Appearance
Temple Changes
The claim:
"Why did the Church remove the blood oath penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship at the veil from the endowment ceremony in 1990? Both of these were 100% Masonic rituals. What does this say about the Temple and the endowment ceremony if it removed something that Joseph Smith said he restored and which would never again be taken away from the earth?"[1]
The CES Letter frames temple changes as a fatal contradiction. If God revealed the endowment, why does it keep changing? The implied answer: the ceremony is man-made.
The changes are real. They're well-documented. And they deserve an honest answer rather than hand-waving.
So here is the question worth asking: What actually changed, and what didn't?
The changes are real
The temple endowment has been modified multiple times since Joseph Smith first administered it in May 1842. The major revisions include:
| Year | Change |
|---|---|
| 1877 | Brigham Young directs systematization and standardization of the ceremony[2] |
| 1893-94 | Wilford Woodruff harmonizes the endowment across all four operating temples[3] |
| 1922 | A committee led by Apostle John A. Widtsoe revises language to be "less harsh and more symbolic"[4] |
| 1927 | The oath of vengeance is removed[5] |
| 1955 | Filmed presentations introduced at the Swiss Temple[6] |
| 1990 | Symbolic penalties removed; women's obedience covenant modified; the Protestant minister character removed; Five Points of Fellowship removed[7] |
| 2005 | Initiatory ordinance administration modified[8] |
| 2019 | Ceremony shortened; women's covenant language made identical to men's[9] |
| 2023 | Increased focus on Jesus Christ; additional presentation changes[10] |
Anyone who says the endowment hasn't changed is wrong. The question is what the changes mean.
What Joseph Smith actually said
The CES Letter implies Joseph claimed the endowment was a finished, unchangeable product. The historical record shows the opposite.
After administering the first endowment in May 1842, Joseph told Brigham Young:
"Brother Brigham, this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies."[2:1]
Joseph Smith introduced the endowment and immediately acknowledged it needed further organization. He didn't treat it as a sealed, final text. He treated it as a divinely revealed set of covenants and teachings that required ongoing refinement in presentation.
Brigham Young took up that charge. In 1877, near the end of his life, he directed a comprehensive systematization of temple ceremonies, bringing consistency across temples and writing out the ceremony in full for the first time.[11]
Covenants vs. presentation
There is a difference between an ordinance and the way that ordinance is presented. This is not spin. It is how every ordinance in the Church already works.
Baptism. The covenant is immersion in water by one holding priesthood authority. That hasn't changed. The clothing, fonts, administrative procedures, and words spoken before and after the prayer all have.
The sacrament. The prayers are word-for-word consistent across scripture (Moroni 4-5; D&C 20:77, 79). But the early Saints used wine, not water. They passed a single cup rather than individual cups. The shift to water was itself directed by revelation (D&C 27:2).[12]
Nobody claims switching from wine to water invalidated the sacrament. The covenant remained. The emblems changed.
The same principle applies to the endowment. The core covenants --- the promises made between the individual and God --- have remained consistent across every revision.[13] What has changed is the dramatic framework and the pedagogical method used to present those covenants.
Harold B. Lee described the distinction plainly: Joseph Smith initially delivered the endowment "by lecture" in a confined space above his store. Over time, the presentation expanded to include "dramatization, part by question and answer, part by lecture, part by picturization."[14] The teaching method evolved. The covenants didn't.
What about the penalties?
The 1990 removal of symbolic penalties is the change the CES Letter emphasizes most.
The penalties were gestural representations of the consequences of breaking sacred covenants. They drew on imagery common in the ancient Near East --- conditional self-cursing as part of oath-making. Akkadian oath formulas, biblical passages (1 Samuel 3:17; 1 Kings 2:23; Ruth 1:17), and even the children's phrase "cross my heart and hope to die" all reflect the same tradition: dramatizing the gravity of a vow.[15]
The penalties were not themselves covenants. They were dramatic illustrations of covenants. When the Church removed them in 1990, no covenant was lost. The promises to God remained. The visual language underscoring their gravity changed.
The CES Letter calls them "100% Masonic rituals." Masonic lodges used similar penalty gestures. But conditional self-cursing in oath-making predates Freemasonry by millennia.[15:1] Calling them "100% Masonic" is like calling baptism "100% Christian" because you first encountered it in a church --- ignoring that ritual immersion existed across ancient Near Eastern cultures long before Christianity. (For more on the Masonic question, see Masonic Connections.)
The minister character
Before 1990, the endowment's dramatic presentation included a character representing a sectarian minister. The character was a narrative device --- part of the Creation drama illustrating how truth can be mixed with error.
The Church removed it. Not because the theological point was wrong, but because the character was easily misunderstood as an attack on other faiths rather than an illustration of a principle. That is a pedagogical decision, not a doctrinal reversal.
Women's covenants
This is the change that critics press hardest, and fairly so.
Before 1990, women covenanted to obey their husbands. In 1990, the language changed to "heed the counsel" of their husbands. In 2019, gender-specific spousal language was removed entirely. Women now make the same covenants to God that men do.[9:1]
Critics see this as evidence the endowment was shaped by cultural attitudes toward gender rather than by revelation. The objection has real weight. If the earlier language reflected eternal truth, why change it? And if it didn't, what does that say about the process that produced it?
Two things can be true simultaneously. First, prophets operate within their own cultural moment --- the Bible is full of examples. The Mosaic law accommodated cultural realities (divorce, slavery, dietary practice) that later prophets and Christ himself superseded. A revelation being mediated through human culture does not make it uninspired. It makes it revelation as scripture describes it: God working with imperfect people in a specific time and place.
Second, the trajectory matters. The changes moved in one direction: toward greater equality before God. A church merely drifting with social currents would have tracked feminist movements in real time. The Church moved on its own timeline, through its own prophetic processes.[16]
Neither answer will satisfy everyone. But the question "why did it change?" has a more troubling cousin: "what if it never could?"
God has always adapted His worship
The CES Letter's argument assumes that divinely revealed worship cannot change. The Bible contradicts this at every turn.
| Period | Place of worship | Key differences |
|---|---|---|
| Moses | Portable tabernacle | Ark of the Covenant present; animal sacrifice; Levitical priesthood; worship in wilderness |
| Solomon | First Temple (c. 957 BC) | Permanent stone structure; expanded ritual; elaborate furnishings |
| Post-exile | Second Temple (c. 515 BC) | No Ark of the Covenant; Holy of Holies empty; modified priestly functions |
| Herod | Expanded Second Temple (c. 19 BC) | Massive architectural expansion; Court of the Gentiles added; double the size of Solomon's Temple[17] |
The Ark of the Covenant --- the central sacred object of Israelite worship --- disappeared with the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586 BC. When the Second Temple was built, the Holy of Holies was empty. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled sacrificial blood on a bare stone where the Ark had once rested.[18]
Did the absence of the Ark invalidate Second Temple worship? No Israelite thought so. The core purpose --- covenant-making between God and His people --- continued. The form adapted to new circumstances.
Ancient Christian initiation rites followed the same pattern. In the earliest decades, baptism required little formal preparation. By the third century, the catechumenate had developed into an elaborate multi-week process of instruction, exorcism, anointing, disrobing, immersion, and clothing in white.[19] By the sixth century, baptism and confirmation had separated into distinct rites. The ordinance endured. The presentation evolved.
The CES Letter's assumption --- that revealed worship should be frozen in its original form --- has no precedent in scripture or in the history of God's dealings with His people.
The positive case: a living Church
The endowment's capacity for change is not a weakness to explain away. It is the positive case.
D&C 124:38-41 frames the Restoration's temple work as progressive: the Lord promised to "reveal mine ordinances" in the temple and to disclose "things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world."[20] That language points forward, not backward. It anticipates ongoing revelation, not a one-time delivery.
President Nelson made this explicit in October 2021:
"The Restoration is a process, not an event, and will continue until the Lord comes again... Current adjustments in temple procedures, and others that will follow, are continuing evidence that the Lord is actively directing His Church."[16:1]
Joseph Smith himself anticipated refinement. Wilford Woodruff taught that "no single president of the Church has received all revelations about temple work."[21] That claim only makes sense if the work was understood as unfinished --- not as a static artifact handed down complete.
Hugh Nibley spent decades documenting parallels between the Latter-day Saint temple and ancient ritual texts --- the Dead Sea Scrolls' Manual of Discipline, the Odes of Solomon, Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures, and Egyptian temple texts.[22] His work showed that the endowment's core themes --- creation, fall, covenant, instruction, return to God's presence --- recur across ancient traditions. The specific dramatic vehicles used to convey those themes have always varied by culture and era.
A church that could not adjust its temple worship would be a museum, not a restoration. The whole premise of continuing revelation is that God speaks to living prophets about present needs. The endowment changes are what continuing revelation looks like in practice.
What hasn't changed
Amid all the revisions, certain things have remained constant across every version of the endowment since 1842:
- Covenants of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration
- Instruction through a dramatized narrative of the Creation and the Fall
- The culminating passage through the veil into God's symbolic presence
- The conferral of sacred knowledge as part of covenant-making
- The purpose: preparing individuals to return to God's presence[13:1]
The CES Letter focuses on what was removed. The more revealing question is what has endured. The covenants have survived every revision. The purpose has never wavered. The dramatic framework shifts, but the promises made to God --- and God's promises in return --- remain.
The hardest version of the objection
The strongest form of this criticism isn't about penalties or presentation methods. It's this: If prophets can get the endowment wrong enough to need major corrections, how do we know the current version is right? That's a fair question. The Latter-day Saint answer is that continuing revelation presupposes ongoing imperfection. The Restoration is not a claim that prophets produce flawless output. It is a claim that God continues to speak --- correcting, refining, and directing. The same D&C 1:24 that acknowledges revelations are given "in their weakness, after the manner of their language" also insists that God's purposes will not be frustrated.[23] The endowment's changes are one instance of that principle in practice.
Bottom line: The temple endowment has changed, and those changes are neither secret nor embarrassing. The core covenants have remained stable since 1842. What has changed is the dramatic and pedagogical presentation --- exactly the kind of adaptation you would expect from a living Church led by continuing revelation, and exactly the pattern seen in every era of biblical worship.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Temples & Freemasonry," p. 108. ↩︎
L. John Nuttall diary, February 7, 1877, recording Brigham Young's account of Joseph Smith's instructions. Cited in Truman G. Madsen, "Joseph Smith Lecture 7: Doctrinal Development and the Nauvoo Era," BYU Speeches, 1978. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/truman-g-madsen/joseph-smith-doctrinal-development-nauvoo-era/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Wilford Woodruff directed the harmonization of temple ceremonies across all operating temples in 1893-94. See Jennifer Ann Mackley, Wilford Woodruff's Witness: The Development of Temple Doctrine (n.p., 2014). See also "Wilford Woodruff and the Rise of Temple Consciousness among the Latter-day Saints, 1877-84," Religious Studies Center, BYU. https://rsc.byu.edu/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/wilford-woodruff-rise-temple-consciousness-among-latter-day-saints-1877-84 ↩︎
In 1922, a committee chaired by Apostle John A. Widtsoe revised the endowment language to be "less harsh and more symbolic." See "Changes to the Temple Endowment," Mormonr. https://mormonr.org/qnas/8yXbNf/changes_to_the_temple_endowment ↩︎
The oath of vengeance was removed from the endowment in 1927 under the direction of Church President Heber J. Grant. See "Changes to the temple endowment," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Changes_to_the_temple_endowment ↩︎
Filmed endowment presentations were first introduced at the Swiss Temple in 1955 to accommodate members who spoke multiple languages. See "Adjustments to Temple Work," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-temple-work?lang=eng ↩︎
The 1990 revisions removed symbolic penalties, modified women's obedience language, removed the Protestant minister character, and removed the Five Points of Fellowship. See "Changes to the Temple Endowment," Mormonr. https://mormonr.org/qnas/8yXbNf/changes_to_the_temple_endowment ↩︎
John-Charles Duffy, "Concealing the Body, Concealing the Sacred: The Decline of Ritual Nudity in Mormon Temples," Journal of Ritual Studies 19, no. 1 (2005). The 2005 changes modified initiatory practices to use symbolic gestures rather than direct contact. ↩︎
In January 2019, the endowment was shortened and women's covenant language was made identical to men's, removing all gender-specific spousal references. See "Adjustments to Temple Work," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-temple-work?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎
In early 2023, additional changes increased the focus on Jesus Christ throughout the endowment presentation. See Jana Riess, "More Jesus, less touching --- 14 changes to the Mormon temple endowment ceremony," Religion News Service, February 10, 2023. https://religionnews.com/2023/02/10/more-jesus-less-touching-14-changes-to-the-mormon-temple-endowment-ceremony/ ↩︎
Brigham Young directed the comprehensive systematization and written codification of temple ceremonies in early 1877, shortly before his death. See "The Unfolding Restoration of Temple Work," Ensign, December 2001. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/12/the-unfolding-restoration-of-temple-work?lang=eng ↩︎
D&C 27:2 records the Lord telling Joseph Smith, "it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory." The Saints used wine throughout the 19th century; water replaced wine in the early 20th century. See "The Changing Forms of the Latter-day Saint Sacrament," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-changing-forms-of-the-latter-day-saint-sacrament ↩︎
The core covenants of the endowment --- obedience, sacrifice, the gospel, chastity, and consecration --- have been present in every recorded version of the ceremony since 1842. See "Adjustments to Temple Work," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-temple-work?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎
Harold B. Lee, describing the evolution of the endowment's presentation method from Joseph Smith's original "lecture" format. Cited in FAIR, "Detailed Response to CES Letter, Temples & Freemasonry." https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter,_Temples_%26_Freemasonry ↩︎
Conditional self-cursing was standard practice in ancient Near Eastern oath-making. Akkadian oath formulas and biblical passages such as 1 Samuel 3:17, 1 Kings 2:23, and Ruth 1:17 reflect the tradition of dramatizing the gravity of covenant-breaking. See also Psalm 110:4 regarding oaths accompanying priesthood investiture. See "Temple adapted for different times," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/temples-freemasonry-1/temple-adapted-for-different-times/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Russell M. Nelson, "The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation," General Conference, October 2021. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/47nelson?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎
"The Temple of Herod," Religious Studies Center, BYU. https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/temple-herod ↩︎
The Ark of the Covenant was lost during the Babylonian destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586 BC. In the Second Temple, the Holy of Holies was empty; on the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled blood on a bare stone. See "Temple in Jerusalem," Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Temple-of-Jerusalem ↩︎
Early Christian initiation rites evolved from simple water baptism in the apostolic era to an elaborate catechumenate process by the third century. See "The ancient catechumenate: A brief liturgical-historical sketch," HTS Teologiese Studies. https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672023000100014 ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 124:38-41. The Lord commanded the Saints to build the Nauvoo Temple so He could "reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people" and disclose "things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world." ↩︎
Wilford Woodruff taught that ongoing revelation about temple work was expected and that no single Church president had received all there was to know about temple ordinances. Cited in "Changes to the Temple Endowment," Mormonr. https://mormonr.org/qnas/8yXbNf/changes_to_the_temple_endowment ↩︎
Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, vol. 12 of The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992). Nibley documented parallels between Latter-day Saint temple themes and the Manual of Discipline, the Odes of Solomon, the Pistis Sophia, and Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/74/ ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 1:24. "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." ↩︎