I just was reading in the now closed thread about the blood oath, and came across a citation that I had either forgotten about or never heard of - http://www.ldsendowment.org/1931.html

This account by A.J. Montgomery mentions that the person was completely naked during the initiatory. Who is the person and is this account accurate? I have just googled a bit, but didn't really find anything that talked about whether this account has ever been verified, but this is the first I have heard of this. Anyone know anything about this?

Yeah, apparently up into the early 1960s you completely disrobed for the "initiatory," and stood naked in front of the officiator. You would have to run this by Richard Packham, but he has told his account of it several times here.

So can we construct some kind of timeframe here.

Apparently pre 1927 the initiatory included a literal bath where you were literally washed by someone else. This included: "The oil is very definitely applied to the various organs of his body."

Pre 2005 you wore a shield.

Was there another change somewhere in between where it went from nekkid to wearing a shield?

You'd have to get Richard to chime in and say when he went through. He wore the shield, too, but went into a cubicle with the officiator and had to take the shield off and hang it on a hook while he got washed and anointed.

Early on people stood in groups of 4 to 6 in a large tub, everyone naked while being washed and anointed. I read a thing once from the 1800s that talked about how they had removed the large tubs from the St. George temple and replaced them with singleton tubs, probably for more privacy and to dispel the rumors that people ran around naked in the temple. Very often there's a bit of a foundation for truth in the stupidest of rumors, and I'm sure that that's how the story of naked people in the temple got started--there WERE groups of naked people in the temple at one time. Also, in Talmage's original book, "The House of the Lord," there was a photo of the tubs used for washings. And there used to be a schematic available of the layout in the basement of the temple showing all the many tub rooms. (Later the church claimed that the tubs were actually for temple workers to use when they came in from the fields to officiate in the temple, which could also be partially true. They may well have been dual-use. But it was probably an attempt to obfuscate again and indicate that the tubs were not used for washings, but the book would say otherwise.)

Eventually at some point they just started reaching through the shield and touching you, calling it "washing."


Edited: Aha! I see that Richard has indeed chimed in below. Sorry--didn't see it at first.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2012 09:56AM by cludgie.

Until recently you were naked except for a "shield" which is like a sheet with a hole in the middle for your head. With the bad ventilation in most temples this resulted in many a bare ass in everyone's face. Now you may wear your Gs under the "shield".

Yeah, this I even went through back in 2002, but the completely naked part - that I apparently had not read until today. I recall reading about bathtubs being part of the initiatory at some point, but I must have forgotten about the way that the bathtubs figured in the ceremony. All accounts of this come from the A.J. Montgomery account I linked. But I want further confirmation of this before I accept it. Just seems a bit fishy to me as I read the account I linked...is there something else that corroborates the account by A.J. Montgomery? Anyone?

Here is the relevant section:

" THE WASHING ROOMS

The baths and dressing rooms for the men are located along the
northwest side of this half of the Temple. Similar rooms for the women
are on the southwest side. Intervening and entirely separating these
rooms is the great Baptismal Font. Each of these Washing Rooms contains
its quota of bath tubs, which are well supplied with hot and cold water.

The candidate, being directed to these washing and dressing
rooms and having divested himself of all his clothing, awaits his time
in the bath with his special inner garments over his shoulder. A Temple
worker goes with him into the bath to officiate in these Temple
lustrations. As the candidate is washed, the officiant hurries through
the lustration ritual.

THE LUSTRATION

"Brother, having authority, I wash you that you may be clean from
the blood and sins of this generation. I wash your head that your
brain may work clearly and be quick of discernment; your eyes that
you may see clearly and discern the things of God; your ears that
they may hear the word of the Lord; your mouth and lips that they
speak no guile; your arms that they may be strong to wield the sword
in defense of truth and virtue; your breast and vitals that their
functions may be strengthened; your loins and reins that you may be
fruitful in the propagating of a goodly seed; your legs and feet
that you may run and not be weary, walk and not faint."

THE ANOINTING

After being dried with a towel--not always fresh -- the
candidate is passed on to another attendant and is anointed with oil.
The oil is very definitely applied to the various organs of his body.
The pronouncements used in this ceremony are much the same as those used
in the lustration ritual.

THE CONSECRATION OF THE GARMENTS

After the washing and anointing the candidate is then taken in
hand by another officiant, who, having given him the right to put on his
endowment garments, gives him his new name, saying:

"Brother, I now give you these garments, which are patterned after
those given to our father Adam when he was found naked in the Garden
of Eden. They are called the garments of the holy priesthood, and
will prove a shield and protection to you till you have finished
your work in righteousness upon the earth. They are never to be
removed except for purposes of cleanliness, and then for no longer
than necessary. With these garments I give you a new name which is
never to be divulged to anyone. It is a key word and will be
required of you at a certain part of these proceedings this day. The
name I shall give you is _________."

The name is then whispered in the ear, usually one taken from the Bible
or the Book of Mormon. The candidate then puts on the garment, over the
oil."

It's fairly clear from the text that it is a reasonably accurate representation of the endowment - much of it matches word for word with what is said today.

Apparently the document existed in 1931 - ldsendowment.com claims it is a scan of the original - that would need to be verified.

However if it was truly written in 1931 the accuracy of the other portions are indicative that the portions that have changed are likely to also be accurate.

Still, it would be very interesting to see additional accounts.

http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_ordinance.htm - this link corroborates the account given by A.J. Montgomery. I swear I read that "The Mysteries of Godliness" book by Buerger, but I may have only read excerpts...might have to get that book and check out the sources from Buerger.

Seems legit though.

Maybe we can use an open records request and get the FP to release the official 1931 version. I would even accept a certain level of redacting.

Note that you have to scroll down to see this - (the top part describes the 2005 changes).

Watch for this paragraph:

Keep in mind that this is not the first time the initiatory ordinance has changed. Descriptions of the early initiatory ordinance in the Nauvoo Temple include references to a bathtub where the temple patron was literally washed, as described in Exodus 40:12-13. In the excellent book "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship author David John Buerger writes:

I got my endowment in 1952 in the Idaho Falls Temple. I went through endowment sessions in all of the then operating Utah temples (four!) during the next five years.

At that time, when doing a proxy endowment, you did the whole thing, including the initiatory, so I went through it several times in different temples.

For the washing and anointing, I disrobed in the locker room, put a shield over me, and walked to the washing booth, carrying the garment and a white towel. In the washing booth, the shield was removed and hung on a hook while the washing and anointing took place.

Yes, I was completely naked.

After toweling off, the garment was placed on me, the shield was put over me again, and I returned to the locker room.

I have no idea what the procedure was in the women's side.

So wearing the shield throughout must have changed sometime after 1952.

When they got to the "loins" part did they touch a couple inches below the belly button or did that also change?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2012 11:07PM by bc.

Thank you Robert for the real life confirmation. Do you recall when they stopped having people disrobe completely? And have you confirmed this with anyone else from the same time period?

I also want to thank you for all the other research and outreach you have done over the years. A true "pioneer."

This whole thing really shakes me up. I swear I did not know there was total nakedness in the temple - and as recently as the 1950's!

Friggin' cult.

;o)

While being naked clashes with our cultural view, I don't personally see it as damning evidence that TSCC is a cult.

I think it is a cult, but if you are citing ancient things that are continued in their purity as restored by god, I think the Initiatory has a fairly decent biblical backing in Exodus.

That said- it's all BS. I just think the whole "naked" thing is a sensationalist tangent that just gets TBMs defensive in an area where they have scripture to back them up.

I prefer their odd areas where nothing at all backs them up.

well you can use Exodus to justify people getting naked for religious rituals/observance all that you want. But the LDS temple ceremony via its masonic roots, via the masonic rituals templar roots, via the templar's gnostic roots is patently anti Christian.
MORmONS love to blather about the profoundity of their MORmON temple endowment but its just proof that they really dont get their own religion because the LDS temple endowment, courtesy of its masonic origin, is profoundly anti Christian.

did jesus the jewish messiah have his throat cut?
did Jesus have his heart cut out ?
did jesus have his bowels spilt on the ground?
NO! these are the signs and tokens ( OF SURE DEATH) !
none of which apply to Jesus thus showing the resurrection to be staged and a fake !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLLaJLX0EFM

Don't get me wrong, I put no stock in Exodus, and I am more than aware that the temple ceremony is largely masonic.

But I wouldn't label Masons and things that spawned from them as anti-christian.

At best they are orthogonal to christianity, but they are far from opposed to it. In fact a large number of Masons are christians. You could say that Masons have espoused Christianity, and are doing so more and more.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,717490



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2012 11:49PM by steve benson.

I read a book of historical fiction years ago about a family of sister wives during the 1850's. The bathing and naked anointing part is exactly what they describe in the book at the Endowment House before the SLC temple was built.

I remember donning a shield that was basically a sheet open at the sides and a hole in the middle to put over your head. Kind of like a sheet poncho. I recall sitting while a temple worker bee touched me on the sides and on the belly through the open sides. I also went through the same thing with my fellow female sister missionaries at the Logan temple.

We were at the old mission home at the former Wasatch school on the corner of State and North Temple. (My Mom went to school there.) The Salt Lake Temple was closed for renovations so we were hauled on buses to Logan.

We did two sessions. My companions period started midway. In those days, we wore a "sanitary belt." Not one of the old lady temple workers had anything like that nor could one be found. Finally, one found some safety pins and pinned the pad to the inside of her garments. (Pre sticky pad too, although I doubt that would have worked with one-piece garments.)

TMI? Too bad.

Ah, the olden days when things were so much better. I lie!

My mother went through the Salt Lake temple when she married in 1935. She said nothing about being naked and I think she would have warned me if that were still the case. So I guess by the '60s women were allowed a bit of modesty. From what I know in the early days there was a tub that women submerged themselves into.

Kind of like a Mikveh, the Jewish ritual bath. I imagine that's where Joe got the idea from.

I'm sure that your companion's initial temple experience was one of the most sacred and holy experiences that she's ever experienced in her lifetime and will be one of her most cherished memories that she will take with her beyond the veil.

I'm sure, were I her, just the sight of a single safety pin would be enough to hearken back cherished memories of that singular, special day.

Oh, the amazing and sacred experience that is and was the Mormon Temple. Why and how did I ever throw it all away like a crumpled up tithing settlement letter....

-Er, what I meant to say was this:

I'm sure, were I her, just the sight of a single safety pin would be enough to hearken back a veritable flood of cherished memories of that singular, special day that would simply flow through her mind like a warm burning through the depths of her being.

I never asked my folks what went on when they went to Cardston (Alberta) to do temple stuff and they never volunteered any information. Mom was raised in a very conservative and traditional Scottish Presbyterian home and didn't join the church until 20 years after she married Dad. Then they started going to the temple regularly and I find it hard to believe they would have done all the bizarre, disturbing $hit I read about on here....but, they must have....I'd have a slew of questions for them now if they were still alive...

Ron Burr

My parents went in the en of 1970's. They went once and never wanted to go back again.

The origin of the initiatories is to be found in the "Kirtland Elder's Quorum Record Book." Following confession of sins each brother was stripped, washed, slathered with cinnamon flavored whiskey (probably to kill bugs and body odor and then anointed from head to toe with oil. I think Joseph just wanted a chance to fondle the brethren.

My parents got married in the Manti Temple in 1930. It's a strange thought to think of them at 19 and 21 years, being naked & tub-washed & anointed as described.

I wish I had asked them about it when they were living, but even if I had thought about it, I wouldn't have had the nerve.

I went through in 1969 prior to my mission, and I was told by someone in "authority" that the ceremony was inspired by God and revealed to Joseph Smith. So I assumed it was the same for me as it was for my folks.

Wrong. After my mission, I heard 2 men in the temple discussing how the ceremony had changed NUMEROUS times, even before they were born. That was news to me - and it became one of the "seeds" of my eventual disbelief.

The changes seemed to me (at the time) to be necessary, since times changed, and also people justified their mis-deeds by saying that they didn't "literally" break the law of consecration, or the law of chastity, so they could continue going to the temple in good conscience.

Example: When I went through for myself (which was only ONE time), I covenented that I would obey the Law of Chastity as it was explained to me in the temple, i.e., that I would not have sexual intercourse with any of the daughters of Eve except if I were legally & lawfully married to her. Well..... technically, I did not covenant to "not have sexual intercourse with any of the sons of Adam." Further, sex between men is not technically "sexual intercourse." Therefore, I had not "literally" broken the law of chastity.

Later, they changed the wording so that I could not have any "sexual relations" with anyone but my wife to whom I was legally & lawfully wed. BUT....... I was then covenenting for SOMEONE ELSE - not me. HENCE..... I was still technically keeping the law of chastity, so I was justified, albeit secretly and to myself, that I was "ok" with the Lord & the Church.

Such mental gymnastics and complex prevarication!

I'm so glad I am now able to throw all of it off my back and live freely as myself. WHAT A RELIEF!

But I still remember seeing other naked young men under their "shields" - going through the temple for the first time. That part wasn't so bad. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2012 03:52PM by PapaKen.