A Feminist Review of Daughters in My Kingdom: Part One

A few weeks ago my Relief Society president handed out free copies of the church's new publication Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society. I finally finished reading the book last week and since the book was plugged multiple times during last weekend's Relief Society General Broadcast (prompting my TBM mother to state that the broadcast was "one big infomercial"), I'd figure I'd post a review.

I should mention that when I first tried sitting down and writing my review, it ended up being nearly 20 pages long, so I decided it wouldn't work for a blog post. However, if you want to read my full, in-depth analysis with notes on each chapter, I've posted it on a Google Doc.

Instead, I'm going to condense and break up my document into smaller parts, each part discussing some of the major themes of Daughters in My Kingdom.

Introduction
Daughters in My Kingdom is a 208 page, full-color, glossy booklet discussing the history of the Relief Society and the role of women within the church. Since the booklet was handed out for free in my ward and since you can buy it for only $3 at the Church Distribution Center, I'm guessing the church is printing this book at a net loss. Whenever the church does something like that, it means that they really, really want people to read it. I can't help but wonder if the church is feeling the pressure of increasing criticism from feminist groups inside and outside of the church. (I discuss my evidence why I feel Daughters in My Kingdom is a response to feminist groups such as LDS Wave in more detail in my Google Doc, if you're interested.)

With that in mind, I was feeling fairly optimistic when I began reading Daughters in My Kingdom that it would be a step in the right direction towards gender equality within the church. And while it there are indeed aspects of this publication that are progressive, I nevertheless feel that Daughters in My Kingdom is not a very satisfactory response to the very valid concerns being raised by Mormon feminists.

The Relief Society as an "Ancient" Organization
The idea that the Relief Society is a divine organization was a central theme throughout this book. In Chapter 1, the book spends a great deal of time discussing the women in the New Testament and how Christ valued and involved women in his ministry. It also suggests that Christ organized the Relief Society as part of "the same organization that existed in the primitive church" (see the 6th Article of Faith). This chapter quotes Eliza R. Snow twice (once in the chapter heading and once in the actual chapter) as saying: "Although the name may be of modern date, the institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet that the same organization existed in the church anciently" (1, 7). Side note: if you want to read my discussion of why I think this idea is patently false, you can read my detailed notes for this chapter. But I won't dwell on it here because I want to focus more on how this idea is important to the book's overall argument.

Chapter 1 equivocates on Snow's statement a little bit by stating: "While little is known about a formal organization of women in the New Testament, evidence suggests that women were vital participants in the Savior's ministry" (3). Although this qualifying statement is an indication that the church is unwilling to fully commit to Eliza R. Snow's assertion that the Relief Society existed in Christ's time, the chapter ultimately allows Snow to have the last word on the matter by including her quote in the chapter's final section. In this way, the book subtly gives an official church endorsement of the idea that the Relief Society existed in the primitive church.

The book's suggestion that the Relief Society was established by Christ as part of the primitive church is very important to one of the book's main arguments: that the church's current ecclesiastical structure is divinely justified---and therefore cannot be changed. Women cannot have the priesthood or hold priesthood-only leadership positions because Christ intended for them to have a separate, complementary women's organization. The "separate, but equal" pattern of organization for the contemporary church is divinely authorized and therefore unnegotiable.

The Relief Society was Organized "Under the Priesthood"
Chapter 2 continues in this same vein by discussing the history of the organization of the first Female Relief Society of Nauvoo. It discusses how Sarah Kimball, Margaret Cook, and Eliza R. Snow first approached Joseph Smith with their idea to form the Relief Society in the spring of 1842. Although the evidence couldn't be clearer that the Relief Society was Kimball, Cook and Snow's brainchild, the chapter quotes Sarah Kimball's 1883 memoir in which she remembers that Joseph Smith responded to their proposal by saying: "This is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written constitution. I invite them to meet with me and a few of the brethren next Thursday afternoon, and I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood" (12). The chapter then goes on to argue: "Rather than pattern a Latter-day Saint women's organization after the women's societies that were prevalent and popular at that time, the Prophet Joseph Smith organized them after a divinely inspired and authorized manner" (12).

This chapter repeatedly emphasizes that the Relief Society was set up under priesthood authority. The book states: "As the Lord's prophet, Joseph Smith held all the keys of priesthood authority on the earth. Therefore, when he organized the Relief Society to function under his overall direction, he unlocked opportunities for the women of the Church to play vital roles in the work of the Lord's kingdom. They now served under the authority of the priesthood" (15). Later in the chapter, the book states: "The Relief Society was not just another group of women trying to do good in the world. It was different. It was 'something better' because it was organized under priesthood authority" (16). Side note: you can read my detailed notes on this chapter for why I feel that this portrayal of the history of the early Relief Society is flawed. I discuss evidence supporting the theory that Joseph Smith wanted to use the Relief Society to introduce the female temple endowment, but later abandoned it when the society became too popular (and was therefore no longer elite).

What I want to point out is how chapter 2 further supports the book's larger rhetorical purpose of justifying the church's contemporary auxiliary structure. The book doesn't allow the Relief Society to be Kimball, Cook, and Snow's idea---it has to be Joseph Smith's idea (and therefore the Lord's idea). It has to be organized "under the priesthood after a pattern of the priesthood" (12) in order to be authorized and authentic.

What about the Structural Reorganization of the Relief Society in 1971?
Frankly, the assertion that the Relief Society was organized "under the priesthood" is an anachronistic view of the Relief Society's relationship to the priesthood---meaning that it is being filtered through the lens of the contemporary church institution in order to justify its current structure. The fact that the Relief Society's history is being filtered through the the lens of the contemporary church is made obvious by the notable omissions of key historical events from Chapter 6 of the book. This chapter (which covers the history of the Relief Society from 1946 to the present day) makes no mention of the sweeping organizational changes that occurred within the Relief Society under Harold B. Lee's Correlation program in 1971. Under Lee's administration, all of the church's auxiliary programs (which included the Relief Society, the Primary, the Young Women's and Young Men's programs, and the Sunday School) ceased to be fully autonomous organizations.

Prior to 1971, the Relief Society was an independent organization. Its relationship to the church was similar to the relationship an after-school program has with a school: they were definitely connected, but they ultimately existed independently of one another. The Relief Society had its own leadership structure, its own publications, its own curriculum, and---perhaps most importantly---its own finances. In the 1970s, the Relief Society lost its autonomy and came under full priesthood control on a general, stake, and ward level. Their finances were seized and surrendered to the church. Their publications were discontinued. The General Relief Society Presidencies, who had previously served in their callings for life (the way a prophet and his First Presidency serve for life), were eventually released by their new priesthood leaders. Side note: for a detailed history of the controversy over the Correlation changes, see chapter 7 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and Part 2 of Daymon Smith's discussion of Correlation on the Mormon Stories podcast.

In short, the Relief Society only began to exist "under the priesthood" in 1971. It wasn't this way in Christ's time and it wasn't that way in Joseph Smith's time. The book's suggestion that it ever was that way to begin with is terribly anachronistic. And it reveals the book's true purpose: to give divine legitimacy to the current institutional structure of the church, the "separate, but equal" organization for men and women.

I counted nearly 18 other instances in Daughters in My Kingdom in which the authors took great pains to constantly assert that all of the actions of the Relief Society are and were authorized by priesthood leaders. In many cases, these assertions were very awkward and redundant, which suggests that they were deliberate and consciously inserted into the text (probably by the Correlation Committee). Here's a couple of examples:

• "The Saints were blessed by priesthood power through the laying on of hands by brethren who held the priesthood" (32).
• "[T]he Relief Society established the Relief Society Social Service Department in 1919, with the full support of President Heber J. Grant" (67).
• "In 1924, with support and encouragement from general and local priesthood leaders and Sister Williams [the General Relief Society president], the Cottonwood Stake Relief Society established a maternity hospital" (69).

In each of those cases, it appears that the book took great pains to make it very clear that all Relief Society actions fell under priesthood governance. I've listed more of these citations in the General Observations section of my Google Doc. 

Conclusion
Earlier I used the term "separate, but equal" to describe the church's current auxiliary structure. This was intentional, my purpose being to allude to the name of the constitutional doctrine under which racial segregation was legalized. My argument is that the church's "separate, but equal" doctrine functions in a similar way to Jim Crow laws: it creates a system in which there are two classes of citizens (in this case, men and women) with the purpose of denying the second class of citizens any real kind of power or voice within the governing body.

A Mormon woman's relationship with her God is constantly mediated by males. Although she has the right to personal prayer, personal revelation, and spiritual gifts, beyond that she is wholly dependent on males for salvation and exaltation. A male priesthood holder must perform the saving ordinances for her (with the notable exception of the Initiatory rites in preparation for the endowment). A male bishop must interview her for worthiness to enter the temple. A male prophet is responsible for communicating  a male God's will to her. And male leaders on a general, stake, and ward level have the final say in all decisions that affect a woman's day-to-day experiences within the church. Males, in turn, have no such dependency on females, with the exception of their need to be sealed to a woman in order to receive the patriarchal priesthood. And, according to Daughters in My Kingdom, a female auxiliary leader must have authority (a fancy word for "permission") from her male priesthood leaders to enact changes to her organization that she feels are needed. I fail to see the purported equality in this system.

I find it offensive when church members try to suggest that this inherently inequitable system is what God wants and intends for his children. I'm an agnostic (bordering on atheism), which means that I am skeptical of God's existence but could possibly be convinced otherwise. If God exists and does indeed speak to humans through personal or prophetic revelation today, I feel confident that we receive that communication imperfectly, filtering this revelation through our own biases and prejudices. James Madison expressed my current view succinctly in The Federalist Papers: "When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated."

With that in mind, I've come to feel that God is a blank screen onto which we project ourselves---complete with our biases, prejudices, and our assumptions about the world. We project our perceptions of goodness onto God and then turn around and use that projection as justification for a theology we constructed ourselves. The current leaders of the church were born and raised in an era of patriarchy. Therefore, when they "talk" to God, they filter it through that lens. I'm highly skeptical that God is such a blatant misogynist---and if he is, then he is not a creature who is worthy of my worship.

Gospel Principles #40 - Temple Work and Family History (NOM Version)

See my previous blog entry to read how I taught this lesson in Relief Society.

I know many active, inactive, and ex-Mormons have had negative experiences in the temple. While I feel that those experiences are definitely valid, that's just not how it was for me personally when I was a TBM. My first time going through the temple was deeply spiritual and made me feel happy and empowered. (I went through after the 1990 changes and before the 2005 initiatory changes, in case you're wondering.) I enjoyed going through the endowment session and trying to decode the meaning of all the symbols. I liked being in the celestial room. Oddly enough, I even found great comfort as a feminist in some of the temple rituals.

At its best, I think that the temple functions in the same way the Christmas season does. With its special holiday decorations, music and traditions, the Christmas season can cause a mental shift in which you begin to see the world differently. That's kind of how the temple used to function for me back in the days when I was a TBM. When your environment becomes unique and special, it makes you feel unique and special. But the same way that Christmas becomes less magical after you stop believing in Santa Claus, the temple lost its magic for me when I lost my faith in the church. Now attending the temple feels boring at best and creepy or offensive at worst.

Joseph Smith and the Influence of Masonry
The temple ceremony---especially as it was originally introduced by Joseph Smith---is undeniably plagiarized from Masonic rituals. This is very well-documented and apologists for the church make no attempt to refute it. Here's a laundry list of some of the similarities:

• In the current version of the temple, the signs and tokens are completely identical to Masonic signs and tokens.
• Although the markings and purpose of the aprons are different, both Masonic and Mormon ceremonies use aprons.
• In past versions of the temple, the penalties for revealing the signs and tokens were identical to Masonic penalties word for word and action for action. (NOTE: Contemporary Mason ceremonies no longer include the penalty rituals. They removed them from their ceremonies a few years before Mormonism removed it from theirs in 1990.)
• The five points of fellowship in past versions of the temple ceremony were also taken directly from Masonry.
• The garments contain Masonic symbols such as the compass and the square.
• The idea of being given new names that are to be kept secret is very Masonic.
• The catechism at the veil of the temple has an identical structure to Masonic rituals.
• Older Mormon temples (such as Salt Lake) are unabashedly adorned with Masonic symbols such as sunstones, moonstones, and starstones. Even the very symbol of Deseret, the Beehive, was originally a Masonic symbol.
• Although Masonic and Mormon rituals have different purposes and meanings, they both share a similar approach of using rituals to tell Biblical stories.

Joseph Smith introduced his version of the endowment ceremony about two months after becoming a full Mason himself. (This was during the Nauvoo period in church history.) It is clear that Masonry played an important role in the last years of Joseph Smith's life and had a strong influence on his theological musings. But scholar George Miller has found pretty solid evidence that Masonry exerted a strong influence in Joseph Smith's life from a very young age. (For his long, but fascinating explanation of Joseph Smith's life-long relationship with Masonry: see Mormonism and Masonry Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, and Part Six.)

To summarize Miller's argument, at the point in time in which Joseph Smith lived, Masonry was extremely popular in America. (Nearly all of the Founding Fathers were Masons, in fact.) One of the very popular beliefs in this time period was that Masonry had ancient historical origins dating back to the time that Solomon's Temple was first built. Joseph Smith's contemporaries believed that the masons working on Solomon's Temple had been shown special secrets about the temple that had been ceremoniously passed down from generation to generation up to the present day. Another notion that was particularly popular among American Masons was the existence of "spurious" Masonry. This is the idea that Masonry gradually became corrupted over time through the traditions of men. Like most of his fellow Americans at this point in time, Joseph Smith probably accepted these beliefs as historical fact.

All of this clearly plays into the larger Mormon theological themes of Apostasy (the idea that the pure truths of Christianity had become corrupted over time) and Restoration (that the pure truths had to be restored by God through revelation). Joseph Smith probably sincerely believed that a pure form of Masonry was practiced by Adam and all the prophets down through the time of Christ until it became corrupted through apostasy. And when he developed the temple endowment, he probably sincerely believed that he was receiving revelation that was restoring Masonry to its pure, original form. (For example, Heber C. Kimball is quoted as saying that he practiced "celestial Masonry," a concept which he probably got from Joseph Smith.)

Unfortunately, the history of Masonry shows otherwise. There is absolutely no historical proof that Masonry has ancient origins. The historical record shows that Masonry first began in the Middle Ages when masons were members of guilds. Because there was no government certification process to guarantee that you had the level of craftmanship you claimed to have, masons began to develop secret handshakes and signs to distinguish between those of a lower skill level from higher ones. Handshakes and signs were revealed in secret ceremonies to those who had achieved higher skill levels. These signs and tokens had a very pragmatic purpose when they were first introduced. When a new worker showed up at a construction site claiming to have a certain level of skill as a mason, the foreman would test his knowledge by asking him for the signs and tokens that only a mason of his skill level would know. It helped to ensure certain standards of quality and the safety of those working on those complex Gothic cathedrals of the Middle Ages. If I'm not mistaken, somewhere between the 17th and 18th centuries, Masonic guilds began accepting honorary members---members of the elite ruling class who wanted to participate in the fraternities. That's when Masonry became a popular fad in Europe (which is why people like Mozart were all members). That's also when myths about the ancient origins of Masonry first began to be developed (as well as some of the aspects of Masonic rituals that Smith plagiarized). Unfortunately, Joseph Smith's fundamental assumptions about Masonry's connection to Adam and Solomon's Temple were wholly inaccurate.

Despite Mormonism's strong connection to Masonry during the Nauvoo period, Mormons began to lose their connection to Masonry shortly after Smith's death. Brigham Young believed that Joseph Smith's assassination had been part of a Masonic murder conspiracy, causing him to openly distrust Masons. Other events eventually caused the Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo to be dishonorably disbanded. Furthermore, the Utah Masonic Grand Lodge systematically barred Mormons from becoming Masons until the 1980s. For these reasons, fewer and fewer Mormons became Masons and Mormons gradually began to lose any cultural identification they once had with Masonry. This has created today's cultural climate in which most modern Mormons have no idea of the many connections between the temple ceremony and Masonic rituals---and often feel threatened by the very mention of it.

It's also one of the reasons why most Mormons find the temple so inscrutable. Without knowledge of the accompanying Masonic rituals, it's somewhat difficult to make sense of their meaning. Most Mormons probably think that they are personally unable to understand aspects of the temple ritual because they are somehow spiritually inferior. I know I did. I enjoyed puzzling out the meaning of the temple ritual and believed that if I studied harder or if I lived more righteously, I would eventually receive revelation to help me figure out what it all means. Unfortunately, the reality is that it's a fraternal ritual that has been removed from its original medieval context and culture so that it no longer has any connection to the original meaning it was meant to convey.

Sacred or Secret?
Despite Boyd K. Packer's insistence that the temple is sacred, not secret, I no longer make that distinction in my mind. Modern dictionaries define secret as something that is "confidential" and "kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated." That's exactly what the temple ceremony is. Although church members only make a covenant not to reveal a few specific things in the temple (the tokens, signs, and names), most members try to stay as far away from crossing that line as possible by refusing to talk about the temple ceremony at all if they are not inside the temple itself.

This cultural self-censorship has consequences. One consequence is that church members go to the temple with almost no knowledge of what is going to take place or what obligations they will be asked to agree with. This is a bit of a problem in my mind. It kind of feels like the ethical equivalent of requiring someone to sign a serious legal contract without allowing them to read it beforehand. Granted, the temple ceremony indicates that people can withdraw of their own volition before the ceremony begins. But when you're in the temple for the first time, you're usually with your friends and family (social pressure), you're experiencing many new things for the first time (disorientation), and then there's the fact that this ceremony has been hyped for so long that you're quite curious about what you're going to experience---which combine to create an extremely low possibility that anyone would ever withdraw from the ceremony. Also, by the time a church member has gotten to the point where they are taking out their endowments, they are so heavily invested in the church that it would feel like it's impossible for them to withdraw. (You've already been a tithe-paying church member for at least one year, you might possibly be getting married next week, you might be going on a mission, etc.)

Another consequence of temple secrecy is that it shuts down democratic dialogue about the temple between church members. Because it's a social taboo to talk openly about the temple, members can't compare notes about their experiences and process its meaning. If such democratic dialogue were allowed to occur, it's possible that some members would be able to commiserate about their negative experiences and help to provide other alternative ways of looking at it more positively. It's also possible that they'd be able to just talk about what the whole thing means with one another, rather than feel spiritually inferior for not being able to understand it.

But I think the most problematic consequence of temple secrecy is that when changes are made to the temple ceremony, the elements of the old ceremonies "disappear down the memory hole," to use an Orwellian phrase for it. It is a matter of fact that the temple has changed dramatically from the time that Joseph Smith first introduced it. I won't rehearse the changes that have been made because other websites have done a better job of documenting them than I have. Let me just assure you that they are both very substantial and the ceremony changes pretty frequently. Simply put, my ancestors' experience attending the temple would have been quite different from my own---and each generation's experience would have been slightly different from the one before.

Members going through the temple today have no idea that any of these changes ever took place because of the code of secrecy surrounding the temple. And I think that is problematic in many ways. On the one hand, I welcome all of these changes. I think nearly all of them were very progressive and badly needed. It's largely because of these changes that I was able to have a positive experience the first time I went through the temple. The fact that the temple ceremony has changed so much actually gives me hope that the church can be reformed. If elements of the church's most sacred ceremonies can be revised because of protests and discomfort from its members, then there is hope that the church can change in other ways that are badly needed.

But on the other hand, the changes to the temple open up a new can of theological worms. Given the fact that we have to say the sacrament prayers exactly in order for them to be valid, given the fact that witnesses must watch the performance of a baptism to ensure that it is done exactly correctly---what does it mean that the temple ceremony has undergone so many extensive revisions? Doesn't that violate the very conditions of the Restoration---the idea that ceremonies became corrupted over time through change? Why couldn't the Lord have revealed it to Joseph Smith perfectly the first time?

The consequence of code of silence surrounding the temple is that it creates the illusion that the temple ceremony has never changed at all. It engenders the false idea that the temple ceremony was revealed perfectly the first time. And it therefore denies members the ability to think freely about the temple, to really wrestle with the theological significance of those changes. I personally can't see how you could view it as anything less than an attempt at maintaining an unfair, unearned hegemony over the church's members by censoring independent thought.

The Temple Recommend Interview as a Mormon Creed
Mormonism has long taken pride in the fact that they do not have an official creed. Joseph Smith once said: "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p. 327). Latter-day Saints have always maintained that creeds limit the process of discovering truth since we believe in continuing revelation.

But I would argue that the temple recommend interview has become a de-facto Mormon Creed. A temple recommend is a symbol of being a member in good standing with the church. You cannot serve in most leadership positions in the church unless you have one. You could possibly be ostracized and seen as a second-class citizen without one. But in order to get a temple recommend, you must subscribe to a fairly orthodox set of beliefs: you have to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Atonement, the Restoration, that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, and that all of your local leaders are called by God to lead you. You also have to follow a set of orthodox practices as well: you have to live the law of chastity, you have to be honest, you have to keep the Word of Wisdom, you have to attend church regularly, you have to wear your garments, and, of course, you have to pay a full tithe.

Even after my crisis of faith, I didn't really have that much difficulty with the behavior questions. I never considered it that difficult to keep the Word of Wisdom, to be chaste, to wear my garments or to pay my tithing (although I paid begrudgingly). Rather, I had a problem with the questions about belief. After serious study and contemplation, I really can't say in good conscience that I believe in any of those things listed in the temple recommend interview. I do not find them logically plausible any more. And so, because I could no longer believe in the things listed on the temple recommend, I decided I might as well no longer behave in ways required by the temple recommend. I stopped paying tithing and I stopped wearing garments. (Just FYI, I haven't done much with the Word of Wisdom yet and I haven't cheated on my husband.) And so in some ways, the temple recommend questions have facilitated my gradual estrangement from the church. If I could be a member in good standing without subscribing to a legalistic set of beliefs, I'd probably still be able to maintain my membership in the church. And I've gradually come to resent that I can't merely behave like a good member---I have to believe like one too.

I have a sister who is a lot younger than I am. She hasn't yet taken out her endowments or gotten married. One day she will. And when that day comes, I won't be able to go inside and see her get married. I won't be able to be with my family that day. In some ways it's only fair: she wasn't able to attend my ceremony, after all. But it will be different for me. In that moment, suddenly everyone will know that I don't have a temple recommend and my distant relatives and cousins will all begin to think of me as a second-class citizen. They'll think of me as an evil, despicable person just because I can't have faith in something for which there is strong evidence to the contrary. And there will be nothing I can do to convince them otherwise.

Although the temple claims to unite families together for eternity, the temple will create an undeniable barrier between me and my family on the day my sister gets married. The temple will not be a symbol of family togetherness, but of my personal alienation from my family. Now that hurts.

For Further Consideration
I have only scratched the surface of the problems with the temple in this blog entry. A few topics that could be talked about another day:

• There are a multitude of feminist problems with the temple ceremony.
• Performing ordinances for the dead as a sign of disrespect for people's religious identity in life.
• The sacralization of temple weddings.
• The temple ceremony as a means of maintaining control over the members.
• Building multi-million dollar houses of worship when we should be helping the poor. 
• Etc, etc. etc.

Gospel Principles #40 - Temple Work and Family History (TBM Version)

For reference, see Temple Work and Family History in the Gospel Principles manual.

Introduction to the Lesson
In 1982, President Spencer W. Kimball announced a mission statement for the church. Since that time it has frequently been referred to as the "three-fold mission of the church." Ask the sisters if anyone remembers what the three elements of the church's mission are. Write them on the board as the sister's say them (making sure you keep them in order):

1. Proclaim the gospel
2. Perfect the saints
3. Redeem the dead

Just as an FYI, in 2010, President Thomas S. Monson added an extension to the mission: caring for the poor and needy. (Write that on the board too.)

Today I'll use the church's mission as the organizing principle of my lesson today. My purpose will be to explore how temple work helps with all these aspects of the church's mission.

Proclaiming the Gospel

Let's start at the beginning with the first part of the mission: proclaiming the gospel. How does the temple help the church to proclaim the gospel? (Build on sister's responses.)

When I taught this lesson, some of the things that the sisters in my lesson mentioned were how temple open houses and visitor centers are great ways to introduce people to the gospel. They spoke about how the temple sits on a hill where everyone can see it and be curious about it. They also mentioned how often there is a lot of opposition to building temples in their immediate communities, but many local churches will often come to their defense and argue for their right to build the temple. So it becomes a way of bringing a community together and forming bridges with members of other faiths.

When the sisters were finished sharing their insights, I talked about how missionaries go through and get their endowment at the temple before leaving for their missions. I talked about how that endows them with the power they need as they go spread the gospel to others. I didn't read this quote, but this expresses the general idea of what I talked about:

A temple is a place in which those whom He has chosen are endowed with power from on high—a power which enables us to use our gifts and capabilities with greater intelligence and increased effectiveness in order to bring to pass our Heavenly Father’s purposes in our own lives and the lives of those we love...

President Benson has given us a promise about this. He said:

“Now, by virtue of the sacred priesthood in me vested … I promise you that, with increased attendance in the temples of our God, you shall receive increased personal revelation to bless your lives as you bless those who have died.” (Ensign, May 1987, p. 85.)

Come to the temples worthily and regularly. Not only do you bless those who are deceased, but you may freely partake of the promised personal revelation that may bless your life with power, knowledge, light, beauty, and truth from on high, which will guide you and your posterity to eternal life. What person would not want these blessings, as expressed by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. He said: “We ask thee, Holy Father, that thy servants may go forth from this house armed with thy power, and that thy name may be upon them, and thy glory be round about them, and thine angels have charge over them.” (D&C 109:22.)

That was a quote from David B. Haight in the April 1992 conference.

I also talked about how temples are symbols of the success of missionary work. A small branch becomes a ward which eventually becomes a stake which eventually becomes a temple district. So temples are symbols that the work has taken root in that particular area of the world.

Perfecting the Saints
How do temples aid in the perfecting the Saints? (Build on sister's responses.)

When I taught the lesson, the comments that were made were about how it takes a lot to be worthy of a temple recommend. You have to be living a certain way in order to even get in the door of the temple, so having the temple as a goal can help you live a better life.

We read a quote from the manual:

Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are special buildings dedicated to the Lord. Worthy Church members may go there to receive sacred ordinances and make covenants with God. Like baptism, these ordinances and covenants are necessary for our salvation. They must be performed in the temples of the Lord.

We also go to the temple to learn more about Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. We gain a better understanding of our purpose in life and our relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. We are taught about our premortal existence, the meaning of earth life, and life after death. (233-235)

I then briefly recapped what the quote said and tied that in with how that helps to perfect the Saints.

Then I mentioned how many people have positive experiences going through the temple, but not everybody has a positive experience at the temple---especially when they go through for the first time. Without talking about anything specific about the temple (because I know that makes some people uncomfortable), is there any general advice you would give to somebody who is struggling with the temple? What have you found helps you to have a meaningful experience at the temple? (Build on sister's responses.)

Some of the responses I got to that question was to have youth do their own family history work and perform baptisms for the dead with names they had found themselves. That way they'd feel a special connection to the ceremony and build positive experiences within the temple to prepare them to feel positive when they take out their endowment. Other suggestions were to talk regularly about the temple with your children and tell them that it's pretty much stuff they've been taught their whole life already. Other suggestions were to tell individuals going through the first time that they don't have to memorize everything and that there are attendants there to help them every step of the way. So they don't need to stress out.

When they were finished, I read a quote within a quote by David B. Haight (from the same talk): 

Elder Widtsoe thoughtfully provided some counsel about how you might do this. He spoke of the Prophet’s first vision as a model of how revelation, in the temple and elsewhere, is received.

"How do men receive revelations?" he asked. "How did the Prophet Joseph Smith obtain his first revelation, his first vision? He desired something. In [a grove of trees], away from human confusion, he summoned all the strength of his nature; there he fought the demon of evil, and, at length, because of the strength of his desire and the great effort that he made, the Father and the Son descended out of the heavens and spoke eternal truth to him."

Elder Widtsoe observed that it was the strength of Joseph’s desire and the great effort which enabled him to receive his vision of the Father and the Son. Desire and effort are likewise required if we would receive revelation to understand the ordinances of the endowment. He wrote: "Revelation... is not imposed upon a person; it must be drawn to us by faith, seeking and working.... To the man or woman who goes through the temple, with open eyes, heeding the symbols and the covenants, and making a steady, continuous effort to understand the full meaning, God speaks his word, and revelations come. ... The endowment which was given by revelation and can best be understood by revelation; and to those who seek most vigorously, with pure hearts, will the revelation be greatest."

I said that the symbols of the temple are kept sacred because the Lord wants to tell us what those symbols mean personally, through the Holy Ghost.

Redeeming the Dead
It's pretty obvious how the temple helps with the redemption of the dead since the temple is where vicarious ordinances are performed for the dead.

We read a quote from the lesson manual:

Many of our ancestors are among those who died without hearing about the gospel while on the earth. They now live in the spirit world (see chapter 41 in this book). There they are taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who have accepted the gospel are waiting for the temple ordinances to be performed for them. As we perform these ordinances in the temple for our ancestors, we can share their joy. (236)

I talked about the concept of being Saviors on Mount Zion, which is a title that was sometimes used within the early church to refer to those who did ordinances in the temple for the deceased. What it means is that you are literally acting like the Savior when you are in the temple because you are making it possible for someone to enter the celestial kingdom---which is a service they cannot perform for themselves.

Another quote from the manual:

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have each been baptized and confirmed by one having the proper priesthood authority. Each of us may also go to the temple to receive the saving priesthood ordinances performed there. But many of God’s children have not had these same opportunities. They lived at a time or place when the gospel was not available to them.

Heavenly Father wants all of His children to return and live with Him. For those who died without baptism or the temple ordinances, He has provided a way for this to happen. He has asked us to perform ordinances for our ancestors in the temples. (233)

I waxed philosophical about how this is one of my favorite aspects of Mormon theology: the equity of the after life. If you didn't win missionary roulette, if you happened to live in a part of the world where the missionaries haven't come or if you just didn't get a chance to hear them in your lifetime, you still have a second chance to accept the gospel.

I then asked the sisters if they would be interested in sharing any stories when they felt connected to the spirits of the dead while they were doing temple work. That elicited some interesting stories.

Caring for the Poor and Needy?
I mentioned that I was really excited that President Monson had added the fourth element to the mission of the church, but that it makes it a little harder to connect the temple to the fourth one since it doesn't directly impact it. I then asked the sisters how they thought that the temple can help assist the poor and the needy.

The responses that I received from them were that the temple helps re-sensitize our hearts so that we are more in tune with the Spirit. It helps to begin to see people the way Christ sees them. It helps give us the spirit of revelation so that we can know what the needs of our immediate community are. And in the temple everyone is dressed the same, so there is no inequality; it shows the contrast between how the world looks at people (on their outward appearance) vs. how the Lord looks at us (at our hearts, as people with equal worth to Him).

I had planned some things to say about family history work, but we ran out of time. So I just concluded there with an admonition to go and participate in the temple more frequently.