Dear Reader,


A Latter-day Saint who believes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders are authorized of God doesn’t necessarily accept whatever the church puts forth as “gospel.” On the contrary, anyone who wants a better church tomorrow really ought to speak up today. We aren’t potted plants. Let's face it: Theological malarkey will continue to thrive in the church if members say “amen” to it all.

That is the main reason this site exists.

It also exists because I want to encourage wavering Latter-day Saints not to leave the Lord's restored church merely because of its flaws and the errors of its leaders.

Each article is listed below with a title, short synopsis and a link. They were written by Steve Warren (bio below).

Keep the faith.

Steve Warren
West Valley City, Utah

“God is actually trying to create a much more profound relationship with us. We can only do that if we are actually wrestling with issues at hand.”
--Fiona Givens

Christ moves closer to us as we move from dogma toward truth.

Steve Warren was raised in Heppner, Oregon, and has lived in Utah for 46 years. He attended Ricks College for two years, served a mission to Colombia and Venezuela, and graduated from BYU in 1973 with a degree in communications. He and his wife, JaNiece, have two sons and a daughter. He wrote and published Drat! Mythed Again, Second Thoughts on Utah in 1986 and was a copy editor at the Deseret News from 1988-2008. He wrote and printed 100 copies of a novel, Beyond the Finish Line, but has not found a real publisher in spite of good reviews.
Knowing, believing, seeing Insights into our borderline dysfunctional LDS relationship with the word “know.”

Pathway to heaven The Scriptures show one sure way to return to God’s presence: possess a heart that pleases him.

Obedience gone awry Strictly following the prophet is an excellent idea—at least as long as he’s right.

Falling short, staying put Living prophets constantly err, but that’s not a good reason to leave the Lord’s church.

What in the world? Certain strange features of the Book of Mormon add to its credibility.

Some kind of miracle Fiction. An invitation to speak in sacrament meeting begins a Utah couple’s wild ride.

The cross = victory The cross is a worthy, positive symbol because it reminds us that it is the dying Christ who saves us.

Pilate tried Jewish religious leaders sought to kill Jesus; Pontius Pilate sought to set him free, so let’s give the man a break.

Father, Father, Father Why do we repeat the name of Deity so often in prayers these days?

Witnesses Multiple witnesses provide a compelling reason for anyone to ponder the claims of Mormonism.

Who is God? The Book of Mormon and other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is God and that Heavenly Father is God the Father.

In the beginning If we didn't allow speculation and guesswork in lessons on the Creation and Adam and Eve, classes would be really short.

Short takes Brief quotes, comments and reflections on a variety of gospel topics.
A few heresies... that would make for a more interesting sacrament meeting.
Oopsy-daisy 40 foul-ups by top LDS authorities.
Appreciating Christ
It's a miracle
The certainty of life after death
Farewell to temple ordinances



Thursday, November 4, 2021

Farewell to temple ordinances?

 

Note to readers: This long entry on temple work has three separate essays. The first is titled 5 pillars of temple work and is followed by a 12-point summary, “On shaky ground.” The third segment is the long main essay, titled “Farewell to temple ordinances?”  Parts of each essay are repeated in the other others.  It is a work in progress and may be combined into one article. 


5 pillars of temple work


Are temple ordinances necessary for exaltation? Let us carefully consider five well-known pillars or underpinnings of temple work.

 1.  1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

 The above passage is critical to our LDS temple theology as it is one of the two verses in ancient, canonized scripture most often cited as supporting work for the dead.  Alas, this verse appears to have three problems. (Not counting the failure of King James editors to capitalize “why” and referring to people as “which” rather than who.)

 First, it appears that Paul wants to distance himself from those who baptize for the dead; he twice refers to them as “they.”  In contrast, he routinely addresses believers as “we” and “us.”  Therefore, we cannot conclude either that they were members or that Paul supported the practice.  Instead, he merely appears to be saying that baptizing for the dead is incompatible with believing that the dead don’t live again.  Similarly, if Paul had said those who perform infant baptism believe in life after death, we would never conclude that he believed in infant baptism.

 The second problem closely relates to the first.  Although Paul mentions the existence of baptisms for the dead, there is no evidence anywhere in ancient scripture that such baptisms were advocated by apostles or prophets. If these baptisms were essential for eternal life, surely they would have unambiguously told us so.

Third, even if these Corinthian baptizers for the dead were members, the epistles show a distinct tendency for members of that era to drift from correct principles, with Paul needing to “set in order” (1 Cor. 11:34) the church. Was this an area where “they” had drifted?

 As 1 Corinthians 15:29 is a shaky pillar, let us turn our focus to the other verse in ancient scripture most often cited in connection with temple work.

 2.  Hebrews 11:40: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”

Based on the above verse, we often hear in the Church that we cannot be saved or made perfect without our dead. The assumption is that unless vicarious work has been done for our dead ancestors, we cannot inherit eternal life or the highest level of celestial glory. What is not mentioned is that Joseph Smith in his inspired revision of the King James Bible entirely changed the verse's meaningGod having provided some better things for them through their sufferings, for without sufferings they could not be made perfect.” In other words, the inspired passage has nothing to do with temple work.

 Let us turn our focus, therefore, to what surely is a more firm pillar: revelation.  

 3.  Revelations to Joseph Smith.

 Members widely believe that revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants consist of the first-person voice of the Lord speaking to Joseph Smith. However, as LDS historian Richard Bushman has noted, the prophet “had a green thumb for growing ideas from tiny seeds,” and the Joseph Smith Papers Project confirms that nearly all D&C “revelations” were actually his ideas or impressions on various subjects. Matthew Godfrey, managing editor of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, said: “for the vast majority of the revelations that are in the Doctrine and Covenants, they came to Joseph Smith the same way the Lord reveals things to us. It was through inspiration that he received [from] his heart into his mind.” (Church News, Feb. 10, 2021)  He dictated these thoughts to scribes, who changed bad grammar and syntax. Later, additional editing and rewriting occurred. This included the addition of expressions such as “thus saith the Lord.” 

 A clear indication that many of these impressions were not the Lord's nor of ancient origin is that latter-day temple work has evolved in a hit-and-miss process with numerous changes. For example, at first only men were endowed. Prominent sisters complained; they were soon included. Endowment ceremonies formerly included an oath of vengeance in which participants made promises related to heart and tongue removal, disembowelment and throat slitting. “The law of adoption” was scrapped as was the ban on Blacks receiving temple ordinances.  In the early 20th century, leaders pruned a great deal of the Freemasonry-linked segments from the endowment.  A reference claiming Satan had black skin was eliminated, second-class status for women has been modified, etc. The drawback with referring to impressions as “revelations” is that with so many revisions we must admit mortals made up stuff. Otherwise, it looks like the Lord can’t make up his mind.

 Rather than putting too much stock in gussied-up “revelations,” let us turn to something clearly higher on the revelatory scale—visions.

 4. Wilford Woodruff’s visions of the Founding Fathers

 Elder Wilford Woodruff stated that the Founding Fathers and others appeared to him two straight nights in 1877 to “demand” ordinance work be done for them. 

 As we examine his assertion, however, a glaring omission arises. Although Woodruff, a meticulous journal keeper, made entries in his journal at the time he said these “visions” occurred, he wrote nothing about visions. His journal entry for August 19, 1877, does indeed mention the Founders but simply observes: “I spent the evening in preparing a list of the noted men of the 17 century and 18th, including the signers of the Declaration of Independence and presidents of the United States, for baptism on Tuesday the 21 Aug 1877.”

 Writing about a similar “vision” episode in later years, he noted that “I spent some time with him [Benjamin Franklin], and we talked over our Temple ordinances.” He concluded by saying, “I awoke.”

 Moreover, Woodruff’s actions after his “visions” do not inspire confidence that he was involved in a revelatory process.  Although he writes that afterward he was promptly baptized for 100 Founders and others, he was clearly unaware that such work was entirely unnecessary; baptisms for the Founders had been performed years earlier—in some cases, multiple times.

 His visions were never canonized.  On the other hand, our fifth pillar is not only regarded in the Church as a vision, it was canonized.

 5. Joseph F. Smith’s 1918 vision of the redemption of the dead.

 Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants is seen by many as notable divine confirmation of temple work.  Alas, a close look at its teachings attributed to Christ strongly suggests something that is rather shocking:  Temple ordinances are not necessary for exaltation.

 Section 138 tells of Christ visiting the spirit world between his crucifixion and resurrection. There he preaches the gospel to a receptive and “innumerable company” of just spirits, including ancient prophets and other faithful, and tells them that they will all “come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life” (verse 51).  The vast majority of these spirits lived in Old Testament times and may not have been baptized as baptism is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

 Christ says nothing to these spirits about temple ordinances.  Instead, he simply promises them that after his resurrection, which occurred a day or so later, they would all be crowned with “eternal life” in “his Father’s kingdom” (verse 51).  We know that these spirits did not wait centuries to receive vicarious temple ordinances but instead resurrected immediately into the promised eternal life because Section 138 makes clear that Christ’s resurrection ended their “bondage,” i.e., “the long absence of their spirits from their bodies” (v. 50).

 (Note: An additional serious problem with section 138 is that the day after President Joseph F. Smith received this “vision,” he stated in a brief general conference message only that he had been communicating with “the Spirit of the Lord.” It isn’t until later that the section is called a “vision”—but only in its final verse. In the preceding verses, the reader is twice told merely that “the eyes of my understanding” were opened. President Smith had been suffering from serious health problems for several months, most likely was on medications and died the following month.)

 Conclusion:  Our five shaky pillars suggest that temple work is built on a house of cards.  Still, temples serve other good purposes. The fact that Jesus taught in the temple and called it a house of prayer for all nations reminds us that it is a place of peace, learning and worship where we can draw nearer to Christ and where he may manifest himself in various ways.  It also stands as a monument of praise to the Lord.



On shaky ground

12 problems with latter-day temple work


1. Doctrine and Covenants Section 138 is viewed as strong scriptural support for temple work, and is referred to as the vision of the redemption of the dead.  However, close scrutiny reveals that Section 138 has a major problem:  It strongly suggests temple ordinances are not necessary for eternal life.  Here Christ preaches to an “innumerable company” of spirits, telling them they will “come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life.” Temple ordinances such as individual endowments or sealings of couples are not mentioned as requirements.  Instead, Jesus preaches the gospel (presumably many were hearing it for the first time) and simply promises that after his resurrection, which occurred roughly a day later, they would all be crowned with “eternal life.” We know that these spirits did not wait for vicarious temple ordinances but instead resurrected immediately into the promised eternal life because Section 138 makes clear that Christ’s resurrection ended their “bondage,” i.e., “the long absence of their spirits from their bodies” (v. 50). (Note:  It is important to recognize that the vast majority of these spirits lived in Old Testament times and likely had not been baptized as baptism is never mentioned in the Old Testament.)

2.  We assert that the intent of temple work is to unite families forever.  A closer look shows, however, that if our temple dogma is true, it will prove quite divisive to families in the hereafter.  Even for the temple-worthy, celestial glory almost certainly will require separation from many, if not most, family members.  Why?  Because our teachings indicate that exaltation won’t be attained by roughly 80% of our LDS family members as they fall into at least one of these categories: They are less active, aren’t temple-worthy or they have a less-active or nonmember spouse, are single or identify as LGBTQ.  (Exaltation is only for straight couples.  The exception is straight men who, in some cases, are permitted to have multiple straight wives. D&C 132:37-39 also says many concubines are permitted for certain men.  Sorry, male reader.  It was an Old Testament thing. You are limited to one wife.)  

 3.  Our teachings suggest that nonmembers and less-devout members will learn long before getting to heaven's gate that temple-ordinance requirements, if true, are highly divisive.  On earth, they are told that only active Latter-day Saints properly temple-married can expect to inherit celestial glory.  But they also learn early in the afterlife—in the spirit world, actually—about the divisiveness of temple doctrine. In The Holy Temple, Elder Boyd K. Packer quotes an October 1908 general conference talk by Elder Rudger Clawson saying that all parents who haven't received temple sealing ordinances live “separate and apart” in an “enforced separation” in the spirit world.  Additionally, the promise made by Church leaders that small children who die go to the celestial kingdom where they will eventually be raised by their faithful parents surely doesn’t apply to nonmember parents and less-faithful parents—we teach that nonmembers and the less-faithful aren’t allowed into the celestial kingdom.

 4.  If our dead are “held back” because their temple work hasn’t been done, we must conclude that “cutting in line” typifies temple work and that the God of our LDS theology is unjust.  After all, virtually all ordinances have been performed for comparative youngsters: those born after 1600 AD.  If ancients still lack such ordinances, hasn’t God deprived them of equity, justice and agency? Indeed, Elder Dale L. Renlund, speaking of proxy ordinances, seems to confirm the unfairness of God:  Without these blessings, these deceased individuals [through no fault of their own] are profoundly disadvantaged” (brackets and italics added).  Regarding disadvantaged predecessors, temple work is often incorrectly advocated by citing Hebrews 11:40: “that they without us should not be made perfect.” Joseph Smith’s inspired revision changed this passage to “without sufferings they could not be made perfect,” which has nothing to do with temples. 

 5.  Very likely, we have misinterpreted passages about turning hearts.  The Jewish community generally views turning the heart of the children to their fathers (Malachi 4:6) as learning about and heeding earlier prophets.  The best Book of Mormon chapter about children turning to their fathers may be Mormon 7 wherein Mormon desires that future generations come to a knowledge of their fathers.  A prime example of fathers turning to their children is the Nephite intention to leave a record for future generations of God’s dealings with them (Jacob 4:2-5).  While they desire a believing progeny, the Book of Mormon never mentions temple ordinances. 

 6. The Church’s view of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is a non sequitur (a conclusion that does not follow from the premises). Here, when Paul twice speaks of “they” who are baptized for the dead, we cannot conclude that “they” refers to Church members or that Paul endorsed the practice.  (Elsewhere in the chapter, he routinely addresses believers as “we” and “us.”)  If proxy baptism had been authorized in the ancient church, this fact would have been quite important, and we would expect apostles and prophets in the Bible and Book of Mormon to say so.  Instead, they utter not a word either for or against the practice.

 7.  Church teachings assert that temple ordinances are necessary to receive celestial glory. Multiple scriptures suggest this is not the case. Three examples:  D&C 132:37 states that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are exalted and “are gods.”  There is no scriptural evidence that they received temple ordinances or were even baptized. (Baptism is never mentioned in the Old Testament.)  Similarly, in Alma 14:11 when righteous women were burned to death, Alma says, “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself in glory.”  Also, see item 1 above wherein an “innumerable company” receive eternal life.

 8.  Elder Wilford Woodruff stated that the Founding Fathers and others appeared to him two straight nights in 1877 to “demand” ordinance work be done for them.  Why was that unlikely?  Woodruff, a meticulous journal keeper, wrote nothing in his journal about these “visions” on or around the dates they happened.  Later, in writing about another similar episode in which “I spent some time with him [Benjamin Franklin],” he concludes by saying, “I awoke.”  After Woodruff’s first “vision,” he was baptized the next day for 100 Founders and others.  Apparently, neither he nor they knew that these proxy baptisms had been performed years earlierin some cases, multiple times.

9.  A look at the history of the endowment ordinance points not to an ancient or revealed ceremony but toward a make-it-up-as-we-go ritual.  For example, the endowment ceremony was originally males only. Prominent sisters complained; the ceremony changed.  Endowment ceremonies long included an oath of vengeance in which participants made promises related to heart and tongue removal, disembowelment and throat slitting.  “The law of adoption” was scrapped as was the ban on Blacks receiving temple ordinances.  In the early 20th century, leaders pruned a great deal of the Freemasonry-linked segments from the ceremony.  A reference claiming Satan had black skin was eliminated, second-class status for women has been modified, etc.

 10.  In asserting that unbaptized deceased people need proxy baptism to obtain celestial glory, the Church points to scriptures that say without baptism a person cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.  However, the Scriptures also strongly suggest that baptism is for mortals as they must go down into the water” (2 Nephi 31:13).  Proxy-baptized persons remain perfectly dry.  Moreover, without any mention of a baptism requirement (or other ordinances), eternal life is promised to righteous mortals in many other passages of scripture.  Christ attained godhood as a spirit; his mortal baptism was an example for mortals

 11.  Many assert that temple “revelations” to Joseph Smith are the Lord speaking.  But Matthew Godfrey, managing editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project, said:  for the vast majority of the revelations that are in the Doctrine and Covenants, they came to Joseph Smith the same way the Lord reveals things to us.  It was through inspiration that he received [from] his heart into his mind.  A clear indication that many of these heartfelt impressions were not the Lord's nor restored from antiquity is that latter-day temple work has evolved in a hit-and-miss process with myriad changes. (See item 9.)

 12.  Favoritism pervades temple rites.  Men, for example, can have multiple wives sealed to them for eternity; women cannot be sealed to more than one husband at a time.  Similarly, our scriptures say God has “given unto” some men numerous wives and concubines (D&C 132:37-39) for eternity.  Additionally, a secret ritual called the second anointing, an extension of the endowment and viewed as the crowning temple rite, continues to be administered by apostles but only to certain people.  It confers exaltation (godhood) upon these couples. (Some recipients have left the Church, calling into doubt their promised godhood.)

 P.S.  What purpose do temples serve?  The fact that Jesus taught in the temple and called it a house of prayer for all nations reminds us that it is a place of prayer and learning as well as peace, worship, blessing, setting apart, promise-making, personal revelation, and a place where families can gather and where Christ may manifest himself in various ways.  It also stands as a monument of honor and praise to the Lord.


MAIN ESSAY

Farewell to temple ordinances?


Temples can be of great value to followers of Christ. However, after examining the historical and scriptural roots of what we call temple work, I believe its entire structure is built upon a house of cards that falls apart under close scrutiny. 

This article demonstrates that the Scriptures show beyond a reasonable doubt that temple ordinances are not necessary for eternal life (exaltation), that performing of vicarious ordinances has significant theological problems, that temple work comes to us through a shaky “revelatory process and that the work is vexed by perplexing questions and inconsistencies. 

Is the preceding paragraph correct?  Doctrine and Covenants 132:37 tells us that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have been exalted and are gods.  In temple work, exaltation is available only to those who are baptized and receive temple ordinances. But in this verse, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who likely were never baptized (baptism is not even mentioned in the Old Testament) and almost certainly received no saving ordinances in earthly temples, have already been exalted and sit upon thrones. Keep in mind that we teach exaltation is for married couples only, so they would each have likely had many wives and also possibly many concubines (goddesses) in their exalted state, although none would have been sealed in marriage to the best of our knowledge.

We get another strong hint that temple work is built on shaky ground when immediately after proclaiming that seeking after our dead is our greatest responsibility, Joseph Smith supports his viewpoint by invoking Hebrews 11:40: They without us cannot be made perfect.  Why is this shaky ground? Because in his inspired revision of the Bible a decade earlier, Joseph entirely changed the verse's meaning:  God having provided some better things for them through their sufferings, for without sufferings they could not be made perfect.  In other words, the inspired passage isn't about temple work at all.  (Two other problems with embracing the original verse are 1. it contradicts the doctrine of individual accountability, which allows people like Abraham to become a god without a third party doing ordinance work for him, and 2. there are ways to interpret it that do not involve temple ordinances .)

For those of us who believe the restored church is the Lord's church, how can we say that the Church has drifted far astray in its temple theology?  The answer may be related to the fact that whenever major teachings are advanced by prophets, the standard approach of the Church and its members is to embrace and defend them. If an incorrect teaching survives for a few years, it becomes like a weed with deep roots and is extremely difficult to remove. The priesthood ban, for example, did not survive for more than 125 years because it was correct. It survived because leaders felt culturally comfortable with it, failed to subject it to due diligence, and simultaneously exhorted acquiescent members to “follow the prophet. The temple theology initiated by Joseph Smith has received even less scrutiny within the Church than did Brigham Young's priesthood ban.  

Closely examining temple dogma also reveals an alarming fact: If it is true, its primary effect will be to divide rather than unite families in the hereafter. Why? Because it asserts that temple-worthy Latter-day Saints will go to a higher part of heaven where they will be separated not only from nonmember relatives but from most of their LDS kin as well. Remember, the majority of members are less active” and are viewed as unworthy to dwell in celestial glory with the faithful. Consequently, less-active members will have larger forever families in the LDS hereafter as they can dwell with nonmember relatives as well as other less-active family members. For temple-worthy Saints who wish to enjoy the company of most of their family members in heaven, our best bet may be to pray like hell that our current temple theology is as wrong as this article says. 

Note:  We teach that Heavenly Father and Mother lost a third of their children even before the earth was created.  Plus, the above paragraph suggests that the vast majority of their remaining children who come to earth will end up unworthy to return to dwell with them in celestial glory.  In today's world, parents with such a miserable record would be sent to counseling.

At this point, many Latter-day Saints will read no further after saying to themselves, But modern prophets declare these ordinances are necessary.  Besides, we have felt the Lord's spirit in the temple, and we sometimes feel close to our ancestors there, in researching family history and elsewhere. Also, miraculous manifestations have been reported in temples.” This perspective is entirely truthful. Nevertheless, it has four serious flaws. First, spiritual manifestations inside temples do not make temple ordinances necessary for eternal life any more than spiritual manifestations outside temples make temples of no value.  Second, although Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, experienced visions and was indeed a prophet, his revelations on temple ordinances appear to have been heartfelt but often incorrect assumptions and impressions resulting in interpretations of scripture and creation of rituals (or borrowing from the rituals of others) that reflected those impressions.  In his prophetic role, he and his scribes felt it appropriate to express his impressions on temple work (and many other subjects) as though the Lord himself were speaking.  (See end note 8.)  Alas, a clear indication that many of these impressions were not the Lord's nor of ancient origin is that latter-day temple work has evolved in a hit and miss, make it up as we go process, as noted in more detail below.  (And, as is also explained later, various temple-related visions,” including Christ preaching in the spirit world and of the Founding Fathers demanding vicarious ordinances, have major problems.)  Third, the Church interprets scripture in a way that supports currently accepted dogma and ignores scriptures and facts that do not. (Certainly, the restored church is far from alone in that regard.) This approach prevails despite the reality that many formerly accepted teachings as well as numerous statements of prophets have been mistakes (see Oopsy Daisy” on this site).  Meanwhile, LDS writers, speakers and manuals strive to connect ancient temple practices to today's ordinance/covenant regimen, a regimen that has recently been given its own catchphrase: the covenant path.”  (It replaced the previous catchphrase; namely, the Lord is hastening his work.)  Fourth, whether or not prophets say these ordinances are necessary, adult members who possess agency have a duty to examine for themselves such claims rather than automatically accepting them, particularly when acceptance may evolve into a large time commitment and produce stress and divisiveness in family relationship among those who are active, not active and not members.  For adult members to automatically follow leaders by saying, in effect, but they told me to wasn't what Paul had in mind when he wrote, When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor. 13:11)  For that matter, it wasn't what Einstein had in mind when he observed, Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.  

Among key scriptures that most likely gave rise to latter-day temple ordinances were 1 Corinthians 15:29 (a verse mentioning baptisms for the dead), several passages referring to turning the hearts of children to their fathers, and verses about being endowed with “power from on high.”  Has the Church correctly understood these and other passages?  A multiplicity of scriptures suggests it hasn't.

In terms of scriptures that indicate temple ordinances are unnecessary, one of the most clear-cut passages is in Doctrine and Covenants Section 138, a section that, ironically, is viewed in the Church as strong scriptural support for temple work.  Section 138 tells of Christ visiting the spirit world between his crucifixion and resurrection.  There he preaches the gospel to a receptive and “innumerable company” of just spirits, including ancient prophets as well as many who apparently had never heard the gospel preached (verse 19) nor received its ordinances, and tells them that they will “come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life” (verses 50, 51).  Unlike today, the various temple ordinances are not mentioned as requirements for these spirits to enter into celestial glory.  Rather, Jesus simply promised them that after his resurrection, which occurred a day or two later, they would all be crowned with “eternal life,” finally ending the long absence of their spirits from their bodies, which they had viewed as bondage. (It is clear from the Scriptures that these innumerable spirits were part of the first resurrection that began with Christ's resurrection and included many who may now visit the earth in their resurrected bodies.  Also resurrecting at this time were many bodies who arose from their graves, as recorded in Matthew 27:52, 53.  See also Doctrine and Covenants 129:1, 130:5, which tell us that angels are resurrected mortals, and 132:29 a passage noted above that specifically notes that the resurrected Abraham is already an exalted being.) 

Another scriptural passage with a similar message is Mosiah 15.  Here, Abinadi expounds upon the plan of salvation and declares: “And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them.  And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life” (verse 24).  Notice that Abinadi includes as recipients of eternal life all just spirits who died in their ignorance before Christ came.  He also notes that all who had died as “little children” have eternal life (verse 25).  Again, the various temple ordinances are not mentioned as a requirement for either group as they died long before vicarious temple work was introduced.  (In 1840 Joseph Smith first preached of salvation for the dead.)

Still another scripture that promises eternal life or celestial glory without a requirement for baptism, endowments or sealings is D&C 137:7.  Here, the Lord promises celestial glory to all those who would have accepted the gospel if they hadn’t died first.  It's intentions vs. actions, and intentions ruleChrist looks upon the heart.  Again, there is no mention of a need for vicarious work to be performed.  The Book of Mormon clearly supports this view.  It states that because of the atonement those who have not heard the gospel or have no law given will receive no punishment nor condemnation but are restored to that God who gave them breath (2 Nephi 9:26).

To review, the three passages above are quite clear:  Just spirits who lived on earth before Christ's resurrection came forth in the initial phase of the first resurrection and were crowned with eternal life even if they hadn't heard the gospel preached on earth and hadn't received its ordinances.  Others who would have accepted the gospel if they hadn't died first also inherited celestial glory.  It is quite puzzling, therefore, that extra ordinances would be required for exaltation in these latter days.  It's enough to make us feel like we are losers or are being treated unfairly. 

If we insist that modern temple ordinances must be performed vicariously in order for those who died long ago to inherit celestial glory, we are forced to view scriptural promises related to the afterlife in a much different light.  For example, in Alma 14 when righteous women were burned to death, Alma says, “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself in glory.”  From today’s perspective, however, we might have expected Alma to say that “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself in glory a couple of thousand years from now when the required ordinance work becomes available and is performed in their behalf.

Baptism is at the root of our problematic temple dogma. Some scriptures teach that the unbaptized can neither enter the kingdom of heaven nor receive higher ordinances. Other scriptures disagree.  For example, the Book of Mormon asserts that those who cannot sin (little children and others incapable of sinning) need no baptism, and the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that virtually all humans (baptized or unbaptized) will enter heaven. Elsewhere, scriptures seem to show that baptism is required only of mortals as they, unlike proxy-baptized spirits, can go down into the water” (2 Nephi 31:13) after they accept the gospel. Saying that a person must be baptized in water to be saved, then exempting them through proxy baptism in which they stay entirely dry seems a bit contradictory. Even if we assume that literal water baptism is necessary at some point, surely those who reside in the hereafter (gods, angels, engineers and masons, among others) have the expertise to build baptismal fonts.  A more correct teaching about baptism might simply consists of saying that when mortals are taught the gospel and receive the witness of the Spirit, the Lord expects them to be baptized in order to receive the blessings that come to mortals from doing so.  We also need to keep in mind that baptism is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, yet righteous people then were receiving forgiveness from sin through the retroactive power of the Atonement of Christ and were, therefore, worthy to enter heaven.

It is also worth noting that the far higher status of being born again requires only an inner rebirth.  

Of course, some may observe that Jesus himself was baptized.  But the fact that Jesus waited until he was a mortal to be baptized suggests that the ordinance is for mortals.  Keep in mind that the premortal Jesus attained the stature of Lord God Almighty and creator of worlds without the benefit of baptism.

The Church extrapolates that John 3:5’s message (echoed in D&C 76:50,51) that “except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” means that unless earthly baptism is available vicariously to the dead, they cannot inherit eternal life. Such a claim is not supported by many other scriptures, including the following  passages: Without any mention of baptism (or other ordinances), eternal life is also specifically promised to those who walk uprightly (Psalms 84:11); to those who have given up their house or land for Christ (Matt. 19:29); to believers who have separated themselves from family members (Matt. 19:29); to the poor who are rich in faith (James 2:5); to those who believe on the Son of God (Matt 19:29, John 3:36); to those who are spiritually minded (2 Nephi 9:39); to those who have done good (Helaman 12:26, D&C 58:27,28); to those who die as little children (Mosiah 15:25, D&C 137:10); to those who endure  to the end (2 Nephi 33:4; 3 Nephi 15:9); to those who accept the Book of Mormon and work righteousness (D&C 20:8,14); to those who do the works of righteousness (D&C 59:23); to those who lay down their life for the Lord (D&C 98:13); to those who repent and sanctify themselves (D&C 133:62), etc.  Even the modest promise to CainIf thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? (Genesis 4:7; see also Proverbs 28:18 and Moroni 7:47)hints at the availability of eternal life for good behavior.  Ultimately, much in the Scriptures suggests that the pivotal requirement for eternal life may be a heart that is pleasing to the Lord.  And while religious rites and rituals may direct us toward God, surely the tie that ultimately binds us more than any other is love.  (This does not provide an excuse for mortals to ignore clear promptings of the Spirit that tell them to accept the Lord’s authorized gospel, be baptized, pray, practice the Golden Rule, etc., as the Scriptures repeatedly observe that rejecting the Spirit is a path to error, forfeited blessings and disappointment.) 

Another excellent scriptural example of those who have received the gift of eternal life  without baptism or any temple ordinances is the account of Aaron preaching to the king of the Lamanites.  The king, a sinful man up to that point, believes Aaron's words and asks what shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Aaron tells him he must simply bow down before God and sincerely repent (Alma 22:15,16, italics added), which the king immediately does and is reborn spiritually.  Later, after the Lamanites accept the testimony of this king, 1,005 of these righteous Lamanites are slain in battle and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God, (Alma 24:22) again, with no mention in either case of being baptized, endowed, sealed, etc. 

The prophet Joseph Smith also promised eternal life to others without specifically requiring baptism or temple ordinances.  For example, a father who granted permission to the prophet to marry his daughter as a plural wife was promised that the marriage shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to you and all your house both old and young (Rough Stone Rolling, page 439).  It should be noted, however, that this path to eternal life is currently not available. 

Vicarious temple work also suffers from other significant theological defects.  Three examples follow.  First, temple work makes the eternal life of most people dependent upon something other than one's own behavior and upon the Atonement of Christ; i.e., if Joe Blow doesn't get around to doing your temple work, you're out of luck, you dead losers.  What?  You're righteous?  Tough luck.  In other words, what Christ did for you wasn't enough.  (That may explain why Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29 seems to distance himself from those who baptize for the dead by twice using the term “they” in referring to them.  Elsewhere in the chapter, he generally speaks of “we” and “us” in addressing fellow believers.  Not surprisingly, the Come, Follow Me manual fails to mention this distinction and leaps to the conclusion that those who performed such baptisms were Church members and that Paul approved of the practice.  Even if they were members, the epistles show a distinct tendency among them to drift from correct principles and to be rebuked for doing so. 1 Cor. 11:34; 12:2)  Second, vicarious work seems to embrace cutting in line, as virtually 100 percent of the temple work that has been done is for those born after 1600 AD.  If in 1877 the Founding Fathers and others did indeed appear to Elder Wilford Woodruff and demanded” that their work be done, think how desperate those who have been dead for thousands of years must feel.  To them, the message of modern temple work may seem to be, simply:  Keep waiting, losers.  Think how annoyed long-dead regular people in the spirit world must have been when they learned the Founding Fathers and other famous people were put on the fast track ahead of them.  That God would allow such egregious cutting in line forces us to believe he is unjustsurely a doctrinally defective concept.  (Of course God is not unjust, and the notion that recently dead Founding Fathers would demand immediate temple work is another indicator that this vision was a dream with theological problems (see Note 3 below).  Third, in a world where so many suffer, are hungry and must do without, devoting enormous amounts of time to spirits who have long been free of such maladies seems contrary to the example and teachings of the mortal Christ who focused upon the poor, the broken-hearted, the captives, the blind and the bruised (Luke 4:18.  See also Isaiah 58:6,7).  

Additionally, frequent changes in temple ceremonies point less toward a  revelatory process and more toward making it up as we go.  For example, the endowment ceremony was originally males only.  A males-only celestial kingdom?  That soon changed after prominent sisters complained.  However, latter-day sisters were still required in the ceremony to commit to obey their husbands.  But in recent years, even that part has been dropped as social mores have changed.  Numerous other textual changes have been made in the endowment ceremony.  And sensitive souls may find it unsettling that endowment films were produced by a pervert (a convicted child abuser currently, 2022, residing in the Utah State Prison).  Females weren't the only ones to be excluded from participation in temple ceremonies; all blacks and numerous non-blacks with even a small amount of black ancestry could not receive ordinances from the early 1850s until 1978.  A revelation (D&C 132) recording principles in 1843 known to Joseph Smith since 1831 stated that all mortals not married in the new and everlasting covenant (more than 99 percent of mortal marriages) would in the hereafter remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity . . . (as) angels of God forever and ever.  Later, the Church determined that exaltation could be made available to these couples by the performing of vicarious husband-wife sealings.   In 1894, President Wilford Woodruff said he felt inspired to scrap something called the law of adoption in which adult membersincluding those married to someone elsewere sealed to a Church leader.  Endowment ceremonies also included an oath of vengeance in which participants swore never to cease to to pray for God to avenge upon the nation the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.  Participants long made promises related to throat slitting, heart and tongue removal, and disembowelment. The throat-slitting promise remained until recent times.  President Woodruff seemed to think it was up to Church leaders to decide who was worthy to have vicarious ordinances performed in their behalf; he directed that no work be done for three former U.S. presidents while giving a green light to ordinances in behalf of John C. Calhoun, an ardent pro-slavery, pro-secession politician. (Appropriately, the work for Southerner Calhoun was performed in the St. George Temple, located in an area often referred to as Utah's Dixie.)  And Sunday School manuals to date haven't mentioned that Joseph Smith entered into marriages for time and all eternity with six women who were married to active LDS men, receiving permission from most, if not all, of the men, which would constitute polygamy for Joseph Smith and polyandry for the six women. (Rough Stone Rolling, p. 439.)  In the early 20th century, Church leaders pruned a great deal of the Freemasonry segments from the endowment ceremony, perhaps out of concerns over plagiarism and coinciding with the declining popularity of Freemasonry. Among other differences between today and yesteryear is that males and females formerly could be baptized for someone of either sex.  (More than 20,000 health baptisms were also performed in temples.  One factor that perhaps contributed to their demise was that a woman seeking improved health died during the procedure.  Although never a requirement for exaltation, health baptisms are another example of the make-it-up-as-we-go nature of temple ordinances.)

In addition to scriptural, doctrinal and consistency shortcomings, temple work is a logistical nightmare.  In an era of greatly accelerated temple construction, work for the living and dead is falling behind at a greatly accelerated pace.  To illustrate: Worldwide births of 140 million in 2021 means that the total number of inhabitants without temple ordinances also increased by just under 140 million—a rise of 20 million per year over 50 years ago.  Another way to express this would be to say that of the roughly 6.50 billion live births in the past 50 years, 6.49 billion have received no temple work.

Similarly, in 1988 the Church noted that after more than a century of members performing endowments for the dead, the 100 million mark had been passed.  Recognition of the milestone was somewhat muted, however, as leaders acknowledged that most likely around 100 billion people had lived on the earth.  Moreover, the roughly 60 million annual worldwide deaths means the disparity increases each year. 

Other logistical problems will eventually arise.  For example, a high proportion of inhabitants in some past civilizations often didn't live long enough to receive a name or didn't have their name recorded anywhere, and others had only one name.  And let's remember that the majority of those who have died in human history have been single (singles include those who have divorced and never remarried).  If these singles eventually fall in love with someone on the other side, will endowments and marriage sealings in earthly temples still be required?  We should also not forget that intelligent humans existed for many thousands of years before Adam and Evewhere do they fit in when it comes to ordinances? (How do we know they were intelligent humans? They constructed homes of brick, dwelled in cities, domesticated livestock, created statuettes of mother goddesses, weaved cloth, created artwork and, in the most infallible indicator of whether a people are civilized, they brewed beer.)  

Vicarious temple ordinances look much different when contrasted from the perspective of a fringe group among the Corinthians baptizing for a few dead family members and two thousand years later from the perspective of a church that baptizes and confirms not just for dead relatives but also believes it must perform endowments and marriage sealings for all living and dead on a planet whose population is growing by 140 million per year.

Another vital point should be made:  Data on church activity and tithe paying provide a huge reason for even faithful members to hope that temple ordinances are unnecessary.  Why?  Because just 30-35 percent of members worldwide are active, full tithe payers, which not only means that most members won't qualify for eternal life/celestial glory but, of those who do, most of their children and grandchildren won't.  In other words, our temple doctrine, if true, means that even most families of the faithful will be separated forever in the hereafter.  Instead of Families can be forever,” our motto could be “In rare cases, families can be forever.  Remember, inactive, non tithe-payers aren't even eligible for earthly temple entry let alone heavenly exaltation.  Let us pray, therefore, that the Book of Mormon is indeed correct in teaching that good people go to heaven with no temple-ordinance requirement that would divide their families into different degrees of glory.  (Temple ordinances would result, for example, in Joseph Smith's family being extremely divided in the hereafter as virtually all of his family members not only avoided temples in mortality but also chose not to affiliate with the church itself.  On a personal note, my temple-married parents, always active, have five children and 13 adult grandchildren.  Of these 20 family members, only five or six of us qualify as active, similar to the 30-35 percent level worldwide.  Alas, some of our best family members are among the inactives.)   

When it comes to whether temple work is necessary, adult members must prayerfully ponder and decide for themselves.  After all these years, it won’t be easy for active members to come to believe that temple ordinances for the living and dead most likely are not necessary for eternal life and that they should not focus large amounts of time on the dead rather than the living.  But look on the bright sides.  We won’t have to wonder why a 20-year-old living today can receive all ordinances necessary for exaltation whereas a righteous person who died centuries or millennia ago is still waiting.  Nor will we have to explain that exaltation in the highest realm is available only to heterosexual males and females sealed in marriage, not to singles or good people such as prominent returned-missionary David Archuleta, who has decided not to marry a female and is also unlikely, therefore, to receive future invitations from the Church to participate in Christmas musical extravaganzas.  Plus, we can bid farewell to questions about why a husband can be sealed for eternity to multiple wives, but a wife can’t be sealed to multiple husbands.  And then there’s the matter of not having to worry that we’ll be separated in the hereafter from a perfectly wonderful family member who hasn’t accepted temple ordinances while finding ourselves in the vicinity of an annoying family member who has.  And let’s not forget that older Latter-day Saints who have never married will no longer have to sweat bullets about finding a mate.  (Desperation in the mate search often produces ugly results.)  We won't even have to wonder why, if temple marriage is essential for exaltation, is there no evidence that Christ has ever been married?  But the most universal and immediate benefit may well be that we can stop asking about baffling aspects of temple work only to be told: “It will all be worked out in the next life or in the Millennium,” an upbeat way of saying, “Beats me.”

Yes, ceasing to perform temple ordinances will be difficult for some.  For example, having no more endowment sessions will eliminate a prime opportunity for older, retired members to doze off.  It should be observed, however, that they can still attend sacrament meetings featuring high-council speakers.  Or, if they're males, they can attend stake priesthood meetings.  And performing family history research, while no longer needed for temple ordinances, can still serve the worthwhile purpose of bringing families closer or, in the words of Malachi, turning hearts of the children to the fathers so that the earth won't be smitten with a curse.

Even if we cease to perform temple ordinances, latter-day temples can continue to serve valuable purposes.  The fact that Jesus taught in the temple and called it a house of prayer for all nations reminds us that it is a place of prayer and learning as well as peace, worship, blessing, promise-making, personal revelation and a place where Christ may manifest himself in various ways—and that it stands as a monument of honor and praise to the Lord.

                                                      *******

Post scripts

1.  I am thinking of two wonderful people whom I love.  Both were baptized LDS.  Neither has been active for decades; neither has been temple-endowed nor temple-married. I do not anticipate that they will be.  Will those of us who have been lifelong active, are temple-endowed and temple-married be separated from good people we love in the hereafter?  Of course not.  The God of love is a uniter rather than a divider.  Those who believe otherwise must ask:  Do I worship a God of love or a God who loves to make rules that separate good people from their families in the hereafter?

2.  Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants contains Joseph Smith's revelation on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, a sealing ordinance performed in temples.  The section also endorses plural marriage.  How certain are we that this section was a revelation rather than fallible impressions?  Four facts are interesting to note.  First, the basics of the revelation were known to Joseph Smith in 1831, but he apparently wasn't comfortable making them public until 1843.  Second, credible reports say that either Joseph, or Emma with Joseph's permission, or the two of them together, burned the original copy of the revelation after he dictated it in late summer 1843 or, according to one account, on June 23, 1844, four days before the prophet's martyrdom. (William Clayton saved a copy.)  Third, when he received the revelation, the prophet would normally have shown it to Emma, as no fewer than six verses are devoted to her.  Instead, he handed off the unpleasant task to brother Hyrum, which was not a ringing endorsement of the Lord's words by Joseph.  Emma chewed Hyrum up one side and down the other, perhaps her way of saying some revelations are less believable.  Fourth, although some top Church leaders had stated before 1890 that God would never revoke plural marriage as authorized by Section 132, President Wilford Woodruff revoked it with a manifesto in 1890.  

3.  Elder Wilford Woodruff spoke of receiving visitations from the Founding Fathers, presidents of the United States and dozens of other prominent men and women (actors, poets, industrialists, military leaders, novelists, explorers, etc.) in the St. George Temple.  For two nights in a row in 1877, Woodruff said these luminaries demanded that temple work be done for them.  But at the time these visions happened, Woodruff made no written mention of visions or of any unusual visitors.  Why is this notable?  Because Woodruff was a  prolific journal keeper.  On the two nights he later said these visions occurred, he merely wrote in his journal that he had been preparing a list of notable people who needed vicarious temple ordinances, something that perhaps was on his mind before retiring for the evening.  Was this a case of meditations plus dreams plus time evolving into visions?  Similarly, in later years some might be tempted to say Woodruff had another vision when he wrote of Benjamin Franklin, saying that I spent some time with him and we talked over our Temple ordinances. This March 19, 1894, experience sounds like a vision. It wasn't.  How do we know?  Because Woodruff himself described it as a dream and at the end wrote:  I awoke. Notably, Matthias E. Cowley wrote of this incident that Woodruff had a dream which followed his meditations upon the future life and the work that he had done for the dead.  These words give us another example of Woodruff meditating about something followed by a vivid revelatory experience (not a vision) on the subject.  Also worth mentioning is that immediately after Woodruff received the “vision” demanding that temple work be done for them, the first thing Woodruff did was to be baptized in the St. George Temple for 100 of the Founding Fathers and other prominent men. Why is this of note? Because vicarious baptisms for the Founders had already been performed, some multiple times.  In speaking about this in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in 1877, however, Woodruff said he performed these baptism because nothing had been done for them.”  These facts suggest that he may not have been highly inspired during this time. 

4.  In its heading, D&C Section 138 is described as a vision” received by President Joseph F. Smith on Oct. 3, 1918.  In the text of Section 138, however, it is described in three ways, only one of which is a vision.  First, President Smith says he had been reflecting on Christ and that his mind reverted to the writings of Peter and the eyes of my understanding were opened (verse 6).  Second, he observes that as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived . . .  (verse 29).  Only in the final verse (60) does President Smith describe his experience as a vision:  Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me.”  Additionally, in general conference remarks a day after receiving the vision, President Smith simply said, I have had my communication with the Spirit of the Lord continuously (italics added).  During this time, the elderly Church president was experiencing serious illness, likely was medicated, and died the following month.  (Even if President Smith experienced a vision, in it the Savior spoke no words about vicarious temple ordinances.  Instead, the words about temple ordinances are merely President Smith's extrapolations about how such ordinances might relate to Christ preaching in the spirit world.)

5.  When Paul talks of certain people being baptized “for” the dead, the Church takes the view that “for” means a previously baptized mortal performs a vicarious baptism in behalf of an unbaptized dead person.  This may have indeed been the case among a couple of sects in the first and second centuries.  But who is to say it doesn't refer to an unbaptized mortal simply deciding to get baptized because the deceased had been baptized and he wishes to please (or pay homage to) the dead person?  Similarly, if a person's churchgoing father is buried on Friday and his previously inactive son attends church on Sunday “for Dad,” we would simply conclude that the son is honoring the father.  In any event, there is no ancient scriptural evidence that baptisms for the dead were endorsed by Paul and other apostles or prophetsthe fact that they offer no words either in support or condemnation is not something we would anticipate if the practice had great importance in the Lord's church.  It certainly contrasts with Joseph Smith's view that work for the dead is our greatest responsibility.”  In Corinthians, Paul is not saying he believes in baptisms for the dead but is observing that those who perform such baptisms believe in life after death, unlike some sects.  In the same way, if Paul had pointed out that those who perform infant baptisms surely believe in life after death, we would not conclude that he was advocating the performing of infant baptisms.

6.  Just as the Church interprets the verse on baptisms for the dead as evidence that vicarious baptisms should be performed for all of humanity, it also holds a singular and questionable view that verses mentioning the turning of the hearts of children to their fathers and fathers to children mean that children must perform vicarious ordinances for their dead fathers.  However, a more widely accepted interpretation reflects the Jewish view that turning hearts of children to the fathers simply refers to heeding earlier prophets. (Those in the world of the New Testament viewed Old Testament prophets as the fathers.)   In fact, the best chapter in the Book of Mormon about children turning to their fathers may be the 10 verses of Mormon 7 wherein Mormon three times writes of the need for future generations to come to a knowledge of their fathers.  He lists three reasons why this is important: 1. So that the children will know that they must repent,  2.  so that they will believe in Christ and 3. so that they will know that they must not engage in warfare and bloodshed.  He says nothing about temples or vicarious ordinances.  And in terms of turning the  hearts of fathers to children, a prime example is the intentions of Book of Mormon writers in creating a written record for future generations about the dealings of God with them, (see Jacob 4:2,3), a record that says nothing about vicarious ordinances. 

 7.  While I believe that temple ordinances are not necessary for eternal life, that doesn't mean I know they are unnecessary.  That would similar to my incorrect assertion in the 1960s that I know blacks should not have the priesthood.  In fact, I have received temple ordinances and have performed some for deceased family members and others. In the unlikely event that these ordinances are necessary, I have left the following note in my obituary file:  Unless the work has already been done, I would also like around $3,000 or so from my IRA to go to a qualified genealogist to research and submit names from my family lines for temple ordinances.  (Thankfully, my wife is doing that work, so it looks like we won't need to spend the $3,000.)  But as one who now believes beyond a reasonable doubt that temple ordinances are not essential, I believe it unwise for me to devote large amounts of time to this work.

8.  As LDS author Richard Bushman has observed, when Joseph Smith had thoughts in his heart or mind on a subject, he assumed that the words came from heaven”; that they might have come from his imagination seems not to have occurred to Joseph. Bushman also noted that the resemblance of Masonic rituals to parts of the temple endowment seems to be an example of an area where Joseph Smith had a green thumb for growing ideas from tiny seeds.  Similarly, Matthew Godfrey, managing editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project, has said:  for the vast majority of the revelations that are in the Doctrine and Covenants, they came to Joseph Smith the same way the Lord reveals things to us.  It was through inspiration that he received [from] his heart into his mind. Elder Orson Pratt said that Joseph thought the ideas he received came from God but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind.  (Ensign, December 1984)  Because  we know at this late date that not all of those ideas were from God, we must be sure that his other ideas, especially pivotal ones, hold up under honest scrutinyincluding examination through the prism of the Scriptures.  We can suppose that if something like the Proclamation on the Family had been issued in Joseph Smith's time it would have begun with Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant, Joseph . . . ” rather than We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim . . .  

 9.  Very much in harmony with the Book of Mormon view of heaven, which says nothing about degrees of glory or temple ordinances, is the experience related by LDS poet Emma Lou Thayne: “How to tell even my closest family that I had died and yes, gone to a heaven so lovely and full of light and great affection? So different from scriptural descriptions and my learned concepts.  So unlike a dream, as real as my mother and father's presence at the table.  There never could be any denying of what I now knew had happened. . . . I had been to the place of knowing and returned with a view as broad as the galaxies and comforting as my mother's hand. . . No judgment.  No echelons, only loving acceptance and that world beyond bliss, beyond joy, beyond ecstasy, a new life—childness.”  (Italics added. From The Place of Knowing, pages 25, 28, 67.)

10.  When it comes to revelation, whether it is the current prophet or Joseph Smith and other prophets, heartfelt impressions that are incorrectly assumed to be revelations often may result from a prophet combining a correct thought—that he is the Lord’s authorized prophet—with an incorrect assumption—that thoughts that linger in the mind of an authorized prophet surely must be there because the Lord put them there.  The same could be said of prophets having dreams that they interpret as revelations but that, in reality, may simply be the result of consuming ice cream or blueberry pie too close to bedtime.   A recent example was the failed 2015 policy/revelation related to prohibiting children living in same-sex households from being baptized until they reached age 18. Elder Russell M. Nelson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, in 2016 described the policy as a revelation from God.  Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation, he said. It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson.  (The so-called revelation was scrapped three years later.)  A more recent example was the church's announcement in June 2021 that Saturday evening sessions of general conference would cease.  The new policy was dropped like a bad habit a couple of months later.  As a person who often watches college football on Saturday evenings in early October and basketball on Saturday evenings in early April, I confess that I thought, or at least hoped, that the June 2021 announcement was inspired. 

                                                              ******















The church's approach to promoting temple work sometimes lands it in half-truth territory.  One example is the frequent repetition of the claim in manuals and talks that we cannot be saved or made perfect without our dead or a similar phrase.  The assumption is that unless vicarious work has been done for our dead ancestors, we cannot inherit eternal life or celestial glory.  It is based on Hebrews 11:40:  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Two problems with embracing the current LDS view of this verse are 1. it contradicts the doctrine of individual accountability and 2. there are other ways to interpret it.  But the major problem is that Joseph Smith in his inspired revision of the King James Bible entirely changed the verse's meaning:  God having provided some better things for them through their sufferings for without sufferings they could not be made perfect.  In other words, the inspired passage isn't about temple work at all.  However, this fact is never mentioned in lessons or talks.  (Years after his Bible revision when he had begun to advocate vicarious temple work, even Joseph Smith himself would revert back to the original King James version of this verse.  Note: Rather than resembling anything in the Bible, certain temple rituals bear greater similarity to ceremonies of Freemasonry, with which Joseph and other male family members affiliated.)