Church is true and living and all living things change. Where there is no change, there is only death. Wow. Jonathan Stapley is an award-winning historian and scientist. He is the author of the brand new book about Latter-day Saint temple worship, holiness to the Lord. We we call the temple ordinances exalting ordinances, okay? And we emphasize you got to have them or exaltation doesn't happen. If we just focus on you need this so you can get exaltation, that's not how things work. The penalties, where did those come from? Why were they removed? So, this gets a little tricky. I think critics might hear some of this conversation and come away with these ordinances are just meant to control people and keep those tithing dollars coming. What's your kind of perspective on that kind of a claim? Okay, we're jumping right into the thick of it. Fantastic. Joseph Smith taught, and I quote, "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world in the priesthood for the salvation of men are not to be altered or changed." How do we reconcile that quote with the fact that over the years ordinances have changed? Yeah. I mean, this is a really, really tricky topic for a lot of folks. Um but what's important to realize is that Joseph Smith um though he used words that we used um had different understanding of their meanings. But if you look historically uh just about every ceremony that we perform or engage in as Latter-day Saints has had a development and that sometimes that development results in practice that is wildly variant across history. self. I mean, you can go through the whole um slate of experiences that a young Mormon might experience. Uh you could be baptized and the prayer that we've used has changed over time. We have white short sleeve jumpsuits. um the Lord's supper every week on Sunday. Joseph Smith probably never heard the prayer that's in the Doctrine and Covenants that we hear every week. He probably never heard that in his entire life. Um they used extemporaneous prayer to consecrate the emblems every week. And so it was never the same. Even though it says in Doctrine and Covenants, here's what the prayer is. That's right. Well, I mean similarly the Book of Mormon has ordination text and nobody's ordination follows that or also like uh the words that you use when you're baptizing someone, right? Yeah. Is a little different in the Book of Mormon versus how we do it now. That's right. And during Brigham Young's lifetime, it varied quite significantly. Um so there is variance um in these ceremonies but what's more important is the term ordinance. Okay. So if we just take a step back and think about Christian history a little bit. Baptism isn't uniquely Latter-day Saint. Christians have been doing it for the full history of of their existence nearly two,000 years. But if you talk to a Catholic, they'll talk about the sacrament of baptism. And that's a theological term uh that has a specific meaning that some Protestants rejected. So sacraments convey grace. So if you're kind of an uptight Baptist that believes in salvation by faith or grace alone, there's nothing you can do to influence that. The idea that a baptism might do some salvific work is uncomfortable. Yeah. So you would use a different term for that. You would use the term ordinance and a lot of Protestants use this term and we can we still hear it. So the term like a municipal ordinance. Uhhuh. So that's a city law. Yeah. So for these Protestants, an ordinance was a law that you were supposed to do, right? So John Wesley, the father of Methodism, he's like the ordinances of the church are fasting and Bible reading, you know, so like these are the laws that you're supposed to follow. And baptism is clearly a law of God, right? Yeah. So it's an ordinance. Um and Latter-day Saints also follow we quickly developed a sacramental theology. We believe that baptism does a thing. Mhm. Um whereas a Baptist might say, "I'm I'm just doing it because I'm commanded to do it and it's a sign or something." Um we think it has some cosmic work that it does. So we have sort of a sacramentalism, but um we say that it is an ordinance because we adopted that terminology from our early context. Another great example is the articles of faith. Um today they're different than they were when Joseph Smith wrote them. Um, Joseph Smith when he wrote them said that the first ordinances of the gospel, we would say the first principles and ordinances of the gospel today, the first ordinances of the gospel are faith, repentance, baptism. So faith is an ordinance for Joseph Smith because it's the law, right? That's how you progress. Um, so what I'm understanding is that the term ordinances, not just in the Latter-day Saint faith, but in broader, you know, some other denominations of Christianity, um, it didn't just apply to kind of the lurggical ceremonies that we did. It was broader than that. That's correct. And it applied to faith and, you know, repentance and the ten commandments. Those were ordinances. That's right. in kind of that, you know, municipal law sense. So when when Joseph Smith is saying the ordinances can't change, he's saying he's referring to more than the lurggical ceremonies that we're doing. That's right. It wasn't this like sort of cosmic fundamentalism that there's this ideal baptism in the mind of God that if you deviate from, then it doesn't count. Yeah. like he wasn't like, "Okay, uh the perfect baptism requires uh a white jumpsuit and refreshments and if if one hair floats on the top of the surface of the water, you got to redo it or else it doesn't count. It doesn't count and and the person's salvation is negated." Yeah. Right. That that's not what he's saying. Mhm. Um he's saying that the like the principles of salvation, the plan of salvation, the things that you need to do to be redeemed was established in the beginning and those don't change. I love that. It kind of reminds me of how we say like God never changes. Like he's he's going to be the same forever. Um but when we say that, we're referring to like his attributes. Like he's always gonna be loving, right? He's always going to be just and merciful. We're not saying that he's never going to, you know, change his mind and do something differently down the road, right? Um, and in that same sense, like it sounds like applying it to what we're talking about in terms of like temple ordinances, um, it's not that, you know, you always have to perform the ordinance in this exact way or it doesn't count, but rather the underlying principles of salvation, those are the things that are never changing. That's true. I I think more and more people are talking today about the true and living church. Yeah. Right. So for a long time we would say I know that the church is true. And there's this implicit sort of fundamentalism that like that goes along with that. This idea that we're restoring the church as it was in Christ's day. And we sort of imagine the disciples of Jesus wearing white shirts and ties. Yeah. Um and passing the sacrament with metal trace. Um, but that's not what God is saying. He's saying the church is true and living and all living things change. Where there is no change, there is only death. Wow. So, I guess the next question is when it comes to Latter-day Saint temple ordinances, what can't change? Well, that's a really good question. And I'm look I I'm not sure that I am the person to say that because I don't know the mind of God. But what I can say is looking at history um we can describe the types of changes that have happened and also think about um what work the temple does. Take for example the word endowment. This comes from Luke 24. At the end of Luke, the resurrected Lord appears to his disciples. He gives them the great commission. You're going to preach the gospel throughout the entire world. But first, you need to tar in Jerusalem until you're endowed with power from on high. So, that's how the the idea of endowment comes into our lexicon, our the way we think and talk about things. And then the book of Acts opens up with the day of Pentecost. and then they go out and preach the gospel. Well, during Joseph Smith's life um and this is something he does with the temple um repeatedly is he finds these scriptural um archetypes, these themes, these ideas and he brings them the scholarly term is ritualized or ritualizes them. Um he creates ceremonies to help us realize them in the present. So the early disciples, they needed an endowment of power from on high before they could go preach the gospel throughout the world. And in the early church, before the church is a year old, before there are any bishops, before there are any 70s, any apostles, before there are any priesthood quorms, before there's um presidents or counselors, there are four offices in the church, deacon, teacher, priest, and elder. There's no other structure. God says, "You need to move to Kirtland so that you can be endowed with power from on high. Okay. So, they moved to Kirtland and um during Joseph Smith's life, there are three different ceremonies that are vastly different that do that work. We're going to endow you with power from on high so that you can go preach the gospel with power. Um the first is in 1831. It's the revelation of the high priesthood. We ordain elders to the high priesthood. They have these spiritual outpourings. They say it's an endowment. They say they're endowed with power and they go preach the gospel. The second one's in Kirtland associated with the Kirtland House of the Lord. They have a solemn assembly. All the um priesthood including the ironic priesthood officers go who are all men at that time. There's no um young men or children that are ordained to priest offices. They go to a solemn assembly. Um they have some uh they have they wash their feet. They have the Lord's supper as a feast. They eat and drink until they're full. They testify all night and at the end they have an outpouring of spiritual power and they say this is the endowment of power. And then in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith reveals a new cosmology like this religious worldview and he introduces ceremonies and part of it again is that we need to be endowed with power and it's different. So what's important is that you're endowed with power. Now, precisely how you do it, I think is um demonstrabably less important. So, what that brings to mind for me is um Brigham Young's quote when he talks about temple ceremonies and he says that you're doing this so that you can obtain all the you know the signs and tokens of the priesthood that will enable you to get past the the guards that stand as sentinels. Yep. And for Latter-day Saints, or at least for me in the past for me, I've thought like, okay, I have to get this right or I'm going to be denied entry like at the gates of heaven, right? Uh but it sounds like from what you're saying is, you know, maybe it's not so vital how we do things, but rather that we get this fundamental endowment of power into our lives. So I guess what are your thoughts on like that quote from Brigham Young? Yeah, it's super interesting. So um again I'm going to step back and say well what is the purpose of the these summaries? What work does it accomplish? Um Joseph Smith when he framed um the temple ceremonies in Nauvoo which is the kind of foundation for what we experience today. He looked to uh the book of Revelation in the New Testament. John has this vision of the throne of God and surrounding the throne of God are a concourse of people dressed in the robes of the ancient Hebrew temple. Um and they are singing a hymn to the lamb. They are made uh kings and priests through the blood of the lamb. Out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, right? There are these kings and priests surrounding the throne of God. And Joseph Smith repeatedly is like, "This is what we're going to do." When you look at the endowment ceremony, we wear temple robes that are patterned after the clothing worn by the ancient Hebrew priests. And he introduces the idea, it's not just dudes, it's not just kings and priests, it's queens and priestesses that are standing in this concourse. So, this is the work. This is what we're going to build. And then the ceilings are just a way of creating those relationships, this eternal network that is kings and queens, priests and priestesses. So that's how Joseph Smith would have described it. When we fast forward to Brigham Young, he has he's going out and they're doing the cornerstone ceremony, right? 18 for the Salt Lake Temple. They've gone out, they've created um on what now was Temple Square. they've they've created a space where they can lay the cornerstones. And he says, "This is the work we're going to do." And he he offers that quote as as part of what work the temple does. Um, I find it less compelling just because I'm I'm thinking about Joseph Smith's um like narration of what the temple does and I hope uh if I forget um the right words or something along the way uh they'll let me buy. Yeah, this is fascinating to me and it's it's blowing my mind a little bit because in the church I think sometimes we're under the impression uh that God needs it to be this way or he's going to reject it. Yeah. And I think maybe a more helpful way of looking at it is no, we do it this way and we take it seriously because we want to show God that this is sacred to us. Yeah. And I think taking it seriously is important. Yeah, absolutely. And and doing our best to follow the like prescribed pattern or authorized pattern is the right thing to do. Yeah. Fundamentally. But there are areas where we get a little bit uptight. like maybe a baptism that's like you said before a single strand of hair or a kid that just keeps messing up on the same word um in the sacrament prayer. Those are areas where maybe the stakes are a little bit lower so we feel more empowered to be a little bit more uptight. Yeah. We talk about this endowment of power, right? Sometimes I think it can be confusing for members to understand what that is, what that looks like, what that power like in a practical sense, yeah, looks like from day to day. But I'm I'm wondering if it would be accurate to say that this power that we get from the endowment comes from um you know us making those covenants, making those promises and allowing them and our pursuit to honor them to change us into something better. Would that be an okay interpretation of what that power looks like? Yeah, I think it's I think that's a extremely useful way of approaching it. I am going to resist decontextualizing the temple every time. So, let's go back to what Jesus said. Why are you endowed with power? Power to do what? He said, you guys need to preach the gospel throughout the entire world and build up the kingdom of God. Therefore, wait in Jerusalem until you're endowed with power from on high. And the doctrine and covenants follow that pattern exactly. It says tar in Kirtland ex not Terry in Jerusalem. Terry and Kirtland until you're endowed with power from on high. Okay. So, so what I'm understanding and this might be a light bulb moment for me unless it's wrong then just like turn it off. But I have thought about the temple a lot in terms of this is giving me power for what comes after like for what comes in the afterlife um and in the eternities. But hearing what you're saying now, I'm understanding it more so as okay, yes, we're looking at the plan of salvation, but we're empowering you to build the kingdom of God here. Yeah, I'm gonna have to that's going to keep me up at night, man. That's because that that that immediately makes the temple applicable to right now. Yeah. As opposed to, you know, oh, I'm I'm receiving these promises. I'm making these covenants so that one day I can be like God in the eternities. But it's I mean maybe that's part of it, but the big thing is no, you need power so you can get your butt in gear. Get to work right now and build the kingdom with power today. That's exactly right. Okay. So, how does that apply then when we're doing vicarious work for the dead? I guess they're doing the same thing in the spirit world. Oh my gosh. Alrighty then. Well, just gonna let that simmer for the next year of my life. So, we we call the temple ordinances exalting ordinances, okay? And we emphasize you got to have them or exaltation doesn't happen. I'm going to resist every time that there's this magical box that you have to check to get the thing. What's important is that we become the thing. So going back to Joseph Smith, what's exaltation? That's an important question. If we just focus on you need this so you can get exaltation, you have to do a so that you can get X. Um it reduces it to this sort of like transactional. Yeah. And and that's not how things work. It's not a vending machine. Correct. So if I say what's exaltation? Well, Joseph Smith says exaltation is becoming a king and a priest and a queen and a priestess. That vision he saw from the book of Revelation. That's what exaltation is. Okay. So, how do we get that? Well, um you participate in the temple ceremonies. They help materialize that. Um he Joseph Smith taught that heaven wasn't a reward for the good and it wasn't like some Protestant theologies that it's a gift for the elect. God chooses who wins and who loses and the winners get heaven. He rejects that. Heaven is something that you construct. We build it on the altars of the temple. So if heaven is something you construct, we build it. we create these sealing relationships together. We are the the priesthood of heaven. Then it's less a thing, right? It's like, oh yeah, of course you check the box along the way because that's how you construct heaven. So talking more about Joseph Smith. Okay. If Joseph Smith were to go through the temple today, what would he recognize and what would be somewhat foreign to him? Yeah, that's a really interesting question. I think um it's important to understand that Joseph Smith never experienced the temple ceremonies in a temple. Yeah. The temple wasn't finished the the Nauvoo ceremonies, right? It was always in an ad hoc red brick store. Red brick store or somebody's house. The ceremony is radically different. We know for example that it was in the Nauvoo temple with um the Ka the 12 that the characters of the heavenly messengers, the apostolic heavenly messengers were added. We have the documentation for that. And so there are whole swaths of the story as it's presented um that he wouldn't have had experience with. he um would not have like experienced white clothing like we experience today. That was a Wilfrid Woodruff thing, right? Um yeah. So, we have kind of the the moment in um in the St. George Temple when they start ordering white fabric and creating um white clothing for the temple workers. I think we often point to that as the moment that all um clothing was white in the temples. I think it probably took a lot longer. Sure. Um, for it to become a normative thing, but yeah, guy had style. Yeah, that's right. So, and I don't think that Joseph Smith would necessarily be surprised that there that there are differences. No, because he experienced them himself. Yeah. And and before he died, he told Brigham Young, I'm going to botch the quote, but he said, you know, we've done the best that we can with what we have, but it's not arranged right. go and, you know, systematize all these ceremonies and and fix them, make them better, right? Make them better. Yeah. I mean, that's Brigham Y. Young's memory that he's recounting as he's revising the ceremonies. So, there's this big revision that happens with the Nauvoo Temple. So, Joseph Smith administered the ceremonies to dozens of people on an ad hoc basis. Um, and then the cor of the 12 take thousands through the temple. And you have to start systematizing things in important ways. Then they um offer the ceremonies in places that they can throughout the Utah era, but in the temple they go through and they basically reform the ceremonies again and write them down for the first time. And Wilfr Woodruff in 1894 gets up in general conference. He points to the temple presidents in the audience and is and tells them, "We've been doing it wrong." Wow. And we're going to do it better. We're going to keep perfecting the temple ceremonies. And that's something we're still doing today. Yeah. That's fascinating. Well, it just kind of it kind of blows this this notion out of the water that that they have to be a certain way and that they can't change. I think critics might hear some of this conversation and come away with this idea that well hang on this just sounds like Joseph Smith and church leaders are just making up this system of ordinances kind of like Coror in the Book of Mormon where he's like these ordinances are just meant to control people and keep people down and keep their heads in the sand and keep them in line, keep them in the church, you know, keep those tithing dollars coming. What's your kind of perspective on that kind of a claim? The the quote that you opened up with the church um with Joseph Smith saying, you know, these the ordinances established in heaven can't change. Church leaders use that quote, but antagonists of the church use it all the time because it's like a great little existential gotcha because it's really easy to show how things change. Yeah. My my religious sensibility is to focus again and I'm kind of a broken record on this, but what work does the temple do? If it is endowing with power, if it's creating a kingdom of priests and priestesses, creating the network of heaven, constructing heaven, um then that's what's important. Mhm. Um I'm less interested in sort of any sort of characterization that is focused on some sort of cosmic checkbox. Yeah. I'm less interested in it. Let's dive into some specifics. Sure. Because in your book, you talk about um a few specific things that have changed. One of them is called the oath of vengeance. Okay. Yeah. Let's talk a little bit about what that was and why it was removed. All right. So this gets a little tricky anytime you start detailing specifics about the temple ceremony that a lot of the discourse is by um expose people that were disaffected by the church and are casting their experiences um through lenses that are either antagonistic to the church or at least colored by their negative feelings about the church. But what we do know uh is that Joseph and Hyram were killed in 1844. Um they Joseph Smith created a group they they had different names for it but it's this group of people men and women who experienced the temple during Joseph Smith's life and they would often meet together and pray using the temple prayer ceremony. And on the year anniversary of Joseph Smith's death, um, church leaders get together and they have a prayer that sort of invokes the book of Revelation. So in the book of Revelation, one of the seals is broken. And I believe it's Revelation 6 and verse 9 and 10. And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dust thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" So this is an apocalyptic text, but we have this vision of the martyrs crying out to God, basically pleading for justice. Um, and a year after Joseph Smith's death, church leaders get together. They have a temple prayer in which they pray for those same things. They use that same language. They want God to avenge the blood of the prophets. And clearly they're thinking about um Joseph and Hyram. Yeah. Often times antagonistic folks would cast it in terms of people were uh enjoined or required to commit to personally avenge the blood of the prophets. Often it was against they would say it was against the United States. And this was an issue because it um came up in litigation. So there are court case like in the late 19th century there are cases where judges are trying to determine if Mormons can become US citizens. Are these the Reed Smoot hearings? No, this is before that. Okay. So this is whether or not we can like become a citizen. Can a Latter-day Saint become a US citizen? And they're hearing evidence on that. And some they bring in people that have left the church and people that have are church members and they testify about their temple experience. And the people that are testifying against the church saying, "Well, they take a uh an oath to avenge the blood of the prophets against the United States." And the people that are testifying for the church are sort of kind of equivocating. They're saying, "Look, I'm not going to talk about what we promised to do in the temple, but we definitely don't promise to avenge the blood of the prophets against the United States." And that sort of injunction to pray for it or to even pray for it in the ceremony endures until the 1920s when they're I think they've matured. The church has matured. Nobody I think the people that lived through it and remembered it wanted to keep it because it was personal. But at the same time, that generation was fading. That's right. And so it became in congruous with lived experience. Yeah. And there's lots of elements from the temple that are like that that kind of made sense for early church members. Yeah. But were baffling and alienating to modern church members. Well, and you talk about how most of the sources that we have on it or a lot of them are from antagonists. One of the issues, as I understand it, is that the the temple ceremonies just weren't written down. Yeah, there's a lot of variation. Yeah, there's a lot of variation. I mean, so Brigham Y. Young writes down with his secretary writes down most of the ceremonies, but it's clear that even though they do that, by the 1920s, every temple is doing a different version. Wow. Even by the 1920s. Yeah. And and so there's this uh these reforms in the 20s where George F. Richards who's an apostle uh the church president Hebra J Grant has him go through and um work with other church leaders to completely again revise the ceremonies again. And it's at that point that you see lots of revisions. The garments are shortened. Um the length of the ceremony is shortened dramatically. used to be like eight hours in Joseph Smith's day, wasn't it? Yeah. I mean, so it's it's hard to figure out exactly how it is, but it's long. Yeah. And it was multiple multiple hours long. Yeah. For people that experience the temple today, everybody participates. Everybody's supposed to imagine that they're the main character of the narrative. So, just back up really quick. Um, the endowment presents what Latter-day Saints call the plan of salvation. It gives the vision of the whole of things. prophets throughout history have had a vision of the whole of things. Nephi, Enoch, Moses. And the endowment, part of what this work it does is to give um church members that same vision just sort of routinized. Um and part of that is that they are supposed to imagine themselves as the main character. And back in the 19th century, there was more interactive elements where everybody did everything in the drama. And now Latter Day Saints watch kind of a representations of the main characters do those things and then kind of by proxy if you will. So it just took a lot longer and we streamlined it, took out repetition, simplified wording, um, and that's how we got to kind of the 20th century, what most people experienced during the 20th century. Fascinating. Okay. So, let's move on to another another specific um example of something that was there that has since changed. Okay. And these are referred to as the penalties, right? Tell me about those. What what where did those come from? Why were they removed? Okay. So, I think uh this I'm gonna I'm going to get to your answer, but it requires taking a little bit of a detour. Okay. Um in Nauvoo, I think it's very very clear that Joseph Smith used Freemasonry um and the ceremonies of Freemasonry to communicate the endowment. So let me explain what that meant. So when you joined Freemasonry and you can join today, part of the initiation is to experience a dramatic ceremony and the the Freemasonic ceremony narrates the story of Hyram who was the chief mason of the temple of Solomon and it's sort of a tragic uh tale of fidelity. He's murdered by people that want to get his knowledge for gain as part of this way of teaching. Um, it's an oral way of instructing for that's useful for uh semi-iterate audiences. There are elements of the drama that are used to teach principles. Yeah. Um, and also punctuating the um, Masonic drama are promises to keep everything that you are experiencing secret. And when you promise to do that, you also um accept a violent penalty in the case that you break that secrecy. Joseph Smith experiences the free Masonic initiation, the this um dramatic ceremony, and he translates it for use in the temple. So the content of it is dumped out. Um but he uses this way of communicating to teach the plan of salvation and the redemption of Christ. Yeah. He Christianizes it. He adds um Christian symbology into it. But one of the things he keeps are these promises of secrecy and the associated penalties. Violent penalties invoking death and dismemberment or whatever. super alienating and scary, right? At least to our mo I mean it sounds like it was more common anciently but perhaps throughout the 19th century there were latter- day saints who were felt alienated by it as well. Sure. And so in the late 20th century those elements were completely removed. And so the penalties being removed um they did they they performed a certain work um reinforcing this idea that there is a sort of privacy or secrecy um to certain elements. But was that necessary? Did was the work valid? Clearly, church leaders believed that God authorized them to remove them in a way that um made sense to modern participants. I want to go into another specific and we talked a little bit. We talked about um kind of women in the church a little bit. I'm curious how gender roles and gendered language has changed in temple ceremonies over time. Yeah, this is really really interesting. Um and I go into detail in the book, so if you want to check the receipts, go there. But I think it's really important to note is that we have Joseph Smith's ceiling text. So Joseph Smith dictated a revelation in 1842. It's not canonized. It's not in the Doctrine of Covenants that Joseph Smith revealed a ceiling text and you can revealed it. Yeah. Like it's a revelation. Okay. And you can go read it on the Joseph Smith papers. And then um in 1852, Orson Pratt, who's an apostle, goes out east and starts publishing a newspaper and he's like, "Well, might as well just publish the ceiling ceremony from the Nauvoo Temple. Why not?" So he publishes it. Um as a side note, um probably don't recommend that today. Yeah. Um and Brigham Y. Young at the time writes him and is like, "Excuse me." Orson writes back, he's like, I look, I I had no sense that this was secret. Nobody told me not to. Yeah. They go back and forth and Brigham Young is not stoked, but they re like it works out. Yeah. But what it means is we have these two and they're both available on church um published websites and so we can compare them. And so here's a quick caveat. There's no such thing as egalitarian marriage um in the 19th century. Full stop. So whether it's monogous or polygamous, there's no egalitarian marriage. But what we see is Joseph Smith's ceiling text is more egalitarian. The the man and the woman take up on similar obligations. They they relate to each other equally. And Brigham Young's or the Nauvoo Temple ceiling text, which is I argue largely Brigham Young's, it subordinates women. And I think I I'm I make the argument that I think is compelling that Joseph Smith taught that um men and women become kings and queens, priests and priestesses to God. Um Brigham Young frames it as men become kings and priests to God and women become kings and priest or queens and priestesses to their husband. Mhm. So again, subordinates women, the liturgy, the way the covenants are structured, again, subordinates women to their husbands um in the in the ceremonies and that endures for well over a hundred years. That has been difficult for many many men and women in the church. Mhm. So I I I've taught uh youth in various callings throughout my life and a number of years ago uh a young woman who I had taught in one of my classes. I bumped into her in state conference and she had gone through the temple that just before on just ready to go on her mission and she saw me and she said, "Hey, I don't think I can go on my mission. I just went through the temple. Can you help me?" And I said, "Yeah, grab your mom or dad. Come over. Um, my wife and I will be happy to talk to you." Um, and she explained how this gender asymmetry really was hurtful in ways that made her believe that she couldn't serve anymore. And I'm not a prophet, but I could with confidence tell her like, here's some context to why I um think that these asymmetries are there. My money is on in your lifetime those asymmetries being removed from the temple. If I could have put money on it, I would have done well um on that bet because it has since changed. Yeah. Remarkably, um there are still some asymmetries that remain. It's not entirely egalitarian, but I believe that over time um because men and women are equal that they will become more that our liturgies will more and more reflect that over time. You mentioned that in Brigham Y. Young's day there was no egalitarian marriage. Yeah. um did they not have a problem with that kind of subordination of women at that time or maybe it was just less common that people had a problem with it? Yeah. Um different people write about their experiences in the temple in different ways. Eliza Ars Snow is a really really interesting case because she um uses the temple to empower her ministry and her cosmology. So she takes elements from Brigham Y. Young's teachings to exalt womanhood um in ways that are really interesting. and plural marriage. Even though that is problematic in a lot of ways, um the women that experienced plural marriage and the temple found ways of using it that increased their opportunities in many cases, increased their access to um professional development, increased their access to kind of an exalted cosmology of womanhood. So I mean what I'm not saying that we should go back to that in any way. Yeah. Um but I think it's important to recognize how these women used the constraints in which they operated to find constructive um outlets for the empowerment of women. I think that the changes uh have been excellent, but I think that there are a lot of people who see the changes and they say, "Okay, this covenant, this promise is different now than the one that I made for myself." For sure. Now, what do I do with that one that I made? Because there's also that sense that this one is more correct and I'm more comfortable with it, but I made this other one over here, right? It's a it's a really interesting and fruitful place for re um religion generally like what do we do with these sort of um friction points of change um and how we deal with that. There's this um vignette that I use in my book of a woman in California who here learns about the changes in the 1920s and she writes a pamphlet that says Hebrew J Grant put a knife in the back of Mormonism um with his changes. Right. This is a true story. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and we have her pamphlets and um, sometimes change is really hard when you've invested in certain systems. Um, I know people that spent a lot of time and prayer trying to work with um, the old ceremonies to find a constructive way of living and realizing an empowered womanhood. and after a lot of work they found something that worked for them and then when the change comes does that change negate all that hard work they did to find a constructive place right so change isn't always easy even for people that want it um and that's something that we should always be empathetic towards and there are certain personality types who don't like change who are inclined to view everything as being entirely static. There's a great religious studies scholar Steven Taesm. He wrote a biography of Joseph F. Smith and he makes this really powerful argument that western religions or Christianity and religions in general um particularly those focused on an unchanging God if they are historically persistent that's a fancy way of saying if they stick around it's because they give their adherence their members a sense that their faith is unchanging while simultaneously changing because they you have to be relevant Yeah. Right. You have to give someone an experience that's relent relevant to their context all the while helping them feel like they're living an unchanging like religion that God is the same and you can rely on him. And I think um Latter-day Saints do that really well. But there are certain personality types that because of that when there is change they kind of get bent out of shape or after periods where things don't change for a while they kind of get into a routine where they assume it can never change right but look the church is different than when you were a kid. Yeah. It's certainly different than when my parents were kids and it's wildly different than when Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. Mhm. True. True and living, right? True and living. Exactly. I love this conversation and I find myself um I've talked about this on the channel and on other podcasts so much, but um the the three-stage process defined by Bruce and Marie Hayen of uh simplicity to complexity to simplicity beyond complexity. I'm going through that right now just having this conversation with you. Like I think what you're doing is introducing a lot of people to some complexity and and obviously opening doors to simplicity beyond complexity. Um but you're challenging kind of the uh I some of the idealistic views that maybe we've had about some of these things to everyone watching. We've been talking specifically about changes to the temple over time. If you want a broader look at kind of this topic of change in the church over time, I would encourage you to go check out this interview we did with Ben Spackman. It's our most popular video to date. Um it's it's it's really good and will pair very well with this episode. Thank you for being here and we'll catch you next time.