This past Saturday I attended the temple with my husband. This was the first time I’d experienced the endowment ceremony since coming to believe that Hyrum Smith, rather than Joseph Smith, may have been the third man Martha Brotherton described in her 1842 affidavit.
In my post earlier this summer suggesting Hyrum was implicated in promoting illicit intercourse, I described honored figures of the past who had fallen into transgression, only to repent and become the greatest. I mentioned Saul of Tarsus, Alma the Younger, and Moses’ brother Aaron.
I completely overlooked Adam and Eve, the iconic figures who transgressed and yet were then promised the salvation of Christ could redeem them.
For those not familiar with the endowment, let me repeat Glen M. Leonard’s description. The endowment:
[set] forth a pattern or figurative model for life. The teachings began with a recital of the creation of the earth and its preparation to host life. The story carried the familiar ring of the Genesis account, echoed as well in Joseph Smith’s revealed book of Moses and book of Abraham. The disobedience and expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden set the stage for an explanation of Christ’s atonement for that original transgression and for the sins of the entire human family. Also included was a recital of man’s tendency to stray from the truth through apostasy and the need for apostolic authority to administer authoritative ordinances and teach true gospel principles. Participants were reminded that in addition to the Savior’s redemptive gift they must be obedient to God’s commandments to obtain a celestial glory. Within the context of these gospel instructions, the initiates made covenants of personal virtue and benevolence and of commitment to the church. They agreed to devote their talents and means to spread the gospel, to strengthen the church, and to prepare the earth for the return of Jesus Christ.[ref]Leonard, Glen M., Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise, (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 2002), 258-259, cited by Devery S. Anderson, The Anointed Quorum in Nauvoo, 1842-45, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Fall 2003), pp. 137-138, available 22 Aug 2016 at https://archive.org/stream/AnointedQuorum/Anointed%20Quorum_djvu.txt[/ref]
I have previously made reference to the commitment to personal virtue, the requirement that the endowed individual refrain from sex with anyone other than a legal spouse. [ref]I am not certain what the wording of the original endowment was, but I am certain that it did not allow for random liaisons of temporary duration, which was the hallmark of Bennett’s illicit intercourse or “spiritual wifery” heresy.[/ref] What I had failed to understand was the power of the creation narrative for those affected by the heresy of illicit intercourse.
The individuals involved in the initial endowment ceremony were Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith (both of whom officiated) as well as James Adams, William Law, William Marks, George Miller, Brigham Young, Newel K. Whitney, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards. We have reason to know that the majority of these men had been touched by the scandal of illicit intercourse, whether through their own involvement or because a family member had become persuaded to lend credence to the corrupt teachings arising from Dr. John C. Bennett.[ref]It appears Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and Hyrum Smith were the three men involved in attempting to persuade Martha Brotherton to become a polygamous wife in approximately December 1841, William Law had committed adultery by this point according to Hyrum Smith’s report to the City Council in 1844, Hyrum Smith, William Law, and George Miller had been involved in documenting John C. Bennett’s sins prior to becoming a Mormon, Newel K. Whitney had sent his son away from Nauvoo to keep him from further involvement with the Chauncey brothers, and Willard Richards had been involved in the expulsion of Benjamin Winchester and Ebenezer Robinson from the printing offices in January 1842.[/ref]
As I participated in the endowment ceremony this past weekend, I was immersed in what this experience would have meant to someone in 1842 who had been touched by the illicit intercourse heresy.
Creation
The teachings began with a recital of the creation of the earth and its preparation to host life. The story carried the familiar ring of the Genesis account, echoed as well in Joseph Smith’s revealed book of Moses and book of Abraham.
Those receiving the endowment in May 1842 would have been exposed to the March 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham, which taught that all mankind had been co-eternal with God. This would transform any creation narrative into a story of how God created this world for His beloved children. The glory of His preparations for our mortal experience would be imbued with the wonder of knowing that God did this for us, His children who He already knew and loved.
Adam and Eve
The disobedience and expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden
Next we see the innocence of Adam and Eve and watch the familiar tale unfold. As portrayed in Genesis and the Book of Moses account, a serpent (symbolic of Satan) attempts to thwart God by corrupting Adam and Eve. The fruit Satan offers is widely understood in the Christian world to be an euphemism for sex [ref]See Martin S. Pribble, Fruit as a Sexual Metaphor in Religious Writings, online 22 Aug 2016 at http://martinspribble.com/2014/05/fruit-sexual-metaphor/.[/ref].
The serpent is able to persuade Eve to accept the need for the fruit, and Eve persuades Adam to partake of the fruit with her.
Having partaken of the fruit, the eyes of Adam and Eve are opened, and they realize they are naked. They create aprons for themselves of fig leaves [ref]According to some, the fruit of which Adam and Eve would have likely been understood to have partaken would be the fig.[/ref] and they hide from the presence of God.
In Nauvoo, many had partaken of the evil aspects of sexual intercourse. Many of them had hidden their acts from the Church authorities, claiming it was a secret teaching. The pain of the fallen Adam and Eve in hiding from God would have been understood to represent the initiates’ 1842 contemporaries who were still hiding their transgression from the Church. For those who might have transgressed, they would have seen themselves in Adam and Eve.
When God converses with the fallen Adam and Eve, He learns that Adam fell having been tempted by Eve, and she fell because she had harkened to the serpent.
The serpent is cast out, resonant with the tale that Satan or Lucifer was cast out of heaven for rebellion. To those participating in the endowment ceremony in 1842, the message would be that the deceivers behind the fall of so many innocents would be tracked down and cast out.
As for Eve, she is told that because of her transgression God “will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
For Adam, he is told that because he harkened to Eve, God curses “the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground–for thou shalt surely die–for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
Then Adam and Eve are driven out of the Garden of Eden.
It is not clear how the punishment of Adam and Eve would have been perceived by those receiving the endowment in 1842, but from the perspective of history, the illicit intercourse heresy would result in John C. Bennett being cast out, like the serpent in the biblical tale. Bennett’s accusations would “greatly multiply” the sorrow of the Mormon faithful. They would be driven from their beautiful Nauvoo into the western wilderness. They would literally eat thistles as part of their diet in the west that would become Utah.
The Salvation of Christ
The… Garden of Eden set the stage for an explanation of Christ’s atonement for that original transgression and for the sins of the entire human family.
In the Book of Moses, Joseph Smith had revealed that Adam and Eve were taught that Christ would come and atone for their sins. God had commanded Adam to offer sacrifices, a thing the Book of Moses indicates Adam didn’t understand. Then the role of Christ was explained to Adam:
I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.[ref]Moses 5:9-11[/ref]
Of those receiving the endowment in 1842, some had transgressed. Others knew of loved ones who had transgressed or at least been invited to walk the disobedient path. For these, the promise that Christ would redeem Adam and Eve from their transgression would be powerful. It would resonate with the Book of Mormon teachings regarding the salvation that Jesus Christ offers all mankind.
It would resonate with the general Christian tradition they had all known before they had ever embraced the restored gospel. But the King James Bible they had read in their youth did not contain the information that Adam and Eve learned that Christ would redeem them from the fall. The idea that the original man and woman of mankind had known Christ would be their salvation was unique to Mormonism. The personal interaction between God and His loved children would have been powerful to these early Mormons, particularly to those who had recently repented of severe transgression.
Obedience and Apostasy
Also included was a recital of man’s tendency to stray from the truth through apostasy and the need for apostolic authority to administer authoritative ordinances and teach true gospel principles. Participants were reminded that in addition to the Savior’s redemptive gift they must be obedient to God’s commandments to obtain a celestial glory.
Those receiving the endowment in May 1842 knew they were surrounded by those who were still mired in apostasy. It was to be the duty of this group to reach out and teach true gospel principles to the fallen, as well as all who had been damaged by the heresy through hearsay.
Obedience to the pure Gospel would be the way to obtain Celestial glory.
Only a small subset of those receiving the endowment in May 1842 knew that Celestial marriage included the possibility of plural marriage. These few were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards. But plural marriages within the context of Celestial marriage were to be for eternity. They were not to be the temporary liaisons taught by John C. Bennett and described by Martha Brotherton.
Building Up the Kingdom of God
Within the context of these gospel instructions, the initiates made covenants of personal virtue and benevolence and of commitment to the church. They agreed to devote their talents and means to spread the gospel, to strengthen the church, and to prepare the earth for the return of Jesus Christ.
As I mentioned in my post, Endowed with Power, a striking element of the endowment was the requirement that initiates promise to avoid extramarital sexuality.
One key aspect of the benevolence Leonard mentions is the admonition to avoid speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed. This teaching has been publicly explored in our contemporary context, as addressed by Dallin H. Oaks in his discourse on Criticism. [ref]Oaks, Dallin H., Criticism, Ensign February 1987, online 22 Aug 2016 at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng.[/ref]
In the context of 1842, however, the topic of speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed included the claim some were making that Joseph Smith taught that illicit intercourse was acceptable. It also included rumors such as the one arising from Martha Brotherton’s experience where leaders were being condemned for actions of which they had repented.
The 1842 individuals experiencing the endowment ceremony were reminded in this experience that their all was to go to building up the Kingdom of God. Any who had previously sinned would have been reminded how their errors had taken away from building up the Kingdom of God. It is possible they reflected on the Book of Mormon sermon where Alma admonishes his son, Corianton, who had abandoned the ministry to pursue the harlot Isabel. [ref]Alma 39-42[/ref]
It is striking to note that the two men administering the initial endowment ceremony were Joseph and Hyrum Smith. These are the two who would be killed in June 1844. For those who believed in the goodness of Joseph and Hyrum, their deaths would be seen as an ultimate sacrifice on behalf of upholding the Gospel of Christ in the face of violent apostasy.
Prodigals Welcomed Home
The endowment narrative speaks to those who believe they are God’s children, acknowledging that temptation may lead to transgression. But the transgression can be overcome by the blood of Christ and the willing obedience of the repentant soul.
The promise of the gospel restored via Joseph Smith was that all who repented could be redeemed and welcomed into God’s kingdom. The endowment ordinance, like baptism, could be administered on behalf of deceased individuals, preparing both the living and the dead to accept God’s offered salvation and exaltation.
Many of those receiving the endowment in May 1842 yearned for absolution, whether on their own behalf or on the part of loved ones who had not yet repented. In the endowment narrative, sins and transgressions were not merely forgiven. Our ability to cast ourselves on the saving arm of Christ was exalted to a level that encompassed all eternity and all of mankind.
I imagine Joseph Smith sharing the endowment with this small band of those he believed were faithful to him, trusting that they would help him combat the scourge of their day. Hyrum, Brigham, Heber, Newell, and Willard would stand at his side, continuing the legacy that historians agree Joseph advocated during his life. Others would fall into diverse paths,
often honorably attempting to continue the monogamous legacy they believed Joseph had championed in life. William Law, of those present that day, would become Mormonism’s Judas, sealing the initial wound inflicted by Dr. Bennett, Mormonism’s serpent.
In our days, the importance of the endowment is the promise that anyone may repent and become exalted through the atonement of Jesus Christ. All we are prodigals. Yet like Adam and Eve, we can trust in Christ to bring us home, if we will but repent and remain true.
New Post: The Redemption of the Endowment: This past Saturday I attended the temple with my husb… https://t.co/NLE205q1Qs #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: The Redemption of the Endowment https://t.co/MTzyacIwgy #lds #mormon
I love this perspective; thank you. One of the most striking things about the newer movies for me was how Adam and Eve must have felt upon learning they were to be cut off from God but then to immediately learn of the Atonement. Most of us have known all our lives that a Savior was provided to redeem us, but imagine learning that for the first time, and recognizing how much you needed it!
Not being a Protestant I was never taught nor do I believe that the fruit represents sexual sin. Sexual relations between husband and wife are in fact a sacred and holy ordinance. The fruit brought mortality not shame. I don’t think this analogy holds up.
Hi Karen,
My focus in this post was to explore the experience of an 1842 penitent experiencing the endowment ceremony after repenting of some involvement in illicit intercourse.
Independent of what actually constituted the transgression of Adam and Eve, it is undeniable that Christians in the 19th century considered the forbidden fruit to represent sexual sin. Therefore that understanding, even if erroneous, would have informed the experience of a penitent individual experiencing the endowment in 1842.
Meg, it was clearly understood that Adam and Eve were the first celestial marriage. They were bound together while immortal — no death due them part (provided they were righteous). Married. The bonds of eternal marriage were so strong, Adam would rather transgress than be separated.
So you can be certain anyone in authority would know that sexual relations were permitted in their relationship. No sin.
I think you are aiming way too much protestantism in their world view.
Hi GSO,
Ignore the part about whether the initial participants in the endowment might have believed the forbidden fruit was sex. That is not fundamental to the point I was making. The point is that Adam and Eve transgressed in some fashion, yet Christ’s atonement was revealed to them as the way they could overcome all.
My most recent post elicited comments that it was not appropropriate to suggest an honored Church leader could have transgressed (suggesting Hyrum was the third participant in the Martha Brotherton incident, which I have previously suggested was in the tradition of illicit intercourse rather than Celestial marriage).
What I was struck by in experiencing the endowment most recently was how it speaks to the repentant sinner, showing how all the blessings of heaven can be obtained by even those who committed the original act transgressing God’s law.
As to our modern Mormon view that the forbidden fruit was not sex, I would be interested in documentation supporting your expressed opinion that a Mormon in 1842 would have had reason to reject the prevailing view that the forbidden fruit was sex. Even the words Eve speaks in her discourse in Moses 5: 12 makes a direct correlation between their transgression and having seed. So while I honor the modern interpretation, I don’t think there’s any reason to suggestion the initial participants would have seen the transgression as non-sexual.
God had not yet finalized some aspect of the tutelage of Adam and Eve. I don’t believe there is any canonical indication that sexual relations would have been appropriate prior to the final tutelage Adam and Eve had not yet received.
If I am wrong, I am pleased to be corrected.
I am very skeptical of apologetic attempts to completely “exonerate” Joseph Smith. Just what if he did have a sexual interest in plural marriage? Why not start from that as a base assumption? How would that really change the outcome of the practice of plural marriage?
Hi AL,
Not sure what that comment has to do with this post.
John Bennett clearly had a sexual interest in many women, and had no problem sharing the women he seduced with his buddies, Mormon and non-Mormon.
In this post I am putting forward how some of those who experienced the first endowment ceremony may have perceived it, since in the case of several of the men we have reason to suspect that they had repented of wrongful sex-related beliefs or actions.
My premise is that most of Joseph’s covenant relationships with women were prompted by trying to clean up in the wake of Bennett’s excesses. From this premise, I arrive at a Brigham, Heber, and Hyrum who had been at the least tangentially involved in the heresy arising from Bennett’s excesses. It is known that William Smith was fully involved in Bennett’s heresy, and when he ultimately would not give up the heresy, William was cut off from the Church.
I’m not sure how this “exonerates” Joseph. Certainly I haven’t pointed out the ethically problematic issues with the Joseph I have portrayed, because he lived in a different time and I choose not to apply 21st century sensibilities to a man living in the 19th century.
A prurient Joseph doesn’t fit the totality of the data. Thus I will not use a prurient Joseph as my “base assumption.”
I don’t don’t think anyone can disagree as far as the atonement is concerned. Just disputing the sex misunderstanding. If you’re looking for canon, it’s right in Eden.
..
they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
One flesh. Not just one in spirit. Not one united in purpose. Flesh. That’s pretty descriptive . If that’s not clear enough, the next sentence reminds us that they’re, ya know, naked and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Hi GSO,
An important point about the portion you cite is that it is future tense.
When a couple is formally engaged (as happens in some cultures), it would be appropriate to say that they shall be one flesh… when they are formally married. However if the couple went out after the engagement party and got busy in the bedroom, it would not be appropriate.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to imagine that the fruit itself was a catalyst that made Adam and Eve mortal, that they had been sexually intimate prior to the temptation, but in their immortal state could not conceive. That, I think, is the paradigm that most Mormons come from. And we see that come out in Mormon fantasy, as in Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series where her perfected men (the vampires) cannot have children.
However I am going back to what the men who initially experienced the endowment would have been thinking. They had been raised in a Christian culture that reviled Eve for seducing Adam into sexual sin, causing the fall of mankind and original sin. This hatred for Eve in Christian tradition was transmuted into hatred of all women. This is part of why feminism is so actively antagonistic towards traditional Christian patriarchy, because they are aware of the centuries and even millennia of woman hatred that has been fostered by the Christian belief in original sin and Eve’s sinful nature (as they see it). It is completely unreasonable to project modern Mormon beliefs onto those men, leaders though they were.
For what it’s worth, there is an individual who had read this post and was visiting with me in person. To the accusation that I am wrongfully suggesting Mormon men in the 1842 would have been raised to believe in a sexually seductive Eve, this individual stated that you would have to have been raised in a cave to be unaware of the pervasive Christian belief circa that era in a sexually sinful Eve. Except their statement was more pithy, to the point of rudeness.
It is not that I myself come from a Protestant background, or that my correspondent was raised in a Protestant culture, but we have lived many years and studied other cultures while seeing the reality of these beliefs in our friends who were not Mormon. As honorable as the initial recipients of the endowment ceremony were in many cases, they had been raised in the Christian traditions then extant. It would have been mind blowing for them to see the endowment portrayal of the story of Eden. But they probably didn’t even think about the non-sexual portrayal of the transgression that caused the fall. They would have been primarily caught up in the depiction of how sinful individuals are redeemed by Jesus Christ through the atonement and the individual’s adherence to gospel law and instruction. In my opinion.
” If that’s not clear enough, the next sentence reminds us that they’re, ya know, naked and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
It reads “nekkid” in the original Klingon.
Meg’s right. I grew up and was raised agnostic outside of Mormondom, and even I knew that mainstream Christians associated the transgression in Eden with sex. The association is so strong that “forbidden fruit” is pretty much a euphemism for sex specifically, and only in general refers to forbidden “goodies”.
However, I did think that odd, because I never did see how people got that interpretation out of Genesis.
So i agree with Meg about how those going into the endowment in 1842 would have held the prevailing Christian view on the symbolic meaning of the fruit. Though I think she threw that in as an aside, anyway, as it is not a necessary part of her thesis in this post.
Hi Bookslinger,
Thank you. One doesn’t need to have been raised outside of Mormonism to perceive that mainstream belief. I like how your agnostic bent in your youth led you to wonder how mainstream Christianity had derived a sexual interpretation from the written words. I do think it is relatively unique to Mormonism to be completely unaware that there is presumption that sex was the forbidden fruit and the transgression/sin in the Adam and Eve story.
I should amend my comment about Twilight. Obviously a major plot point is that Bella Swan Cullen becomes pregnant. But the reason her pregnancy is so unexpected is because those vampire cultures which did not practice having sex with mortals didn’t realize that pregnancy was possible. But here is where our core worldview beliefs come leaking through in our fantasy tales. Bella’s pregnancy appears to be derivative of the belief that God (in some fashion) engendered Christ with a mortal woman. I doubt Stephanie Meyer consciously thought about Bella’s daughter as a Christ figure. Certainly Bella’s pregnancy wasn’t portrayed as being the result of a virgin conception. But we Mormons don’t equate sex uniquely with sin, so we don’t have to have multiple layers of separation between sex and the conception of our Lord, as the Catholics teach.
Fiction reveals our beliefs and informs the beliefs of our readers. But that is a discussion for another time.
Thank you for posting this & allowing the discussion afterward. I have found it extremely enlightening & can’t wait to get back to the Temple to ponder these new insights in stereo.