review – The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000
Association for Mormon Letters, Bryan Buchanan
Ask the average Mormon what prompted the change wherein stake presidents no longer recommended people for second anointings and you would probably hear the answer, “There’s a second one?” Due to the wall of secrecy that has been thrown around the temple and all of the ordinances thereof (not just the second anointing), most Latter-day Saints are unaware of the complex and fascinating history behind the initiatory rites, endowment, sealing and second anointing. Devery Anderson, who previously co-edited two volumes covering earlier periods of temple ordinances, has amassed a veritable trove of primary source material on these ordinances in the post-Nauvoo period. The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History (hereafter DLTW) is sure to become an oft-cited classic of Mormon history due to its wide-ranging pool of sources, many rarely seen. This is a fairly long review and I feel that correlates well to the study’s importance.
The collection is divided into eight periods: 1846-80, 1881-1900, 1901-18, 1921-40, 1941-60, 1961-70, 1971-80 and 1981-2000. A list of abbreviations for commonly used sources includes two notable listings: the David Buerger Papers (University of Utah library) and the Michael Quinn Papers (Yale University library). Anderson’s compilation would be markedly different had these two trailblazing collections never been amassed. The description of DLTW as a “comprehensive collection of official documents” (from the dust jacket, emphasis mine) is important —with the wealth of information available to him as editor, Anderson did not need to rely on speculation or exposés for details. In addition to solidifying its lasting value, this reliance makes the work more “safe” for conservative but interested readers.
Following a selection of short biographical sketches of the principal characters and a fine contextualizing introduction, Anderson begins to depict the development that would take place haphazardly in the chaos of the final days of Nauvoo, the trek west, and settlement in Utah. Not surprisingly, very little happens until things settle down in Salt Lake—there, Anderson notes, despite its fame as the first “temple” in Utah, Ensign Peak was apparently the site of only one endowment (that of Addison Pratt previous to a mission to the Sandwich Islands). Alongside well-known citations from the Journal of Discourses (such as Brigham Young’s definition of the endowment), Anderson includes a letter from the First Presidency to leaders in southern Utah giving a very early—if not the earliest—form of what would later become the temple recommend interview. The only item that would sound out of place to a modern Mormon, of course, is the query as to belief in the “plurality of wives.” In this formative period, one can see the “revelation in council” principle so obvious in this collection—when the question is how many might receive their second anointing, several rise to speak until the determination is reached that, until a proper temple is constructed, only one person could be anointed in any given meeting. In this first section, two matters are raised that receive much attention throughout DLTW: the previously mentioned second anointing and the nature and marking of the garment. Under the direction of Young himself, the garments were physically cut while on the wearer. (A brief aside on footnoting: Anderson is thorough in providing short biographical entries on prominent characters. Additionally, it is clear that he is up to date with periodical contributions—a footnote keyed to a mention of baptism for health directs the reader to the fine recent study of this relic in the JMH.)
The increased amount of correspondence in the second section exhibits another feature of the development of temple ordinances. In many cases, a letter dealing with a situation not addressed previously would lead to a formal ruling (often following discussion) which, in turn, might be codified in a circular letter or an official handbook. Another interesting feature is how each temple developed its procedures—attendees of the Logan Temple were queried on things ranging from the expected Word of Wisdom and tithing to whether they donated to the temple and attended fast meetings. Gender differences are also obvious throughout this section—in a response to a sister who had not received her second anointing with her husband before he died, Wilford Woodruff replied in effect not to worry and no ceremony was performed (this ruling would be reversed by Lorenzo Snow). Of course, men were able to employ proxies in order to have deceased wives anointed to them. Including both questions and answers through correspondence is a fascinating aspect of DLTW—in many cases, the reader is able to trace a particular concern through to closure. The variable nature of racial restrictions is also addressed in an 1889 letter to the president of the St. George Temple—in this period, relatives of African Americans were able to be baptized for their kin (though not endowed). Additionally, an entry documents the wording for the ceremony performed for the persistent (and humble!) Jane Manning James, which pronounced her “Servitor to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
As evidenced in the third section, diary accounts from “second tier” Latter-day Saints often provide fascinating looks at temple ordinances “in the trenches.” For example, an entry from William H. Smart’s diary details the second, private portion of the second anointing performed at home. In their case, they sang hymns, prayed together, read from the scriptures, and dedicated the room before performing the ordinance. Unrelenting questions on the scope of the Word of Wisdom reached the First Presidency in this period—Joseph F. Smith was generally willing to “grandfather” in older members who were entrenched in their habits. The importance of precedent is clear throughout this section—in a meeting in St. George, temple president David H. Cannon shared that, based on a statement of Brigham Young, it was acceptable to temporarily turn in the collar or roll up the sleeves of the garment but not to cut off the sleeve. One final point of interest from this section—the de-emphasis on the oath of vengeance—shows that it was played down following the Smoot Hearings and its attendant negative publicity, a clear example that, as in many cases dealing with church policy, outside events were often the catalyst for internal change.
The fourth section starts with an entry from George F. Richards, a prominent (and generally unrecognized) voice in temple matters during the first half of the 20th Century. His efforts were a curious blend of revision as well as preserving the past. For example, diary entries concurrently record the abolishing of the temple choir and moving administrations to the sick from the garden room to the assembly room, all while he is stridently campaigning for an increase in the number of second anointings (which saw a steep decline during the presidency of Heber J. Grant). The downturn in these ceremonies is generally tied to an incident in Idaho in 1926 where a man suggested to a priesthood meeting congregation that they get their own second blessings. As a result (as outlined in a letter from Heber J. Grant), responsibility for recommending such candidates was transferred from stake presidents to apostles, often when they visited stake conferences. From that point onward, Richards would fight a losing battle (often single-handedly) against the decrease in administrations, feeling that it was abhorrent for leaders—especially apostles—to have this blessing withheld. This section also highlights the impact of the growing church on temple matters—an interesting document from the 1920s gives the “REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SETTING UP PRAYER CIRCLES IN STAKES.” The quasi-canonical status that the garment pattern had acquired is starkly demonstrated through an excerpt from a T. Edgar Lyon oral history in which he recounts being probably the first person to wear the “new” garment in the Salt Lake Temple. A temple officiator protested that Lyon was not wearing the “temple garment”—only a personal rebuke from George F. Richards was sufficient to convince the staid temple worker that modifications had been approved and did not constitute rank heresy.
Portions of a sermon given by David O. McKay in the Salt Lake Temple in 1941 relate to the very nature of DLTW. He remarks that so many who had attended the temple went away disappointed because their expectations were not met. My experience is that this is due to the shroud of secrecy thrown over the temple, a shroud that I feel is far too broad and thick and one that I think earlier generations of leaders would have found disconcerting. Citations from George F. Richards’ journal, continued in this fifth section, reveal that he felt a personal commission to not only standardize and perfect the ordinances but, particularly, to ensure that more than 8 second anointings would be performed in the next 12 years after a 1942 diary entry. More than 30,000 had been performed in the first 100 years of Mormon history and Richards would go to his grave lamenting its virtual demise. Minutes of a meeting of the First Presidency and the 12 in 1953 stress the challenges embodied in the Swiss Temple that would initiate a new phase of temple work. The need to present the endowment ceremony in various languages would lead to the use of motion pictures in order to accommodate patrons. These discussions are enriched by the use of oral histories, many times from otherwise unknown employees who provide details such as using a dark-haired Eve in a later temple film due to concerns from South American members that blondes were “freaks because everyone is black haired and dark.” One other example highlights the impact of the technological revolution—an employee who dealt with data processing explained to general authorities that even if every adult member spent eight hours a day in the temple every day of the week, they would never keep up even with birth rates. After pursuing several avenues to see whether technological advances could speed things up (and feeling that several of the brethren were getting nervous), he was comforted to hear Joseph Fielding Smith say “I have a feeling that you young men know what you are talking about and I have confidence in you.”
The 1960s would see another innovation in temple ordinances—due to the lack of names provided by temple patrons themselves, temples were on the verge of closing frequently. This was obviously not acceptable so, as Genealogical Manager George Fudge described, an extraction program was developed to fill the gap. This decision, in turn, led to the approval of performing temple ordinances out of the normal order. A fascinating piece of correspondence from 1966 shows a church on the cusp of internationalism, a church in which a member could still write to President McKay directly and receive a ruling on her questions. In response, he decided that this elderly woman could be sealed to a dead friend but not to the living husband of a couple with whom she was also friends. In a book full of fascinating possibilities, perhaps the most intriguing to me comes from this period. Mark Garff, chairman of the Building Committee, proposed a visionary plan in which a “temple ship” would be outfitted and travel constantly to areas far from a temple and thus serve the needs of the people. In the middle of serious meetings on the possibility, additional counselor Alvin Dyer pipes up with the non sequitur, “What about the curse on the waters mentioned in the D&C,” and due to this, or (hopefully more germane) additional factors, the plan was eventually scrapped.
During the 1970s, lingering questions about the orthodoxy of the “new” garment (after 50 years, it is a testament to the status quo that it was still under question) continued to pop up. In a nod to tradition, the old style garment was still recommended for temple use in a 1972 letter from the First Presidency. Though a similar letter three years later would leave the option open to the individual, Anderson points out in a footnote that the Provo Temple still required the old-style garment in certain situations. That the floodgates of information were slowly closing during this period (likely a result of the expanding correlation program) is exemplified in several letters from President Kimball inviting persons to receive their second anointing—no names are attached to the letters.
The final section is remarkable in its contrast to earlier sections—sources during this period are confined almost entirely to publicly available Church publications and circular letters. Given the amount of detail and personal story in earlier sections, this period is noticeably pedestrian in nature (this is, of course, a reflection on the availability of sources, not laziness on the editor’s part). Even the statements from Church leaders are markedly reserved in what is discussed—where earlier leaders were far more free in their discourse, later church officials rarely strayed from the sacred (but not secret) approach. Topics during this period often deal with the realities of modern life: how are divorces handled, what if the church member is mentally handicapped, how are adoptions to be addressed, etc.
This book was a joy to read and review, period. DLTW will soon be regarded as a remarkable collection of primary source material that, though focused on the development of temple ordinances, represents the course of Mormon history as a whole. As I stated at the beginning of this review, the real value lies in the amount of concrete detail originating directly from those involved rather than secondhand speculation or conjecture. A few (minor) quibbles: biographical sketches for Jesse Crosby are inadvertently included twice (p 28, 63). Also, footnote 17 on p 60 dealing with a statement by J.D.T. McAllister in Sep 1886 (referring to the St. George Temple closing “some time ago” due to the threat of a raid) hearkens all the way back to the Utah War for the incident. I think a far more proximate and likely possibility is found in Charles L. Walker’s diary entries from that month. On Sep 2nd, Walker notes that the temple was suddenly ordered closed for an “indefinite period of time” (it would reopen a little more than two weeks later) due to the “threats of our enemies.” Finally, though this would be extremely difficult to accomplish, more intimate detail would be welcome for the last two sections.
