Changes in the Temple - with Greg Prince

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. I am here as always with Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I am doing really well. I am currently in my truck. I'm working on a very complex engineering mining project in British Columbia. But I've managed to find some time to meet with you guys. You've been extremely patient with my schedule. Really looking forward to this conversation. Uh, the individual again, looking forward to doing more work here and also talking about this subject.

Yes. So our guest is our, uh, resident genius, Greg Prince. Greg, welcome back. And before this started, we had talked about the idea of talking about the Temple Endowment. And you sort of dropped a bomb on us. It was a good bomb, but could you, uh, I guess that's a weird way to set that up, but, uh, can you announce to the world your project that you've been working on for 50 years?

I can't give a formal announcement yet, but I can say that I have been working very slowly for 50 years trying to put together as complete a history as I think is possible of the LDS temple endowment. So stay tuned. I hope it sees the light of day within not too many more moons.

All right, we'll leave it, we'll leave it at that. But that is a fascinating project to me, uh, to be it, to To trace the endowment over 50 years, that's got to be a very difficult process because a lot of the records on this are, are not public, or the— I mean, the church does not— how did you go about doing this?

Let me clarify, it's not a history of 50 years, it's that I've been working on the history for 50 years.

Oh, okay.

It goes back to 1830.

Okay.

The idea of endowment predates the formation of the church by Phil Brooks. We have a record of a preacher/journalist staying overnight at the Whitmer farm one week before the church was organized. And he's talking to some of the Smiths and some of the Whitmers, Joseph Smith not being present. And he, David Marks, responds to their claim that they would shortly call 12 apostles by asking more details. And they said, well, they, they will be endowed with power from on high. And that phrase was borrowed verbatim out of the Gospel of Luke, where the resurrected Christ says to the disciples, go and take the gospel to all the world, but don't leave yet because you need to be endowed with power from on high. Now, These were the guys he had already ordained. So they had the authority, but he said, there's something you don't have yet, and until you get it, you can't go out and be missionaries to the world.

Well, I know that Hugh Nibley very often referenced the 40-day ministry of the Savior after his resurrection as being a source for a number of the ideas in the temple endowment. Is that something that figured into your research? No. No. Okay.

That's the long answer. Do you want the short answer now?

Yeah, very good. Well, so, um, well, Ian, you talked— when you, when you suggested we, we discuss this, um, you were concerned particularly about the changes in the temple recommend questions, but also the changes in the endowment itself. I think, uh, and do, do you want to elaborate on what it is that, uh, you're interested in this? And I very much want to hear Gregg's response to it.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this, uh, not as long as Gregg, uh, or researching it as long as Gregg, I'll think about it, but for many years about the, my own temple experience and the temple experience of others being involved in different levels of people's lives and seeing the extraordinary, significant, mostly positive impact that the temple experience has on, uh, an individual's life. But also there's another side to that, which I want, hopefully we can get into. And so there's some important threads, if you like, in the tapestry of this conversation. And I wanted to talk about this with you both for quite some time, and I'm so grateful to do so today. And so the temple experience, if you look at all the, uh, admonitions, the, uh, prophetic, um, admonitions and direction, instruction, is the ultimate, uh, pinnacle of worship, uh, for investigators right through the course of baptism, through the whole church experience, is to, uh, work towards diligently towards going to the temple, to taking out— for individuals to take out their own endowments, to take out the to, to, uh, listen to and respond and commit to certain covenants, promises, a contract with God, as I was taught when I was younger. And, and to go through, that's the term that they use is quite often to go through the temple and to experience and to be worthy, by the way, to be really worthy, to experience that entire full temple experience, you know, washings and anointings, you know, your personal endowment, the new name., learning about the creation, each one, each, each of these and others, the veil and going into the different rooms, et cetera. It's such a critical part, essential part of the, uh, church worship and the, again, the pinnacle of worship and everything I was taught in the church, lessons, talks, is, should be designed. And I heard this from a general authority. I think it's Carl C. Acey. Do you remember him?

Sure.

He was an extraordinary individual, and he talked about, um, that everything in the church is designed to help individuals go to the temple, uh, make those commitments and live by those commitments. And then present— fast forward to President Nelson, who talked extensively about the covenant path. And so this experience, it's so serious, it's so significant, and so transformational in someone's life, mostly positive, uh, in people's life. I think it's a positive experience with most people, not everyone. And there's so much, if you look at all the programs and processes, everything is geared in this direction. And so there is a, um, you know, there's rituals, there's rites of passage. It's a requirement expectation. It's just seen as a level of worthiness and obedience and faithfulness. Everything ties to it. And so when you join the church, you have to wait a year. I think that policy is the same. You have to wait a year. You have to prove yourself, qualify yourself. And then after a year, you have your first temple recommend interview and you meet with the, you meet with the bishop and the bishop asks you some very, very serious questions. And, um, those questions have changed. And I'm sure, no doubt in Greg's research that Greg, you cover this, you know, the questions, the questions are very important and the words in the questions are very important. And so I'm familiar with certain questions. In fact, as a member of the stake presidency and as a bishop, I knew these questions, Jim Craig, like off by heart, word for word. Easy, just rolled off my tongue. 'Cause you have every Sunday, I'd meet with 6, 7, 8 people more for temple recommend interviews, right? And so you had all these questions and the questions are very serious, they're very important, and you're required to answer them honestly. There's a whole conversation around that, right?, and there's certain criteria needed to, in order to obtain a recommend, and that's a little piece of paper that proves that you are in good standing and that you are worthy to enter the temple. The process is two-step. You see a counselor or the bishop in the bishopric, or you see a counselor or the stake president in the, in the stake presidency. By the way, there's some structure there depending on who interviews who? The state religious society president is encouraged to be interviewed by the state president. I don't know if you guys are aware of that. So there's certain recommendations where the state president should do the interview, and the same for the bishop. And I don't know if you know that or you want to talk about that. Anyway, you go through the, you go through the questions, and then at the end of it, you then get this recommend, and you go to the temple, and you have an experience. It could be negative like mine, or it could be positive. You're invited, you're encouraged, perhaps required now to participate prior to going to the temple in the temple preparation classes, which I used to teach. And I know the material, unless it's changed radically, there's very little in there that really prepares you for going through all those rituals. We might talk, we should talk about that. So this is all process. You go to the temple, hopefully prepared, you have an experience, hopefully it's a good experience. And you come back and you're required to repeat that experience again, and you get the temple recommend for 2 years, and you're required, you're instructed to maintain that temple recommend status. And if you don't, you're not really in good standing, depending on, you know, I think that's the culture of the church. There's a lot of dots there that we, we should connect and, and, uh, And we should do that now. So before we get into some of these specific things, including the changes to the questions, because I think they're quite significant. Greg, as I've tried to, uh, uh, characterize it and summarize the Temple experience, does that sound accurate to you? Have I missed any, anything there in regards to identifying some of the key points?

No, I think the broad outline is fine. I would ask our listeners to differentiate between the temple experience and getting into the temple experience, because the whole idea of a temple recommend evolved on its own trajectory, and that evolution began really long after they started to build temples. But then what goes on in the temple, we call it temple worship, but for most people, I'm not sure that it's that kind of experience. I don't want to take away from what they are experiencing, but it's very easy, and Jim Bennett's great-grandfather, President McKay, talked about this, to get too caught up in the mechanics. And to miss what the real point of the temple experience is. And I think that goes all the way back to the beginning of the Church, where Joseph Smith realized, having looked at the Gospel of Luke and the admonition of the resurrected Christ, that there was something more that the apostles needed. He started to appreciate the difference between authority and power. Authority is what you give when you ordain someone to the priesthood or set them apart for an office. It's a legalistic thing. Once you ordain somebody to be a priest, that man or boy can baptize people, and regardless of his own spiritual status at the time, that ordinance is binding. If it's subsequently determined that he was carousing the night before he baptized somebody, the church doesn't make that ordinance be repeated. It's accepted as binding. That's the authority thing. The power is the conditional part. And it's much more difficult. And that, from the very beginning, even before they had the notion of a sacred space into which one would enter to have that experience, that was the goal. It was to be endowed with power from on high. That admonition in Luke was fulfilled 2 chapters later by the same author in the book of Acts with the day of Pentecost when the Spirit poured out and people saw visions, spoke in tongues, prophesied. That is what empowered the apostles then to go out and take the gospel to the world. That still is the aspiration for what one would do in the temple. It's to close the gap between the infinite and the finite, to try to tap into that divine power with the realization that that's often just aspirational. It's conditional. It's not automatic. You don't receive that endowment of power from on high, even though we say you received your endowment. You don't get that automatically. And I think a lot of people may never get it. It's manifest in the performance of things or the saying of things that transcend the human. That tap into the divine in a way that we can't do on our own. Does that make sense so far?

It does. That's a great— listen to you, it makes so much sense. It's a great way of characterizing it. What stands out to me, at least in my own experience from listening to you, is there was a problem for me trying to have a full experience or understand or even have a positive experience in the temple. And the fact that I, that I, in hindsight, I look back and I wasn't prepared, Craig, to go to the temple. I didn't underst— the temple classes didn't prepare me. I went into Samkhya. This is pre-1990, by the way, Jim Bennett, right?

Sure.

I went from very thin, generic messaging in the temple classes to this extraordinary I'm going to be honest, a cultish experience for me. I'd gone from non-religious experience, you know, not just no church religious, you know, LDS Church, but nothing like that in my entire life. No prep in the classes and went into this extraordinary ritual that blew my mind. Most of which, if not all of which, I didn't understand for a long time and still don't fully understand it, but it took me such a long time and a lot of attendance. To start to get to those, that position, Craig, where eventually I think, uh, you know, uh, after the mission, Jim, I went before the mission, as you know, you have to go before the mission. Then when I got back, I did a lot of temple visits and eventually it became something that was positive. And so I hear what Greg's saying, what you're saying, Greg, about, you know, the goal and the, and the, you know, what we're trying to achieve and and, um, you know, those, that relationship with God through the temple, which I, I did get in time, but the church does such a poor job or did such a poor job that that experience, uh, took me a long time to, to, to have because I, I wasn't prepared. I didn't understand it. I, I didn't know the processes and it went completely over my head and, and, and frankly, it, it, it scared me. And the other thing as well, uh, guys, is that I was taught in the temple the first time that if I don't learn this stuff and understand it and accept it and really take it to heart, that I will not get into the kingdom of God, into eternal life. So, you know, there are things that you have to do and say in a certain way, um, that if you don't know, you don't remember, then you're not going to enter the kingdom of God. So I felt pressure, I felt guilt, I didn't understand it. And so it was so long before I even had a positive experience. Jim Bennett, was that your experience?

To some degree, I found, you know, I had expected the temple to be just filled with esoteric knowledge that we find out where Kolob is or we find out where the lost 10 tribes are or something. And so my reaction wasn't so much, this is so weird. It was, this is it. This is the whole thing. And Greg, if I remember correctly, didn't President McKay say something similar about his first time in the temple? He says, oh, he did.

I think it was in the 1940s that he gave that address to some young people, and it was recorded. But he said, the first time I went through, I was deeply disappointed. And it took him a long time to figure out that what had distracted him from the reality was getting hung up on the mechanics. Well, that's not difficult to do because we have so many Pharisees in this church that want to make absolutely sure that everything is done letter perfect. I went to a temple wedding ceremony years ago in Salt Lake. I just happened to be in town, and it was the son of a dear friend, and the son was getting married, and the friend said, since you're in town, why would you come to the ceremony? The ceremony was in the Salt Lake Temple. The officiator was Oscar Osborn. I don't know, Jim, if you know that name.

I don't.

He had been the president of Salt Lake Temple. He'd been released from that, but he was still a sealer in the temple, and so he performed the ceremony. Uh, very stern-looking man, as temple presidents can be. And he had the bride and the groom kneeling at the altar saying his prefatory remarks. And he said, now, in the course of the ceremony, I'm going to ask you to do certain things and ask you to say certain things. And if you don't do it exactly as I tell you, and then he paused for dramatic effect. It won't make a bit of difference. And the air just went out of the room. People were so relieved to hear that. It was exactly the right message because we get so hung up on the mechanics that we miss the point. And that's what President McKay was saying. Now, I don't think very many people in the Church understand the continuity of the endowment ceremony, that in its initial form, it had only one purpose, and that was to empower the newly called missionaries to go out and preach the work. Period. It wasn't a scripted event. It was an event. It was a Pentecost. But the idea of empowering the missionaries was there from the beginning, and in the beginning it was the only purpose of the endowment. We've added and subtracted a lot of things over nearly two centuries since then, but still the essential thread in the endowment is the preparation of the missionaries. It's what we do to the missionaries just before they go out and embark on their missionary service. So that thread of continuity has been there from the beginning. It's difficult for people either to keep track of that or even to know that it's there because there's so much else that's been added or subtracted over the decades. And to your point, Ian, they're not really given the type of temple preparation course that deals with that. And so it just goes over their head, which is really unfortunate because that was and is, I think, still the central thread of temple worship. It's to empower the missionaries to do their thing.

Yeah. On the way you describe that though, then are you saying I mean, the current temple endowment ceremony is a ritual reenactment of the creation and the fall. Uh, were those elements not present initially? You say it wasn't scripted.

Those, those elements were not present until 1842. The predecessor is Mahavut Temple Endowment Ceremony. So initially it was a Pentecostal experience, period. And the first time that it happened was June 1831, which was 5 years before the Kirtland Temple was dedicated. So it didn't even have a home yet. It was a concept. It happened in a schoolhouse in Kirtland. So there were a couple of evolutionary facts. One was, what was the nature of the ceremony itself? That morphed from the Pentecostal congregational experience to a scripted ritual experience. It morphed from being in a schoolhouse to being in a designated sacred space. And eventually it morphed from being the quest for tangible here and now power to power through knowledge. Initially, the expectation of Joseph Smith and his followers was this will give us power over the elements and power to defeat our enemies. Well, they found out through sad experience, I think the most notable being Zion's Camp in 1834, that there were some severe limits to that power, and they fell way short of expectations. So you see a gradual evolution away from tangible here-and-now power and towards power through knowledge as applied to an afterlife rather than this existence. That's a lot to throw at you to answer that question, but that's where 50 years of research has taken me on it.

Well, whenever you talk about endowment of power from on high, and that was one of the things that was emphasized in my very limited temple prep, I think everybody's temple prep was very limited, although that seems to be changing. The church seems to be far more comfortable discussing details of the temple than they used to be. They've released several videos. In which they show sacred clothing. Howard Anderson was the one who showed me the, the temple clothing before I went through. And it— I was still shocked when I saw it actually on people. He just showed me, you know, here's the apron and here's the robe and here's this. And it didn't really compute in my brain until I actually saw somebody dressed up in it. But I, being told this is an endowment of power, I went through the ceremony and said, okay, well, where's the power? What is it that I'm, I'm being given these sort of specific pieces of information, but what kind of power do I draw from that? And I still think that that's, that's a question I have the answer for myself.

It was the quest from the beginning, and they articulated it in very concrete terms, and they did so openly, meaning the national press in 1831 picked up on this and talked about how the Mormonites were going to have this Jubilee conference in June and they expected to be endowed with power to heal the sick and even to raise the dead. That's the kind of power they aspired to, but it didn't quite work out that way. And so what, in my mind, one of the strongest forms of revelation in this church is revelation through failed expectations.

That is a great way to frame it.

Um, it, it's a sudden realization that whoops, what we thought was gonna be easy turns out not to be easy, so we're gonna have to regroup.

Ian, have you ever experienced the revelation of failed expectations?

Of describing and explaining that experience? I've never heard it put that way. Uh, Greg, that's such wisdom. And, uh, explains a lot of things for me. Mike Williams with the temple started out— go ahead.

You've seen it, whether under your own hands literally or witnessing others, where under the authority of their priesthood office They make a, a very dramatic promise. And sometimes those promises fall flat. That can be devastating, particularly to the recipient, because the default position is, I must not be worthy, because it couldn't have been the officiator who was over his skis on this, if you can pardon that analogy. Well, it turns out that with the best of intentions, sometimes we do get out over our skis. And there are multiple instances in church history where church leaders all the way to the top, uh, either acknowledged that there were failed expectations and it was our fault collectively, or they're admonishing others. It used to be in the early decades of the 20th century that part of General Conference was a general session for patriarchs. And it was presided over by the presiding patriarch. Gee, what a thought.

Who was a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith.

Yes. And there are several recorded instances in those meetings of the presiding patriarch scolding the stake patriarchs saying, brethren, you're making promises that aren't going to be fulfilled. You have to pull back.

Hmm.

I think that all ties in with the whole notion of endowment of power. It's one thing to aspire to it, and that's what we should hope for. We should always be reaching to towards the divine. But when it comes down to, okay, prove it, that's where we often fall short. We don't always. And both of you have also seen examples where somebody drew on that power and as a result, something extraordinary happened.

Right. The way you articulate this, it, it, you, you connect the dots so well, uh, in a way that I've not heard before. Before you use the word patriarch, I thought of the word patriarch because in my temple, sorry, my patriarchal blessing, this promise is in there, which you could argue, Ian, it didn't come to pass now because you left the church. But there's other people who are very active and very faithful who have shared with me, members of the church when I was a leader in the church, Bishop, why are these things not coming to pass? Certain things that we say and prophesize or predict, if we're overzealous, don't happen, right? And I was thinking about that before you used the word patriarch. And I think the church is, the prophet is going to be very careful about what you, you know, what he needs to say in terms of the future because you've got to get it right. And I can see the, um, interpretation and the, the risk associated with making, in business you call it forward-looking statements, right? You've got, you've got those, you say, you give me a presentation, Before you do that, you have this forward-looking statement, like a disclaimer, right? But we're talking about the prophet, we're talking about stake patriarch, etc. And they, they're supposed to look into the future and tell you about, about the future. And I was always concerned about that because the stuff in My Recommend and other stuff he recommends that, sorry, in, um, sorry, Patriarchal Blessings, I apologize, which just sounded just too wild, for example. And by the way, did you know that the stake president is the only individual in the stake that reviews and changes and approves patriarchal blessing. And do you know why he does that? Because I've read this in the General Authority Handbook once, to, uh, to identify any repetition across patriarchal blessings and identify any, uh, claims or promises that are just questionable. Um, when I'm extending a blessing, you know, when you put your hands on someone's head and you're blessing someone and someone's ill, I was always struggling with what to say. Am I speaking my words? You know, I want this person to be healed. Or am I speaking God's words? And that was a constant battle for me, constant wrestle. There are times I felt inspired to promise certain things that I felt sure, and sometimes it came to pass, sometimes it didn't. And there are other times where I was so lacking in faith where I wasn't sure and therefore didn't promise that blessing, and then they got, they got, uh, you know, they got ill or they got well. There was so much uncertainty there, and it was such a dilemma because I took those things really, really seriously. Going back to the other point real quick here, um, when I, you know, I struggled through the whole temple experience from the beginning, but eventually it turned into a positive experience, partly, uh, great, Jim, because the endowment changed. It went from this very cultish, scary experience for me at least, um, into something that was a lot softer, a lot milder. Uh, but what I got from that in terms of, uh, knowledge and wisdom was I learned more about the nature of God. I learned more about the creation. I learned more about my expectations of me to give to the Lord in order to be obedient and committed. And if you, if you remember, you think about it, You have to give everything. You got to give your whole life if necessary. You got to commit your resources. You have completely have to— you're required, instructed to dedicate your entire life to the church. And I thought that was— I thought the church was high demanding enough before I went to the temple. Then I went to the temple like, my gosh, this is the ultimate level. But I was quite happy because I believed in it. And I thought, if I do this and my family does this, then we're going to get back in the kingdom of God. I learned about the process of getting into heaven. In the mechanics that you talk about, Gregg, which people can get bogged down on them for sure. But when I learned a bit about the temple, it became more of a spiritual experience. I started to see things in those mechanical things, if that makes sense. And I started to make little, albeit childlike connections. I didn't profess to have this great knowledge of the temple experience, but there were certain pieces of it that came alive for me. And meant something for me and became part of a, what became a spiritual experience for me. And I left the temple feeling uplifted and elevated, notwithstanding I still didn't understand most of it, but certain things I did. And I felt in time, took a few years, blessed, and I felt at the time I was doing the right thing. Because the, you know, there's a process, uh, we talked a bit about that. It's quite a tough process. There's a lot of struggle around that with members. You know, a lot of people don't feel worthy to go to the temple.

Let me give some historical background on that. There was no criterion for entering the Kirtland Temple for the endowment there. When they got to Nauvoo, as they were completing the temple, knowing that they would be leaving, they were putting everything they had into it. And the one requirement to receive your endowment in the Nauvoo Temple was you had to be a tithe payer.

Period.

And you can see the connection between that and being in the temple because that's the money they needed to build the temple. When they got to Utah, I don't have any record of what was required to go to the endowment house, which was the substitute temple for nearly 30 years till they got the Salt Lake Temple built. But I believe it was in the run-up to the dedication of the Logan Temple, which was 1884. There was a, an article published in the church's magazine called the Juvenile Instructor, which sounds like a children's magazine, and part of it was, but part of it was for the adults too. And it was written under the First Presidency. And it said, in a moment of unusual candor, the temple recommend is a means of enforcing righteousness.

Enforcing? They use that word?

Yes.

Hmm.

And I think that was part of the evolution of what we have seen since then. That this is a checklist that has gotten longer and longer over the decades and more and more, if I may say so, intrusive. And you sometimes wonder, okay, where is this really heading? Is this what should be required to go and try to connect with the divine? Or is this perhaps being a little bit too pharisaical in our approach to temple worship? Do we want the people to be spotless, or do we acknowledge that we're all flawed and part of the deal is to take flawed people and help them to be better? So that's my historical preamble to what you're going to say next, Ian.

Jim Bennett, if you think about what Greg just said there, that was extraordinary. It's one thing me saying something like that, right? You know, the intent behind it and the, you know, enforcing white supremacy. It's quite another for Greg Prince to say that. So anyway, in front of me, and you gentlemen have a copy of this, I did a bit of research., to compare over the recent, uh, you know, 20 years or so. Um, Jim Bennett, you and I went through in the '80s for our mission. Greg Hewitt, through, uh, before our time, uh, I understand. But I've done like a comparative analysis or a comparative question, uh, column here of the questions and how they've changed. And again, the questions are so important, so serious, and people have different experiences that we, for example, on the state presidency, we had some lessons around coming to the temple interview, recommend interview prepared, you know, white shirt, tie, fasting and praying. It wasn't just showing up in your jeans or your, your t-shirt on a Tuesday night or Wednesday night. You know, you have these temple recommend interview nights, you have a Sunday and you have one through the week and you kind of split it all up, et cetera. And so there's a whole preparationary process behind this as well. But here's the questions. So, uh, the, the previous questions, uh, and I'll, I'll, I'll run through them and I'll, and then get you two to comment on them. So one is, uh, again, this is recent changes. I'm not sure what the, the years are, but in the last 5 years, I think. Uh, one is, uh, the old question is, do you have faith in and attestment of God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? And the other one is, The same, there's no change. Okay. So a really good opening question, very safe, gets people thinking, and it's a relatively easy question, I think, to, uh, to go forward.

Ian, let me, let me stop you there because if you go back to the time, like when I went on my mission, which was 1967, that question was not there.

Question, right.

All the questions dealt with the outward person. Do you go to church? Do you pay your tithing? Do you live the Word of Wisdom? You could have passed the test without ever saying, I believe in God. Yeah. So those questions were added much later and they finally started to look inward instead of just the outward actions. Right.

That's fun. That's great. You could argue, or one could argue, that question in itself, by itself alone, would be enough, right? You know, we love God, we have faith in him, and then that's it. You just live the gospel. But no, we have many more. There are 15 yes or no questions. The next question is, do you have a test? And again, you two chime in, jump in at any point here. Do you have a testimony of the atonement of and of his role as Savior and Redeemer. And the new question slightly changed. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of his role as Savior and Redeemer? And again, I think that's a really cool question, a really good question. Any thoughts or comments on that?

It's one that also was added much later. Right.

When you say much later, what kind of timeframe? How long have, has this general approach to right plan questions been in place?

I don't have my finger on it. It may have been the Kimball years. So the late '70s, '80s, it, that's when they started to make those questions focused inward instead of outward.

Interesting.

Yeah.

There was no question about, do you believe, do you have a testimony? It was all just the outward manifestations. Okay.

I was always comfortable with those because I thought, well, if you're going to get in the temple, these are kind of really cool questions to ask of someone. Anyway, it gets more interesting from here on, gentlemen. So the old question was, do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the, the prophet, seer, and revelator, and as the only person on earth Who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? The new question, I mean, there's a few questions in, in that question 3. The other question is actually the same. So that first part of that question 3 is not changed, but basically the person who's being asked, you know, do you believe, do you accept that the prophet is the only per— the seer, prophet, seer, and revelator, and the only person on the entire earth Who possesses and authorized to have all the keys? I mean, that's extraordinary question. Any comments on that? That's pretty bold.

I think that brought in there because of so many splinter groups that claim to have prophetic guidance. They wanted to weed out those whose inclinations went elsewhere.

I get that. I see the intelligence of the logic around that. Um, the next part of that question 3 is, do you sustain, do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? And the other new question is the same. There's no change there in that part of the question. Any comments on that from either of you?

Questions. I always, uh, think of my Uncle Howard, of Howard Anderson. In Los Angeles, because he would begin every single temple recommend interview with his own language. And he didn't vary this statement ever.

I, I got maybe 3 temple recommends from him as stake president, wasn't it, Jim?

As stake president. He was the president of the Los Angeles Stake, and he would always begin every temple recommend interview by saying, I want you to know that this, this interview is about self-reflection on your part and not judgment on my part. That he insisted that this was an opportunity for you to evaluate your own perception of your own worthiness. And, and since then, I, I've talked to a number of people who go into a temple recommend interview and use that as an opportunity to sort of explore nuances. What does it mean to be a full tithe payer? Gross or net, or only on your increase, or this, that, and the other. And I'm of the opinion that a temple recommend interview is the absolute worst place to do something like that, uh, because The bishop or the stake president doesn't have a definitive answer. They're going to offer their opinion and a lot, and, and you're just opening yourself up to an opportunity for the bishop or the stake president to deny you a recommend. And I, I've always been of the opinion that, okay, you either, um, you, you know what the answers they're looking for are. Going in. So if you are not prepared to offer those answers, you probably just shouldn't bother going in. And at the same time, you have complete autonomy to interpret those questions however you choose to do it. Is that your perspective on this, Greg? Or, or do you see The— it sounds like the temple recommended interview process has changed drastically over time, and I'd be very interested in your perspective on just the value of it as a thing at all.

I think that in any aspect of the church, you're going to have hardliners and you're going to have thoughtful people. Howard, who I first met Golly, it was almost 70 years ago, Jim, when he came down and lived in our ward while he was president of the California Mission. I taught several of his kids in seminary. I think Howard Bennett was one of the finest examples I've ever seen of doing it right, of not letting the mechanics of anything get in the way of the substance. But there are a lot of hardliners who will interrogate, interrogate, almost become voyeuristic in Temple Recommend interviews, and I don't think that has anything to do with what it's supposed to be about. I think where Howard was is where everybody should be.

Well, no, I would agree with that, and I know Howard used to talk about, for instance, There were a lot of stake presidents in Nevada who would add something to the temple recommend about the gambling industry because there were so many members of the church that were working in casinos.

Yeah.

And then for a long time you couldn't get a recommend if you were working on the floor, but if you were counting the money in the back room, that was okay.

Yeah. But that, but But that didn't come from Salt Lake. That— yeah, yeah. And so Salt Lake, uh, Salt Lake actually has issued an edict since saying these are the questions, you're not allowed to add to them, and, um, you're not allowed to alter them, and you're not supposed to ask follow-up questions. But they had to explicitly say that in the handbook because so many people So many leaders took it upon themselves to add, uh, to the temple recommend questions in ways that were inappropriate.

Well, that tendency goes to the top, not just on temple recommend interviews. I was in the singles ward bishopric in DC when they came out with the infamous Oral Sachs letter.

Oh, right. Oh boy.

Weeks later followed it up with a please disregard the previous letter letter. Uh, it, it was just, it was going another step, another step, another step until they finally realized we've created a mess here. And so they started to backtrack, but it does, I think, reflect, Jim, on your question. What's the attitude of the church officer who is conducting the interview? Whether it's a temple recommend or an interview for baptism or for ordination or whatever, you've got two divergent theories as to how this should be done. Howard, in my mind, got it right. I wish there were a lot more in this church who were the Howard Andersons.

You and me both.

I'm glad you've raised this issue about these— the training that we got from General Authorities and Stake Presidents is stick to the questions, don't deviate, don't add. Many times leaders don't do that, not just a random few, it happens more often than you think. That shouldn't surprise you. I've seen bishops or heard of leaders asking questions about you know, this question really bothered me and pissed me off, and we had to call this person out and deal with it. They were asking people, when was the last time you looked at pornography? When was the last time I looked at pornography? And that was completely inappropriate. We had a lot.

That's a, when did you stop beating your wife sort of question?

Yeah.

There's no, uh, and you have these these individuals adding questions like, are you drinking Coca-Cola? Are you, you know, when was the time looking at pornography? Uh, are you a full tithe payer? I mean, uh, and if you say yes, well, looking at your tithing, are you sure you're a full tithe payer, right? And then, you know, because you have, um, part tithe payer status, right? And some of the questions, uh, you know, that were being asked were way outside Even at situations where leaders would take it upon themselves to ask very personal intrusive questions about someone's relationship status or marital status or what's going on in the bedroom and oral sex. I mean, it's just, it was an absolute mess. So the counsel we got, stick to the question. I always stick to the questions and I never asked anything more than the questions. And if they answered the questions or they weren't sure, you know, when you get to the questions and you're like, are you worthy to enter the temple of God? And I would say, well, I think so. I hope so. And fortunately for those people that interviewed me, they said, Ian, do you know what? Don't be too hard on yourself on that, right? Because you examine yourself, you want to be honest, and you want to go to the temple, but you want to feel worthy to go to the temple. And I always gave, I try to give people as much leeway as I can because it's such an ordeal for some people to go through. It's such a, such a personal, private conversation with the bishop opening up your life. And I used the word intrusive there earlier, Greg, and it can be deeply intrusive. This is, they were saying that, you know, the bishop gets really into people's lives and, you know, he gets to know the members. Intimately in terms of spirituality and morality and all kinds of stuff. And then you get temple recommend questions and the bishop knows everything about you. 'Cause if he's a good bishop, you've opened up and you've shared stuff with him. And he knows everything about you. If he's a good bishop, he won't be too hard on you, he won't judge you, right? And then hopefully, you know, 'cause you're a judge in Israel, right? You're a judge in Israel and you've got that special mantle. But a good bishop would be like the, you know, the good examples that we've got in our lives. Moving forward with the questions there, again, another part to the third question there is, there's only one word difference, is, do you sustain the other general authorities and local authorities of the church? And the new question is, do you sustain the other general authorities and local leaders of the church? I don't know if we can draw anything from the word leaders versus authorities. I don't know if that means anything.

I think that's an attempt to include women.

It may align with them not using the term temple president anymore, referring instead to temple leaders. Jim Bennett, did I get that one right?

I think so. Yeah, because they do the same thing with mission presidents that are now mission leaders, and, and the wife is also a mission leader. So I think that's, that's trying to be inclusive.

Guys, that's fascinating. And I would never have seen that without you two. I just— nothing jumped out at me at that one. The next question gets very interesting because it's quite different. Now, the question I was asked and the one I asked is, do you live the law of chastity? We all know that one, right? The new question is now, the Lord has said that all things are to be done in cleanliness before him. Doctrine and Covenants section 42, verse 41. Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity? I think that is a really cool, better question, a much more strategic and a much more intelligent question than do you live the law of chastity? And I'll tell you why, because I had people in very high up in the stake who would come to me and very good people and say, Ian, uh, I can think of one in particular. He looked at other women. He shouldn't have done it. But last week, Bishop, I looked at a woman on the beach. I'm on the beach with my wife and there's woman came out of the, uh, the sea and she was in bikini and I looked at her and I had an impure thought. Um, that happened. And so, but the new question is, do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity? So they've still got that. They've still got that question in. What are your comments, thoughts, Greg, you first, in regards to the striking difference between the two?

I would love to see the church emphasize even more morality, and I'm not just talking about sexual purity. I'm talking about the very basis of character, which has come under such severe assault in this country right at the top. We need to reclaim that moral space, uh, and so I'm all for an expanded definition of morality. One that goes beyond the sexual dimensions that normally we think of there. Jim, I'll hand off to you.

Well, if I were king of the world, or king of the church anyway, or prince, prince, prince— well, you, you're the prince, so that, that spot's already taken. The— I, I think before you go through the temple, the interview should be, here are all of the covenants that you are going to make in the temple and that they should be explicitly laid out. And the church is willing to do this now. The church— now those covenants are in the General Handbook of Instructions. When I went through the temple, I didn't know. And this is how ignorant I was. I grew up in the church. I went through temple prep class. All of this stuff. I did not know I was going to make covenants, let alone what the specific covenants were. And I can remember at the beginning of the ceremony, they say, if anybody wants to leave before you make these very important covenants, then now's the time to do it, or whatever, whatever, whatever the language is. And I just thought, well, I don't even know what they are. Yeah, I kind of want to leave because I don't know what they are. Are they okay? And, but, so I would say, all right, here are the covenants. Are you willing to make these covenants and live these covenants? And that would be the question. And then every subsequent temple recommend interview would be a one-question interview. Are you honoring the covenants that you've made in the temple? And that would be it. Uh, it would not be a checklist. It would not be any of that. It would just be You made this covenant, and are you keeping your covenant? And I don't understand why we gild the lily with all of this other checkbox stuff.

Yeah, if you know the phrase, what would Jesus do? And I wonder, okay, what would Jesus say if he were conducting the temple recommend interview? My hunch is it would be something along the lines of, thank you for coming here and welcome to my house.

Period. Yeah, we—

because just the fact that somebody would show up indicates that there's the desire there to to be better, to get closer to the source.

Was that more of the spirit of the temple earlier in the whole process in your research? I mean, because again, the Kirtland Temple, there were no, um, there were no preconditions to enter the Kirtland Temple.

Well, it was a public meeting house.

It was a public meeting house. The dedication was a public meeting, and the Kirtland Temple really did sort of model the the Pentecostal model. And they had people speaking in tongues, and they had visions, and all of the things that are described at the day of Pentecost, and that really have nothing to do with the modern endowment, as far as I can tell.

That's correct. They had to do with the literal empowerment of the missionaries. And initially, that was a physical here-and-now power over the elements, and they hoped over their enemies. That never materialized. And again and again, they butted their heads up against the wall of reality and had to either postpone their hopes, which is what happened after the failed Zion's Camp in 1834. They came back to Kirtland with their tails between their legs. And then it was Joseph saying, well, I've got a greater endowment for you now that would be in the Kirtland Temple. And you have church members writing to relatives saying, we have the promise now that when we have the new endowment, we'll be able to go back and this time we'll succeed in redeeming Zion, which means reclaiming Jackson County. That didn't work out so well either. And so they just had a repeated series of failures of expectations that eventually pushed them in a direction of then and there power rather than here and now power. Because the here and now just wasn't predictably working. Well, we keep dragging away from your thrust, get us back online.

Yeah, well, I, I, with this group, yeah, yeah, that's true. Well, we're coming up on an hour. In fact, I think we're hitting an hour right then, uh, but, uh, I, I think that this kind of a discussion would not be complete if we didn't talk about Masonic influences in the temple because it's, it's very clear that, uh, Masonic Temple rituals had an impact on Joseph Smith's thinking here. Um, it's always difficult to make that comparison because the people who— I'm— the Masons are sort of sworn to secrecy, and the Mormons are sworn to secrecy, and so it's kind of difficult to compare the two. But elements of Masonic Temple worship have been removed from later versions of the endowment. Penalties particularly. You know, Jeffrey Holland was asked about that by the BBC, by John Sweeney, who we've interviewed here. But he insisted that he's willing to acknowledge that there used to be penalties and the penalties have been removed and the language around the penalties used to be far more severe than it was by the time I went through, and then in 1990 they were removed altogether. And the comparison between that language and Masonic language is almost one-to-one, and there are a number of other just sort of smaller elements, but, uh, it's very clear that there is a some kind of a linkage there. Can you sort of expound on that, and what would you say to members of the church who are troubled By that, I would say that we defer this until our next episode because it's not a 5-minute discussion.

I, I agree. I agree.

It'd be good.

Yeah, it's a really important subject and I've looked deeply into it. And in fact, it was Freemasonry that got me interested in the history of the endowment. And I'll go into that story in our next episode.

Where's your tea? That's, well, so, well, I would love to have that episode and I'm now looking forward to that episode. Uh, can, can, as a precursor to that episode, can you say if it troubles you that there is such a linkage between the two?

No, because I figured it out historically. And the church belatedly but thankfully came out and said, uh, you know, Masonry doesn't date back to Solomon's Temple.

Which it doesn't.

And it doesn't. And that right there is an extraordinary admission because that cuts against everything that Hugh Nibley was trying to piece together.

Yeah, so I mentioned Hugh Nibley at the outset, and it sounds like His theories have fallen out of favor considerably. Yes. Uh, do you see anything ancient in the endowment ceremony?

No. Well, let me qualify that, Jim. The ancientness of it goes to what we talked about earlier, and that is the admonition to the ancient apostles and the day of Pentecost. So if that qualifies as ancient, then yes, absolutely. But not going back prior to that to Solomon's Temple.

Well, the, the belief was that this was a restoration of Solomon's Temple, and I think that was borrowed from Masonry because Masonry—

it was, but that was, that was the— oh, I, I can get you the official name of that school of Masonic history, that was not challenged until after Joseph Smith's death. And then scholars started to realize this didn't go back to Solomon's Temple. It became a trade union in the British Isles in the 16th century. So, given that Ian's from the British Isles, we will defer to him next time. To give us the authentic history of Freemasonry as a trade guild.

I would be interested in having that conversation. I'm not an expert in it, but I have a history of Freemasonry and my family does. And we saw this a lot in Scotland, but I think before we change, you know, I think we should step back now and if, and not change gear too much because I think there's such This is such a big conversation. You can't possibly cover it in one hour. There's a whole fascinating conversation around Freemasonry that I'd love to get into. I've read some of the books on it and we, we should defer that, I think, to the next conversation. And I can't wait to get into that for sure. Could we get back into the questions that we were discussing, uh, with the temporal recommended view?

We would never try to deflect your attention, Ian, of course.

I know, I know. And, and don't get me wrong, the Freemasonry absolutely fascinates me and I can't wait because I, I can't wait to learn and, and share share experiences with you both. The stuff that I've seen there, Eastern Star, dealing with it with Freemasons, the, the, the, when I joined the church, the family that took me in, the bishop used to be a Freemason, and it was fascinating. But anyway, there's so much there I want to, uh, share with you. Uh, and there's also a relationship between Freemasonry and Aleister Crowley as well, uh, Jim Bennett, and the influence of the Mormon Temple Recommended Ritual and Aleister of course, will be interesting. Healing with Joseph Smith folklore and the magical worldview, which I really want to get into with you guys. But that's a big teaser for the next one. Could we get back into the questions? I think the questions are really interesting and very, very important. So, and by the way, I love your response there, Greg, about if Christ was doing these interviews, what would he do or say? And as I was thinking about that, I thought Christ might not even ask you a question. He might just say, if you loved me, if you keep my commandments. Um, or something as simple as that, you know, and that's the true motivator, isn't it? Is love, right? Anyway, get back to the questions here. Um, uh, the earlier question is, is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the church? And the other question is, the new question is, do you like, sorry, do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others. So very different questions. What, Greg, do you think the intent is in there? What do you think about the differences, the changes?

I like the change because it goes beyond the family.

All your relationships.

Yes. I think that's a good change.

Yeah. Um, that was always explicitly framed to me as, um, is there any abuse in your family? Are you physically abusing your children or your wife? And I don't know where that specific interpretation comes from, but that's how it had always been presented to me. Had anybody else heard that?

Well, it would be an easy one for people to sidestep. It's the, oh yeah, I'm fine. You may be thinking about the other guy, but But sure, I'm fine. Well, because it doesn't pin them down to have you abused members of your family.

Right.

And I don't know that that's a question that you want to ask in a temple recommend interview.

Well, that's probably true.

I like the improvement on the question, the second question. I think it's much more, um, uh, intelligent, much broader, and much more inclusive. Uh, the next question, gentlemen, is going to put you both in a difficult position. Let's see if you can spot it. Right now, you're in a difficult position if I ask this question. The old question is, do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or those to or oppose those accepted by the church? Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That's the old question. The other question is, the new question is, do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So my memory of the first question is that if you associate with any apostate, anybody that disagrees, uh, with the church's teachings or policies or the prophets, then you are not worthy to enter the kingdom of God. Now, I didn't, I never took that literally when I was, uh, asking the question, but a lot of responses I got to that question was, well, Bishop, my, uh, member of my family don't go to church and they don't agree with it. Or another member of the family, um, actually speaking out against the church or anti-Mormon. They're in the family or in my friends group. You know, what do I do? That was the earlier question. And again, they've, they've, they've changed that. So what are your thoughts about that? Did you get the same interpretation and understanding that I did, that I was taught, by the way? And what do you think about the change to the question? Do you think it's an improvement?

I think it's an improvement. I suspect that they ran into snags on the old version. By people who would say, well, gee, I go to the Sunstone Symposium. Does that disqualify me? Because the way it was worded before, that, or gee, I subscribe to Dialogue. Well, some of the brethren would have considered Dialogue an apostate magazine.

Most did.

I never read it.

And well, and a number of stake presidents and bishops would say, yes, if you go to the Sunstone Symposium and you read dialogue, you are associating with apostates and you can't have a temple recommend.

Yeah.

So I think that's probably why that was reworded. I don't have data to back that, but Jim, I agree with you.

Well, and I think, I think another factor in the rewording here is, um, gay marriage, uh, because so many members of the church have gay family members, uh, and, and gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states and in the United States, and it's, it's legal in many, many countries worldwide where the church is. And I think a lot of, again, with the leadership roulette that you have A lot of people would say, well, if you go to your family's gay wedding, you are supporting teachings against the church. I mean, that— I think broadening the question and letting it breathe a little bit, I think eliminates some of that, but I don't think it eliminates all of it. Because I think there are still plenty of hardliners who are looking for reasons to exclude rather than looking for reasons to include.

Yeah, I think these are excellent points. And by the way, kind of obvious, I think, you know, if we, if we, if that question hadn't changed, uh, and it was the old question, you two talking to me right now would put you at risk of disqualifying yourself for the September agreement because there's quite a few things I disagree with the church, quite a few things that I just don't believe in. And I've been described as an apostate, uh, somebody who's lazy and unworthy and, and, um, you know, somebody that you shouldn't, uh, you, you shouldn't mix with. And the other thing I would add is that, you know, you get these interpretations, you know, they get the question, we get taught an interpretation of that. Some of us do at least, you know, this is what this question means. The church does— do you think the church does a pretty poor job across the board in not being consistent at what the interpretations of the questions would be, and therefore allowing people to arrive at their own interpretation and the intent of the questions, whether it's be an older question or the new question?

I want to jump in very quickly and say I hope that that's the case. I hope that the church is doing a terrible job, so that every individual feels the spiritual autonomy to answer those questions how they interpret the questions. I think that that would be a massive improvement. So anyway, to you, right?

Yeah, that's good. I think your thoughts on that. Go ahead.

Yep.

I would much prefer open-ended essay questions than hardline true/false questions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I, 'cause these are yes or no questions, aren't they? Right. We're about halfway through, gentlemen, and we're an hour and 13 minutes. And I, I've just enjoying this conversation so much. So I'm wondering, do you want to break, do another question and then end this conversation, do the other half of the questions, part 2, and then part 3, get into the Freemasonry thing. What do you think?

Works for me.

Anything that keeps Greg coming back, I think is a good idea.

So Greg, you're committed, Greg. We never, we're always going to be following you. That sounds a bit—

probably people who want me committed, but that may be a different question for—

we're asking you to commit to us, Greg. It's a commitment thing, right? Anyway, we're just honored and delighted. I'll ask one more question because that commitment path. Commitment pattern. The commitment path or the covenant path of the commitment pattern on the mission. I'll ask one more question and then Jim Bennett, maybe you could probably kind of lead us in closing our conversation. And thank you so much. I'm learning so much from this. So the next question is, do you, the old question was, do you strive to keep the covenants you have made? To attend your sacrament in other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? I always thought that question was cool. And the new question is, do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church, attend your meetings, prepare for and worthy partake of the sacrament, and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the God— of God— of the gospel, sorry. So again, very important question. There's some differences there. Greg, your comments, your thoughts.

Reminds me of an earlier question they had. I think it said, are you totally honest in your dealings with your fellow men? And that got him into a lot of trouble because people would reflect on that and say, well, gee, total means 100%, and if I'm 97%, I'm in trouble. So I think having it open-ended like that is an improvement. And the areas they are querying there, I think, are good areas to be asking about. I don't think that's asking too much.

Uh, I remember a question being much more specific, and it was interesting because they said, do you attend your sacrament? And your priesthood meetings, which I took as license to be able to ditch Sunday school, uh, if I wanted to ditch Sunday school and I could still go to the temple. I mean, that's how legalistically I was interpreting that an awful long time ago. All of the new changes seem to be movements away from legalism and Pharisee— Pharisaical interpretations and more into broader more inclusive interpretations, or at least more autonomy for the people answering the questions.

Yep, I agree.

So, all right. Well, so with commitments for 2 more episodes on this subject, we're at— we're going to wind this one down. Do we have any parting thoughts, Ian? Any parting thoughts from you, sir?

Like every other conversation with the great, I learned so much. It, it, it's, I still, the temple experience is still part of me. Um, it was such a transformational experience for me and even now still trying to make sense of it. So I'm just so grateful that I get your wisdom, Greg, and, and yours as well, Jim, your perspective. And I, this, these conversations, this particular one, um, I think is going to help so many people who are trying to, even active people trying to make sense of this and listening to the experience of someone like, like Greg and his standing in the church carries a lot of weight. I don't want to, um, oversell you, Greg, but it does carry a lot of weight and it will, people will think, well, if Greg thinks like that and feels like that about the temple and kind of make sense of it, then they feel better and they think, wow, you know, maybe not take it as seriously, take it seriously, but kind of, um, uh, see it for what it is, which is intended, I think, to help people draw closer to God and develop that relationship with Christ. Because that's the whole point, right? They're my final thoughts, comments on this.

Uh, Greg, can you sum this all up?

Uh, well, I'm content to leave my teaser for the next two sessions. I think there's a lot of good ground we can cover, and certainly a lot of misunderstanding, particularly when it comes to the relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism. We've done a poor job of that for 150-plus years. Right.

Well, I am looking forward to that more than anybody, I think. I think that's going to be a fascinating discussion. But I am grateful. This has been a fascinating discussion and grateful for both of you being here and grateful to all of you who are listening. We very much appreciate you participating here as well. And we look forward to visiting with you again in the next episode of Inside Out.