Latter-day Saint temple worship reveals a highly dynamic, evolving canvas. Rather than a simple vertical hierarchy of ecclesiastical power, the early liturgy introduced what historian Jonathan Stapley termed a “cosmological priesthood.” I prefer to use the term “temple-relational priesthood.” Under this framework, salvation is not an individual post-mortal reward, but a collaborative, relational climb back into the divine presence—a network of family relationships actively welded over the temple altar. Over two centuries, this liturgy has systematically streamlined its exoteric physical format to survive modern pressures while preserving this esoteric relational core.
Ancient Precedents
Spurred by Joseph Smith’s therapeutic 1836 vision of his deceased brother Alvin, early Saints plunged into the Mississippi River to perform spontaneous, unrecorded proxy baptisms for about 5 months before this was codified in 1841 in the Nauvoo Temple’s temporary wooden font. Early saints could be baptized for either gender before Joseph established strict gender rules and record-keeping. These rituals drew on deep, ancient templates. Book of Mormon narratives like Helaman 5 map to ancient esoteric liturgies, and the Sermon on the Mount functioned as a progressive, three-tiered temple drama. This early theology emphasized the Sôd Elohim (Divine Council), requiring a co-equal divine man and woman side-by-side. Lacking deceased ancestors in the faith, early converts forged lateral networks of eternal kinship using plural marriage and the Law of Adoption, sealing adult converts to apostles to build lateral dynastic power chains.
Abandoned Temple Ceremonies
Joseph’s Temple network culminated in the Second Anointing (1843), a confidential capstone ordinance that anointed couples as kings and queens. It guaranteed exaltation and established a co-equal partnership by requiring the wife to anoint her husband’s feet. In the 1920s, President Heber J. Grant restricted this celebrated public aspiration to a silent, private ordinance.
Cutlerites Lost Polygamy, Then Eternal Sealings
Alpheus Cutler abandoned polygamy in 1851. Two years later, he established the Church of Jesus Christ, complete with Nauvoo-style endowments. The church he organized subsequently lost their sealing theology entirely, showing how doctrinally inseparable these practices were. The church continues today, just a few blocks south of the Community of Christ’s Independence Temple. They still perform temple endowments, but no longer believe in marriage sealings.
Pruning and Retiring the Pioneer Liturgy
Transitioning into the 20th century, leaders systematically pruned several frontier ordinances to focus on the biological nuclear family. Between 1893 and 1923, the Church discontinued rebaptisms for repentance, posthumous ordinations, and baptisms for health—the latter historically administered by female temple healers. This simplified the liturgy, reserving fonts exclusively for proxy work. Political survival also forced changes: in 1927, under pressure from the Reed Smoot Senate hearings, President Grant removed the Oath of Vengeance (Law of Retribution), which required initiates to pray that God would avenge the martyred prophets.
Adaptation and Digital Homogenization
The material culture of temple clothing and presentation underwent similar adaptations. The sacred undergarment shifted from a full-length, single-piece pioneer design (1840s) to Heber J. Grant’s shortened modifications in 1923, and eventually to a two-piece design in 1979 developed with swimsuit designer Rose Marie Reid to accommodate modern clothing. Concurrently, the endowment shifted from a live theatrical ceremony where patrons moved through a sequence of decorated rooms, to a filmed presentation introduced in Bern in 1953 for multiple languages. This culminated in 2023 when remaining live-acted portions in Utah were retired, completing the transition to a synchronized global digital broadcast.
Shifting Boundaries and the Relational Core
Recently, President Russell M. Nelson enacted rapid policy adjustments to dismantle historical disparities. In 2019, the Church permanently retired the veiling of women’s faces, allowed women and youth to act as official witnesses in baptisms and sealings, and abolished the civil marriage waiting period. Over a century of correlation, the exoteric physical vehicle of temple worship was completely overhauled to survive modernity. Yet, its esoteric core remains unbroken. Within the temple, salvation is never an individual triumph, but an interconnected, co-equal network of cosmic kinship designed to bind the human family across the eternities.
What do you make of the evolution of temple ordinances and removal of pioneer temple practices?
Wheat & Tares 
I went through the Oakland temple for the first time in 1979. My dad was my escort, and he was as helpful as he could be. I had no temple prep class, as they were not really in existence outside perhaps as a BYU class. My Mom took me to buy my temple robes and garments and explained some of the gist of them, but just barely. I wouldn’t call my parents TBMs, but they were full time attenders, with the exception of my dad being inactive for about 10 years in the 60’s and early 70s.
The whole experience was a bit of a shock to me. I am glad and relieved about the changes that have been made. My initial visit began of course with the initiatory. I never did another one for 41 years! My wife has been a temple worker for a number of years now and she assured me that “the wierdness” had been removed. She encouraged me to go and listen to the words of the blessing. I did, and it is now one of my preferred portions of the endowment. I really enjoyed the show “The Crown” about Queen Elizabeth and found that the episode of her annointing has very much the same procedure as the initiatory. Sealings and baptisms are the other portions that I enjoy. The rest is rote. I hope heaven doesn’t look like most celestial rooms I’ve been in. I’m hoping for more of something like Yosemite Valley or Points Lobos, Pinos and other beautiful natural places I’ve been. The most spiritual experience I’ve had in the temple was waiting for a sealing in the Manti Temple, pre renovation. My father and I were told we could go to the Celestial room to see it and take a little time. Without going into too much detail, my dad and I went in and sat for a few minutes. He was wheel chair bound and very near the end of his life. We had spent many years together in the outdoors. He taught me how to ski, fish, hunt, hike and surf. We loved the natural look of that celestial room, and could visualize my dad as a young man again in that setting, and it had nothing to do with a session. Just a kind temple matron inviting us to spend a little alone time in a beautiful room.
Cheers
Funny, I was also going to mention The Crown. The episode 17RRider refers to is “Smoke and Mirrors” from season 1. Ever since I first saw it, I felt like it I would make sure that scene was part of temple prep for my children if they ever receive the endowment. The Boyd Packer book about how amazing and spiritual the temple is doesn’t prepare people very well for a ritual that is increasingly unfamiliar and strange to new initiates in the era we live in. We just don’t have very many remaining parallels in our culture for it anymore. The initiatory is very much a coronation ritual like the one depicted in The Crown, drawing from a long tradition inspired by descriptions of Hebrew Bible coronations. I think putting the temple rites into that kind of context of religious history can help people make sense of the temple now, including the idea that monarchs and popes often take a new name associated with their new role.
I see things like the oath of vengeance as a relic from another era that came from a group of people who had been traumatized. You sometimes get glimpses of that feeling from verses of hymns written in that era as well, asking God for some kind of retribution against the wicked. I can empathize with my pioneer ancestors for whom those were probably deeply felt emotions, and also think it’s good for us to move on from that and hope the music department is considering some wording tweaks for the new hymnal.
I appreciate almost all of the changes made in the last decade. It’s less sexist (but still has room for improvement). It’s less repetitive, something like 15 minutes shorter than it used to be. Some new bits have been added which I generally like. The one exception is that they have added more detailed explanations to the various “laws” that one promises to obey. I preferred when it was left to personal interpretation. Now it feels like I’m being handed someone else’s (Russell Nelson’s?) interpretation. I liked what I had before just fine.
With respect to the recent temple changes which seem to accommodate modern sensibilities, apologists (and maybe the Church itself) says things like “the ordinance itself hasn’t changed, just the vehicle to get there”. But the ordinance HAS changed. And how is this possible if the original ordinances were revealed and Joseph Smith himself said they could not change.
If this was all man-made and made up as they go along, this is exactly how it would look. Makes me wonder if in ten years we will even recognize it.
There’ll come a time when all things from the beginning to the end of the world will be revealed–and we’ll see the elements of the temple that come to us in symbolic trappings as they really are. And my guess is that we’ll discover that there’ve been no changes to the foundational elements of the temple ceremonies–just the more peripheral details. Kinda like how certain elements of a story might be modified to make it suitable for a stage production without altering the core material.
I think covenanting to your husband vs. covenanting to the Lord is a big deal.
I think recognizing vs. ignoring specific physical penalties for breaking covenants is a big deal. Just my dumb opinion
Rick B, can you explain more about how the second anointing creates equality between husbands and wives, with wives anointing their husbands’ feet? How does this practice negate that the husband presides over her for eternity, according to the sealing ceremony? Or that he is a king a priest to God while she is a queen and priestess in the new and everlasting covenant?
1. What is your source for the Smoot hearings motivating the deletion of the Oath of Vengeance? The hearings were 20 years in the past by 1927.
2. We should not be performing second anointings. And maybe we aren’t. Since the Church doesn’t publicly acknowledge their existence, they could stop at any time and nobody would notice.
My Aunt remembered the ankle to wrist temple garments and said they were such a pain and she much preferred just being able to use the regular ones in the temple. I disliked the penalties in the temple ceremony and am glad they are gone together with the prayer for retribution. Some people I know criticize the changes as evidence that the original ceremony was not inspired. I’m always glad to see progress in whatever form it takes. For future changes in the temple ceremony, I would like to see Mother in Heaven portrayed as an equal partner with God the Father, participating in the creation and governance of the world, teaching and guiding humans on earth and having some kind of leadership role. That will probably not happen in my lifetime or ever, but we can dream.
I just wanted to add what I think is an important detail in the evolution of temple practices: proxy endowments were not performed until 1877. That suggests to me that Brigham Young came to think of the endowment as a salvific requirement in a way that may not have occurred to Joseph Smith, and that shift has heavily influenced how the the church thinks about the temple to this day.
I also recommend, for anyone curious about the second anointing, the book Mysteries of Godliness by David Buerger. I understand Devery Anderson’s The Development of LDS Temple Worship, which I haven’t read, also covers similar territory. One fascinating detail was that the ordinance was given quite freely in the late 19th century, gradually became restricted to a more select group, and nearly faded out entirely in the first half of the 20th century, but was revived due to the promotion of one apostle (I don’t remember who) who believed it to be important. I agree with lastlemming that the practice ought to go away, but as I understand it, it’s alive and well, unless the apostles have been scared off it by the two defectors who have gone on to speak publicly about it in the last 15 years.
@Tammy H
I read somewhere that before the temple script was standardized one of the temples (St. George, I think?) had this exchange:
Q: Is it good for man to be alone?
A: No, for We are not alone.
Which could easily be taken as a reference to Heavenly Mother, so there’s a little bit of a precedent for it.
(The same site had a few diary entries from people who got their endowments back in the 1840’s, and those sounded pretty wild!)
@Jack, “There’ll come a time when all things from the beginning to the end of the world will be revealed–and we’ll see the elements of the temple that come to us in symbolic trappings as they really are. And my guess is that we’ll discover that there’ve been no changes to the foundational elements of the temple ceremonies–just the more peripheral details.”
The implication of your comment appears to me to be that most/all people can’t really make much sense of temple symbolism and which parts of the temple ceremony are important and which are peripheral. What’s the purpose of a temple ceremony that apparently no one really understands in this life? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
mountainclimber479:
Every initiate may come to understand the symbolism in our temple theology. But it typically comes to the individual a little bit at a time by means of personal revelation. So–yes–the Lord will reveal to us the meaning behind the symbols–and I mean right now in the present–as fast as we’re able to receive them and guard them with care. We don’t have to wait until the “perfect day” to at least get a rudimentary understanding of what the rites represent.
@Jack,
Same question (replacing “no one” with “almost no one”): What’s the purpose of a temple ceremony that apparently almost no one understands in this life?
Before you tell me that 1/3 of my local ward has obtained this secret/sacred knowledge, I will say that I’ve been around far too many Mormons of all types my entire life to believe that to be true.
Thanks for sharing 17rrider. My temple prep class was pretty worthless and I was shocked too. I think chapter 1 ofJonathan Stapley’s new book Holiness to the Lord should be required reading for new patrons.
Quentin, in my research, I was surprised to learn that the oath of vengeance foundations were rooted in a Kirtland-era covenant of retribution due to persecution there. Following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the oath was formally integrated into the endowment liturgy in the Nauvoo Temple attic. Initiates covenanted to pray that God would avenge the blood of the martyred prophets upon the United States government and “this generation”.
During the Reed Smoot Senate hearings (1904–1907), critics weaponized the text of the oath as proof of Latter-day Saint political disloyalty and treason. Under intense pressure to demonstrate American patriotism, President Heber J. Grant’s administration officially excised the Law of Retribution from the temple ceremony in 1927.
This removal was part of a larger twentieth-century correlation effort to transition the temple paradigm away from “militaristic retribution” and “retributive” frontier practices toward a peaceful sanctuary focused on biological genealogy and the nuclear family.
Mary, Great question. I got my information from Jonathan Stapley. In His previous book, The Power of Godliness, he uses a concept called “cosmological priesthood” but few people like that term. I like to think of what happens in the temple where we bind families together as “temple-relational priesthood.”
In the standard temple endowment, participants are not actually made kings and priests or queens and priestesses; they are only given a promise that they may eventually become such through their faithfulness. The Second Anointing is the actual realization and coronation of that promise. This capstone ceremony is designed to confer the “fullness of the priesthood”. In this ordinance, couples are not merely promised future glory; they are actually anointed and ordained as kings, queens, priests, and priestesses to rule together in the celestial world.
A defining feature of the Second Anointing is its ritual structure, which places the wife in an active, authoritative role rather than a subordinate one. The ordinance is only available to a husband and wife together. During the second part of the ritual, the wife anoints her husband’s feet and seals him up to the resurrection. In a theology where sealing and resurrection are the ultimate mechanisms of salvation, this act places the keys of resurrection and exaltation directly in the wife’s hands for her husband, just as his are for her. This specific ritual requirement establishes a co-equal partnership at the very apex of temple cosmology.
Last Lemming, the removal of the oath in 1927 comes from both David Buerger’s “Mysteries of Godliness” and Michael Homer’s “Joseph’s Temples.” During the early twentieth century, this oath became a massive liability. During the hostile Reed
Smoot Senate hearings critics presented the oath as physical evidence that endowed Mormons swore treasonous oaths of disloyalty to the United States. Under intense political
pressure to protect Senator Smoot’s seat and demonstrate American patriotism, President Heber J Grant’s administration officially removed the Law of Retribution from the temple ceremony in 1927. Of course, sometimes the church moves slowly to avoid the appearance of giving in to public pressure.
As for second anointings, I’m pretty sure you’re aware off Hans Mattson and bro Phillips sharing their experiences about their second anointings with elder Holland. My guess use they continue for temple presidents, seventies and above.
Quentin, my understanding about proxy endowments was Wilford Woodruff was there driving force with his dream about the founding fathers. Apparently he convinced Brigham to go along with it.
Sunbeam, it was also Woodruff who helped to get the temple ceremony written down while he was st George temple pres.
mountainclimber479,
I think most members are more concerned about living up to the commitments they make in the temple than with understanding all of the deep symbolism in the rites–and that’s as it should be, IMO. Even so, I do believe–as Elder Packer stated in general conference–that those who attend the temple regularly should come to understand the meaning of its ordinances little by little over the course of their lives.
I like the LDS temple religion but it is not easy. The contradictions are obvious and I find I have to intentionally ignore them in order to enjoy the experience.
First, there is the contradiction that we are told the teachings and rituals are necessary for our eternal salvation, but then the teachings and rituals keep changing!
Then there is the whole social / doctrinal narrative of the temple. We need temples to save ourselves and to save others. The temple is essential to our salvation. Oh, but not more important than Jesus, and the temple acknowledges Jesus. More than ever the temple teaches of Jesus. So we should do temple worship, I mean worship at the temple, we don’t worship buildings, do we?
And observe that for all the importance LDS attach to the temple, the LDS operation of them is in conflict with the Gospel teaching that we do all things by the Spirit. No we don’t ! At least as it concerns the temple. The temple is going to be fully scripted and automated, like a ride at Disneyland, and any workings of the spirit must fit the pre-recorded programming.
The message I get from LDS leadership is that what matters to them is members adopting the habit of temple attendance. So the leadership has made getting to the temple easier and it has simplified the temple curriculum. But in the process, these changes have demystified the temple – clarity is in conflict with mystery. This leads to the member question: Is this all there is?
There is also the challenge that the more common something becomes, the less special it is. The LDS temple religion is running full throttle into this dilemma. If temples are everywhere and the barrier of entry is low, what is special about it?
I wish I could celebrate the temples recent changes. But I feel as if having women becomes queens and priestesses to the new and ever lasting covenant means the same thing as before-her husband. Or worse. Polygamy. I am distressed by the seeming obfuscation. Since it’s less obvious maybe women won’t notice? I could go back when the sexism was direct and in your face. I could defend it and say it’s a relic of older times. But I have nothing but disappointment for that. I’d love to hear someone else’s interpretation or thoughts on that.
A Disciple,
I appreciate much of what you’ve had to say here at W&T over the last couple of years–but I’m going to challenge you on this particular theme, OK?
“First, there is the contradiction that we are told the teachings and rituals are necessary for our eternal salvation, but then the teachings and rituals keep changing!”
The actual salvific content doesn’t change. As I’ve said elsewhere–its kind of like a book that’s modified for a film. We can say that it’s the same story so long as it keeps all of the core elements intact.
“Then there is the whole social / doctrinal narrative of the temple. We need temples to save ourselves and to save others. The temple is essential to our salvation. Oh, but not more important than Jesus, and the temple acknowledges Jesus.”
The two elements are intrinsically connected. We serve the Savior by helping him redeem the dead–but at the same time we directly serve our brothers and sisters who have passed on. And I’d add that the temple does far more than acknowledge the Savior–it is there that we learn to understand how he is the way the truth and the light.
“More than ever the temple teaches of Jesus. So we should do temple worship, I mean worship at the temple, we don’t worship buildings, do we?”
I agree that we have to be careful not to lose sight of the real object of our worship. Even so, I think the Savior himself would have us perform certain ordinances in holy places because of their sanctity.
“And observe that for all the importance LDS attach to the temple, the LDS operation of them is in conflict with the Gospel teaching that we do all things by the Spirit.”
And so it must be–as the majority of what takes place there is our participation in ordinances. It’s the same with partaking of the sacrament–it’s always the same. Ah, but even so, we have the opportunity to return often and glean a new insights as we participate in those ordinances–and that’s the real beauty of it, IMO.
“But in the process [of making temples more accessible and simplifying the temple curriculum], these changes have demystified the temple – clarity is in conflict with mystery. This leads to the member question: Is this all there is?”
We know that there’ll come a day when the mysteries will be spoken from the house tops. I don’t know if that will be a sudden shift or something more gradual–me thinks the latter. Even so, if our temple rituals are less protracted and ornate than they used to be–and certainly far less so than the Egyptian’s version of it–that’s not to say that there aren’t any mysteries left to be discovered. Learning to understand what the ordinances mean is where the rubber really meets the road–and we don’t need a lavish spellbinding theatrical production in order to learn those elements. I think of when Joseph Smith performed the first endowments above the store–they hung curtains, set potted plants in place, and so forth–and that was a sufficient degree of aesthetic to get the idea across. That said, I am grateful for the degree of artistic quality that we see in our temples–I think it’s important for both patrons and our friends on the outside to recognize the temple as the centerpiece of our religion.
“There is also the challenge that the more common something becomes, the less special it is. The LDS temple religion is running full throttle into this dilemma. If temples are everywhere and the barrier of entry is low, what is special about it?”
That’s interesting–some folks might argue that the barrier of entry is too high. At any rate, I think we might ask ourselves what our attitude would be like during the Millennium when the earth will be completely revolutionized and become a paradisiacal temple. It will be the order of the day.
“The actual salvific content doesn’t change. As I’ve said elsewhere–its kind of like a book that’s modified for a film. We can say that it’s the same story so long as it keeps all of the core elements intact.”
And as I’ve said before, no one seems to know what the salvific content is–including the Q15. If they did, then why don’t they simply state it so everyone isn’t so confused? Covering this in temple prep class might actually make that class worth attending.
“And I’d add that the temple does far more than acknowledge the Savior–it is there that we learn to understand how he is the way the truth and the light.”
Christ as the way, the truth, and the light comes through infinitely more clearly for me from the New Testament than the temple. I seriously don’t even know what you’re talking about? Do they do things differently in the temples you’ve been to?
“Ah, but even so, we have the opportunity to return often and glean a new insights as we participate in those ordinances–and that’s the real beauty of it, IMO.”
That is the story we are told. Mormons will tell each other this because that’s what you’re supposed to say. When asked to provide details about the insights, you’ll generally just get a blank stare. I believe that in practice people who attend the temple don’t glean any more important insights into anything that one can’t obtain by taking a walk in the woods.
“We know that there’ll come a day when the mysteries will be spoken from the house tops.”
Maybe, and if that day comes, you may surprised to learn that there really were no deep hidden mysteries in the temple.
“During the Millennium when the earth will be completely revolutionized and become a paradisiacal temple”.
“Paradaisiacal temple”. Oxymoron anyone? The temple is definitely not my idea of paradise.
mountainclimber479,
I can’t say that I understand every detail of our temple worship. But I’ve learned enough about it over time that I can state emphatically that the Lord is willing to teach us the meaning of pretty-much everything having to do with the temple. It usually doesn’t come in one fell swoop–we have to be patient–but it comes. So we should never be afraid to ask for more wisdom vis-a-vis the temple–or anything really–if our request is sincere.
Jack,
My temple experience is that the most important element is Charity. If I drop my pride and cynicism and recognize that those joining me in the temple are good hearted people trying their best then I have a very enjoyable experience. It is what I and others bring to the temple that matters. And yes, it also matters that the temple is designed to be a sanctuary.
But I can’t help but notice that all of life provides a similar reward. Any place that invites people to drop their pride and cynicism and participate with others in doing a good thing provides a positive, reassuring feeling. The feeling that one can do something good is powerful and the LDS temple religion taps into that.
Appreciate that the power of vicarious ordinances is that THERE IS NO REJECTION!!!! Unlike missionary work, temple work allows us to plow forward and never deal with the knowledge that the person rejects our efforts. This is a very powerful concept. Real life is messy. Real life is dealing with the conflicting opinions and choices of family, friends, neighbors and strangers. Real life is noisy children and crying babies and maybe a spouse with annoying habits and maybe no spouse or maybe a former spouse that has caused great pain.
The essence of the LDS temple religion is to give a respite from all that and imagine a world where all our good efforts are rewarded. I say this with admiration and respect. I say this so as to give credit for why many LDS love the temple and love its religion.
Now, the temple endowment used to be more real. It used to present conflict and darkness and death and the message was not easy to digest. Over the course of the past 40+ years, the LDS church has removed from the endowment many of these dark elements and it has greatly emphasized the “all things will work out in the end” message of hope.
This begs the question. Is the temple endowment supposed to teach hard truths about good & evil, light & darkness, or is it meant to be therapeutic and pleasing to the ear? The current form is to be pleasing – everything about the temple is now designed to be pleasing. I am ok with this. But please respect the observation that THIS IS NOT HOW IT USED TO BE!
I am not critical that the message has changed. My personal wrestle has been on the question of reconciling the change with the concept of eternal, never changing covenants – for please respect that us old-timers made DIFFERENT covenants than what is offered today. The wording of the covenants changed. The ordinances changed. And we are supposed to (a) deny this happened or (b) equivocate and rationalize that the core meaning is the same. This latter excuse has the problem of arguing that words don’t matter, despite the LDS experience that the teenage boy is made to recite the Sacrament prayer precisely correct because in that case exact words do matter!
My answer is to weigh most highly the statement that “the endowment is a gift from God” and that divine promises (ie covenants) are a gift from God. As a conceptual experience, the temple is very rewarding. As a transactional experience, not so much, for what is being transacted is always subject to “adjustments”. But conceptually, God is good and full of love and mercy, and he wants me and all his children to receive of his goodness. That is a belief I can embrace.
@Jack,
“But I’ve learned enough about it over time that I can state emphatically that the Lord is willing to teach us the meaning of pretty-much everything having to do with the temple.”
Well, I’ve learned enough about it over time that I can state emphatically that there are no deep mysteries of the temple for the Lord to teach us.
Bearing personal testimony of supernatural things isn’t a terribly effective rhetorical device, but can be wielded in both directions.
“Bearing personal testimony of supernatural things isn’t a terribly effective rhetorical device, but can be wielded in both directions.”
True–but one can always hope that the spirit of truth will carry one’s words to the heart of another through channels that exist beyond the power and scope of the intellect alone.
A Disciple,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I may not be as old an old timer as you are but I’m teetering on the brink of geezerhood even as we speak. I went through the temple for the first time 45 years ago–so I’ve seen a few changes over the last while. And I admit that I was a bit saddened and concerned with some of the big changes that happened in 1989. But since then I’ve read a lot of Nibley and other scholars on the subject of the temple and related themes–plus I’ve gotten a little older and hopefully a little wiser. And I’m now open to the rites making sense in situations varying from a week’s long theatrical extravaganza to something as simple as a makeshift performance for a family home evening. Now I don’t recommend that anyone try to pull off either of those examples–let the apostles determine what an appropriate telling of the endowment (and the other rites) should be in the sacred present. Even so, technically speaking, the extreme examples I provide–plus anything in between–can be equally efficacious in spite of their differences if they are done by the proper authority of the priesthood.
@Jack,
“One can always hope that the spirit of truth will carry one’s words to the heart of another”
Precisely! I do sincerely hope that the spirit of truth will carry my words to those who struggle with the temple because they aren’t learning the “deep meanings” that are promised in hushed voices yet were never there to begin with.
It’s so patently fake.
Although that’s never stopped humans from latching on to hocus hocus and twaddle.
It becometh every man who hath seen a documentary about freemasonry to warn his neighbor to do the same – Chet 3:16.
From the same chapter:
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Those of you referencing The Crown, did you not see the broadcast of the coronation of HM King Charles, or was it nor available overseas? We were fortunate to watch the broadcast live at our local cathedral, which felt very much like an extension of Westminster Abbey at the time. And yes, the ritual elements of the anointing and robing felt very familiar.
As to whether the situation for women has improved in endowment / sealings… who can say… I have heard the argument made that Lord as applied to men is not the same as Lord as applied to women… so it could be argued that nothing has changed, only better hidden.