Scott Woodward:
What do we know about the purposes and function of the Holy of Holies? And do all temples have one? Also, has the Church’s teachings on wearing garments changed over time? And is there anything doctrinal about the length of garments? Since the garment length has changed in the past to accommodate changes in modern clothing styles, could we expect them to change again as styles continue to change? Furthermore, how do we reconcile examples of clear covenantal changes in the endowment ceremony with the common narrative that the covenants don’t change? Today on Church History Matters, we sit down with Dr. Richard Bennett, one of the world’s foremost scholars on LDS temple development during the 19th century, to discuss these and other great questions. And by the way, we apologize in advance for some difficulties with the audio recording of Dr. Bennett. For whatever reason, several times during this interview, his audio didn’t record properly, and so it was, sadly, unusable. But we hope you’ll enjoy what we were able to capture from the responses of this great Latter-day Saint scholar. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and this is our final episode in this series about the development of Latter-day Saint temple worship.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Hi, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s the end of a series we’ve really been enjoying today, and we have a special guest with us, so this is kind of a wonderful day for us.

Scott Woodward:
Yes, a wonderful way to end a really important series. This has been fun to talk about temples together, and we’ve been drawing heavily from one particular scholar’s research. We’ve looked at several, but one particular scholar is Richard Bennett, and we have him with us today. Say hi, Richard.

Richard Bennett:
Howdy.

Scott Woodward:
I’m so glad you’re with us.

Richard Bennett:
I’m glad to be with you.

Scott Woodward:
Excellent.

Casey Griffiths:
Richard is a eminent scholar, and we worked together. In fact, I think you were the department chair when I got hired, and . . .

Richard Bennett:
I had a hand in your hiring, Casey. I hope you won’t forget that.

Casey Griffiths:
I will eternally be in your debt. And before that, I just want to mention that Richard was one of my professors in my master’s program. He taught the church history class. And just absolutely love the way that you teach and how respectful and kind you were to all the people. You used to bring in special guests, and I just learned a lot from the way that you treat people, so this is my chance to say thanks for all you’ve done.

Richard Bennett:
Well, you are one of my best students, Casey, so it’s good to be with you again.

Casey Griffiths:
Did you get that?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. We just got that recorded, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Let’s get that out to the public.

Richard Bennett:
I can always retract it, you know.

Casey Griffiths:
We hope you won’t. We hope you won’t. But we have a ton of questions. Our listeners got really into this series, and one of the questions asked was, what book do you keep referencing? And we’ve been pretty open in saying we took a lot of this from a book you wrote, so I’m going to share the name of the book and then the bio from the book, and Richard, you can feel free to add or take away anything you’d like to. So the book is called Temples Rising: A Heritage of Sacrifice. It’s published by Deseret Book, and here is your bio: Richard E. Bennett is an emeritus professor of church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. He has served both as an Associate Dean of Religious Education and as Chair of the Department of Church History and Doctrine. He was born in Ontario, Canada, holds a Ph. D. in American Intellectual History from Wayne State University. Before joining the BYU faculty in 1997, he was head of the Department of Archives and Special Collections at the University of Manitoba for twenty years. He’s the author of a number of books, including School of the Prophet, Mormons at the Missouri, and We’ll Find the Place: The Mormon Exodus, and he and his wife, Patricia, are the parents of five children. And I’ll just add one thing to that, too: Richard, you just returned from a stint serving as the president of the Mormon Trail Center in Omaha, Nebraska, correct?

Richard Bennett:
That’s right. Winter Quarters.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, Winter Quarters.

Richard Bennett:
It was a wonderful two-year mission assignment. My wife and I finished that last February, a year ago last February. It was a very rich experience to be there with the pioneers, if you will.

Casey Griffiths:
And I got to come and visit you while you were there with the Scripture Central crew. There’s a nice video of Richard explaining the history of Winter Quarters on YouTube, if you want to go look it up, where you can see Richard in person and match a face with the name and see how good he is. Because pretty much all we did was turn on the cameras and let you go, and it was wonderful. Just a really, really neat experience.

Richard Bennett:
Great times. Great times.

Scott Woodward:
Now, Richard, before we dive into specific questions from our listeners, I was just curious: What brought you to write this book on temples?

Richard Bennett:
I was hoping you would ask that question. It’s a good segue to everything else.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
I wrote this book as a sequel to my research on the Mormon exodus. My other two books, Mormons at the Missouri, I think it was back in 1987, followed by We’ll Find the Place. Since I was a kid, when I was 10 years old, with my parents, we crossed on the Mormon Trail all the way west, and it was ingrained in me as a young man, as a boy, the importance of the Mormon exodus and the Mormon Trail, and so it just kind of grew up in me, inside of me, this abiding interest and growing interest in the whole story. And so I noticed, as I was writing the story of the exodus, the place of temples and the place of temple worship during this exodus. I’d always thought, and I think most Latter-day Saints would think the same way, that we’d jump from the Nauvoo Temple clear over to Utah, to one of the temples there, maybe the Salt Lake Temple, and that everything—nothing really happened in between those bookends. Well, that’s not so. It’s a constant development of temple consciousness amongst the Latter-day Saints that really even goes back to Kirtland. And I watched how Brigham Young not just adopted, but adapted temple worship in the minds of the saints as they were heading west, and particularly—and notice this—in Winter Quarters, which is now, of course, part of Omaha, Nebraska. And there at Winter Quarters, on the banks of the Missouri River, Brigham Young, being petitioned by the yearnings of the saints to be sealed together—because many of them, their husbands and families were going off to the Mormon battalion, where they felt that they would never see one another again as they go out into the great, vast American desert, pleaded for temple work. And Brigham Young—I like to use the phrase, “He listened to the Lord with one ear. He listened to his people with another.” He had the keys, they knew that, and so he performed several temple-related ordinances in private homes and in Willard Richards’ octagon, that eight-sided potato hut, they called it, there in Winter Quarters, in the winter, that dreadful, dire winter of 1846 and ’47, when so many Latter-day Saints gave their lives for the cause and Brigham Young listened to their pleadings and performed temple sealings—not endowments there, but temple sealings and other temple-related ordinances, Wilford Woodruff baptizing for the dead in the Missouri River, for instance. And I noticed this theme, this development of temple consciousness, even as they were crossing into the West. And that intrigued me. It was more than trails and rails and ruts. It was ordinances. It was commitment. It was covenant. Right back to the Nauvoo temple, where they covenanted one with another to help the exodus. And so this thematic really impressed me, and then I saw—the first part of this book, Temples Rising, is following the trail in terms of temple work, and then once we got to the Salt Lake Valley, the original Council House served a dual purpose: It was secular on the first floor; it was spiritual on the second floor, and some 2,002 endowments were performed in the Council House. That’s not the Endowment House. The Endowment House comes later in the mid-1850s, where it was raised right there on what is today Temple Square, and, of course, that served as a temple pro tem, where baptisms for the dead were performed and endowments were performed, but no endowments for the dead: only living endowments. And, of course, that doesn’t happen until we get into the St. George Temple in 1877. And so I was struck by the process of revelation, the ongoing development of temple consciousness or awareness which led me to study that more carefully, and, of course, it goes right up through until the conflict over plural marriage, where Wilford Woodruff reaches an exasperating point in the history of the church: he says, which is the wisest course? Do we continue with plural marriage, or do we preserve and enhance temple work? And that’s the whole story of that book. So that’s where I was coming from. It stems way back to my work with the exodus, but it flowers and develops right through until 1893 and the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, which is where it ends, and by the way, I’m working on a second volume now.

Scott Woodward:
Oh, good.

Richard Bennett:
Which I haven’t even told anybody yet. You’re the first to know that I’m working on that second volume, which is going to take it into the mid-20th century, but it’s a growing oak tree, this whole thing about temple consciousness, and of course today we’re looking at questions of the endowment and temple work and how carefully we continue to accommodate change within an unchanging doctrine. Adaptation within revelation. Is that possible?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
Anyway, these are the things that have intrigued me enormously, and that’s where this book came from.

Scott Woodward:
And that’s a theme we picked up on as we’ve been going through this series is there’s a great deal of evolution and development that occurs from the moment that Joseph introduced the endowment on May the 4th, 1842 and told Brigham, this isn’t quite right, but it’s good enough, and you’ll need to take it and develop it further. From that day to today, we continue to see changes and development and adaptations, and so . . .

Richard Bennett:
If you believe in revelation, which I do, then you have to accept change.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
Because implicit in the doctrine of revelation is change. We see it back with Peter. Take the Gospel to the Gentiles. We see it all through the Book of Mormon and elsewhere. It’s just that kind of a ongoing process, right? It’s a child growing into an adult. It’s changed, but it’s still the same person.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
And I think one of the other things that was delightful to talk about was sometimes we assume that they dedicate the Nauvoo temple, and then there’s this 30-year break until we have another temple in St. George, but your research kind of points out that there really never was a time when there weren’t temple ordinances happening in the church, that they were that important, that when they didn’t have a temple they had temples pro tem, like the Council House or the Endowment House or any other spaces they created to perform these ordinances.

Richard Bennett:
Well, I didn’t know until recently that we performed certain temple sealings at Chimney Rock.

Casey Griffiths:
Oh, is that right?

Richard Bennett:
Remember, we were dying by the hundreds—by the hundreds, if not the thousands, in Winter Quarters, and people were pleading for temple ordinances, and we had a—we had a leader of the church—with all his challenges, Brigham Young listened to his people, and here they are pleading for . . . And Brigham Young says, I can do this. We have the keys. We may not have a building, but we can—we have the keys. In exigencies like this, policy doesn’t trump revelation, and it was a wonderful experience of adaptation as the Saints are moving west.

Scott Woodward:
Let’s start out with the Holy of Holies. We had several listeners ask questions about this. We have Kelly, we have Colleen from West Valley, Utah, and David from Onalaska, Wisconsin. Well, let me just read a bit from each of them. Kelly said, “Can you talk more about what we know about the Holy of Holies? I believe there’s one in the Salt Lake Temple, one in the Manti, Logan, St. George, perhaps others.” Colleen asked, “Are there any Holy of Holies in modern temples? Did all the pioneer temples have a Holy of Holies?” And then David asks, “Which temples have Holy of Holies? What’s their role? How were they used early on? And how are they used, if at all, today?” So what do you want to say about Holy of Holies?

Richard Bennett:
It’s a holy topic that I would defer speaking too much about. There certainly was holy places in the Nauvoo Temple.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Richard Bennett:
We know in the Kirtland Temple there was the attic and were places of revelation. Section 137 was received in that Holy of Holies, if you will, in the Kirtland Temple, and that would certainly suffice. And there were several ordinances that were performed in special places in the Nauvoo Temple which would constitute, I suppose, Holy of Holies. The Council House in Salt Lake City, which was on that second floor, was—it’s amazing that the separation between the secular and the spiritual was only one staircase, and they would perform sacred ordinances, and they could hear dances going on down on the main floor.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
So maybe that wasn’t such a holy, holy place, but I don’t think that they made a great to-do about whether there was a Holy of Holies or not. Certainly in the Salt Lake Temple, it was a place of revelation. The entire temple is a holy place.

Casey Griffiths:
So we know Salt Lake has a Holy of Holies, but we’re not sure about other temples, and it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of written material. Are there early sources that discuss anything like that?

Richard Bennett:
I’ve had access, trusted access, to a lot of beautiful records, and, yes, there is a Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple. I believe there was one in the St. George Temple, and it was certainly frequented by prophets and revelators, but I can’t make a definitive statement about the other temples, Casey, on that question.

Casey Griffiths:
Fair enough. Let’s tackle some questions about sealing. And so we had a couple people ask about the meaning of the word seal. For instance, Todd from Phoenix, Arizona said, “How does sealing in the temple relate with Christ sealing us as mentioned in Mosiah 5:15? Is there a connection between that and sealing or temple sealing?” And then we had Kirk ask, “Could you address how the use of the word seal may or may not have evolved over time as temple ordinances developed? Has seal historically been used as synonymous with bind, or has it historically been used in the sense to solemnize or authorize?” So meaning of the word sealing.

Richard Bennett:
Well, the understanding of priesthood keys evolves and develops. There’s no question that there weren’t sealings performed in the Kirtland Temple as there were in the Nauvoo Temple, or later in the St. George Temple, or even in the pro tem temples, if you will, in Salt Lake City. There is an understanding of sealing in two ways: one, by the priesthood and authority. The one who holds the keys of the priesthood, and that was, of course, developing with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. There’s also the sealing power of the Holy Ghost: the ratification, the sanctification of priesthood ordinances. It isn’t enough to just perform the ordinance. It takes the sanctifying ratification of the Holy Ghost to seal. Sealing is a Holy Ghost signification of eternal life, if you will. And the two terms are used interchangeably. And we read in section 132 that there is a sealing power of the one who has the authority, but it has to be ratified and sealed by the Holy Ghost. It takes that ratification by the Holy Ghost to seal an ordinance. And it’s the sealing power of the Holy Ghost which is so critical to the sanctification of an ordinance. So I think I want to say that there are other ways that it could be interpreted in scripture, the sealing power, but my studies show that the great sealer, if you will, is the Holy Ghost. That’s where I would take that, because an ordinance that is not ratified by the Holy Ghost may not endure.

Casey Griffiths:
And going back to the scripture that Todd from Phoenix referenced, this is Mosiah 5:15, which I looked up. It reads, “Therefore I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ the Lord Omnipotent may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life.” So that talks about Jesus Christ sealing, which I think it’s safe to say that Jesus Christ and the Spirit are all in tune with each other.

Scott Woodward:
In harmony. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. A sealing from one is a sealing from the other.

Richard Bennett:
Let me just add to that, Casey: “And again, verily I say unto you,” this is section 132, verse 18, “if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have [appointed and anointed] . . . then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord.” What is that saying, among other things? Well, it is saying it, clearly. It must be ratified by the Holy Spirit of promise. That’s the great sealer, the Holy Ghost, and as you said, Casey, I think we don’t want to split hairs between the Holy Ghost and Christ here, but I’m just reading some section 132, that that Holy Spirit of promise is the essential sealing.

Casey Griffiths:
And so in response to Kirk’s question of does sealing mean to bind or to solemnize or to authorize? It’s probably all of the above, correct?

Richard Bennett:
Sanctifies and seals. Well, I think the emphasis should be on sealing by the Holy Ghost. Justified by the ordinance, sealed by the Holy Ghost.

Scott Woodward:
Thank you. Well, let’s go on to some questions about the garments. Oh, we got a question here from Chris from West Jordan, who asked, “Has the teaching on always wearing garments changed over time? I remember reading that Joseph Smith sometimes removed his garments because of the hot weather. That seems different than church leaders’ counsel to us today. Do we know when or how this shifted?” Maybe let’s start with that one, then we have some follow-up questions.

Richard Bennett:
Well, the concept of the garment is a scriptural one. It goes back anciently. That has never changed from at least Nauvoo times. I don’t believe that you had the garments in the Kirtland Temple, but you begin to see it in the Nauvoo Temple, and certainly the pioneers were very faithful in wearing the very long and extended woolly garment, but when they got to the Salt Lake Valley, one of the very first things they did was go out to the Salt Lake and float—not on their garments. They—obviously, there was, you know, common sense in some of these things. We see that again in the exodus when they’re crossing rivers and what have you. Many times they would remove their garments and what have you. It was practical. It was a pragmatic thing to do this from time to time. And Brigham Young was a practical leader, and there were exceptions made, but the principle remained the same, whether it was for weather or whatever other reason.

Scott Woodward:
And I think what Chris is referring to about Joseph taking his garments off because of the hot weather, if I’m following here, is that time when—in Carthage, right? Like, I think Joseph and Hyrum both, and John Taylor, removed their garments, and I think John Taylor commented on that, that it was because of the hot weather, and I think that’s our only incident we have on record that I’m aware of, that they did so.

Richard Bennett:
I mean, when you consider those pioneers down in St. George and Hole in the Rock and Arizona, and it’s 1870s, and it’s 110 to 120 degrees, and they’re wearing these long garments, give them a break.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, talk about hot weather.

Richard Bennett:
They live by it but make it work, and sometimes there are exceptions. And we still have that today, but the principle is the same.

Scott Woodward:
And that’s the language today still, isn’t it? Isn’t it to wear your garments as often as—what’s the current handbook language here?

Casey Griffiths:
Here’s the mention from the handbook: it says, “It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”

Scott Woodward:
So that, “shouldn’t be removed when it can reasonably be worn.” That’s that sort of modern language there, and they’re crossing the river, they’re going to take off their garments. They’re floating in the Salt Lake, they’re going to take off their garments. And so—but the question about hot weather, I don’t know. I’m not going to be Joseph’s judge or Hyrum’s or John Taylor’s here, and that last line—what was it, Casey, that members, what was that?

Casey Griffiths:
“Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”

Scott Woodward:
There you go.

Casey Griffiths:
And I’ll just say, outside of that Carthage Jail reference, I don’t know of anything that says that, you know, Joseph Smith and his associates took off their garments in a cavalier fashion.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. I don’t know of any, either.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. That seems to be the only exception, and it’s coming from—I think, I believe it’s from John Taylor. Correct, Scott?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And W. W. Phelps made that comment as well, as far as the sources I could track down. So, yeah, it’s not like he’s taking them off every Wednesday or every hot day. There’s one hot day. It was Carthage, and they came off that day for whatever reason, and that’s all we know, as far as I’m aware.

Richard Bennett:
That’s critical to understand.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. This is Ben from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Hello, Ben. And Megan from Charlotte, North Carolina. So they’re both asking this question: I’ll read Ben. He said, “Is there anything doctrinal about the length of garments that will keep it from changing further and getting shorter? Or is it only the symbols that are important? Could we expect garments to become even less conspicuous as clothing styles and tastes change, but still keep the symbols?” And Megan asked, “When was the last time the garment changed designs, made to hit the knee and the cap sleeves? And why the change? Was it to accommodate with the changes of style in clothes? Why, then, haven’t the garments changed yet again to be more like modern underwear?” So there does seem to be some accommodation that’s happened as clothing styles have changed. Do you anticipate that that would continue? Richard, I know none of the three of us have the keys of the kingdom here. We can’t make those calls. But how do you want to respond to Ben and Megan?

Richard Bennett:
Well, those are excellent questions, and I don’t pretend to understand all the latest policy changes on garments and lengths and what have you. Yes, there have been changes, obviously from Nauvoo time, when it went from your wrist down to your ankles, and that lasted for quite some time. Joseph F. Smith is going to make some major changes in the garment later in the early 20th century, but in those early periods those garments were very long. Has there been cultural accommodation? Yes. But has there been a denial of the principle? No. And if we can keep those two in sync, one with another, we’re going to do just fine, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there might be some more changes down the road. That’s what our prophet’s for.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
But “clothed in the priesthood” means, I think, what is dearest to us and closest to us, closest to the flesh, if you will. The combination of spirit and flesh is implied in the garment, and so there may be some adaptations yet to come, but I don’t, from historically speaking and doctrinally speaking, no denial of the principle.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Yeah. So you would say, yes, it’s mostly those symbols that matter the most and the covenants that they help us to remember a reminder of our discipleship. That’s the key piece.

Richard Bennett:
And protection, spiritual and physical protection. The pioneers, the saints, as they’re heading west, they clung to that. They clung to those covenants with tenacity, and it was their protection: not the garment itself. It was their faith and the covenant that they had made with God that was their great protector, and they believed that. They really believed that. And I think if we don’t see that, then we miss the whole story of the Mormon exodus. It wasn’t just a migration of a bunch of people like the California Gold Rush. It was an exodus of covenant. Does that make sense?

Scott Woodward:
No, that’s very helpful. Okay, we ready for another one?

Richard Bennett:
Yep.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, let’s do a question here on Doctrine and Covenants 110. John from Salt Lake City, Utah, asks, “Given the importance of D&C section 110 to the church, especially as it pertains to temple work,” and let’s just pause here and remind ourselves: so this is the revelation where Christ accepts the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, and then Moses, Elias, and Elijah restore priesthood keys, okay? Really big, important section. So I’ll continue John’s question. He says, “So why was it never preached by Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery during their lifetimes?” This section. “Why was it only recorded by a third party, Warren Cowdery, Joseph’s scribe, in Joseph’s personal journal and was not added to the D&C until 1876, forty years later? This seems strange for such a momentous revelatory experience and doctrinal watershed.” How would you like to respond to John’s question?

Richard Bennett:
Well, what a wonderful question that is. Let’s talk about section 138 for a moment before we talk about section 110.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Richard Bennett:
As you well know, section 138 was the basis for Joseph F. Smith’s great revelation on redeeming the work for the dead. You remember that wonderful revelation?

Scott Woodward:
Yes.

Richard Bennett:
That was given in 1918, as I recall, and it was published in Gospel Doctrine, and I always wondered, even to when I was a kid, how come this remarkable revelation isn’t in our Doctrine and Covenants? Well, it wasn’t until 1976 that we finally got around to it. And it was the reclamation of earlier revelation. It’s a classic case of waking up to what had been given earlier and beginning to realize, over time, the great significance of that revelation. It shouldn’t be in some little book someplace. It’s got to be in our Doctrine and Covenants. And it took a prophet to bring it forth, to say, the earlier prophet was so right on, we know, through the Spirit of the Lord, going to canonize this. Canonize. And that raised it up several notches, and so it’s in our consciousness now. We look at section 138 with reverence as one of the great 20th century revelations. So we have precedent. Now, section 110 is the same thing. It wasn’t just section 110 that was canonized in 1876. It was section 2. It was section 13. It was section 121, 122, 123, 132, which we take it—we read that in our Doctrine and Covenants today: “These have been here since the beginning.” Not so. It takes some time for us to catch up to what the Lord revealed earlier, and that’s not coming out as a criticism. I’m not trying to criticize the church. It’s just an awakening of the church, the leadership of the church, to the great value of those earlier revelations. And it was Orson Pratt, by the way, who supervised that committee to have those sections canonized. And, of course, 109 was also included in that list. I forget all of them, but there’s several of them. So we’re speaking of something bigger than just one section here. I’ll come to that in a minute. The principle is the reclamation of revelation. A church led by revelation can sometimes reclaim revelation that it, ah, looking in the rear view mirror, that is much more important than I thought it was. It’s not only looking forward. Revelation doesn’t just look forward. It looks backward. It looks sideways. It looks the whole field. You know what? That revelation was critical. And now it’s section 110. It’s in that same bailiwick. It’s in that same cadre of revelations that, wow, as we are now developing temple consciousness in the 1870s, and this is at the same time that the St. George Temple is coming on board, we need to have revelatory scaffolding for the place of temple worship. We’re reaching a point that we never saw before, and is there a foundation for what we’re doing now in St. George and some of those new temples? Yes, there is doctrinal foundation for it, and it’s section 110 and 109 and 2 and 13 and 132. And that’s part of this temple consciousness. It’s revelatory consciousness. Am I making any sense?

Scott Woodward:
A lot of sense, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, and I’ll add, too, that the incident was actually written down in Joseph Smith’s journal, I believe, the day it happened. And then there’s a letter from W. W. Phelps that makes reference to it, too, and I also think it’s incorrect to say that Joseph never preached about that. He preaches a lot about Elijah and Elias and the keys that they hold and the powers that they possess in the time period. I don’t think it’s true to say that he never talked about it or that people in the church weren’t aware of it. It just didn’t become canonized until 1876, and that’s a common thing in the church. It takes time for things to kind of get sorted and rise to the top and become canonized scripture.

Scott Woodward:
And wasn’t one of the contextual things going on here in 1876 some back-and-forth with the RLDS church?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, the RLDS church was putting some pressure on us, especially it’s led by Joseph Smith’s son, and they’re claiming, “We have the same authority as you because we come from the same origin source.” And it seems like what was placed in the 1876 Doctrine and Covenants was centered around this idea of priesthood keys, that, okay, you guys might have been ordained by the same people as us, but do you hold the keys of the priesthood? And those sections that were added that Richard mentioned, section 2, section 13, section 110, section 121, all emphasize the idea and concept of not just priesthood, but the keys of the priesthood being necessary to lead the church.

Richard Bennett:
Well, it’s also, if I could add to this:

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
There were no endowments for the dead performed until 1877 in this church. That’s a fact. You’re telling me that we did not do endowments for the dead until 1877? That is correct. The expanding understanding of the salvific power of the temple to generations past—not just baptism for the dead, we understood that, but endowments for the dead—that is of such magnificent proportion and significance. Where is our doctrinal basis for this? Where is it coming from? Now, it was understood, but now it’s going to be applied, and as I said, Orson Pratt and those with him are leading the charge, and he, that’s the right word for it, there is revelatory basis for this, and all the work for the dead, above and beyond baptisms for the dead, that’s what’s being signified in these revelations. And if I might go on a limb, people wondering, “Well, what other changes might come?” The key revelations of this dispensation is temple-based.

Scott Woodward:
Wait. Say that again. All the key revelations of this dispensation are temple-based?

Richard Bennett:
It’s temple-based. And future revelations that might change policy on this or that will probably be based on the same principle. Will it expand and allow for more to understand and receive temple blessings? So I see a great connection between modern revelation and temples, and that’s why I think President Nelson is so right on in terms of what’s happening today. It’s a continuing of our history.

Casey Griffiths:
Amen.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, amen.

Casey Griffiths:
Alright. This is a question from Gabe, who’s in Provo, Utah. He said, “There’s sometimes a narrative that while the application or implementation of temple ordinances may change, the covenants themselves do not. But I remember a time in the temple when women covenanted obedience to their husbands as their husbands were obedient to the Lord. That covenant is no longer part of the temple presentation. You also mentioned that there used to be a covenant to pray for the Lord to avenge the murders of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, which was later removed. How do you reconcile these examples of clear covenantal change with the common narrative that covenants don’t change?”

Richard Bennett:
Well, I think he’s really put his finger on a question that a lot of people have, even myself.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Richard Bennett:
There are covenants that are relationship covenants, and then there are salvific covenants. And the only thing that I would say in terms of that change which this good brother mentioned is that, yes, there has been a change in that covenantal relationship, if you will, or the relationship of covenant between a man and a woman, but the emphasis has never changed between the covenant with God, and those haven’t changed. The salvific covenants haven’t changed. Yes, there have been changes, and I agree with that. You might even say cultural accommodation, to some extent, that’s reflected in this. And it isn’t just in that: it’s in other parts of the endowment ceremony as well.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So do we need to change the narrative? Like, should we stop saying that the covenants don’t change? Maybe that’s the simple fix, is to say, like we’ve been saying about everything else, like, it’s all subject to revelation and to those who hold the keys of the kingdom. Like, it can change, sure.

Richard Bennett:
But the essentials, baptism, and Holy Ghost, the ordinance, and what have you, sealing powers, things like that, there’s no question that in temple consciousness, the rise of temple marriages has increased. So you do see changes and emphases from time to time, but I would argue that the essential salvific covenants have remained the same.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
One of the things you mentioned in your book is that the temple recommend questions have changed over time. Like, it seems like prior to Heber J. Grant there was no expectation for a person to live the Word of Wisdom if they were going to go to the temple. Now that’s been essential for over a hundred years, and so, if the expectations to go to the temple change, we should be comfortable with the idea that the covenants we make in the temple can sometimes change, especially the relational covenants, but I agree with you that the salvational covenants are pretty consistent over time, even if the wording sometimes there has changed, too.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. That’s an interesting distinction. Relational covenants and salvific covenants. Those covenants essential for salvation. I’m going to think about that as well. Thank you. We call this a Q&R, not a Q&A, and I think this is case in point.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
These are responses. These aren’t ironclad answers all the time, so.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Richard from the Netherlands wrote, “From minutes kept of temple services in Nauvoo in 1845, we know that members who had just received their endowments gathered and shared their insights and experiences: what we would call today temple testimony meetings. This poses the question: what means of learning do we have today to expand our understanding of the rich symbolisms in the temple? Are we to do this entirely on our own, guided by the Spirit? Or what’s your suggestion?”

Richard Bennett:
Well, you could read my book to start.

Scott Woodward:
Shameless plug.

Richard Bennett:
I noticed in the last conference with the discussions on the garments, for instance, I think that’s a recognition by church leadership that there are a lot of things that we can talk about, and that doesn’t mean that we go and sit down and have a Temple 305 class, but I think we should be encouraged to ask questions like this good sister is asking, or brother—I forget. And it’s not going to be in our Sunday School manual next week, because these are places to discuss things in the temple, but more and more there’s being written, whether it’s the Joseph Smith Papers or especially Relief Society histories that have been written by the church that go into this in detail. I think there’s more of an encouragement in our gospel essays, topics, and what have you, to discuss these things—reverently, not to shy away from them.

Casey Griffiths:
I think a lot of people would be surprised at the materials that are already in Gospel Library, like the minutes of the Relief Society and other things in the Joseph Smith Papers that are completely open for study, that if they take a look at, they’ll find a lot of insights, especially if they take a look through the lens of the temple.

Richard Bennett:
Definitely. The Church is much more open than it was even twenty years ago.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
My goodness.

Scott Woodward:
That’s a good thing. That’s a good thing.

Casey Griffiths:
Could we ask: Your book that you wrote was published through Deseret Book, which is owned by the church. What kind of authorizations did they give you? Did they give you boundaries when writing the book as to, don’t go here, or here’s some sources you can use? You mentioned a little bit about that earlier.

Richard Bennett:
The editors were very, very open. I mean, I was given access to many, many wonderful sources that haven’t been utilized, at least for a long time. But when the editors got back to me here, their only question was, “Brother Bennett, do we need that much on plural marriage?” Because the book traces the rise of plural marriage and the rise of temple work simultaneously and how one trumps the other. And—but you can’t understand the rise of temple work without understanding the impasse that led to the manifesto. So it’s not a whitewashed study by any means.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Richard Bennett:
And so they kept 99 percent of everything that I wrote. A few statistical things, just modify that, but no debate over the great editing work that was done by Deseret Book on that book.

Casey Griffiths:
Do you think there might be challenges with the second book as you move a little closer to the present? What are some sensitive issues that you might anticipate if a second volume is produced?

Richard Bennett:
I don’t know if whether there’ll be specific issues, Casey, but I know this much: that writing church history is a measure of trust. You are entrusted with access to sacred materials, and it’s a trust that you want to maintain if you want to have access to other materials in the future, and I’ve tried to be true to that trust. Not to whitewash: to tell a real story, but it’s a story, really, of faith. It isn’t just the accents, but it’s the understanding of the sources that you’re seeing in the light of gospel principles that helps you write history in a way that is both academically rigorous but spiritually strengthening, and it’s that trust that is so critical. I’ve seen many who have lost that trust. It’s critical to writing good, responsible church history.

Casey Griffiths:
Well said.

Scott Woodward:
And, well, you are certainly a master of that craft, and we appreciate it deeply. Your contributions to our understanding is marvelous, and so we want to encourage you to continue to write. Keep blessing us.

Richard Bennett:
Thank you.

Scott Woodward:
We really appreciate you, Richard. Thank you for taking time with us today. We, if we could, we just want to ask you one more question. Would that be all right?

Richard Bennett:
Depends on what the question is.

Scott Woodward:
No, this one’s just a personal question about your own faith, if you don’t mind responding, and it’s simply this: that after having thoroughly and profoundly studied Joseph Smith’s work and the history of the church for decades, you’re still a believer. Why? What makes you a believer in the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith and the core truth claims of the Restoration?

Richard Bennett:
I love what Helen Marr Kimball Whitney in her journal, reflecting back on a point in her life—and she says something along these lines, and I wish I could quote it word for word, but I can’t. She said, as I look back upon the story of the Latter-day Saints and her life, this is being written in the 1890s, going clear back to the 1830s—she grew up in Kirtland, marries in the Nauvoo Temple the day before they leave on the exodus. She says, as I look back upon it all now, and all our ups and downs, all of our troubles and the warts and the trials and the tribulations, the saints, to be compared with the ancient saints of old, she says, their faith was remarkable, and as I look back upon my life, clear to back to when I was a kid, ten years old, I’ve always been—what’s the right word? Satisfy is not the right word. Gratify is not the right word. I’ve always been—inspired is not nearly powerful enough. Motivated isn’t strong enough. I’ve always been pulled into the spirit of the gospel, and I’ve been taught by people greater than myself who have clung on to this, and when academic questions are whirling all around, it comes down to a simple conviction of the Spirit of the Lord, even in our own weaknesses and sins, that has whispered to me constantly in a beautiful fashion, this is true. This is the gospel. Sometimes I wonder, how can we change this? And how can we change that? Did the church make a mistake here? Maybe we made a mistake there. But it’s just been that sweet teaching of the Spirit of the Lord. As I’ve looked at all these sources, and I can see it unfolding in the lives of these people how it changed people for the good, for the right. So I can’t say it any more than just a simple but recurring witness of the Spirit, of the truthfulness of the Church, and of the gospel. And it’s helped me weather the storm, whereas others I’ve seen have fallen by the way. I don’t know why. Their circumstances are different than mine, but I would be untrue to my deepest convictions to deny the truth of it. I wouldn’t be myself. I’d be somebody else. And I can’t afford to do that. So I don’t know if that answers your question, but that’s—I keep coming back to the beautiful revelations of our scriptures and prophetic leaders, and it’s just part of me.

Casey Griffiths:
Well said.

Scott Woodward:
That’s a wonderful answer.

Casey Griffiths:
I’m really looking forward to reading the next volume when it comes out. So keep doing what you’re doing. We appreciate your work.

Richard Bennett:
Thank you very much.

Scott Woodward:
Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. For more of Dr. Richard Bennett’s scholarship on the development of temple worship, we recommend you check out his book, Temples Rising: A Heritage of Sacrifice. 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. 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’ll 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.