Yesterday an official statement, “A Message from the First Presidency on Changes to the Temple Endowment,” was posted at the Newsroom. It’s only four paragraphs, which I’ll go through one at a time below, hitting both the positives and the negatives. There is no direct reference in the statement to Covid-19, but it’s fairly obvious to 99% of us that is what is prompting the changes, whatever they are. The statement does not specify what any of the changes are. I’m going to assume the changes move the ceremony as close to a no-contact presentation as possible. I’m also going to ask that we not speculate on the details of the changes in the comments to this post. There’s plenty to talk about without getting into the detailed changes, whatever they may be.
Overall, of course, such (assumed no-contact) changes for LDS chapel services and temples are praiseworthy and the responsible thing for leadership to do. Employers are wrestling with how to make workplaces safer. Airlines and public transit face particular difficulties. Sports leagues are struggling to start or restart their seasons with testing and protection for players and fans. Universities and public schools are making difficult decisions about hosting classes on campus or going virtual, and all the challenges either choice implies. So just about every industry and public institution is revamping their physical space and the delivery of services. Changes to LDS chapel services and temple activities are just part of the Big Changes that are hitting Life As We Know It in 2020. Keyword: Life. If these changes are made and people just wear their damn masks in public spaces, most of us and our family members will still be alive in 2021 and 2022.
Paragraph 1 of the statement
The sacred teachings, promises, and ceremonies of the temple are of ancient origin, and point God’s children to Him as they make further covenants and learn more about His plan, including the role of the Savior Jesus Christ.
Ancient origin? It’s pretty clear to anyone who has looked into things a bit that Joseph borrowed a template and much vocabulary from the Freemasons, added some Christian concepts, and repurposed some of the “promises” toward obeying the commandments and securing loyalty to the Church and its leadership. Many of the early LDS leaders around Joseph were Freemasons and generally believed that Masonry had ancient origins going back to Solomon’s temple. Applying the same “apostasy and restoration” theme that was applied to the Church as a whole, present-day Masonry was seen as an apostate version of an earlier, purer Masonry, and the LDS endowment as presented by Joseph in Nauvoo was seen as a restored version of that earlier and authentic rite.
In 2020, no scholar accepts the ancient origin of Masonic rites. They are generally dated to the early 18th century. This obviously undercuts the early LDS rationale for a claim to ancient origins. There really isn’t any current basis for the claim, so it’s puzzling why they still highlight that claim in statements like this. (I’m assuming 1842 is not considered ancient by anyone.) Why not just say that Joseph put together the presentation in 1842 as guided by God or the Spirit? Is it too much to ask the leadership that they simply stop making false statements? They can get away with it because most LDS are willfully ignorant of anything regarding LDS temple history and origins. But “we can get away with it” does not mean you should say it, however convenient it is for your narrative or your particular goal at the time. And it’s 2020, not 1950. You can’t get away with stuff the way you could two or three generations back.
Paragraph 2
Through inspiration, the methods of instruction in the temple experience have changed many times, even in recent history, to help members better understand and live what they learn in the temple.
That’s a rather bold admission to make, and let’s give credit where it’s due. “Methods of instruction … have changed many times” is going to hit some mainstream members with no particular awareness of the many changes over the years like a ton of bricks. Some might just conclude, “Whoa, so they’re just making this all up?” That’s an overreaction. Joseph didn’t just make it up, he borrowed ideas and concepts as outline above and put together the first version of the endowment. Changes over the years (look up the details yourselves), particularly the recent changes that many of us are aware of personally, are generally quite positive. True, it would be more forthcoming for the statement to say changes have been made “to avoid members being understandably offended by outdated and offensive material, then quit attending the temple” than to say “to help members better understand and live what they learn in the temple.” But they are almost never up front about *why* changes to doctrine, policy, or practices are made. At least here they are acknowledging that changes have been made many times in the past.
In this instance, it’s pretty clear the changes are to reduce the risk to patrons and workers of getting Covid-19 while attending the temple. As noted, that’s an eminently reasonable and proper thing to do. So why don’t they just say that? The statement would be more effective if they explicitly stressed that safety of the members is a very high priority and the (unspecified) changes are being made to achieve that safety goal. Businesses and public venues understand they need to highlight and broadcast the details of the safety changes they are making to reassure customers and secure their continued patronage. I’m guessing a lot of members want the same assurance before they resume temple attendance. This game of not telling any member what changes are being made in hopes that people will go attend in order to see them isn’t really fair. It would be easy to give those details to local leaders and invite them to share the details with temple recommend holders in their ward or branch. That would be a great thing to do. If anyone at the COB is reading this post, drop that in the suggestion box or bring it up at the next meeting.
Paragraph 3
Part of the temple experience includes the making of sacred covenants, or promises, to God. Most people are familiar with symbolic actions that accompany the making of religious covenants (such as prayer, immersion of an individual at baptism, or holding hands during a marriage ceremony). Similar simple, symbolic actions accompany the making of temple covenants.
Okay, lots of symbolic things in the temple. They’re obviously hinting at something here. They might be hinting at something like, “Hey, it’s all symbolic, so changing things doesn’t really matter. Don’t get worked up over the changes.” So Paragraph 2 said there have been a lot of changes over time and Paragraph 3 says it’s all just symbolic or that a lot of the actions and other stuff is symbolic. Sounds like they are setting up for a big reveal in Paragraph 4.
Paragraph 4
With a concern for all and a desire to enhance the temple learning experience, recent changes have been authorized to the temple endowment ceremony. Given the sacredness of the temple ceremonies, we ask our members and friends not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes. Rather, we invite Church members to continue to look forward to the day when they may return and fully participate in sacred temple work prayerfully and gratefully.
So, “recent changes have been authorized to the temple endowment ceremony.” I guess that’s the big reveal, although the title of the statement gave that away right up top. Members are asked “not to engage in speculation or public discussions about these changes,” which request I also made at the beginning of the post. Hard to discuss the changes when you don’t know exactly what they are, and I haven’t speculated what those changes might be. We’re discussing the statement here, not the changes, whatever they might be. I’m assuming they are positive changes that will contribute to the safety of temple workers and patrons, which is a good thing.
A Final Word
Not a word in the statement about masks. That’s going to be a big deal, now that public health advice is solidly behind the use of masks in all public places. And it’s going to be a big deal because there seem to be a lot of Mormons buying into the idea that this advice is misguided and that citizens should actively claim the liberty of *not* wearing a mask in public. There was a big display of that line of thinking at a public meeting in Utah County last week (maybe a reader can post a link in the comments). Besides making Utahns look a bit unhinged, it raises the question of what the temple policy will be: Require masks? Recommend masks? Allow but not require them? Discourage them? Prohibit them? No matter what policy is chosen, there are going to be some people who are unhappy. Maybe they’ll make some sessions “masks required” and some “masks recommended” and have a few “no masks allowed” sessions in the Provo Temple for those in Utah County. Honestly, that seems like a workable compromise that might avoid some unfriendly scenes in temples as they slowly reopen.
Wheat & Tares 
Daily Herald story on the Utah County Commission meeting on K-12 mask wear:
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/utah-county-commission-cancels-k-12-mask-exemption-meeting-due-to-overcrowding-lack-of-masks/article_00bc0bea-d176-5cee-a32c-a84cdb543c68.html
BYU social distancing themselves from the Utah County Commission meeting fiasco:
https://pws.byu.edu/covid-19-and-masks
I gotta hand it to the church. If I had been caught fibbing as often as this organization, I would eventually knuckle under and admit my prevarication. Not these guys. In this world, the temple ceremony still has ancient origins. Changes are to improve on members’ understanding, not to placate those appalled at the penalties. While I would applaud the admission that temple actions are symbolic (no one explained that to me when I held my thumb to my throat, simulating a knife), they’re still challenged to do so in a direct, forthright way. Nerves of steel, church leaders have. My begrudging (and ironic) respect you have earned.
“Why not just say that Joseph put together the presentation in 1842 as guided by God or the Spirit? Is it too much to ask the leadership that they simply stop making false statements? They can get away with it because most LDS are willfully ignorant of anything regarding LDS temple history and origins. But “we can get away with it” does not mean you should say it, however convenient it is for your narrative or your particular goal at the time.”
They make false statements because they are false prophets.
“I’m also going to ask that we not speculate on the details of the changes in the comments to this post.”
Follow the prophet….follow the prophet…..follow the prophet…….. Yes, even the same one who is making false statements for the convenience of his narrative.
“Through inspiration, the methods of instruction in the temple experience have changed many times, even in recent history, to help members better understand and live what they learn in the temple.”
Two things that strike me about this statement 1) If the only thing changed in the ceremonies are the physical contact elements, why make this an issue about inspiration? Why can’t “it is not meet that I should command in all things” be a good enough reason to make the changes due to health concerns? 2) “to help members better understand” is an implication that members didn’t understand things in previous versions. This doesn’t seem to be true, rather the church’s changes usually are to remove offensive elements. This “helping members better understand” comes across as gas-lighting.
re “ancient origins”
Is there a reason that needs to be read as referring to the rituals rather than covenants of obedience, sacrifice, gospel, chastity, respect for the Lord’s anointed, consecration? All those things do seem to be more ancient than 18th or 19th century.
But if that is what was meant, maybe the statement is not about signs and tokens and names.
While I won’t speculate here about what the changes are, I can note that for at least many of us contrarians a request that we not engage in speculation functions primarily as an invitation and motivation to speculate. This time I’ll just wonder.
Before my ward returned to church the bishop sent out an email that explained the safety measures they would take and encouraged everyone to wear masks, including while singing, and encouraged anyone not comfortable with that to stay home. (More on that in a moment.)
While I understand why the church leaders want to keep the temple ceremony “secret”, I think it’s problematic that they don’t explain in detail what changes they’re making to make the ceremony safer. If they could find someway to communicate the changes to temple holders then the temple patrons could make an informed decision. My personal opinion is that as long as coronavirus cases are increasing people should not do temple proxy work, with *maybe* an exception for very close family members.
About my ward’s message about safety measures: on the second week, they announced from the pulpit that folks could remove their masks. I wasn’t there, but when I found out I was livid. People made the decision to go or not go based on the promise that masks would be encouraged throughout the service. It is one thing to require or not require masks, but something quite different to say they will be encouraged and then actually encourage folks to remove them.
If the changes are about health and safety, why would they only apply to the endowment ceremony? Why not to the other ceremonies that normally require physical touch?
And yes to the comments calling out the changes being framed as helping members understand. I understood quite clearly what 19th Century church leaders, who put together the endowment, thought about women. Apparently, modern church leaders think better of women. Sadly no church leaders seem to think of women the way God does. Maybe someday the church will recognize that men and women are both joint heirs with Christ and should receive the same blessings and opportunities.
I won’t speculate on what changes are actually being made in order to honor the OP’s request. The question raised about why not just say Joseph put it all together via revelation is a good one, but a thorny one. It’s times like this when I’m reminded that the church is (and has been since its inception) walking a fine line between new and old. As a restorationist church, it makes sense that it’s all about the whole “ancient times” rhetoric, since that’s what Joseph Smith (and the church) claim that’s what happened: After the death of Christ and his apostles, things got all confusing and so Joseph was needed to restore the church to its original, “ancient” form. Of course, that very claim is undercut by contemporary scholarship and plain old common sense, so that’s a problem. OTOH, one could emphasize the visionary, radical and pioneering spiritual qualities of Joseph Smith’s character to excuse the fact that this church really doesn’t at all resemble, except superficially, Christ’s original one, at least given the little we know about it. But if the church did that, it would lose the whole “ancient” vibe that it needs to legitimate Smith’s work. So the church is actually kind of caught in the middle. It wants to claim it’s the true church of Jesus Christ, meaning it needs to make claims about hearkening backwards in history to a more “pure” Christian church, but it simultaneously wants to claim Smith’s visionary, unique status. The upshot is, the church seems to get caught between these two impulses rather than employing them effectively. I think that’s the reason for the tension between paragraphs 1 and 2.
Amen, Mary.
Rockwell makes a good point. If we cannot be told in advance what changes are made regarding social distancing, masks, etc., it would seem a bit foolhardy to go and find oneself in the middle of a temple ceremony in order to find out. Reminds me of the shock of being told only after being in the session that I was to make undisclosed covenants of my “own free will and choice.” That requires a level of trust (or social pressure) that the nature of temple preparation instructions did not and do not deserve.
The first time I heard Pres Nelson talk about the temple and say “ancient” it make my skin crawl because the way he said it reminded me of:
“…which society and the works thereof I know to be good; and they are of ANCIENT date and they have been handed down unto us.” 3N3:9
My guess is even though the Gospel Topics essays were approved by the FP and Q12, they haven’t read them again, haven’t studied them, and still believe Joseph was restoring the ancient practice. Hence, that’s why the “ancient origins” are still in the press release.
Plus in the initiatory, they quote a scripture from Exodus to make that particular ordinance sound like it was the same thing Moses did when he ordained/anointed Aaron as a priest in the temple.
They’ve already taken a lot of touching out of the initiatory, but I can’t imagine them taking away the laying on of hands part of the ordinance. I guess I could be wrong on that, but that would be REALLY surprising to me. The clothing and new name parts have no touching, so I suppose it is possible, but I don’t see it.
As a woman who had to veil her face during the endowment and was constantly uncomfortable under multiple layers of clothing, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to those for whom wearing a mask in the temple would be uncomfortable, stifling or restrictive.
Brother Sky: You are absolutely correct in your description of the Church’s dilemma and being caught in the middle. And then there is this: The Brethren surely must know that most of what Joseph Smith “translated” and wrote was based on source materials available to him (KGV Bible, Adam Clarke Bible Commentary, Emanual Swedenborg, JS Senior, etc.). And of course, his productions were presented as revelatory. But now we know it wasn’t that simple. And this takes away from the narrative that Joseph Smith was an instrument in the Lord’s hands to restore His Gospel.
This is why the Church can not be honest about the origins of the temple ceremonies. If it admits that these ceremonies are not ancient in origin, it admits that JS put these together based on contemporary sources (i.e., the Masons) like he did his other material. So it is vital that the Church push the “ancient” narrative. It’s all about maintaining the authority and selection of Joseph Smith as the first prophet of this dispensation.
josh h: Yes, I agree about the anxiety regrading contemporary sources. This whole thing makes me think of Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview on, I think, 60 minutes. At one point, he says something like, “there’s no need for new revelation, we basically have everything we need” or something to that effect. That always struck me as odd (and perhaps disingenuous) considering the whole “continuing revelation” rhetoric that the church still employs. That, too, is a similar conundrum: Does the church have all (or most) of what it needs? If it does, is it still a living, breathing church? If it doesn’t, why aren’t there more substantive revelations? The whole historical (or “ancient”)/contemporary divide really gives the church fits in a number of different contexts.
I also have a problem with withholding details of the changes, as Rockwell does. People have to make careful, high-stakes decisions about where to go and how it will affect their covid exposure. Full, accurate details in advance are necessary. Incidentally, I had the same concern about the last round of changes. We have women for whom the 2000s version of the ceremony is dangerous, based on their experiences with misogyny and assault at church and how the temple ceremony reinforces a sexist culture, out based on differences between their life and the church culture ideal. May cause panic attack, may trigger depression, may trigger flashbacks, may increase likelihood of relapse in self-harm behaviors like disordered eating. Vague rumors that the ceremony improved for women–in the estimation of people who were also content with the old version–are supposed to be enough information to decide to try again? No, no, no. That’s not how this works. We have to know what we’d be participating in, judge ourselves whether it is safe, and judge ourselves whether it is compatible with our values.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Dave C., thanks for the links. BYU must be thinking, “Is there any way we can move campus to like Minnesota?”
Everyone else: Yes, they do seem to be stuck in the middle about either endorsing ancient origins or expressly renouncing them. All the more reason to just not mention it in this short statement. The statement could have read simply, “The sacred teachings, promises, and ceremonies of the temple point God’s children to Him …”
For those interested in more information (and I’m detecting a fair degree of interest) there is a recent book, The Ancient Order of Things: Essays on the Mormon Temple (Signature Books, 2019), edited by Christian Larsen (I’m halfway through; review forthcoming in a few weeks). Then there is the classic The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (Smith Research Associates, 1994) by David John Buerger. For true disciples, there is the three-volume series by Devery Anderson and Gary James Bergera, also by Signature Books. I doubt even one in a thousand active Latter-day Saints are even aware of these titles,
The Church leaders are having to redefine the word “translate” to make it fit the events. Maybe, they need to redefine the word “ancient” to fit the narrative. When most of us think ancient, we think thousands of years old. Maybe the new definition should be hundreds of years old (or at least a couple of centuries old).
Not all changes in the temple dialogue have been to help the members “better understand.” The one deleting the “church of the devil” was apparently removed at the forceful encouragement of Catholic leaders. It has since been redefined by Prez Oaks to mean secular humanism. The recent changes relating to women was more along the line of adjusting to reality than to help members “better understand.”
It seems like the Church’s PR department continues to step in it. Maybe it’s time they take a different tact. Maybe even new leadership.
rogerdhansen: You know why the Church’s PR department seems so incompetent? It’s because we are judging it based on normal PR standards. But what we forget (and I’m as guilty of forgetting as you are) is that the intended audience for most Church PR is active members of the Church a.k.a. TBMs. And let’s face it, the standard for this audience is much different than it is for more nuanced members, not to mention non-members.
My proof? Most TBMs will be perfectly satisfied with the Church’s recent news release on temple changes.
I don’t know if the TBM label fits me, but I am perfectly satisfied with the news release.
I was going to make a comment, but josh h and Brother Sky already summed up what I was going to say.
I still keep coming back to something I read from Armand Mauss (I think it was in his book “The angel and the beehive”) where he talks about the church being in tension. In this case they don’t want to pop anyone’s bubble that the temple ceremonies were from God just about as much as if he grabbed a pen and wrote it down himself. But they are also needing to make changes, but they don’t want much attention paid to them.
In response to the comments about the tension of ancient and modern, in the King Follett Discourse, JS noted he would reveal “things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world.” To me, such a statement highlights that some doctrines, practices and teachings will not have an ancient origin, but may be revealed (however, you want to interpret that) as a new concept or doctrine. Being the “ancient church” constrains modern revelation.
Also, in the letter I did not see anything that connected the changes to COVID. It may be a rewriting or change in the ordinance like they did with the initiatory.
The “now you know series” on the temple and Masons confirm that it is not ancient origins, so why are they now saying it is ancient origins?
What do you do with the Greek and Egyptian mystery religions?
It is interesting that some of them have parallels. Others have none.
It is fascinating to study them.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
rogerdhansen, I agree the explanation “to help the members better understand” seems weak. That’s a fine goal, of course, but no one really believes that’s what motivates the changes, either the current ones or ones made in the past.
ji, glad it works for you.
Onandagus, great point. I watched the “Now You Know” video on Masonry a few months ago, but forgot about it. FYI to other readers, that’s an LDS-produced little video posted at LDS.org. It contains some surprising admissions for an “official” LDS video, but understates the similarities, particularly if one consider Joseph’s original endowment, as opposed to the current LDS endowment that has dropped some of the Masonic features.
Onandagus, Thanks for the reference. I had been unaware of the “Now You Know” video on Masonry, Joseph Smith, and Temple “worship.”
I don’t see it as necessarily confirming that the temple endowment is not of ancient origins. It says:
“And consider that the ideas within the culture that surrounded Joseph Smith frequently contributed to the process by which he obtained revelations from God… …God uses many means to inspire his prophets and help them receive revelation. The temple ceremony … was revelation from God. Yes, the presentation methods may have parallels to Masonic rituals, but the content of the instruction, the covenants and truths introduced by Joseph Smith as part of the endowment, were revealed to him prior to his introduction to Masonry.”
Several things struck me in this: (1) the word “ceremony” may be misleading to some because (2) signs, tokens and names are either ignored or lumped together with clothing “presentation” as “presentation methods may” be parallel to Masonic rituals, and not part of (3) the covenants and truths revealed to JS “prior to his introduction to Masonry” (assuming, of course, that he had learned nothing of that clothing or presentation from his father and brother who were Masons long before he was, or was otherwise introduced to Masonry prior to his becoming a Mason).
Maybe the reference in the letter to “ancient” origin is really intended — however unsuccessful as communication — to refer to the covenants and truths revealed to JS prior to his introduction to Masonry, and not to the clothing or “presentation” — as I hypothesized yesterday (12:05pm) might be the case. I don’t see any conceptual difficulty in the idea of revelation to JS of “ancient covenants and truths.” But, if given any thought, it would seem the writer must have known that such a limitation on the “ancient” reference would be opaque to many.
I also noted that the video carefully recent changes to covenants, the common 19th century use of the term “loud laughter”, as well as the covenant (oath of vengeance) added to the endowment by BY, and later removed. But no one can say everything at once — certainly not in a short, introductory video. It has previously struck me that elements of the ritual can legitimately be understood as presentation methods, at least insofar as they may entail identifying oneself as one is, being made a “new creature” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), accepting Christ’s atonement, and having resulting hope in promises of eternal life for oneself and one’s posterity, all of which is deemed essential to returning to the Father’s presence, quite apart from ritual presentation.
What do you think of the hypothesized approach to “ancient” origins of covenants and truths?
S/B “carefully avoided”
Dave B., it seems to me that perhaps you’re misreading or limiting your reading of the announcement. Please consider the following:
Yes, the rituals of the endowment are largely derived from Masonic rituals but the statement in the announcement is that teachings, promises, and ceremonies are of ancient origin. Even with the ritualistic nature of the endowment being modern, the teaching and promises can still certainly be ancient, and even a modern ritual doesn’t exclude some elements of the ceremony being ancient. Also, even though the announcement is about the endowment, the first paragraph doesn’t appear to be exclusively about the endowment and may very well refer to all teachings, promises, and ceremonies of the temple.
The announcement states that the method of instruction has changed many times but you seem to be reading it as the instruction has changed many times. To me, the method of instruction is not the instruction but is how the instruction is given. The biggest change in the method of instruction, in my opinion, was the change from a live presentation to a video presentation though the live presentation is still done in the Salt Lake City and Manti temples. The videos themselves have changed several times and I’m sure other smaller changes to the methods of presentation have changed as well. Even if it was strictly in reference to the actual instruction, I think most members already know that changes to the instruction have occurred because, like yourself, they’ve experienced it for themselves. Again, this paragraph may not necessarily be exclusive to the endowment as many changes to the method of instruction, and even method of performance, in the initiatory have changed over time as well.
No issue with your reading of the third paragraph and I agree that it is tied to the second paragraph in that the second paragraph is stating that methods of instruction have changed and the third paragraph indicating that part of the method of instruction includes symbolic actions. Again, I don’t believe this paragraph is exclusive to the endowment and we’ve certainly seen changes to symbolic actions in the initiatory.
The last paragraph is exclusive to the endowment and to me this paragraph, along with the other three, is simply saying that changes to temple ceremonies have happened in the past, changes continue to be made, please don’t get worked up about it and don’t discuss it publicly.
Really appalled by the hypocrisy of saying that if other churches change ordinances, they’ve corrupted them, but if we change them, it’s inspired. People don’t think it’s reasonable to sprinkle water for a symbolic baptism when you live in a desert and lack water? Seems pretty *reasonable* to me. Alternatively, if this is the God who parted the Red Sea, and spared his chosen people from the plague, why won’t he protect people during sacred rites? Something does not add up.
However awkwardly worded, this press release is little more than a mild attempt to keep members engaged and excited to return to temples at some point, and in the mean time, keep their recommends current. Like a teaser trailer that entices you to see a movie that won’t be released for months. I’m willing to bet there is a lot of hand wringing going on among the senior Church leaders about the possibility of large numbers of Church members becoming disengaged and not returning to church when it reopens. This announcement looks like its just trying to give members something to look forward to, and by extension, a reason to keep them faithfully engaged and paying tithing.
Dave, agree with you on “ancient origins” as it relates to masonry. But you (and many others in these posts) are missing a big piece that could be construed as of “ancient origins.” Read the book “Endowed With Power” by C. Robert Line, specifically chapter 7 about ancient coronation ceremonies. These are much more part of the pedagogical fabric of the modern endowment than any potential Masonic influence. You might want to do more thorough research before making absolute/hyperbole claims.
Wow so much vitriol on this thread from from all of you toward an organization that preaches loves, kindness, and forgiveness. Why do you care so much about the church’s statement unless you have guilt in your life and once belonged to that church and now try to justify your anger by trying to disparage it? Is it hard for you to believe there might be a prophet sent from God on this earth at this time?