For those of us who have long been fascinated by the historical development of Latter-day Saint temple worship, Jonathan Stapley’s recent work, Holiness to the Lord: Latter-day Saint Temple Worship, and his insightful interview on the subject at the Latter-day Saint history site From the Desk offer a significant contribution to the conversation. The interview offers a compelling overview of the book, tracing the evolution of temple rituals from Joseph Smith’s foundational, biblically inspired practices in Kirtland to the more elaborate endowment ceremonies developed in Nauvoo, which aimed to create a “ritualized heaven on earth.” What emerges is a clear picture of a living, breathing tradition, one that has been continuously adapted by subsequent leaders, such as Brigham Young and, more recently, President Russell M. Nelson. Stapley’s work promises to bridge the gap between the sacred privacy of the temple and the scholarly desire for historical understanding, offering a nuanced exploration of how these central ordinances have shaped Latter-day Saint identity and belief over time.
Jonathan Stapley’s work signifies a shift towards greater openness and scholarly examination of what has traditionally been a very private aspect of Latter-day Saint worship. By providing a detailed historical account, his book aims to bridge the gap between the sacred and the academic, offering a deeper understanding of the temple’s central role in the faith. As he explained in the interview:
It is no secret that Latter-day Saints have a robust culture of privacy (or even secrecy) with regard to the temple. There are important religious reasons for that, but the result is that both insiders and outsiders have often been left without constructive information. And since the days of Joseph Smith there have also always been people willing to expose the temple ceremonies to the public gaze.
In recent years, church leaders have found new ways to share elements of temple worship with the public that in the past have been restricted. Holiness to the Lord: Latter-day Saint Temple Worship is a scholarly history of the development of the temple ceremonies and the beliefs that Latter-day Saints have had in conjunction with them.
It is drawn from extensive research and presents information that is accurate and reliable.
Having read the book, I agree with his assessment. It’s sensitive to Latter-day Saints, while providing a lot of good insight into the practice of temple worship.
Stapley’s work also highlights that temple worship is not a static tradition. It has undergone significant development from its beginnings in Kirtland, through the expansive additions in Nauvoo, and continuing with adaptations by subsequent Church leaders. This reveals a history of revelation and responsiveness to the needs of the Church. Stapley noted this in the interview:
It is quite clear that Joseph Smith regularly changed and altered patterns of worship that we commonly call “ordinances,” as have subsequent church leaders. It is a feature of living faith as opposed to being a bug.
In short, it is important to understand how the meaning of “ordinance” has itself changed over time, and how Joseph Smith and subsequent church leaders have negotiated changes in our sacred ceremonies over time. I have a whole section on this in Holiness to the Lord that contextualizes some commonly circulated Joseph Smith quotes that indicate that “ordinances” can never change.
It’s a key point that stood out to me in the book as well (something I discuss in my review, which should go live in a couple of weeks to coincide with the official release of the book).
For more on how temple worship has evolved, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history site, From the Desk, to read the full interview with Jonathan Stapley.
Comments
3 responses to “Jonathan Stapley on Temple Worship”
I have a hard time believing that every temple change in our history is an automatic “revelation” event. I dont think the endowment was even a revelation event for JS. I am sure most will disagree and that is fine with me. Nothing wrong with the endowment even if I think its just a ritual that we have made “sacred” over the years. I also dont think there is anything in the endowment a dead person would need. Again, I am probably alone on this and that is ok with me. I am also open to being completely wrong.
I love the endowment as a ritual/path for us to become someone new. Cleansed, new name, new clothes, new commitments to holiness etc. Becoming literally a new person. Most in the church feel the endowment is the end, a box to check. I think its a start for a personal path to be a “new creature” or “born again” that can take a lifetime or may never be met in this life but a path I should always work on. The church has emphasized the ordinance/ritual for so long it has become a check box. IMO.
I see the good the endowment can be for me even if I think its a product of JS.
The biggest change in temple liturgy has really been deploying it as a regular sacramental rite to ensure deeper engagement and more effective boundary management of Latter-day Saints.
For most of our history it was a one-time(ish) experiential rite, like baptism, to replicate a spiritual transition. Where baptism simulates our death and being raised from the dead by Christ, the temple rites simulated the experiences of our first sentient humans navigating mortality, ambiguity, death, and then afterlife. It’s especially apparent if one performs the Masonic rites Smith repurposed to create our own endowment. I wish the endowment remained as experiential as the Masonic rites have. The rites also helped the Smith family (particularly the parents) feel secure that Alvin wasn’t in-fact lost and damned. When Zina Diantha Huntington wives insisted her entire family be saved for her sacrifice in agreeing to his Smith’s polyamorous command the temple offered an environment to make that claim ritualized too.
As we’ve fought against the tide of secularizing population and the rise of “the nones,” using the temples and frequent attendance as a visible costly signal has required shedding most of the original usefulness and purpose of the liturgy in order to achieve process flowrates. It appears to be working quite well. The cost of infrastructure, as several addresses by GAs have attested, is more than offset by the high membership dues of our country club style temple model.
I’ve never really understood what the temple ritual tells me that my baptism and scriptural understanding did not. I remain confused after 40 years of faithful membership.