Scott Woodward:
During the last years of his life the Prophet Joseph Smith gave multiple public sermons dealing with 2 Peter 1, wherein the Apostle Peter encourages his readers to, “give diligence to make your calling and election sure.” Commenting on this phrase, the Prophet Joseph explained that to have one’s calling and election made sure meant to, “obtain a promise from God for yourselves that you shall have eternal life.” And he went on to explain that such a promise could be mediated through the keys restored by Elijah. “By this power of Elijah,” he said on one occasion, “we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise, and to obtain this sealing is to make our calling and election sure.” And in another sermon he confirmed, “The power of Elijah is sufficient to make our calling and election sure.” In 2 Peter 1, Peter also speaks of obtaining the “more sure word of prophecy,” a phrase the prophet Joseph similarly interpreted to mean, “a man’s knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life through the power of the holy priesthood.” This was the theology: the possibility of being sealed up unto eternal life under the keys restored by Elijah. Then came the practice. Beginning in 1843 in Nauvoo, the prophet introduced a sacred ordinance to his most trusted associates wherein, using the keys of Elijah which he held, husbands and wives were sealed up unto eternal life. And this was not the marriage ordinance—this was more. It was an ordinance sometimes referred to in the historical record as “the Second Anointing.” In today’s episode of Church History Matters, Casey and I discuss what we know about the theology and early practice of the Second Anointing. We also discuss the early and now discontinued sealing practice called the law of adoption, wherein adult men and women were sealed into the families of church leaders as their children. We also briefly touch on the now-extinct practice of temple-like prayer circles that were conducted outside of the temple for many years in our history. All super interesting stuff. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today Casey and I dive into our sixth episode in this series about the development of Latter-day Saint temple worship. Now let’s get into it.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Hi, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Boy. I think we were planning originally, like, one to two episodes on Nauvoo. We’re getting into, like, our fourth episode on Nauvoo all by itself when it comes to the temple.

Scott Woodward:
There’s so much that happens in Nauvoo. I mean, that is the place where all the exciting temple stuff happens that’s related to temple work that we do today, right? We don’t really follow much temple practice from Kirtland. All the temple practice we have today really stems from Nauvoo. At least the seeds are there, right? And then they get developed in Utah. So there’s just so much to talk about in Nauvoo. The soil is rich.

Casey Griffiths:
So much to talk about. And we should point out that what happens in Nauvoo is what distinguishes us from a lot of other Restoration movements.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, that’s true.

Casey Griffiths:
For instance, Community of Christ I have some dear friends in, but most of them don’t accept the revelations that happened in Nauvoo, and so that’s a major point of divergence. When people ask me what Community of Christ believes, I usually summarize by saying they’re us without the temple ordinances, or they’re us without Nauvoo. So understanding this period really helps set us apart from other Restoration movements.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. You and I were in a interfaith council once with several of the branches of the Restoration, and it was fun to get each of their perspectives on exactly what you’re talking about. And of all the different branches there—I can’t remember how many there were. Maybe four or five?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, four or five different churches.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. They all claim Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but the points of divergence happen at various points in the timeline, and of all those sitting in that room, our branch of the Restoration was the only one that claims the ordinances of the temple, and so that is absolutely distinctive—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—not only among Christians, but even among our own Restoration brethren, so . . .

Casey Griffiths:
We should point out that that discussion took place in Independence, Missouri.

Scott Woodward:
It did.

Casey Griffiths:
And a lot of the churches that were there were churches that had broken off from Community of Christ.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
So that was their background, but yeah, this is a point of big divergence among Restoration movements, so . . .

Scott Woodward:
Nauvoo is pivotal.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Let’s get the story up ’til now, and then let’s dive in because we’ve got a lot to talk about today.

Scott Woodward:
Yes. I’m going to try to recap everything we’ve talked about.

Casey Griffiths:
Good luck.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Wish me luck. Okay, here we go. Here’s our whole series in a nutshell. So the Latter-day Saint temple story begins with the Book of Mormon and its promises about the New Jerusalem that would one day be built up on this continent. And those promises seem to be the first inkling that there would be Latter-day temples, and they were the initial impetus to build one.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
We talked about how Oliver Cowdery promised in October of 1830 to obey the Lord’s command to him, which we don’t have a record of the commandment, but he said, I’m gonna obey the Lord’s command to go to the edge of the United States at that time and there raise up, “a pillar as a witness where the temple of God shall be built in the glorious New Jerusalem.” So that’s our first reference to a temple that you and I can track down.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Meanwhile, in January 1831, just a few months later, the Lord promised the New York Saints that if they would gather with the Saints in Ohio, the Lord would there somehow endow them with power from on high. And we talked about how the most important fulfillment of that promise came in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, when Joseph Smith received sacred keys from Moses, Elias, and Elijah. We talked about how Moses brought the keys of gathering, that is the gathering of baptized Israel together to build temples.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Elias brought the keys of temple marriage, of extending the blessings of Abraham to couples, and how Elijah brought the keys to seal the human family together into the family kingdom of God. And the restoration of those keys was the primary purpose for which the Kirtland Temple was built.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
With those Kirtland keys and some bits of theology about the salvation of the dead revealed in Kirtland, Joseph now had, it seemed, all that was necessary for the next phase of temple building, which he hoped would take place in Northern Missouri at the settlements of Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman, but, as we discussed, due to horrific persecution, neither of those temples ever came to be, and the saints find themselves in 1839 as refugees in a swampy, malaria-infested peninsula in Illinois that the prophet would name Nauvoo.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And it was there, over the next few years, that the theology, the rituals, and those Kirtland keys, like pieces of a puzzle, I think is your analogy, Casey, began to come together to reveal the stunning purpose of the Nauvoo Temple and therefore every other temple that would be built thereafter, because they’re all based on Nauvoo.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
The Lord referred to that temple purpose in D&C 124 as restoring, “the fulness of the priesthood.” The prophet Joseph referred to it as, “the restoration of the priesthood” and as the work of connecting the priesthood, meaning that through the ordinances given to both men and women living and dead, the human family is being knit or woven, or let’s just use the word sealed together into one eternal holy order, which we can call the family of God. We could call it the kingdom of God. We could call it the Church of the Firstborn. We could call it the Celestial Kingdom, or simply the priesthood.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So the temple brings a stunningly new way of understanding that familiar phrase that we toss around: the phrase, “the restoration of the priesthood.” It just takes it to the next level. So that’s the endgame, right, is that thing.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But how do we get there? This is the question on Joseph’s mind throughout Nauvoo. All the pieces start to coalesce in Nauvoo. We get the endowment ceremony with two parts, right? Part one is the washing and anointing, where we are, as President David O. McKay explains, “anointed to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses in God’s coming kingdom.” And then there’s that part two, which is the longer sort of play-like ritual where we follow the prototypical salvation story of Adam and Eve—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—making covenants, dressing in priestly robes, and progressing to the celestial room, which is symbolic of our having been restored into that eternal priesthood as kings and queens.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And that second part of the endowment appears to be, as we discussed, an inspired synthesis from a few different sources that we noted, including the books of Moses, Abraham, maybe the Book of Mormon, and also to some degree from the Masonic ritual. As you like to say, a dash of Masonry is also sprinkled in there.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
A little sprinkle. Little dash. And then in our last episode we talked about the ritual ordinance of temple marriage, how that developed, what we often call the sealing of husband and wife together.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And that’s where the promise is given, according to D&C 132, of husbands and wives inheriting together thrones, kingdoms, principalities, powers, dominions, all heights and depths—I mean, this is really the promise of Godhood, isn’t it Casey? I mean, this is everything. This is all that the Father hath.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
This is where, as we talked about, the doctrines in Nauvoo were now converging with the rituals in Nauvoo. The doctrines of Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Father used to be a man like us and progressed to become what he is by obedience to certain laws, and then he has a wife. And we are told that we have the potential to become like them, and the way to do that is through this thing called the Everlasting Covenant. And that’s collectively, if you put a big wrapper around all the ordinances of the gospel, that whole wrapper is called the Everlasting Covenant.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And it’s through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Everlasting Covenant that we can become what our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are. I mean, this is the theology being rolled out in Nauvoo, and then these ordinances are right there, side by side, in lockstep with that theology to help bring that about for all of us.

Casey Griffiths:
Mm-hmm. Well, that was an impressive summary, Scott, in a short amount of time.

Scott Woodward:
Well, thank you. Thank you.

Casey Griffiths:
I compliment you because there’s a lot to cover. By the time we get to the end of this series the previous episode summary is going to be I don’t know how long.

Scott Woodward:
A full episode itself, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
But I was listening to you, and I was thinking, okay, we’ve covered Kirtland. We’ve covered baptisms for the dead. We’ve covered initiatories, the endowment, and sealings. What else is there to talk about?

Scott Woodward:
We’re done, right?

Casey Griffiths:
No. We are not done. We’re just getting started, to be honest with you. We’re going to focus around three main topics today, and we’re going to try to be extremely cautious and respectful. Those topics are the second anointing, the law of adoption, and the prayer circles that were introduced in Nauvoo.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Griffiths:
One of the things that we’re trying to do here is to just get you more comfortable with the idea that Joseph Smith wasn’t handed all of these ordinances on a golden platter: that it wasn’t like one day he just received a revelation that laid out everything he was supposed to do. The analogy we’ve been using is it’s more like he was given puzzle pieces and a vision of how it should look, but he put the pieces together.

Scott Woodward:
I’d like to propose an alternate analogy.

Casey Griffiths:
Alternate to the puzzles.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay, fire away.

Scott Woodward:
I was thinking about this. I was thinking, how about LEGO pieces? And here’s why that matters: puzzle pieces, they assume a fixed and predetermined thing, right? Where you’re trying to, like, get this to look exactly like the picture on the box.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Whereas LEGOs implies some flexibility as to how you can build the thing in order to accomplish the goal. And so I’m thinking about that with the sealing keys, right? Joseph is given these keys and these theological revelations, and he’s authorized to build something that will eventually lead to that ultimate end game we talked about of connecting mankind into the eternal priesthood of God. But maybe there’s different ways that can look to get there, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Maybe the sealing power is flexible. I see Joseph talking like that. So this is from a talk he gave in March of 1844: he says, “The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows.” Now, watch how he explains this sealing power: he says, “If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be crafty. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory. Go ahead and not go back, but use a little craftiness and seal all you can. And when you get to heaven, tell your father,” I think that’s Father in Heaven, “that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven.” And then Joseph says, “I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal.” So that’s interesting, right? There’s this craftiness, this, like, ability to kind of use your wit and wisdom to create a way in which to be able to seal the people that you love together so that that bond will transcend mortality, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It struck me one day thinking about that and then reading Jesus back in Matthew 16. When he talks to Peter about the sealing keys he says that with those sealing keys, “whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” Isn’t that interesting? That word whatsoever again kind of suggests a certain level of flexibility, you know? And so—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—I just wanted to underscore what you’re saying, right? We need to allow for flexibility and innovation here as the ones with the sealing keys. Make some decisions as to the best way to get to the end goal of sealing together the eternal family of God. How do you feel about that adjustment to LEGOs instead of puzzle pieces, Casey? Give me your honest thoughts.

Casey Griffiths:
I like it. I like it. It works. It works. And it’s going to give me an excuse to do a shout out to one of my favorite YouTube channels, which is called Lego Day Saints.

Scott Woodward:
Oh, my word.

Casey Griffiths:
This guy does Come, Follow Me, but in LEGO, and my kids love it, so, yeah, totally works. Totally works. And it helps us kind of grasp one of the major themes of this entire series, which is that there is a fair amount of flexibility in how these covenants are given within the temple.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
I remember as a 19-year-old going through the temple and thinking, well, this is what Moses did. Like, this goes all the way back to him, when in reality, you know, a simple reading of the Old Testament shows it’s not what Moses did. Moses was working with a whole different set of variables. And the last couple of years have shown that even the sacred ordinances of the temple can undergo change in order to better meet our needs. Like, something as simple as the changes that were made during the COVID pandemic designed to just keep us a little bit safer when we’re in the temple so that there was less physical contact, if that makes sense.

Scott Woodward:
You and I can’t change the ordinances, but the ones who hold the keys that Joseph held certainly can, and they have.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Those who hold the keys can and do, and it’s within their right to do so.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
And one of the things we want to normalize is that they have changed the ordinances of the temple on a regular basis for a number of reasons.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
And so in mentioning that, like I said, we’re going to tackle these three topics and maybe use them to show how some of these things change. Now, the first one we approach with some fear and trepidation, and that is the second anointing that took place in Nauvoo.

Scott Woodward:
Why do we approach it with such fear and trepidation, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
Because, holy cow, if there’s something that we take more seriously than the temple ordinances, which in our episodes on the temple ordinances, we shared Elder Bednar’s guidelines about what you can and what you shouldn’t talk about when it comes to the temple. The second anointing is maybe even more sacred, and so we had a conversation before we went on air about what’s okay to talk about with this, and here’s a couple of the data points. This is a summary of what our discussion was. The Second Anointing is mentioned in a lot of published sources.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Especially now that the Joseph Smith Papers is available. They talk about it there. It’s also been explored by other historians. Andrew Ehat wrote a great thesis on it that has a number of primary sources that he drew from. We’d also mention a book by our good friend, friend of the show, Dick Bennett, Richard Bennett, who wrote a book called Temples Rising that was published by Deseret Book that we’ve really used as our guide for these episodes. And in the book, which was published by Deseret Book, which is owned by the church, Brother Bennett dealt with the second anointing as well. So using all those things, it felt like it was okay for us to tiptoe into this a little bit, but we’re going to try and err on the side of being cautious because we know how special and how sacred this is. At the same time, this is brought up a lot by my students, and so I’m assuming that there’s a desire to know about this.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. You hear, like, whispers about it, right? Like, people hear, like, the second anointing, or calling an election made sure.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Receiving the second comforter.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Yeah. The more sure word of prophecy.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And the things that are sometimes spoken in whispers by us were just taught openly by Joseph Smith.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
In some ways, that’s where I’ve felt a little more confidence in talking about these things is as I look in Joseph’s sermons, particularly the last year of his life, 2 Peter chapter 1 was huge. It played very prominently with him. And 2 Peter chapter 1 is the only place in our scriptures where you find the phrase, “make your calling and election sure.” And Joseph wanted to expound on that. He invited church members to do everything they could to make their calling and election sure. And again, this is something that sometimes we look left and look right, and we’re not quite sure what we can and should and ought to say, but as we look at Joseph Smith’s priorities at the end of his life, like, this is what he was urging the saints to qualify for. There’s even sections in our Doctrine and Covenants, section 131 we’ll look at today, and section 132, which both refer to this reality that you can actually have your calling and election made sure. And so I think some of it’s cultural taboo, right? And I’m always okay kind of poking at cultural taboo. There are things that we’ve made covenant not to talk about, and second anointing is not one of those.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But we do want to, as you said, talk about it with care, knowing this is very sacred to those who had received it, and we’re going to be following the historical sources carefully, and these are very well-documented, well-established sources.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So where should we start with second anointings?

Casey Griffiths:
Okay, so let’s start by just phrasing it this way: In Nauvoo there’s four temple ordinances. There’s baptism for the dead, there’s the endowment, there’s sealings, and then the second anointing was kind of considered the fourth ordinance. Some of the sources refer to this as, “the crowning ordinance of the fulness of the Melchizedek priesthood.” some preferred to call it the second anointing, or having one’s calling and election made sure, or the more sure word of prophecy. Those are all descriptions of the same ordinance, with the idea that a person could be sealed up unto eternal life.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Now, Joseph Smith introduces this ordinance to a very select audience of believers, which includes his wife, Emma, and nine members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who’d already received their endowment, and most of whom had already entered into eternal marriage. You mentioned this is in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is. It’s mentioned in section 131, which contains instructions Joseph Smith gave in the home of Benjamin and Melissa Johnson.

Scott Woodward:
Well, and then, and the next day, right? You see, like, a little date change at verse five.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
That’s when he’s out preaching about 2 Peter chapter 1.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And William Clayton’s taking notes, and so verses one through four are his notes that he took the previous day in the home of Benjamin Johnson, and then verses five to the end are notes that he took the next day when Joseph was out preaching about this. So this was public. He preached verse five. Do you want to read it? Do you want to talk about it?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was a non-Latter-day-Saint preacher who was there—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
—who wrote an article about Joseph Smith’s sermon and sort of complimented him—

Scott Woodward:
He liked it.

Casey Griffiths:
—on his exegesis of the epistle to Peter. So section 131, verse five, he teaches, and this is in the sermon, “the more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he’s sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and by the spirit of prophecy through the power of the holy priesthood, and so that’s essentially what it means, is it’s a ceremony where a person is sealed up to eternal life.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And by the way, that term, “the more sure word of prophecy,” is a phrase of Peter’s in 2 Peter chapter 1. So this is Joseph—like you said, he’s exegeting here. He’s taking the text, and then he’s expounding on what it means. And so he’s taking scripture and giving it a prophetic interpretation. And that phrase, “through the power of the holy priesthood,” implies an ordinance.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Yeah. And so this starts in September 1843. So we’re looking at the last eight or nine months of Joseph Smith’s life, and the sources indicate that it was intermittently given in the Red Brick Store, that it was administered in the mansion house where Joseph Smith is living the last eight months of his life and Brigham Young’s home and later in the temple. And it was, like we mentioned, a confirmation that a person would receive eternal life provided they stayed faithful.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Can we just talk about the phrase “second anointing”? And by the way, the Joseph Smith Papers points out that the phrase “second anointing” is a favorite of President Wilford Woodruff. He maybe used that more often than most, but, “second anointing” as compared to what—or as following what—and that would just be the initiatory, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
The initiatory is your first anointing, and you’re washed and anointed to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses. And so then the second anointing would be basically making that sure, correct?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
As David O. McKay said, you’re washed and anointed to become a king or queen in the first anointing. It doesn’t mean you actually are, but in this second anointing, it’s basically saying that promise is sure.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Do I understand that the way you understand that?

Casey Griffiths:
Yes. You’re understanding that correct. And the sources indicate that this was practiced—it was initiated by Joseph Smith, then was continued by Brigham Young. Like, this is the connection Richard Bennett makes. I’m going to quote a little bit from his book. He says, “This second comforter ordinance was particularly sought after in light of the imminent challenges and formidable difficulties many foresaw in the months coming ahead. Those who were sick and dying sensed they might not live to see the Rocky Mountains, or that their spouse would never survive the ordeal. This priesthood ordinance was therefore often given for comfort and hope. While Joseph Smith initiated this ordinance, Brigham Young multiplied the numbers who received it as the spiritual preparation for the physical demands of the pending exodus. Thus the temple, because of all its saving ordinances, became their great comforter, preparer, fortifier, and guarantor in light of the pending exodus. So you’re in Nauvoo, where you’re already dealing with death all the time. We talked about this last time. Now you’re getting ready to leave the edge of civilization and go into the wilderness. These ordinances were meant to assure them, hey, no matter what happens, you’re going to be okay. Your spouse is going to be okay. You’ve received this promise of eternal life. To quote one source from the time, Truman O. Angell, who you’ll remember as a famous architect of many of the temples built by the early church, said, “I received my endowments in the attic of the temple, together with Polly, my wife, and afterward our sealing and second anointings, which far excelled any previous enjoyments of my life up to that time.”

Scott Woodward:
Mm. That’s a great source. And I’ll share just a few more from that time period. Like, here’s one from January 14, 1844. This is about Brigham and Mary Ann Young’s own experience, written in his history. He says, “Preached in the city. In the evening attended prayer meeting at the assembly room. My wife Mary Ann and I received our second anointing.” January 20, 1844: “Met with the quorum.” This is still Brigham Young’s manuscript. Heber C. Kimball and his wife Vilate received their second anointing.” January 27, 1844: “We met at the assembly room. Willard Richards and his wife Jeanetta were sealed and received their second anointing. The very next day Wilford Woodruff and his wife, Phoebe W., were sealed and received their second anointing. Two days later the quorum met at my house. John and Leonora Taylor were sealed and anointed.” And these are all people whose names we recognize, but there’s others, too. For instance, this is from the experience in the life of Rhoda Ann Fullmer. This is found in BYU Special Collections today. It says, “On the 19th of January, 1846,” so this would be under Brigham Young’s administration, “in the Temple of the Lord at Nauvoo, we received our second anointing.” Here’s another one from Norton Jacob. It says, “Friday, 6th of February, 1846. The endowments were continued in the evening. About 11 o’clock I, with my wife, Emily, received my second anointing.”

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. This is, like I said, administered in large numbers in Nauvoo, especially as they’re getting ready for the Exodus, but we should mention, I don’t think we would consider this an essential ordinance of the gospel. Is that correct to say? Like, when it comes to essential ordinances listed in the handbook of the church, second anointing isn’t one of them.

Scott Woodward:
Doesn’t make that list, no.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
However, here’s a quote from Joseph F. Smith. This is in Anthony W. Ivan’s journal. 8th of April 1901. And he recorded Joseph F. Smith as saying the following: “No man receives a fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood ’til he has received his second anointing. Men recommended for this sacred ordinance should be men of God whose faith and integrity are unquestioned.” And then his son, Joseph Fielding Smith, said, “There is no exaltation in the kingdom of God without the fullness of priesthood.” So Joseph F. Smith saying there’s no fullness of priesthood without receiving the second anointing, and his son is saying no kingdom of God without the fullness of the priesthood. Now, does that mean that we must receive that in this life? I think no. I feel strongly, no. As we think about all the ordinances, you can say that with every ordinance, can’t you? Like—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—do you have to be baptized in this life in order to be saved? And every Latter-day Saint who’s worth their salt would say, no, you don’t have to receive that in this life. We can receive that for the dead, right? Now, I don’t know that second anointing would be something that we would receive for the dead. There has been a time where that was practiced in the church. But I like this thought better from Elder McConkie. Elder McConkie was talking about this in his book, The Millennial Messiah, page 683. He says this, speaking about the millennial day. He said, “Men will know God in the millennial day because they see him. He will teach them face to face. They will receive the second comforter. The millennial day is the day of the second comforter.” And then he says, “Any person who today abides the laws that will be kept during the Millennium will receive here and now the spirit and blessings of the Millennium in his life even though he’s surrounded by a world of sin and evil.” I like this idea of the millennial day being the day of the second comforter, which by the way, that’s a phrase we haven’t talked about either. Second comforter implies there’s a first comforter, right? First comforter being the personage of the Holy Ghost, second comforter being the personage of Christ himself, as Joseph taught. That when somebody proves themselves that they will, under all circumstances keep God’s commandments, “at all hazards,” I think is his phrase. “Then the Lord himself will say to that man, ‘Son, thou shalt be exalted.’ Then it is his privilege to receive the second comforter, which is that the Father and the Son will take up their abode with them and show him the visions of eternity and give them great revelations, etc., etc.” And he says this is—this was the case with many in ancient times, like Isaiah and others. And so the Millennium is the day of the second comforter, or in other words, if you are alive in the millennial day when Christ comes, or you are resurrected in the morning of the first resurrection when Christ comes, then you are in the presence of Jesus. Your calling and election has therefore been made sure.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
The Millennium is not a probationary period in the same sense that we’re in today, right? And so I like this idea that the Millennium would be the day in which whether you receive that ordinance in this life or not, if you make it to the millennial day you, for all intents and purposes, Casey, you’ve had your calling and election made sure. You’ve become a king and a queen, a priest and a priestess to rule and reign with Jesus when he comes here. That’s what the second anointing was all about anyways, right? Was pointing people toward that day and saying that you will reign with Jesus when he comes again.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So whether there’s going to be an ordinance in the Millennium or not, I don’t know, but the fact that no church leaders are teaching that this is something we need to receive, the fact that, you know, I haven’t seen, heard, read church leaders emphasizing this at all, not for the living and not for the dead, and so taking my cues from our church leaders today, I feel pretty confident in saying this is not an ordinance that is essential for salvation.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. I guess we’d say don’t worry too much about it. For me, it’s that in the handbook of the church, it directly—there’s a page that just flat out says, here’s the essential ordinances for salvation. Here’s other ordinances that we perform just to bless and help people. This one isn’t mentioned there.

Scott Woodward:
Not on the list.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s either not essential, or I take Elder McConkie’s statement to mean it’s something that will be administered during the Millennium. Either way, don’t worry about it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
That does lead us to something that we need to address, which is, does this still take place in the church today? There are some sources that indicate yes, but it’s considered to be so sacred that it’s not mentioned very much. You brought up Bruce R. McConkie, so I’m going to mention my McConkie experience, which was with his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie. Brother McConkie, who’s one of my favorite teachers, he’s passed away now, but this guy was generally willing to talk about just about anything. And so when I was a master’s student, I went to him and said, “Hey, what do you know about the second anointing?” And I remember him very distinctly in his McConkie-an voice saying, “I know that those who know don’t tell, and those who tell don’t know,” and I was like, “Cool. Um, so tell me a little bit more.” And he was like, “Those who know don’t tell, and those who tell don’t know.” And I tried one more time, and he just, “Those who know don’t tell, and those who tell don’t know.” And I was like, “Okay, thanks.” And so . . .

Scott Woodward:
Got your answer?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. That was him basically saying, like, here’s what the scriptures say. Beyond that, it’s not comfortable for me to talk about it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. I’ve heard various versions of that “Those who know don’t tell, and those who tell don’t know,” line over the years, but what’s interesting to me is that that attitude and approach about the second anointing seems like a later development in church culture. Like, it’s interesting how openly this was talked about and recorded early on.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Like, let me give you an example. It used to be the case that in order to get a temple recommend, you would be interviewed by an apostle.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Like, that’s how small the church was at that time. But in Wilford Woodruff’s day, when the presidency was Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith, they sent out a letter to all stake presidents and bishops saying that we’re going to change that. They say, “It’s been decided that it’s no longer necessary for those going to the temples to send their recommends to President Woodruff to be by him endorsed. The signatures of the bishop and stake president will be all that is required.” And then it says, “This decision applies to all ordinances attended to in the house of the Lord except second anointings, which will still require the approval of the President of the Church before they can be administered. Dear Brethren, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith.” And you can find that in Messages of the First Presidency, Volume 3, page 228. I mean, this is in a message to church leaders.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
They were just kind of talking about it. There’s a genealogical and historical magazine of the Arizona Temple District back in the 1930s that used to just publish the statistics on second anointings. How many people that year had received second anointings? This was talked about more normally. The point I’m kind of driving at here, Casey, is this was talked about. It was recorded. It was mentioned in family circles. Nobody felt like “those who know don’t tell.”

Casey Griffiths:
“And those who tell don’t know.”

Scott Woodward:
You know, somehow that has developed into our day, and I don’t know 100 percent why that came about, but originally it was just kind of quietly, sacredly recorded in their journals that they had received the promise of eternal life. Now, that doesn’t mean that they could just go be scoundrels after they received that. It is possible to fall from grace.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But the point was that they’d been promised that they would be exalted as they continued faithful.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So to summarize a response to that question, we just don’t have the sources to say for sure one way or another whether or not this ordinance continues to this day. We can document that it continued well into the 20th century, but then the sources taper off, you know? Until today it’s only spoken of in whispers. It’s shrouded in mystery and wrapped in that wink-wink phrase, “Those who know don’t tell, and those who tell don’t know.” So all we can say we know for sure from the historical record is that it begins in late Nauvoo and continues well into the 20th century.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But boy, what a sacred ordinance, and how beautiful a promise.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And I want to say, like we said, this is talked about in Nauvoo and talked about and recorded extensively. And we should mention, too, that just like plural marriage and plural sealings, this was controversial. There were some people that did not like this idea of being sealed up to eternal life. For instance, some of the people who were part of these circles, people like William Law—

Scott Woodward:
He was in the First Presidency.

Casey Griffiths:
He’s in the First Presidency—are excommunicated and then publish the Nauvoo Expositor, and one of the charges they make against Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Expositor is linked to this idea. For instance, the Expositor charged that Joseph, Hyrum, and other church leaders had, “introduced false and damnable doctrines into the church, such as a plurality of gods above the god of the universe, his liability to fall with his creations, the plurality of wives for time and eternity, the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life against all crimes except that of the shedding of innocent blood.” And I’ve got to say, some of that is accurate, but a lot of it is distorted, especially this charge that you can be sealed up to eternal life against all crimes except shedding of innocent blood. And this is probably a misunderstanding of section 132, verse 26, specifically. Section 132, verse 26 reads as follows: “Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant, whatever, in all manner of blasphemies, if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection and enter into their exaltation, but they shall be destroyed in the flesh and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord.” Now, later on Joseph Fielding Smith, this is the prophet in the 1970s, addresses this question by saying verse 26, section 132, is the most abused passage in any scripture, which feels like a bold claim.

Scott Woodward:
Because what? Because it sounds like you’re saying all you have to do is get married in the temple, and then you can do whatever you want?

Casey Griffiths:
Anything except shed innocent blood, which is what the Expositor is charging them with.

Scott Woodward:
And by the way, William Law hated D&C 132.

Casey Griffiths:
He did.

Scott Woodward:
Right? This is one of the reasons he’s out of the church. And so not surprisingly, he’s taking shots at it.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So Joseph Fielding Smith says it’s the most abused passage in any scripture, and then he says, “The Lord has never promised any soul that he may be taken into exaltation without the spirit of repentance. While repentance is not stated in this passage, yet it is and must be implied. It’s strange to me that everyone knows about verse 26, but it seems they’ve never read Matthew 12:31-32, where the Lord says the same thing in substance as we find in verse 26, 132.” Just as an aside, Matthew 12:31-32 reads, “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, and whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” So Joseph Fielding Smith is saying this passage in Matthew essentially says the same thing, that you can be forgiven of anything except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. That doesn’t imply that you can get away with anything. It’s said, implying that you have to have the spirit of repentance. Then Joseph Fielding Smith goes on to say, “So we must conclude that those spoken of in verse 26 are those who, having sinned, have fully repented and are willing to pay the price of their sinning, else the blessings of exaltation will not follow. Repentance is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness, and the person having sinned must be cleansed.” So this seems to say to me that the basic idea is you can be sealed up to eternal life, but it’s implying that you’re not perfect, that you’re going to continue to repent and strive to be better, and if you do that, then you gain exaltation and eternal life. I think the people that wrote the Nauvoo Expositor were way off when they charged this as blasphemy.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, because they continued to claim that they were very, very Christian, right? And I think that cross-reference to Matthew 12:31-32 is something that every Christian must wrestle with, too. If you claim to be a Christian, then you claim to believe what Jesus is saying in Matthew 12, which is basically repeated and echoed in D&C 132:26. So that’s a really good point. And I don’t think they were being that careful. I think they were just doing what people did in the New Testament with Jesus, trying to find a way to trick Him or find a way to smear Him, right? And that’s what they’re doing with the Nauvoo Expositor there. They’re not seeking truth. They are trying to, I think they said in their own words, “explode the principles of Joseph Smith.” They were trying to just, you know, grind him to the dust.

Casey Griffiths:
The people that wrote the Nauvoo Expositor wanted Joseph dead. And I one time had a student ask, how come Joseph didn’t just teach all this publicly? And I’m like, because if he taught it publicly, he’d get killed.

Scott Woodward:
Even earlier.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. The Nauvoo Expositor makes these charges. Twenty days later, Joseph Smith is dead. So there was good reason to share these with known and trusted associates because they could be easily misunderstood. And by the way, the larger question of why didn’t Joseph Smith just put all this together—it seems like he was trying to, but it was difficult. Like, six months before Joseph Smith dies, he gives this discourse. In the discourse, here’s what he says: he says, “The question is frequently asked, can we not be saved without going through all these ordinances? I would answer no, not the fullness of salvation, but there has been great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It’s been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn dodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the saints are slow to understand. I’ve tried for a number of years to get the minds of the saints prepared to receive the things of God, but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that’s contrary to their traditions. They cannot stand the fire at all. That’s many are called, but few are chosen.”

Scott Woodward:
He sounds a little frustrated.

Casey Griffiths:
A little—I’m trying, you know—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
—but I’ve got to go line upon line and give it as soon as people are prepared, but sometimes people fly off the handle when something goes contrary to their traditions that are given.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So there is a group of people that he does trust, and he is giving this ordinance to, is sealing them up into eternal life, and enemies of Joseph be damned. Like, he’s doing it, and it’s happening.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
By the way, I think it’s important to note that in all the cases that I read, all the examples from the journals and the one that you read from Truman O. Angell, it should be obvious, but I think we should just say it out loud: It was always couples together. It’s always husband and wife receiving this together, and it’s people who had already been, we would call them temple married, right? People who got temple married, sealed in that way, then later are getting this final ordinance, having their calling and election made sure, or receiving the more sure word of prophecy. In fact, let me share from Joseph Smith’s own journal for the 28th of September 1843. That’s where he records that he and Emma together received the anointing and ordination “of the highest and holiest order of the priesthood.” So that’s the 28th of September 1843. It’s important to know that they were actually temple married earlier that year on the 28th of May 1843. So there was another ordinance after they were temple married, which was the receiving, in his words, of the highest and holiest order of the priesthood. That’s this fullness of the priesthood that D&C 124 was talking about. That’s the purpose of the temple, is to help qualify us for the fullness of the priesthood, to be part of that eternal order of the gods, right? That Celestial Kingdom group. And that’s exactly what’s going on here. So it’s always as couples. It’s not individuals. As Elder McConkie would explain later, he says, “Making your calling and election sure comes after and grows out of celestial marriage.” I think that’s super important to note, and that is borne out in the historical record.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Let’s talk about another thing that was introduced in Nauvoo that not a lot of people are familiar with but was very, very important to the members of the church for a period of time, and this is what’s referred to as the law of adoption. The law of adoption, which essentially allowed sealings to non-biological parents, creating new families among the converts that existed in Nauvoo. Now, this practice was eventually discontinued, and we’re going to talk about that, but it was a big thing in Nauvoo and during the exodus particularly. So again, members of the Church today are comfortable with vicarious ordinances for their ancestors, baptism, sealings, endowments, but adoptive sealings, or adoptive sealings to non-biological parents, is something people don’t know a ton about.

Scott Woodward:
Now, this is not the same thing as saying, like, someone gets adopted today. Let’s say a couple can’t have children, so they adopt a baby, and then that child is sealed to them. That’s not what you’re talking about here, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Help us see how that’s not the same thing as what they were doing back in that day, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
So this would be a little bit different, where prior to 1877, prior to the dedication of the St. George Temple, there’s no endowments done for the dead, and in the absence of this, members both living and dead were occasionally sealed not to their ancestors but to a church leader, usually a prophet or apostle, people who held priesthood keys, and these were sometimes referred to as spiritual adoptions, or more simply just “the law of adoption.” Now, this was later discontinued for some obvious reasons, but during the late Nauvoo period, and especially at Winter Quarters, it was carried out. Dick Bennett describes it this way: “To quote Brigham Young, it served as a schoolmaster or a pointer or a stepping stone to tying or linking ancestral families together in one perfect chain of family salvation from modern day times back to Adam and Eve.” So Joseph Smith, when he introduces baptism for the dead, implies that there could be some kind of link that bridges multi generations back through time, but he doesn’t elaborate exactly on how this chain is going to be put together. And after his death, some of the apostles assumed that you could create a new family, that you could go to someone, even, like, a faithful male member—like, this is a total shocker when I share it in class, but one of my ancestors, my great-great-great-great-uncle, was sealed to Brigham Young. He was sealed to Brigham Young as his son, essentially. You could go to someone and say, “I love you. I love you as more than a friend. I’d like to bring you into my family and have you sealed to me as a family member,” if that makes sense.

Scott Woodward:
So it’s not a romantic kind of a love. This is the really strong, deep familial love, wanting to connect our families together in some way.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And it wasn’t really like neighbor A adopting neighbor B. It was more like neighbor A wanting to join the family of a prominent general authority, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Generally it was an apostle or a prophet. It was basically trying to hitch your wagon to that of somebody that you were pretty darn sure was going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom and that somehow that would maybe enhance your chances of making it to the Celestial Kingdom.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Okay now, so what do we know about the prevalence of these kinds of adoptive sealings? And am I getting this right? Weren’t the majority of these mostly people getting adopted to apostles?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So the numbers that we have indicate that about 211 of these adoptions occurred in Nauvoo before the Saints leave to go west, and some others are performed in Winter Quarters in Salt Lake City, and the stats that we have, this is from Richard Bennett’s book, indicate that about 74 percent of all Nauvoo adoptions were to church apostles. For example, Thomas Bullock, who’s the clerk to the Twelve and the Council of Fifty, was sealed as an adopted son of Willard Richards in the Nauvoo Temple just ten days before the exodus began, and he even, like, in the records changed his name to Thomas Bullock Richards. Other examples, John D. Lee, who is famous for other reasons.

Scott Woodward:
Infamous.

Casey Griffiths:
Infamous—became part of Brigham Young’s family, and in turn, John D. Lee had people sealed to him. Like he records in January 1846, “After speaking freely upon the law of adoption, I accepted James Woolsey and Savina, his wife, into my family by the law of adoption. And this happened among hundreds of people. Like, still in Nauvoo people were grafted, sometimes that’s the term that was used, into Joseph Smith, Brigham Young’s, some other legal family, becoming legal heirs to the covenant blessings. And so other church authorities that practiced law of adoption included Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, Amasa Lyman, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, John Smith, Samuel Bent, Albert P. Rockwood, and Newel K. Whitney. We have about 320 men and women, some of whom were deceased, and many with their children, that were adopted into Brigham Young’s family, for instance, between 1847 and 1854. And so the idea was you’re sealed into this family, and it creates kind of this connection that goes deeper than just we’re part of the same church. It’s almost like we’re part of the same family. And that becomes a big deal, especially in the face of this idea of uncertain future. You’re going into the wilderness. You don’t know where your home is going to be or if you’re going to survive the trek. I’m sealed into this family that makes a connection. And that was often how they talked about it, was we’re creating this great chain of righteous people that will connect eventually back to Adam and then from Adam connect to God.

Scott Woodward:
And when I hear discussions about this, I often get the sense that people want to pin this on Brigham Young, like this is an innovation of Brigham Young, which, if it was, would be fine because he had the keys of the sealing power.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
He’s got the LEGOs, and so he can get there a different way or whatever, but—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—upon further inquiry it’s pretty clear that Joseph Smith was also doing this, right? You and I have talked about how Joseph and Emma invited Jane Manning James to be adopted to them as a daughter, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
She’s a full-grown adult woman. And so whether it was practiced broadly or not in Joseph’s day, like, the historical record doesn’t say much about broadly, but there is evidence that this is something that Joseph taught, right? And so the exodus out of Nauvoo and when this is practiced at its peak seems to have been basically taking the seed that Joseph Smith planted and growing it for the next several decades rather than being an innovation of Brigham Young.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. That Jane Manning James quote is in her autobiography, which you can access on the Church History Library site. And she does mention, she says, Sister Emma came to me and asked if I would like to be adopted to them as their child.

Scott Woodward:
Uses the word adopted.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And Jane says no because, she said, I didn’t understand what she meant, precisely, which fits exactly with Emma’s general feeling in Nauvoo, where she saw this stuff as good, but she was a little tentative about it, and it’s carried on by Brigham Young and others. So when you get to Winter Quarters, and death is even more prominent—I mean, the stats right now are about 1 in 12 of the people at Winter Quarters pass away—this idea of, let’s make sure everybody’s connected to the sealing power that lasts on both sides of the veil, becomes even more prominent. Like, Brigham Young gives a discourse there where he says, “There must be a connection from Adam to the last man born of woman, the same as in the priesthood in eternity. If men are not saved together, they cannot be saved at all. The priesthood must be connected.” So he saw this as a pattern.

Scott Woodward:
And that’s, like, textbook Joseph Smith—

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—theology right there, right? That’s what we’ve been talking about: this restoration of the priesthood. Everyone’s got to be connected to the priesthood, everyone back to Adam, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So he is, again, picking up that thread from Joseph Smith and trying to figure out what that might look like in their condition at that time, and this law of adoption got the job done.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And in the church today we’d use pretty much the same language, but we’d just be describing a connection to our ancestors.

Scott Woodward:
Ancestors. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. In the early church they’d probably be more prone to say connection to our loved ones, to the people that we care most about, the relationships that are most meaningful to us.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, and maybe we should highlight the fact that there was a sense of uncertainty and doubt as to whether or not their ancestors would accept the gospel if offered it. They don’t want to roll the dice and seal themselves back to their ancestors who did not have the gospel, and who knows if they would ever receive it.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It’s a more sure bet to get sealed to someone that you know is faithful, like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff. Like, doesn’t that increase your chances of salvation? I mean, you’re kind of hedging your bets on the living general authorities rather than your random dead ancestors, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, you can see how it could easily become problematic because you’re like, hey, Grandpa, you’re just not as safe a bet as Brigham Young is, or something like that.

Scott Woodward:
There was even that feeling doing baptisms for the dead, that you should only get baptized for those who you’re pretty sure would accept the gospel.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
You know, earlier on, there was that kind of a vibe, where today, you know, prophets would say, uh, no. We’re just going to do it for everybody. We believe that people can change, and even if they were just an old curmudgeon in this life, like, who knows what’s happening in the Spirit World? Let’s do the ordinances for everybody. Let’s connect the whole human family back through time with this sealing power and give everyone a chance to opt in or opt out.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But what’s crazy is in Nauvoo some of the church members were making that decision themselves on behalf of their ancestors. Like, “Eh, I don’t think you would have accepted it in this life, so we’re just going to bypass that.” And of course that gets fixed later, but . . .

Casey Griffiths:
You could see easily how this would be problematic, and that’s part of the reason why it continues for several decades, but in 1894 Wilford Woodruff receives a revelation that essentially ends the law of adoption and shifts—like, Richard Bennett says that this 1894 revelation that ends the law of adoption is probably as important as the revelation that ends plural marriage, Official Declaration 1, but that it’s less appreciated because the law of adoption has essentially been replaced in the church by this emphasis on genealogy and family history, which is as it should be, but it just goes to show that they’re taking these principles and powers out for a test drive. They haven’t got everything figured out, and this is one interesting iteration. Now, I think you actually have the 1894 revelation in front of you, correct? You want to read part of it?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I do. Yeah. In fact, it’s a fantastic talk. It’s momentous. Like you said, this is one of the key moments of the Restoration.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Read the whole thing. This is good, good stuff.

Scott Woodward:
I won’t read the whole talk, but I’ll read a chunk of a quote. So this is in the moment that he’s announcing this, and, again, the reference here is 64th Annual General Conference of the Church. This is Sunday morning, April 8th, 1894. So this is, like, as mainstream as it gets, right? He announces to the church, he’s been talking about adoption sealings, and he says this: “President Young was not satisfied in his mind with regard to the extent of this matter. President Taylor was not. When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to,” And then he, in parentheses, says, “(we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, ’Have you not a father who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have,’ I said. ‘Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I. ‘That is ’ I was adopted to my father.” He uses that language, adopted. Adopted would be sealed, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
“I was adopted to my father and should have had my father sealed to his father and so on back, and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see perform from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father, not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples and these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind.” But then he says, “What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man?” That’s interesting, that these horizontal sealings are in some ways robbing the vertical lineage of people. “What right has any man to do this? No, I say let every man be adopted to his father, and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared that he would send Elijah the prophet in the last days. Elijah the prophet appeared to Joseph Smith and told him that the day had come when this principle must be carried out. Joseph Smith did not live long enough to enter any further upon these things. His soul was wound up with this work before he was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. He told us that there must be a welding link of all dispensations and of the work of God from one generation to another. This was upon his mind more than most any other subject that was given to him, and in my prayers the Lord revealed to me that it was my duty to say to all of Israel to carry this principle out. And in fulfillment of that revelation, I lay it before this people.” BAM.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s pretty good.

Scott Woodward:
That’s pretty good, right? So let’s pick up what Joseph Smith taught. Let’s actually implement what the prophet Joseph was working on when he died. There’s been some innovation between Joseph Smith and us today. Let’s go back to the Joseph Smith model right here.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Speaking of this moment, President Packer once commented, he said, “In the early days of the church, the saints didn’t know how to use this sealing power on behalf of the dead.” He just says they didn’t know how to use it. He says, “Similarly, it took time for the Saints to understand the matter of sealings. They knew that there was a sealing, yet they didn’t know quite what it was, so they began getting themselves sealed to living prophets. And then in the April 1894, this changed. President Woodruff explained the changes. And that’s,” he says, “when we got the lineage straightened out and we knew what this sealing of families was all about.” So President Packer just says they didn’t really actually know what they were doing until 1894. We got that all figured out.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s great, because President Packer is illustrating the same point we’re trying to make, which is this was a learning process.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
But that 1894 revelation really does sort of change the direction from being sealed to a prominent church leader to seeking out, finding your ancestors and creating the chain with them.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
So we’ve got one more practice, and we’re—we might have to do this one fairly quickly, but it bleeds over well into what we’re going to talk about next week.

Scott Woodward:
Okay. Practice number three.

Casey Griffiths:
Practice number three. In Nauvoo they established prayer circles, and prayer circles are currently part of the endowment performed in modern-day temples, but these prayer circles, which utilized some of the same procedures used in the temple, actually took place separately from the endowment and were often carried out in private homes. For instance, this is a quote that is actually in the published history of the church. It reads, “28th September 1843, at half past eleven, a council convened over the store,” this is the Red Brick Store, “consisting of myself, my brother Hyrum, Uncle John Smith, Newel K. Whitney, George Miller, Willard Richards, John Taylor, Amasa Lyman, John and Bern Heisel, Lucian Woodworth. At seven in the evening we met in the front upper room of the mansion with William Law and William Marks. By the common consent and unanimous voice of the council, I was chosen president of the special council. The president led in prayer that his days might be prolonged until the mission on earth is accomplished and have dominions over his enemies and all their households and be blessed in all the church in the world.” So this is describing a prayer circle. Took place outside the Nauvoo Temple. We have records of these happening also in the Mansion House, the Red Brick Store, the Joseph Smith Homestead, and Brigham Young’s home, and these prayer circles regularly took place outside the temple, but following the temple liturgy that you might be familiar with. In fact, some people might be surprised to know how long this persisted. Like, any guesses as to when prayer circles outside the temple ended?

Scott Woodward:
Well, I’ve heard, Casey, that there are some church buildings in Utah that are old enough to have had an altar in them in a kind of a side, tucked-away room, where church leaders would get in their temple robes—this is a church building.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—and then do prayer circles in their temple robes around an altar.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So I don’t know when it ended. When did it end? How late are we talking?

Casey Griffiths:
Not just Utah, by the way, but Malad, Idaho.

Scott Woodward:
Whoa.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. There’s a building that had this kind of facility. And it actually doesn’t end until 1978—

Scott Woodward:
Whoa.

Casey Griffiths:
—so well into the 20th century.

Scott Woodward:
Wow.

Casey Griffiths:
This is another one of those things that kind of illuminates some of the history we know. For instance, there’s mention during the 1847 trek west that on several occasions the people in that vanguard company took out their temple clothes, dressed in their temple clothes, and conducted a prayer circle there on the plains. The most famous instance is when they’re getting close to the Salt Lake Valley and Brigham Young gets really sick. He was bitten by a tick, and he came down with Rocky Mountain Fever. Some of the men in the Vanguard company dressed in their temple robes and performed a prayer circle to help—to pray that Brigham Young would be healed of what was going on. And so this continues, like we said, until the First Presidency sends out a circular to all priesthood leaders for prayer circles outside the temple to be discontinued. And so, I mean, this is one of those things that we don’t always pick up on, but sometimes these prayer circles happened in church settings. Sometimes they happened in family settings. I stumbled across an oral history when I was doing research of a man who was part of the John Taylor family prayer circle, which—he was entrusted with the records and conducting this prayer circle. One description of a prayer circle that was held in the Salt Lake Stake reads, “At 6:30 a. m. on the first Sunday of each month, the stake presidency, high council, patriarch, stake clerks, and selected bishoprics and quorum leaders met in the sealing room of the Salt Lake Temple, dressed in temple clothing. Circle members sang, prayed, bore testimonies, and listened to brief sermons. Led by the stake president, the group would then stand together in a large circle and rehearse parts of the endowment ceremony. A prayer roll would be placed on an altar, and a prayer would be offered in behalf of the stake’s needy and afflicted,” which is kind of cool, right? I mean—

Scott Woodward:
Wow.

Casey Griffiths:
—I really like that, and it sort of surprised me that it took place outside of the temple, but apparently it happened in places like Ensign Peak and Salt Lake City. Brigham Young conducted weekly prayer circles with the Apostles and other church leaders, and it mentions that the Salt Lake Stake prayer circle met continuously from 1887 until 1978, when it was discontinued. And yes, in some of my research, Malad, Idaho has a building called the Prayer Circle Building. I think it’s just a church building.

Scott Woodward:
It’s called the Prayer Circle Building. Okay. That’s not very subtle.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s what one of the online sources described it as.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So this is another example of the flexibility of the temple ordinances. I mean, I was born in 1978. That year that I was born there were still prayer circles happening outside the temple, which today is something we’re very much accustomed to only seeing happen within the temple. Now, part of this could have been just the simple fact that there weren’t a lot of temples to begin with. If you wanted to be in a prayer circle, it might have been harder to go to the temple. Now there’s tons of temples all over the place, and it’s easier to participate in one.

Scott Woodward:
But today you can’t actually just call a prayer circle at the temple, right? Like, you need to participate in it as a subsection of the endowment ceremony. There is no, “Let’s go do a prayer circle” kind of a thing that you can do today. So that is an important distinction, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And, I mean, in reading through some of these sources, I was really touched. I love prayer circles first for the reason that you can go to the temple and leave a name, someone in your ward, one of your children, that’s struggling, and they’ll pray over them. One of the sources in Nauvoo indicated that in Joseph Smith’s prayer circle they were praying for William Marks because his daughter was sick, and at this time William Marks was fairly antagonistic towards Joseph Smith because he didn’t like some of the temple innovations that were introduced. I was pretty touched to see that they were praying for someone who was actively fighting against them, but it illustrates that “pray for your enemies and those that despitefully use you” kind of thing. So let’s sum up: We’ve got second anointings.

Scott Woodward:
Yep.

Casey Griffiths:
We’ve got the law of adoption. That’s been discontinued. And we’ve got prayer circles, which continue today in temples as part of the endowment ceremony but were discontinued outside of the temple in 1978. And so this is setting us up for the next discussion, which is the pattern for temple worship was laid down in Nauvoo, the full pattern, but it continues to be innovated and changed and updated after. They’re carried out by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and others, and I would say probably the temple where everything comes together actually is not the Kirtland or the Nauvoo Temple: it’s the St. George Temple. And that’s where we’ve got to take the story next time. We’ve got to talk about the third critical historic temple in the church, which is the St. George Temple.

Scott Woodward:
That sounds exciting. So we’ll pick that story up next week.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay.

Scott Woodward:
Thank you, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Thank you, Scott. Until next time.

Scott Woodward:
We’ll see you. Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. Next week the saga continues as Casey and I trace the story of the development and implementation of temple practice once the church is established in Utah, including the intriguing details of how temple ordinances were authorized and conducted during the thirty-year interim when the saints had no temple. If you’re enjoying Church History Matters, we’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Also, we’d love to hear your suggestions for future series on this podcast, so if there’s a church history topic you think would be worth exploring for multiple episodes, send us your idea to podcasts@scripturecentral.org. We promise to consider all suggestions. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Nick Galieti and Scott Woodward, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. And while we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.