The gravestone of LDS Patriarch James Allred who died in 1876 is pictured below. This gravestone may be found in the main Spring City cemetery (not the old, smaller "pioneer" cemetery) located in Spring City, Utah, not far to the north from Manti, Utah. Of significance on this gravestone are symbols that should be instantly recognizable to endowed individuals. The eight stars around the top of the round part of the gravestone represent Patriarch Allred's eight wives.
We offer this image as food for thought for those who wish to examine the marks above and then compare them with what they are presently taught the marks to be. We acknowledge that there was some variation in the left mark above in former times, but when a consistent rendition of the symbols finally came about in the LDS church, the LDS representation became other than what is pictured above. We declare by the revelations of heaven that the above rendition is the accurate one. One finds this to be true especially when considering related aspects and features of the endowment.
Symbology does not alone establish truth, or a person's heart. However it is an eternal truth that true symbology will follow true principles and true teachings, and corrupted symbology will naturally follow from a corruption of true principles and true teachings. The concepts of "L"iberty and "V"irtue were essential values to former-day saints for deeper reasons as now should be obvious.
Never, while the spirit of liberty, or the virtue of a saint, hold communion in the flesh, let us hear of those who profess to be governed by the law of God, and make their garments clean in the blood of the Lamb, shrinking from the assistance of those who bear the ark of the Lord--in the hour of danger! (Times and Seasons, John Taylor Editor, 1 Sept 1942 3:21:903)
Freedom and liberty, virtue, honesty, good government and everything, in fact, desirable among men must be nourished and cherished and maintained in our midst.(George Q. Cannon, JD 22:281)
In this same vein, similar seemingly insignificant changes have affected the symbology of temple design and construction in the LDS church. Many changes in LDS temple design have resulted from the efforts to offer the endowment through a movie or video presentation rather than through a "live" session. However, many other symbology changes have also occurred that are not related to the present LDS practice of designing new temples around the movie or video presentation. These changes have in many instances even reversed the original symbology which was incorporated into former temple design.
The temple was originally conceived as an "architectural, physical, metaphor of the plan of salvation." Those of you who have been through a "live" endowment session in an older temple where the original configuration has not been changed will recognize the following symbolic features. When moving or "progressing" from room to room, which represents steps in our eternal progression, one makes a right-hand turn, while making one or more steps upward. Also at this point of the right-hand turn and stepping up, one passes through a doorway or very often a curtain, which represents the "veil" separating the different degrees of glory which we progress through in the eternities (Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial), as the endowment teaches. As one progresses in this manner of upward right-hand turns through the several rooms, patrons eventually complete in the endowment a right-hand upward spiral movement which is symbolic of their eternal progression.
The Celestial room wasn't even the end of this continual upward, right-hand spiral. This physical, metaphorical symbology continued on up to the "Holy of Holies." The original designers of LDS temples considered this symbology very important to have incorporated it so consistently in early LDS temple design. This symbology of an upward-right hand spiral is also represented in the north spiral staircase in the Manti Temple. The south staircase in the Manti Temple makes a right-hand downward spiral, symbolizing the law of "eternal digression" in opposition to the law of "eternal progression," as there "must needs be opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11). The Nauvoo Temple also had opposing spiral staircases. The spiral is the physical metaphor of the "course of the Lord" and is how He chooses to symbolically represent our eternal progression. Many latter-day scriptures describe this course of the Lord as an "eternal round" which is a description of a spiral, especially when one considers the continual "moving upward" (hopefully upward, but that is a personal choice) that is inherent in the notion of eternal progression.
For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round. (1 Nephi 10:19)
I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round. (Alma 7:20)
And it may suffice if I only say they are preserved for a wise purpose, which purpose is known unto God; for he doth counsel in wisdom over all his works, and his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. (Alma 37:20)
For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. (D&C 3:2)
Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever. (D&C 35:1)
In modern LDS temples, not only has the right-hand upward spiral symbology been lost as one progresses through the endowment, but very often one must move downward as one "progresses" through the endowment and succeeding ordinances. For example, in the modern San Diego temple, one moves downward from the veil to the celestial room. In the Manti Temple "Centennial" book, a photo of the Terrestrial room shows a few steps leading upward from the floor of the Terrestrial room to the veil where one passes into the Celestial room. Very often in newer, modern LDS temples the sealing rooms are in the basement, or at a lower level than the Celestial room. In the Manti Temple, the sealing rooms are right off from the Celestial room. Shouldn't a symbology be more correct where one moves upward as one progresses?
Formerly, temples were constructed such that they were oriented to the east, or the direction symbolizing "increasing light." Such symbology is common in the scriptures, such as the "angel ascending from the east" (Rev. 7:2). In older LDS temples, the Terrestrial room was oriented such that one passed in an easterly direction through the veil into the Celestial room, to complete the endowment. This symbology has also been lost to the present LDS endowment theology and temple design.
We could discuss also many other details of symbology associated with the idea that the temple was supposed to be an "architectural, physical metaphor of the plan of salvation." We also acknowledge as stated above, that symbology does not alone establish truth, or a person's heart. However, false symbology, or symbology representing a downward movement rather than an upward progression is indicative of the direction the related beliefs or practices will tend to steer the adherent.
We affirm as we continually do that the doctrines, practices, ordinances, and symbology of the latter-day restoration were given by the Lord, and were correct in the manner in which they were originally revealed. While the physical symbolic changes in temple design may not seem to many to be as significant as the eternal doctrines, principles, and ordinances, the changes in symbology are representative of and accompany the changes of the doctrines, principles, and ordinances, which is what indeed has happened in the LDS church.
Over the last 100 years or so until April 1990, there were several "minor" changes to the wording of endowment teachings, and covenants. While most LDS people are unaware of these earlier changes, they were indeed significant. The oath of vengeance was completely deleted from the endowment around around the turn of the century at the insistence of the Federal Government, since the endowment became public and part of the Congressional Record, as some LDS members felt compelled to reveal the endowment details under interrogation during the Smoot Investigations which started in 1904. The Oath of Vengeance was where endowment patrons covenanted to continual pray that God would take vengeance on the country those that shed the blood of the prophets, and to teach the same to their children. This is a significant concept, for example, we read in Revelation chapter 18 wherein is described the fall of "Babylon" or the whore of the earth. At the end of the chapter, it is described how "Babylon" was responsible for martyring prophets and saints:
Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. (Revelation 18:20, 24)
Apparently the Lord considered it significant in these passages that vengeance be taken on that entity (Babylon or the secular world) who was responsible for the murders and the blood of his prophets and of saints. We find this also incorporated into the words of the beloved Hymn "Praise to the Man." Speaking of the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Stain Illinois [original wording] while the earth lauds his fame. (verse 2)Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again. (verse 4)
The Chastity Covenant from the endowment was also changed in the 1930s. Formerly, the wording of the covenant contained the verbiage "given by the Holy Priesthood," instead of the words "legally and lawfully married." This seemingly insignificant change then gave to government the power over our marital relations, our children, and so forth. Formerly, marriage was most often a religious covenant between a man and a woman, with the ceremony solemnized by an individual recognized by the couple as having authority of God. Marriages were then often recorded only in the Family Bible, or in family records. The attitude in the former-day LDS church about government involvement in marriage may be typified by the following statement by President Lorenzo Snow, who, in Nauvoo married four women at approximately the same time, not making any one of the four his "legal" wife:
I contracted marriage with four women about the same time, and with a mutual understanding with each that they were to be equal--neither was to take or assume the status of a first or legal wife. Two of them were united to me in the sacred bonds of matrimony at one and the same time, by the same ceremony. The other two shortly after, also at one and the same time and in like manner. (Lorenzo Snow: Journal of Discourses 26:364)
Further evidence that formerly marriage unions in the LDS Church were not the purview of the government, but religious in nature, is from a letter written by one of my great-great grandfather's plural wives, Belinda Marden Pratt. In this letter which reflected also the feelings at the time in the LDS church, she decried government involvement in marital contracts:
These circumstances give rise to murder, infanticide, suicide, disease, remorse, despair, wretchedness, poverty, untimely death, with all the attendant train of jealousies, heart rending miseries, want of confidence in families, contaminating disease, &c; and finally, to the horrible license system, in which governments called Christian, license their fair daughters, I will not say to play the beast, but to a degradation far beneath them; for every species of animal creation, except man, refrain from such abominable excess, and observe in a great measure the laws of nature in procreation (Letter by Belinda Marden Pratt, Millennial Star, 29 July 1854).
The obedience covenant also underwent some change under the administration of Heber J. Grant. Formerly, women were under covenant in the LDS endowment to "Obey the Law of their Husband." There were no appending words or qualifications to the wording of this covenant. The change to the woman's obedience covenant at this time added the words "in righteousness" after the word "husband," thus putting a qualification on the woman's obedience. She was then put in a position by the new covenant wording to judge her husband as to whether he was righteous or not before she would consider obeying him. This is not according to the family order given by God, as practiced in the former-day LDS church, or in the Bible. The apostle Paul gave no qualification when he said:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5:22-24)
It is of course necessary for husbands to love their wives, show kindness and consideration to them, and to counsel with them in family decisions. But it is the husband's job to lead in the family. He should not practice unrighteous dominion as defined in D&C section 121, but neither is he to shirk from his responsibility to lead, or to defer leadership to his wife, or refuse to make decisions. It is recommended that the reader become familiar with the TLC position on family organization and family government.
The reader shouldn't confuse righteous leadership and the true woman's obedience covenant with abuse and unrighteous dominion. Today in the TLC, as in former days of the LDS church, men are held accountable for how they lead in their homes, and for how they treat their wives. In former days, Brigham Young preached that if men mistreated their wives, they would lose them. Nor were wives compelled then to remain with abusive husbands. But as long as a women agreed to remain with a righteous husband, she was under her endowment covenant to obey his law.
One of the most significant changes to the LDS endowment before April 1990 was the deletion of the former LDS doctrine that Adam is our Father and God, the physical Father of Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits. L John Nutall, a close confident of Wilford Woodruff and intimately familiar with other former LDS leaders, recorded the following in his journal regarding the contents of the former "Lecture at the Veil" from the LDS endowment:
In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in Jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
. . . Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. And had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth.
And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression. Consequently they came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. And when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom, our earth, he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child . . .
. . . Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. . .
Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Savior), who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (Diary of L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877)
While this doctrine was also intertwined into the ending of the creation segment of the former endowment instruction, the "Lecture at the Veil" was probably most concise in this doctrine in the endowment, as is evident from the above excerpts regarding Adam.
However, the changes to the endowment prior to April 1990 pale in comparison to those changes which happened on 10 April 1990. On that day, the changes to the endowment rendered it completely unacceptable to God, and irretrievable. While very important teachings contained in the "preacher" segment were eliminated, other sacred, unchangeable and essential parts were eliminated or changed. The penalties were removed. One of the signs was changed. The name of one of the signs was changed. The holy embrace at the veil was removed, and there was further desecration to the covenant wordings.
At the time, there was no explanation given as to the endowment changes, and LDS members were counselled to not talk about the fact that there were changes. After the fact, the only explanation given was that there were only some change in wording. This is demonstrably false, and is evidence of the guile in the LDS leadership about the reasons for the changes. The reason for the changes was because many people, both in and out of the LDS church, were offended by the endowment aspects that were changed in April 1990.
The teaching involving the "preacher" was effective in helping us to understand how Satan places unknowing yet sincere individuals between us and God to attempt to lead us astray, and to confuse our ideas of what and who Satan really is, how he acts, and how to recognize him. This part was removed because many "sectarians" were offended at this segment, which they of course would find illegitimate access to and read. I had a Lutheran minister friend who expressed his personal offense at this part of the endowment. The Lord doesn't mind offending those who work for other than His kingdom, as He wants His truth and His ordinances established and practiced, no matter what the world might think.
The penalties were considered by many to be "offensive," which is why they were removed by the LDS leadership. These were representative of the "justice" part of the justice vs. mercy juxtaposition. As all students of restoration theology know, "mercy cannot rob justice." Justice and Mercy must be in balance to have Beauty, according to the ancient Hebrew school of thought (Ten Sephiroth). What happens when we do away with "justice," or the just penalty from the application of law to the guilty? We then try to have Mercy rob Justice. If you have no penalty for sin, then you have no law. Read what Nephi said:
And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. ( 2 Nephi 2:13)
As you should be able to see, the removal of the penalties was not a meaningless or a trivial thing. It was very serious. There was an essential and integral importance to them. Furthermore, the penalties were also implicit in the trying of messengers, as taught in the pre-April 1990 endowment.
It would not be appropriate to engage in a discussion here as to how exactly one sign was changed. But if you have attended a pre-1990 as well as a post-1990 endowment, then you will remember the differences when it was pronounced to you what the sign was. To say that one sign was not changed is blind and deceitful. The name of another sign was also changed. There were specific reasons that the former and correct name was pronounced the way it was. To say that this doesn't matter underlies the ignorance of people today of why the Lord would have given the original name the way it was held sacred and inviolate in the LDS church for 138 years until "the fateful day."
The embrace at the veil was taught as the way we would recognize the Savior before we would be taken through the veil into his presence and told: "Well done thou good and faithfull servant." To think that such an integral and specific part of the endowment "doesn't matter" now for the LDS church is to go against all that our ancestors had faith in and believed. To finish on the issue of the Holy Embrace at the veil, I would like to quote, without comment, from a lecture given by a Latter-day Saint researcher and lecturer Einer Erickson in the 1970s as he was presenting evidence of many details of ancient endowment ceremonies, as "support" for the correctness of the doctrines and specifically of the endowment set up by Joseph Smith. Only those endowed prior to April 1990 may catch the significance of the following:
There is even a representation in some of the documents found in Egypt that he [Raphael] also has a certain form; he is associated with the other angels, Michael and Gabriel. And then he has been painted by many others. Now one of the things he has done that an LDS person can understand, is he gave the five points of fellowship, the star of the pentalpha to Soloman in the temple of Soloman. We can understand that, non-Mormons may not. (Einer Erickson, 1977?, from a transcription from a taped lecture on "Raphael," and "Mother in Heaven," transcription in possession of the author.)
In April 1990, there was further weakening of the Woman's Obedience covenant, to the point where it is no longer an obedience covenant at all. Even the "hint" remaining in what is left in the present covenant wording is not respected by LDS women in general today, and it is preached and emphasized even less by the LDS leadership, but rather, they preach an "equal partner" relationship, which is greatly confusing when compared with what the Lord revealed in the former LDS days, and also with New Testament scriptures.
The Chastity Covenant was again seriously altered in April 1990. The phrase "legally and lawfully" was retained, the words "husband" and "wife" were replaced with the word "spouse," and the words "sexual intercourse" was replaced with the wording "sexual relations." Don't any of you out there realize that under the present wording of the LDS Chastity Covenant that two homosexual individuals who obtained a legal "marriage" in some place where it is sanctioned (the number of places where this is performed in the world is steadily growing) must be considered "chaste" by the strict application of the present covenant wording !?!?
In summary there is no doubt that there were serious changes to the LDS endowment, which affected the doctrine, the eternal nature of priesthood ordinances, and the symbology of the plan of salvation. Note what Joseph Smith taught about the unchangeability of ordinances and their relation to the Priesthood:
If there is no change of ordinances there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood. (TPJS p. 158)
If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. Where there is no change of priesthood, there is no change of ordinances, says Paul. If God has not changed the ordinances and the priesthood, howl, ye sectarians! If he has when and where has He revealed it? Have ye turned revelators? Then why deny revelation? (TPJS p. 308)
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. (TPJS, p. 308)
When there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. When you change the ordinances, you change the Priesthood. When it isn't God's priesthood any more, whose priesthood is it? Who other than God (as taught in the endowment) has many "priesthoods?" The adversary. Satan always sets up his kingdom in opposition to, but in many respects similar to, the Kingdom of God. The endowment, one of the most holy and sacred of the restoration, was indeed "altered" and "changed," as Joseph Smith warned against. The enemy (Satan) has indeed taken over the LDS "fort" even though it still flies the same flag, and can never redeem Zion in its present state. (See the parable of the Tower in D&C 101:43-62.)
We testify that the changes and perversions to the Lord's Holy Endowment which started slowly but which have now resulted in the serious changes that happened on April 10 1990 are a blasphemy to God. The Lord will not indefinitely stay his Hand of Judgment upon those in the LDS church who have perpetrated these blasphemies, and also those who now ascribe to them. As the Lord prophesied in the D&C:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 112:23-26)
We again invite all to consider seriously and prayerfully all things studied at this website, and in this article. Please study dilligently as you pray and ponder. You will know that these things are true by both study and a witness of the spirit.