theme of the discourses, and "he has forgiven his penitent people." This theme of acceptance and forgiveness was consoling to the Saints, many of whom harbored lingering feelings of confusion and anxiety regarding the Woodruff Manifesto banning plural marriage. The dedicatory services thus became a time of recommitment to the laws and covenants of God, and many Saints came prepared to receive divine confirmation that they and the church were accepted of the Lord.

No person sought this confinnation more than Woodruff. Perceiving the expectations of the Saints regarding the spiritual manifestations they had been promised, Woodruff sought on every occasion to relate visions, revelations, and other manifestations he had received regarding the temple dedication. "I feel at liberty to reveal to this assembly," he announced during the second day of dedication, "what has been revealed to me since we were here yesterday morning." He proceeded to relate a marvelous vision in which he had seen the heavens singing with the Saints:

Last night I had a vision: I saw President Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and all the heavenly hosts who have died in this dispensation shouting praises to the Lord; and that as the shouting of the Hosannah went up from the temple, the shout was re-echowed to Christ and the saints, up to the throne of God: That they were more interested in the dedication of this temple than we possibly could be and that the Lord accepted this temple.[39]

Another witness recorded that Woodruff stated that "Our Saviour had appeared unto [me] in the East Room in the Holy of Holies, & told [me] that He had accepted of the Temple & of the dedication services, & that the Lord forgave us His Saints who had assisted in any manner towards the erection and completion of the Temple."[40]

It was also crucial for Woodruff to assert his calling as God's true prophet which he accomplished by emphasizing his frequent spiritual witnesses. The manifestations recounted emphasized his role in the early church, including his experiences with the prophet Joseph Smith, and divine manifestations he had received throughout his life. One vision, which Woodruff alluded to frequently during the dedication discourses, portrayed to him "thousands of the Lamanites [Native Americans] enter[ing] the temple by the door in the west end of the [Temple] previously unknown to him. They took charge of the temple and could do as much ordinance work in an hour as the other brethren could do in a day."[41] Another experience occurred in St. George in 1877, following dedication of that temple, when "a class of men came to me in the night visions, and argued with me to have the work done for them. They were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence."[42] Through these experiences, Woodruff sought in nearly every session in which he spoke to reconfirm to the Saints his position as prophet, seer, and revelator of the church. He hoped that the dedication would manifest to the Saints that the church was still under the guidance of the Lord.

During his opening remarks, Woodruff uttered a prophesy in which he said" a better day was dawning, and as the Apostles were now united Satan would not have power to create division among them." "He said the light & power of this Temple would be felt all over the earth, that our enemies should not have power over his Saints. The Lord is going to give His Saints the good things of the earth in greater abundance."[43]

The topics presented to the Saints varied from speaker to speaker and session to session. However, a study of the minutes shows that three prominent themes were discussed by Woodruff, by the other members of the First Presidency, and by the Quorum of the Twelve: namely, Forgiveness, the Millennial Reign, and Union.

The Manifesto, issued three years previously, relinquished what many Saints felt to be a vital and essential commandment of the Lord. Many questioned the Manifesto's divinity,[44] and leaders of the church often taught that a lack of diligence on the part of the church as a whole led to the Lord's removing plural marriage from the church. These points were also addressed in the various sessions of the dedication.

Joseph F. Smith, in addressing the congregation, introduced the subject of the Manifesto by testifying, "[There is] not one principle of the Gospel but what is true. No not one! They can never be false." In answer to the rhetorical question "Why did the church abandon plural marriage?" Smith “explained that a number of laws had been given, and withdrawn on account of the people not being prepared for them. Only 2% of the people ever entered the Celestial order of marriage; ... Some were only too glad of an excuse to forsake and abandon. Now if any man shall forsake and abandon his loved ones, he shall wither away and die. Obey the laws of the land but do not forsake your covenants."[45] Smith also reminded the Saints that "the Prophet Joseph suspended the Law of consecration after the people had rejected it in a conference. Pres[iden]t Woodruff suspended Plural Marriage when the Lord told him to and not till then. We would have been ground to powder by this Government if we had not been led by the Lord to do as we did."[46] Smith admitted, however, that 11 had the Lord given the Manifesto earlier than He did, he could not have accepted it but he had become convinced it was right."[47]

Smith echoed what was no doubt felt by many of the authorities and by other church members, namely, that the Lord had withdrawn plural marriage due to slothfulness on the part of many Saints. For this reason, the tenor of the talks relating to forgiveness centered on the Lord's pardoning his people as a whole, not necessarily as individuals. "Prest. Woodruff told us the Lord had accepted the House," wrote one observer, "and the people as a Church and our sins were all forgiven and would not be proclaimed on the house tops."[48] Like Joseph F. Smith, Woodruff also sought to explain the reasons for the Manifesto, but rather than focus on the failings of the Saints, he emphasized governmental pressure to relinquish the practice of plural marriage.

I feel disposed to say something upon the Manifesto. To begin with, I will say that this work was like a mountain upon me. I saw by the inspiration of Almighty God what lay before this people, and I know that something had to be done to ward off the blow that I saw impending. But I should have let come to pass what God showed me by revelation and vision; I should have lived in the flesh and permitted these things to come to pass; I should have let this temple gone into the hands of our enemies; I should have let every temple been confiscated by the hands of the wicked; I should have permitted our personal property to have been confiscated by our enemies; I should have seen these people—prophets, and apostles, driven by the hands of their enemies, and our wives and children scattered to the four winds of heaven—I should have seen all this, had not the Almighty God commanded me to do what I did.[49]

Woodruff sought to console the Saints, repeatedly stressing that the Lord would never have permitted him to do something contrary to his will. He reminded the Saints that he had lived with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor. “Was there a man on God's footstool that could have moved them to the right or the left from anything that they felt inspired to do?" he asked. Directing the Saints' attention to the assembled First Presidency and Twelve, Woodruff asked the defining question that the Saints needed to answer in order to come to grips with the Manifesto:

Here are George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, and these Twelve Apostles. I want to ask you if Wilford Woodruff could have done anything that these men would have accepted, in performing the work that was done, that pained the hearts of all Israel, except by the spirit and power of God? No. I would just as soon thought of moving the foundations of this world as to have taken any course to move these men only by the revelations of God. When that Manifesto was given they accepted it. Why? Because they had the Spirit of God for themselves; they knew for themselves it was right. It was passed also before ten thousand Latter-day Saints and there was not a solitary hand lifted against that edict.[50]

Woodruff's sentiments were echoed by his counselor George Q. Cannon, who also reminded the Saints that “A little while ago the U.S. Government had possession of this Temple and ground surrounding it and clouds of darkness hung heavy over us[. It] seemed as though the Lord had hid his face from us, but now behold the peace and joy we are permitted to see and partake of[.] Should we not praise the Lord and thank his most Holy name! He it is that has wrought out this great deliverance and not man."[51]

The Salt Lake temple became, in essence, a sym.bol and token of the Saints' penitence to the Lord, and the message of the leaders to the Saints was that the Lord had accepted their sacrifice. "The Lord had forgiven the sins of the people," Woodruff assured the Saints,” and accepted our offering of broken hearts and contrite spirits." In addition, Woodruff "promised great blessings to the people[;] if [we] are united Satan should never have power to cause us to stray away from the Lord."[52]

A second theme prominently discussed during the dedicatory services concerned the imminent return of the Saints to Jackson County and the approach of the Millennium. The commencement of the 1890s found the Saints anxiously awaiting the expected migration of the church to Missouri and the return of Jesus Christ. As a result of several prophecies made by Joseph Smith—prophecies which in turn had been reinterpreted and promulgated by later church authorities—the millennial expectations of the Saints reached a crescendo in the early 1890s.[53] No one individual felt this urgency more than Woodruff. For him dedication of the temple signified the fulfillment of ancient and modem prophesy and the approaching millennial era. "The Savior is here and rejoicing with us and many of the now born will live to see him in the flesh," he declared, "the vail is growing thinner."[54] "The Ancient Prophets, Isaiah and others prophesied and we are fulfilling, Christ is near and the work must be hastened, we are approaching the time for Jesus to come and be in our midst. ... [The] Millennium is at hand [and] we must wake up."[55] "I urge the saints to enter into their secret chambers and pray for the redemption of Zion—prayers which will assuredly be heard and answered, for Zion's redemption is at hand.”[56]

Others also exhibited their feelings regarding the future: "I dare say there are man under the sound of my voice who will be present in Jackson County,"[57] declared Lorenzo Snow, “some of you will give this [Hosanna] shout in the great Temple to be built in Jackson County."[58] George

Q. Cannon told the Saints that 0women have a right to prophecy when wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, and that we are approaching the time when the saints will go back to Jackson County and there build up the Center Stake of Zion and redeem the land of Zion."[59] Thus, even though the temple was dedicated prior to the Saints' return to Jackson County as Brigham Young had wanted, the dedication should not be seen as an indication of the demise of millennial expectations in the church. "We have built this House to have the Savior come to it, which will be soon."[60]

By far the most emphasized theme of the dedication dealt with unity. After the dissolution of the People's party in 1892, the issue of politics had become increasingly important to church leaders and members in general. Evidence shows that even within the highest ranks of the church the discussion of politics brought contention and ill-will. The dedication thus became a time of reflection and evaluation for those caught in the web of politics. "Many good humble souls have had their feelings sorely tried because of the divisions among the leaders in politics," Cannon explained, "but thank the Lord we are now united as never before, and Satan shall never have power [to] divide us again on those lines, we must give heed to the Counsel of the first Presidency in all things for the Lord will [not] suffer us to lead you astray; we are after liberty for this people and we care not whether it comes through Democrats or Republicans, we want Statehood.”[61]

For several days prior to the dedication, the First Presidency and Twelve had sought unity with each other. One member of the group, Apostle Moses Thatcher, had been the source of serious contention and discord in the quorum dating back to President John Taylor's administration. Ill-will had been generated between Thatcher and George Q. Cannon over Cannon's assumption of leadership when Taylor had been in declining health prior to his death in 1887. These problems, and several others, had alienated Thatcher from the majority of his quorum.[62] The most significant source of friction, however, was the extremely partisan position taken by Democrat Thatcher in open opposition to the First Presidency, which sought to obtain political parity in Utah between the Republican and Democratic parties. In a May 1892 speech before the Utah Democratic Territorial Convention in Ogden, Thatcher reportedly implied that "Jesus Christ would have been a Democrat and Lucifer a Republican."[63] This angered several members of the First Presidency and Twelve, especially Joseph F. Smith, and threatened to prevent a unity of leadership at the dedication.

To resolve the disunity within the leadership, the apostles began meeting almost daily beginning 21 March 1893. Of utmost importance was their desire to establish a genuine spirit of harmony and goodwill before the dedication commenced. However, little progress was made; thus as leaders entered the last week before the dedication, the meetings intensified. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill recorded on 3 April: "Went to meeting of Quorum at 2 p.m. when Apostle Moses Thatcher's case was again discussed, F[rancis] M. Lyman and John W. Taylor having visited him since our last meeting. They reported him as being very defiant and justifying himself in his course, and treating them in a very discourteous manner while at his house. President Snow was very pronounced against Brother Thatcher's course."[64]

As the dedication approached, it appeared that leaders would be unable to bring unity to their ranks. One last meeting was scheduled to convene two days before the dedication. Although Thatcher had been too ill to attend the previous day's meeting, he telegraphed his intention to attend this last meeting. For over two hours members of the quorum pleaded with Thatcher to acknowledge his being out of harmony with the First Presidency. Finally, as the meeting neared midnight, Thatcher "confessed he had done wrong in the position he had taken in regard to

political matters and that he desired the fellowship of the presidency and his quorum."[65] "All voted to forgive him freely."[66] With union restored to their ranks, all looked forward to the spiritual blessings expected at the dedication services.

Given the intense focus church leaders had placed on establishing unity in their ranks over the previous weeks, it is no surprise that the topic should be given such emphasis during the dedicatory services. In announcing his intention to avoid political controversy, President Woodruff "prophesied that the Presidency and Twelve would never again be disunited1 but if any one of them got wrong the Lord would remove them."[67] Before leading the congregation in the Hosanna Shout, quorum president Lorenzo Snow stated, "Pres. Woodruff would not allow the Hosanna Shout to be given unless he believed there was union in our midst."[68] President Cannon stated that "he had almost dreaded to see the Dedication day come on account of the division among the people."[69] Alluding to the political troubles within the quorum, Cannon also "spoke of the great division among the people caused by deviding on national politics, how many humble and meek souls had been grieved and sorely tried, but now through the great mercy of the Lord all these ill feelings have been healed up and we are united as never before since the orga[n]ization of the Church." Seeking to obtain the last word on the subject, President Cannon continued, "[This union} has been brought about by obeying the counsel of the first Presidency[.] Some had thought the Presidency had no right to counsel in political matters, but the Lord understands all things and we must be led by him to seek liberty in any way he may mark out.”[70] Also alluding to the political troubles within the quorum, Francis M. Lyman matter-of-factly stated that "there is not a man in the chief councils of the Church but what sees eye-to-eye; we are united."[71]

Priesthood Leadership Meetings, 19–20 April 1893

In an effort to increase the unity experienced by local leaders who attended the dedication, President Woodruff decided to call as many stake leaders as could attend to a series of leadership meetings with the First Presidency and Twelve in the Assembly Room of the newly dedicated temple. Following the afternoon session of 18 April, stake leaders were called forward and invited to attend two special leadership meetings to be held on 19 and 20 April.

The first meeting commenced on 19 April at 10 o'clock, with the assembled leaders meeting in the President's Room in the temple. In attendance were all members of the First Presidency. The entire Quorum of Twelve Apostles also attended, except Moses Thatcher, who had returned home from the dedication on 11 April due to illness. The Seven Presidents of Seventies, the Presiding Bishopric, and the presidents of stakes and their counselors were also in attendance.[72] In all, the group numbered 115 men. Following the opening song, "Now Let Us Rejoice," Apostle Brigham Young, Jr., offered the opening prayer. The assembled body then sang II Come All Ye Sons of God."[73] President Woodruff began the testimony meeting "by saying that he would like to hear the brethren express themselves in relation to the dedicatory services of the Temple, as to whether they endorsed what been said and done, and also desired them to state how they felt towards the First Presidency and Apostles."[74] This approval was important to Woodruff. He wanted to know if the Saints harbored any lingering doubts as to his leadership and the direction he was taking the church. To manifest this unity among the Saints, he had President Joseph F. Smith request at each session a vote of acceptance by attending members. This vote was always unanimous.[75] Each leader stood and bore testimony to his happiness and satisfaction with the dedication proceedings and with President Woodruff’s leadership. Following these emotional and heart-felt testimonies, Woodruff rose to address the assembled group:

We have been here about 4 hours and it is time of course for us to dismiss this meeting: but before dismissing I feel that it is a duty resting upon me and my counsellors to say a few words to this assembly, and it is our right and privilege to speak to you by the revelations of the Lord and by the power of truth, and I will promise this assembly that the Holy Ghost will bear witness to them of the truth of what I say, and it is this: The God of heaven and the Lord Jesus Christ and the heavenly hosts—I say this to you in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God—have accepted the dedication of this Temple at our hands. The God of heaven has accepted His people, has accepted the people who have assembled here. The God of heaven has forgiven the sins of those Latter-day Saints in those that bear the Priesthood in this house, and those who have been humble before the Lord and have attended this Conference. Their sins are remitted, and will be remitted by the power of God, and will not be remembered anymore against his people, unless we sin further.

Shifting the emphasis from the Lord's acceptance of their offering to the leadership's willingness to make that offering, he continued:

And again I say to you that the God of heaven and the heavenly hosts accept of your offering. You recollect now, you have been making an offering; and I, as the President of the Church, accept the offering you have made before God and the heavenly host. It is this: you acknowledge the Presidency of this Church, that they bear the Priesthood, and that they are set to govern and control the affairs of the Church and Kingdom of God. This offering you have made before the heavens, and the heavens accept of it. I accept of it as the President of this Church; and I hope that while you live, from this time henceforth, wherever you see that spirit manifest that there is no power on the earth—that the Presidency of the Church have no power to govern or teach anybody—you will remember that you have all testified to the truth that upon their shoulders rests the responsibility of teaching, governing, controlling and counseling the church and Kingdom of God in all things on the earth.[76]

Following Woodruff his counselor Joseph F. Smith stood, as he had in each of the dedicatory services, and called on the assembled brethren to support President Woodruff and the First Presidency. Not surprisingly, “all answered with a hearty amen, signifying that they bore witness to the truth of the remarks of Pres. Woodruff."[77] The meeting concluded with Smith offering the benediction,[78] and participants were requested to reconvene the following morning.

As leaders gathered again the next morning, the absence of President Woodruff was immediately apparent. The assembled leaders were informed that Woodruff had over-exerted himself in addressing them the previous day and that he would be unable to attend this day's meeting. Woodruff later commented on just how sick he had become: “I marvel that I am here. I know that the Lord has preserved my life .... The Lord gave me power and strength of lungs to fulfil my mission there, until we nearly got through [with the Salt Lake Temple dedication]. But one day I staid [sic] there some six hours and I heard all the speeches of the presidents of Stakes. I staid too long and that prostrated me, and I went down apparently to the gates of death."[79]

As the same 115 participants of the previous day regrouped in the President's Room of the temple, they once more had the opportunity to listen to the remarks of the president's counselors and several of the Twelve. Beginning the testimony meeting was Joseph F. Smith, who remarked that "we lose nothing in remaining here waiting on the Lord. We must learn to wait upon the people, the Spirit of the Lord has reclaimed us from the cares of the world. The love of God casts out all bitterness, I am the brother of Christ. I love you because the Lord can speak through you and save the people. God is love, we must love God and our neighbour." In closing, Smith instructed the brethren in the ancient method of partaking of the sacrament, “read[ing] from 3rd Nephi how Jesus administered the sacrament, how we are to eat and drink in the presence of God."[80] The leaders were promised the opportunity to receive the sacrament in this method following the remarks by the general authorities.

Following Smith's testimony, George Q. Cannon bore testimony of his personal experiences with the Savior. "My joy is full, my desires are granted to see union again prevail in our midst. I have been greatly favored of the Lord. My mind has been rapt in vision and have saw the bea[u]ties and Glory of God. I have saw and conversed with the Savior face to face. God will bestow this upon you."[81]

As noon approached, participants adjourned and clothed themselves in their temple robes. Meeting in the Celestial Room of the temple, all 115 men formed a prayer circle, '1the largest ever formed in this generation."[82] Following introductory instructions by Joseph F. Smith, George Q. Cannon offered the prayer. During the prayer, one member of the group, Charles Kelly, stake president of Brigham City, fainted, ,, either for having the arm raised so long or on account of our fast, for we went to this meeting fasting."[83] After the prayer circle, the leaders returned to the President's Room where bishops William B. Preston, Robert T. Burton, and John R. Winder of the Presiding Bishopric had prepared three long tables for the sacrament. Each participant was given a large tumbler with the Salt Lake temple etched into it and a napkin. Presiding bishop Preston blessed the bread and 11 Dixie" wine (from southern Utah), "and the brethren were invited to 'eat till they were filled,' but to use caution and not indulge in wine to excess."[84] "The Sacrament as we partook of it was after the ancient pattern as taught to the Saints by the prophet Joseph."[85] As the men broke bread and drank the wine, each shared his thoughts on the temple dedication or bore testimony of any experiences he had had with the prophet Joseph Smith. For many, the leadership meetings, especially the sacrament, constituted the high-point of their dedication experience. After nearly six hours of intense camaraderie and companionship, the group adjourned at 6 p.m.[86]

Previous to the leadership meetings, it was decided to set aside two days during which Sunday school children throughout the church would be allowed to participate in the dedication. On the days chosen, 21 and 22 April, over 12,000 children attended one of five sessions. Although the dedicatory prayer was not read at these sessions, the children were able to participate in the Hosanna Shout and to hear from each of the attending apostles. One participant described the events of the children's session:

President Lorenzo Snow showed the children a lock of the Prophet [Joseph]'s auburn hair at each session. Apostle Franklin D. Richards testified he had seen the Prophet Joseph Smith, and heard him speak at many a meeting and on one occasion when his face shown bright as the sun, and how great was this manifestation, and so on at all the sessions. Most of the First Presidency arose and spoke briefly so all the children had a personal introduction to all of the General Authorities of the church and heard their voices in the temple, all bore fervent testimony of the greatness and majesty and power possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith as the Prophet who restored, or was the medium through whom was restored, all the Keys of Power, also the Priesthood of all former holders thereof, and of the place he will occupy in the future of this great work.[87]

Following the children's sessions, regular dedicatory services were held for two more days. The final session concluded on the afternoon of 24 April, a full twenty days after they had begun.

As the Saints returned to their homes following the dedication, many no doubt reflected on the events they had witnessed. The dedication became a time of rebirth, both for the church as a whole and for the individuals who constituted its membership. Throughout the dedicatory services, President Woodruff sought to convey to the Saints the Lord's forgiveness of the church as a people. The Salt Lake temple became, in fact a sacrifice presented to the Lord to obtain corporate forgiveness of sins. The emphasis on the Manifesto and justification for its issuance show that many felt the Saints had brought the Manifesto upon themselves through a lack of obedience to the law of celestial marriage. The donations and efforts of each member, and of the church collectively, resulted in Woodruff's promise that God had accepted their offering and forgiven their sins. But each member also reflected personally upon his or her own standing before God. Having been promised forgiveness as a people for the lack of diligence in obeying God's commandments, many looked inward to assess their personal standing before God. Elder B. H. Roberts wrote:

It has been a Pentecostal time with me, the Lord has shown to me my inner parts, myself; and there I have found such grained and gnarled spots that I have been humbled into sincere repentance. At times I have wondered even how the Lord could tolerate me at all as His servant. Truly it is a manifestation of long suffering & mercy. I am deeply moved with gratitude toward Him for his mercy to me; and now Oh My Father if thou wilt give me grace, how hard will I try to reform, and cease from all my wrong doing.[88]

Along with confirmation of the Saints' forgiveness, Woodruff and the other leaders sought to convey to the Saints that the Lord was still with his church. The issuing of the Manifesto had not caused the Lord to desert them. Woodruff's often recounted vision of the Savior, along with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other prominent leaders on the other side of the veil, was convincing evidence that the church was being guided by continual revelation. The Saints could now focus their attention on the quality and dedication of their own lives. The spirit of unity and love was palpable. "I never saw a time when everyone felt so humble and forgiving," wrote one participant following her dedication experience," a good feeling prevails."[89] Even those not privy to visions or other manifestations returned to their homes uplifted and strengthened. "The dedication of this temple, has not been attended with many great visions of the appearance of angels," wrote B. H. Roberts, “but the spirit of the Lord has been there—the Holy Ghost and that is greater than the angels!"[90] "Pen cannot describe," wrote another participant, "the feeling I had in that most glorious place . . . . I cannot express myself in words how we were all in heaven the time we were in the Temple.[91]

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] For examples of church leaders teaching that the Salt Lake temple fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy, see Orson Pratt, 10 Mar. 1872, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool, Eng.: F.O. Richards, 1855-86), 14:349; 15 June 1873, Journal of Discourses 16:80; Erastus Snow, 14 Sept. 1873, Journal of Discourses 16:202-203; George A. Smith, 18 Mar. 1855, Journal of Discourses 2:212-13; George Q. Cannon, 2 Nov. 1879, Journal of Discourses 21:264-65; also 3 Aug. 1890, Collected Discourses, 5 vols., ed. Brian H. Stuy (Burbank, CA: B.H.S. Publishing, 1886-98), 2:93; and Charles W. Penrose, 15 May 1892, Collected Discourses, 3:57.

[2] Francis Asbury Hammond Journal, 10 Apr. 1893, archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah (hereafter LDS archives), spelling and punctuation corrected.

[3] Discourse delivered 13 Dec. 1893, Collected Discourses, 3:421.

[4] Wilford Woodruff, 7 Apr. 1898, Sixty-eighth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1898), 29.

[5] The temple foundation had been buried in preparation for the arrival of Johnston's Army in 1858. In 1860, after the army had settled thirty miles outside of Salt Lake City, Brigham Young began making preparations to resume construction of the temple. As the foundation was uncovered, large cracks were found running from the walls into the foundation. Young was informed by the mason foreman that "the work on one side was defective and such a foundation is dangerous" (Wallace Alan Raynor, The Everlasting Spires: A Story of the Salt Lake Temple [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 102). After consultation with other specialists, Young decided to have the foundation excavated and relaid. It was the newly completed foundation that Brigham Young, Wu.ford Woodruff, and Isaac Morley were inspecting.

[6] Wilford Woodruff Journal, 1833-1898, 9 vols. (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1983-85), 6:71-72, 23 Aug. 1862, emphasis in the original (spelling and punctuation corrected). As church leaders publicly proclaimed their desire to finish the temple, Young declared, "I want to see the Temple finished as soon as it is reasonable and practicable. Whether we go in there to work or not makes no difference; I am perfectly willing to finish it to the last leaf of gold that shall be laid upon it, and to the last lock that should be put on the doors, and then lock eoenJ door, and there let it stand until the earth can rest before the Saints commence their labors there" (Brigham Young, 8 Apr. 1867, Journal of Discourses 11:372, emphasis mine). Although an in-depth study of Young's views concerning the return to Jackson County is beyond the scope of this essay, a brief study of Young's sermons indicates a millennialistic cycle that peaked with the commencement of the Civil War in 1861. In response to the question of when the Saints would return to Jackson County, Young proclaimed in 1852: "Not until the Lord commands it" (28 Aug. 1852, Journal of Discourses 6:269). Earlier he had indicated his belief that if the Saints then listening did not return themselves, their children would (15 Aug. 1852, Journal of Discourses 6:296; also 6 June 1858, Journal of Discourses 7:66; 21 Oct. 1860, Journal of Discourses 8:225; on Young's expectation to see Jackson County" in the flesh," see 9 Sept. 1860, Journal of Discourses 8:175). Prior to the commencement of the Civil War, Young's teachings indicated an uncertainty regarding when the Saints would return to Jackson County but a conviction that the time was near and that the Saints should be ready to go at any moment.

The beginning of the war increased Young's expectation that the time was nearing for the Saints to return to redeem Zion. "One great blessing the Lord wishes to pour upon this people is that they may return to Jackson county," he declared. "If our enemies do not cease their oppression upon this people, as sure as the Lord lives it will not be many days before we will occupy that land and there build up a Temple to the Lord" (6 Apr. 1862, Journal of Discourses 9:270). While the Civil War raged in the East, Young boldly declared, "We are determined to build up the kingdom of God on the earth; to bring forth Zion, to promote the cause of righteousness on the earth . . . The time has now come when this work will be consummated" (31 Aug. 1862, Journal of Discourses 9:368). This declaration was made one week after Young uttered his instructions to Woodruff on the temple grounds to delay completion of the temple until after the return to Jackson County. Two years later the president prepared the Saints for his departure to return to Jackson County by warning them, “I expect to be absent, some time from now, for quite a while" (15 May 1864, Journal of Discourses 10:290). With the U.S. government still intact following the Civil War, Young's attitudes regarding the imminent return of the church to Jackson County cooled. It became clear that the time frame for the Saints' return was unknown. No longer was the return to Zion as immediate. It is not possible to determine if Young intended to complete the Salt Lake temple irrespective of the return to Jackson County or if the ending of the Civil War altered his views. If Young did change his intent, he did not communicate this change to Woodruff, who clearly held to the original teachings of the president in 1862. (For an in-depth discussion of the millennial fervor brought on by the Civil War among Young and the Saints, see Louis G. Reinwand, An Interpretive Study of Mormon Millennialism During the Nineteenth Century with Emphasis on Millennial Developments in Utah," M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971.)

[7] Woodruff Journal, 6:71-72, 23 Aug. 1862, spelling and punctuation retained; also Wilford Woodruff's Office Journal, 22 Aug. 1862, LDS archives.

[8] Woodruff Journal, 8:429, 12 Mar. 1887, spelling and punctuation retained. A few days later Woodruff recorded: "I dream almost Ev[e]ry night of these great Meetings. I do not understand what those Dreams Mean" (ibid., 15 Mar. 1887).

[9] Ibid., 9:279, "A Synopsis of Wilford Woodruff Labors in 1893."

[10] It is difficult to determine what, if any, delay tactics were actually employed by Young in construction of the temple. In his public discourses Young frequently admonished the Saints to donate means to hurry completion of the temple (Brigham Young, 2 Mar. 1862, Journal of Discourses 9:241; also 8 Apr. 1862, Journal of Discourses 10:36; 6 Oct. 1863, Journal of Discourses 10:267; 8 Apr. 1867, Journal of Discourses 11:372). As has been shown above, however, Young felt that the return to Jackson County was imminent, and thus it is probable that, if the temple had been completed, Young would have delayed its dedication and use until after the church had returned to Jackson County (see n6). Construction and dedication of the St. George temple shows that Young had changed his ideas concerning the need to delay completion of any temple until the building of the Jackson County temple. It is possible that the focus had shifted only to the Salt Lake temple, and that other temples, which were not viewed in the same millennialistic light, could be completed before the Saints' return to Jackson County.

[11] Millennial Star 54 (July 1892):436 (emphasis mine).

[12] Wilford Woodruff, 12 June 1892, Collected Discourses, 3:82.

[13] Woodruff Journal, 9:195, 11 Apr. 1892.

[14] Rudger Clawson Journal, 23 Oct. 1892, Box Elder Stake Quarterly Conference, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

[15] James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1833-1964, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3:244, message dated 18 Mar.1893.

[16] Melvin Clarence Merrill, ed., Utah Pioneer and Apostle Marriner Wood Merrill and His Family (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1937), 163, 25 Mar. 1893, hereafter Marriner W. Merrill Diary.

[17] Woodruff Journal, 9:244, 18 Mar. 1893.

[18] Joseph West Smith Journal, 6 Apr. 1893, Special Collections, Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

[19] Hammond Journal, 6 Apr. 1893 (spelling standardized).

[20] John Mills Whitaker Journal, 6 Apr. 1893, 53, transcript, Special Collections, Marriott Library.

[21] The Contributor 14 (Apr. 1893): 292-300; also Millennial Star 55:333-38, 349-53, reprinted in N. B. Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, all editions (Salt Lake City: Zion’s Printing & Publishing Co.), 122-32. On average, it took overy forty minutes to read the dedicatory prayer at each of the sessions.

[22] Hammond Journal, 6 Apr. 1893.

[23] Deseret News, 6 Apr. 1893, 1; 7 Apr. 1893, 4.

[24] Ibid., 6 Apr. 1893, 1.

[25] John Franklin Talton Autobiography, 6 Apr. 1893, LOS archives.

[26] Hammond Journal, 6 Apr. 1893 (emphasis in the original); also John F. Tolton Autobiography, 6 A pr. 1893; Jean Bickmore White, ed., Church, State, and Politics: The Diaries of John Henry Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in Association with Smith Research Associates, 1990), 6 Apr. 1893, 289.

[27] Rudger Clawson Diary, 8 Apr. 1893.

[28] Melvin A. Lyman, Francis Marion Lyman Biography (Delta, UT: n.p., 1958), 135.

[29] Joseph West Smith Journal, 9th Session, 9 Apr. 1893, 117; The Contributor 16 (Dec. 1894): 116.

[30] Jesse Nathaniel Smith Journal, 6 Apr. 1893 (Salt Lake City: Jesse N. Smith Family Association, Deseret News Publishing Co., 1953).

[31] Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 18 May 1893, copy in my possession.

[32] John Lee Jones Biography, 90, Special Collections, Lee Library.

[33] The Contributor 14 (Apr. 1893): 301.

[34] John Mills Whitaker Journal, 278, Special Collections, Lee Library.

[35] The following table lists the individual who delivered the prayer in each session of the declication. The prayers were offered by the apostles in descending order, according to their position in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, with President Woodruff delivering the prayer only at the first session. Although Moses Thatcher was present at most of the dedicatory services of 6-11 April, lingering illness prevented his delivering the dedicatory prayer (Edward Leo Lyman, "The Alienation of an Apostle from His Quorum: The Moses Thatcher Case," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 [Summer 1985]: 67-92; also Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 292-95; Millennial Star 55 [29 May 1893]: 363). [Editor’s Note: Find more information form this footnote in the PDF below.]

[36] Hammond Journal, 6 Apr. 1893.

[37] Rudger Clawson Diary, 6 Apr. 1893.

[38] L. John Nuttall Journal, First Session, 6 Apr. 1893, typescript in my possession. Other popular hymns were often substituted for the "Hosanna Hymn," including Eliza R. Snow's" 0 My Father," which was sung with a solo by R. C, Easton in a "soul-inspiring manner" Goseph West Smith Journal, 13th Session, 11 Apr. 1893).

[39] John M. Whitaker Journal, 3rd Session, 7 Apr. 1893; also Archibald Bennett, ed., Saviors on Mount Zion, Advanced Senior Department Course of Study (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union Board, 1950), 142-43; Anthon H Lund Journal, 7 Apr. 1893, LDS archives.

[40] John Lee Jones Biography, 90.

[41] Jesse Nathaniel Smith Journal, 8 Apr. 1893, 393; Joseph West Smith Journal, 12 Apr. 1893.

[42] Joseph West Smith Journal, 11 Apr. 1893; John D. T. McAllister Journal, 7 Apr. 1893, Special Collections, Lee Library

[43] John Lee Jones Biography, 90.

[44] General authorities who viewed the Manifesto as politically expedient included apostles John W. Taylor, John Henry Smith, Marriner W. Merrill, Heber J. Grant, Brigham Young, Jr., and George Teasdale (Alexander, 269). For additional comments on the views of these men and of the general church membership towards the Manifesto, see Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 145-56; B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 127-53; D. Michael Quinn, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985): 46-49.

[45] Joseph West Smith Journal, 8th Session, 9 A pr. 1893, 116. Recent studies have shown that a higher percentage of members entered into polygamy. Stanley S. Ivins estimated that at the time of the Woodruff Manifesto more than 10 percent of church members were in polygamous relationships (Stanley S. Ivins, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," Utah Historical Quarterly 35 [Fali 1967]: 311). Davis Bitton places the percentage at 10-20 percent ("Mormon Polygamy: A Review Article," Journal of Mormon History 4 [1977]: 111).

[46] Hammond Journal, 19th Session, 14 Apr. 1893.

[47] John Henry Smith Diary, 18th Session, 14 Apr. 1893 (spelling and punctuation standardized.

[48] Hammond Journal, 1st Session, 6 Apr. 1893.

[49] "Manifesto of 1890, Extract of sermon by President Willard Woodruff at the sixth session of the Dedication Services of the Salt Lake Temple," Special Collections, Lee Library.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Hammond Journal, 16th Session, 13 Apr. 1893.

[52] Ibid. 12th Session, 11 Apr. 1893.

[53] See Dan Erickson, "Joseph Smith's 1891 Millennial Prophecy: The Quest for Apocalyptic Dlieverance,” Journal of Mormon History 22 (Fall 1996): 1–34.

[54] Hammond Journal, 10th Session, 10 Apr. 1893.

[55] Ibid., 16th Session, 13 Apr. 1893.

[56] Joseph C. Muren, The Temple and Its Significance (Ogden, UT: Temple Publications, 1973), part IV, "When the Dead Shout Hosannas: Remarks made by Wilford Woodruff at the Salt Lake Temple Dedication."

[57] Joseph West Smith Journal, 15th Session, 12 Apr. 1893.

[58] Hammond Journal, 16th Session, 13 Apr. 1893.

[59] John Mills Whitaker Journal, n.d., 55.

[60] William Derby Johnson, Jr., Brigham Young University manuscripts, 13 Apr. 1893.

[61] Hammond Journal, 16th Session, 13 Apr. 1893 (emphasis in the original).

[62] Edward Leo Lyman, 68-72.

[63] Ibid., 73.

[64] Marriner W. Merrill Diary, 3 Apr. 1893, 163.

[65] Franklin D. Richards Journal, 3 [4] Apr. 1893, as quoted in Edward Leo Lyman, 77.

[66] Marriner W. Merrill Diary, 3 Apr. 1893, 163.

[67] Jesse Nathaniel Smith Journal, 8 Apr. 1893, 393.

[68] Joseph West Smith Journal, 8th Session, 9 Apr. 1893.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Hammond Journal, 10th Session, 10 Apr. 1893.

[71] Joseph West Smith Journal, 15 Apr. 1893, 126-27.

[72] B. H. Roberts notes that each stake was represented by a member of the presidency "except one-St. Joseph-and a bishop represented that [stake]" (Brigham H. Roberts Journal, 19 Apr. 1893, Special Collections, Marriott Library).

[73] Nuttall Journal, 19 Apr. 1893.

[74] Rudger Clawson Journal, 19 Apr. 1893.

[75] John D. T. McAllister Journal, 11, 13 Apr. 1893.

[76] Rudger Clawson Journal, 19 Apr. 1893 (emphasis in original).

[77] John Franklin Tolton Diary, 19 Apr. 1893.

[78] Nuttall Journal, 19 Apr. 1893.

[79] Wilford Woodruff, 13 Dec. 1893, Collected Discourses, 3:421.

[80] Hammond Journal, 20 Apr. 1893.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Brigham H. Roberts Journal, 20 Apr. 1893.

[84] John Franklin Tolton Diary, 20 Apr. 1893.

[85] Brigham H. Roberts Journal, 20 Apr. 1893.

[86] Hammond Journal, 20 Apr. 1893.

[87] John Mills Whitaker Journal, 21 Apr. 1893, 279

[88] Brigham H. Roberts Journal, 24 Apr. 1893.

[89] Jane Wilkie Hooper Blood, "Autobiography and Abridged Diary," Ivy Hooper Blood Hill, ed., 103, Special Collections, Lee Library.

[90] Brigham H. Roberts Journal, 24 Apr. 1893.

[91] William Derby Johnson, Jr., Diary, 6 Apr. 1893.

[post_title] => "Come Let Us Go Up to the Mountain of the Lord": The Salt Lake Temple Dedication [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 31.3 (1998): 101–122
Stuy looks at “the dedication of the Salt Lake temple constituted one of the most important events in the history of the world. Due to the sacred nature of temple dedications, the church does not grant access to the official records of these events; however, by reading the diaries of Saints who participated in the Salt Lake temple dedication,one can almost attend the ceremonies vicariously.  [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => come-let-us-go-up-to-the-mountain-of-the-lord-the-salt-lake-temple-dedication [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-11-01 14:51:02 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-11-01 14:51:02 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=11139 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11399 [post_author] => 2567 [post_date] => 2018-04-04 22:22:19 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-04 22:22:19 [post_content] =>

The banner headline on Sunday’s 17 September 19911 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune greeted morning readers: “Gilbert [sic] L. Bossard, Convert, is Named as One Who Photographed Interior of Salt Lake Temple. Revenge Is Sought by Him after Trouble with the Church; Has Left the City.” The sensational article began:

No local news story published in recent years has caused so much comment as the exclusive story in yesterday's Tribune regarding the taking of photographic views in the Salt Lake Mormon temple by secret methods. . . . The most important development of the day was the identification, through efforts of a Tribune representative, of the man who took the views. This man is Gilbert L. Bossard, a German convert to Mormonism, who fell out with the church authorities and secretly took the pictures in a spirit of revenge.[1]

For faithful Mormons, the thought that someone had violated the sacred confines of the eighteen-year-old Salt Lake temple, which he desecrated by photographing, was "considered as impossible as profaning the sacred Kaaba at Mecca."[2]

Gisbert L. Bossard

Gisbert Ludolf Gerhard Bossard was twenty-one years and one month old when Salt Lake City residents learned the identity of the photographer of "every nook and comer" of the Salt Lake temple. He was born in Coeln, Rheinland, Prussia, on 12 August 1890 to Gisbert Von Sudthausen and Maria Louise Franziska Pollock. By 1898 his natural father was gone, having either died or left his family, and his mother had remarried Theodor Bossard, who later adopted Gisbert. In 1905, when Gisbert was fourteen, his mother died. Within a year Theodor and his adopted son converted to Mormonism and emigrated to America. In a Tribune interview with Theodor the day after his stepson became famous, he explained: "When we first arrived [Gisbert] was a Latter-day Saint in good standing. However, he soon fell away from the church, and although he says he still believes that the gospel is true, he said he trunks the administration of the business affairs of the church is crooked."

Only the barest skeleton exists of Gisbert's church participation after immigrating to America. He was baptized in January 1907 at age sixteen in the Salt Lake Fifteenth Ward. Before the end of that year his father remarried in the temple. In October 1908 Gisbert paid tithing of $5.10 to Bishop Edwin F. Parry of Salt Lake1s Sixteenth Ward, possibly in anticipation of his (non-temple) marriage the next month to Elsbeth Elfriede Elisabeth Luck, known familiarly as "Elsie.”[3] Two weeks after exchanging wedding vows, he was ordained a priest in the Aaronic priesthood; five months later, on 26 April 1909, he was ordained an elder. Despite these outward appearances of religious commitment, according to his father, G1sbert was already fantasizing about photographing the inside of the temple. About the time of the birth of Gisbert and Elsie's first child in the fall of 1909, an undisclosed difficulty resulted in Gisbert's being tried for his church membership. At least from the church's point of view, the matter was amicably settled and Gisbert was soon restored to his original standing.[4] A year later Gisbert and Elsie welcomed their second child into the world. The "Certificates of Blessing" show that neither child was blessed by Gisbert.[5]

In June 1911, a few months after the second child was blessed, Gisbert announced to his father: "I know what's in there [the temple] and I know what they do in there." When his father asked him how he knew, Gisbert winked and replied: "I had a vision." By mid-August 1911 he had explained in detail to his father how he had obtained the photographs and was boasting that he could sell the negatives for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some months earlier Gisbert, described as an expert photographer and film developer, had received permission from LDS church president Joseph F. Smith to photograph the interior of the Beehive House, ostensibly to share the views with relatives in Germany. When he did not return the plates, the church referred the matter to Salt Lake City's chief of police. During questioning in early August 1911 Bossard expressed to Chief Barlow his resentment of the church and threatened to take pictures of the interior of the temple "and expose the iniquities of the church to the world." Bossard, who had in fact already taken the pictures, bragged to Barlow that gaining entrance to the temple would be easy and coyly inquired what penalty could be imposed for such an act. Barlow answered that Bossard “stood an excellent chance of getting himself into serious difficulty."

It is unlikely, however, that the Beehive House was the real reason Barlow was interested in Bossard. Bossard, perhaps anonymously, had already contacted Joseph F. Smith about the church's purchasing negatives of the interior of the temple. In his 18 September Tribune interview, Bossard's stepfather stated that his son "had the pictures about two months without attempting to do anything with them, except sell them to the church," but those attempts came to nothing. In the same interview the elder Bossard also revealed how Gisbert had obtained access to the temple. The son, realizing that "he never could get in the right way," had cultivated a friendship with assistant temple gardener Gottlieb Wutherich.[6] Wutherich, who slept in a room next to the temple, not only had keys to the temple but was expected to enter the building many times a day to take care of the flowers inside.[7] After befriending Wutherich, and reportedly convincing him that "although the church was all right, the officials were not," Bossard enjoyed easy access. He confided to his father that upon entering the temple grounds, "he hid the cameras under his coat and that some of the pictures were taken during the daytime and others at night by flash light."

Once suspicion began to focus on Bossard and Wutherich,[8] matters escalated quickly. In his Tribune interview, the senior Bossard continued:

One day, after he had told me that he had the pictures, we were standing on the comer of Third South and State Streets, when he said, "See, there's a detective following me and there's another," and he pointed two men out to me. Sure enough, they were following us.

A few nights after this, while my son was away, his house was entered and ransacked. However, nothing was carried away and no due was left behind by those who had accomplished this work. He did not keep the pictures in his house, however. On two occasions after this his house was entered and ransacked, and as on the previous occasion, nothing was taken away.[9]

Bossard remained in Salt Lake only a week or two longer. On 1 September, after incorporating a capital stock company with Wutherich and a local theater promoter named Max Florence to dispose of the pictures, Bossard and Elsie, six months pregnant, caught a train for Denver.[10]

Max Florence

From here on Max Florence, entrepreneur extraordinaire, handled matters.[11] Negatives in hand, he left immediately for New York City, arriving about 7 September.[12] After settling into a room at the Hotel Imperiat Florence placed eight photographs in a package, scrawled Joseph F. Smith's name on the front wrapper, and dropped his bomb in the mailbox. On 16 September—the day before Bossard's part was made public—the pictures hit the front pages of the Tribune and the Deseret Evening News.[13] Florence's letter to Smith accompanying the photographs read:

During the past several years, “certain" parties were admitted into the temple and while there managed to make and obtain a large number of photographs of the interior settings, scenery, surroundings, etc.—sixty-eight negatives. The pictures show almost every nook and comer from the basement to the steeples. I arranged to purchase an interest in these pictures while in Salt Lake City and have done so since arriving here, as a purely business proposition. . . . My associates and myself have canvassed, "in an off hand way” the market here for such pictures . . . and we have found out what we can do by selling these pictures to postal card makers, lecture bureaus, magazines and a great many other profitable purposes; but we have decided that if you are willing to make us a reasonable business offer . . . we will give the same due consideration. . . . We are sending you a few prints under separate cover. . . . If you do not want these pictures suppressed we know of many persons who are very anxious to begin giving them publicity at once.

President Smith replied testily: "I will make no bargain with thieves or traffickers in stolen goods. I prefer to let the law deal with them." He stated further that he did not believe the pictures had been taken by flashlight. "They look to me,” he said, "as if they were taken within the time that the temple was given a thorough cleaning during the last few months. In fact, some of the pictures show that the furniture was covered with canvas as it was during the cleaning process."[14]

The headline in the Deseret Evening News Extra the same evening read: "Max Florence Fails to Scare Church." The News reproduced seven of the eight photographs,[15] reminded readers that over 600 non-Mormons had been invited to walk through the temple prior to its dedication in 1893, and reproduced a narrative description of much of the temple's interior from a booklet titled The Great Temple.[16] In addition, the News recited Florence's domestic failures and unsavory reputation as a local saloon keeper, informing readers that near the site of the newly constructed Boston and Newhouse buildings Florence had once run a saloon, in the rear of which "were several wine rooms where men and women congregrated nightly in drunken debauches." The News hinted that Florence may have intentionally set fire to some of his movie houses, presumably to collect the insurance.[17]

The next morning Sunday Tribune readers awoke to news of Bossard's identity as the photographer.

Isaac K. Russell

As the Tribune ran follow-ups the next several days, more details—some of them obvious figments of Florence's grandiose imagination—spilled out. When church attorneys advised that Florence had probably committed no crime, and that Bossard could only be charged with trespassing, the church was forced to change its course. On Monday, 18 September, James E. Talmage had written to the First Presidency suggesting that it steal Florence's thunder by publishing a booklet on the temple with photographs of the interior. Three days later Talmage wrote in his journal: “Had interview with the First Presidency, and was appointed by them to special work viz. The preparation of the manuscript for a booklet on temples and temple work. . . . The authorities have since announced that pictures of the interior will be made, and that copies of the same may be obtained by reputable publishers. "[18]

News of the church's counterattack was widely disseminated, and church authorities promised to distribute the booklet of photographs without cost.[19] When Florence heard of the church's new plan, he responded by promising to copyright his photographs: “Then the Mormons can't take anymore [photographs] like them in their own holy of holies, at least not for sale. Say, how'll that be for putting one over on them ?"[20] In a rush to obtain copyright Talmage and photographer Ralph Savage, son of pioneer photographer Charles R. Savage, were already in the Salt Lake temple taking photographs as early as 26 September. By the 30th Savage's views had been dispatched to the copyright office.[21]

Florence and Bossard were unaware that the church's counterattack was two pronged. The second was Ben E. Rich, church representative in New York City, who, unknown to Florence and Bossard, had New York Times newspaperman Isaac K. ("Ike") Russell in his pocket. Russell, a native Utah Mormon and grandson of Parley P. Pratt, had gone east to make a living as a joumalist.[22] Covering the story for the Times, he became acquainted with Florence and Bossard, and by 4 October Rich had written to Smith: "Of course, [Florence and Bossard] know nothing about Russell, only as a newspaperman. . . . Ike Russell has rendered me great service . . . and seems to be able to get almost anything he wants to out of these black guards."[23] A week later Rich reported that Florence and Bossard "do not seem to have the slightest idea who Russell is and they appear to be somewhat stuck on him. He no longer hunts them up but they seek him. Russell is to see them again tonight and if they have a picture of Bossard in Temple robes, as mentioned in the interview, we will try to get it and send the same to you."[24]

In the same letter Russell recounted for Rich a recent conversation in which Bossard explained one of the irritants which had driven him to apostasy. "Not only has President Smith got five wives," said Bossard,

but Pres. [Anthon H.] Lund has two wives at least. I carried flowers to them, and so did the gardener who is now in cold storage with us. The gardener told us about it and told me to address the second lady as Mrs. Lund when I gave her the flowers. I did so and she would say "Yes, I am Mrs. Lund," and would take the flowers. I took flowers to one house on North Temple Street across the road from the Temple and another on West Temple near the home of John Henry Smith.

Bossard also told Russell how he had been able to gain access to the temple:

I always came out through the annex but never went in that way. . . . The engineer of the temple hired me and my chum. We were to string some electric cables and I would chisel away into concrete right above my head with the chips falling into my eyes. . . . There is a tunnel runs to a new heating plant and to the Sharon Building and the Utah Hotel. I found that there was an old tunnel that ran west of the temple to the west side of West Temple just opposite the temple gate or a little south of it and that it had been extended with new concrete to the heating plant. . . . We found a spot on the temple grounds where we could lift up an iron cover, drop down into the tunnel, and there be perfectly safe. . . . While working for the gardener I could always slip down into this tunnel and then go prospecting with my chisel along the old concrete.[25]

By the end of the third week after the appearance of the sensational headlines, Florence and Bossard were getting nowhere. Bossard told Russell that Florence, who was now planning a public lantern show, had been unable to reserve an empty theater.[26] On Saturday, 7 October, during the church's semi-annual general conference weekend, the Deseret News

reported: "Florence's Temple Pictures Still Unsold." Undaunted, the creative Florence offered the Mormon prophet a new proposition:

What is the chance of getting the Tabernacle, two nights to exhibit 68 views of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple, with an excellent lecture, given by Elder Gisbert L. Bossard. It's understood that seventy-five percent of the proceeds must go to the poor of every denomination in Salt Lake.

Twenty-five percent to be divided equally between both parties. . . . As further consideration, Elder Bossard makes his statement, that you should put your best speaker, or yourself against him, before the public in the Tabernacle.

Should your speaker, or yourself, succeed in convincing Elder Bossard, by argument, that Elder Bossard did wrong or committed a sin against the Holy Ghost, by taking photographs in the temple, he would surrender all pictures and everything pertaining to it to you.[27]

It is unlikely Smith favored Florence with a response.

The church also successfully interfered with Bossard and Florence's efforts to profit from magazine publication of the photographs. In late October 1911 Leslie's Weekly published, "courtesy of President Smith” seven of the Savage photographs with a brief introduction critical of Florence.[28] When Bossard tried to entice Leslie's to publish his photographs the following month, the church intervened with Leslie's editor John A. Sleicher.[29] In January 1912 four of the Savage photographs were also published with a short introduction in Popular Mechanics.[30]

The Show at the Bijou

Between mid-October and early November 1911 Florence and Bossard were preparing their upcoming show at New York City's Bijou Theatre. They hired a newspaper cartoonist named Toner to draw at least four cartoons which were made into slides[31] but kept running into obstacles in producing and promoting the photographs. On 25 October Ben E. Rich wrote to Joseph F. Smith that the same company Florence and Bossard had attempted to hire to produce their temple slides—Levi Company of 1560 Broadway—had dropped them and was now producing a competing slide show to be sponsored by the church.[32] Upon hearing of the competing show, Florence and Bossard responded on 24 October with a sworn affidavit:

We, Max Florence and Gisbert L. Bossard do hereby certify that the only and genuine contract for the making of the stereopticon slides of the Interior Views and Facts about the Mormon Temple Lecture, which consists of 105 slides, controlled and owned exclusively by us, is that one executed to A. J. Clapham, Fine Art Slide Maker, 130 West 37th St., New York. . . . The above mentioned lecture set is re-produced from the only genuine photographs ever taken of the Mormon Temple by Gisbert L. Bossard, and which were the cause of the controversy between President Joseph F. Smith of the Mormon Church and the undersigned.[33]

The show finally opened on Saturday, 11 November, at the Bijou Theater, 13th Street and Broadway. The 13 November Deseret News reviewed the performance:

The show is advertised in a way that shocks even the least refined. The chief poster in front of the theater depicts a large bedstead filled with women, all engaged in fighting. . . . Florence and Bossard occupied the lobby of the theater before the performance trying to induce patrons to enter, much on the order of barkers before a tented show. . . .

Reputable papers like The World, Herald, Times and American have refused to mention Florence's show and do not even carry his advertisements.

At Saturday's show, when the time to begin arrived, there were only two persons in the audience, one of whom was The [Deseret] News correspondent. The unspeakable poster at the entrance had failed to attract the great crowds who had passed it all day long. During the progress of the lecture, six other persons entered the house, making an audience of eight, all told. . . .

The photographs used to illustrate the show were the ones which had been published in The Deseret News and several others which were pronounced fakes, some being drawn by local newspaper cartoonists and others the infamous Jarman pictures.[34] In his lecture Bossard said that he crawled through underground tunnels to enter the building. The papers ignore the show completely and no mention whatever, favorable or unfavorable, has been given it so far. . . .

Bossard's lecture, admittedly, was written by New York ministers who have taken part for a number of years in anything and everything that seemed to be anti-"Mormon" in its aspect, but Bossard's delivery was absolutely unintelligible and for Sunday's shows he was supplanted by a professional lecturer who could speak English. The whole affair was a dismal failure and it is expected that another day will see the close of the show.

The Long Road to Forgiveness

The failure at the Bijou broke not only the pocketbooks but also apparently the spirits of Bossard and Florence, portending an inevitable falling out. In October, after being made aware of his excommunication, and again in early November, Bossard had sent letters to his ward bishop in Salt Lake City justifying his course of action against the church.[35] But in early December Elsie gave birth to their third child in Denver, and by the end of the month the Salt Lake Tribune was reporting that Bossard, "friendless and alone, has taken a decidedly repentant attitude with regard to the picture deal.”[36] In January 1912 the church published nine of the Savage photographs in a new edition of D. M. McAllister's The Great Temple and issued the same nine photographs as postcards, foreshadowing the publication nine months later of James Talmage’s House of the Lord.[37] On 20 January Bossard wrote from New York to President Smith:

You will no doubt be surprised to receive a line from the undersigned; but I feel it my duty to apologize and ask your forgiveness for the unjust attacks I made upon you.

The latest developments have shown me that every member should thank God that leadership of the Church is in the hands of such men like you.

I searched for truth, and I found it, which makes me a strong supporter of your policy and the gospel. It means that the case of Paul has itself repeated once more in history. My first act will consist in turning over the temple photos to you, without charge. Mr. Florence will leave Monday for Salt Lake, and turn everything over to the church. I sent Bishop Parry a letter, in which I explain everything in detail.[38]

Bossard was unsuccessful in getting forgiveness. He tried again in 1915 and 1916 to regain his church membership, but the wound was too deep, the scar too fresh. In a 29 April 1916 letter to Walter P Monson, president of the church's Eastern States Mission in New York, Joseph F. Smith's First Presidency ordered that Bossard not be rebaptized, explaining: "[T]he treachery and greed which prompted this desecration of the House of the Lord is entirely another thing, something which cannot be so easily disposed of."[39]

Some time after 1911 Gisbert moved with his family to Amsterdam, New York On 9 March 1917 two letters signed by him appeared in Amsterdam newspapers critical of Vernon J. Danielson and Lulu Shepard, two anti-Mormons who had recently held a meeting there.[40] In both letters Bossard vigorously defended the LDS church:

The entire "expose" of Mr. Danielson is nothing but a hoax. . . . I find that at their very best they are nothing more or less than the old stale stories printed in the Cosmopolitan Magazine about 6 years ago. . . . Polygamy in Utah is a thing of the past and any man that ever lived in Utah for any length of time knows it. . . . The temple is not secret, and Dr. James E. Talmage's book "The House of the Lord," contains 34 actual photographs of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple, together with a full description.[41]

About 1920 Bossard and his wife moved from Amsterdam to Troy, New York, where their sixth child was born in 1920.[42] Between 1920 and 1925 the Troy Directory lists Bossard as president of the Bossard Railway Signal Corp. In 1925 he moved his company to Albany.[43] Sometime during his residence there, probably in the late 1920s, and apparently tired of waiting to be forgiven, he retook to the anti-Mormon stump. An undated Albany newspaper headline reads: "Bossard Will Tell Secrets of Mormons. Correspondence School Manager Has Photos of Interior of Temple. To Be Shown in Albany."[44]

Bossard was not forgiven during his lifetime. About 1930 Elsie left him and returned to Utah, divorcing him in 1932. That same year she received her temple endowments and was sealed to her parents in Salt Lake City, remaining a member of the church until her death in 1978.[45]

Gisbert moved to Ohio and remarried. When he died on 1 February 1975, at age eighty-four, he was living in Orange City, Florida, and was still a non-Mormon. Finally, on 15 November 1985, a decade after he died, he was rebaptized into the LOS church by proxy, and on the following 10 December he finally received his temple endowments "the right way.”

The Photographs

[Editor’s Note: For the photographs, please see the PDF at the bottom of this page.]

The photographs which follow are the earliest known taken of the interior of any Mormon temple.[46] For more than eighty years, from 1912 until late 1993, the whereabouts of all but a handful of Bossard's photographs was a mystery. In December 1993 I discovered some glass negatives and two sets of lantern slides in four wooden boxes in the library of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons of Utah in Salt Lake City. No one there knows how, when, or by whom the views were deposited. Max Florence died in 1932 in Farmington, Utah. In Set in Stone, Fixed in Glass photojournalist Nelson Wadsworth describes how a few of the lantern slides were uncovered in the floorboards of Florence's former Farmington home after it burned in 1944,[47] indicating that Florence kept the lantern slides after returning to Utah. Recalling the ransacking of Bossard's home, Florence may have hidden the five boxes in the floorboards of his new residence. Later, when he (or perhaps his wife, Celia, who survived him) removed the boxes, perhaps he failed to reach far enough for the fifth box. This fifth box of slides was subsequently deposited in Special Collections, Merrill Library, Utah State University, Logan. In addition, the LOS church has in its possession prints from forty-six of Bossard's negatives.[48]

The photograph numbers in the captions and in the Inventor are handwritten numbers on the black-and-white glass lantern slides.[49] The plans of the four floors of the Salt Lake temple are based on drawings by Joseph Don Carlos Young, which show the temple as it was completed in 1893.[50] All of the Bossard views are published courtesy of the Grand Lodge of Utah, which has deposited a complete set of the photographs described in the Inventory in the Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

References in the captions are to Talmage (The House of the Lord), McAllister (A Description of the Great Temple) (1912 ed.), and Hamilton and Cutrubus The Salt Lake Temple: A Monument to a People.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Unless otherwise stated, the sources for all quoted material are news stories in either the Salt Lake Tribune, 16-21 Sept. 1911, or in the Deseret Evening News, 16 Sept. 1911. Other major sources include James E. Talmage's personal journal, Talmage Papers, Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (hereafter Talmage Journal); materials in Scott Kenney Papers, Ms. 589, Western Americana, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (hereafter Kenney Papers); and photographs of certificates issued to Bossard by the LDS church described in the Inventory (numbers 9-15) following this essay. Basic genealogical information on Bossard, his parents, his wife, and their children was obtained from family group sheets in the LDS Family History Library, Salt Lake City.

[2] Salt Lake Tribune, 18 Sept. 1911.

[3] She is so listed in the 1920 Amsterdam, New York, Directory.

[4] New York Times, 21 Sept. 1911.

[5] Bossard is listed in R. L. Polk & Co.'s Salt Lake Directory for 1907 through 1911. Through 1910 he is described as a machinist, probably working for his father, Theodor. In 1911 he is listed as General Manager and Master Mechanic at The Specialty Co., 317 S. State. Bossard's address changes in each of the five years.

[6] Also spelled "Wuthrach" in some articles. The confusion may in part have been caused by an umlaut, the actual spelling being "Wiitherich" or "Wuetherich." The LDS Family History library Lists a Gottlieb Wuethrich, born in Bern, Switzerland, on 26 August 1875, died on 3 January 1936, who may be the assistant gardener.

[7] The Garden Room annex to the temple was filled with flora; see caption for photograph number 45.

[8] In early July 1911 W. F. Nauman, head landscape gardener and florist of the temple grounds, in whose department Wutherich was employed, somehow became aware that photographs of the temple interior had been taken and notified Benjamin Goddard, the temple's head custodian. A few days later, when Bossard and Wutherich arrived at the temple block, Chief Barlow was waiting for them. They were released after denying any connection with the affair. Nevertheless, in about mid-July Wutherich was fired. See Salt Lake Tribune, 18 Sept. 1911. This interview apparently preceded the one which focused on the Beehive House photographs.

[9] The church denied that it had "shadowed" Bossard. Deseret News, 18 Sept. 1911.

[10] Prior to taking the photographs, Bossard and Wutherich also apparently induced a roan named William Seiler to invest $300 in the scheme. According to the 19 September 1911 Salt Lake Tribune, after Seiler had invested his money, Bossard and Wutherich told him it might become necessary to murder the guard to gain admission to the temple. Frightened, Seiler left for Portland, Oregon. This episode, the only detail of the affair which hints at violence, seems out of character for Bossard and unnecessary given Wutherich's access.

[11] For a detailed account of Florence's role, see Gary James Bergera, '"I'm Here for the Cash': Max Florence and the Great Mormon Temple," Utah Historical Quarterly 47 (Wmter 1979): 54-63. A more recent treatment is Nelson B. Wadsworth, Set in Stone, Fixed in Glass (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), "Epilogue: The Max Florence Affair," 355-78.

[12] After settling his wife and children temporarily in Denver, Bossard joined Florence in New York City.

[13] The 16 September 1911 Tribune article stated that as early as Wednesday, 13 September, Apostle John Henry Smith had admitted to a Tribune reporter that someone had taken pictures of the temple's interior. Florence may have dropped a note to the news media at the same time he mailed the photographs.

[14] Close examination of the lighting indicates that a few of the photographs were probably taken at night.

[15] The photograph not reproduced was probably Joseph F. Smith's private office and curtain leading to his bedroom in the Beehive House; see number 105 in the Inventory.

[16] Duncan McNeil McAllister, A Description of the Great Temple, Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City: Bureau of Information, 1909).

[17] After losing his saloon license for selling liquor on Sunday, Florence went into the moving picture business, owning at least six Salt Lake theaters at one point. Apparently from expanding too quickly, however, he went broke.

[18] Talmage Journal, 21 Sept. 1911. The First Presidency's official written commission to Talmage, dated 22 September 1911, accepted Talmage's offer and specified that his manuscript "be revised by a committee to be appointed by ourselves for that purpose."

[19] New York Tribune, 22 Sept. 1911; Salt Lake Telegram, 21 Sept. 1911.

[20] At one point Florence threatened to legally enjoin the church from publishing its own views. Salt Lake Telegram, 21 Sept. 1911.

[21] Talmage notes in his journal that he also photographed the inside of the temple on 2 October 1911. In a 5 October article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Florence states that Bossard's photographs, including the eight mailed to Joseph F. Smith, were copyrighted on 22 September 1911. In a communication from Ben E. Rich to Joseph F. Smith on 4 October 1911, Rich expresses his intention to go to Washington, D.C., and through J. Reuben Clark and Preston Richards find out if Florence had actually established copyright.

[22] B. H. Roberts Papers, Marriott Library. In a 21 November 1911 letter, Russell addresses Rich as "Uncle Ben," suggesting that Russell was Rich's nephew. Kenney Papers, Box 4, Fd. 15. In 1913 Russell offered to provide Joseph F. Smith "a complete roster of all the anti­Mormons working east of Chicago with a fairly complete biography of each and a number of sample sermons and list of societies with which each is affiliated.” Kenney Papers , Box 4, Fd. 17.

[23] Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15. On 25 September 1911 Rich communicated to Smith: "Yesterday morning a wire came to the New York Times from the Salt Lake Tribune, saying they understood Florence had a photo of your bedroom, showing 4 beds and asking the Times to interview him on the same. The matter is in Russell's hands who will see the DAMN cuss today and I will then report to you. The longer I live, the more firmly I believe some fellows should die. Yours faithfully."

[24] Ibid. In early October Florence and Bossard had publicity photographs taken of themselves at Scherer Studios in New York City. In nine of the twelve photographs Bossard is dressed in temple clothing. See Inventory, numbers 8, 46-48, 63, and four unnumbered photographs. The poses he strikes and the arrangement of his clothing suggest that he was unfamiliar with the endowment ceremony. By 15 October Russell had obtained copies of six photographs of Bossard in temple robes, all of which lack the temple apron. On 20 October, after receiving the photographs, Joseph F. Smith wrote to Rich: "I note with some pleasure that the dress of young Bossard, in the photos just received, is by no means a pattern of the clothing that he means to represent as you yourself will perceive. It is evident to me that he has made his dress from his memory and that he has not evidently in his possession the true clothing." Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15. In three other photographs taken in the studio which were not provided to Smith, Bossard is wearing the apron over white pants and shirt but without the robes and cap. See Inventory, numbers 46-48. Three photographs of a man in full temple clothing had been published during the Reed Smoot Hearings seven years before (14 Dec. 1904) on the front page of the Washington Times and New York Herald.

[25] Ike Russell to Ben E. Rich, 11 Oct. 1911, Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15. A 1911 map of Temple Square prepared by Sanborn Map and Publishing Co., Ltd., shows stone or concrete tunnels connecting the temple and annex, temple and boiler house on the north end of temple square, temple and tabernacle, tabernacle under West Temple to north side of steam plant, annex to boiler house, and along the west half of the north wall of the temple to the west wall of the temple. Neither the 1911 Sanborn map nor the 1950 map (the next in the series) shows tunnels between the temple and Sharon Building (57 West South Temple, just east of the Temple Square Hotel) or Hotel Utah, although the tunnel to the Hotel Utah is well-known.

In this same conversation Bossard denies that Wutherich, the gardener, let him in, claiming he had at least three ways to enter and had invented the story about the gardener to divert attention from his true point of access. Although Bossard probably discovered more than one means of entry, it seems unlikely that he would have taken the time to cultivate Wutherich's friendship and involve him in the scheme if it were unnecessary. It also seems unlikely that he would have lied to his father at a time when he had no incentive to mislead.

[26] Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15.

[27] Florence to Joseph F. Smith, 10 Oct. 1911, Kenney Papers, Box 6, Fd. 12.

[28] Leslie's Weekly, 26 Oct. 1911, article titled: "Mysteries of the Mormon Temple Unveiled.” This is the first publication of any of the Savage photographs.

[29] Letter of rs (recording secretary?) to John A. Sleicher, 11 Nov. 1911. An 11 November 1911 entry in Joseph F. Smith's letterpress book states that "Sleicher has been a particular and valuable friend of mine." Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15.

[30] Popular Mechanics 17 Jan. 1912): 38-39. I am indebted to Nyal Anderson, Beehive Collector’s Gallery, salt Lake City, for this information.

[31] See Inventory, numbers 23-25, and one unnumbered. Slide number 25, a cartoon which has Bossard in temple robes, was probably drawn from one of the photographs taken in the New York studio.

[32] Rich to Smith, 25 Oct. 1911, Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15. Rich stated, "The firm has tried hard to please me." The church's show, which Rich arranged with "fp" (First Presidency?) to beat out Florence, had forty slides.

[33] The affidavit was photographed and included in the show at the Bijou. See Inventory, number 7. At some point prior to this, Wutherich's interest must have been purchased by Bossard and Florence. Wutherich's withdrawal may have been behind Bossard's insistence at this time that he had other ways of entering the temple than with the gardener.

[34] One of the unnumbered hand-colored slides is titled: "The Great Salt Lake Hell Exposed. By W. Jarman, Ex-Mormon Priest from Salt Lake City." William Jarman is best known for U.S.A. Uncle Sam's Abscess, or, Hell upon Earth (Exeter, Eng.: H. Leduc's Steam Printing Works, 1884).

[35] The 4 October New York Times and 5 October Salt Lake Tribune ran notices of Bossard's excommunication. Bossard responded defiantly in a long letter dated 8 October 1911 to Bishop Edwin F. Parry in which he blames Joseph F. Smith for making the whole affair public, challenges Smith's status as a prophet, and demands reinstatement. Bossard copied the letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, where it was published in full on 9 October 1911.

[36] Salt Lake Tribune, 29 Dec. 1911. ln a 3 January 1912 article in the same paper Bossard denied being repentant. The Tribune added that "Florence telegraphed that he, too, was not repentant," concluding tongue-in-cheek: "No one suspects that Max has repented."

[37] McAllister, A Description of the Great Temple, Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City: Bureau of Information, 1912). The postcards of the Savage views were published in 1912 by Souvenir Novelty Co. in Salt Lake City. The series is described by Neal West in "Mormon Postcards," Postcard Collector, Apr. 1986, 44-45. At some point at least eight of Bossard's views were also published as postcards. The official date of publication of The House of the Lord was 30 September 1912. Although the Savage photographs in McAllister appear at first glance to be the same as those printed in The House of the Lord, close inspection reveals that most of the photographs in McAllister are unique to it. Twenty-four of the Savage temple photographs were reproduced in C. Mark Hamilton and C. Nina Cutrubus, The Salt Lake Temple: A Monument to a People (Salt Lake City: University Services, Inc., 1983), 111-37.

[38] Kenney Papers, Box 5, Fd. 15.

[39] In a 13 January 1915 letter to Monson the First Presidency had written: "[W]hile we are glad to learn of his [Bossard's] repentance, we are not prepared to extend to him the hand of fellowship; neither do we think he ought to expect such leniency at this time in view of the gravity of his offense. It will therefore be in order for him to continue to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and be content to wait for the mercy of the Lord to come to him.” Facsimile transmission from Scott Kenney to Kent Walgren, 17 Nov. 1995.

[40] Amsterdam Morning Sentinel, 9 Mar. 1917, and Amsterdam Evening Recorder, 9 Mar. 1917. Danielson is the author of Mormonism Exposed; or the Crimes and Treasons of the Mormon Kingdom (Independence, MO, 1917); Lulu Shepard authored Getting Their Eyes Open. A Program for Missionary Societies Showing Popular Fallacies of Latter Day Saints (Pittsburgh, PA: National Reform Assn., n.d.).

[41] Amsterdam Morning Sentinel, 9 Mar. 1917.

[42] A fourth child had been born in 1917 in Amsterdam. A fifth, also born in Amsterdam, on 29 December 1918, died two days later. The sixth and last child, born in Troy, New York, on 15 June 1920, was the only one baptized into the Mormon church at age eight. Of the five surviving children, only one remained in the church.

[43] The 1925 Albany Directory lists Bossard as president of the Bossard Railway Signal Corp. and Bossard Electric Home Service of New York He does not appear in the 1926 and 1927 directories but is again listed in the 1928 Albany Directory as being involved in real estate. After 1929 he is not listed in the Albany Directory. According to family tradition, Bossard invented both the railway crossing signal and the doorbell but never substantially profited from either.

[44] The brief article begins: "With a manuscript entitled 'The Mormon Temple and Its Secrets,' and a collection of 400 photographs of the interior of the costly temple . . . at Salt Lake City . . . Gisbert L. Bossard, manager of the International Correspondence schools, 51 State Street, this city, is planning an expose of what he claims is the truth about Mormonism."

[45] She was living in Los Angeles when she died on 17 February 1978.

[46] Except the Kirtland temple, in which no endowment rituals were performed.

[47] Set in Stone, Fixed in Glass, 377-78n16. The Van Fleet lantern slides are now in Special Collections, Utah State University Library.

[48] Access to these prints is currently restricted.

[49] The numbering may generally represent the order in which Bossard took the photographs as he proceeded through the temple. Entry through the Garden Room annex supports such a conclusion.

[50] See Hamilton and Cutrubus, 70, 75, 78 and 79, in which the captions are not always accurate. On page 22 of his 1912 edition of Description of the Great Temple, McAllister states that there had been no alterations in the temple since its completion in 1893.

[post_title] => Inside the Salt Lake Temple: Gisbert Bossard's 1911 Photographs [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 27.3 (Fall 1994): 68–97
For faithful Mormons, the thought that someone had violated the sacred confines of the eighteen-year-old Salt Lake temple, which he desecrated by photographing, was “considered as impossible as profaning the sacred Kaaba at Mecca.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => inside-the-salt-lake-temple-gisbert-bossards-1911-photographs [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-09-02 17:02:33 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-09-02 17:02:33 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=11399 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12151 [post_author] => 2824 [post_date] => 2018-04-13 21:11:59 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-13 21:11:59 [post_content] =>

Bewilderment etched the man’s face. “You mean, there will be absolutely no rites or special ordinances at all in your temple? Well, then, why build it?”

Such comments may be typical of LDS responses to the RLDS temple in Independence, Missouri—the place Joseph Smith, Jr., designated as the "Center Place of Zion." I am not surprised that Latter-day Saints have a tough time understanding what we "Reorganites" are doing with a temple. A good many RLDS—all along the spectrum from rigid traditionalists to ultra-progressives—are struggling with the idea, too. This is perhaps inevitable when divergent faith communities (both within the Reorganized Church and between the RLDS and LDS) take different paths. The task of understanding each other's religion then becomes ever more difficult.

Even though we frequently share a common vocabulary, scriptures, and a mutual historical starting point, the RLDS and LDS churches now offer radically different expressions of what Joseph Smith, Jr., began more than a century and a half ago. Yet I believe that both churches are true Latter Day Saint churches. Historically, we have equated "true" with "only," thereby failing to accept that different communities can exist in a relationship with God without forcing each to deny the validity of others. Therefore, without lapsing too deeply into a critical compare-and-contrast format ( old habits are, after all, very hard to break), I shall attempt the difficult task of explaining to a predominately Mormon audience why I believe we RLDS are building a temple. Of course, as a faithful member of the Reorganized Church, I cannot speak for the LDS—I can offer only what I understand they believe. And I can offer also only my perspective on the Reorganized temple, not the official perspective, belief, or doctrine of the Reorganized Church, for there are perhaps no such things. A definition of our faith can be elusive; we have no equivalent to the Articles of Faith that Mormon children learn in Primary.

It is just as difficult to pin down exactly what the temple experience will be like and how it will change the Reorganized Church and its members' spiritual lives. We won't begin to know until after it is built and being used. Why, then, do we choose to build the temple in Independence, Missouri? It is not simply because we have been commanded through divine revelation to do so. It is true that our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr., first issued the call in 183 3 that "an house should be built unto me [God] in the land of Zion" (RLDS D&C 94:3a; LDS D&C 97:10),[1] and the prophetic vision was updated in recent years by two of his prophetic successors in the Reorganized Church. W. Wallace Smith recorded this revelation in April 1968:

The time has come for a start to be made toward building my temple in the Center Place. It shall stand on a portion of the plot of ground set apart for this purpose many years ago by my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. The shape and character of the building is to conform to ministries which will be carried out within its walls. . . . It is also to be noted that the full and complete use of the temple is yet to be revealed but that there is no provision for secret ordinances now or ever. (RLDS D&C 149:6a and 149A:6)[2]

Sixteen years later, in April 1984, Wallace B. Smith received revelation that further clarified the purpose of an RLDS temple:

The temple shall be dedicated to the pursuit of peace. It shall be for reconciliation and for healing of the spirit. It shall also be for a strengthening of faith and preparation for witness. By its ministries an attitude of wholeness of body, mind, and spirit as a desirable end toward which to strive will be fostered. It shall be the means for providing leadership education for priesthood and member. And it shall be a place in which the essential meaning of the Restoration as healing and redeeming agent is given new life and understanding, inspired by the life and witness of the Redeemer of the world. Therefore, let the work of planning go forward, and let the resources be gathered in, that the building of my temple may be an ensign to the world of the breadth and depth of the devo­tion of the Saints. (RLDS D&C 156:5-6)[3]

Obviously, building a temple at the literal and figurative center of our faith community requires more than simply "doing what we're told," even if the source of our instructions is divinity. After all, we are not automatons marching in lockstep to an intelligence separate from our own. God in Christ is "in us" as co-creators and fellow sojourners in the redemptive plan of the world's salvation. The eternal purpose in RLDS temple building is related not to an other-worldly realm but to the redemptive, healing, peacemaking, reconciling ministry of Christ in this world. We hope to glorify the one God of the universe through participation in the divine plan of the cause of Zion.

Let me explore some reasons why we are building this temple.

Encounter Christ

When I .was a boy, I learned about the second coming of Jesus Christ through the perspective of my grandmother and my very traditional Reorganized Church congregation in eastern Jackson County, Missouri. My understanding was completely literal: The resurrected Jesus would come floating down out of the clouds and land at the front door of the temple on the temple lot—a small acreage separating the RLDS Auditorium (a structure similar to the Salt Lake Tabernacle) from the Reorganized Church's largest congregation, the Stone Church. ,(For those unfamiliar with the area, the Mormon Visitors' Center is directly to the southeast; the RLDS Temple is being built directly north of the visitors' center.)

I envisioned this millennial Independence Temple as a near clone of the Kirtland Temple with, of course, its main entrance facing east. After entering through that east door, the resurrected Jesus would take up physical residence for a thousand years while the world beat a path to his door. The heathen nations would recognize, finally, that the RLDS should rightfully be put in charge because we possessed the one true and now restored faith with the priesthood power and authority lacking in all other churches. I can clearly remember my grandmother gently persuading me to reconsider my dream of becoming a doctor—you see, there wou]d be no need for medical practitioners during those thousand years, and there was no question that the temple would be built in my lifetime.

She was at least right about the latter, but my late-1950s world view has undergone some changes. I no longer look for the Second Coming in such a narrow, literal way. My beliefs have changed, partly because I have since rejected that apocalyptic and millennialist panorama. It conflicts with too many basic scientific realities. As well, firsthand experience with religious pluralism has tempered my belief in the One True Church. I have developed a respect for the beliefs and "temples'' of others, and in doing so have reexamined the meaning of a temple for me and for my faith community. But if I no longer expect a resurrected, returned Jesus to walk into the Independence Temple, how then do I connect that holy place with the idea of a Second Coming?

The temple is becoming a symbol for the Reorganized Church of its relationship to the Creator and creation. But that relationship, that connection with our roots, is not based primarily on our past—or humankind's past. (This may be an essential difference between the temple experience for our two churches. I am told that some LDS members faithfully attend the temple for that sense of connectedness, even though they have set aside the more official theological meanings of the vicarious ordinances.) I am beginning to sense that the temple for us RLDS will be a touchstone of the way we understand our being; in other words, it will be the central symbol of the cosmic Christ incarnating or coming in us. That's the sort of thing that is tough to channel into ritual, and I hope we never try. But it is appropriate to have a place of special renewal and empowerment where our lives can change direction and begin to more fully reflect the ministry of Jesus, who provides us a pattern. Therefore, I cannot see the "millennial ministry of Jesus Christ" as coming from one individual in the temple. Rather, "one body in Christ" will honor the temple as its soul.

Also, I no longer expect Christ to "come again" to the temple because I realize that in one sense, the Second Coming has already happened: I have encountered Christ in many different people—Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jews, Canadians, Americans, Africans, women, children, men, and (dare I say it) a secular humanist or two. Why limit the spirit of Christ to a single body, human or divine? As a Reorganized Christian, I reject the notion that Divinity has a body just like mine; along with the idea that Christ has a specific gender, race, or nationality.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew who lived in ancient Palestine. But I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the fullness of Christ. Neither is the resurrected Jesus encountered by Saul on his way to Damascus. And, of course, the central theological message of the Book of Mormon narrative is that Christ cannot be limited by time or space but can find expression in all cultures, in all lands. God wears many faces. It is something like actors in a Greek drama who use different masks to change quickly from one persona or character to the next; yet the being behind the mask is the same, even though the audience perceives a separateness and uniqueness. This same idea was the original intention of early Christian theologians who spoke of the three "personas" of the Godhead. Over the centuries, the word "persons" was substituted, and that means quite a different thing. Perhaps the most important element here is the human perception involved rather than the essence of the being behind the mask.

At the Edge of Our Frontier

The frontiers of the l 990s and beyond are far different from those of the early to mid-1800s. A century and a half ago, the frontier meant the edge of unexplored or unsettled land masses, the end of civilization and the beginning of wilderness. Our frontiers today, however, are not so much matters of space and time as of being, of discovering the unknown within us, both as individuals and communities.

Joseph Smith, Jr., challenged the Saints to begin building the kingdom of God on earth by building a New Jerusalem first in Kirtland, Ohio, then in both Independence and Far West, Missouri, before the Saints finally settled along the Illinois banks of the Mississippi River in Nauvoo. Unquestionably, the rough yet bustling trading town of Independence represented the American frontier in 1831 when Joseph first visited it. But like Kirtland, that fatter-day New Jerusalem was set amid gentile neighbors. Joseph dreamed of a new order, yet the vision paid scant attention to gentile wishes and realities. The Saints eventually left both Kirtland and Independence after more than a little prodding by neighbors. Caldwell and Davies counties in northern Missouri allowed a little more isolation. However, gentiles were there, too, and strife was not long in coming.

But the more isolated Nauvoo setting was different, coming as it did after years of persecution and religious experimentation. It provided an opportunity for further evolution of Church practices and kingdom building. The Kirtland Temple had been primarily a place of public worship, a school for priesthood and members, and the headquarters for Church administration. Joseph's plans for the Independence Temple were similar, but they expanded the single, Kirtland-like structure to twenty-four buildings that included space for the First Presidency and other leading quorums, for what was to become the Relief Society, and for a storehouse. Of course, those buildings were never built, even though the Saints purchased and dedicated about sixty-three acres of land before they were driven out of the county in late 1833. Even though Joseph's vision of a frontier Zion—the New Jerusalem—changed, a temple always remained central in his plans.

The variety of historical models for the temple may lead us to wonder which will be the "right kind" of temple for the Reorganization in the 1990s. Should we copy the pattern for Kirtland, Independence, Far West, or Nauvoo? But the question is fundamentally wrong; all were right for their time and place. Therefore, the Independence Temple built by the Reorganized Church in the 1990s should not seek historical precedent, even though it will incorporate historical elements. Above all, it must be a temple for its time and place and institution—to actualize the dreams of the Saints. As a sacred space where all cultures can be at home, the temple must be at the figurative center of its faith community and must offer a vision of the cause of Zion appropriate for its day.

A New Jerusalem today must take into account more than a single city. It certainly cannot be limited to just one religious group, nor can it attempt the kind of economic, political, social, and theological separateness of Nauvoo, Joseph's "City Beautiful," which served as the forerunner for the nation/state of Deseret. Even the LDS Church was forced, eventually, to scale back the political scope of what was left of Deseret by accepting the 1890 Manifesto.

Our perspective today is much like that of the astronauts who first walked on the moon more than twenty years ago. Until that time, our horizons had been limited by how far up the side of the mountain we climbed or how far into the atmosphere our planes soared. But when we stood on the moon with those astronauts and looked out on a new horizon, we saw for the first time our beautiful blue-and-white planet hanging in the darkness of space. In a spiritual sense, we saw Zion for the first time, too, encompassing the entire globe. And we finally realized (notwithstanding the work of scientific pioneers like Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton) that it is the Creator and not creation that provides the axis of the universe. This expanded and glorious vision of Zion shall have a temple at its center, serving as the crossroads of divine grace and human experience.

Empowered for Service

Old Testament imagery of the Israelites' wilderness tabernacle and the New Testament concept of human beings as temples of the Holy Spirit are equally important in the RLDS temple. In Moses' time, the Hebrew tribes reserved a special place, the Tabernacle or Tent of Meeting, for their prophet's deliberate encounters with Yahweh, the God of their forebears. When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of smoke and fire, which hovered over the Israelite encampment day and night as a symbol of divine presence, descended. Hidden within the smoke, Yahweh spoke to Moses, then ascended into the heavens. With his face covered to protect his people from its brightness, Moses left the tent to let the Israelites know just what Yahweh wanted them to do. His experience with Yahweh was not so much a weighing in the balance of the good and evil deeds of his people but rather a realization that through all the Israelites' experiences, they were still God's chosen ones with a particular mission.

God is no longer hidden within smoke and fire as in Old Testament times but is revealed in the light of a new day—in the persona of Jesus Christ—without the need for a structure in which God could temporarily "tabernacle." As the writer of John's Gospel wrote (drawing upon the same Greek words used in the Septuagint version of the Exodus story), "The Word was made flesh [and] lived among us" (literally, "pitched his tent among us") (John 1:14).[4] The New Testament writers extended the idea that the presence of God in Christ would "encamp" within believers as they assumed the function of temples. Most orthodox Christians therefore no longer see a need for any kind of structural temple.

Yet perhaps because we Latter Day Saints have always drawn upon Old Testament symbols, we have been temple builders. Like Moses, we sense the need to approach Divinity to discern what we are to do. But we in the Reorganized Church should not depend on our prophet to represent us for those deliberate encounters, although in some cases that may happen. As a prophetic community, we must go to the temple in unity for insight and empowerment. Perhaps our temple experience will challenge us to grow beyond our reliance on the prophet. This new perspective can offer expanded spiritual horizons, stretching us to see the world's need for God's community, which offers compassionate, humble service in the name of Jesus Christ.

I don't expect to "see Jesus" in the literal sense in the temple. However, I am confident that we will "experience Christ" in ways and forms heretofore unimaginable. That experience cannot come through mere ritual or reenactment of someone else's story, nor can it originate in our own efforts. It must come through grace as God's involvement in the world is met by our selfless service to other human beings and to all of creation. We can "feel good" (awed, inspired, thrilled, challenged, humbled, lifted up) in the holy setting of the temple, but unless we return to our homes empowered with an expanded testimony of God's love and purpose for creation, the experience serves no lasting purpose. We are like Apostle Paul's Corinthian cymbals and gongs.

Keys of the Kingdom

The term "keys of the kingdom" is used frequently in our movement, often in regard to priesthood ministry and responsibility. The Kirtland Saints were the first to think of their "House of the Lord" as the place of endowment of such keys. The Nauvoo Saints also used similar terminology in regard to their temple, although the theological underpinning had evolved dramatically by that time to become the ritual observances virtually guaranteeing celestial glory through a step-by-step process, perhaps borrowed in some way from Masonic rites. Perhaps we in the Restoration movement have been impoverished, though, by thinking of these "keys of the kingdom" almost solely as mechanical devices to open doors. While the symbolism is appropriate, it has limitations. Used only in this way, keys lose their metaphorical power, becoming things to acquire by doing all the right acts in front of the proper authorities.

Several other metaphors can inform RLDS temple practice in a much broader sense. The keystone of an arch is the one stone that not only completes the arch's shape but gives strength to the entire structure. Seen in this way, the temple in Zion is what has been missing in the Reorganized Church; it will give shape, character, and strength to everything we do in proclaiming the gospel of Christ to a world that groans for redemption. To extend the metaphor, the key in a musical score is vital to keep all the various instruments and voices in harmony. The church is neither a choir singing in unison nor a jumble of miscellaneous noises, each straining to be heard above the din. Members of the body of Christ do not all do the same things or make the same sounds, yet the mysterious blend of our combined efforts achieves the desired end. The temple could provide the key to unify the church the same way that music written in the same key for different instruments can transform mere sound into Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Scientists refer to this as synergism; I call it temple ministry.

One of the obvious characteristics of ministry in the early decades of the Restoration movement—in general and specifically related to temples—was male dominance. The authority, power, and control of an all-male priesthood played a major role in theology and church administration. Perhaps we should accept that dominance merely as part of nineteenth-century American culture. But it is not at all appropriate at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Therefore, the Reorganized Church's temple ministry, I contend, must not be based on such blatantly male images but should reflect the empowerment that flows from mutuality and equality. The church needs to follow the inspired counsel of a prophetic community more than the accepted authority and control of a male-dominated hierarchical structure which, in turn, supports its leading role with scripture that arises from an even more patriarchal era.

In 1984 our RLDS prophet, Wallace B. Smith, made a crucial step to bring the will of God to the Reorganized Church by extending the call of priesthood ministry: "I say to you now, as I have said in the past, that all are called according to the gifts which have been given them. This applies to priesthood as well as to any other aspects of the work. Therefore, do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities. This is in harmony with my will" (RLDS D&C 156:9b-c).

Some RLDS members contend that God would not or could not do such a "new thing" and have separated themselves from the main body of the Reorganized Church. At the same time, the more than two thousand women who have been ordained have added a new and vital aspect to the church's ministry as Christ's servants and burden-bearers. For those who "have eyes to see," that should be ample evidence that God does do new things". Sadly, some choose not to see; and there is division, brokenness, and enmity in our midst.

Center of Healing and Reconciliation

When you are sick, you go to a doctor, who prescribes treatment (medicine, bed rest, exercise, change of habits), and you are "cured." Remember, though, that Jesus didn't cure everybody who came to him. He frequently told even those he did heal not to tell anybody else. They rarely obeyed, however, and so he often was inundated with curiosity seekers who hampered his other ministry.

If the temple became a "healing shrine," there is a risk that hordes of the curious as well as the sick might prevent it from offering other kinds of vitally important service. Perhaps those with chronic, rather than acute, illnesses might be served better in the temple. But should they expect to be "cured" according to the acute-disease model, especially considering that the nature of their illnesses is completely different?

I have a friend who has multiple sclerosis. He is in his thirties, faced with a chronic condition that is also progressive. We don't get to see one another much because we now live more than two thousand miles apart. Some time ago I visited his home for the first time in nine years. Although I could stay only one night, he gently reminded me after greeting me warmly that it was time for his afternoon rest. If he did not lie down for about forty-five minutes, our planned evening get-together at a mutual friend's home would undoubtedly place a strain on his health and well-being. In short, his MS might Hare up if he did not take the time to recharge his energy.

I marveled at his self-discipline. It was a poignant reminder of the different meaning health and wholeness has for him. I wish I had the same level of self-discipline in dealing with my own chronic medical condition. In the twenty years I have lived with Crohn's Disease, an inflammatory bowel syndrome, I have experienced numerous valleys and peaks. Slowly I have come to realize the relativity of healing and wholeness. I don't expect to walk into the temple in Zion someday to have my Crolm's Disease healed any more than I'd expect to have the lengthy, surgically removed portions of my small intestine suddenly grow back. Yet the discipline of the temple may open new vistas of the meaning of healing and reconciliation as inner qualities and outward activities.

One aspect of reconciliation is peace. The RLDS temple is dedicated to the pursuit of peace. This neither supplants the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor is it an end result. A pursuit implies an ongoing process. My grandmother was not alone in believing the peaceable era envisioned by Isaiah and others to be an absence of sickness and discord. But Christ's kingdom on earth will have continual need of healers, reconcilers, and advocates. Can we not see that kingdom as an "end" without placing everything on a time line? The temple could transcend such time/space limitations. Peace, in Christ's kingdom, will become more akin to the Hebrew shalom and less an existence to look forward to in "the sweet by and by."

Inclusive Ministry

Certainly we RLDS may be tempted to take pride in our efforts, especially once the magnificent spiral-shaped sanctuary begins to rise three times the height of the auditorium across the street. RLDS members and friends will come to Independence by the thousands to view this unique structure, built by a relatively small group that frequently is racked by internal dissention and disagreement. The temple is sure to become many things to many people. We have just begun to explore its role as a planetary symbol, facilitator, sacred space, and advocate for peace in the twenty-first-century church and world. We have a long way to go before all of God's children will feel welcome in the temple.

The temple may encourage many to respond to the call to follow Christ. After all, this temple belongs to Christ and shall stand as a beacon of Christ's way, which, as scripture tells us, is the way to know God. But it is not a roadmap owned exclusively by Latter Day Saints. It is not marked by specific rituals guaranteeing celestial glory. Jesus, always open to divine grace as healer, reconciler, peacemaker, witness, and humble servant, offers us a glimpse of God's way. He shows us that God is willing to lift us from our human brokenness because of the unmeasurable mystery of divine love. And we are to be like Jesus. At the temple in Independence, we will learn to do that.

Focal Point for Our Future

More than 150 years ago, Joseph Smith prophetically called his people to build the temple in Zion. We have begun the task of raising the temple as an "ensign of peace" on the very spot from which he spoke. Is it mere coincidence that this spot now also represents something quite the opposite from what he envisioned? A few miles from Jackson County, Missouri, some 150 underground missile silos sit amid the fertile farmland of western Missouri. At ground level, they appear to be nothing more than fenced enclosures about 150 feet square containing a large concrete slab and a protruding doorway. Beneath each enclosure, however, sits a gigantic intercontinental missile armed with multiple nuclear warheads, each many times more potent than those dropped on Japan in 1945.

The missiles are aimed at targets in the Soviet Union, ready to be fired, our political and military leaders tell us, in response to nuclear attack. The command center for these missile silos is at Whiteman Air Force Base about fifty miles southeast of Independence. Additional preparations are underway these days to house the newest, most controversial, and most expensive ($525 million apiece) weapon in U.S. military history: the B-2 (Stealth) Bomber. Unfortunately, the Persian Gulf crisis may keep the B-2 from being cancelled or cut back.

What all this means is that Jackson County, Missouri, sits essentially at "ground zero" for the start of World War III and the possible end of humankind as we know it. But the site for the temple can also become the starting point for Christ's kingdom and the peaceable era that prophets have envisioned for centuries. By building the temple, we can respond positively to the choice offered first to Joshua: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deut. 30: 19).

At the Crossroads

Israel, the promised land for Yahweh's chosen people, was at the center of several ancient trading routes. A cosmopolitan mix of merchants and warriors interacted with a people that otherwise may have remained a tiny and obscure footnote to history. But instead Israel has profoundly influenced at least the Western world's religious, moral, ethical, and philosophical thought. It rose to its greatest political and economic glory during a brief interval between the dominant eras of ancient superpowers. Who would have thought that a quarrelsome band of ex-slaves who took forty years to complete a three-week trek from Egypt to Canaan would end up influencing the world. as it did? But, of course, their influence came not from business or political acumen, but because they remained, by and large, faithful to their divinely appointed task.

Our calling today is not to be an updated version of ancient Israel. There is no need for such an elitist notion of divine chosenness. As well, there is no need to turn the world's peoples into clones of rich, success-oriented Westerners. The easy answers and rituals that can turn attention away from human need and misery provide the wrong path. And of course it is time to abolish subservient roles for women along with autocratic hierarchies (usually patriarchal) which spawn oppression.

The world today does need Christ. And that, in brief, is why I believe God has challenged us to do a new thing by building this temple. It is the response of the Reorganized Church to God's grace as well as a symbol of God's divine love. It is a way to connect the people of the Third World with those in the First and Second without oppressing or corrupting anyone. It is a place to encounter God in Christ and then to go forth to build and transform communities which express that incarnation. It is a place to carry our past with us as we look to the future. It is God's sacred place and our sacred place and, most important of an, the world's sacred place. Joseph Smith, Jr., first issued the call to build the temple. But we can transcend his vision as we are touched by Divinity and challenged by our world's needs. Our task will be to do what Apostle Paul counseled long ago: "By the mercies of God, . . . present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God is" (Rom. 12:1-2).

And so, I look forward to the day which is coming soon when I can stand in the temple in Zion with my sisters and brothers to encounter Christ, who will then send us away a changed people. We then shall be, finally, a temple people—the people of God.

---

[1] This revelation was given through Joseph Smith, Jr., on 2 August 1833, in Kirtland; word had not yet reached Ohio of the 23 July agreement forced upon the Saints in Independence to leave Jackson County.

[2] This was the first direction in recent times to the Reorganized Church to build a temple in Independence. It caught a good many church members by surprise, because the Conference that year had been embroiled in a controversy over the role of the bishopric, a debate that greatly overshadowed any thought of building a temple.

[3] This revelation is best remembered for opening priesthood roles to women.

[4] See especially the Jerusalem Bible.

[post_title] => The Temple in Zion: A Reorganized Perspective on a Latter Day Saint Institution [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 24.1 (Spring 1991): 86–98
In preparation for the Independence Temple that was dedicated in 1994, an RLDS member shares ideas about temples in general. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-temple-in-zion-a-reorganized-perspective-on-a-latter-day-saint-institution [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-04 13:12:04 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-04 13:12:04 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12151 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12239 [post_author] => 2493 [post_date] => 2018-04-14 02:58:47 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-14 02:58:47 [post_content] =>

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has often been characterized in recent historical scholarship as a "moderate Mormon" movement seeking to develop an identity somewhere between the more radical Mormonism of the Great Basin and the main stream of American Protestantism (Blair 1973; see also Launius 1988b). While midwestern and mountain Mormonism sprang from the same historical roots, their theological development took such different courses that today they probably diverge to a greater degree than do the doc trines of the Reorganization and many other contemporary American Christian churches. While some have suggested this is a recent development, it is more likely a consequence of a course charted in the earliest years of the Reorganized Church's history.[1]

Tracking the development of the doctrine of baptism for the dead within the Reorganization demonstrates this fundamental point. Although baptism for the dead had been adopted by the early Latter Day Saint movement, it did not relate well to the peculiar mindset and theological bent of the Reorganization and seemed to do so even less over time. Gradually, without overt action or explicit discussion, it moved from general, albeit cautious, acceptance to essential, albeit unofficial, rejection. Why did this evolution take place? What theolog ical and historical considerations within the Reorganization made this possible, or even probable? As the Reorganized Church enters a new age with the building of a temple in Independence, how will it deal with this critical doctrine? 

Baptism for the Dead and the Early Saints 

Baptism for the dead first appeared in the early Mormon church in Nauvoo. Predicated on the double assumption that God loves all people and grants each an opportunity for salvation and that salvation cannot be granted without baptism, the doctrine provided for the baptism of dead people by proxy. Those who had died without accepting the gospel would be taught after death, and others could be baptized on earth in their stead. It was an extremely attractive concept for many Latter Day Saints, because it allowed for the salvation of all and signified the justice and mercy of God. It answered the fundamental question of what would happen to those who did not embrace the gospel as the early Saints understood it, particularly ancestors who had already died. This concern was registered by members of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s, family for the soul of his oldest brother, Alvin, who had died suddenly in 1823 without baptism. 

Years of persecution and the loss of loved ones also made the issue attractive to the church membership. The Saints' desire to understand the nature of the hereafter, particularly as revealed in obscure passages of scripture, also prompted the doctrine's ready acceptance. As Richard P. Howard observed: 

All these developments—the Smith family's grief over Alvin, the intense persecution of the Saints, the speculative theological propensities of church leadership—produced a milieu in which baptism for the dead came into focus as a means of sealing the deceased ancestors and relatives of the living Saints into the promises of the Mormon kingdom (celestial glory). (1983,20) 

Joseph Smith apparently first considered the propriety of baptism for the dead after reading the only biblical reference to it: "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. 15:29). His consideration led to the full-fledged development of the doctrine. He made the first public disclosure of it on 15 August 1840 in Nauvoo at the funeral sermon of Seymour Brunson. Simon Baker later remembered that Joseph Smith told the congregation that although baptism was necessary for salvation, "people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and . . . the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God" (in Ehat and Cook 1980, 49). At the October 1840 conference the Prophet instructed the Saints of Nauvoo about baptism for the dead and called for the construction of a temple, in part to accommodate the ritual which was then being conducted in the Mississippi River (see Ehat and Cook 1980, 38, 71, 76-79, 209-14, 333, 363-65, 372; Cook 1981, 242- 51, 284-85; Smith 1843, 82-85; Lyon 1975, 435-46; Hill 1976, 170-80; Howard 1969, 224-27). 

The Nauvoo Saints began enthusiastically incorporating the doc trine into their belief system. A 19 January 1841 revelation formalized the practice and was included in the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, along with two 1842 letters on the same subject. With this undisputed revelatory instruction, the practice was codified as a temple ritual and recognized as such by the Nauvoo Saints. There can be no doubt about the doctrine's importance in church theology to Joseph Smith and the early church members. The Reorganized Church could never claim, as it did with some other religious conceptions of the period, particularly plural marriage, that Joseph Smith, Jr., was not its originator (LDS D&C 124, 127, 128; RLDS D&C 107, 109, 110). 

The Development of an Official Position 

Very early in the movement's history, the Reorganized Church adopted an official position about baptism for the dead. This official pronouncement denied neither the possibility nor the viability of baptism for the dead. Instead, it took a cautious position acceptable to all in the early Reorganization: the doctrine was a permissive one, which God had allowed to be practiced for a time in Nauvoo during the 1840s; but without additional divine guidance, the Reorganized Church was not prepared either to teach or practice the temple ritual. It was, in official church parlance, a doctrine of "local character," directed by God to be practiced at a specific time and specific place under strict control of the church leadership. The fundamentals of this position were suggested in an 1884 General Conference Resolution which stated "that the commandments of a local character, given in the first organization of the church are binding on the Reorganization, only so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by commandment of the church" (Rules 1980, Resolution 282). In other words, unless the Reorganization specifically reaffirmed a particular questioned doctrine, it had no force in the church's official theology. Two years later the April 1886 General Conference passed a resolution especially singling out baptism for the dead as one of those "commandments of a local character" that would not be practiced until reinstated by divine revelation (Rules 1980, Resolution 308). 

This stand has never been officially rescinded. But the institution's official position tells less than half the story, for the movement has walked a torturous path during the past one hundred years as it sought to deal with the legacy of baptism for the dead. From a general acceptance of the policy—a position that recognized it as a permissive but legitimate rite, to be executed at the specific redirection of God—in time the Reorganization gradually drifted away from the doctrine. At the present, I suspect that while the doctrine still has some support, the overwhelming majority of Reorganized Church members no longer accept, even theoretically, baptism for the dead. Until recently, although the church has continually suggested that baptisms for the dead be carried out only by divine direction in a temple built for the purpose, with no prospect for the building of such an edifice in the immediate future, the doctrine was shunted into a limbo between belief and practice. To ignore, as Alma R. Blair has appropriately remarked, was ultimately to reject (1973, 222). 

The Early Reorganization's Conception 

The Saints making up the early Reorganization never questioned the propriety of baptism for the dead. It had been introduced by Joseph Smith, it was contained in their Doctrine and Covenants, it was a part of the early Latter Day Saint belief system, and it had been promulgated rapidly and with enthusiasm during the Prophet's lifetime. Whether to accept it into the Reorganization was never of the slightest concern to the earliest members of that dissenting church. The new organization, Richard Howard commented, "had no basis, either in sentiment or in public deliberations, to make a departure from such a firmly established doctrine as baptism for the dead had been since 1840" (1969, 228).

This doctrine was such a distinctive part of the Reorganized Church that it contributed to the conversion of Alexander H. Smith, a son of the founding prophet and the brother of Reorganized Church president Joseph Smith III, who had affiliated with the Reorganization in 1860. Emma Smith had joined at the same time, and the youngest brother, David H., united with the church shortly after. Alexander, however, hung back, unwilling to make a commitment to the Reorganization even though he was interested in its message and generally agreed with its position. 

In April 1862 the second-oldest son, Frederick G. W. Smith, took ill and died without baptism. This greatly troubled Alexander, who was concerned that Frederick would be consigned to hell. Vida E. Smith, Alexander's daughter, remembered a turning point in this perplexity: 

That his beloved brother was lost was a horror such as has filled many hearts; but to him there came a balm, the testimony of the Spirit, the first communication direct from that Comforter, saying, "Grieve not; Frederick's condition is pleasant; and the time shall come when baptism can be secured to him," admonishing him to do his duty and all would be well. Satisfied of the necessity of baptism for the living, and comforted by the evidence of its possibility for the dead, on May the 25th of the same year [1862], his brother Joseph baptized him in the grand old Mississippi. (1911, 13-14) 

Alexander Smith, of course, went on to serve as an apostle and later Presiding Patriarch in the Reorganized Church. 

If baptism for the dead was a true principle, then it was incumbent on the Reorganization either to practice it or to explain why it could not do so. The reasons varied depending upon the era; but throughout most of the nineteenth century, Reorganized Church leaders argued that the doctrine had to be executed under a rigid set of conditions at the specific direction of God. They tied this closely to the rejection of the church when Brigham Young accepted leadership and moved its administration to Utah. "Baptism for the Dead was also rejected," stated an unsigned article in the True Latter Day Saints' Herald in March 1860, "and yet this doctrine was believed in and practically observed by the church in the days of Paul." The author went on to make the case that it had been explained to Joseph Smith "before the Book of Mormon was revealed." Even so, the author wrote that Smith did not institute the practice until commanded to do so by God, and then only within a well-defined set of parameters. When the Saints withdrew from Nauvoo, the author continued, the opportunity to practice it had passed, and Young's followers should have stopped. Because they did not do so, the writer concluded, their church was "rejected" ("The Early Revelations" 1860, 67).

An endorsement of baptism for the dead also emerged from the Reorganization's Joint Council of ruling quorums in May 1865. During the meeting, William Marks, the one man in the Reorganization to have been "in the know" about doctrinal ideas of the Nauvoo period, stated at this meeting that the doctrine had originally been considered a permissive rite, to be practiced only under the most restricted conditions in a temple built especially for the purpose. Marks asserted that Joseph Smith "stopped the baptism for the dead" in Nauvoo, at least for a time, and Marks "did not believe it would be practiced any more until there was a fountain built in Zion or Jerusalem" (Council of Twelve Minutes 1865, 12). At the conclusion of this meeting, the Joint Council affirmed a cautious policy, resolving "that it is proper to teach the doctrine of baptism for the dead when it is necessary to do so in order to show the completeness of the plan of salvation, but wisdom dictates that the way should be prepared by the preaching of the first principles" (Council of Twelve Resolutions 1865, 3). 

The ensuing years saw considerable discussion of the reinstitution of baptism for the dead. In virtually every instance Reorganization leaders endorsed the idea but withheld practice awaiting a divine mandate. They usually coupled this stance with a condemnation of Utah Mormonism for continuing the ritual without God's sanction (see "The Rejection" 1861, 17-18; J. Smith III 1883; "Building" 1894; "Baptism" 1864). 

The Reorganization condemned the Mormon method of conducting baptisms for ancestors without direct and individual revelation. "It is not commonly known that President Young taught and administered baptism for the dead in a very different way than Joseph did," stated a July 1880 article in the Saints' Advocate, published by the Reorganization at Piano, Illinois. "Joseph taught that baptism for the dead could be done, properly, only by revelation, . . . Have President Young and his followers observed this essential restriction?" Of course, the article answered with a resounding no, and the author concluded that the Utah faction had "departed away from the teachings of the 'Choice Seer,' however much they may have claimed to follow him" ("Baptism" 1880). 

Perhaps the clearest expression of the Reorganized Church's concept of baptism for the dead can be found in an 1874 True Latter Day Saints' Herald editorial: 

For the Doctrine of Baptism for the Dead, we have only this to write; it was by per mission, as we learn from the history, performed in the river until the font should be prepared. The font and the temple which covered it are gone, not a stone remains unturned, the stranger cultivates the soil over the places where the corner stones were laid; and when memory paints in respondent hues the rising light of the glorious doctrine, the mind should also remember how sadly sombre and dark are the clouds lying heavily over the horizon where this light was quenched; "You shall be rejected with your dead, saith the lord your God." 

The practice of "Baptizing for the Dead" was made a part of the practice of the Church only after years of suffering and toil; and not taught nor practiced until a place of rest was supposed to have been found; does not add to, nor diminish the promises made to the believer in the gospel proclamation; and while it was permitted, was of so particular form in its observance, that a settled place, and only one, was essential to the keeping of the records of baptism.... 

Baptism for the dead is not commanded in the gospel; it is at best only permitted, was so by special permission, and we presume that should we ultimately prove worthy, it may be again permitted.... 

In conclusion on this subject, let those who are most anxious for the reinstating of the doctrine and practice of baptism for the dead remember, that there is but little of direct scriptural proof that can be adduced in support of the doctrine; and that left mainly to the direct institution of it among the Saints, we must be fully prepared to meet all the consequences attendant upon its introduction, or we shall rue the mooting of the subject. ("Editorial" 1874,434) 

The anonymous author went on to say that the Saints should live justly and not concern themselves with such practices as baptism for the dead until such time as God should direct. 

Joseph Smith III and the Doctrine

Joseph Smith III, who became Reorganized Church president in April 1860, played a critical role in developing the church's policy concerning baptism for the dead. Smith never questioned the doctrine publicly and only hesitantly considered its propriety in private late in his long career. Too much religious background from Nauvoo eliminated any serious reconsideration of the issue the early Reorganization, and I doubt that he had either the will or the inclination to deal with the issue. Smith's mother, Emma, had been a proxy in the baptism for the dead rituals in Nauvoo. His lone counselor in the First Presidency in the 1860s, William Marks, had been stake president in Nauvoo and had participated in the proxy baptisms (Bishop 1990, 7). And, as already mentioned, the doctrine was particularly comforting to his brother Alexander. 

Even if Smith had been willing to challenge the ritual on theological grounds, he probably still would not have done so early in his presidency because he was generally unwilling to take strong and forceful action publicly that might needlessly upset the harmony of the church (see Launius 1988, 361-74). Throughout his life, Smith recognized the doc trine as legitimate, at least in principle, and allowed the door to remain open to its eventual practice or possible rejection in the Reorganization. Smith wrote to Alfred Ward on 9 May 1880 about this issue. "Baptism for the dead, temple building, and gathering are not rejected," he wrote, "and what you may deem laying on the shelf, remains to be seen." He added, however, that baptism for the dead was at best a per missive doctrine that might or might not be practiced again. In a similar manner, he wrote to Job Brown on 5 January 1886 that he believed in the principle of universal salvation and that baptism for the dead was one means of achieving it, "but [I] do not teach it; having as I understand it no command to do so." 

Apparently, Joseph Smith III began to modify some of his ideas concerning baptism for the dead at least by the early 1890s.[2] He still positively regarded it, but his comments on the subject show inconsistency. His 3 May 1894 letter to Mrs. N. S. Patterson shows that he still stressed its permissive nature:

We do not feel at liberty to baptize for the dead yet, though we believe it. It is a permis sive rite, and the church was forbid the practice in about 1844, until the Temple was fin ished. The temple was not finished in the time alotted sic, and the privilege ceased. It will be renewed soon we believe, when we can practice that ordinance. 

On 5 May 1894 he even defended the doctrine against charges that it was unscriptural by pointedly asking a correspondent: "Will you please state wherein the doctrine of baptism for the dead is contrary to the Book of Mormon?" 

At the same time, he began asking more questions about the doc trine. Perhaps it was challenges from others, or the completion of the Salt Lake Temple, or his own personal feelings that by the 1890s resulted in a subtle shift in his willingness to reexamine the issue. In an intriguing 26 May 1893 letter to L. L. Barth of Rexburg, Idaho, Joseph Smith III described his basic position about baptism for the dead and the Mormon concept of the eternity in general. "Personally, I would not value going through the temple a dollar's worth," he wrote, "and then only as a matter of curiosity, I cannot see anything sacred or divine in it." Smith also suggested that baptism for the dead might be rejected at some date in the future, arguing that God could either "enjoin" or "permit" it to suit his purposes, and it was not humanity's concern ("Baptism" 1893, 115). 

There can be no doubt, however, that Joseph Smith III held at least a tangential belief in baptism for the dead until his death in 1914. Usually in the latter years of his presidency, he alluded to it in connec tion with the temple in Independence at some distant future time. He wrote to J. W. Jenkins in 1902, "We believe that when the temple is built baptism for the dead will be practiced, and we are in hopes that perhaps permission may be given before that." But Smith never implored God for revelations and guidance about the practice of the ritual. The abstract principle, without any tangible expression and with fewer and fewer people concerned with it, began a path toward rejection. 

Early Challenges 

There were opponents of the doctrine of baptism for the dead from the earliest period of the Reorganization, and they vocally disagreed with the Reorganized Church's cautious official position about its legitimacy as a permissive rite to be practiced at the express command of God. A few—notably Reorganization founding father Jason W. Briggs, who was admittedly such a liberal element in the movement that he withdrew from it in 1886 because of irreconcilable doctrinal differences—even advocated that the church reject the premise outright as unscriptural and adopt a more "Christian attitude."[3]

Russell Huntley, in most instances an orthodox church member (he demonstrated as much by donating significant funds to the church to provide for the publication of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon when it came forward), also thought the doctrine ridiculous (Launius 1985).[4] In a February 1875 article in the True Latter Day Saints' Herald 

Huntley challenged the concept: "Then we find the believer and the doer saved; the unbeliever that has the law and will not keep it, lost; and the little children and those without the law redeemed by the atonement, the blood of Christ. Now where does the baptism for the dead come in, as all are saved that can be saved? I see no place or need for that ordinance." Huntley's position, as might be expected, relied heavily on Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon's 1832 vision of the three glories, which indicated that salvation would come to a much broader category of human beings than most Christian churches accepted but did not mention baptism as a necessary prerequisite to this redemption (D&C76). 

For several years thereafter, baptism for the dead was discussed in church meetings and periodicals, but mostly in noncommittal ways (Stebbins and Walker [1888], 166, 216-18; Griffiths n.d., 139-40; Parsons 1902, 114-20). For instance, the author of a 5 January 1889 statement in the Saints' Herald debated the wisdom of baptism for the dead, declaring that even though the doctrine could be rectified with the existing body of scripture and then practiced, there was little reason to believe it would be reinstituted any time soon and perhaps never. Joseph Smith III was in Utah when this appeared, and it seems unlikely that he had approved its publication. At the preconference meeting of the Quorum of Twelve in 1892 the apostles voted "that as a Quorum we put ourselves upon record as being ready to promulgate the doctrine as soon as the Lord shall so direct us as to time, place, and conditions for observance" (in Edwards 1969, 5:145). There was, however, little enthusiasm for the pronouncement from most of the quorum members, and nothing came of the exercise, not even a request to Joseph Smith III that he prayerfully consider the matter, a common action in other cases of doctrinal interpretation. 

A Time of Withdrawal 

During the early years of the twentieth century, Reorganization leaders withdrew further from considering baptism for the dead as a legitimate doctrine. The official position remained constant throughout this period; the doctrine was "permissive," to be practiced at some future, unspecified time. Questions about the doctrine were much less common during the first half of the century than before 1900. Discussion in the Saints' Herald dropped drastically.[5] Most discussion, both in church periodicals and elsewhere, involved debate with the Utah Saints about the issue (see Phillips 1904; H. Smith 1907; J. F. Smith nd; E. Smith 1943; Ralston 1950; Carpenter 1958; Hield and Ralston 1960). This debate became not so much about when to implement the doctrine—the old "permissive" position—as about whether it was necessary at all. Russell F. Ralston, a member of the seventy assigned to full-time missionary service in Utah in 1948, was one of the most important students of the issue (Ralston 1989a; 1989b). In his work in Utah, Ralston needed answers to doctrinal questions about the Restoration churches but found very little quality information. To rectify this deficiency, he enlisted the aid of Charles R. Hield, the apostle in charge of the region, and prepared a series of study papers on the various doctrinal dissimilarities of the Latter-day Saint and Reorganization churches. They found that most of the Reorganization's doctrinal materials placed too much emphasis on the subject of plural marriage to the exclusion of other critical issues. Accordingly, they began by studying each church's concept of God. That led naturally into a consideration of temple rituals, one of which was baptism for the dead. 

Ralston approached baptism for the dead from a fresh perspective. By the late 1940s no one in the church remembered Nauvoo and the practice of baptism for the dead. Since the doctrine had no practical application in the Reorganization, there was no body of knowledge sur rounding it from continued practice, as in the case of the Latter-day Saints. Ralston was free, therefore, to consider the issue without defending or condemning it. While Ralston denied that he was consciously departing from previous approaches to the subject, he articulated well the shifting position oi many Reorganized Church members during the immediate postwar era as the church began to struggle with broader questions. Having moved beyond the borders of western culture, the Church was also forced to consider anew its role within the broader context of Christianity. Baptism for the dead was apparently one of the issues reviewed (see Booth 1980; Potter 1980; Cole 1979). 

He quickly found that baptism for the dead had a very strong pedigree in the early Mormon church, although he thought its scriptural support was suspect. In spite of this, he began by asking, "Was baptism for the dead as now understood and practiced a false doctrine?" That was, of course, a remarkably different premise from one that recognized the doctrine's viability but argued its restrictive nature. Ralston reasoned that baptism for the dead was only legitimate if baptism was essential for salvation. His studies all indicated that baptism was not essential to salvation and therefore that baptism for the dead was a false doctrine deserving of rejection. Israel A. Smith, the Reorganization's president from 1946 to 1958, supported Ralston's conclusions and asked Ralston to prepare his studies on Restoration doctrines for publication (Ralston 1989a). 

The 30 October 1950 Saints' Herald contained the first of several pathbreaking articles by Ralston on baptism for the dead. This article accepted the basic church position that the practice of baptism for the dead in the early church had been formally directed, circumscribed, and governed by revelation. Ralston suggested that the practice was strictly limited for a time to the Mississippi River and to the Nauvoo Temple when it was completed. He also concluded that "the ordinance of baptism for the dead was only to be permissible in Zion, her stakes, and Jerusalem." Without a temple specifically for the purpose, "there is no place on earth where this ordinance can be legally practiced" (1950, 1047). Ralston was here taking at face value an argument he had heard from Elbert A. Smith, a longtime church official currently serving as presiding patriarch, who believed that in spite of the doctrine's strangeness, it might have to do with a special relationship between some of the living and their dead, even though it had nothing to do with their salvation (Ralston 1989a). 

After reaffirming the standard church position, Ralston next considered whether baptism for the dead was essential "to the salvation of either the living or the dead." He suggested, "I believe that if baptism for the dead is essential to their salvation, then God is unjust." He argued that those who had died without a knowledge of the gospel should not be penalized and that Joseph Smith, Jr., had learned as much in a 1836 revelation when he saw his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom, even though he had not been baptized. Ralston used several scriptural citations to show that baptism was not essential, including Christ's promise of paradise to the thief on the cross. "Considering the above fact," Ralston commented, "we can but conclude that baptism for the dead is not essential to the salvation of the dead" (Ralston 1950, 1048). 

Ralston also used the Book of Mormon, asserting that while it contained the fullness of the gospel, it made no mention of baptism for the dead. He also invoked the Doctrine and Covenants 34:3, dated December 1830, to demonstrate that God had "sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith" by that early date, apparently without any consideration for the historical evolution of the church after that period. 

Ralston also used the only biblical reference to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 to demonstrate the doctrine's error. In the first instance I have found of this particular argument, Ralston asserted that in this scriptural passage "Paul was not talking about Christians." He wrote: 

In this fifteenth chapter, Paul is expounding the truth of the Resurrection. Talking to the saints (members of Christ's church) at Corinth, he 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?" You will note carefully that Paul does not say, "why are you (members of Christ's church) baptized for the dead," but specifically talks about they. Who are the}? There is no indication that they are Christians. (1950, 1048) 

This last argument has become a standard in Reorganized Church efforts to discredit the practice of baptism for the dead. Based on this assessment of scripture—and the discrediting of the biblical reference to baptism for the dead had to take place before the Reorganization could reject the doctrine—Ralston concluded that "we feel the only logical conclusion is that baptism for the dead is not a basic principle of the doctrine of Christ" (1950, 1048). 

Having cast doubts on the biblical sanction of baptism for the dead, it was now easier for Ralston to challenge the latter-day revelations of Joseph Smith on the subject. Ralston suggested that the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants concerning baptism for the dead were deficient as scripture: one was a cautious revelation that limited the practice, and the other two were 1842 letters that Ralston cast aside as nonrevelatory writings. He also offered an entirely different interpretation of the scripture in Malachi 4:6 about turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, using a statement from the first vision that reads: "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to the fathers" (Ralston 1950, 1049; Smith and Smith 1973, 1:13). 

At the end of this article, Ralston offered six basic conclusions about baptism for the dead: (1) baptism for the dead at best is very strictly limited; (2) there is no temple on the earth where baptism for the dead can be practiced according to the limitations of God; (3) baptism for the dead is in no way essential to the salvation of either the living or the dead; (4) baptism for the dead is not a basic principle of Christ's gospel, for the Book of Mormon, which contains the fullness, does not teach it; (5) the doctrine is at best permissible, and this only under very specific conditions; and (6) "members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cannot feel justified [either] in accepting or rejecting it, nor can we rightfully do so unless God in his wisdom shall reveal it in such a way and with such a purpose that it will be completely consistent with him, his Son, and his gospel" (Ralston 1950, 10-49). 

In the next few years, Ralston followed this article with several essays on baptism for the dead in church periodicals, each laying waste to the practice. In a 1952 article in the Saints' Herald, he commented: 

The whole matter of baptism for the dead is so very indefinite that it would be difficult to come to any conclusion as to just what did occur. There are no records of any revelation of God coming through the prophet telling any one individual to be baptized for any spe cific dead person. Since there are no records of such, I feel it is safe to assume that there was no such revelation. 

When questioned about the possibility of proxy baptism for someone on the verge of converting to the church at the time of death, Ralston asserted that "God has a way by which he offers celestial salvation to those whose hearts' desire is worthy and who through no fault of their own had no opportunity to be baptized in this world." He did not allow, however, for any requirement for baptism at any time, considering it an unnecessary act (Question 1955, 224-26; Ralston 1955, 525). 

In 1960 Russell Ralston and Charles R. Hield published an expanded tract on the subject, which laid out in detail the official Reorganized Church position but firmly defended the nonpractice of the rite by the movement. They asserted that "while the Reorganized Church does not completely reject the principle of baptism for the dead, it does very strongly deny any concept which makes baptism for the dead essential to the salvation of either the living or the dead."[6] Interpreting scripture and restoration history, the authors' case against the practice was similar to, though more detailed than that offered in Ralston's earlier writings. 

One of Ralston and Hield's most interesting and original arguments for the rejection of baptism for the dead is that the doctrine makes humans the saviors of those for whom they are baptized, rather than Jesus Christ. "If salvation for the unbaptized people on the other side must depend upon frail mankind today, then judgment depends upon the works of the living and not upon one's own life," they wrote. "Any doctrinal concept that makes man a savior is obviously false" (1960, 11). 

This has become an especially important rationale for members of the Reorganization and has been used repeatedly in recent years to dis credit baptism for the dead (see Elefson 1984, 12-14). James D. Wardle, a Reorganized Church member living in Salt Lake City who operates the only combination barber shop/theological seminar that I know of, echoed this position in an unpublished study in the early 1960s: "To trust in baptism for the dead is to prefer the interference of men over the redemptive power which is already assured through Jesus Christ." During the 1960s the Church moved even further from the doc trine. Instead of explaining that baptism for the dead was a permissive doctrine that would be practiced upon further revelation from God, several church leaders publicly challenged and then overturned, at least to their satisfaction, the doctrine's theological underpinnings. Charles Fry, long a leading figure in the church's hierarchy, concluded in a 1963 study: 

1. The doctrine of Baptism for the Dead was never revealed of God; never commanded of Him; and never endorsed of Him. 
2. Its entrance into the church was irregular and illegitimate, and in disregard of the law. 
3. It came out in due season and was no part of the "Restoration" of latter days
4. It is based upon false promises including an erroneous interpretation of scriptural baptism. 

Another argument at this time commented that the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants mandating baptism for the dead had not been officially adopted by conference action of the church before the death of Joseph Smith and therefore should not be binding on the church. As a result, some church officials advocated removing these sections from the Doctrine and Covenants (Question 1967, 195-96; Draper 1989). 

George Njeim and the Prophet/Theologian Dichotomy 

Also at center stage in this reevaluation of the legitimacy of baptism for the dead was George Njeim, a president of seventy and full-time mis sionary. Njeim published what was, after Russell Ralston's writings, the most comprehensive analysis of the subject. His work, like Ralston's, dealt not only with baptism for the dead, but with the personality and doctrinal thinking of Joseph Smith as well. In a serialized article appearing in the Saints' Herald during the first three months of 1970, Njeim analyzed what he called the two sides of Smith's religious personality: the prophet and the theologian. Using a complex argument—and ultimately one that may satisfy only those looking at the issue through the lens of the Reorganization—Njeim argued that during the latter 1830s Smith began to rely less on revelatory power and more on his own instincts and doctrinal ideas. He emphasized the Prophet's early visions as central to the divinity of the movement and offered the decrease of visions in the latter 1830s and of revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants after 1838 as evidence of Smith's spiritual deadening. The theological innovations especially of the Nauvoo period—the temple endowment, the progressive nature of God, the Book of Abraham, plural marriage, and others highly prized by some Mormon factions—Njeim credited to Joseph Smith's theological speculation, prompted by Smith's attempts to rationalize the various scriptural passages he studied. Njeim explicitly included baptism for the dead in his list of speculative doctrines introduced in Nauvoo and urged its outright rejection by the Reorganized Church. 

Njeim repeated many of Ralston's arguments and concluded that baptism for the dead had been a "theological accident" which arose only because the church's particular circumstances, the prophet, and the place came together to create an environment ripe for doctrinal speculation. His conclusions summarized this basic belief: 

I must admit that teachings of Joseph during this period (1839-1844) have concerned me greatly and nearly caused me to leave the church. Once I began to see the theological background, my concern was eased. My faith is in the God who gave Joseph his visions resulting in the Book of Mormon and convincing me of the divinity of Christ, who is my Savior.... That Joseph may have made mistakes in trying to find explanations for vexatious verses in the scriptures does not bother me now. He was a man such as I am, and I have found myself wrong many a time in my interpretation of a doctrinal issue. (Njeim 1970b, 26) 

By creating the dichotomy of prophet and theologian in Joseph Smith, Njeim was thus able to offer Reorganization leaders a rational vehicle, even if it was a bit rickety, to bury baptism for the dead. Several others seconded his position (Ashenhurst et al. 1970, 22-23, 25). 

The Pivotal 1970 World Conference 

From whatever perspective we view it, the 1970 World Conference of the Reorganized Church was one of the most difficult in the movement's history. Racked with controversy over issues of peace and war, religious education, liberalism and conservatism, and racism, the pivotal meeting will affect the Reorganized Church indefinitely ("Conference Resume" 1970, 3-6; Russell 1970, 769-71). One action of this conference moved several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants from the main body of the work to a "Historical Appendix" at the back of the book. Among the five documents consigned to this appendix were the three on baptism for the dead, which had been so recently reinterpreted. This decision culminated years of study about the doctrine, which had evidently led the majority of church members to believe that baptism for dead was a non-Christian concept deserving of rejection. 

The desire for change, of course, had been fermenting for years. In 1967 when the First Presidency considered revising the prefatory mate rial for each section in the book, a logical question arose about the propriety of deleting certain sections with seemingly no relationship to the current church. At the April 1968 World Conference, delegates from the Utah District proposed including in a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants only those revelations "attested by Joseph Smith, Jr., or by one of his lawful successors," and "presented to and acted upon by the presiding quorums of the church . . . as revelation authoritatively binding upon the whole church." Other sections not considered revelatory and binding on the Reorganization were to be placed in a historical appendix. This resolution, which passed on 6 April 1968, did not designate which sections of the Doctrine and Covenants might be relegated to an appendix, but there was little question that those relating to baptism for the dead were to be among them (World Conference 1968, 283; Draper 1989). 

On 7 April 1970 the First Presidency offered a lengthy resolution to the World Conference creating the historical appendix. Innocuously named "New Doctrine and Covenants Format," this resolution presented, in addition to the historical appendix, a new introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants, a new order for sections in the book, and a new set of introductions to individual revelations (World Conference 1970, 286). The issue caused heated debate. The first controversy involved an amendment to the resolution, offered by Earline Campbell of Los Angeles, California, providing for the deletion from the book of all sections to be placed in the historical appendix. 

Melvin Knussman spoke for those still holding to the legitimacy of baptism for the dead: 

In view of the long historical tradition of the Doctrine and Covenants as we have it today, I feel it would be tragic if we would at this time seek to make these changes. I feel that we better let well enough alone, for by making changes at this time I feel it will in the long run raise more problems than it would solve ("World" 1970, 84). 

Even more eloquent was the argument of Madalyn Taylor, a delegate of Santa Fe Stake near Independence, Missouri. "I would vote an emphatic no to this whole resolution," she said, then continued: 

There was a time as recorded in I Nephi when scholars in the vision of then removed many precious things that were plain from the Bible and after these plain and precious things had been removed by theologians this book went forth among the Gentiles and because of the lack of revelations, due to the tampering of men, Nephi was shown that many should stumble until in the latter days, they should be had again If ever there was a time in the history of the restoration when people have itching fingers and desire to tamper with things, it is now. Change the Book of Mormon, change the revelations, change the name of the church, change the ordinance. This is all that the word apostacy in the Greek language means. Apostacize, abandoning of that which is a faith of belief. I beg the delegates to consider well before they vote on this resolution. ("World" 1970, 86) 

For Melvin Knussman and Madalyn Taylor as well as for a minority of other church members, removing the sections concerning baptism for the dead represented a serious departure from the church's "tried and true" system of belief. 

C. Robert Mesle, then a theology student and now on the faculty at Graceland College, silenced some of this dissent with research he and some associates had conducted concerning the place of baptism for the dead in the theology of selected church appointee ministers. In describing a survey he had sent to these individuals he noted: 

We received somewhere in the area of 90 replies. Of these, 56 percent agreed strongly that baptism for the dead was not valid, 42 percent agreed, 11 percent were undecided, and no one felt that it was valid. Two, we asked, how do you view the concept of baptism for the dead? 12 percent felt that it was an ordinance requiring revelation through the present prophet to be considered valid, 32 percent felt that it was invalid on scriptural grounds, and 56 percent felt that it was invalid on all grounds. Third, we asked, what would you like to see done to sections 107, 109, 110? 18 percent said remove all three sections entirely from the D. and C; 66 percent said place all three sections in an historical area of the D. and C; 5 percent said place sections 109 and 110 in an historical section of the Doctrine and Covenants and leave 107 remain as it now stands, and 11 per cent were undecided. We feel that this might give the Conference some idea how the men involved with the question feel about it. ("World" 1970, 88) 

It should be noted that a portion of Mesle's research on baptism for the dead had been strategically published in the Saints' Herald in April 1970 to coincide with the convening of conference. This article challenged in no uncertain terms the scriptural foundation of the practice and was one more means of building the case for placing the baptism for the dead sections in a historical appendix (see Ashenhurst et. al 1970). 

In the end the delegates passed the First Presidency's resolution. In spite of the minority opinions expressed, the conference did not seem to have been seriously divided on the issue. Votes at these conferences are usually taken by raising hands. If the vote had been close, the house would have been divided and an actual count taken; this was not done (see Troeh and Troeh 1987). After a lengthy debate, the conference deferred to the hierarchy and easily passed the resolution. Indeed, this action was typical of many conference episodes when considerable debate and wrestling among the members over a particular issue ended in approval of the leadership's original position. Robert Slasor, from the unorganized section of eastern Ontario, voiced the basic trust most members have for the church hierarchy when he remarked: "I think the First Presidency and those that have been involved with them have done such an excellent job of improving this .. . I for one would like to see it [the First Presidency resolution] accepted just as it now is and then look toward the future with the possibilities that if change is needed it then could be made" ("World" 1970, 85). 

Although this decision did not silence all discussion of the subject among church members, it represented for most the implicit rejection of baptism for the dead. Church officials offered several explanations for relegating the scripture to the appendix where it no longer had the force of commandment. All were firmly rooted in the historical development of the Reorganization's understanding of the practice. First, the action recognized the long-standing position that the doctrine was only permissive but allowed for its future practice if God directed its implementation. Second, since the original revelations had never been approved for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants by formal church vote during Joseph Smith's lifetime they never should have been placed there in the first place. Thus, placement in a historical appendix simply corrected a past error. Finally, the questionable sections were of historical value and in an appendix they would still be available for study by the church members {World 1970, E-4; RLDS D&C 107: Introduction). 

These were excuses, not the real reasons. Most of the church hierarchy and many of the members openly questioned the legitimacy of baptism for the dead. Israel A. Smith had been opposed to the doctrine as early as the 1940s and was the first to propose the idea of ousting the Doctrine and Covenants sections dealing with it (Ralston 1989a; 1989b). His younger brother and successor as president of the Reorganized Church, W. Wallace Smith, was even more adamant. He and his counselors in the First Presidency in 1970 opposed the concept and were in favor of ultimately exorcising the sections from the Doctrine and Covenants. 

The First Presidency's position concerning baptism for the dead was clearly expressed two years earlier at the 1968 World Conference. On that occasion W. Wallace Smith's revelation about the building of a temple in Independence was returned by the priesthood quorums for clarification about the nature of temple ministries, particularly about provisions for endowment rituals akin to those practiced by the Latter day Saints. Smith considered this issue and prepared a second inspired statement which concluded that "there is no provision for secret ordinances now or ever" in any temple to be built by the Reorganization (RLDS D&C 149, 149a; Draper 1989). These "secret ordinances," Smith explained, included baptism for the dead. That the statement was easily accepted by the conference body also indicated a consensus among the membership of the church. 

This is not to say, however, that there was complete agreement; and at least to some, the 1970 action to place the baptism for the dead sections in the historical appendix represented a compromise allowing all parties to escape with an acceptable solution. Vivien Sorenson, a member of the Seventy and a full-time appointee minister, for instance, has said that he believed in baptism for the dead and looked forward to the day that it would be practiced again, but he voted for the "appendix" decision so that the issue would be settled. If he had not done so, he was convinced that at a later conference sufficient votes would have been mustered by the First Presidency to remove the sections from the Doctrine and Covenants entirely. To do so, he believed, would have wrongfully closed the door to the potential of baptism for the dead. For Sorenson and others of a similar minority view, that half a loaf could be accepted until God spoke on the subject again (Sorenson 1989). 

Conclusion

At present a few church members still cling to the older permissive rite position and await the time when baptism for the dead can again be practiced. This number, however, is declining with almost every passing year. Once again, to ignore (and that has been the Reorganization's policy) is to reject (see Whenham 1970). The decision to relegate baptism for the dead to the back of the book represents, I believe, a decision also to relegate it to a limbo world of church theological consideration (see also Holm 1970, 156-64; "Question" 1970, 1978; Williams 1978; Madison 1988). 

At this time, with plans for building a temple well underway in Independence, it would seem the ideal moment to reintroduce the practice, if ever that is to occur. Joseph Smith III certainly believed that baptisms for the dead would be practiced in the Independence temple, yet there are no plans for a baptismal font in the building's basement. Perhaps the ultimate moment of rejection for the practice will be at the dedication of the Independence Temple. When Wallace B. Smith opens the temple to the public sometime in the 1990s and there is still no provision for baptisms for the dead, the Reorganized Church will have officially relegated the concept to theological speculation, some thing it did tacitly more than twenty years ago. For good or ill, the Reorganization will have finally abandoned one of the most unique practices arising from early Mormonism. 

---

[1] See the works of Richard Price, Decision Time, (1975); The Saints at the Crossroads (1975); Action Time (1985). Price is a Reorganization conservative who interprets redirections in the church's policy and doctrine as evidence of apostacy from the truths of the Restoration. He has become the chief spokesman for Reorganization fundamentalists, and a rival church organization is now developing around him. For a similar discussion without the criticisms of the institutional church see Howard J. Booth, Recent Shifts in Restoration Thought (1980).

[2] In my biography of Joseph Smith III I argued that by the 1890s the prophet was more comfortable with his position in the church, that the peculiar circumstances of his presidential position, his time in office, the successes of his policies-particularly against polygamy-prompted greater shifts in his administration than at any previous time. This may help explain what appears to be a subtle and tentative, but nonetheless important, reexamination of the doctrine of baptism for the dead by the Reorganization prophet (see Launius 1988, 296-311).

[3] In addition to Briggs, Apostle Zenos H. Gurley, Jr., also questioned the necessity of the doctrine. Both withdrew from the church in 1886 over theological issues (see Smith and Smith 1967, 4:524-28; Vlahos 1971; Blair 1980; Russell 1987). 

[4] In the 1880s Huntley asked for and received back the money he had donated for a trust fund to publish the remainder of the Book of Mormon.

[5] There are only nine articles on the subject listed in the card file index for the Saints' Herald at the Reorganized Church Library-Archives for the period between 1900 and 1960. In addition, such influential tracts as A. B. Phillips, Latter Day Saints and What They Believe (n.d., 203-6) has a lengthy discussion of baptism and resurrection, but no commentary on baptism for the dead.

[6] Hield and Ralston, Baptism for the Dead, p. 9. This tract was incorporated into a larger publication by Ralston, Fundamental Differences (1963, 209-65). An earlier edition of Fundamental Differences had been published in 1960, but its discussion was much circumscribed from that of the 1963 edition because of a fear that it would preempt the sales of the Hield and Ralston booklet on Baptism for the Dead, published in 1960 (Ralston 1989a).

[post_title] => An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 23.2 (1990): 61–83
Launius shares how the Reorganized Church has changed their stance on baptisms for the dead. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => an-ambivalent-rejection-baptism-for-the-dead-and-the-reorganized-church-experience [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-04 13:12:52 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-04 13:12:52 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12239 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12245 [post_author] => 2246 [post_date] => 2018-04-14 03:00:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-14 03:00:04 [post_content] =>

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?

1 Cor. 15:29

Although the Bible briefly mentions vicarious baptism, the belief was not a part of mid-nineteenth-century American religions. Even such denominations as the Disciples of Christ (Campbellites), who professed to find the "law" for Christian life and worship spelled out within the New Testament, offered no response to the Apostle Paul's reference to baptism for the dead (Ahlstrom 1972, 44 7-49). It was left to Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to establish a doctrinal stance on the subject.

In an epistle to the early saints of Corinth, Paul mentioned vicarious baptism in relation to the resurrection and as a way to overcome humankind’s “last enemy”—death. This final victory was also a great concern to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo. Many Saints had died in the Mormon War in Missouri during 1838 and in malaria-ridden Nauvoo in the early 1840s. Finding a way to, in a sense, overcome death must have been a comfort to those constantly reminded of the frailties of mortality (Bishop 1986; Meyers 1975; Bishop, Lacey, and Wixon 1986). The Nauvoo Times and Seasons printed a 15 April 1842 essay on baptism for the dead which observed, "When speaking about the blessings pertaining to the gospel, and the consequences connected with disobedience to its requirements, we are frequently asked what has become of our fathers?” The Latter-day Saint belief that baptism by proper priesthood authority was a necessary prerequisite to admission to the highest of heavenly glories led to this intense concern about their deceased ancestors.

In 1836 the Prophet Joseph had reported a vision of his deceased brother, Alvin, in the celestial kingdom: "I saw Father Adam, Abraham, and Michael and my father and mother, [and] my brother Alvin that has long since slept. [I] marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance n that Kingdom Seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel . . . and had not been baptised for the remission of sins" (in Faulting 1989, 119; see also HC 2:380).

Four years earlier, the Prophet had pronounced that one "can never see the celestial kingdom of God without being born of the water and of the Spirit"; hence Alvin Smith's presence in that kingdom was a glaring contradiction. When Joseph sought divine clarification as to how his beloved brother could have inherited celestial glory, "the voice of the Lord" informed him, "All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; . . . for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to the desires of their hearts" (HC 1:283; 2:380). This heavenly decree would be the genesis of the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead.

Mormon emphasis on following patterns outlined by heavenly decrees, including the law of baptism, left lingering questions in 1836 about how these worthy dead might literally fulfil this requirement. We have been left with scant evidence of how Joseph Smith formulated the Mormon plan of baptism for the dead. But, by the time the beleaguered Saints had crossed the Mississippi River in 1839 and had begun to reestablish themselves in western Illinois, the Prophet apparently knew how the worthy dead were to meet the mandate for baptism.

In August 1840, he preached the funeral sermon for Seymour Brunson, a respected and faithful Latter-day Saint. In the course of his remarks, Joseph made the first public mention of the doctrine of vicarious baptism. In a later epistle to the Twelve Apostles who were scattered doing missionary work, he wrote:

I presume the doctrine of "baptism for the dead" has ere this reached your ears, and may have raised some inquiries in your mind respecting the same. I cannot in this letter give you all the information you may desire on the subject; but aside from knowledge independent of the Bible, I would say that it was certainly practiced by the ancient churches; and St. Paul endeavors to prove the doctrine of the resurrection from the same. (HC 4:179, 231; 1 Cor. 15:29)

This allusion to information independent of the Bible seems to indicate that the Prophet received supernal directives as well as scriptural input. Joseph Smith had contemplated and, indeed, expected a restoration of all things since early in his prophetic career. For him the vision of his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom and the subsequent exploration may have served as another piece in the puzzle of the restored gospel he was trying to assemble. All of these fragments—the uniquely Mormon ideas of eternal progression, the potential of future godhood for the most faithful, priesthood sealings of marital relationships, as well as baptisms for the dead—ultimately came together at Nauvoo during the early 1840s in an outpouring of doctrinal development (Lyon 1975; CHC 2:90,92). While the very moment when the Prophet envisioned vicarious baptism as a doctrine to be instituted among the Illinois Saints may be historically cloudy, its place in the larger view of eternal salvation is quite clear.

Not long after the Brunson funeral, Nauvoo Mormons began to act upon this new revelation. On 12 September 1840, Jane Neyman walked into the Mississippi River and was baptized for her deceased son, Cyrus. In successive baptisms for the dead performed at Nauvoo, many women acted on behalf of male relations or friends, and vice versa. Gender distinctions between proxy and heir were not made until after the Prophet's 1844 martyrdom, when Brigham Young assumed leadership of the majority of the Saints. Young stated in 1845 that "a female should not be baptized for her male relations," since such was deemed to be inconsistent with the laws of heaven. Wilford Woodruff later noted, "When that [baptism for the dead] was first revealed . . . a man would be baptized for both male and female [but] afterward we obtained more light upon the subject and President Young taught the people that men should attend to those ordinances for the male portion of their dead friends and females for females" (JH 9 April 1857; Nauvoo Baptisms 1841; Whitney n.d.).

During the first two years of its practice at Nauvoo, baptism for the dead was not closely circumscribed. Faithful Saints simply identified their deceased relatives for whom they wished to be baptized and then performed the rite. Local congregations were granted much latitude in the performance of vicarious baptisms. The Quincy Branch, for example met in November 1840 and appointed two brethren, James M. Flake and Melvin Wilbur, to officiate in all of the branch's proxy baptisms (Quincy 1840). This lack of institutional control over the ordinance was to be short lived.

In January 1841 Joseph Smith announced a revelation calling upon the Nauvoo Saints to erect a temple. The sacred sanctuary would provide for, and seemingly allow greater institutional control of, baptisms for the dead. "For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth," the revelation noted, "that they, my Saints, may be baptized for chose who are dead; For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me . . . after you have had sufficient time to build a house unto me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, . . . [Y]our baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me" (HC 4:277). The rite was further institutionalized in August 1842 when Joseph Smith decreed that "all persons baptized for the dead must have a recorder present, that he might be an eyewitness to record and testify of the truth and validity of this record [of baptisms for the dead]” (HC 4:277). Recorders were admonished to take care in their duties, for any errors in the record might be, the Prophet speculated, "at the expense of our friends, they may not come forth [in the first resurrection]” (HC 5:141).

The work of these recorders shows that baptism for the dead was a major religious activity for many Nauvoo Saints. It became necessary in 1843 for Nauvoo Stake President William Marks to convene a special conference to appoint recorders to keep track of all the baptisms for the dead (Faulring 1989, 400-1). During 1841, for example, 6,818 ordinances were performed (see Table 1 [Editor’s Note: See Table 1 in the PDF below]) by an adult population that could not have exceeded four thousand persons (Flanders 1965, 1).

Approximately 55 percent of the proxies were male. and 45 percent female. Most ordinance work was performed in behalf of aunts and uncles, including great-aunts and great-uncles, followed closely by grandparents and great-grandparents. Together these relationships accounted for almost 48 percent of the baptisms performed in 1841. Proxy baptisms for parents and siblings (including step-brothers and sisters) were also a significant proportion. Other relationships included in-laws, friends, spouses, children, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren. Interestingly, 43.9 percent (2,937) of the baptisms performed in 1841 were the cross-gender ordinances that Brigham Young later opposed. This may explain why a large number of the proxy baptisms from the Nauvoo years were redone in Utah.

Participating in baptisms for the dead must have brought great personal joy to the Nauvoo Saints. In 1841, for instance, Joseph Grafton Hovey was baptized for his grandfather, Ebenezer Hovey, and grandmother, Elizabeth Lever; William Aldridge for his wife, Agnes; Josiah Arnold for his wife, Martha, and daughter, Mariette; George Scholes for both of his deceased parents, a dead brother and a sister; and John Bleazard for his grandparents, mother and father; five uncles, one aunt, a cousin, a brother, and a sister—a total of thirteen deceased family members! Imagine the joy of these faithful Saints, who had been admonished by their prophet, "The greatest responsibility in this world [which] God has laid upon us, is to seek after our dead” (Smith n.d.). Not only were the Nauvoo Mormons fulfilling this charge through vicarious baptisms, but they must have felt deeply satisfied opening the door to the celestial kingdom for their relations and friends.

The most active proxy in 1841 was an unheralded Saint by the name of Nehemiah Brush, who was baptized for over one hundred deceased relatives and friends (see Table 2 [Editor’s Note: See Table 2 in the PDF below]). Brush acted in behalf of cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and others. Listed among the four "friends" for whom he was baptized were western explorer Zebulon Pike and Revolutionary War general Anthony Wayne. James Adams, a trusted associate of the Prophet, performed the second most baptisms—sixty-seven performed mainly in behalf of friends. One of Adams's more noteworthy friends was the "late president" John Adams. During 1841 the most baptized woman at Nauvoo was Sarah M. Cleveland, who became a counselor to Emma Smith in the presidency of the first Relief Society as well as an etemity--only plural wife to Joseph Smith. Sarah acted as proxy for forty deceased individuals, including Martha Washington, listed as a "friend" (Nauvoo Baptisms 1841).

Baptisms for deceased friends often reflected personal reverence for historical figures. In addition to the previously mentioned noted historical figures, other Saints showed a fascination with saving the greats of bygone generations such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, and "Gen'l. Montgomery [whoJ fell at Quebec," for whom John Harrington was proxy. Also Stephen Jones was baptized for Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de LaFayette. The greater the historical reputation, the more times proxy baptisms were performed. In 1841 alone, George Washington, for example, benefited from proxy baptisms done by Don Carlos Smith, Stephen Jones, and John Harrington. Many of these eminent men from the past, including most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and former U.S. presidents, as well as several noted women, were again baptized in the St. George Temple in 1877 (Kenney 1985 7:568-69; Arrington 1985).

While the participation of Nehemiah Brush, Joseph Grafton Hovey, and George Scholes is of interest, how involved were the leading Saints in Nauvoo? Since performing proxy ordinances would seem to indicate acceptance of the practice, did the Church hierarchy respond whole-heartedly, or was baptism for the dead a ritual offered up to benefit and increase the commitment of Nauvoo's lower echelon Saints while the more influential members were busy with the emerging ordinances of sealing and plural marriage? The Nauvoo Baptism for the Dead records clearly demonstrate that it was a rite of the people but that the more prominent Saints participated as well. During the early 1840s, baptisms for dead relations and friends were performed by Wilford Woodruff, Ezra T. Benson, William Marks, Vilate Kimball, Eliza R. Snow, Charles Rich, and other prominent Saints. Even William and Wilson Law, who would one day become bitter enemies of Joseph Smith over the issue of plural marriage, engaged in vicarious baptisms (Allen and Leonard 1976, 191, 199; Flanders 1965, 274).

Members of the Prophet's immediate family were active participants, too. His wife, Emma Smith, was baptized in behalf of her father, Isaac Hale; Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, performed the ordinance for her parents, Solomon and Lydia Mack, and for her sister, Louisa Tuttle; Joseph's brother Samuel was baptized for Uncle David Mack; and Hyrum Smith acted as proxy for his brother Alvin, whose earlier vision to Joseph had initiated baptisms for the dead. Interestingly, Joseph Smith's name never appears on the Nauvoo records as a proxy. Elder G. Homer Durham, however, noted that the Prophet officiated on at least one occasion when he performed the baptisms for 105 persons in the Mississippi River (Durham 1977).[1]

At the Church's October 1841 general conference, Joseph Smith shocked the gathered congregation by stating, "There shall be no more baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the Lord's House11 (HC 4:426). The Nauvoo Temple project had been announced the previous January, but little progress had been made. ln this instance Joseph Smith may have suspended the baptisms to motivate the Saints to press forward with the temple since it was just one month later that the baptismal font in the temple's basement was finished and dedicated. The oval-shaped wooden font was to be temporary until it could be replaced with one of cut stone (Colvin 1962), but must have seemed elegant. Built of pine timber, it was sixteen feet long, twelve feet wide, and stood seven feet high. Resting on the backs of twelve carved oxen, modeled after "the most beautiful five-year-old steer that could be found in the country,." this temple font now became the desired location for performing vicarious baptisms (HC 4:446).

In December 1841 the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, headed by Brigham Young, used the appeal of the baptism for the dead doctrine and the new temple font to encourage the ongoing "gathering" to Church headquarters at Nauvoo. "For while many are thus engaged in laboring and watching and praying for this all important object [the completion of the temple}," an 1841 ecclesiastical letter from the Twelve to the Saints abroad noted, "there are many, very many more who do not thus come up to their privilege and their duty in this thing" (HC 4:472). Those who failed to relocate to Nauvoo were said to be missing, among other things, the chance to redeem their dead. Baptism for the dead not only offered the Saints a means to save their worthy dead, but gave the Church a way to motivate those who were slow to do their duty.

With the completion of the temple font, vicarious baptism became more organized and structured. On some occasions, however, as when Wilford Woodruff and his wife, Phoebe, went to the Mississippi River in August 1844 "to be baptized for some of our dead friends,” the river was still used as an alternate site (Kenney 1985, 2:455). This may have been because the new stone font was under construction in the temple or because the turmoil surrounding the June 1844 deaths of Joseph and Hyrum had suspended normal procedures.

At any rate, after November 1841 the temple font was the designated place for performing the ordinance. Access to the font was granted only to those who complied with Church dictates. William Clayton, as recorder of the Nauvoo Temple, issued signed receipts verifying that the bearer was a full tithepayer and thus was entitled to use the baptismal font.[2] Apostle John Taylor stated that, "A man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead;1 (JH 6 Oct. 1844). In this respect, baptism for the dead at Nauvoo set a lasting precedent, requiring verified worthiness for participation in temple rites.

The emergence of baptism for the dead as a vital component of the Mormon plan of salvation heralded an ongoing fascination among the Saints with genealogy. Family history took on added significance when viewed in the light of Joseph Smith's teachings. Responding to prophetic urgings to save the dead, letters to distant relatives flowed out of Nauvoo. Jonah Ball, for example, wrote to his kin in 1843, "I want you to send me a list of fathers relations his parents & Uncles & their names, also Mothers. I am determined to do all I can to redeem those I am permitted to." The following year Sally Carlisle Randall beseeched a relative to "write me the given names of all our connections that are dead as far back as grandfathers and grandmothers at any rate. I expect you will think this [baptism for the dead] is strange doctrine but you will find it is true."

Many Saints proceeded with the ordinance work without worrying whether or not their beliefs seemed strange. British convert Ellen Douglas informed her parents and sister, who were still in England, that "God has appointed means whereby those who have not the priveledge of obeying the Gospel not having heard it" could be vicariously baptized. It was her intention, she said, to enter the waters of baptism for her deceased brother-in-law in order to give him the opportunity to accept Mormonism in the spirit world. Ellen Douglas then urged her sister to prepare herself so that she might meet her spouse after death (Parker 1843).

In Nauvoo, baptisms for the dead were both practiced often and defended often in theory. In several instances, the Times and Seasons rallied to support the doctrine. On 1 May 1841 the newspaper reviewed Mormon salvation theology and observed that vicarious baptism was the approved manner by which the sting of death might be destroyed. "What about the dead?" the paper asked. "God has been pleased to answer our inquiry and disclose a truth, once well understood and practiced upon, that [a] believing kinsman may step forth in [a deceased person’s] behalf and be baptized for the remission of sins. The article cited the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:29) and argued that he well understood this principle.

In a Sunday sermon delivered in March 1842, Joseph Smith gave some "edifying remarks" on baptism for the dead. Perhaps responding to questions about the biblical significance of the practice, the Prophet contended that the New Testament supported the belief. Wilford Woodruff followed Joseph Smith, noting that the singular mention of baptism for the dead was unimportant since, "If there is one word of the Lord that supports the doctrine [then] it is enough to make it a true doctrine” (Kenney 1985, 2:165). Opponents had spoken out against the precept since shortly after its introduction, but their reaction did not concern the Nauvoo Saints. "We are not surprised that this doctrine should meet with the bitterest opposition in the sectarian world," the 1 May 1841 Times and Seasons essay declared. "The devil will no doubt oppose this doctrine with all his hosts [because] it enters his dark dominions, bursts the prison doors, proclaims liberty to the captive spirits, and sets them free.”

As late as 1843, Joseph Smith and Wilford Woodruff were still actively combating charges that vicarious baptism was of no bibHcal importance. According to Woodruff, the Prophet taught the Saints that the "doctrin of Baptism for the dead is clearly shown in the New Testament. And if the doctrin is not good then throw away the New Testament. But if it is the word of God then let the doctrin be acknowledged” (Kenney 1985, 2:240). An editorial in the 15 April 1842 Times and Seasons, probably written by Joseph Smith, sought to turn the tables on Mormonism's critics with a latter-day parable. “Two men who have been equally wicked [were] taken sick at the same time," the tale read. The first sinner was visited by a "praying man" (a priest or minister) who converted him just before death. The other wrongdoer's final visitors were a tailor, a cobbler, and a tinsmith. Hence, he died without religion. "Why," asked the narrator, "is the first saved but the second is damned?"

The Nauvoo Baptisms for the Dead records after 1841 appear less reliable since the records seem less complete, and, therefore, we must view with some reservations conclusions drawn for the ensuing years. Yet, this early Mormon dedication to the practice continued for the duration of the Saints' stay on the banks of the Mississippi River. There is no available data for 1842, but in 1843 at least 1,329 proxy baptisms were performed. The 1844 record shows a renewed effort to redeem the dead with 3,359 ordinances taking place. In June 1844 Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered at Carthage, Illinois, but their deaths had little discernable impact upon the practice—baptisms for the dead apparently were suspended for just two weeks. In 1845, for no clear reason, only twenty-four baptisms were registered. The record did record one particularly noteworthy event, however. For the first time a woman, Melissa Lott, was listed as a witness (Nauvoo Baptisms, Book C). We can only speculate about the reasons for this sparse number of baptisms. The anti-Mormon activities in Hancock County had increased by this time, the Church had not yet emerged with a clear successor to Joseph Smith, and the majority of Saints were preparing to evacuate Nauvoo. A large number of Saints were also working hard that year to complete the temple (Bennett 1987).

Charlotte Haven, a non-Mormon visitor to Nauvoo in the early 1840s, left her observations of the practice of baptism for the dead. One cold day in May 1843 she and a friend were walking along the river when they witnessed the ordinance.

We followed the bank toward town, and rounding a little point covered with willows and cottonwoods, we spied quite a crowd of people, and soon perceived there was a baptism. Two elders stood knee-deep in the icy water, and immersed one after another as fast as they could come down the bank. We soon observed that some of them went in and were plunged several times. We were told that they were baptized for the dead who had not had the opportunity of adopting the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints. So these poor mortals in ice-cold water were releasing their ancestors and relatives from purgatory!

Drawing a little nearer, these critical onlookers were surprised to hear the name of George Washington called. "So," Miss Haven sarcastically observed, "after these fifty years he is out of purgatory and on his way to the ‘celestial’ heaven!" (Haven 1890, 630).

Baptism for the dead emerged as a significant part of the religious life of mid-nineteenth century Latter-day Saints. While other Nauvoo, era doctrinal developments such as the endowment, the concepts of eternal progression and potential godhood for the most righteous, and plural marriage have held the historical and theological limelight in Mormon studies, baptism for the dead occupied a prominent place in the sacred activities of the community. When contrasted with seatings and the plurality of wives, baptism for the dead was Nauvoo's universal ordinance. Without a doubt, any devout Latter-day Saint who wished to be baptized on behalf of deceased relations and friends could do so. Gender discrimination was nonexistent from the beginning, as women and men shared equally in vicarious baptisms. And no "Quorum of the Anointed" dominated this rite as was the case with the introduction of other sacred rituals at Nauvoo (Allen 1987; Ehat 1982). To their own satisfaction, Nauvoo Saints had resolved the question, "What has become of our fathers?"

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Although Elder Durham identified his source as Joseph Smith's journal, I have been unable to locate it, and the occasion is not mentioned in the History of the Church or other published documents.

[2] For an example of a Nauvoo Temple receipt, see Frederick Kesler, Papers, Box 3, Folder 8, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

[post_title] => "What Has Become of Our Fathers?" Baptism for the Dead at Nauvoo [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 23.2 (Summer 1990): 85–97
Chronicling the history  of baptizing for the dead during the Nauvoo Period, this article introduces the practice from the first baptizers to how it was altered after Joseph Smith’s death. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => what-has-become-of-our-fathers-baptism-for-the-dead-at-nauvoo [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-09-09 00:55:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-09-09 00:55:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12245 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12244 [post_author] => 1876 [post_date] => 2018-04-14 03:01:06 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-14 03:01:06 [post_content] =>

The preceding articles by Roger Launius and Guy Bishop give us a clearer view of how and why two churches sharing a common beginning and espousing belief in virtually the same extra-biblical scripture can end up far apart 150 years later. Tracing these different trajectories of thought across time takes us from a beginning point of mutual belief in baptism for the dead to the Reorganization's complete rejection of it as. nonessential and even non-Christian or to the Latter-day Saints' enshrining of it as the third leg of their tripartite mission statement to proclaim the gospel, perfect the Saints, and redeem the dead. While both churches have retained allegiance to the early period, what each considers normative from that period is significantly different. In a very real way, though many who would later join the Reorganization lived in Nauvoo, they never held truck with the theological and liturgical developments of the 1840s. For them what was worth preserving in Mormonism was pre.-Nauvoo. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, look back to those years as the precise period when Mormonism really came into its own.

Roger Launius's essay whisks us along a fascinating tour of how for well over a hundred years the RLDS have attempted to come to grips with baptism for the dead. Launius provides more than just the history of a doctrine; he explores a larger struggle for identity, baptism for the dead merely being the case study. In the years following World War II, as the Reorganization moved increasingly toward ecumenical Christianity, it became obvious that something had to be done with Joseph Smith's theology, which was altogether too exclusivistic and, by mainstream Protestant standards, too speculative. Yet, RLDS leaders had no desire to throw the baby out with the bath water. Consequently, a certain amount of intellectual tension prevailed. The inevitable resolution was perhaps most creatively expressed by George Njeim with his "prophet-theologian" dichotomy: doctrine that strayed too far from the new theological path being pursued could be designated "mistaken speculation” without damaging respect for and faith in Joseph Smith's truly "prophetic" insights.

In the earliest years, though, Launius "could find no evidence . . . that anyone questioned [the] truthfulness" of baptism for the dead. Instead, Reorganized Church members simply acknowledged it as a rite requiring divine revelation to be reinstituted and debated when and under what circumstances such an event would take place. By the 1950s, however, the winds of thought were blowing in a different direction. No longer was it just a question of "when" but "whether" it would be restored. RLDS apostle Russell E Ralston challenged the very foundation upon which baptism for the dead was based—the essentiality of baptism itself. Like many Protestant theologians, he argued that to require the rite of all humans who have ever lived regardless of circumstance would be “unjust.” Besides, had not Christ promised salvation to the unbaptized thief on the cross? Moreover, Ralston was bothered by baptism for the dead's seeming dependence on human saviors rather than on a divine one. He even attempted to exorcise the doctrine from New Testament Christianity by arguing that the one explicit mention of the practice (1 Cor. 15:29), was actually describing pagan rather than Christian behavior.[1]

If to Mormons, such thinking seems a betrayal of some of Joseph Smith's most precious teachings, to the RLDS it represented a deliverance from ideas that had grown uncomfortable. As leading thinkers in the Reorganization increasingly fell under the influence of twentieth-century liberal Protestant ideals, a more fundamental reworking of the early period, something beyond simply denying polygamy and promoting lineal succession, was needed. Ecumenism and "incarnational theology" began to replace sectarianism and speculative theology. If there were no longer a "one and only true" church, if "the Apostasy" and "the Restoration" were not specific events that happened at a particular time in history but rather processes continually at work among God's children, then the crucial need for baptism for the living or dead was no longer apparent.

The matter came to a head at the 1970 RLDS World Conference. There, the body of the church rejected as revelations the three sections of the Doctrine and Covenants dealing with baptism for the dead (RLDS l07, 109, 110; LOS 124, 127, 128) and placed them in the back of the volume as part of a historical appendix. So important, actually and symbolically, was this conference that one wonders to what degree it should be considered the Vatican II of the Reorganization. Despite dissent from within some priesthood quorums and church jurisdictions, the trajectory toward ecumenical Christianity continued unabated. Today, on the eve of the construction of the RLDS temple in Independence, Launius points out that there are no plans for a baptismal font in the temple basement and that support for the vicarious ordinance has virtually disappeared. In short, he says, it has been relegated to "the nether world of church theological consideration."

A fascinating story indeed! And whether it be labeled the "Protestantization" or the "liberation" of the Reorganization, it certainly indicates a sea change of attitude during the twentieth century. But has it been universal? Launius acknowledges a few dissenting voices along the way, though he minimizes their number and influence. However, I would like to know more about the Vivien Sorensons of the Reorganization who still hold, with Joseph Smith III, that baptism for the dead will be restored. Are these dissenters basically traditionalists who represent a primitivist reaction to ecumenical trends? If so, in what other areas do they seek to retain the early heritage? Beyond that lies the broader question about the nature of heterodoxy in the Reorganization generally. Do various factions exist? What theological or ideological orientations do they espouse? How much opposition emanates from those uncomfortable with picking and choosing which portion of Joseph Smith Ill's (or his father's) teachings will be considered doctrine and which will be labeled speculation? What is the relative size and strength of opposition groups, and how does the RLDS Church handle dissent? Whatever further research may reveal, Launius has demonstrated skill both in relating his particular subject to broader developments within the Reorganization and in whetting our appetite for more of the same.

What strikes me as the major contribution of Guy Bishop's paper is his careful analysis of the Nauvoo Baptisms for the Dead Book A. From it we learn that in the early years nearly half of the baptisms for the dead were cross--gender, that more aunts and uncles were baptized than either parents or grandparents, and chat the ceremony was widely participated in by ordinary residents of Nauvoo. Bishop introduces us, for example, to the otherwise unknown Nehemiah Brush, who was vicariously baptized 111 times in 1841. Particularly revealing is the fact that in addition to relatives, enthusiastic Saints were also baptized for a number of "friends," among them certain of the Founding Fathers. It no doubt interests Latter-day Saints to learn that George Washington had already received several vicarious baptisms in Nauvoo before Wilford Woodruff was baptized for him again as part of the full ordinance work for the dead performed in the St. George Temple.

Bishop's survey of the early history of baptisms for the dead piques interest and invites further research at a number of points. For instance, he lists leading figures in Nauvoo who participated in the ordinance, including members of the Prophet's own family, and notes thereby that baptism for the dead was "an ordinance of the hierarchy as well." But what of Joseph Smith himself? Why is there no record of him being baptized for the dead, not even for Alvin? Was it because he preferred to let others have the experience? Or, why does there appear to have been such a dramatic drop-off in baptisms for the dead after 1841? No records exist for 1842, and baptisms for 1843 were down by two-thirds. Does this reflect simply a lapse in record-keeping, or was it because once the Nauvoo Temple font was finished in November 1841 performance of the ordinance was restricted to that site? And what is, the connection with the epistles of September 1842 (LDS D&C 127, 128; RLDS Appendices B, C)? How should their timing and content be accounted for?

Questions also surface with regard to the relationship between tithing and baptisms for the dead. Bishop states that "access to the font" required "approved compliance with church dictates." This is intriguing in light of the current LDS practice requiring individuals to have a worthiness certifying "recommend" in order to enter the House of the Lord. Then, as now, did one have to be a tithepayer, as Bishop suggests, in order to participate in the temple ordinances? Bishop cites as evidence a copy of a "temple receipt" signed by William Clayton and a statement by John Taylor that "a man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead." Since both date from the post-martyrdom period, we will need more evidence from the earlier years to establish this as a practice during the Prophet's lifetime. Moreover, the Taylor statement needs to be placed in perspective. An LDS Church leader today might remark that a man who does not do his home teaching is unfit to enter the temple. But that is quite different from having home teaching performance written into the official temple recommend questions.

Following the Prophet's death there was a great push to finish the temple, and tithing was stressed as the crucial way to accumulate the labor and resources necessary to complete the task. In that climate, one might expect some attempt to see that those who received from the temple gave to the temple. While an effort to link tithing to temple participation is certainly understandable, the comprehensiveness of its application remains to be demonstrated.

Another tantalizing tidbit is Bishop's remark that "during the first two years of its practice" there was a ''lack of institutional control'' over baptisms for the dead. What did this mean? What discussions did it prompt? Did Saints merely accept without question the theology of baptism for the dead and argue only over procedures, or did they wrestle with the concept as well? While the answer would provide a fascinating footnote to Mormon intellectual history, there is an even more fundamental lacuna in this story that needs to be addressed: doctrinal development between Joseph's 1836 vision of his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom and the 1840 announcement of baptism for the dead. The unexamined assumption is that the 1836 vision was "the genesis" of the practice of baptism for the dead. No doubt it played a role, but what about the Prophet's reflections on scriptural passages such as 1 Peter 3:19 or 4:6 and Isaiah 24:22? Were there "lingering questions in 1836 about how” the worthy dead would "receive" the gospel, as Bishop suggests? Or, did some people, like later RLDS from Russell Ralston on, perceive the vision as an answer in itself, merely proclaiming that all those who "would have received” the gospel had they had the chance in this life will automatically inherit the celestial kingdom?

A thorough exploration of these matters would also include such items as an editorial that appeared in the March 1837 Messenger and Advocate arguing that it would be unjust for God to condemn those who had not lived where and when they could hear the gospel. Admitting that God has "no other scheme of saving mankind but the gospel," the editor asked what was to be done. The answer lay in the text for the editorial—1 Peter 4:6, with its declaration that the gospel was "preached to them that are dead." Thus, "all who do not have, or have not had, the privilege of embracing or rejecting the gospel here in the flesh, have that privilege in God's own time before the judgment day." In this way "will the character of God be vindicated" (Smith and Rigdon 183 7, 470-71). How representative was this article of the soteriological thinking that was developing in the later 1830s?

Also relevant would be a history of Mormon beliefs about the post-mortal spirit world. In Wilford Woodruff's diary entry for 3 January 1837, the day he was ordained a seventy, he remembered Zebedee Coltrin saying "that I should visit COLUB & Preach to the spirits in Prision & that I should bring all of my friends or relatives forth from the Terrestrial Kingdom (who had died) by the Power of the gospel" (in Jessee 1972, 380). By modern Mormon standards, this is an odd conjuncture of concepts, yet, rudimentary notions of salvation for the dead are clearly evident. Where did these ideas come from and how were they sorted out in subsequent years? In short, we stand to benefit from a careful study of the period leading up to 1840.

Such a study should also be sensitive to the intellectual milieu in which these ideas were worked out. Universalists had long reacted against traditional notions of damnation by trumpeting God's salvific benevolence toward his children, and ideas about the spirit world had been given an elaborate boost in the eighteenth century by the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. Even more interesting is the fact that "Mother Ann's Work" began among the Shakers in 1837. Through spiritualist phenomena, Shakers were informed that bands of Indian spirits as well as spirits of people from all over the world who had died long ago were being converted to Shakerism. Artaxerxes was only one famous figure from the past whom they singled out as having embraced the Shaker gospel in the spiritual world (Reese 1987). Future research will no doubt ferret out many fascinating details of doctrinal development, but regardless of who now picks up the baton, Bishop and Launius have done a fine job of introducing us to the topic.

Taken together, these two articles provide an excellent example of how thought-provoking it can be to compare doctrinal developments within the RLDS and LOS churches. At the very least, they remind us that even Mormon scripture is not so perspicuous as to compel uniform interpretation. Let's hope to see more of this kind of work in the future.

---

[1] From any perspective, this is highly irregular exegesis. I have been unable to find a widely used commentary on Corinthians which denies that baptism for the dead, however understood, was a practice among at least some Christians in Corinth. In the new Harper’s Bible Commentary, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza notes chat "more than thirty interpretations have been proposed co explain chis practice, but none is satisfactory." At the very lease, it seems to be saying that Corinthian believers would "undergo baptism vicariously for their dead in the hope of saving them." Moreover, Paul "does not question the merits of it but refers to it to elucidate his point" (1988, 1187).

[post_title] => Baptism for the Dead: Comparing RLDS and LDS Perspectives [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 23.2 (Summer 1990): 99–105
Underwood discusses why two religions who share the same exact upbringing have different opinions about the temple rituals. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => baptism-for-the-dead-comparing-rlds-and-lds-perspectives [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-04 13:13:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-04 13:13:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12244 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12277 [post_author] => 2176 [post_date] => 2018-04-14 03:22:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-14 03:22:52 [post_content] =>

Few Brazilian members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will forget 1978, the year when two events significantly changed the Church in this South American country. The June announcement granting the priesthood to males of African descent eliminated a doctrine and policy that had touched most Brazilian members in a personal way, relieving them of a difficult historical burden and allowing the Church to move into a different and more comfortable future. That same year in November, the São Paulo, Brazil Temple, in construction since 1975, was dedicated, making temple ordinances available locally to South American members for the first time. The opening of the temple culminated years of growth and seemed to indicate that the Church in Brazil had reached a significant level of spiritual and institutional maturity. The year was filled with hard work, excitement, and joy.

To broaden our general understanding of the events surrounding the change in Church policy towards blacks, we must examine the international environment of the Church in 1978. That understanding requires an evaluation of the relationship between the Church in Brazil, the construction of the São Paulo Temple, and the priesthood revelation. In this article, I will explore the possibility that events in Brazil were part of a larger context that resulted in the historic June 1978 change. This examination will not attempt to establish relationships where none existed, nor will it try to secularize or diminish in any way the important spiritual experience the revelation was to all involved. It should, however, illuminate the role that Church members outside of the United States play in the evolution of Church policies, programs, and organization.

Both secular and sacred variables have been shown to influence Church policy and practices. The importance of each and their ultimate effect on ecclesiastical decisions are often difficult to determine. Nonbelievers generally rely on only secular, environmental factors to interpret an event, while the faithful often ignore influences not part of the religious experience and deemphasize nonspiritual factors. Believing historians are thus in a dilemma as they examine events such as the priesthood revelation. An individual receiving a revelation often does not recount the very personal details of the experience. If descriptions are given, they are generally brief and without a discussion of the process leading to the revelation. Historians, thus left to work with spotty details and little source material, out of necessity must focus on the secular elements that only partially explain the process. I write this article with those difficulties and limitations in mind.

What was occurring in Brazil in 1978 is, of course, only part of a much larger picture. I will not attempt to determine the influence or the role of the Brazilians in the overall revelation process but will only show that the events occurring in Brazil were unique in the Church and could have influenced the 1978 occurrences.

Blacks in Brazil

Few non-African countries have been more influenced by Africa than has Brazil. Slavery was legal until 1888, and between 1550 and 1850 over three million African slaves were brought to Brazil to provide a work force for the country's plantations and mines. The scarcity of European women during the colonial period encouraged miscegenation and resulted in a society with a small white minority and a majority that was black, mulatto, and mestizo. Important European and Asian migrations between 1884 and 1957 altered the racial picture in some areas of Brazil but did not diminish the importance of the black and mixed population (Smith 1963, 62-74).

The sheer size of the black population significantly affected Brazilians' attitudes towards race. Estimates suggest that over 40 percent of the population is either black or some combination of black, white, and/or Indian. The latest Brazilian census that included racial categories (1950) showed 26 percent of the population to be racially mixed. In actuality this figure is much higher since Brazilians classify many as whites who are actually mixed. Interracial marriage is an acceptable and common practice within most classes of Brazilian society. The large, mixed population has engendered a society which considers any form of racial segregation illegal; prejudice, though not eliminated, is less of a social factor than in most other countries of the world (Smith 1963, 68,73, 126; see also Bergmann 1978; Azevedo 1968).

The Church in Brazil

Mormon missionaries came to Brazil in 1928 and proselyted among recent European immigrants. Small German colonies in southern Brazil attracted Mormon missionaries from Argentina who believed they could teach Germans and avoid the surrounding Brazilian population. Once the Church was established in Brazil, however, missionaries did not leave, even though a 1938 governmental policy restricted their work with the German immigrants. Instead they focused on the Portuguese-speaking population, remaining in the south, the region with the largest number of European migrants and the least amount of miscegenation (see Grover 1985; Peterson 1961; Flake 1975).

Once missionaries began teaching Brazilians, two racial issues surfaced. First, it was impossible to avoid contact with persons of African descent in most parts of the country. The illegality of segregated housing meant that there were neither official nor unofficial residential areas for blacks as had occurred in South Africa or parts of the United States. Consequently missionaries could not work in any area without inadvertently contacting blacks or their descendants. This was generally not a problem with contacts who had obvious African physical traits, but many investigators who looked European had distant black ancestors.

Second, American missionaries ran into problems when their identification of blacks differed from that of Brazilian members. Faithful Church members respecting the policy on priesthood restrictions would interest family and friends in the Church only to discover that the missionaries believed the potential investigators had African ancestry. The Church established strict guidelines in an effort to limit, as much as possible, the inevitable conflict. By the 1960s an uneasy but workable system was in place. In general, priesthood leaders considered physical appearance first and then family and genealogical records. If these methods were not successful, spiritual means such as patriarchal blessings and the inspiration of Church leaders were used to make the final determination. Though not always appreciated by the members, this system was acceptable and insured that Church policy was followed (see Grover 1984; Amorim 1986).

Most Brazilian members, however, were uncomfortable with the Church's policy. Their association with an American-based Church that had a policy denying certain spiritual and institutional rights to blacks led friends and relatives to accuse them of racism, a label difficult for a Brazilian to live with. At the same time, they did not feel they had a right or even the possibility to question or work towards a change in the policy (Alcover 1982, 11). The priesthood restriction was a revelation from God and could only be changed when new revelation was received through the proper religious channels (Camargo 1976, 13). Brazil's traditional patrimonial political and social system conditioned Brazilians to accept decisions made by higher authorities, even when they did not agree, and to learn to live with the policy (Roett 1984).

The situation remained essentially unchanged until the Church announced in 1975 that they intended to build a temple in São Paulo. This landmark announcement helped create an environment in which change could be contemplated. To understand the relationship between the Church in Brazil, the São Paulo Temple, and the priesthood revelation, we must examine: (1) experiences of President Kimball and other General Authorities with blacks, (2) the potential expansion of missionary work into northeastern Brazil, and (3) events during the temple construction.

General Authorities in Brazil

Only one General Authority visited Brazil in an official capacity prior to the 1954 world tour visit of President David 0. McKay. President McKay's visit signaled an important shift in attitude among the General Authorities toward South America. The area was now seen as a region of potential growth and development. After 1954 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other General Authorities visited fairly regularly, especially following the 1966 organization of the first stake in São Paulo. Almost without exception, members of the Church's hierarchy were confronted with questions and problems of race when in Brazil. President McKay was asked by a young priesthood holder whether he should marry a young woman of African descent (Howells 1973, 79). During his tour of the Brazilian Mission in 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith was questioned regularly by missionaries and members about the priesthood restrictions. After meeting an active Brazilian family of African descent, Gordon B. Hinckley reportedly became concerned about the policy in general (Sá Maia 1982, 17).

Spencer W. Kimball, however, had the greatest number of such experiences. Beginning in 1959, he visited Brazil regularly as its ecclesiastical administrator and/or as a mission and stake conference visitor. He worked to get the São Paulo Stake ready for organization in 1966 and persuaded some hesitant colleagues in the Quorum of the Twelve of the need for its organization. He maintained an interest and concern for the Brazilian members of the Church while serving as president of both the Quorum of the Twelve and of the Church. He was by far the most well known and beloved Church administrator in Brazil.

His experiences with black members of the Church began with his first visit to Brazil in 1959. A young black member approached Elder Kimball asking whether there was any useful way for him to serve in the Church. Kimball wrote in his journal, “My heart wanted to burst for him. I think I helped him with tithing and drink and . . . I think he went away less perturbed, more sure of himself” (in Kimball and Kimball 1977, 317).

Elder Kimball's frequent visits to South America over the next twenty years and his close friendship with Brazilian members made him sensitive to the priesthood problem. He counseled mission presidents and stake leaders concerning the ramifications of the priesthood restrictions. During his visits he would meet with black members and discuss the need for continued faithfulness. His experiences in Brazil were a constant reminder not necessarily of the doctrinal aspects of priesthood denial, but of the administrative, personal, and often tragic ramifications of this policy.

One black Brazilian Church member from Rio de Janeiro, Helvécio Martins, had a particular impact on Elder Kimball. Helvécio and his family were baptized in the early 1970s and quickly became active in the local ward and stake. Unlike many blacks who had joined the Church in Brazil, the Martins family was neither poor nor uneducated. Helvécio had taken advanced studies in economics and worked as an upper management accounting administrator for Petrobras, a publicly owned oil company and the largest corporation in Brazil. He also taught economics at one of Brazil's major universities and maintained a high social status in the financial community. Martins was probably the most prominent Latter-day Saint in Brazil (Martins 1982).

The Martins family presented an interesting dilemma for Church leaders. They completely accepted the Church's doctrines, including the restrictions on their activities. They became a model Latter-day Saint family, attending most Church functions and doing all they were asked to do, seemingly without reservations. The Church, thus, was restricting participation not of a poor or uneducated black, but of a family whose education, prestige, administrative ability, and financial standing was higher than most other members of the Church in Brazil. The family had in turn reacted to the restrictions with a level of faith and devotion few members could claim. The Martins family soon became well known throughout the Church in Brazil for their dedication to the gospel (Alcover 1982; Vaz, Roselli, and Erbolato 1982).

The Martins also became prominent in the Church for other reasons. Helvécio was given responsibility for public relations of the Church in Rio de Janeiro and became the spokesman for the Church in the second largest population center of the country. Rio de Janeiro had important Brazilian television stations and newspapers, and consequently Helvécio Martins became the Church's most visible spokesperson. In this position, he gave interviews to the press explaining doctrine and activities, brought dignitaries to visit the Church, and worked to familiarize the country with Mormonism.

Church leaders in Brazil made sure that most American General Authorities traveling in the country met and talked with Martins. Helvécio visited several times with President Kimball, who took a special interest in the Martins family, making sure they had a positive understanding of the priesthood restrictions. The Martins became not only the Church's answer to outside critics but unknowingly the Brazilian advocate to Church leaders for the need of a racial policy change (Alcover 1982; Vaz, Roselli, and Erbolato 1982).

The Brazilian Northeast

The Brazilian northeast provided a second pressure point for the Church's racial policies. One of the most prominent doctrines emphasized during the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball was expanding missionary work throughout the world. The Church increased the number of missionaries and moved into new areas and countries. An obvious obstacle to worldwide expansion was the restrictions toward blacks. The Brazilian northeast historically provided one of the first examples of the difficulties the Church would encounter moving into predominately black areas and continually reminded Church authorities how difficult Church expansion would be without a change in the priesthood policy.

The demographic makeup of Brazil was an important variable in Church growth and expansion. Traditionally, Brazilian mission presidents had always been careful to send missionaries only into areas with large populations of recent European immigrants. With the formation of a second mission in 1959, however, an increased number of missionaries entered Brazil. William Grant Bangerter, president of the northern mission, sent missionaries into areas that had earlier been rejected primarily for racial reasons. Missionaries first went to the center-west cities of Brasflia and Goiania, and the next logical step was the large population centers of the northeast (Grover 1985, 255).

The demographic differences between the immigrant towns of the south and the traditional cities of the northeast are significant. During much of the colonial period through 1720, sugar plantations made the coastal region of the northeast the economically strongest area of the country. Most African slaves imported into the country went to this section. But as the economy of the northeast declined in the eighteenth century, coffee plantations in the south expanded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and as slavery was gradually eliminated, the bulk of immigrants, Europeans, settled in the south. Consequently, the population of the northeast more than any other area of the country exhibits the characteristics of miscegenation that occurred during the colonial period between the Portuguese, Indian, and black. According to the 1950 census, over 50 percent of the population of the state of Pemambuco was black or mixed, compared to 5 percent in the southern state of Santa Catarina (Smith 1963, 70).

These census figures indicating over 40 percent white in the northeast were based on the Brazilian perception of white, which was essentially physical appearance, not genealogical lineage. Consequently, the population classified as white in the census included a percentage with African lineage but not obvious African physical features. This was not a segment of the population Mormon missionaries would be able to work with. The missionaries became so sensitive that they began to consider anyone without obvious European physical characteristics to have the "lineage." This left only about 10 to 20 percent of the population in the northeast as potential investigators of Mormonism.[1]

Bangerter suggested the possibility of introducing missionaries into the northeast to Henry D. Moyle of the First Presidency when he visited Brazil in 1960. Bangerter informed Moyle that he had recently visited a number of the larger cities and felt that in at least three or four there was the potential for success. Moyle suggested that missionaries be sent into one city for a short time as an "isolated experiment, . . . to learn how well we could work in the northern areas where Negroes predominate and to be better acquainted with this -vast country" (Bangerter 1964).

A few months later, missionaries were sent to Recife1 Pemambuco, the largest city of the northeast. They experienced minimal success at first due to the large number of blacks, strong anti-American feelings in the area, and an almost complete lack of local knowledge about Mormonism. Missionary success improved when they taught and baptized the family of Milton Soares, Jr., a local businessman with a young family. His devotion to the Church was strong and contagious, and within a year the missionaries had baptized a small but committed group. Soares was set apart as branch president on 27 October 1961 by A. Theodore Tuttle, who remarked at the time: "There was a feeling of great strength and promise for stability in the future due to such a fine and capable group of leaders . . . . People really look fine although we well know there are some who have a mixture of blood" (Manuscript History 1961 ).

Encouraged mission presidents sent missionaries into other cities in the north. Branches were opened in Joao Pessoa in 1960, Maceió in 1966, and Fortaleza and Campina Grande in 1968. Though the degree of proselyting success varied, all these branches were continually plagued with the problems of racial mixture. Bangerter wrote in his diary 26 November 1958: "In some of the branches, particularly in the north where a man or woman of white blood received the gospel[,] it frequently happened that their companion and children were colored and to bring in the whole family gave membership to many who could not hold the priesthood."

Racial restrictions made branches in the northeast different from those in the south. The distances between rich and poor were much more pronounced than in the south, and social classes were loosely structured by color, with the darker population occupying the lower social strata. Racially mixed marriages were more common in the lower classes, and the missionaries found that the white Brazilians they had to work with were of a higher social class than those in the south. Though missionaries in the north had fewer baptisms, those converts they did baptize were generally of a higher economic and educational level than those found elsewhere in Brazil. With a higher percentage of professors, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals in the Church, finding capable lay leaders with administrative experience to fill branch and district positions was less of a problem.

Until 1978 established branches remained small but active, and missionary success remained essentially the same. Proselyting remained limited to the largest cities because of the high percentage of blacks in the area. It was obvious to both Brazilian and American Church leaders that until the priesthood restrictions were removed, Church growth in areas such as the northeast would not be possible (Amorim 1986 ).[2]

The São Paulo Temple

The pivotal event in the history of the Church in Brazil was the March 197 5 announcement of the forthcoming construction of the São Paulo Temple. Unlike Mormon chapels, entrance to the temple required that male members hold the priesthood and be judged worthy and that female members not have African ancestry. Construction of the temple brought to the forefront the issue of the priesthood restriction. Some observers have suggested that officials became concerned that the difficulty of racial identification to determine who could enter the temple would make it hard for the Church to keep members with. African ancestry out of the temple. Though this was a concern to a few, the major issue presented by the construction of the temple does not appear to have been administrative. The Church already had a method in place to determine priesthood eligibility that would only have had to have been extended to determine temple eligibility. The role of the São Paulo Temple in the Church's priesthood policy change probably had more to do with compassion than with administrative problems. President Spencer W. Kimball undoubtedly was most concerned with how to allow blacks into the temple, not how to keep them out.

Several incidents during the last phases of the temple construction indicate that President Kimball and other General Authorities were interested in the priesthood issue. Several black members helped with selected tasks in the temple construction, and the prophet was kept informed of their activities by Brazilian authorities. Elder James E. Faust, the General Authority supervisor for Brazil, stated in 1977 that black members helped "to make blocks for the temple just like anybody else. They have made their monetary contributions for the construction of the temple and they've made their sacrifices just the same as everybody else. And I've advised President Kimball and Brother McConkie of the faithfulness of these people" (1977, 26). Bruce R. McConkie had administrative responsibility for Brazil at this time.

Gordon B. Hinckley, in a talk at the dedication of the temple, indicated that he knew of the sacrifices and contributions of black members and was impressed that they were willing to work on the temple (Sá Maia 1982, 17). Other General Authorities were also aware. According to Elder LeGrand Richards, "All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. . . . With this situation that we feel down there in Brazil—Brother Kimball worried a lot about it—how the people are so faithful and devoted" (Richards 1978, 3-4).

Church authorities also noted the activities of Helvécio Martins and his family. Helvécio was asked to serve on the temple dedication public relations committee that coordinated information for media exposure. Consequently he was at the cornerstone-laying ceremony in March 1977, which was attended by several General Authorities, including President Kimball. Before the ceremony began, President Kimball noticed Martins in the audience and asked him to come to the podium. Martins sat with President Kimball briefly and received this counsel: "Brother, what is necessary for you is faithfulness. Remain faithful and you will enjoy all the blessings of the Church." Martins returned to his seat pondering the reason for the counsel and preoccupied with the experience (Martins 1982, 23 ).

That preoccupation increased significantly when a few months later Elder James E. Faust, in Rio for meetings, asked Martins to accompany him to the airport. Asking Martins if he remembered the words of President Kimball, Faust stated that all members of the Church should heed the counsel, but it was especially important for Martins to remain faithful and keep the commandments. Faust did not indicate any special reason for his advice, and Martins remained concerned over these unusual experiences (Martins 1982, 23).

Martins continued to work with the publicity committee, making several trips to São Paulo to attend meetings with members of the full committee. During one such visit, he and his wife walked on to the partially constructed main floor of the temple. He described what happened.

I went onto the Temple construction with my wife, walking among the construction metals and wood and stopped at a certain place. We felt an unusually strong spirit at that time. We held each other and cried for some time. We realized later we were standing at the exact spot of the Celestial Room of the Temple. We felt a strong undescribable feeling in that place. Impressive! Extraordinarily strong. It was one of the most spiritual experiences of our lives. (Martins 1982, 16)

They had no idea what the experience meant. Others observing the scene placed their own interpretation on what had happened and spread the word of the incident throughout the Church. This experience was recounted to Church leaders who took it back to Salt Lake City (Alcover 1982, 11; Puerta 1982, 16).

Martins was again surprised in March 1978 to learn of a change in the Home Teaching policy. His stake president received a call from William Grant Bangerter, the General Authority administrator for Brazil, advising him that worthy black males could now act in the formerly restricted priesthood positions of junior companion home teacher. Though this appeared to be a very simple change, it was significant to Martins. He noted:

Well, this worried us even more. I remember in our family home evening that night we decided something was about to happen. We didn't know what. We did not think it would be anything related to the priesthood. We had conditioned ourselves to believe the granting of the priesthood to Blacks would occur only in the millennium, but we felt something special was about to happen. We didn't know what it was but felt we should get ready. (1982, 24)

These incidents suggest that the General Authorities were actively concerned with the priesthood problem. Martins sensed that something major was about to occur. Just what was happening and who was involved is not yet completely clear. Notice this comment by Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "Obviously, the Brethren have had a great anxiety and concern about this problem for a long period of time, and President Spencer W. Kimball has been exercised and has sought the Lord in faith" (1981, 127). James E. Faust indicated that he knew that the issue of the priesthood was being discussed (] 984, 291 ). Finally, in a talk to missionaries in South Africa in October 197 8, President Kimball described the process he was going through:

I remember very vividly that day after day I walked to the temple and ascended to the fourth floor where we have our solemn assemblies and . . . our meetings of the Twelve and the First Presidency. After everybody had gone out of the temple, I knelt and prayed. I prayed with much fervency. I knew that something was before us that was extremely important to many of the children of God. I knew that we could receive the revelations of the Lord only by being worthy and ready for them and ready to accept them and put them into place. Day after day I went alone and with great solemnity and seriousness in the upper rooms of the temple, and there I offered my soul and offered my efforts to go forward with the program. (in E. Kimball 1982, 450-51)

The Priesthood Revelation

In June the priesthood revelation was announced. In Brazil, as in most of the Church at large, the announcement was met with a joyous shock. Many Brazilians had hoped something would happen to allow faithful black members to participate fully in the temple opening and dedication ceremonies, but few expected such a monumental change. When the revelation was made public, Bruce R. McConkie called William Grant Bangerter with the news. Bangerter stated, "I was overwhelmed with the implications of what actually happened. How could I imagine that this moment had really come?” (1981, 12). He immediately called a meeting of mission and stake presidents in the area and read the letter from the First Presidency. According to Jose Puerta, a local stake president who was present, "It was a very emotional day for all of us. Most cried on that occasion. One man I believed could not cry. . . . Even he had tears in his eyes when Elder Bangerter read President Kimball's announcement. It was very emotional" (1981, 72).

Word spread rapidly among Church members. The revelation had its official reading the following Sunday, and Bangerter described the reactions:

I was present on a few occasions where the announcement was made in priesthood meeting or in public meetings. People didn't respond as they would in the spirit of the Fourth of July or something like that, with excitement and tears, but their emotions were very deep. I think their response would be characterized by heaving great sighs of emotion and raising their eyes to heaven in the spirit of thanksgiving and prayer and tears flowing freely from their eyes and just quietly trying to absorb the meaning of all that had taken place. (1981, 12)

The relationship between the revelation and Brazil became clear when the São Paulo Temple was dedicated five months later. All worthy members of the Church, including blacks, were invited to attend the ceremonies, held in the Celestial Room with an overflow audience in the chapel of a nearby stake center. President Gordon B. Hinckley conducted one of the last of ten dedication ceremonies. During President Kimball's dedicatory prayer, President Hinckley thought of the revelation and noted that throughout the sessions blacks had been in attendance. As President Kimball finished the prayer, Elder Hinckley was in tears and noticed that a black family in attendance was also in tears. He then spoke to the congregation about his feelings and described an experience in Brazil when he had received an understanding of why the priesthood restrictions had occurred. He also described how the First Presidency had been aware of the significant contributions of time and money that black members had made toward the temple construction. He believed that their contributions to a building they would not be allowed to enter was the greatest test those members would ever have to endure.

During a subsequent dedicatory session, President Kimball continued on the same theme. He told how he had gone several times to a special room in the Salt Lake Temple, explaining in prayer to the Lord that this doctrine had been one he had defended and was willing to continue to defend. He stated that he understood it, had supported it, and that the leaders of the Church were willing to continue to support it if required to do so. He then asked if there was any way at this time that the destiny of this people in the Church could be changed. He explained that it was during these sessions that the revelation came to him (Sá Maia 1982, 16-17; see also Avant 1979; McConkie 1981, 126-37; Faust 1984; and Barton 1985, 176).

Conclusion

We will probably never know the actual role of the events I have described in the priesthood revelation. We can, however) suggest some possibilities.

First, since 1940 the Church in Brazil had presented to the General Authorities the internal, institutional, and personal results of the priesthood restrictions throughout the Church. In other areas of the world, such as the United States, the internal consequences tended to be over, shadowed by the external, outside pressures.

Second, President Kimball's several visits allowed him to feel very comfortable in Brazil and with Brazilians, in spite of a language barrier. He was therefore aware of what was happening there and generally sensitive and concerned about the effects of the priesthood restrictions on individual members, both black and white.

Third, Church leaders recognized chat the priesthood policy significantly restricted growth in Brazil, particularly in the northeast. This fact conflicted with the emphasis President Kimball was placing on missionary work.

Fourth, the São Paulo Temple presented the Church for the first time with the dilemma of restricting from entrance into a temple large numbers of members who were morally worthy. Many of those who would not be allowed to enter had offered labor and financial contributions to the temple construction.

Fifth, Helvécio Martins became a symbol of a faithful member with significant leadership potential who was unable to participate fully in the blessings of the Church.

In the eleven years since the revelation, much has happened in Brazil. Without the priesthood restrictions, the Church has expanded into all parts of the country. The growth has been the most notable in the northeast, where small branches became stakes within a couple of years. Five missions now administer the northern area where one existed in 1978. Congregations mirror the demographic makeup of their individual regions. Blacks serve in all executive positions in the Church—as bishops, stake presidents, and regional representatives. Black male and female missionaries are serving in Brazil and Portugal. Helvécio Martins and his wife are presiding over the Brazil Fortaleza Mission. The priesthood restrictions of ten years ago are a fading memory for members of the Church. Since more than half of the Brazilian members were baptized after 1978, many are not even aware that restrictions ever existed. For those who are, 1978 will be remembered as a year of important change.

---

[1] This figure was most commonly given during oral interviews conducted by the author in 1982 with members, missionaries, and mission presidents.

[2] The effect of the priesthood restrictions on growth becomes obvious when we examine the number of baptisms before and after 1978. In the area that became the Brazil North Mis.sion, seventy baptisms were recorded in June 1978. One year later, the mission organized in July 1978 baptized over 900 in the month of June. The Brazil North Mis.sion between 1979-82 was one of the highest baptizing missions in the Church. The area that included one mis.sion in 1978 now includes five (Klein 1982).

[post_title] => The Mormon Priesthood Revelation and the Sao Paulo, Brazil Temple [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 23.1 (Spring 1990): 39–55
Few Brazilian members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints will forget 1978, the year when two events significantly changed the Church in this South American country. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-mormon-priesthood-revelation-and-the-sao-paulo-brazil-temple [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-03-18 14:34:47 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-03-18 14:34:47 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12277 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10868 [post_author] => 2351 [post_date] => 2018-03-28 17:31:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-28 17:31:26 [post_content] =>

Introduction

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 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)

For faithful Latter-day Saints, the temple endowment ceremony is one of the most sacred and powerful ordinances received in mortality. One authoritative source called it the temporal stepping stone which all people must pass to achieve exaltation with God the Father and Jesus Christ (Gospel Essentials 1979, 247).

Since those who enter the temple agree, as part of the endowment experience, not to reveal certain key words or symbols that are part of the ceremony and since any discussion of the endowment takes place upon sacred ground, this essay will not discuss the theological significance, spiritual meanings, or symbolic dimensions of the endowment, important though they are in the Jives of Latter-day Saints.

Each Latter-day Saint who participates in the endowment has a uniquely personal experience which, because of the sacred nature of the temple, is seldom discussed or shared with another in any detail. Sometimes this experience is a positive, peaceful, and healing experience. Others, from time to time, may experience the temple less positively. Such personal responses lie outside the limitations of this paper, though I acknowledge that each person's response to discussions of the temple is likely to be intense as a result. The temple also has a collective impact on the faithful members of the Church, which again, is seldom shared or discussed although its power is acknowledged.

However, the temple has maintained its central role in the lives of Latter-day Saints by being able to create a point of intersection between human desires for righteousness and the divine willingness to be bound by covenant. This point has remained constant, even though emphases in the Church have changed over time, also bringing change to the endowment ceremony itself. In this essay, I wish to enhance our understanding of the importance of the temple in the collective lives of the Saints by providing a history of the endowment: its introduction by Joseph Smith, its origins, changes made since its inception in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the effect of modern technology on the ritual, and some possible directions for the future that seem to be indicated by current trends.

Some people may feel that any discussion whatsoever of the temple may be inappropriate. My understanding of the temple ceremony is that certain names, signs, tokens, and penalties are guarded by vows of secrecy. I respect these limitations both as a Latter-day Saint and as a historian. However, it is not my understanding that these prohibitions extend to other areas of the temple ceremony, even though such reticence has become the custom among Latter-day Saints in general. I do not wish to offend any who may have a more restricted view than I about what is appropriate to discuss in relationship to the temple and its ceremonies and have worked toward an effective balance of scholarly objectivity, reverence for this sacred institution, regard for the scruples of others, and adequate documentation and development of the points to be discussed.

In 1912, one year after the First Presidency assigned James E. Talmage to write a book on temples, the Church published The House of the Lord (Bergera, 1979, 60–61). In his chapter on temple ordinances, Talmage sum­marized the endowment's content as follows:

The Temple Endowment, as administered in modern temples, comprises instruction relating to the significance and sequence of past dispensations, and the importance of the present as the greatest and grandest era in human history. This course of instruction includes a recital of the most prominent events of the creative period, the condition of our first parents in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience and consequent expulsion from that blissful abode, their condition in the lone and dreary world when doomed to live by labor and sweat, the plan of redemption by which the great transgression may be atoned, the period of the great apostasy, the restoration of the Gospel with all its ancient powers and privileges, the absolute and indispensable condition of personal purity and devotion to the right in present life, and a strict compliance with Gospel requirements.

Following this general overview, Talmage stated more specifically:

The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions (1912, 99–100).

I. The Formative Period: Kirtland, 1835–36

As early as October 1835, Joseph Smith told his apostles of an awaited "endowment" which would grant them "power from on high” (HC 2: 287; Jessee 1984, 61). It has become customary for manuals, teachers, and speakers to equate this "endowment" with the temple endowment itself as we currently practice it; however, it seems apparent from contemporary Kirtland sources that the members then considered this endowment to have come by the spiritual blessings of God manifested through visions, prophesying, speaking in tongues, and feeling the Holy Ghost during the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. All of these spiritual gifts were conferred following the special temple ordinances associated with the dedication: washing, anointing, blessings, partaking of the sacrament, "sealing" (a group ceremony involving the Hosanna Shout), washing of the feet, etc., but not an endowment as we would currently define the term (HC 2: 380–83, 386-88, 392, 427–28, 430–33).[1]

This Kirtland pre-endowment ritual was a simple, staged ceremony clearly patterned after similar washings and anointings described in the Old and especially the New Testament (Lev. 8; Mark 6:13; Luke 4:18, 7:38, 44; John 13: 1-16; 1 Tim. 5: 10; James 5: 14). According to the History of the Church’s official account, the first part of this ritual was given on 21 January 1836 when the First Presidency "retired to the attic story of the printing office, where we attended the ordinance of washing our bodies in pure water. We also perfumed our bodies and our heads, in the name of the Lord." After blessing and consecrating oil for this ceremony, the presidency laid their hands on each other's heads, progressing from oldest to youngest, blessing and anointing each other to their offices. Following several days of performing anointings to other priesthood bearers, Joseph Smith, on 6 February 1836, assembled these people together to "receive the seal of all their blessings." This sealing was performed as a group ceremony by Sidney Rigdon, after which the participants "were to shout with one accord a solemn hosanna to God and the Lamb, with an Amen, Amen and Amen" (2:379-82, 391-92; Jessee 1984, 145, 156).

A month and a half later at the temple dedication, Joseph gave instructions on the ordinance of washing of feet; two days later the presidency "proceeded to cleanse our faces and our feet, and then proceeded to wash one another's feet." Following this, all attendees "partook of the bread and wine.'' Finally, these recipients also received the ordinance of washing of feet (HC 2: 410-28, 429-30; Jessee 1984, 145, 182). After administering these rites to about 300 male Church members, Joseph Smith declared that he "had now completed the organization of the Church, and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies" (HC 2:430–33; Jessee 1984, 183–84).

II. Influence and Origins of the Nauvoo Experiment

Five years later in Nauvoo, on 19 January 1841, a new revelation (D&C 124:37–41) commanded the Saints to build "my most holy house . . . for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion" wherein may be performed “your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies" (D&C 124:39). Thus, the Saints who had been previously anointed in Kirtland learned that those rituals were a precursor to new ceremonies.

As in Kirtland, Joseph elected to administer the revised ritual to selected Church members prior to the completion of the temple. The first administration of the endowment as we know it came on 4 and 5 May 1842 in the upper story of Joseph Smith's store in Nauvoo. Nine men—James Adams, Heber C. Kimball, William Law, William Marks, George Miller, Willard Richards, Hyrum Smith, Newel K. Whitney, and Brigham Young—were included in this ceremony, which was soon known for the first time as the endowment.[2] The endowed group was sometimes referred to as the "Holy Order," the "Quorum," the "Holy Order of the Holy Priesthood," or the "Quorum of the Anointed" (Quinn 1978, 85).

The Nauvoo endowment ritual was a significant expansion from the simple washings and anointings received in Kirtland and included new theological instruction and ritual. According to the History of the Church, Joseph "instruct[ ed] 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 Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days. . . . In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days" (5:1–2). Joseph and Hyrum Smith received their endowment the next day (HC 5:2–3).

Where did these ceremonies originate? The language of the account in the History of the Church clearly implies a divine origin with its references to "the principles and order of the Priesthood, . . . and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, . . . [ and] the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days" (5:1–2). Saints who believed that the Aaronic Priesthood had been restored by John the Baptist and the Melchizedek Priesthood by Peter, James, and John readily believed that ancient knowledge, like ancient authority, had been lost from the earth and was being restored through their prophet. Contemporary Saints accept equally readily that the ceremony was restored by revelation to Joseph Smith (McGavin 1956, 41; Widtsoe 1960, 110–13).

But nowhere did Joseph leave a direct statement of how the endowment ceremony came to be. The History of the Church account of that first Nauvoo endowment quotes him as saying, "All these things referred to in this [Endowment] council are always governed by the principle of revelation" (5: 2). This "quotation" actually was an anachronistic reconstruction[3] by Willard Richards composed between 14-18 April 1845, reportedly based on a very brief, incomplete entry from the Book of the Law of the Lord;[4] there is a gap in Joseph Smith's diary between October 1839 and December 1842. On so important and central an ordinance, it is striking that there is no revelatory document extant nor any known contemporary references to a revelation by either Joseph or his associates.

With respect to the issue of direct revelation, most of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants came about as a result of particular needs of the Church or individuals. Important doctrines (for example, the Word of Wisdom and the United Order) developed when outside forces and movements focused Joseph's attention upon a problem in a particular way. Thus, it seems reasonable to inquire about such influences on the temple ceremony as well.

Our inquiry begins with the framework of the temple ceremony which, as Talmage indicates, retells the plan of salvation—the creation, fall, and atonement. As a culmination of Joseph Smith's developing theology that human beings were not only the offspring of God but potential gods themselves, the temple provided a synthesis of Mormon beliefs in the origin and purpose of human beings and a sacred ritual that reunited them for a brief time with God as a life of righteousness and ordinances performed through proper authority would unite them forever in the afterlife. This instructional material is drawn quite directly from sacred scripture introduced by Joseph in his revision of the Bible, pertinent sections of which are now published in the book of Moses and the book of Abraham.

Latter-day Saints who are familiar with the holy books of other religions and with religions in the ancient Middle Eastern and classical worlds have pointed out many motifs that seem to find echoes in the temple ceremony. For example, apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic literature (books written between the closing of the Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament but usually attributed to such important prophets of the past as Moses, Noah, and Enoch) commonly dealt with the existence of multiple gods, the creation of order out of chaos, the premortal existence of conscious beings, the creation of the earth, the creation of Adam and Eve, light versus darkness (as a symbol of the necessity of exercising free will to choose between opposites), opposites (free will, choices), Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven, the fall of Adam and Eve, the influence of good and evil angels in the world, the Savior's mission and atonement, his mission to the spirit prison, the resurrection, the millennial kingdom, the crucial role of prophets and patriarchs, and secret covenants and "mysteries'' by which earnest seekers could reach the highest heaven.

Another example is the history of the mystery cults in the ancient world, particularly Nag Hammadi, Qumran, and Greece which again ring with such familiar motifs as preparatory purification through ritual bathing, special instruction in secret knowledge given only to initiates, use of sacred symbolic objects related to this secret knowledge, narration or dramatic enactment of a sacred story, and crowning initiates as full members of the secret brotherhood with a promise of immortality hereafter.

A number of Latter-day Saints have pointed out the similarities between these ancient rites and Mormon rituals and doctrines, usually suggesting that such ancient ceremonies are vestiges, reshaped and distorted by time and cultural change, of an original ceremony first explained to Adam and Eve (Brown and Griggs 1974, 68-73 and 1975, 6-11; Matthews 1974, 50-51; Nibley 1965, 1968-70, 1973, 1975, 1975-77, and 1979).

Although this long list of resemblances is most provocative, the details of the actual rites in which the themes are embedded are unsettling to those who wish to ascribe meanings significant to Mormons. For the most part, they are based on cosmological beliefs which had no anticipation of a Christian eschatology, much less a resurrection of the dead as now believed in by Latter-day Saints. As such, these beliefs clearly seem to be at odds with the theological understandings of the temple.[5] Even though we are accustomed to think of pagan "corruptions" of the truth, it would probably not be fruitful to try and reconstruct an ancient temple ceremony from these themes. Furthermore, at this date, it does not appear that Joseph had any working knowledge of mystery cultures and apocalypticmystery cults from which to have drawn temple ideas. In short, ancient sources probably could not be considered a direct influence on Joseph except as they were revealed to him from a time predating corruptions or except as they appear in the ancient scriptures that he brought forth. The influence of the creation accounts in the books of Moses and Abraham on the temple narrative are clear; but the only other scriptural reference directly linking ancient writings with the Mormon temple ceremony is found in Explanatory Note 8 to Facsimile 2 in the book of Abraham.

This facsimile shows a hypocephalus, an object placed by ancient Egyptians under the head of the deceased, the meaning of which is closely linked with Chapter 162 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead where instructions for its construction and use are given. Joseph Smith's explanation for this portion of Facsimile 2 was: "Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God." This illustration was engraved by Reuben Hedlock under Joseph Smith's direction for inclusion with the book of Abraham,s publication in February-March 1842. (This period just preceded Joseph's initiation into Freemasonry and the subsequent introduction of the Nauvoo endowment ceremony.) A literal translation of this section of the hypocephalus is: "O God of the Sleeping Ones from the time of the Creation. 0 Mighty God, Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Netherworld and his Great Waters, grant that the soul of the Osiris Sheshonk, may live" (Rhodes 1977, 265). It is difficult to see how this literal translation relates to the ceremony introduced by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.

Although there is much to be said about ancient parallels, it seems more reasonable to explore a source much closer to Joseph Smith: Freemasonry.

The complex interplay of Masonic tradition on Mormon temple rites probably had its roots during the mid-1820s, given that Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum had joined the fraternity between 1825 and 1827.[6] By this time, Masonry's appeal, especially to young men in the northeastern United States, was at an all time high (Lipson 1977, 4, 143-44). One reason for this acceptance stemmed from Masonry's role as a surrogate religion for many initiates; teaching morality (separate from an institutional church) was its most important ideal, a tack which set well with those disenchanted with traditional churches. Furthermore, in the context of the influence of the Enlightenment during this period and the limited access of most to the truly educated, Masons' purported link between science and their mysteries made the secret ceremonies "powerfully attractive" (Lipson 1977, 117-21, 248-49). The lodge provided benefits of fraternal conviviality, Masonic charity, and associations with groups of people holding similar values when traveling. For many, Freemasonry also provided a form of recreation for its members (Lipson 1977, 9, 75; McWilliams 1973).

Freemasonry, which claims to have been created at the time of the construction of Solomon's temple by its master mason, Hiram Abiff, actually seems to have been a development of the craft guilds during the construction of the great European cathedrals during the tenth to seventeenth centuries. After the Middle Ages, lodges in Scotland and Great Britain began to accept honorary members and worked out rudimentary ceremonies, established mainly to distinguish members of trade organizations. In 1717, four fraternal lodges, perhaps actual masons' lodges, united as the Grand Lodge of England, considered to be the commencement of organized Freemasonry (also known as "speculative Masonry"). The order spread quickly to other countries and included such adherents as Mozart, Voltaire, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. Some historians believe that a group of Masons staged the Boston Tea Party.

Some Latter-day Saints may feel that Masonry constitutes a biblical-times source of uncorrupted knowledge from which the temple ceremony could be drawn. Historians of Freemasonry, however, generally agree that the trigradal system of entered apprentice, fellow craft, and master Mason, as practiced in Nauvoo, cannot reliably be traced further back than the eighteenth century. According to Douglas Knoop and G. P. Jones, two twentieth-century historians,[7] it is "highly probable" that the system of Masonry practiced at the organization of the Grand Lodge in London "did not consist of three distinct degrees" and warn, "It would probably not be safe to fix a date earlier than 1723 or 1725 for the origin" of the trigradal system. "Accepted Masonry underwent gradual changes throughout a period of years stretching from well before 1717 to well after that date. . . . The earliest speculative phase of Freemasonry may be regarded as beginning about 1730. . . . Though some symbolism had doubtless crept into Masonry by that date, it would not appear to have reached its full development for another forty or fifty years" (1949, 274, 275, 321, 322).

After 1832, the Masons concentrated on social and fraternal activities and, by reaching beyond the limitations of any religious, political, or economic creed, have grown to more than 3.25 million in the United States alone by the early 1980s.

The fundamental ceremonies of modern York Rite and Scottish Rite Masonry occur on these three distinct levels: (1) entered apprentice, (2) fellow craft, and (3) master Mason. Each level contains instruction in morals and Masonic symbolism, coupled with secret signs, passwords, handshakes, and "penalties" for revealing them to a non-Mason. Advanced degrees exist for both orders; nevertheless, the three initial degrees constitute the principal ceremonies experienced by active Masons.

The exact involvement of Hyrum Smith on these levels is not known. Presumably, it was a positive experience for him and he related it as such to his brother. Any early enthusiasm, however, may have been temporarily checked by widespread anti-Mason feelings which pervaded upstate New York during the late 1820s. This wave of public sentiment was precipitated by the announced publication of William Morgan's expose on Masonic ceremonies and by his related mysterious disappearance and presumed murder in September 1826. A public outcry against Masons as a group who put themselves above the law followed. For a few years, American Masonic lodges were, for all practical purposes, inactive. Many lodges closed; Masons' renouncements of affiliation were widespread. A number of newspapers dedicated to exposing Masonry were established in New York and other states. The anti-Masonic movement led to the creation of an independent political party where its energies were ultimately diffused; it was disbanded in 183 2 (McCarthy 1902; Vaughn 1983).

Some scholars (Brodie 1973, 65-66; Goodwin 1925, 9 and 1927, 3-29; O'Dea 1957, 23, 35; Ostler 1987, 73-76; Prince 1917) feel that such anti­Masonry may be seen in the Book of Mormon and interpret some passages (e.g. Alma 37: 21-32; Hel. 6: 21-22; Eth. 8: 18-26) as apparently anti­Masonic. These passages condemn secret combinations, secret signs, and secret words in a manner which may be interpreted as reminiscent of anti-Masonic rhetoric prevalent during this period.

A few references from contemporary newspapers seem to confirm this idea. On 15 March 1831, the Geauga Gazette of Painesville, Ohio, stated that "the Mormon Bible is Anti-masonick," and that "every one of its followers . . . are anti-masons.” Moreover, it quoted Martin Harris as saying the Book of Mormon was an "Anti-masonick Bible." A similar story appeared in The Ohio Star in Ravenna, Ohio, on 24 March 1831. Another Painesville paper, The Telegraph, ran an article on 22 March 1831 which challenged the 15 March story that the Book of Mormon was printed by a "Masonic press'' in Palmyra, New York, and claimed that there is "a very striking resemblance between masonry and mormonism. Both systems pretend to have a very ancient origin, and to possess some wonderful secrets which the world cannot have without submitting to the prescribed ceremonies" (see also 24 March 1831). Interestingly, Mormon converts in northeastern Ohio were, for a time, identified by the press as possessing the same type of fanaticism shown by that region's anti-Masons (The Wayne Sentinel [Palmyra, N.Y.], 23 August 1831; The Churchman [N.Y.], 4 February 1832).[8] Notably, the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed (Howe 1834, 81, 89) also referred to ancient Nephites "as being Anti-masons." Despite the Book of Mormon passages and the cited press coverage, however, no further evidence exists to convincingly prove that most early converts paid serious attention to anti-Masonry (Bushman 1984, 131; Underwood 1985, 81-82).

Furthermore, and perhaps more decisively, Freemasonry had little or no discernible influence on the rites practiced in the Kirtland Temple, 1835-36. Reed C. Durham, Jr. has noted, however, that some Masonic influence can be seen in the Kirtland Temple's architectural patterns (1974). One History of the Church quote records Joseph Smith condemning, in 1835, the "abominations" of some Protestants, praying "that it [i.e., his "well fitted” comments] may be like a nail in a sure place, driven by the master of assemblies" (2:347; Jessee 1984, 120). Joseph's obvious familiarity with and positive use of Masonic imagery indicated by this statement is almost paradoxical in light of his anti­secret society rhetoric during the Missouri period (HC 3: 178-82, 303). Aside from this 1835 quotation, I am not familiar with any other documents which provide dear insights into Joseph Smith's thoughts on Masonry before Nauvoo.

A full examination of the complex history of the Church's transition to Nauvoo and its subsequent embrace of Freemasonry is beyond the scope of this essay. While Joseph Smith's involvement with Masonry is well documented, the events leading him to consider joining the fraternity and endorsing its practice in Nauvoo are not. His ever-present fear of enemies may have led him to believe that affiliation with an oath-bound fraternity dedicated to the teaching of morality would give some form of protection to Church members. Perhaps he saw an additional level of protection from internal enemies resulting from the secrecy demanded of all initiates, especially if the secrecy of the Masonic oaths reinforced the secrecy of the endowment oaths in the minds of those familiar with both.[9] It is also possible that amid the translation and publication activities of the book of Abraham in spring 1842, Joseph's preoccupation with ancient mysteries may have triggered an interest in tapping Masonic mysteries.

Furthermore, the influence of personal friends cannot be ignored. In 1838, for example, Joseph Smith stayed briefly in Far West, Missouri, with George and Lucinda Harris (HC 3: 9), eventually becoming close friends with Lucinda (Newell and Avery 1984, 70). Lucinda had first been married to William Morgan in New York when he allegedly was abducted for threatening to publish Masonic secrets. She reportedly became one of Joseph Smith's first plural wives (Brodie 1973, 459-60). Other prominent Mormons—all of whom were Freemasons prior to joining the Church—included Deputy Grand Master of Illinois James Adams, Heber C. Kimball[10] (S. B. Kimball 1981, 12), Newel K. Whitney, George Miller, John C. Bennett, John Smith, and Brigham Young (Godfrey 1971, 81-82; Arrington 1985, 99; Tyler 1947, 8).

Of these associates, perhaps the most influential in accelerating Joseph Smith's interest and acceptance of Freemasonry was John C. Bennett (Flanders 1965, 247). Bennett has typically been characterized by Mormon apologists as an opportunistic scoundrel whose brief (eighteen-month) sojourn with the Saints at Nauvoo was, at best, unfortunate and embarrassing. Actually, however, Bennett was a powerful confidante to Joseph Smith and a key figure in Nauvoo. His accomplishments included: "Assistant President" of the Church, first mayor of Nauvoo, major general in Nauvoo Legion, and secretary of Nauvoo Masonic Lodge; he was also instrumental in gaining Illinois legislature's approval of the Nauvoo Charter, Nauvoo Legion, and the University of Nauvoo (Van Wagoner and Walker 1982, 10-14). Although his own status as a Mason in good standing prior to Nauvoo has been called into question (Hogan 1983), Bennett may have been the person who initially advised Joseph Smith to adopt Freemasonry as a means to end persecutions against the Church ("Joseph Smith and the Presidency” The Saints’ Herald 68 [19 July 1921]: 675). Ebenezer Robinson, who was editor of the Church's paper, Times and Seasons, until February 1842, reminisced: "Heretofore the church had strenuously opposed secret societies such as Freemasons . . . not considering the 'Order of Enoch' and 'Danites' of that class; but after Dr. Bennett came into the Church a great change of sentiment seemed to take place” (The Return 2 [June 1890]: 287, cited in Flanders 1965, 249).

Joseph Smith's official experience in Freemasonry began five months before the first Nauvoo endowment when he petitioned for membership in the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge on 30 December 1841. The favorable results of the lodge's investigation of his petition were reported on 3 February 1842 (Hogan 1971, 8, 10). Joseph was formally initiated as an entered apprentice Mason on 15 March 1842 and received the fellow craft and master degrees the next day. Since the customary waiting period before receiving a new degree is thirty days, Joseph's elevation to the "sublime degree" (master Mason) performed without any prior participation in Freemasonry was highly unusual.[11] During the organization of the Female Relief Society one day later in the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge room, his founding address was filled with Masonic allusions: "Let this Presidency serve as a constitution” (RS, 17 March 184; italics added); Joseph “proposed that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate. . . . that the society should grow up by degrees . . . . he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day” (30 March 1842; italics added.)[12] Kent L. Walgren concluded from reading other early Female Relief Society minutes that Joseph's aim in establishing the Society was to "institutionalize secrecy” (1982, 131). He cites an entry from the minutes where Emma Smith, probably during the organizational period, read an epistle signed by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and four others stating that "there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skill'd in Masonry to keep a secret. . . . Let this Epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and we shall learn whether you are good Masons" (recorded after minutes for 28 Sept. 1842, in Walgren 1982, 132, and n49).

Over the next several weeks, Joseph participated in other lodge meetings, witnessing the entered apprentice degree five times, the fellow craft degree three times, and the master Mason degree five times—all prior to his own introduction of the endowment (Hogan 1971, 12-18). An important sermon on 1 May 1842 contained many references carrying Masonic overtones:

The keys are certain signs and words . . . which cannot be revealed . . . til the Temple is completed—The rich can only get them in the Temple . . . . There are signs in heaven, earth, and hell, the Elders must know them all to be endowed with power . . . . The devil knows many signs but does not know the sign of the Son of Man, or Jesus. No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something, and this can only be in the Holy of Holies (Ehat and Cook 1980, 119; D&C 129:4–9).[13]

Forty-nine days after his Masonic initiation, on 4 and 5 May as described, Joseph introduced the endowment ceremony to his trusted circle of friends in the upper story of his red brick store (HC 4: 550--53, 5 70, 589, 594, 608; 5:1-2, 446; and 6: 287).

The clearest evidence of Masonic influence on the Mormon temple ceremony would be a passage-by-passage comparison of the texts. However, both ceremonies are open only to members in good standing who have made personal covenants not to divulge the proceedings. Thus, published accounts of either ceremony come from disaffected members. Although such disaffection does not necessarily make the accounts unreliable, quoting sources which reveal exact ceremonial language presents an ethical dilemma to those who have themselves promised not to reveal that wording. What use could or should be made of documents from individuals who have chosen to ignore those covenants? For those who have personal reasons to share those scruples related to promises of secrecy, public comparisons and contrasts become problematic. Let me simply summarize what such a comparison might suggest and indicate additional sources of investigation for the interested reader.

Three elements of the Nauvoo temple endowment and its contemporary Masonic ritual resemble each other to a very marked degree and are sometimes identical. These are the tokens, signs, and penalties. Although there seem to be sufficient reasons for not quoting the parallel portions of the two ceremonies here, the two accounts which may be most useful for the purposes of comparison are those of Catherine Lewis and William Morgan. William Morgan's account is the 1827 book of the York Rite's Masonic ritual (the same rite introduced in Nauvoo—see esp. pp. 23-24, 53-54, 76-77, 84-85) which led to his disappearance and presumed murder. Catherine Lewis joined the Church in 1841 in Boston. After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, she moved to Nauvoo and was among those who received their endowment in the new temple. Lewis received the ordinance at the urging of Heber C. Kimball and one of his wives. Apparently repulsed by his subsequent proposal of plural marriage, she left Nauvoo and published a book in 1848 which includes a description of the Nauvoo temple ceremony (Lewis 1848, 9-10; see also, Warsaw Signal, 15 April 1846, p. 2; Van Dusen 184 7, 6, 9).

Other similarities with Masonic rites may include the prayer circle which required Masonic initiates to assemble around an altar, place their left arms over the person next to them, join hands, repeat the words of the Most Excellent Master, and give all the signs from initial ceremonial degrees (Bernard 1829, 116-17; Richardson 1860, 61, 66). Michael Quinn has pointed out that nineteenth-century American Protestant revivals also had prayer circles in which, "when the invitation was given, there was a general rush, the large 'prayer ring' was filled, and for at least two hours prayer ardent went up to God" (Rev. James Erwin, Reminiscences of Early Circuit Life [1884], p. 68, in Quinn 1978, 81-82). Two additional Masonic elements that may have temple echoes are that the initiates received a "new name" and donned a white apron as part of the rite. The original apron used in the Mormon endowment had a white background with green fig leaves sewn to it; this apron now is constructed of green fabric. Also, an explanatory lecture always follows the conferral of each Masonic degree ceremony, a practice not unlike the temple endowment's lecture at the veil.

This pattern of resemblances provides strong indications that Joseph Smith drew on the Masonic rites in shaping the temple endowment, and specifically borrowed the tokens, signs, and penalties. The creation and fall narrative, the content of the major covenants, and the washing and anointings have no parallel in Masonry. Thus, the temple ceremony cannot be explained as wholesale borrowing from Masonry; neither can it be explained as completely unrelated to Masonry.

An interesting question is the response of Joseph's associates to the temple ceremony, since many were also familiar with Masonry. How did they understand the resemblances? Although many modern Latter-day Saints are completely unfamiliar with Masonry, this was not the case in Nauvoo. As noted earlier, a significant number of Joseph's closest associates were long-time Masons, deeply involved with the establishment of the Nauvoo Lodge, and active workers in instituting its York Rites during the spring of 184 2. One of the few contemporary commentaries comes from Heber C. Kimball who wrote in June 1842: "Thare is a similarity of preast Hood in Masonry. Br. Joseph Ses Masonry was taken from preasthood but has become degenerated. But menny things are perfect" (H. C. Kimball to Pratt 1842; S. B. Kimball 1975, 456-59). Later, as recorded in the Manuscript History of Brigham Young, Kimball said, "We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing" (13 Nov. 1858, 1085). Joseph Smith's close friend, Joseph Fielding, wrote in his journal in 1844: "Many have joined the Masonic Institution this seems to have been a Stepping Stone or Preparation for something else, the true Origin of Masonry" (in Ehat 1979, 145). Later, according to one of his wives, Brigham Young "delight[ ed] to speak of it [the endowment] as 'Celestial Masonry' " (Young 1876, 371).

These quotations suggest that Joseph Smith's contemporaries saw the temple ceremony as a purer form of ancient Israel's Masonic rites—something formerly lost but restored to its original pristine condition. Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (CR April 1913, 126; Salt Lake Tribune, 29 Dec. 1919 in Goodwin 1938, 49-50) and E. Cecil McGavin (1956, 192) were among many Mormons who believed that Masonry’s trigradal degree system of apprentice, fellow craft, and master Mason dates back to Solomon's Temple or even to the time of Adam. Nevertheless, as we have already seen, research by twentieth­century historians of Freemasonry locates the origins of trigradal Masonry much closer in time. In short, Masonry does not seem able to supply an ancient source for the· endowment.

To summarize the Mormon participation in Freemasonry during the Nauvoo period, it is useful to note that in 1840, only 147 men in Illinois and 2,072 in the United States were Masons (Godfrey 1971, 83). By the time of the exodus to Utah, approximately 1,366 Mormon males in Nauvoo had been initiated into the Masonic order (Durham 1974). While it is uncertain exactly why Freemasonry was initially embraced, its activities undoubtedly provided fraternal benefits experienced by Masons in other parts of the country. Its ceremonies clearly provided part of the specific wording for the Nauvoo temple endowment, although most nineteenth-century Masonic rituals have no resemblance to those temple ceremonies. And it is significant that, following the conferral of endowment rites on most Nauvoo adults in the temple and their subsequent relocation to Utah, Masonry never regained the prominence among Mormons it once received in Nauvoo.

III. Expansion in the Nauvoo Period

Two additional ceremonies were introduced about a year following the initial conferral of the endowment and later became associated with the sequence of temple ceremonies: celestial marriage for time and eternity, and the second anointing. "Celestial marriage" was applied to and equated with plural marriage in nineteenth-century Utah.[14] However, since Joseph Smith apparently never taught plural marriage in the Quorum of the Anointed (where endowments were given during his life), it seems safe to assume that no plural wives were sealed in the endowment group before his death (Ehat 1982, 59-62). The practice of performing celestial marriages in the temple began in the Nauvoo Temple. Marriages for time and eternity, or "temple marriages," continue this day to be performed following the endowment of the individuals involved.

The second anointing was a special ceremony consisting of two parts. First, an officiator anointed the heads of a husband and wife with oil, then conferred upon them the "fulness of the priesthood.” The couple thereby received the confirmation of a promise given earlier in the endowment (and indirectly in the celestial marriage ceremony) of being anointed to become a priest and king to God, or a priestess and queen to the husband. The second part was a private ceremony between the couple in which the wife washed the feet of the husband so that she would have claim upon him in the resurrection of the dead (Buerger 1983, 26-27).

Although the History of the Church is rather general in referring to the “ancient order of things” which Joseph Smith established) it apparently included a complex of ritualistic signs, tokens, and penalties, since Brigham Young, in reminiscence, identified them as part of that initial ceremony. According to the diary account of L. John Nuttall, Brigham Young's secretary, Young recalled the specifics of receiving his endowment from Joseph:

Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation & said when we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room or office were (sic] we were washed and anointed had our garments plac.ed upon us and received our New Name. and after he had performed these ceremonies. he gave the Key Words signs, togkens [sic] and penalties. then after we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo. Joseph 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 and after we had got through. Bro Joseph turned to me (Prest B. Young) and said Bro Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I . . . wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs. tokens penalties and Key words I did so and each time I got something more so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo I understood and Knew how to place them there. we had our ceremonies pretty correct (7 Feb. 1877).

Young's last comment suggests that the Nauvoo Temple endowment's structure and order of material expanded into a more elaborate and detailed ceremony as it moved from the constricted quarters over Joseph Smith’s store to the larger stage of the temple. However, no text of the 1842 ritual is available. The first description in any detail of the ceremony as carried out in the Nauvoo Temple occurs in 1845 and seems to suggest that the dramatic elements of the ceremony were added at that time. On 10 December 1845 when endowments were first administered in the temple, Heber C. Kimball's diary (which served as an official record of temple proceedings) also includes the roles of four personages: Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and the Serpent (Satan). Two days later, the New Testament characters of Peter, James, and John were added and the narrative duties were assigned such that Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael created the world and planted the Garden of Eden. Eve was created and given to Adam. After the Fall, Peter, assisted by James and John, would conduct Adam and Eve to the veil where they would learn how to be readmitted into the Father's presence.

Kimball's diary reveals a wide difference in the amount of time a Nauvoo Temple endowment ceremony lasted. "Companies" or groups of participants typically averaged about a dozen members, with ceremonies lasting an hour to an hour and a half. Other recorded durations for such groups lasted up to four hours. One company of thirty-five had a ceremony of five hours and ten minutes. Kimball's diary does not comment on the reasons for this wide variation, but it is probably related to the size of the company, the experience of those officiating, the interjection of explanatory lectures, and the use of a single veil station.

As we reconstruct these 1845-46 sessions, it appears that initiates normally participated in a washing and anointing ceremony, had a brief recess, then participated in the main endowment. Sessions began with the ringing of a bell. A "lecture at the veil" was sometimes given (usually by Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball) at the end of the endowment; but on at least two occasions, the lecture seems to have been postponed and delivered a few days later (Kimball, Journal, 7, 10-14 Dec. 1845, 7 Jan. 1846).

The earliest complete published account[15] of the Nauvoo Temple endowment ceremony indicates that initiatory washings may have followed a literal Old Testament model of actual bathing, for large tubs of water are specified in the separate men's and women's rooms. The anointing was performed by liberally pouring consecrated oil from a horn over the head and allowing it to run over the whole body. During this ritual, one participant said he was ordained to be a "King in time and eternity, and my wife to be Queen" (Van Dusen 184 7, 4); Catherine Lewis (1848, 8) also noted that she was ordained "to be a Queen."[16]

Originally, everyone participating in the endowment took the roles of Adam and Eve collectivdy (Van Dusen 1847)'. Using temple workers to represent Adam, Eve, and the Christian minister began in the 1850s in Endowment House administrations in Utah. But in Nauvoo, several actors depicted ministers from different Christian churches. The first published indication of the ministers occurs in 185 7 (Cook, 3 7-4 2). The first published account of a single minister appears in 1905 (''Mormon'' 1905).

Early endowment administrations were primarily restricted to a man and his wife or wives (Ehat 1982, 97-98). A few men were endowed without their spouse's participation. Initially all participants were admitted through the veil by the same officiator. The first published account of married men conducting their wives through the veil occurs in 185 7 (Hyde, 99).

According to accounts published by disaffected Latter-day Saints between 1846 and 1851, these Nauvoo years also saw literal representations of several parts of the ceremony that were later omitted. All participants ate raisins (depicting eating the "forbidden fruit" that precipitated the "fall” in the Garden of Eden) and crouched behind living shrubbery (to hide from the Father and Son as they revisited the garden). An actor wielding a sword depicted guarding the Tree of Life. After they expelled Satan, the temple worker portraying Satan would crawl out of the room on his belly. All participants donned crowns after passing through the veil to symbolize their entrance into the celestial kingdom (War saw Signal 18 Feb. 1846 and 15 April 1846; Van Dusen 1847; Lewis 1848; Thomas 1849; White 1851). None of these accounts contain the detail of Utah publications. These later books describe a veil worn by women (Cook 185 7, 3 8; Green 1858, 47) used to cover their faces while taking ceremonial oaths (Stenhouse 1890, 365; Young 1876, 368).

Almost 100 persons are known to have received the endowment prior to the Nauvoo Temple's dedication, approximately half of whom also received the second anointing (Ehat 1982, 97-98). Available records indicate that about 5,200 members received the endowment in the Nauvoo Temple, of whom approximately 600 persons had received the second anointing (Buerger 1983, 25 n48; Book of Anointings). Most of those receiving pre-Nauvoo Temple endowments and second anointings received these ordinances again after the temple was dedicated and opened for operation (Ehat 1982, 97-98). These figures alone indicate the importance of the temple to the Saints before the exodus west.

IV. Nineteenth-Century Utah Period: 1847–99

Following the exodus of Mormons from Nauvoo in 1846, endowment administrations entered a period of dormancy. Aside from a few prayer circles held on the open prairie during the trek west (Watson 1971, 556; Clayton 1921, 202-3; Quinn 1978, 79-105) and one known incident of an endowment administration performed on Ensign Peak in the Salt Lake Valley (CHC 3:386-87), Mormons apparently did very little temple work immediately following their resettlement.

On 7 July 1852, the endowment ordinances were recommenced in the Old Council House, the first permanent public building erected in Salt Lake City, which also housed the territorial legislature and the territorial public library. On 5 May 1855, a new building called the Endowment House was constructed in the northwest corner of Temple Square and dedicated to the sole use of administering endowments. A total of 54, 1 70 endowments and 694 second anointings for the living were conducted there until 16 October 1884, when Church leaders, probably deciding to refocus attention and funds upon completion of the Salt Lake Temple where endowments would be more appropriately performed, ordered it razed. No endowments or second anointings for the dead were performed in the Endowment House (Jaussi and Chaston 1968 366-67, cited in Tingen 1974, 14-15, 19-21; Cowan 1971, 29; Buerger 1983, 28–29).

Another interesting reference from the early Utah period is that Brigham Young, perhaps in an effort to renew interest in temple work, on 26 November 1857, approved a motion to publish "the Endowments or an outline of it telling the time when the Twelve Received their 2d Anointing" (Woodruff 5:124). This document apparently never appeared in print.

The Church teaches that endowments for the living and by proxy for the dead are a theological prerequisite for entering the highest degree of celestial kingdom. According to Brigham Young, the endowment consisted of "receiv[ing] all those ordinances . . . which are necessary . . . 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" (JD 2:31-32; see also 2:315; 5:[ 33; 6:63, 154-55; 8:339; 9:25-26, 91; 10:172; 11:27; 18:132; 19:250).

The concept of endowments for the dead was first introduced by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo (William Clayton Report, 8 April 1844, and Thomas Bullock Report, 8 April 1844, cited in Ehat and Cook 1980, 362-65; Woodruff 2:388-89). It received increased public discussion in Utah by Brigham Young (JD 16:185-89). According to St. George Temple president David H. Cannon, the first recorded endowments for the dead in the history of the Church were performed 11 January 1877, eleven days after that temple's dedication (Cannon to George F. Richards, 18 July 1922, in CRF). Young taught that it was necessary to restrict the conferral of these ceremonies to Utah temples, believing that to do otherwise would "destroy the object of the gathering” (Woodruff 6:307-8).[17] At that time, the only LDS temples were in Utah. The Nauvoo Temple had burned and Young had announced in 1858 that the Kirtland Temple had been "disowned by the Father and the Son" (JD 2:32).

Apparently, no written version of the ceremony had ever been made. Following the dedication of the lower portion of the St. George Temple on 1 January 1877, Brigham Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End" (Woodruff 7:322), assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted to Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today” (7:322-23, 325-27, 337, 340-41; entries Jan.–March 1877).

The St. George Temple endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" which summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and also contained references to the Adam-God doctrine. For example, Brigham Young taught in this lecture that Adam "had begotten all the spirit[s] that was to come to this earth, and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world . . . . [They] consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in."[18] This teaching may have been included in the veil lecture as late as the turn of the century. It is uncertain whether the St. George Temple veil ceremony}s Adam-God teaching was included in all temples.[19]

This probably was not the first time Adam-God had been mentioned in the endowment ceremony. Although official temple scripts do not exist prior to 1877, several unfriendly published accounts of the Endowment House ceremony contain cast listings and dialogues of different characters during the creation scene for Elohim, Jehovah, Jesus, and Michael (Hyde 1857, 92-93; Remy and Brenchley 1861, 2:67-68; Waite 1866, 246-49, 252; Beadle 1870, 486, 489-91; Young 1876, 35 7). Their recounting of the concomitant presence of Jehovah and Jesus provides further evidence of the use of the Adam-God doctrine in the temple ceremony (Kirkland 1984). Given that the origin of the Adam-God doctrine can most reliably be traced to Brigham Young in Utah, it seems highly unlikely that similar ideas were advanced in the Nauvoo Temple (Buerger 1982, 25-28).

Although this material was clearly an innovation, official documentation on the development of the endowment during the Utah period is sparse. John Hyde (a disaffected Mormon) wrote in 185 7 that "the whole affair is being constantly amended and corrected, and [Heber C.] Kimball often says, 'We will get it perfect by-and-bye'" (185 7, 100). One of the few known discussions on restructuring the endowment ceremony in the late 1800s came during a meeting of the reconvened School of the Prophets on 2 August 1883 in Salt Lake City. Church president John Taylor expressed serious misgivings about giving newly initiated people an endowment consisting of both the lower (Aaronic Priesthood) and higher (Melchizedek Priesthood) ceremonies, feeling that members should first receive the Aaronic portion of the endowment and prove their faithfulness prior to receiving the Melchizedek portion. Concurring associates included Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Franklin D. Richards (School 1883, 11-26; Weibye 9 July 1877, p. 60; David H. Cannon to George F. Richards, 18 July 1922, in CRF). Despite such high-level consensus, this position, previously advocated in public by Brigham Young on 11 June 1864 (JD 10:309), and later by George Q. Cannon on 14 January 1894 (in Newquist 1:227-28) was apparently never implemented.

In sum, the endowment ceremony seems to have undergone only minimal structural change from its Nauvoo introduction through the end of the nine­teenth century (B. Smith 1903). However, an important change in emphasis occurred, resulting from a revelation announced by Wilford Woodruff in the April 1894 general conference (Deseret Weekly 48 [1894]:541-44). Woodruff's action stopped the practice of sealing people to General Authorities and other Church members outside their family lineage and instead directed that they be sealed to their own parents. This change successfully accommodated a growing discomfort among Latter-day Saints with the former practice; consequently, the number of living and dead sealings to parents surged in the following year (Irving 1974, 313). In November 1894, the Church established the Genealogical Society of Utah and ultimately awakened a heightened interest in systematic work for dead lineal ancestors.

Shortly after the Salt Lake Temple's dedication, on 17 October 1893, President Woodruff met with the Council of the Twelve and the Church's four temple presidents, spending "three hours in harmanizing the Different M[odes?] of Ceremonies in giving Endowments" (Woodruff 9:267). This effort may have been a precursor of an extensive review which began a decade later.

A numerical recapitulation of endowments performed during this period shows a total of 38,317 for the Iiving, and 486,198 for the dead in the St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake temples between 1877 and 1898. Moreover, 5,213 second anointings for the living, and 3,411 for the dead were performed during the same period (Table 1). [Editor’s Note: For Table 1, see PDF below].

V. The Transitional Period: 1900–30

One of the most painful but also most consequential events in modern LDS Church history for the endowment was a series of hearings by a United States Senate subcommittee, 1904-06, to determine whether elected Utah senator and apostle Reed Smoot should be allowed to serve. Among many issues the committee heard testimony on were the "secret oaths" of the temple ·endowment ceremony. The subcommittee's concern was whether the Mormon covenant of obedience would conflict with a senator's oath of loyalty to the Constitution. In the course of the Smoot hearings, the "oath of vengeance" also attracted the subcommittee's sustained interest.

One witness, disaffected Mormon and recently resigned Brigham Young Academy professor Walter M. Wolfe, testified that this oath was worded: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray, and never cease to pray, Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generations" (Smoot 4:6-7; see also 1:741–43, 791-92; 2:77-79, 148-49, 151-53, 160-62, 181-83, 189-90, 759, 762- 764, 779; 4:68-69, and 495-97).[20]

On 14 December 1904, the Washington Times and the New York Herald featured front-page photographs of a man in purported endowment clothing, depicting signs and penalties. Testimony during this hearing as well as other previously published unfriendly discussions of this oath indicate that, commencing by 1845 in the Nauvoo Temple ceremony as administered by Brigham Young, the oath of vengeance was routinely given to all initiates.[21]

Most Latter-day Saints today undoubtedly would be uncomfortable taking an oath of vengeance. Obviously, so was the general public's response to such testimony. In the context of early LDS Church history, however, it is not difficult to see how and why such an oath developed. Following the bitter persecutions sanctioned by the governor of Missouri, the newly resettled saints in Nauvoo were deeply suspicious of more attempts to limit their freedom. Mistrust of government officials was heightened when Joseph Smith failed to obtain redress for the Missouri losses from U.S. president Martin Van Buren in February 1840 (HC 4:80). Immediately following Joseph's and Hyrum Smith's murders in June 1844, hostile feelings by Mormons toward their persecutors was at a fever pitch. Encouraged, perhaps, by scriptural passages such as Revelation 6:9-11, many Latter-day Saints hoped for revenge of the deaths of their charismatic and beloved leaders. Allen Stout, a former Danite, recorded in his diary after he watched their bodies being returned to Nauvoo: "I stood there and then resolved in my mind that I would never let an opportunity slip unimproved of avenging their blood. . . . I knew not how to contain myself, and when I see one of the men who persuaded them to give up to be tried, I feel like cutting their throats yet” (28 June 1844, cited in Newell and Avery 1984, 196).

Such feelings were institutionalized in the Nauvoo Temple rites. On 21 December 1845, Heber C. Kimball recorded in his diary of "seven to twelve persons who have met together every day to pray ever since Joseph's death . . . and I have covenanted, and never will rest . . . until those men who killed Joseph & Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth." During an 1889 meeting of the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon reminisced about his experience there:

He [Cannon] 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. The Prophet charged Stephen Markham to avenge his blood should he be slain: after the Prophet's death Bro. Markham attempted to tell this to an assembly of the Saints, but Willard Richards pulled him down from the stand, as he feared the effect on the enraged people (A. Cannon 1889, 205).

Negative publicity from these hearings probably led to a deemphasis of this oath in the endowment. For example, while many early published accounts of the endowment (see n21) echo George Q. Cannon)s statement that those endowed were personally charged with avenging Joseph and Hyrum Smith's deaths, in a 1912 meeting in the St. George Temple, David H. Cannon described the "law of retribution'' as follows:

To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations and in that language we importune our Fa,tl1er, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus (St. George Temple Minutes K9369R, 22 Feb. 1912, p. 110 in CRF).

This change in emphasis on the law of retribution evolved further as part of many procedural revisions made to the endowment ritual and temple clothing spearheaded by an apostolic committee organized in 1919, at the beginning of Heber J. Grant's administration, under the direction of Grant's counselor and Salt Lake Temple president, Anthon H. Lund (Alexander 1986, 300). Following Lund's death in 1921, leadership of this committee went to the new Salt Lake Temple president George F. Richards. From 1921 through 1927, Richards chaired the group which included David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L Richards, John A. Widtsoe, and later James E. Talmage. Under Richards's direction, the committee codified and simplified the temple ceremonies originally drafted in St. George in 1877, committing to paper for the first time those ceremonies informally known as the "unwritten portion'': i.e., "the covenants and the instructions given in forming the '[prayer] circle and [the lecture] at the veil" (G. F. Richards Journal, 12 July 1924; see also entries for 7, 8, 12 April, 10, 27, 28 Dec. 1921; 3, 7 June, 30, 31 Aug. 1922; 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 April 1923; 9, 16 Dec. 1926; 25, 27 Jan. 1927).

A major reason for this effort was to ensure that the ceremony was presented the same way in all temples. Because part of the ceremony had remained unwritten, the manner in which it was given tended to vary somewhat. The St. George ceremony was taken as a model since it was the oldest ceremony; there Brigham Young had committed most of the ritual to writing, trying to make the ceremony conform to the content introduced by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. Since 1893, St. George Temple president David H. Cannon had maintained a certain degree of autonomy as the president of the oldest temple. In 1911, for example, he had stated: "We are not controlled by the Salt Lake Temple . . . . This temple has the original of these endowments which was given by President Brigham Young and we have not nor will we change anything thereof unless dictated by the President of the Church" (St. George Temple Minute Book K9369R, 14 Dec. 1911, p. 93, in CRF).

In 1924, Cannon apparently had refused to accept changes endorsed by the special committee and the First Presidency. In a meeting on 19 June 1924 in the St. George temple, Cannon recounted how George F. Richards had "criticized [him] very severely for not adhering to the unwritten part of the ceremonies as he had been instructed to do." He told the assembly of local Church leaders that Richards had instructed him to either burn the old rulings and instructions or send them to Salt Lake—"If we want any information, not contained in the 'President's Book' we will refer to the authorities of the Church for that information, but not refer to any of the old rulings." St. George Stake president Edward H. Snow (who became the temple president in 1926) then mentioned one of the recent changes, "in no longer praying that the blood of the prophets and righteous men, might be atoned for, because this prayer has been answered and [is] no longer necessary.'' As if to pass approval on this change, Cannon recalled comments by Anthony W. Ivins given at a conference in Enterprise, stating that Ivins "took exception to the way the Law of Retribution was worded, and said he [Ivins J thought the language was harsh and that the authorities [had] thought of changing that" (St. George Temple Minutes, 19 June 1924, in CRF). Perhaps in response to occasional continued references to this oath, a final letter in 1927 from Apostle Richards to all temple presidents directed that they "omit from the prayer circles all reference to avenging the blood of the Prophets. Omit from the ordinance and lecture all reference to retribution" (Richards to Pres. 1927).

In addition to eliminating the oath of vengeance during this period, other changes included:

• Accommodating more patrons by streamlining the ceremony. The length of the temple endowment ceremony was reduced (high-end estimates range from six to nine hours in total length; Alexander 1986, 300) to roughly three hours (including initiatory ordinances).
• A number of the endowment's graphic penalties, all of which closely followed Masonic penalties' wording, were moderated. For example, the penalties for revealing endowments included details of how they would be carried out (the tongue to be "torn out by its roots," etc.). Today's endowment only alludes to those earlier descriptions as various methods of taking life (Stead 1911, 113, 116-17; Martin 1920, 256, 259-60; Paden 1931, 18, 20; Smoot hearings testimony cited above; Tanner 1972', 468, 470-71;[22] Lambert 1950).
• After learning that garments and temple clothing were not originally designed solely by Joseph Smith, the committee dramatically altered the style of the temple garment. According to two accounts, the original temple garment was made of unbleached muslin with markings bound in turkey red, fashioned by Nauvoo seamstress Elizabeth Warren Allred under Joseph Smith's direction. Joseph's reported intention was to have a one-piece garment covering the arms, legs and torso, having "as few seams as possible" (Munson n.d.; see also H. Kimball Diary, 21 Dec. 1845; Reid 1973, 169). Ceremonial markings on the garment were originally snipped into the cloth in the temple during an initiate's first visit. The committee made these changes: sleeves were raised from the wrist to the elbow, legs raised from the ankle to just below the knee, buttons used instead of strings, the collar eliminated, and the crotch closed (Salt Lake Tribune 4 June 1923; Grant, Penrose, and Ivins 1923; Alexander 1986, 301).
  The introduction of this new-style garment caused considerable unrest among some members (Lyon 1975, 249-50). Nevertheless, the pre-1923 style garment was required in the temple ceremony until 1975 when its use became optional (Kimball, Tanner and Romney, 1975). Occasionally minor design changes have been implemented such as lowering the neckline and shortening the legs and sleeves. The most dramatic recent change was the two-piece garment in 1979. Garments are manufactured by the Church's Beehive Clothing Mills, which reportedly consults East Coast fashion designers for pattern considerations (Reid 1973, Priddis 1981). While members are not now penrutted to make their own garment':., they may make their own temple clothing provided it follows the approved design, although this is not openly encouraged. Upon approval of the stake or mission president, a handbook may be lent to worthy members who must make the clothing under the supervision or direction of the stake Relief Society president or mission president (Temple Clothing 1972, 1). One additional recent policy change allows guests at temple wedding ceremonies to attend in street clothes, provided they have donned white slippers.
• For the first time, adherence to the Word of Wisdom became an official requirement for admission to the temple. Apparently this had been encouraged prior to 1921, but exceptions had been made (Alexander 1981, 82).
• In 1920, the first night sessions started, beginning with one evening session per week and later expanded to three evening sessions per week (Alexander 1986, 299).
• Another element of literalism disappeared in 1927 when kissing over the altar during vicarious sealings for the dead was abolished (Richards to Pres. 1927).

One practice during the Depression years was to pay people to perform endowments for the dead. Usually these temple workers were members of the Church with few funds, frequently elderly. Members who did not have time to perform ordinances for deceased ancestors customarily paid 75 cents for men and 50 cents for women per ordinance. Typically money was left on deposit with clerks at the temple, who would disburse it as each vicarious endowment was performed. It is not clear when this practice ended, but it was probably difficult for temples to administer the collection and distribution of cash (Richards, Jr., 1973, 58; Myers 1976, 21-22; Smith, Lund, and Penrose 1915).

Probably the greatest twentieth-century catalyst to increase the number of vicarious endowments was Heber J. Grant's emphasis on temple work (CR April 19 2 8, 8-9). Endowments performed per member during Grant's administration increased substantially. From 1898 to 1912, vicarious endowments averaged .11 endowments per member per year. From 1912 to 1930, the average increased to .38. The decade of 1930-40 saw the annual average again jump to .62. Perhaps partially resulting from the combination of World War II and Grant's lessening influence, due to his advanced age and death in 1945, this average dropped to .34 by 1945 and remained there through the end of 1950. Second anointings decreased dramatically during President Grant's administration, becoming practically nonexistent by 1930.

VI. Modern Technology and the Endowment Ceremony: 1931–87

Since its introduction, the endowment ceremony's presentation has been within a dramatic setting. The earliest known comment by the First Presidency regarding the use of motion pictures in the endowment ceremony came in 192 7, when they affirmed that they had no intention then of using them (Grant, Ivins, and Nibley 192 7). The next known discussion of this policy came in late 1953, when David O. McKay, then president of the Church, asked Gordon B. Hinckley to chair a committee to create a meaningful endowment presentation for the new one-room Swiss Temple.[23] Other committee members included Richard L. Evans, Edward O. Anderson, and Joseph Fielding Smith (David O. McKay Diary, 29 Oct. 1953, in Gibbons 1986, 329). The outgrowth was a 16mm film directed by Harold I. Hansen in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple, shot over a period of one year. Due to inclement Utah weather, outside photography was done in Southern states, while scenes of lava flowing accompanying the creation portion were approximately 350 feet of film from Fantasia, used by permission of Walt Disney Studios (Evans Collection).

Different sets of temple workers—primarily composed of returned missionaries, native converts, and local nationals—were used for versions in English, German, French, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish. A year later, additional casts produced Samoan, Tahitian, Tongan, and Maori versions for use in the New Zealand Temple. According to one source, this film was not a professional staging: there was no real acting, no scenery, and no attempt at sophistication. The temple workers simply enacted a live endowment. This extremely conservative use of the technology was clearly not an effort to produce an art form but a means of efficiently allowing endowment ceremony sessions to take place in a single room in the new temples, rather than moving from one room to another (Palmer 1979; Wise 1980-81, 53).

The wide-screen concept introduced in early-1960s American movies influenced Church architect Harold Burton in designing the Oakland Temple's two endowment rooms. He planned huge projection areas that required the use of 35mm film, although curtains reduced the total screen size. After the temple was dedicated in 1964, 4" X 5" slide projectors were used to produce photo murals depicting room changes found in live endowment presentations.

The second film of the endowment ceremony was produced in 1966.[24] Due to space limitations in the Salt Lake Temple, the First Presidency authorized this version (known as Project #100) to be filmed in the BYU motion pictures studio (Evans Collection). A new studio stage constructed for this purpose was formally opened 24 April 1966 with a prayer by Gordon B. Hinckley. This film was used for several years in Oakland; 16mm reduction prints were prepared for English-speaking patrons in foreign temples.

In a successful effort to condense the presentation to about ninety minutes, a third motion picture was filmed at the BYU studio during October and November 1969. Like the second film, this professional effort (known as Project #134) was directed by Wetzel 0. Whitaker. The cast included both professional and amateur actors,[25] as well as elaborate scenery. Most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on the West Coast. Actors and production staff had to have temple recommends and received prior worthiness clearance through their bishops before being asked to participate. The film was shot in one studio, usually between 10 p.m. and midnight to ensure privacy. Participants memorized their lines in a room just off set and used prompt cards. They could not take the script home for study (Palmer 1979). This film was completed by November 1971 when the Provo and Ogden temples opened. Due to its shorter playing time, it replaced the second film originally used in the Oakland Temple.

Primarily because of President Harold B. Lee’s discomfort with the long hair and beards of a few of Project # 134's participants (Wise 1980-81, 5 7 and Wise 1983, 16) a fourth endowment movie (Project # 198) was produced at BYU during the early to middle 1970s. Again directed by Wetzel O. Whitaker, this film used largely new personnel.[26] A major goal for this production was to create foreign sound tracks that did not look obviously dubbed. Since some languages such as Finnish and Japanese require substantially more time than the English equivalents, this aspect was extremely challenging. Moreover, theological concerns required that translations be literal, not merely approximate. This synchronization was partially accomplished through techniques such as speeded-up soundtrack playback and step-printing every third frame twice to expand film length. Production crews recorded the audio sequences using European nationals in the London Temple in June 1972 and using Pacific nationals in a secured sound room at the BYD-Hawaii campus in June 1973.

In early 1976, the Church's Temple Committee transferred all endowment film and sound operations from BYU to new facilities in the Salt Lake Temple basement. While film continues to be processed in a California lab, all sound tracks are now produced in this basement facility. Sound-track duplication facilities also exist in some other temples.

Probably because of recommendations made by Harold B. Lee, a member of the First Presidency after 1970, and a committee which included Apostle Howard W. Hunter (President of the Genealogical Society) working from 1968 to May 1972 to investigate endowment procedures in the temple, several phrases used in ceremony film scripts were subsequently dubbed out[27] in the mid-1970s (Christiansen 1975-76, 68; Fudge 1976, 71; Harold B. Lee, Diary, 31 Jan. 1971 and 6 Feb. 1971, in Goates 1985, 427-28; Palmer 1979). According to one participant in the third filmed version (Palmer 1979), the person portraying Satan was originally to have been dark; but, due to protests by several LDS Polynesians, a Caucasian filled the role. Although this film was intended to be an interim production, both the third and fourth films are still in use today. One person recalls that former Provo Temple president Harold G. Clark said the third film was not phased out because too many people preferred it over the fourth film (Palmer 1979). Film two was subsequently cut down to the same length as that of films three and four for possible reintroduction, mainly to provide more diversity for frequent temple-goers (Wise 1983).

Perhaps one of the most significant effects of modern technology on temple work has stemmed from the Church's widespread use of electronic data processing. In 1961, a growing shortage of names provided by members for vicarious ordinance work forced Church officials to decide between either closing temples, decreasing the number of sessions, or taking institutional responsibility for providing names. President David O. McKay opted to have the Genealogical Society take responsibility. Since the start of its name-extraction program, the society has provided about 75 percent of all names for vicarious temple ordinances (Fudge 1976, 15-19).

On a related note, members of the Church’s computer planning committee realized during the late 1950s and early 1960s that, given the estimated 70 billion people who had been born on the earth, all LDS adults working in temples eight hours a day, seven days a week wouldn't be able to keep up with world population growth, much less complete ordinance work for deceased ancestors. This concern apparently has not disappeared (Church News, 20 July 1986, p. 16). Accordingly, a number of procedural changes were suggested. Some initial opposition came from Elder Harold B. Lee due to what he perceived as "doctrinal tampering." However, an important change in the early 1960s permitted vicarious ordinances to be performed out of their traditional order, with new data processing systems collating the results. Thus, deceased persons could be sealed or endowed before they had been baptized, washed, anointed, or confirmed (Fudge 1976, 17-19; Carlson[28] 1980, 8-21).

Since the Genealogical Society initiated the computer-based name-extraction · program in 1965, computers have been used to track the administration of both living and vicarious temple ordinances ranging from initiatory work to marriage seatings. Patrons now present their temp1e recommends—coated with magnetic identification strips—to receive and account for the name of a deceased person for proxy work. Computenza6on clearly has augmented efficiency in doing work for the dead (Allen 1983).

VII. Trends and Implications

In 1980, President Spencer W. Kimball stated: "We feel an urgency for this great work to be accomplished and wish to encourage the Saints to accept their responsibility of performing temple ordinances" (1980, 2). Many older temples have been renovated to accommodate the more efficient movie format. The number of operating temples has increased dramatically- from thirteen in 1970 to forty in 1986, with an additional six currently under planning or construction. An analysis of ordinance data, however, suggests that rates of temple work have remained relatively constant over the last fifteen years. Based on figures from this period, an average of one out of every three converts receives his or her own endowment. Since 1971, the difference between total live endowments and the number of new converts has steadily increased. This trend clearly began after World War II. New missionaries' endowments have constituted almost one-third of all live endowments, on the average, since 1971; thus, the actual percentage of new members receiving their own endowment is much smaller. Since the Church will not release geographic annual totals of new converts, it is not yet possible to determine sociological factors which may account for the widening gap between total new converts and total live endowments. Since 1971, vicarious endowments have been performed at an average rate of .81 per member per year. These per-member levels have declined slightly during the past ten years despite the impressive number of new temple dedications.

It is not possible to give full confidence to these figures or their interpretation since Church administrators do not provide more detailed endowment data arranged by year.[29] Other unavailable data critical to a reliable statistical analysis include annual totals of temple recommend holders and parallel information on temple work in regions outside the United States. The only international statistics I have seen indicate that in 1985 at least 75 percent of all live and vicarious endowments were performed within United States temples (Church Almanac 1987, 304). U.S. membership in 1985 constituted about 52 percent of total membership. The disproportionate amount of U.S. endowments may indicate that the temple—or that vicarious work for the dead—has lower priority overseas, a condition that could change as a new generation abroad grows up with "our own" temple. It also could indicate that foreign converts may be so economically disadvantaged that they cannot often attend temples, even when they are relatively close. Only time will tell what affect the large number of new foreign temples will have on the amount of endowments performed.

There is no way to quantitatively evaluate the spiritual benefit of temple work for either the living or the dead. Certainly, no spiritual benefits can be realized without participation. The 1970s saw a renewed emphasis on temple work.[30] During the latter part of the decade, many stakes were issued endowment quotas by their temples. While less emphasis is now placed on quotas, expectations remain high. For example, active recommend holders living close to a temple usually are expected to average one endowment per month. Members of my own stake made 2,671 visits to the Oakland Temple in 1985, versus 3,340 visits in 1984—a 20 percent drop in activity. Consequently, my stake presidency requested that all endowed temple recommend holders increase attendance by participating in events such as "stake temple days" and even take personal leave from work to "spend as much time in the Temple as possible" (Santa Clara 1986). Without comparing the policies of stakes in other temple districts, it is impossible to say how characteristic my stake might be.

These declining rates suggest that many Latter-day Saints apparently do not participate extensively in either vicarious or living endowments. The need for reevaluation can at least be discussed. As the history of the endowment shows, specific content and procedural alterations were made in 1845, 18 77, 1883, 1893, 1919-27, the early 1960s, and 1968-72.

The Church is already addressing the economic problem of attending the temple by constructing numerous scaled-down temples strategically placed in areas of high member densities. Although temples have traditionally been separate structures with the sole function of temple work, it is not impossible to consider the option of adapting or creating special rooms in selected stake centers as endowment and sealing rooms. Such an option would further reduce temple construction and operating expenses, even though the "temple'' would lose something of its ''special', character by being associated with a multi-use building. Such options would go far toward making temples more convenient for members to reach and less costly to construct and maintain. In other words, the temple could become more accessible to greater numbers of members.

Another aspect to be considered involves the appeal of the ceremony to members. If it is true that new converts and/or maturing youth are less likely to seek their own endowments, the ordinance may be seen as less meaningful, or perhaps have a different meaning. Allen Roberts, tracing the decline of architectural symbolism in the Church, has suggested that current Saints are no longer comfortable with symbolism of any sort (1979, 28-29). An intensifying factor may be that the spheres of symbolism have progressively shrunk until symbolism is associated almost exclusively with the temple. As a result, discomfort with public displays of elements increasingly seen as uniquely sacred may have hastened the spiral of withdrawal. Perhaps all symbolism is now seen as somehow connected to the temple. A third reason may be that contemporary Saints understand much less about symbolism than they once did. They recognize, for instance, an all-seeing eye but have never seen it anywhere but the temple—unlike nineteenth-century Saints who saw it on doorknobs, carved on the lintels of doors, and printed on the letterheads of stationery and newspapers. Certainly Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would have understood certain symbols from the richness of at least two contexts—Masonry as well as Mormonism.

The feelings contemporary Saints have for the temple certainly merit a careful quantitative analysis by professional social scientists. I have heard a number of themes from people who feel discomfort in one degree or another with elements of the temple ceremony. Although such reports are anecdotal, I believe they represent areas to be explored in attempting to understand the place of the temple in the lives of modern Saints.

In addition to the feelings about symbolism already expressed, a fourth element that may influence feelings about the temple comes from the increasing impact of technology and rationalism on our culture as a whole. The idea of a "lodge" may itself have an old-fashioned ring to it. Probably in no other settings except college organizations, with their attendant associations of youthfulness and possibly immaturity, do most Mormons encounter "secret', ceremonies with code handshakes, clothing that has particular significance, and, perhaps most disturbing to some, the implied violence of the penalties. Various individuals have commented on their difficulty in seeing these elements as "religious" or "inspirational," originating in the desires of a loving Father for his children.

Fifth, in a day when Latter-day Saints are increasingly focusing on shared Christian values, some are also uncomfortable at the portrayal of a Christian minister as the hireling of Satan, a point that local citizens, clergy, fundamentalist Protestants, and professional anti-Mormons have not overlooked in the demonstrations against temple dedications in Dallas, Denver, and Chicago ("Dallas" 1982; "Temple" 1986).

Sixth, the endowment ceremony still depicts women as subservient to men, not as equals in relating to God. For example, women covenant to obey their husbands in righteousness, while he is the one who acts as intermediary to God; are promised ordination in future states as queens and priestesses to their husbands, and are required to veil their faces at one point in the ceremony; Eve does not speak in the narrative portion once they are expelled from the garden. Such inequitable elements seem at odds with other aspects of the gospel.

Seventh, some individuals find that the filmed presentations have a dulling effect on their response. The freshness of live-session interpretations brings new insights in even subtle details, according to some regular temple-goers. While some people enjoy the more rapid pace of the filmed versions, others worry about being "programmed" by repetition and find themselves unable to imagine other faces, other voices, and other interpretations than those being impressed upon them by repetition.

In short, at least some Saints perceive the temple as incongruent with other important elements of their religious life. Some find the temple irrelevant to the deeper currents of their Christian service and worship of God. Some admit to boredom. Others describe their motivations for continued and regular temple attendance as feelings of hope and patience—the faith that by continuing to participate they will develop more positive feelings and even the joy that others sometimes report. Often they feel unworthy or guilty because of these feelings since the temple is so unanimously presented as the pinnacle of spiritual experience for sincere Latter-day Saints.

To suggest that all Latter-day Saints are deeply troubled by such elements would certainly be incorrect. For many, the temple experience is one of selfless service, peaceful communion with God, a refreshing retreat from the world, and a promise of future union with departed loved ones. Reports of spiritual enlightenment, personal revelation, and grateful contact from those for whom the work is being done are not infrequent.

Certainly the social values of the temple have expanded and become more far-reaching as more and more people have access to temples and as more Latter-day Saints retire with the economic means and health to spend many years of service in the temple. Anthropologist Mark P. Leone has suggested that temple worship is a key institution by which Mormons resolve the conflict of being "in the world but not of it" and spiritually and psychologically reinforce their unique purpose in life (Leone 1978, 10-13). The value of the temple experience clearly manifests itself in a renewed individual commitment to Christian values, and to furthering the goals of the Church. Given the strict requirements of worthiness one must adhere to for permission to attend the temple, it follows that Latter-day Saints receive added satisfaction belonging to a select group of devout members qualified to perform this sacred work.

Reviewing the historical development of any important institution in a community's life raises questions about its future. The endowment has changed a great deal in response to community needs over time. Obviously it has the capability of changing still further if the need arises. If one were to set aside the questions of spiritual, emotional, and social significance and examine the endowment strictly from a functional perspective, some suggestive conclusions emerge.

For instance, it is interesting that vicarious endowments remain the only portion of the total temple sequence (baptism, confirmation, washing and anointing, ordination of males, endowment, and marriage sealing) which has not been "batch processed" to increase efficiency. Through 1985, a cumulative total of over 1.5 million endowments for the living and almost 86 million endowments for the dead have been performed. From a strictly functional perspective, the amount of time required to complete a vicarious endowment seems excessive. If patrons do not need to hear baptismal and confirmation speeches prior to performing these proxy ordinances, or talks on how to have a good marriage before vicarious sealings (as all living people traditionally receive before their own ceremonies), it seems inconsistent to hear about events in the Garden of Eden or the lone and dreary world before vicariously receiving the signs, tokens, and key words which form the apparent essence of the endowment ceremony, although the repetition of the narratives no doubt benefits the individual patron. If increasing the number of endowments were the primary objective, these elements could be performed in a few minutes instead of two hours. Baptisms for the dead and scalings already occur with accelerated routines.

If the vicarious elements were detached from the endowment or performed in another sequence, then the balance of temple activities devoted to instructing members in theological matters and allowing time for meditation, inspiration, and worship might be done under a different, less mechanical setting. Refocusing attention on the temple's function as a house of prayer and a house of revelation might draw more individuals who genuinely wish for a worshipful experience in community and then quietly, alone. At the present time, most temples do not have the facilities for solitary meditation and actively discourage lingering in the celestial room after passing through the veil. A reversion to the live presentation might also augment attentiveness and rediscovery as participants review fundamental concepts. Such strategies may suggest ways of meeting the Church's need for effectively and efficiently carrying out its mission of salvation for the dead while providing a holy setting for the spiritual healing of modern members bearing their diverse burdens. The richness and centrality of the endowment ceremony in the twentieth century, as in the nineteenth, roots Latter-day Saints in a tradition of spiritual power that promises equal abundance in the future.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] I am indebted to Lester Bush and Andrew F. Ehat for this insight.

[2] Although historian B. H. Roberts referred to this event as "the introduction of the Endowment Ceremonies in this dispensation" (HC 5:2, n1), the History of the Church’s reconstructed text of this account (discussed below) did not use the term "endowment." The phrase that was used, "the ancient order of things," was one which Joseph Smith was quoted as using on 6 January 1842 in speaking of the forthcoming temple rites (HC 4:49-2). The History did note, in its entry for 2 December 1843 that Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and Orson Spencer "received their endowments" in the upper story of Joseph Smith's red brick store (HC 6:98), so it can be assumed that the ceremony as we now know it came to be known as the endowment within a year and a half of its introduction.

[3] The story of this passage's reconstruction illustrates how much of the History of the Church was composed. According to Dean C. Jessee, Joseph Smith wrote very little of his diary and history. In fact, at the time of his death in 1844, his history was completed only through 1838. Eleven men composed the history by using over twenty different manuscript sources. Key participant George A. Smith recalled that this task "was an immense labor, requiring the deepest thought and the closest application, as there were mostly only two or three words (about half written) to a sentence" (Smith to Wilford Woodruff, 21 April 1856, cited in Jessee 1971, 472).

[4] Andrew F. Ehat comment on an early draft of this paper presented at the Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 21 August 1986. Ehat apparently has had access to the Book of the Law of the Lord, which presently is restricted from scholars by the LDS Church's Historical Department Archives. See also Ehat 1982, 26-27.

[5] I am indebted to Edward H. Ashment for this 5nsight. See also Norman 1987.

[6] The definitive examination of Mormonism and Freemasonry has yet to be written. For an introduction to this subject, see Durham 1974; Godfrey I 971; Goodwin 1938 and 1927; Hogan 1978 and 1980; Ivins 1934; McGavin 1956; and Roberts 1979.

[7] There is little question that Knoop and Jones have produced the most balanced scholarly historical studies of Freemasonry to date. Their publications by the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (the English Masonic research lodge) identify two schools of Masonic history dating from the 1870s: "verified" or institutional history, and "mythical" or philosophical specula­tions in Masonic symbols throughout its history. Their most valuable works include collec­tions of early Masonic catechisms (1943) and pamphlets (1978), as well as an institutional history through the early eighteenth century (1940, 1949). Other important careful histories include Gould 1904, Haywood and Craig 1927, Heckethorn 1965, Horne 1972, MacKenzie 1967, and A. E. Waite 1923.

[8] These newspaper citations were taken from typescripts prepared by Dale Morgan, photocopies in my possession.

[9] Compare Heber C. Kimball's observation, 2 August 185 7: "You have received your endowments. What is it for? To learn you to hold your tongues . . ." (JD 5:133) with (especially regarding the discussion which follows on the endowment's relationship to Freemasonry) Brigham Young's comment in 1860: "The mane part of Masonry is to keep a secret" (Woodruff 5:418). A classic discussion on the sociology of secrecy and secret societies is by Georg Simmel in Wolff 1950, 330–76.

[10] Kimball’s daughter, Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, later (1882) reminisced: “I remember once when but a young girl, of getting a glimpse of the outside of the Morgan’s book, exposing Masonry, but which my father always kept locked up.”

[11] Joseph's accelerated advancement came at the hand of Abraham Jonas, Grandmaster of the Illinois Lodge. Given that Jonas was running for political office, it is possible that he thought his action would secure him the Mormon vote.

[12] Freemasons are enjoined to study their Book of Constitutions which contain fundamental Masonic principles; every man considering becoming a Mason is called a "candidate" and must pass a character examination before being approved for his initiation; new initiates progress in Masonry through a system of ceremonial degrees; and several officers in a lodge have different titles employing the word "Priest" (Cross 1824, 7, 15-19, 63, 65, 157; Morgan 1827, 16-18).

[13] Joseph Smith's stress on acquiring esoteric knowledge by means of special signs and words also is seen in the Freemasonic charge to master their own system of signs and key words. Before passing each degree, every candidate is thoroughly tested by presenting them to the presiding lodge officer (Cross 1824, 97; Morgan 1827, 18–27, 49–61, 70–89).

[14] After the Woodruff Manifesto in 1890, the association of celestial marriage with polygyny was discouraged; modern Mormons now perceive celestial marriage and plural mar­riage as two separate concepts.

[15] In addition to specific citations in the text, see Buerger 1987, a collection of over one hundred ''exposes" of the endowment ceremony by disaffected Mormons (copies in my possession). While the integrity of some accounts clearly is questionable, many demonstrate consistency in reciting dialogues and ritualistic details. Given the lack of official accounts, these published recitals are essential components in attempting to historically trace the ceremony's development.

[16] It is likely that both of these accounts omitted an additional detail: of a woman being ordained to be a queen to her husband, as women now are ordained in their initiatory wash­ing and anointing ceremony. When Vilate Kimball received her second anointing in the Nauvoo Temple on 8 January 1846, she was anointed "a Queen & Priestess unto her Hus­band" (Book of Anointings, 4).

[17] During this same meeting on 26 December 1866, Young outlined accepted procedures for administering second anointings, then said, "when Persons Came to get their Endowments [they] Should be Clean & pure. A man should not touch a woman for 10 days before getting their Endowments."

[18] Nuttall Diary, 7 Feb. 1877; see also, Nuttall "Memoranda," 3 June 1892; Nuttall Diary, entries for 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25, 27 Jan., 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24, 27 Feb., 16, 17, 18., 20, 22 March, and 3 April 1877; St. George Historical Record minutes, 8 Nov., 13 Dec. 1890, 15, 22 May 1891, 11 June 1892; Walker, 11 June 1892, in 2:740-41; David H. Cannon to Joseph F. Smith and Counselors, 21 Oct. 1916, in CRF; Collier 1981, 113-16, 165-76; Buerger 1982; Kirkland 1984.

[19] Buerger 1982, 34, 53, n76; St. George Temple Minutes: K9368R, 5 March 1901, p. 129, and 19 Dec. 1902, p. 261; K9369, 15 Oct. 1906, p. 519; K9%9R, 14 Dec. 1911, p. 93, in CRF.

[20] Although a similar oath exists in the 30th degree of Scottish Rite Masonry ("Knight of Kadosh"), it is unlikely that this had any influence on the Mormon oath of vengeance. See Richardson 1860, 188.

[21] an Dusen 1847, 9; Lewis 1848, 9-10; Hall 1852, 49-50; Hyde 1857, 97; Remy and Brenchley 1861, 72; C. Waite 1866, 25 7-58; Beadle 1870, 496---97; Stenhouse 1890, 365; Young 1876, 368; Lee 1877, 160; "Mrs. G.H.R." and Wallis 1879; RLDS 1893, 453, 457- 58; Inside 1903, 13, 17, 29, 33, 42, 44, 4 7-49, 52-53, 65-66; "Mormon" 1905, 170.

[22] Tanner (1972, 462-73) contains what purports to be a complete script of the modern endowment ceremony in 1969 when they first published it in The Mormon Kingdom, 1:123-34. More recent similar publications include Witte and Fraser, c1980, and Sackett 1982.

[23] Unless otherwise noted, information concerning the history of endowment movies is based on Wise, 1980-81 and 1983. Wise edited all endowment films.

[24] The cast for this film was Adam: Max Mason Brown; Eve: Marielen Wadley Christensen; Lucifer: Lael Woodbury; Minister: Morris Clinger; Peter: Harold I. Hansen; James: Douglas Clawson; John: Max Golightly; Elohim: unknown; Elohim voice: Dan Keeler; Jehovah: unknown; Jehovah voice: Carl Pope; Narrator: Glen Shaw. The pro­duction crew was Camera: Robert Stum and Dalvin Williams; Lighting: Grant Williams and R. Steven Clawson; Casting: Keith Atkinson, David Jacobs and Judd Pierson; Sound: Kenneth Hansen and Sharrol Felt; Set Design: Douglas Johnson and Robert Stum; Research: Scott Whitaker and Douglas Johnson; Script Girl: Marilyn Finch; Editing: Frank S. Wise; Director: Wetzel O. Whitaker.

[25] The cast for this film was Adam: Hank Kester; Eve: Lena Tuluanen Rogers; Lucifer: Ron Fredrickson; Minister: Spencer Palmer; Peter: Gordon Jump; James: Charles Metten; John: R. LeRoi Nelson; Elohim: Jesse Stay; Elohim voice: Lael Woodbury; Jehovah: Bryce Chamberlain; Jehovah voice: Robert Peterson; Narrator: Glen Shaw. The production crew was Camera: Robert Stum; Lighting: Grant Williams; Casting: Keith Atkinson; Sound: Don Fisk and Sharrol Felt; Set Design: Douglas Johnson; Production Manager: Dalvin Williams; Editing: Frank S. Wise; Director: Wetzel O. Whitaker.

[26] The cast for this film was Adam: James Adamson; Eve: Laurel Pugmire; Lucifer: Sterling Van Wagenen; Minister: Keith Engar; Peter: Craig Costello; James: Ivan Cros­land; John: Bruce Moffit; Elohim: Jesse Stay; Elohim voice: Lael Woodbury; Jehovah: Bryce Chamberlain; Jehovah voice: unknown; Narrator: Glen Shaw. The production crew was Camera: Robert Stum and Ted VanHorn; Lighting: Reed Smoot and Grant Williams; Casting: Peter Johnson; Sound: Don Fisk, Steve Aubrey and Kent Pendleton; Set Design: Douglas Johnson; Script Girl: Francine (last name unknown); Editing: Frank S. Wise; Director: Wetzel O. Whitaker; Assistant Director: Dave Jacobs,

[27] For example, the preacher's reference to Satan having black skin was omitted in recent years; compare Witte and Fraser c1980, 23 with Sackett 1982, 38. Another omission during the late 1960s is the preacher leading the audience in a Protestant hymn. Singing by a "temple choir" stopped in 1921 when the choir was disbanded (G. F. Richards, Journal, 7-8 April 1921). Satan and the preacher no longer fix a specific salary to proselytize the audience for converts (Tanner 1972, 468-49; Witte and Fraser c1980, 21). Some of these changes probably resulted from the Harold B. Lee committee's recommendations in 1972.

[28] Carlson was on the Church Data Processing Committee and the board of directors of Management Systems Corporation—a Church-owned company which provided the Church with data processing services.

[29] A telling example of the increasing reticence to share operating statistics is that for the first time in thirty-one years, the official Conference Report (first appearing in The Ensign) has omitted all figures related to temple work, including number of operating tem­ples, and number of live and vicarious endowments performed during the prior year (The Ensign, May 1987, 21).

[30] This may be necessary for other reasons as well: an analysis of the ratio of general conference ta.lk references to temple work versus paragraph units in those talks from 1830 to 1979 indicates resulting scores ranging from .023 to .027 through 1919; since 1920 the scores have ranged from .001 to .011, a dramatic drop in salience (Shepherd and Shepherd I 984, 255).

[post_title] => The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 34.1 (Spring/Summer 2001): 87
However, the temple has maintained its central role in the lives of Latter-day Saints by being able to create a point of intersection between human desires for righteousness and the divine willingness to be bound by covenant. This point has remained constant, even though emphases in the church have changed over time, also bringing change to the en￾dowment ceremony itself [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-development-of-the-mormon-temple-endowment-ceremony [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-12-01 13:44:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-12-01 13:44:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10868 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 15769 [post_author] => 1743 [post_date] => 2018-04-17 16:48:31 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-17 16:48:31 [post_content] =>

Understandably our curiosity is aroused whenever we hear of secret indoctrinations or rituals being practiced by unfamiliar religious groups within imposing buildings of unusual architecture. Such curiosity easily turns to suspicion, fear, or hostility once the group in question has acquired a deviant or negative image more generally in its surrounding society. Thus, especially against the troubled history of Mormon relations with the political and religious establishments of the United States and elsewhere, the temple and its ceremonies remain as one of the very few aspects of Mormonism still able to evoke suspicion about how "normal" Mormons really are.

When non-Mormons, and even Mormons who fail to qualify in some respect, are forbidden to attend the temple weddings of even their own children, suspicion will likely, for some, be accompanied by resentment as well. Nor is anyone likely to be mollified by the facile "explanation" so often heard that the temple ceremonies are "sacred, not secret,” a semantic word play ignoring the fact that to Mormons the ceremonies are obviously both.

In actuality, however, as David Buerger has demonstrated, very little about what goes on in the temple is not available through public records like the Smoot hearings, through apostate exposés of varying reliability, or through extant diaries and other primary source materials.

For that matter, there is no real reason that even devout Church members could not talk more about the temple ceremonies than they do, with appropriate discretion about time and place, since the oaths of secrecy attach only to the new names, signs, tokens, and penalties. Indeed, more open talk about the temple would not only facilitate understanding among both Mormons and non-Mormons in certain historical and scholarly respects, but would also infinitely improve the preparedness of initiates, almost all of whom now enter the temple with only the vaguest idea of what to expect or of the obligations they will be asked to assume.

Like other forms of religious participation, temple work means different things to different Mormons at different times in their lives. To some, it unquestionably provides that sense of connection and communion with Deity and the other world, with the ultimately sacred, which the Church officially says that it provides. To others, it is a time of retreat from the cares of the world, of spiritual renewal. To still others, it is a duty and obligation, either to ancestors or to priesthood leaders or to both. And then there are those we encounter from time to time for whom the temple experience, like sacrament meeting, may not be gratifying at any level but instead ranges from the boring to the offensive. Some Mormons have experienced all these feelings ( and others) at different times in their lives, depending on their own spiritual, emotional, social, or intellectual condition at the time of a given temple visit. An interesting subject for future scholarly investigation would, in fact, be the different meanings of the temple experience to Mormons in different cultures, different geographic locations, different stages of life, and different stages of development as Church members.

Sociologists are inclined to look for the "functions)' of religious institutions like the temple—the different purposes served by the temple, intended and unintended, in the religious community. One of the more obvious functions of the temple endowment, for instance, is that of a rite of passage, signifying to the whole church that the endowed individual has become a "spiritual adult" either by upbringing or by later conversion. This status carries with it certain assumptions about what responsibilities can reasonably be imposed on the member and what can be expected of him or her.

Closely related is a structural or organizational function—the creation of a spiritually or theologically advanced group, an "elite,” if you will, toward which all Mormons might aspire and work. In an organization in which so many men (and even boys) hold the priesthood and in which there is so much rotating in and out of ecclesiastical office for both men and women, it is difficult to maintain an enduring or fundamental sense of status differential. This is all the more true in North America where so few other social distinctions exist among the homogeneously middle-class Mormon membership.

At any given point in time, however, endowed Mormons are likely to be a minority of the membership in a given ward or branch—indeed, rather a small minority outside the American Far West, and an even smaller minority if we specify regular temple-goers. If the Church ever reaches the point where a majority of the adult membership has been endowed ( as may have been the case in the late nineteenth century), a sociologist would be inclined to predict a return to some kind of "second endowment” just to provide an additional elite category for the continued striving of the spiritually highly ranked among the faithful, lest they become complacent. For now, status distinctions among the endowed seem to be maintained partly by the frequency of temple-going and hence of the number of vicarious endowments performed, but mostly by the existence of an informal elite consisting of "set-apart temple workers" who know the temple liturgy as both recipients and officiators.

Temple work also serves an occupational function for the elderly. Earlier in this century, when some temple workers were actually paid for their vicarious work by descendants of the deceased or by others, temple-going provided paid employment, however minimal and however limited, for at least a few. Now, it is an occupation in a less intentional or conspicuous but nevertheless important way: In a time when people are living longer and in a church that has always had relatively great average longevity, thousands of Church members are able to spend some portion of their retirement in work that is presumably not only meaningful for them but deeply fulfilling, as well. For some, it seems to offer the additional psychological function of preparing them emotionally and spiritually for their own departure to that spiritual realm to which they come to feel so close in the temple. This would seem to be a very constructive social function of temple work in a modern age which has virtually no useful work for most of its elderly. (The growing practice of sending retired couples on missions makes a similar social contribution.)

In a more theological context, Buerger's paper raises the question of the respective roles played by the social environment and revelation in both the form and the content of the temple endowment. The most emotional and controversial aspect of this issue, of course, involves possible borrowings from Masonry. Richard Bushman has warned us ( 1966, 1984), with persuasive examples, that we should be wary of facile assumptions about environmental borrowings, a position I fully share. Yet I see no reason to argue the opposite extreme typical of folk Mormonism—that revelation of the endowment (or anything else) came spontaneously out of heaven, through a cultural and social vacuum, and into human minds somehow totally devoid of or unaffected by pre-existing conceptions or proclivities.

Mormonism, perhaps more than most religions, recognizes the human element in the revelatory process, whether in initiating that process (D&C 9) or in providing the conceptual categories and constraints within which a given revelation is understood. The Book of Mormon readily acknowledges "mistakes of men>' in its preface, and the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants came to the Lord's servants "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" despite their tendency to err (D&C 1:24–28). Why should it be different with the revelations on temple work?

Given the involvement of the Smith family and friends in the Masonic Order prior to 1842 and the similarities between portions of the Mormon and Masonic rituals after 1842, the question of some degree of Mormon borrowing from the Masons obviously arises. That the Masonic ceremony itself changed and evolved even in recent centuries does not necessarily invalidate Joseph Smith's claim that he was restoring, by revelation, an even more ancient temple ceremony to which the Masonic one bore certain resemblances. On the other hand, neither does that claim constitute a declaration of the total independence of the Mormon temple ceremony from any external cultural influences, including Masonry. Frankly, I have some difficulty understanding why this should be such a big issue, except to those with a fairly limited understanding of how a prophet gets ideas. Since prophets and religions always arise and are nurtured within a given cultural context, itself evolving, it should not be difficult to understand why even the most original revelations have to be expressed in the idioms of the culture and biography of the revelator.

It seems to me that the most original, authentic, and enduring temple elements are its doctrines and the covenants transacted there. By covenants I mean the commitments made to certain standards and principles—not those associated with the signs and tokens, which seem to me to have only the most peripheral doctrinal significance. The basic temple doctrines with their associated covenants indeed call for a deeper understanding and a stronger commitment than a new member usually has at the time of baptism. It seems entirely appropriate to me that a member should take on those covenants in a sacred place and at a more mature stage of spiritual development.

These particular covenants and doctrines, however, take less than an hour of the endowment. The rest of the ceremony is best understood, I think, as a kind of liturgical medium for carrying and reinforcing the crucial covenants. Even those elements might be subject to some modification as revelation dictates, but the rest of the ceremony—the liturgical trappings—could be replaced altogether in accordance with the varied historical and cultural settings in which the LDS temples are found. We do not value fish more or less because they are found in fresh or salt water or because they are surrounded by this or that kind of marine geology or flora. Similarly, a great variety in environmental elements ought to be acceptable as the medium for the essential elements of the endowment.

To discover that our current medium contains Masonic elements should be no more disturbing than the Disney elements of its films; or the non-Mormon artistic tradition and motifs which appear in the murals of older temples (Seifrit 1986); or that the meeting rooms in the temples, like those in chapels, strongly resemble those found in many Protestant churches, with a pulpit or altar, seats or pews in rows, etc.; or that the hymns sung in LDS sacrament meetings are borrowed in form, if not always in content, from the Protestant tradition ( as is, for that matter, most of the order of service) ; or that the youth program for males was adopted from the Boy Scouts of America; or that Christmas trees ( and even Santa Claus) appear in Mormon churches at Christmas time; or that the Church bureaucracy has borrowed liberally from the corporate business world for its procedures and practices. The list could continue, for Mormonism always has been, and always will be, given expression primarily in forms and idioms familiar to its converts and adherents.

Of course, such expressions may be consciously and strategically chosen. Thus, just as the assimilationist policies of Church leaders in the twentieth century have modified the endowment and garment to make them seem more "normal," so in the nineteenth century, when Mormonism was trying to establish its uniqueness and distance from conventional Christianity, it is not surprising that its leaders would include in the endowment some elements that were anathema to that Christianity, including Masonic elements. (A possible parallel is how some American blacks have rejected ''white" Christianity for " alien” Islam.)

With such an understanding of the interaction of cultural, temporal, and revelatory elements in their religion, Mormons may better identify which elements are truly distinctive, inspired, and indispensable, while considering all the rest subject to modification or even elimination as cultural settings change. This principle operates in Mormonism as a whole, and there is no doctrinal reason that it could not apply to the temple as well. As time goes on, we may see variations in the endowment, not only from one generation to another but also from one country to another, as long as the essentials remain. It seems to me that the question of “Masonic borrowings" shrinks into insignificance with this more expansive perspective.

The changes in the endowment ( and in the garment) traced in the Buerger paper can be understood as responses to the changing circumstances surrounding the Mormon religion more generally. Max Weber's disciple Ernst Troeltsch (1931) pointed to a recurring cycle in the history of new religions that by now has many empirical replications. Though religions and their new converts tend to be characterized at the beginning by many mystical and spiritual experiences, and by much ''charismatic" fervor, they tend to be "tamed'' with the passage of time, if they are to survive at all. A rapidly increasing membership brings with it many organizational imperatives, leading to increasing bureaucratization, standardization, and routinization. A hostile social environment will exert pressure on the new religion to give up or tone down its most deviant characteristics in exchange for the social respectability necessary for its survival and continued growth. The unique charismatic elements which nurtured the religion in its infancy are eventually "routinized" and brought under institutional control. This process can be seen as readily in the history of Mormonism as in the histories of countless other new religions. It has been thoroughly described and documented, most recently by Thomas Alexander (1986) in his history of the Church from 1890 to 1930.

As Alexander indicates, during the 1920s both the endowment and the garment underwent a great deal of modification, shortening, streamlining, and standardization as part of the assimilation process (1986, 291–303). Indeed, there is some reason to believe that the Twelve may have seriously considered even relinquishing altogether the use of the garment outside the temple (Boyd 1985). Buerger highlights the related point, made by Allen Roberts (1979), about the decline of unique Mormon symbolism in the temples and elsewhere in twentieth-century Mormon culture. This classical process of routinization and standardization, even in the temples, has continued down to the present time, when computers are used to reassemble on the records those segments of temple ordinances that have been pragmatically disassembled in the actual doing.

What Weber called the "routinization of charisma" can be seen even more clearly in the relation of the temple to the rest of the religion. The increase in temple activity during the first half of this century, documented both by Buerger and by Alexander, has clearly been accompanied by a decline in the more spontaneous charismatic expressions of healings, visions, tongues, millennial anticipation, and accounts of the Three Nephites. Though I do not have systematic data on this decline, it is clearly implied by Gordon and Gary Shepherd's analysis of the changing content of general conference sermons (1984, 254) and by Thomas Alexander (1986, 294–98). Anyone who has lived as long as I have, furthermore, has seen the typical testimony meeting transformed from a sharing of personal spiritual experiences into a series of formula recitations about things to be thankful for. Alexander has made the astute observation in a personal conversation that a major if unintended function of increased emphasis on an increasingly standardized temple routine has been that the spontaneous and unregulated charismatic expressions of early Mormonism have been displaced by the controlled, channeled, and institutionalized expression of charisma in the temple. Insofar as the residual charisma of the temple experience continues to be eroded by batch processing and enhanced technology, we may have a partial explanation for the declining popular enthusiasm for temples implied by Buerger's figures on the flattening rates of recent temple activity.

Yet it would be premature to conclude from Buerger's tables and graphs that there has been a decline in temple activity more generally. Statistical relationships between conversion rates and rates of temple activity are complicated by both time and geography. There is always a time lag between high conversion rates in an area and the construction of a temple there. We would have to break down the data according to time and place to make meaningful inferences about relationships between conversion rates or Church growth and temple activity. This would be even truer for vicarious temple work, as distinguished from personal endowments and marriages. A further complication arises from defection rates which, in certain times and places around the world, have been phenomenal. Thus, high rates of church growth accompanied by low rates of temple work may say more about defection than about commitment to temple work in high-growth areas.

My final observation deals with the implications of the temple for dogma and popular belief. It is unavoidable that ritual, like other human transactions, not only reinforces beliefs but even generates them, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. What may the Saints unintentionally be learning from the temple experience, especially if it is repeated often? At the popular level, for example, the "protection'' promised of the garment has often been taken as literal protection against physical injury, a property never attributed to it officially or doctrinally, as far as I know, but nevertheless widely circulated in the folklore. Buerger reports that serious consideration was once given to casting a dark-skinned actor in the role of Lucifer in a temple film. If this had happened, the image would surely have been sacralized and, by implication, canonized, despite its origins in folklore, rather than in revealed doctrine.

What notions may unintentionally be "canonized', by consistently portraying Adam, Eve, and other biblical figures not only as European but as Nordic, even in the temples of Asia and the Pacific? This bias, serious enough in our visitors' centers, may actually take on doctrinal implications in the temple, despite the routine injunction that the portrayal of events in Eden is to be understood figuratively. And what inadvertent teaching occurs through films that portray the Father and Son as white, not just in a celestial or spiritual sense but in a mortal, racial sense, with the stereotypic white beards of Catholic and Protestant art; or that show the dwelling place of the Father with the stereotypic golden throne and arches; or that portray Lucifer as a good-looking man with a black Van Dyke beard; or that present non-Mormon clergy as slow-witted dupes dependent on Satan for their livelihood, who spout medieval theological notions that have had no currency for generations; or that seem to say husband-wife relationships are in some spiritual sense egalitarian but temporally hierarchical, even in the temple?

Certainly the Saints are not so unimaginative that they always take everything literally, nor is it up to scholars to reconstruct the temple endowment to match their own notions of modernity and respectability. Yet in a Church which aspires to have universal appeal, it is incumbent upon all of us to attend to elements of cultural ethnocentrism which remain intertwined with our teach­ings, wherever they occur. One way to undermine both ethnocentrism and undue literalism in the temple is to permit the expression of the endowment in as great a variety of cultural idioms as possible, consistent with the integrity of the fundamental covenants and doctrines which must unite Latter-day Saints across all cultures. Should that begin to happen, we shall all see far greater change in the temple endowment than the relatively modest examples traced for us in David Buerger's careful and interesting paper!

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Culture, Charisma, and Change: Reflections on Mormon Temple Worship [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 20.4 (Winter 1987): 33–76
Mauss encourages an openess about the temple to help better prepare future endowment holders and to create a better understanding among members and nonmembers. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => culture-charisma-and-change-reflections-on-mormon-temple-worship [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-09-26 19:37:01 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-09-26 19:37:01 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=15769 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 16470 [post_author] => 3723 [post_date] => 2018-04-20 18:07:03 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-20 18:07:03 [post_content] =>

When the final capstone of the tallest spire of the Salt Lake Temple was set into place on April 6, 1892, it was a time for celebration as the crowds filling Temple Square and the surrounding streets waved handkerchiefs and shouted hosannas. The occasion was a historic milestone, marking not only the near-completion of the Church's most ambitious building project but the end of an era as well. The temple had been conceived! more than two generations earlier as a symbol of the pioneers' Rocky Mountain Kingdom, the spires on the east end representing the spiritual leadership of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and those on the west, the worldly leadership of the Aaronic Priesthood. Standing in the symbolic center of the capital city of the kingdom, it embodied Joseph Smith's dream of a city of Zion, independent and prosperous, where the economic, political, social and religious life of the community would all be centered on the Church and its leaders. But by 1892, the kingdom had changed. Mormon isolation in the mountains had vanished with improved transportation and the arrival of a large Gentile population. Polygamy had been abandoned, church control of economic and political life had been considerably reduced and Mormons had begun to see themselves as part of the larger American society.

Some of these changes in Mormon life were suggested by changes in parts of the temple building itself. It had been planned in a mixture of styles typical of the 1840s and 1850s but the interiors were designed in the 1880s and 90s in a more opulent Victorian mode. The original plans had called for weathervanes on top of wooden spires like those on colonial churches in New England, but the finished building had stone spires and a gold-leafed statue in a Greek or Roman tunic similar to the allegorical figures on top of many public buildings of the period. Perhaps the temple annex was the most dramatic change of all, designed in a popular Victorian version of the Byzantine style—the traditional style of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Until this time, Mormon architecture had been dominated by a simplified blend of American colonial, Greek Revival and Gothic Revival forms, even as more exotic and elaborate styles had become fashionable elsewhere. But the temple annex showed that the Latter-day Saint entry into the mainstream of Ameri­can life would include imitation of the larger society's architecture as well.

Many meetinghouses and tabernacles were built in Latter-day Saint communities around the time of the completion of the Salt Lake Temple and over the next two decades. Like the temple annex, they demonstrated a decline in the popularity of the old styles and a willingness to experiment with new ideas. A Russian onion-shaped dome appeared on the Salt Lake 19th Ward, only a few blocks from Temple Square. The Provo Sixth Ward, now destroyed, combined a curved baroque gable with beehive-shaped pinnacles. Some buildings adopted classical domes and porticoes with varying degrees of success, while others made use of Tudor, Tuscan and Spanish architectural elements.

In some cases, the new generation of architects brought a higher degree of sophistication and stylistic purity to the architecture of the Church. Lehi’s handsome tabernacle demonstrated the familiarity of its European architect with classical forms and details, and the tabernacle in Wellsville showed the same degree of correctness in its use of the Gothic style.

Perhaps the most significant architectural event in Utah in the first years of this century was the 1911 competition for the design of the state capitol. The progress of the local architectural profession was evident in the fact that the designs submitted by nationally prominent architects were not noticeably superior to those of most of the major local firms. The winning design was by Utah resident William Kletting, the European-trained architect of the Lehi Tabernacle. Anthon H. Lund of the First Presidency served on the committee that selected this design.

By the first decade of this century, the Church had achieved a measure of renewed confidence and stability after four decades of governmental harassment and financial difficulties. Joseph F. Smith1 the first second-generation Latter-day Saint to serve as President of the Church, demonstrated this new confidence by directing the construction of a number of new buildings for the headquarters of the Church, including an impressive new Church Administration Building in severe classical style, upright and proper, and solid as a bank. In 1912, when construction of the Administration Building was in progress, the First Presidency decided! to begin yet another important structure, a new temple in southern Alberta, Canada.

Architecturally, the new temple posed a problem. No new temples had been begun since the death of Brigham Young. With the changes in architectural fashion and the new image of the Church, which of all the current styles of architecture would be proper for such an important building? Faced with this question, the First Presidency decided to seek the advice of the most talented men available. Following the lead of the Utah State Capitol Commission of the year before, they invited LDS architects to participate in an anonymous competition for the design of the temple. To prepare instructions for the competition, the First Presidency and Presiding Bishop met at the Manti Temple with a young and relatively unknown architect1 Hyrum Pope. They decided that the new temple would accommodate about the same number of people as the Manti Temple, but that it would be built more economically, without the large assembly room on the top floor, and without expensive but relatively useless towers. Hyrum Pope prepared the competition program, and seven architectural firms, including his own, responded by submitting drawings which were placed on public display before selection was made. Most of the proposals looked to the past for their inspiration; some had towers and pinnacles reminiscent of the Salt Lake Temple.[1] Although none of the losing drawings seem to have survived, a detailed written description of one of them suggests both an elaborate design and an elaborate symbolic scheme which was apparently intended to appeal to the brethren: “The five [pinnacles] on each of the four towers, the three on the main front of the building and the three on the rear [make] twenty-six in all and represent the General Authorities of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose, Francis R. Lyman, Heber J. Grant . . . [etc.].”[2] However, the First Presidency passed over these traditional and flattering schemes to choose instead a daringly modem design. When the winning entry was announced on January 1, 1913, it was learned that the winners were Hyrum Pope and Harold Burton, two young architects who had been in business less than three years. Pope, the engineer and business manager of the firm, was a capable and ambitious German immigrant of thirty-two. His inside knowledge as author of the competition program may have given his firm some advantage, in spite of the anonymous nature of the submission process. Burton, the junior partner and designer, was only twenty-five years old, and had not yet been inside a temple. This commission launched their prolific and creative careers as some of the most influential and successful architects in the Church.

The splendid winning design for the temple showed some similarities to the work of the great modem American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Working in Chicago over the previous two decades, Wright had designed residences and public buildings that were bold in form, original in their geometric decorative details and carefully blended with their natural surroundings. Pope and Burton were among Wright's earliest admirers in the western United States. There was also a vague resemblance in the temple to the pre-Columbian ruins of Mexico and Central America, which Burton greatly admired.[3] Combining these influences, the temple design was in the forefront of American architecture of the period.

The interior arrangement was equally satisfying. Without a large assembly room on the upper floor, there was more freedom to experiment with a new design. Burton had a difficult and frustrating time with this part of the design until a very simple and logical floor plan occurred to him. The four ordinance rooms would be placed around the center of the building like the spokes of a wheel, each room extending toward one of the cardinal directions. Smaller diagonal projections between the main rooms would contain stairways and minor rooms. The celestial room would be placed in the center at the very top of the building, with the baptistry directly below. As a person moved through the ordinance rooms, he would follow a circular path through each of the four wings, finally passing into the center in the celestial room. Each room was a few steps higher than the one before, with the celestial room and the adjacent sealing rooms the highest of all. Thus the architectural arrangement reinforced the idea of progression found in the temple ceremony itself.

The style of the temple was similar to the Salt Lake First Ward, the first building designed by Pope and Burton two years earlier. The influence of Frank Lloyd Wright is evident in a comparison between the First Ward and Wright's famous Larkin Building in Buffalo, New York. The heavy buttresses framing the windows and the geometric carving near the top of the buttresses are similar on the two buildings.

Entrance to the temple was through a set of handsome gates, made in a pattern similar to some of Wright's leaded glass windows. The gates opened onto a courtyard, which provided a transition between the inside and outside of the building. To say that the temple was influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright does not imply that it was lacking in originality. Indeed, Pope and Burton's great achievement was their ability to use the newest and best design ideas in a way that was particularly appropriate for Latter-day Saint worship.

The unity of the exterior and interior, a basic principle of modem architecture, was evident in the fact that the major rooms inside the temple were the most prominent features outside as well. The ordinance rooms formed the major wings of the building, smaller rooms and stairways formed the minor wings between them, and the celestial room projected above them all in the center. The pyramid-shaped silhouette was particularly well-suited to the temple's location on a low hill in the midst of a broad prairie, since the temple appeared equally strong, well-proportioned and handsome from all angles. The retaining wall around its base created a platform for the building in the vast landscape, and the symmetrical design turned its back on no one. Although completely modem in style, the new temple possessed the same feeling of permanence, solidity and dignity that had characterized the earlier temples. Ground was broken for construction in 1913, but the severity of Canadian winters, the remote location and the interruption of World War I extended the completion time required to a full decade.

During this time, more than twenty chapels and tabernacles were built in a similar style to that of the temple. Two of the finest were designed by other architects: the Parowan Third Ward by Miles Miller and the Ogden Deaf Branch by Leslie Hodgson, both still in use today. Pope and Burton designed a number of meetinghouses in the mission field, including Portland, Oregon, Denver, Colorado and Brooklyn, New York, as well as chapels in Utah. The style became so popular in the Church that one Deseret News writer, evidently unfamiliar with Frank Lloyd Wright, wrote that the work of Pope and Burton "has resulted in the production of what might be termed a strictly 'Mormon' style of architecture."[4] Although the style was not wholly original, these Mormon structures surely constituted one of the most remarkable collections of early modem buildings anywhere.

In 1915, while on a visit to the Hawaiian Islands where he had served as a young missionary, President Joseph F. Smith was inspired to dedicate a temple site at the church plantation at Laie. When he returned to Salt Lake City, he asked Pope and Burton to prepare plans for a smaller version of the Alberta Temple to be built there. However, the architects, recognizing that the hillside site in Hawaii was quite different from the plains of Alberta, suggested a different approach. Although the same basic plan was used, the minor wings which projected diagonally in the Canadian temple were eliminated from the plan in Hawaii, giving the smaller building a simpler, more classical form with a definite front and back. The style of the building was closer to the pre-Columbian architecture of Mexico and Central America than the Canadian temple had been. Burton knew the Mayan temples from engravings by Catherwood, and he borrowed some of the details in the engravings quite literally. Burton also recognized that the tiny building would be dwarfed by its dramatic setting, so he surrounded it with elaborate gardens to give it a monumental presence. The temple thus became the main feature in a symmetrical composition of fountains and pavilions, trees and walkways arranged along an axis connecting the mountains with the sea. Since good building stone was not available locally, the building was constructed of reinforced concrete poured in place, a technique pioneered in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unitarian Unity Temple in Chicago just a decade earlier. Comparison with Wright's Barnsdall House, built in Los Angeles at about the same time as the Hawaiian Temple, demonstrates how Pope and Burton's stylistic development paralleled that of Wright.

While in Hawaii, Harold Burton met a twenty-five-year-old missionary, who was helping in the plantation store, named LeConte Stewart. A talented artist, he had studied at the New York Art Students League before coming on his mission. Burton placed him in charge of the interior finishing of the temple and assigned him to paint the murals in the creation and garden rooms. Two older and better known Utah artists, A. B. Wright and L. A. Ramsey, painted murals in the baptistry and the world room. The ordinance rooms were small and simple, with wood mouldings framing the murals in long horizontal bands. Fine light fixtures and furniture were designed by the architects to harmonize with the modem style of the building. J. Leo Fairbanks, a thirty-nine-year-old painter and sculptor, came to Hawaii to do the sculpture work, bringing with him his talented nineteen-year-old brother, Avard, who carved the beautiful baptismal font with its twelve oxen. Together they made the friezes on the top of the building representing teachings from the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. At the head of the fountains, they made a panel called "Maternity" depicting a Polynesian. mother and child. When the building and gardens were completed and dedicated in 1919, it was one of the finest pieces of religious architecture in the Hawaiian Islands.

Meanwhile, work was also progressing on the Alberta Temple, with some of the same artists taking part. The interiors at Alberta were more elaborate than those in Hawaii. Designed to reinforce and enrich the idea of progression as the theme of the architectural design, each room was richer in color and detail than the one before. The simplest of the ordinance rooms was the creation room, with oak woodwork and paintings by LeConte Stewart. The artist, using a pointillist style with small daubs of color similar to the French Impressionists, created a shimmering effect suggestive of the process of creation. The garden room was panelled in birdseye maple, richer in color and grain than the oak of the previous room, with murals by one of LeConte Stewart's teachers, Lee Greene Richards. One of Richards' teachers, Edwin Evans, worked on the murals in the world room with his student Florence Christensen, thus completing the span of three generations of artists at work side by side. This room was panelled in South American walnut, and the terrestrial room which followed had large panels of rich mahogany from Africa and small paintings by A. B. Wright. The climax was reached in the celestial room where a large expanse of mahogany was set above a wainscot of polished Utah onyx on a marble base. The furnishings were designed by the architects and finished in place to match the woodwork of each room. The couches and table in the celestial room also had decorative carvings which matched the details of the woodwork. Together with the stencil painting on the ceiling, the wood inlays, leaded windows, decorative grillworks and drapes, these furnishings created a subtle harmony of colors and textures suggestive of the harmony and peace of the celestial world. Matched wood panelling also ornamented the sealing rooms. The beautiful font, which has been recast in recent years for use in other temples, was the work of Torleif Knaphus, a Norwegian convert to the Church.

In 1920, three years before the Alberta Temple was finished, the First Presidency decided to proceed with the construction of yet another temple, this one in Mesa, Arizona. Heber J. Grant, who had become President of the Church following the death of Joseph F. Smith, decided to initiate another competition for the design of the temple. However, instead of an open public competition, like the one in 1912, he invited three of the leading Salt Lake City architectural firms to submit their ideas: Pope and Burton, Young and Hansen and Cannon and Fetzer. All three sets of drawings are extant today. The Cannon and Fetzer design was distinctly Spanish in flavor, reflecting the great surge in popularity of the Spanish Baroque style in the wake of the Columbian Exposition in San Diego in 1916 where some fine buildings had been done in that style. For their proposal, Pope and Burton kept the same plan they had used in the previous two temples, but they turned away from the Frank Lloyd Wright style toward a more traditional, classical composition with a stepped dome in the center. The winning design was submitted by Don Carlos Young, Jr. and Ramm Hansen. Fortunately, some of their design sketches have been preserved showing the evolution of their design.

Two early sketches show a massive building on a broad foundation story, one with a dome and the other with a pyramidal roof. Another early sketch is similar to the influential Masonic temple of the Scottish Rite in Washington, D.C. by John Russell Pope—a building seen by many contemporaries as the epitome of academic classicism. The resemblance between the two designs shows that Young and Hansen were striving for the same classical grandeur. Their final design was less monumental, more graceful and restrained with a flat roof and elegant classical details. The exterior of the building was sheathed in glazed terra cotta tile, a durable material that was popular at the time. Some of the tiles at the cornice line contained a sculptured frieze showing the gathering of Israel to Zion—Indians, Europeans, Polynesians, and other peoples are represented. The handsome baptismal font, also covered with richly detailed terra cotta tile, was the work of Torleif Knaphus. The arrangement of the interior of the building was a departure from earlier temples, using a central axis as the main organizing device in proper classical tradition. The building was placed on center with the street that it faced. A reflection pool was placed on axis just inside the temple gates, and the main entrance was located in the center of the facade with inscriptions above. A temple patron would enter through this portal and pass through a small vestibule into a wide foyer with another portal on center opposite the entrance. After waiting for the appropriate time in the chapel off the foyer, the patron would pass through this second portal and up a few steps where he could catch a glimpse of the grand stairway ahead. However, before ascending the stairs, men and women would go into dressing rooms at either side to clothe themselves in white. Then they would return again to the base of the stairs and continue their procession upward towards another portal at the top. Before reaching their goal, however, they would tum to the right at a landing and enter the creation room.

The creation room was decorated with fine murals by Norwegian-born Frithjof Weberg. Next, the visitor would proceed through the other ordinance rooms that made a ring around the central stair hall—the garden room with murals by A. B. Wright1 then the world room with appropriate desert scenes by LeConte Stewart, the terrestrial room, and finally into the celestial room, which was appointed like the salon of a fashionable mansion. Finally, the people would emerge from the celestial room through the portal at the top of the stairs that had been their original goal and descend the stairs together. This scheme provided a richly symbolic interpretation of progression, allowing glimpses ahead., but requiring several steps of preparation and instruction before the journey could be completed. Thus Young and Hansen were as successful in using the classical architectural vocabulary of grand stairs and central axes to create a setting for temple worship as Pope and Burton had been before them in using a Wrightian vocabulary for the same purpose.

The history and development of these three magnificent buildings suggest some ideas that may be relevant today as the Church seeks to build new temples around the world. First, the design process included a search for the most talented people in the Church at the time. Competitions allowed new people to demonstrate their abilities, and commissions to work on these buildings provided great assistance to several young artists and architects just starting on their careers. Second, the buildings were adapted to their surroundings: the plains of Alberta; a hillside in Hawaii; the termination of a street in Arizona. In their color, form and landscaping, they fitted gracefully into the countryside around them. Third, they successfully used the best design ideas of their generation to express Latter-day Saint concepts of worship—thus creating buildings th!:lt were both modem and Mormon. Fourth, the collaboration of many devout and skillful people produced struc­tures of remarkably high aesthetic and spiritual value—architecture comparable with the best buildings of their time anywhere. They remain today some of the most precious pieces of our cultural heritage. They should also serve as an inspiration and a challenge for Mormon artists and architects of our generation as they strive to give expression to their faith.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Letter, Harold W. Burton to Randolph W. Linehan, 20 May 1969, Historical Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, MSS.

[2] “Description of Temple to Be Built by the Latter-day Saints at Canada,” Historical Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, MSS, Alberta Temple papers.

[3] Letter (see 1. above)

[4] “New $10,000 L.D.S. Mission Home,” Deseret Evening News, 19 December 1914.

[post_title] => The Early Twentieth Century Temples [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 14.1 (Spring 1981): 9–19
Anderson shares how temple architecture changed starting with the Salt Lake Temple. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-early-twentieth-century-temples [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-13 21:30:09 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-13 21:30:09 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=16470 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1