Introduction
Mormons don’t tend to do symbolism well. This is largely because they grow up in a symbolically arid religious environment where literalism is the order of the day. Scriptures and teachers mean what they say and say what they mean. No interpretation required.
Then Mormons go to the temple, where they are (un)ceremoniously thrown into the deep end of the symbol pool. Many come up gasping for air, wondering what just happened. Some don’t come up at all.
My good friend, Bruce, baptized me shortly after we both graduated from high school in Sumner, Washington. The following year, he “took out his endowment” at the Idaho Falls Temple. When he returned, he told me how shaken up he was by the experience. He did not know what to make of it. It was unlike anything he had ever experienced in the LDS Church.
This caused me some alarm. I had not yet gone to the temple and was not planning on doing so until after I entered 
the MTC, which was less than a month away. If my good friend, who was the model of an active and faithful Mormon, could be so distressed by his temple experience, how would I react? Of course, my friend could not tell me what had happened inside the temple that he found so troubling, so I was left to imagine worst-case scenarios.
By the time I went to the temple for the first time in Provo, I was ready for anything, up to and including hooded figures in black robes wielding sacrificial daggers. When none appeared, the main emotion I felt was relief. Though a bit confused by the experience, I didn’t come away troubled as had my friend.
I think one reason for the difference in reactions to our first temple experience was that, whereas I was a convert, my friend had grown up in the LDS Church which acclimatized him to a literalistic way of understanding things. Trying to understand symbolism literally can indeed by troubling.
I remember as a boy of about twelve years old trying to understand the Book of Revelation literally and getting scared out of my wits. I distinctly recall a dream I had at this time where I was looking out of my bedroom window at the night sky and seeing the moon literally turn crimson and begin dripping great globules of blood.
Viewing the LDS temple endowment literally can lead to similar difficulties, including the idea that all you need to do to get into heaven is know the secret handshakes and passwords. 
But if that literalistic interpretation is correct, what are we to make of all the people who know those things but have subsequently left the Church, or who know them from other sources without ever having joined the LDS Church in the first place, much less been to the temple?
Examples such as this indicate that a literalistic understanding of the temple will not do. Temple rites are steeped in symbolism and only symbolism can unlock the meanings.
As those who have attended the temple know, the endowment consists of a religious drama portraying the Creation, including the creation of Adam and Eve, their experiences in the Garden of Eden, and their eventual expulsion into the lone and dreary world.
Embedded in the drama are numerous symbolic elements, many of which were drawn from Masonry, though imbued with new meaning in the temple endowment. The signs, tokens and names are considered sacred by those who receive them, 
and who in turn vow to never reveal them.
I will not reveal them here.
What I will do is briefly consider some potential symbolism of the signs, tokens and names, without describing them. What follows will therefore likely make sense only to those who have themselves participated in the endowment ritual.
It is hoped this discussion will enhance appreciation for the symbolic detail and richness of the endowment, and serve as a launching pad for further exploration.
The Holy Grail of the Temple
The overall structure of the endowment can best be appreciated from a distance. The drama reenacts a spiritual journey beginning in the premortal existence and concluding with the wayfarer entering the presence of God.
The endowment suggests three levels of sacredness: (1) The endowment ceremony in its entirety is considered sacred by faithful Mormons; (2) Embedded in the endowment are 
four signs, tokens and names considered even more sacred, such that the attendant swears to never reveal them; (3) But of all of these, one is the most sacred of all. This is the fourth name.
All other signs, tokens and names are given the patron by temple workers. The fourth name, however, can be received only from God himself.
This presents the fundamental problem of the endowment.
In order to enter God’s presence, the patron must obtain the fourth name directly from God. There is no other way. But how can the patron obtain the fourth name directly from God if the patron has to know the fourth name before entering God’s presence?
All the rest of the endowment is designed to lead the patron to this moment.
During the course of the endowment, the patrons are given all the signs and tokens. These will be used for a specific purpose.
That purpose is to subsequently use the signs and tokens in a group invocation, called “the true order of prayer.”
In response to this prayer, God appears.1
But he appears behind a veil.
The patrons are then individually introduced to God at the veil, where they are tested on their knowledge of the tokens and names they have previously received, and thereafter receive the fourth and most sacred name directly from God–through the veil.
In this way, patrons obtain the fourth name directly from God without yet entering into his presence. Upon receiving the fourth name from God and repeating it back to him, the patron is admitted into the presence of God.
This in sum is the religious pilgrimage and spiritual quest of the temple patron.
In the Name of God
But what is this fourth name? What does it symbolize? Here it is helpful to consider the symbolism of the first three names. The first name represents one’s premortal identity. 
(It should not be confused with the actual name one bore in the premortal existence. Some who feel this way are disillusioned to discover that temples use the same name for all men on a given day, and the same name for all women. The first name is not the actual name of one in premortality, but it symbolizes that name.)
The second name represents one’s identity in mortality.
The third name represents the Savior, Jesus Christ.
So what can the fourth name represent?
The answer is not readily apparent, because the fourth name does not seem to be a name at all, but rather a paragraph constituting a requested blessing.
But it is a name nonetheless.
Truman G. Madsen authored a paper titled “Putting on Names,” published in Volume 1 of “By Study and Also by Faith.” I wrote a letter to Truman Madsen dated February 24, 1993 in which I synopsized his findings and asked a question for clarification:
Taking into account the above facts as you outlined them in your essay; the sacredness surrounding the name of God, the fact it was only mentioned once a year in ancient Israel by the high priest in the holy of Holies; that receiving the name was a privilege of obedience; that the name of God may be complex; that the name of God the Father is not uttered in the world, but is known by those who have it; taking into account all these clues, is it possible that the actual name of God the Father is revealed to the initiate in the temple, that it is guarded with utmost sacredness, and that it must be taken upon the initiate in order to become like God the Father, even as we take upon ourselves the name of the Savior in the waters of baptism?
On March 31, 1993, I received a letter signed by Truman G. Madsen in response to my question. The body of the letter consists of just one word—“Yes!”
Where is Jesus in the Temple?
From time to time, I have encountered the question, “Where is Jesus in the temple?”
It is a good question.
Jesus never appears in the temple drama.
A character named Jehovah appears, but he does nothing particularly “Jesusy.” Rather, Jehovah is the quintessential middle-man, doing little more than conveying information from upper-management to lower-management and back again.
It is also a fact that the name “Jehovah” did not become specifically identified with the premortal Jesus Christ until many decades after the Nauvoo period when the endowment was introduced. (See, for example, the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple contained in D&C 109 where Jehovah is used as a name for the Father.)
But Jesus does appear in the endowment. In fact, he is present all along. But he is not on the screen.
He is in the audience.
Each temple patron ritually portrays the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus during the course of the endowment. This is easy to overlook because the endowment is a “stage, and one man in his time plays many parts.” More than that, one man (and one woman) plays many parts at the same time.
At first, the patrons represent themselves during their first endowment session, and thereafter represent persons who have died. At the same time, the male patrons 
also represent Adam and the female patrons also represent Eve.
But while these multiple levels of representation are occurring simultaneously, there is another level of representation.
All men and women individually represent Jesus Christ.
They do so through the tokens they receive. The third and fourth token are the most obvious in this regard, and taken together represent the crucifixion of Jesus. All patrons are symbolically crucified through the third and fourth tokens, and may say with Paul, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” (Gal. 6:17)
This gives us a clue as to the meaning of the first and second tokens, which should similarly be taken together in order to discern their meaning.
The first and second tokens are almost identical. There is only one difference. It is the difference that is important. The difference between the first and second tokens represents the movement from a higher place to a lower place. They represent movement from heaven to earth. Taken in context with the third and fourth tokens, they represent the advent of the Savior from heaven into mortality. They represent the Savior’s birth. They represent “the condescension of God.” (1 Nephi 11:16)
Through the four tokens, the patron symbolically enacts the birth and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and by implication the life Jesus lived between these two events.
After the crucifixion and still representing Jesus, the patron ascends to heaven to be with the Father, leaving behind the empty room/tomb.
The Atonement of Jesus is represented at the veil, both as Jesus himself wrought it, as well as the at-one-ment it provides his followers.
The Symbolism of the Signs
The signs viewed together have their own meaning. Whereas the tokens are Messianic, the signs are Sacerdotal in nature, or in other words, they relate to priestly functions.
It is important to begin by noting that the first three signs are structured in such a way as to be sequential and cumulative. By this I mean they connect with, and build upon, each other.
Signs are made with arms and hands held in certain formations. The first sign is made only 
with the right arm. In the second sign, the first sign is now made with the left arm and a new sign is introduced for the right arm. In the third sign, the second sign shifts from the right arm to the left arm and a new sign is introduced for the right arm.
The fourth sign departs from this pattern and, in addition to its obvious representation of prayer, also represents the blessings of God descending from heaven.
When taken together, the four signs represent the priestly function of consecrating oil, using the oil to anoint the head of another, and laying hands upon the other’s head to seal the anointing and call down blessings from heaven. This meaning is occluded somewhat by the fact that priesthood holders today typically carry their oil in a plastic or metal container. In earlier days it was sometimes necessary to hold the oil in one’s cupped hand prior to administration.
With that in mind, here is a quotation from the History of the Church 2:379-82, in which is described the 21 January 1836 introduction of the Kirtland temple ritual prior to its dedication. The Kirtland temple ritual was a simple ceremony consisting of washing and anointing the body, blessing and sealing the individual, and washing the feet. After washing and perfuming each other in the attic of the printing office, Joseph Smith and his associates congregated in the unfinished temple where the First Presidency consecrated oil and progressively laid hands on each other’s heads, blessing and anointing each other to their offices. Now the quote from Joseph Smith:
At early candle-light I met with the Presidency at the west school room, in the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of anointing our heads with holy oil. . . . . I took the oil in my left hand, Father Smith being seated before me, and the remainder of the Presidency encircled him round about. We then stretched our right hands towards heaven, and blessed the oil, and consecrated it in the name of Jesus Christ.
We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with the consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him.
The passage does not say if the oil was in a bottle or some other container, but if it were not, Joseph could have held it only by forming his hand into a cupping shape.
During the course of this meeting that lasted 
until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, visions were seen (a part of which may be found in D&C 137), angels ministered to many, and “the spirit of prophecy and revelation was poured out in mighty power.” The meeting was “closed by singing and invoking the benediction of heaven, with uplifted hands.”
Of Robes, Priesthood and Gender Roles
Temple patrons don certain clothing necessary to officiate in ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood. This clothing is put on not only by male patrons, but also by female patrons.
The clothing is subsequently rearranged in order for the patrons to officiate in the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This also applies not only to male patrons, but equally to female patrons.
But where in the temple do the male and female patrons officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods? The answer may be found in the subsequent use of the signs and tokens as part of engaging in the true order of prayer, and in the use of the tokens and names at the veil. In order to use all the tokens, names and signs, one must officiate in both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.
This applies to the women as well as to the men.
And men, as well as women, receive the fourth and most sacred name from God himself, and thereafter enter into the presence of God. We understand that in order to do this, one must possess the Melchizedek Priesthood. (D&C 84:21, 22)
Elder Oaks recently (though somewhat obliquely) observed that temple matrons “officiate in a priesthood ordinance” when they wash and anoint female patrons prior to receiving the endowment. 
But this observation applies not only to temple matrons. It applies to every woman who receives her temple endowment.
This may account for why many early Church leaders, including Brigham Young, believed that women who had received their endowment held the priesthood.2
Conclusion
The temple endowment instituted through Joseph Smith is a complex rite of symbolic intricacy. Considerations of its structure, as well as the names, signs and tokens embedded throughout the dramatic presentation, attest to its manifold and multi-layered richness of meaning.
We have likely only begun to scratch the surface.
_______________________
1 This may be meant to contrast with the fact that, earlier in the endowment when Adam prays in something less than the “true order of prayer,” it is not God but Satan who appears.
2 Brigham Young’s 1843 diary associated the endowment of women with receiving priesthood. On 29 October 1843, for example, he noted that Thirza Cahoon, Lois Cutler, and Phebe Woodworth were “taken into the order of the priesthood.” That was the day those three women individually received their endowment. They did not join with their husbands to receive the second anointing until 12 and 15 November 1843, respectively. When his own wife received the endowment on 1 November 1843, Brigham Young wrote: “Mary A. Young admitted in to the hiest [highest] orderer [order of] Preasthood.” She did not receive the second anointing with him until three weeks later. (Brigham Young diary, 29 Oct., 1 Nov. 1843, copies in Donald R. Moorman papers, Archives, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, and in H. Michael Marquardt papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah; “Meetings of anointed Quorum [—] Journalizings,” 29 Oct., 1 Nov. 1843; Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 426-27; Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 102; Buerger, “The Fullness of the Priesthood,” 23.) In January 1846, Brigham Young wrote of “the anxiety manifested by the Saints [not just men?] to receive the ordinances of the Endowment & no less on our part to have them get the Keys of the Priesthood …” In 1867 he preached that God was “bestowing upon His sons and daughters, who are worthy, this priesthood, and kingly power to increase subjects and obtain territory, to extend the greatness of their kingdom forever …” In an 1874 sermon delivered three years before his death, Brigham Young said: “Now brethren, the man that honors his Priesthood, the woman that honors her Priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.” (Brigham Young diary, 12 Jan. 1846; transcript of Brigham Young unpublished sermon, 27 Aug. 1867, LDS archives; Journal of Discourses 17:120.) (This research is not original to myself, but I copied it so long ago I cannot remember the original source. My apologies to the original researcher, whom I suspect may be D. Michael Quinn.)
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Corbin
I have enjoyed your articles on Nephi and Heavenly Mother. I agree the endowment is rich in symbolism, 90 percent of it taken from the first three degrees of freemasonry. The endowment symbolizes our fallen condition and then the way to find redemption.
I believe very strongly and through my own spiritual experiences that parts of the endowment still are not good. They have changed the ordinance multiple times because of offensive and flat out wrong things the endowment use to contain as I am sure you know. If the endowment truly symbolized redemption from the fall a woman would not be required to submit to her husband. There should be nothing between a woman and God. Even in the garden story in scripture the fact that a woman would submit to her husband was part of the curse. The atonement saves us from this fallen condition. Truthfully I believe that part of the endowment is wrong.
Also the part we consecrate everthing to the church. It clearly says to the church and not to God. This is not good in my opinion. Plus James said in the New Testament that above all else we should not make oaths, as this subjects us to bondage. Jesus Himself says to let our communication be yea yea etc and anything more or less than this is evil. In your mind I have to believe after reading some other things that you have written you are aware of some of these issues. Have you ever wondered if the endowment was not commanded of God at all? And if it was, and it was perfect as the “prophets” claimed, then why has it been changed numerous times?
You raise a lot of good questions, and I can’t possibly respond to all of them here. Let me get to your last point, though, which encapsulates all the rest in one form or other.
No. I do not think the endowment is perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect. Nothing that goes through the hands and minds of men and women is perfect; nor can it be. What we have is at best a corrupted communication from God. We see through a glass darkly (i.e., in a mirror fuzzily).
But the reflection we are trying to behold is who we really are. Eventually we will be able to see that reflection fully, but not while we are in this life.
And if Paul is right (1 Corinthians 13) that we cannot see our own reflection accurately and fully while in mortality, I think that probably goes double for God or other things in the divine world.
So no, I do not think the endowment is perfect.
To share a personal story with you, though, I was troubled in 1990 when not only were the penalties done away with (yay!), but also an entire character was deleted from the endowment.
I had similar feelings to what you are saying here. How can the endowment be perfect with such major modifications?
But then, on further reflection, it occurred to me that the character of a Protestant minister could not have been a part of any prior version of the endowment; at least not any version that would have existed prior to Protestantism!
I think the endowment ceremony employs characters, rituals, signs, tokens, etc., in an attempt to convey information, as well as power. Maybe in this case, knowledge is power.
But in order to do that, the endowment must be flexible enough to fit into the relevant culture in which it is being portrayed and experienced.
So maybe it is a good thing that the temple endowment ritual is itself flexible, as well as the symbolic interpretation of the signs, tokens, etc., that it contains.
Just some thoughts.
Did the prophets claim the endowment was perfect? I would like to read the quotes if they exist.
The truth is, nothing in the gospel is perfect. What’s discussed even less is that no one claims it to be perfect, either. Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was “the most correct book” on Earth, but no prophet has ever claimed it to be perfect. People make out the prophets to be some other worldly figures who are incapable of mistakes or sin. Many people leave the church when they deem a prophet has faults when they were supposed to be perfect. Nothing is perfect. Because it is men and women in the gospel doing their best to build up the kingdom of God. And more often than not they aren’t given a blueprint, they’re just handed a shovel and told to get to work.
Well said
There is a deeper level of symbolism. This is the level where the true meaning of the Endowment lies. Man (Adam) represents the mind. Woman (Eve) represents the body and senses. When understood properly, the true order of prayer begins to reveal itself.
I disagree your woman being submissive comment. Adam answers to the Lord, both Adam and Eve answer to each other. It’s a much more huge responsibility to answer directly to the Lord and can be both a blessing and a curse. Basically, Adam gets the raw end of the deal if he leads them off in the wrong direction. Eve is also instructed to heed his counsel as he heed the Lord’s counsel. To me, that means that she listens to Adams counsel, she’s not being dominated, and if he’s being unrighteous, well, his counsel is as good as mud because she still has her free agency and can discern between good and evil, she can still make her own decisions and choices. Adam is to heed to her counsel as well, and she is a priestess to her husband. Perhaps this is to protect Eve, from God’s wrath since she has shown that she is more vulnerable to Satan’s influence.
I’m any man’s equal.
I disagree with your comments about women. If you pay attention, you will hear that Adam will heed God’s words. And then God tells Eve to listen to Adams counsel AS LONG AS HE HEED’S THE LORD’S COUNSEL.then, he turned around and told Adam to heed Eve’s counsel. Now, the neat thing here, is that Eve can discern good from evil. Plus, she has freedom of choice. So if Adam is not heeding God’s word, she doesn’t have to listen to Adams counsel.
I don’t see that as a curse, and here’s why… Adam has a huge responsibility to heed God’s word. If he fails to do so, he’s in deep doo-doo. If Eve follows her husband’s counsel and believes it to be from God, she is not as much in deep Doo-doo. I see it as a protection to Eve. Not a curse.
Have to throw this quote into the mix from David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. If the symbolism and liturgy can shock a prophet in his formative years, then we are all at risk. I know that my first experience was far from enlightening for me.
That is such a great quote from President McKay. Thank you for sharing it.
Though he was before my time, I know a lot of (even) older people than I who hold him in high esteem.
I have a feeling it is this sort of ability on his part to empathize with the regular folks that made him so beloved.
On my first experience at the Provo Temple, I felt nothing particularly spiritual during the endowment itself. I was too busy trying to memorize things at the drop of a hat, as well as not be the last man standing who hadn’t put on his temple robes yet.
(I did not win that race. I remember having to stand there while everybody was seated looking at me while a nice man helped me out. I was so embarrassed.)
But doing the washings and anointings prior to the endowment, I did feel a special kind of spirit. The temple workers needed a few missionaries to help with a bunch of W&A’s for the deceased, so I volunteered to help out and did a string of them before I received my endowment.
When I was going through that ordinance, not having to worry about memorizing anything, but just being able to experience it, I felt a spirit that I have never felt before or since.
I remember at the time feeling that it was like the “spirit of Moses,” whatever that might mean.
It seemed very Old Testamenty.
This is a wonderful quote and sums it up as far as I’m concerned. The temple endowment is not a “one time” college course and I think we forget that. You are not expected to or even able to comprehend its full meaning in a lifetime. That is why we go back as often as we can. If you are expecting to become all knowing in one session you are going to be sadly disappointed. Spiritual things are learned only with the true spiritual mind and heart. If you are not in tune with the spirit, which takes much preparation and prayer, you won’t get anything. If we look for issues, we will find them. If we look for God’s help and inspiration, we will find it.
One of my issues with the temple is that a woman who is getting married, gets that fourth sign from her husband – not God.
I don’t like that. At all.
My relationship to my Heavenly Parents is my OWN.
Sorry – I should also say I really like how you laid this out. Lots of great layers of meaning.
I hear what you are saying, Camille, and I have no ready answer for it. The temple endowment in its current form definitely places men between God and women. I believe that was ameliorated a bit by a change in wording in 1990, but it has not been completely corrected to my mind.
I suppose that is to be expected in a ritual that is based on the very old story of Adam and Eve. And perhaps the 1990 change in the right direction can give hope that future changes will level the playing field further.
It is my personal opinion that a wider knowledge of the Second Anointing and the part a woman plays in that ritual vis-à-vis her husband might help us understand that temple rites may not be as imbalanced as they seem.
In this most sacred temple ritual, it is the woman who performs the ordinance on her husband.
It is the man who cannot have his calling and election made sure without the ordinance performed by his wife.
Truth about the Second Anointing but as that’s so limited and so far removed from the daily life/culture of being LDS is not of much comfort, kwim?
I wanted to bring up the Second Anointing here so that it can by drips and drabs work its way back into common Mormon culture where it belongs.
I remember once teaching the plan of salvation to a friend back in college. I did it the way the Church says to do it–talking about the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom and the telestial kingdom.
When I was done, he said that was very interesting and he liked the idea, but it seemed to him there was something missing. He couldn’t put his finger on it, though.
So I went outside the missionary discussion and told him about outer darkness.
He sat back with a smile.
“That’s what was missing,” he said.
What is missing in all this is JESUS of the BIBLE.
…an ex 4th generation Mormon who is saved by grace alone, not by work “least any should boast”.
My reply is to Judith, Please don’t quote the Bible unless you have read the entire Book. You need both grace and works. (James 2:24) – “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
All of this discussion is fine, but I always find that pride enters into these kinds of discussion. There are a few things about the endowment that if I let it will bother me also. However I always go back to Mathew 18: “3-And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” We are not perfect so we must sometimes submit, and I think that is where faith comes in. If we have faith, it doesn’t really matter if we agree or not. God said it and that is that. If we try to put ourselves above God, then we run into trouble.
The problem with that is most of us will not participate in that ordinance in our lifetime and those Who have are not supposed to say.
Good question, but the Lord has provided for that. That is why we who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have the responsibility of doing proxy work in the temple for those who have passed away before having the opportunity to partake of these glorious blessings. They will have the opportunity in the after life to accept or reject these ordinances.
My understanding is that the husband is allowed to take the place of the Temple worker who is representing God. I don’t think he is replacing God in the drama being depicted, he is allowed to represent God in the same way the Temple worker did. The woman still receives the fourth name from a God.
“The woman still receives the fourth name from a God” – ugh, hit send too fast.
Should read – from a person representing God. The husband is no more a barrier in the relationship between the woman and God at this stage of the Endowment than the Temple worker is.
Thank you for this comment! That’s exactly what I was thinking.
One reason the husband receives this information is that he will be the one to call her forth in the resurrection, and he needs certain information in order to do that. If he didn’t receive it from her, then he wouldn’t be able to do that.
This.
Saying a woman’s husband is taking the place of God for the name is being purposefully misleading. It would be the same as me saying, “I dislike the temple because they told me I was going to enter God’s presence and it ended up being a temple worker.” A little perspective goes a long way.
I forgot to mention that people like Camille come to this site for one reason and one reason only; to claim victim-hood and accuse the Church of rampant misogyny. She and others like her have been doing it for years, so it’s nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with her… unless you agree with her, of course.
Hi Camille! I know your response to this was a long time ago now, but I wanted to reply anyway…
To draw upon the writings of VH Cassler, I have come to believe that it is not accidental and not at all unequal that we receive the fourth sign from our husband, and I’ll explain why.
Women have been charged with the sacred responsibility of bringing our Heavenly Parents spirit children into this world (including the son of God!). Men have been charged with the sacred responsibility of bringing these children safely home again.
When Adam partook of the fruit, he covenanted with his wife that he would support her in her role. Eve then covenanted that she would support him in his role. One cannot succeed without the other.
(http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerTwoTrees.html)
Sorry I am posting to an old thread. One of the things that I was revealed/taught, is the symbolic nature of the temple narrative where Adam represents YOUR spirit and Eve represents YOUR body. The entire endowment is about YOU and not a couple. Then it makes sense why Eve is to submit to Adam as he submits tot he Lord, and why Women view their faces in the presence of God. Also explains why they must remain together and fall together. Looking at it this way has given me some tremendous insights.
The initiates represent Adam/Eve. They are “conformed to the image of Christ” (Rom. 8:29) by means of the signs. We are becoming sons and daughters of God, following the example of Christ symbolically. So Jesus is not in the seats during the endowment–actually we are being conformed to the image of Christ. We imitate the crucifixion in some of the signs. We can say as did Paul, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Gal. 2:20
So Phillip….I get what you are saying with the symbolism. But I am curious now, how you feel, not that women no longer veil their faces, and are no more “subject” unto their husband. Any insight into how you feel would be wonderful……because it just made me all sorts of confused. It makes me feel like the whole thing is being made up as we go along, adjusting where necessary.
**now that women no longer veil their faces, or are subject until their husband…..
It was a requirement of a Telestial world…it came as they departed the Terrestrial world. It will not be required when in the Terrestrial world of the Millennium.
Hmmm…maybe step back and think about what has been written in this post. There are multiple layers of symbolism–like layers to an onion. This is not the sum total of the symbolism and its meaning. Rather than finding fault with the mechanics (as the McKay quote called them), consider that perhaps the wife is symbolic of one thing and the husband symbolic of another–rather than restricting the scope of meaning to the literal, outward show. When I encounter parts of the temple or the gospel that don’t make sense, seem contradictory, or that I just don’t “like,” I have found that when I approach the subject with humility, those things are usually gateways into the next layer of understanding. A wise teacher, our Father in heaven, allows these “gateways” to irritate us on one level of understanding to invite us to understand them on the next, deeper layer. And that process repeats. I hope this helps you advance in your knowledge of the temple.
Amen Camille
I am glad to hear you have a relationship with your Heavenly Parents! Not just with the Father. When Christ said we have to become like little children this is one of the meanings I believe. What child would not approach his mother? What mother would not speak with her children? Jesus spoke and heard from His Heavenly Father and Mother.
In the teachings of at Issa Jesus teaches that men should submit to their wives. He taught that we must cherish women and that She is the Creator of the universe! The LDS church since the inception of polygamy, then on through the endowment and the purely patriarchal nonsense have damned themselves from higher blessings.
It is apparent to me that have received of the word of God, and have then said they have enough. Yes there may be more truth in the LDS church than any other. But until they repent of some things the windows of new truth and revelation will remain shut.
How do you know that the Church proper is shut out from additional blessings? Or that the “Jesus as Issa” visit to India is in any way scriptural? Hmmm… I wonder.
“Elder Oaks recently (though somewhat obliquely) observed that temple matrons “officiate in a priesthood ordinance” when they wash and anoint female patrons prior to receiving the endowment. But this observation applies not only to temple matrons. It applies to every woman who receives her temple endowment.”
I have always and forever believed this.
Amazing, simply amazing.
But outside the temple, female priesthood authority is utterly unrecognized.
You are right about that, Alysa, and I believe when the day comes that we get back to our roots, all that will change.
Thank you so much. Of I had read this article eighteen years ago, prior to my endowment.. Or just after, I would neither have been so confused, even though I still understand my discomfort with some parts mentioned in commentary above. I would have been able to peacefully return again and again, and receive the peace intended for me! This article is beautiful, and should be required reading for all those readying themselves to go through the temple. Thank you so very much.
Thank you so much for the kind words, Nightingalesong.
I will pass your recommendation along to the Correlation Committee.
Why can’t temple prep classes be like this article!? Average members who teach it are too frightened to talk this in depth about the symbolism. Sad really.
That is very nice of you to say so, Eric. I agree with you about temple prep classes, though.
For the longest time, temple prep classes were just the new member discussions all over again. There was little (and by little, I mean nothing) that helped prepare people for the PTSD (Post Temple Symbolism Trauma) of going through the endowment.
A number of years ago, the Correlation Committee added one lesson dealing with symbolism to the manual, but I don’t think that is really doing the trick.
I haven’t seen the temple prep manual in over a decade so don’t know what it is like now.
I would have eleven lessons on symbolism and one lesson on temple history.
And I would go a lot further into specifics as to what to expect at the temple.
What is needed is a class after you go to the temple to discuss all that is allowed to be discussed. There is so much that acn be talked about that is not.
Do you think the signs and tokens will ever be used outside of the temple? Perhaps at a future time during the plan of salvation?
Do you mean other than in Masonic Temples?
Corbin, you really need to study up on Freemasonry. You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.
Very interesting work you’ve done here, parsing out the layers of meaning – and I do love the idea that we all represent the Savior during the ceremony. I wish you’d address the huge problem with this reading, though, which is that men and women are literally going through separate sessions, and making different covenants. Men covenant with God, and women covenant with their husbands. And any priesthood conferred upon women at the temple is null and void once we step outside. So it’s disingenuous to speak about “the endowment ceremony” as if there’s only one and it means the same thing for every participant.
You make good points, Alysa.
I personally think the progress Joseph Smith was making toward giving women the priesthood was locked in amber upon his death.
In the decades that ensued, the trend was reversed, taking away the rights and authority women had already been given during the Nauvoo period.
I absolutely agree! Its incredible potential doesn’t, unfortunately, change the fact that women and men still remain on unequal footing in the temple. So much for continuing revelation – for women at least.
Great article, I think where most people develop issues with the temple is because they take things literally and miss the symboloc meaning. For example Eve covenanting through Adam, In the endowment Adam is a type for Christ and Eve is a type for the lords covenant people(all of us). When one understands this it makes sense. At least this is my understanding. The best book I ever read about temple symbolism is” The truth about Eden” by :Alonzo L. Gaskill. It opened up so much for me in my understanding.
Great! Then let’s start having the men play Eve and the women play Adam. Let’s see how that feels. The giant problem is that none of the symbolism is ever explained, so each person has to figure it out for themselves. And while there may be a lovely, nonsexist meaning in it all, what we actually see and actually hear in those sessions is men being placed above women. As a man, you may be able to dismiss it, but as a women who feels misogyny in my gut every single day and knows that many, many men use this as a justification to bully and abuse the women around them, I am not OK with it. At all.
I am not okay with it, either, Alysa.
And you know, I think it would be a wonderful lesson for men to go through the endowment session in the role of Eve.
I think such an experience would open men’s eyes to why it is so many women feel the way you feel.
Thanks for the reference to that book, Remy. I had never heard of it before.
The temple encourages us (even forces us at some points) to rely on symbolism in order to understand what is presented.
Part of the beauty of that, to my mind, is that it can speak to us today as well as anciently, and may also speak to us in meaningful terms regardless of where we are on our spiritual journey.
Your interpretation is a good example of that, I think.
Corbin
I have some questions for you regarding your resources on calling and election and the second anointing- I’ve read as much as I can from sources like a Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, journal of discourses, Bruce R. McConkie and otherbut have not come to some of the conclusions you have as you briefly mentioned it in this comments chain- I’d love to gets list of some of the books, sermons/talks or journal entries on a doctrine and ordinance that is as important as this is but seems somewhat shadowed in where to find additional info on it. Of course I am looking for reliable info from approved church sources- thank you
If any man mis-uses the temple endowment as justification to place himself above women and demand obedience, that man then clearly does not understand the temple/gospel. I would have no problem switching roles in the temple, since the covenants are only symbolic and come from God himself, they are then Holy. Are we as disciples then going to complain because salvation is only possible through a man(Jesus Christ). I would remind all that exaltation is utterly dependant on the other sex, it takes both male/female together playing there parts to recive the Temple promises. I truly believe that with enough faith/patience and time all can better understand Temple symbolism and see the complete and utter beauty of the endowment.
Interesting theory that we all represent Christ in the endowment. Too bad it contradicts the endowment which specifically states multiple times that we represent Adam and Eve. They fell as we did, they found redemption and so can we as we follow the pattern given.
So if a husband and wife theoretically claimed contradicting revelation, which person presides in the home? Yes we all know the men are supposed to treat the women as equals, but the church since it’s institution really has not exemplified that, and when it comes down to it, women don’t have a say in the church. You could completely do away with the relief society and the primary programs, every calling any woman currently has, and what would be lost from the church? Not a thing would be lost that they teach is essential for salvation according to the church? Absolutely nothing. The priesthood would still be fully functional with all of it’s rites, ordinances, keys etc. every organization, calling, pat on the head, etc is just lip service and no way is equality.
I think your first paragraph constitutes an important point for this discussion–one I had tried to make in the article itself.
Just because a woman represents Eve in the endowment does not mean that she cannot simultaneously represent somebody else.
Just because a man represents Adam in the endowment does not mean that he cannot simultaneously represent somebody else.
If a woman also represents Jesus Christ during the endowment, that does not “contradict” her representing Eve at the same time.
Symbolism may involve layers of meaning; all going on at the same time.
It is not a matter of mathematics. It is not a=a and not b or c.
It is a=b=c=d=e=f . . . .
It is a different way of viewing things from how we normally process information in the western world, to be sure.
There is no one correct answer.
The “answers” depend not so much upon what is presented, but on the person to whom it is presented.
You do simultaneously represent others. We represent Adam and Eve as we are told but we also represent those dead we are doing the work. Is it so much a stretch to then act as representatives of Christ? We are “saviors” on Mt. Zion when doing this work which is vicarious in nature. So was Christs’ atonement a vicarious work. Do we not represent the Savior as we do this work for those who have passed on? The more I read and study the scriptures and go to the temple the more I see that EVERYTHING points back to Christ and his atonement and/or the doctrine of salvation He taught- not a streach in my eyes at all to simultaneously represent others as we carry out ordinances for others.
Corbin, I admire that you’re able to connect the signs with priestly functions and consecrated oil, but surely you know that the first three signs are just watered down versions of the old throat-slitting, disembowelling penalty signs (don’t forget that extended thumb!).
Since you address the 1990 changes and the penalties, I don’t know if you genuinely haven’t made the connection between the current signs and the previous penalties, or are just looking beyond them to create your own new symbolic meaning.
If it’s the latter, than I suppose anything can have symbolic meaning if we look hard enough. Does it make it inherently valuable? I don’t know.
Though my memory is definitely spotty in some respects, I do recall that the first three signs segued into the penalties in the pre-1990 version of the endowment.
But I do not see this as the first three signs being “just watered down versions of the old throat-slitting, disemboweling penalty signs.”
The signs were made that way for a reason.
The penalties did not depend on the original signs, but flowed from them.
At least, if memory serves . . .
At the risk of being too graphic, the first sign for example (right hand raised, thumb extended) referred the the penalty’s slashing motion of the throat with the thumb. The cupping in the second and third signs was to catch the blood and bowels respectively. They’re tied very closely to masonic penalty signs.
I don’t know how well you regard wikipedia but this is worth a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_(Mormonism)
Also Corbin, please don’t think I’m being overly critical of you, I genuinely love your contributions here at RF, your posts are always must-reads for me!
Thanks for your kind words, Adam. I appreciate your insights, as well.
While acknowledging that the endowment ceremony as currently constituted does not treat men and women equally insofar as their relationship to God, I do think it important to realize that Joseph Smith was blamed with committing twin scandals by his brother Masons.
The first was incorporating Masonic emblems into his temple endowment.
The second was making them available to women.
You need to study history a little more. The temple endowment did not start with Joseph Smith, it was revealed to him by God and predates the Masons by centuries. It is eternal and God has known it before the creation of the earth. The Masons discovered the temple symbols from the Temple of Solomon as part of the Jewish ceremonies when the Knights Templar discovered it as part of their “treasure” in Jerusalem when they were headquartered in Solomon’s Temple in the middle ages. The endowment constitutes one of the highest opportunities to gain knowledge there is, and the Knights Templar recognized this as a treasure, which the Masons incorporate in their ceremonies to this day. The symbols have been around in the Jewish faith forever, and have been used in their ceremonies for ages. The symbols are even recognized as holy and important even by the native Indians on this continent from the time of the Book of Mormon. Jacob Hamblin’s life was spared when he was captured by a band of Indians and they removed his leather shirt to kill him with arrows and they saw the symbols on his garments.
I understand that current policy forbids temple workers from discussing temple symbolism with patrons. Too bad. I once had a temple president who invited members of the ward to a post endowment discussion on temple symbols and the endowment. Great teaching opportunity that most will never get.
I think regular meetings should be held in the temple to discuss what happens in the temple with all persons who have been through those ordinances.
The fact that does not happen tends to make the rituals more sterile than they might otherwise be.
That’s a great idea Corbin! You’re brimming with great ideas in this thread.
My cup runneth over.
The problem with this is that it then removes our chance to be taught *for ourselves by the Lord himself,* in a way that will be most relevant and meaningful to us as individuals. It’s called an “endowment” for a reason, and it is meant to be understood through personal revelation. Hearing or reading the thinking of others about temple matters can be helpful, of course, but it’s a big mistake to listen to someone’s interpretation of a symbol, think, “Oh, so that’s what that means,” and then stop wondering, thinking, researching, and praying. It’s also a mistake to view the endowment through our modern sensibilities about gender roles, inclusivity, and so on. Rather than condemning the endowment because it doesn’t seem to fit our sensibilities, we would do better to consider what the Lord is trying to teach us, and why the endowment was put together as it was. The main article here and many of the comments have provided some good insights and counsel about that.
Corbin
I agree with you that Joseph at one point seemed to be pointing to the God given fact that women ought to have the priesthood. So apparently something happened. The church has been under condemnation and curse. Something that even church authorities have admitted. Anyone else see the parallels with Jacob 2 when he warned polygamy would bring the Nephites under a curse and condemnation?
I don’t claim to know all that happened but the mistreatment of women has damned the church and they show no signs of repenting. The leaders know that polygamy is BS. Wilford woodruff I am sure truly did see that the saints would be destroyed if they would not discontinue such a thing. Gordon B Hinckley said polygamy was not doctrinal, but they know they would lose membership and money if they admitted that either joseph smith or brigham young (and following authorities) really goofed up. Then the church would know that a prophet can indeed lead people astray and chaos would ensue.
If they give women the priesthood, which thank heaven people are waking up to the sensibility of the idea, they will all be eating humble pie. Anyone old enough remembers members making fun of the RLDS church when they decided to give women the priesthood. These things just really are not gonna happen because the church authorities are not waiting for revelation or seeking it on these subjects. They are trying to hold a corporation together. Gone are the days when man could ask a prophet to seek an answer from The Lord on a subject, now that brings ex-communication and ridicule.
Yeah, you’re totally off base here. The Church has been under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon, not paying tithing and various other commandments but no leader has ever even *suggested* that the Church is currently under condemnation for not giving Priesthood to women. Could you please site some evidence that they have? Or evidence that there is rampant mistreatment or abuse of women in the Church, as you suggest? It would really help your points, which are simply outlandish at the moment.
Try a little less hatred and a little more happiness in what you believe yourself. I don’t condemn other Churches, religions or people for believing something different than me. Try it. “Live and let live.”
Hi, Justin.
I agree with you that respect needs to be a two-way street and we should strive to treat others with different viewpoints in a respectful manner.
That said, I think it could be argued that the “mistreatment” of women in the LDS Church is endemic to the institution itself.
I believe that refusing to allow women authority in the Church just because they are women is in itself mistreatment.
And by this, I mean authority over more members than just the children and other women.
And any authority women have over children and other women is itself under the authority of . . . wait for it . . . men.
This fact only tends to emphasize the endemic sexism in the structure of the LDS Church.
Just my thoughts.
“I believe that refusing to allow women authority in the Church just because they are women is in itself mistreatment.”
An opinion you’re certainly entitled to. The problem I have with it is the tactics so many use to go about it, calling it “abuse” of women in the Church or “oppression” of women in the Church. Needless to say, it downplays actual gender-based abuse, actual oppression and reaks of the tired “if you don’t agree with me, you’re a bigot” arguments that seem so popular today. It’s tasteless and inaccurate.
“And by this, I mean authority over more members than just the children and other women.
And any authority women have over children and other women is itself under the authority of . . . wait for it . . . men.”
I’ve always seen the Church as the best way we as mortals have to learn the Gospel of Jesus Christ and grow closer to God. I’ve never seen it as this endless tug-of-war over who gets to have authority over whom. Talk to most released Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, etc. No one is gaining anything by this supposed “authority over others,” be it men or women. It’s a job they valued as a learning experience, sure, but no one gets off on having supposed power over others. They didn’t ask for the power, most are pained using it, and almost everyone I’ve ever talked to is relieved when they are released. It’s not so cut and dry as “the Church is sexist!!!” as so many here claim.
I just wanted to offer an additional thought on the topic of Jacob 2. I was actually read that chapter earlier today, and it certainly concerned me as I read the first part. However, it is important to read all of it. In verse 30 it states “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” This actually reaffirms what the church has expressed on the matter – marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standing order for marriage. However, under His direction plural marriage may be appropriate at times. Nonetheless, I understand that polygamy can be a painful and difficult part of LDS history. This is a helpful resource: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org
I love much of your views. I see another layer of meaning in the symbolism of the signs. I see the first as phallic, the second as phallic + yonic but not on the same level, the third with phallic + yonic on the same level and the fourth at a place where gender doesn’t matter. That seemed so obvious to me since my first attendance that it has helped me know the ceremony is ultimately about gender equality. I’ve always assumed the sexist parts are the result of this vetting through the imperfect minds of 19th century men. I’ve always assumed that someday we’ll get to that third level of equality and then beyond that to the fourth level were gender doesn’t matter and those parts will change.
I actually taught an RS lesson recently in which we talked pretty frankly about sexism/ritual and a number of other fears surrounding the temple. It was the result of our presidency meeting in which we talked about how poorly prepared most people are with the temple as well as the various crazy urban myths that arise around the temple and garments. It went really well and we plan to do more.
Crystal,
How wonderful you were able to teach such a lesson. The last time I veered from the correlated work the ward RS president sicced the stake RS on me (in a loving way of course, always in a loving way). Something about only offering plain potato chips and not offering the yummy seasoned ones.
Oh yes, the topic was about the difference between the law of consecration and tithing.
I guess the law of consecration had too much BBQ sauce on it.
Keep teaching the good stuff Crystal
Maryann
“Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of a Sloar that day, I can tell you!”
Sorry for the oblique reference.
Just watched “Ghostbusters” the other night.
Also, what is the second anointing discussed above?
I could tell you.
But then I’d have to kill you.
Seriously, a Google search might tell you more than I am able to divulge.
It is the temple ordinance in which one’s calling and election is made sure.
Nibley’s talk “Patriarchy and Matriarchy” gives me the most comfort for having to agree to obey a husband: ” Finally, it is the “seed of the woman” that repels the serpent and embraces the gospel: she it is who first accepts the gospel of repentance. There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other. Adam is given no arbitary power; Eve is to heed him only insofar as he obeys their Father—and who decides that? She must keep check on him as much as he does on her. It is, if you will, a system of checks and balances in which each party is as distinct and independent in its sphere as are the departments of government under the Constitution—and just as dependent on each other.”
Layers of symbolism – and one key to unlocking it all is to understand what Joseph Smith understood, and to think as Joseph Smith thought – having received the solid enlightenment that only God Himself could grant.
I have a testimony that Joseph Smith not only translated ancient records, but with a deep and full understanding of the authors, interpreted the core meaning of their writings, understood their intentions and the sources of their revelations, and corrected the errors in the doctrine contained in their records – insomuch as he was able to maintain the power and gifts of the Spirit. He truly was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
I believe that the symbolism found in the holy Temple is not to be discussed lightly, and that those who do treat those sacred things lightly invite damnation to their souls. The Temple provides more detailed promises and obligations than those we are blessed with at baptism, and as such, they are most sacred and personal. When Nephi was caught up in a vision containing a high mountain, was the mountain not the Temple and is not the Temple the mountain of the Lord? Which one is the sacred symbol that is too Holy to discuss?
Be very careful about what you reveal, and realize that even Joseph found things so sacred, that he would not write them down in his translation, but honored God's commandments that they should only be revealed in the Temple.
Thanks for your comments, Joseph.
I knew I was running the risk of offending some people with regards to what I discussed in the article. I hope I did not offend you.
My take is that, though temple rituals are sacred and should be spoken of with respect, it is only the names, signs and tokens we are put under obligation to not reveal.
That is why I only talked about their potential symbolism, and not the names, signs and tokens themselves.
Layers of symbolism – and one key to unlocking it all is to understand what Joseph Smith understood, and to think as Joseph Smith thought – having received the solid enlightenment that only God Himself could grant.
I have a testimony that Joseph Smith not only translated ancient records, but with a deep and full understanding of the authors, interpreted the core meaning of their writings, understood their intentions and the sources of their revelations, and corrected the errors in the doctrine contained in their records – insomuch as he was able to maintain the power and gifts of the Spirit. He truly was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
I believe that the symbolism found in the holy Temple is not to be discussed lightly, and that those who do treat those sacred things lightly invite damnation to their souls. The Temple provides more detailed promises and obligations than those we are blessed with at baptism, and as such, they are most sacred and personal. When Nephi was caught up in a vision containing a high mountain, was the mountain not the Temple and is not the Temple the mountain of the Lord? Which one is the sacred symbol that is too Holy to discuss?
Be very careful about what you reveal, and realize that even Joseph found things so sacred, that he would not write them down in his translation, but honored God's commandments that they should only be revealed in the Temple.
Joseph
Why it almost sounds like you are mentioning the book of Abraham brother! The one that joseph said multiple times was a direct translation from papyri. Funny now how the authorities of the church admit that it wasn’t. I guess that’s because it’s been proven that it wasn’t. It’s also been proven joseph smith scrubbed some of those pictures in the pearl of great price and removed some things that would have been a little disturbing for us.
Be careful to pray and ask God that the endowment was from God. You might be right that if we understand Joseph we will understand the endowment.
It’s so typical for non-members, ex-members and Church critics to mock the testimonies and witnesses of the faithful. And these are the same critics that cry about being given respect and equality from the same people that they ridicule when they express their own opinion. You want respect? You want a voice? Allow others their opinions and give *them* respect. Food for thought. God bless.
THIS is the temple prep lesson on symbolism. Enjoy.
https://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-5-learning-from-the-lord-through-symbols?lang=eng
Thanks for the link, Scott.
I think I better brace myself with some hot java before I commence reading, though.
The endowment also teaches us to clean up after ourselves.
Hey!
Okay, I confess.
I stole that line from Mermaidmood.
When she said that last night, I bust a gut laughing.
Fortunately I had my hands out in front of me at the time.
Elder Ballard’s article on Women and the Priesthood in the newest Ensign. I found Section 4 of his article interesting. This is what he says:
Our Father in Heaven is generous with His [priesthood] power. The Lord offers to his daughters every spiritual gift and blessing that can be obtained by his sons. When women attend the temple they are endowed with [priesthood] power. The endowment is literally a gift of power. [In the temple women officiate in priesthood ordinances with the priesthood power they have been given.]
(I rearranged some of the sentences and summed up his words to make my point… But he is flat out saying “Women are given the priesthood in the temple” )
Thanks for bringing this quote to my attention, Chris.
I am getting the feeling that Church leaders (such as Elder Oaks last GC and now Elder Ballard) are speaking from a new set of talking points that acknowledges women receive power in the temple; that the power they receive must by definition be priesthood power; and that (at least some) women perform priesthood ordinances in the temple.
My feeling is that this is a sop for the masses in order to make women feel satisfied with their current status in the Church.
But the other consequence of such language is to make the reasons for not ordaining women to priesthood offices become vanishingly small.
In other words, if the Church allows that women receive priesthood power in the temple, why is it exactly that women cannot hold a priesthood office outside the temple?
Corbin,
As always, I appreciate the work you put into writing well informed posts.
I was wondering if you have considered the possibility that Adam represents the spirit and Eve represents the body. I read this wonderful article:
http://www.journeytothefullness.com/the-journey-receiving-our-endowment/
When I approach the temple ceremony from Jeremy’s (the author) view point it is less offensive to women, and addresses the second comforter.
However, I would love to read your insight on the matter.
Thank you
Maryann
You know, I may have heard about that in passing some time in the past, Maryann.
Thanks for the link, though. I look forward to reading the article.
This is just what I had hoped this blog post would promote–the free exchange of ideas regarding temple symbolism.
I find myself enriched by the ideas of others.
Thanks again!
Just wanted to let those interested know that I did an interview with The Cultural Hall Show yesterday morning relating to this article which I hope to see up some time in the near future.
Three cheers for the Cultural Hall!
It is a great show in podcast form and I highly recommend you give them a listen if you haven’t already.
Thank you for this post! I received my endowment this past April (got married in June) and have not been back to the temple since. I have had fears and difficulties with the wording and some of the events that occur during the endowment session. I appreciate this post, Corbin, because you've helped me understand more of the spirituality behind the symbolism. And I know it might seem silly to say, but just from this one post, I am no longer afraid to go back to the temple. Thank you, Corbin!
Wow, Emily!
Thanks for letting me know that.
Your response alone made the work of writing this post completely worthwhile.
Thank you for this post! I received my endowment this past April (got married in June) and have not been back to the temple since. I have had fears and difficulties with the wording and some of the events that occur during the endowment session. I appreciate this post, Corbin, because you’ve helped me understand more of the spirituality behind the symbolism. And I know it might seem silly to say, but just from this one post, I am no longer afraid to go back to the temple. Thank you, Corbin!
That was one comment definitely worth hearing again!
;^)
Fantastic article. We need to be talking about the temple endowment more often rather than just going "just because."
Thanks, Chris!
I envision temple attendance as a living and vibrant experience, full of spirit and wonder.
I think this is best facilitated by conversation.
As it is, temple rituals can become boring and staid when practiced in an environment hermetically sealed off from dialogue and sharing.
The Laws received by covenant in the endowment ceremony need to be taken literally. There is the Law of chastity which refers to a legal and lawful state sanctioned marriage for sexual relations. The reference to keeping the commandments and all the laws cannot possibly be taken symbolically. The obligations are taken before God, Angels and these witnesses, with the arm raised to the square and orally accepted. The law of the Lord requires submission to husbands,. The law of obedience requires complete submissionto authority, the law of sacrifice requires total sacrifice, even your life if necessary, the law of consecration requires everything you have or ever will have. The laws of Elohim, the Gospel, of God, of obedience, and the more than 50 other laws referred to in correlated manuals, conference talks and books written by General Authorities are undefined but must be taken literally. Does any Mormon raise their children or expect their spouse to take chastity as a symbolic requirement, you cannot even get a recommend to receive this law of chastity unless you literately accept, observe and keep this law.
You make some good points here. Others not so good, I think.
First, I agree with you that the covenants made in the temple are not to be taken symbolically. I think you will note I never said anything to the contrary in the original post. But your clarification of that point is all to the good I think.
But then you go on to say, “The law of the Lord requires submission to husbands. The law of obedience requires complete submission to authority.”
Here I think you jump the rails. The Lord does not require women to submit to their husbands. That is simply false.
Also, the idea that the law of obedience “requires complete submission to authority” is a bit over the top. It is this type of thinking that led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
But who says we’re a cult?
You then go on to say, “The laws of Elohim, the Gospel, of God, of obedience, and the more than 50 other laws referred to in correlated manuals, conference talks and books written by General Authorities are undefined but must be taken literally.”
This is where I think you go overboard again. So anything said any time by a General Authority must be obeyed? Ever heard of blood atonement?
And I find it hard to see how these “more than 50 other laws” which are “undefined” can be taken literally.
How do you take literally something undefined?
Seems like a contradiction in terms.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks for your comments, though.
I like your article very much, and feel it is very important to discuss the gospel and its symbolism. I am sorry I am coming late to this comment thread, however I would like to offer some insight. In the pre earth life we all lived together as one. GOD began to separate us into tribes, clans, families, and then into just Michael. The temple shows that Michael helped form the earth and use the priesthood. Then in the garden Adam and Eve are separated no longer being called Michael. However this is not the last separation that we will receive, at death our spirits and bodies will separate.
Now a question does GOD see our bodies and our spirits as equal?
Are men and women equal?
Are the keys and the power of the priesthood equal?
Are oranges and apples equal?
The key to answer these questions and to understand the priesthood was revealed to a woman when she used her priesthood to ask the LORD. This is found in Genesis.
I believe the Apostles are trying
to teach greater things about the priesthood, however they understand that truth must come from GOD. And that truth will come as people use faith and seek not from them but from GOD. The church didn’t just start letting women use the priesthood in the temple. But the brethren have just started to point it out.
I believe men nor women will receive greater things until they start to use what they have been given. You can ask GOD all you want, but he will not answer until you use YOUR priesthood. This is true for non-members also. The power has been taken from all those who see authority as the greater portion.
Very thoughtful and interesting, Corbin. I’ve read it twice now since it was published. When you get a minute, I hope you will check out something I wrote:
Symbols of Unity in the Temple
I’m nowhere near your level when it comes to writing, but I hope it’s somewhat valuable.
I just stumbled upon this blog and thought I would put in my two bits about women and the preisthood.
In the temple when I get baptized it’s for a male ancestor but only a woman can be baptized for women. Same for the endowment and sealings. The pattern of proxy is that a man can only stand in the place of a man and a woman for a woman.
Most ordinances that take place in the church (and all that take place outside the temple) are done with the man representing Christ (and man)
When giving a blessing, blessing preparing or passing the sacrament, or baptizing and confirming, a man stands in the place of the savior.
Following the pattern and order of proxy ordinances, it makes sense that women don’t give formal priesthood blessing as well as why outside of the temple, women don’t perform ordinances in general.
I love the symbolism of the signs relating to the consecrating of oil- I'm curious how you came to this conclusion? Did you read/study it somewhere?
This symbolism was revealed to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, Jordan.
Either that, or I just came up with it myself. ;^)
The only thing I can tell you for certain is that I didn’t read it or hear about it from some other source.
My husband and I just received our endowments this past weekend and were sealed. He is a convert whereas I was born into the church. The temple was underwhelming to both of us. When we left we expected to be confused and have all these pieces we had to think on to put together, but actually, we felt like we understood everything with too much ease. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed. I thought we would begin learning deep doctrine, when in fact I felt like all I had learned were tokens, symbols, names, etc. I didn’t think anything was weird, I was just underwhelmed. This article helped me understand more of the symbolism and depth of the temple, and I am now excited to go back with these new points in mind. I plan to have my husband read this also, and I think he will feel enlightened as I did. I just knew I had to be missing something. If prophets and apostles continually go to the temple and learn new things, then I must be missing something because I felt as if I understood most everything plainly. Anyways, thanks for posting! Are there any other books/articles/etc. that you would suggest to delve even deeper? Thanks!
After reading all of the above comments it appears that the church, both within and without it’s membership, is full prophets; prophets unto themselves, and false prophets indeed. Who revealed the ceremonies of the temple? Who makes alterations to the temple ceremonies? Who sets the standard of what is acceptable to discuss and where? The very men holding the keys to administer the ordinances thereof.
What keys do any of you hold?
With few exceptions the comments above can be summed up as follows:
“If the brethren in Salt Lake doing things the way I like, then this church, policy, doctrine, ordinance, etc. would be (more) good, true, correct, etc.”
I thank God for true and living prophets, if only to keep false prophets ruffled and from gaining any traction.
I loved this article. I have read the comments and I am disturbed by some of them. When I received my endowments for the first time, I got just what I expected. I didn’t expect to see the burning bush and immediately become a prophet. I didn’t expect to understand everything in the universe from this experience. I expected to open a door to further light and knowledge and I expected that I had to return often to do my part to gain that light and knowledge by returning to the temple. That was 49 years ago and I learn something new every time I go back. What I see missing in some of these comments is faith and a broken heart and contrite spirit. God didn’t give us the endowment to please us, He gave it as a blessing. I really don’t think that he actually cared whether you like it or not, it is the truth that is presented in a manner appropriate to that time. Either you believe it or not, period. Discussing your likes and dislikes won’t change eternal truth. When the time comes for things to be changed, then God will do it, not any of us. Maybe the “test” is to see if you can overcome your pride and accept the endowment as the wonderful blessing that it is.
This is an interesting essay. However, it’s important to point out that much of it is conjecture.
The signs, tokens, and final name may mean what the author says they do, but they may not. Neither the author, nor Truman Madsen, have any authority to declare official doctrine. Until we get an official explanation, these ideas are simply guesses.