So I must admit I’ve been doing some research lately and though I had never heard of it I was recently informed that before the year 1990 or so there used to be some sort of a death covenant that members of the church would take in the temple, but I’m not sure if it’s really true and if so what implications it has. I’m just wondering if you could maybe give me a little more information on the subject as it is something that has been troubling me for some time.
One Response to “So I must admit I’ve been doing some research lately…”
Pedro Cruz
2014-11-23 21:53:04
The Blessings of the Temple
Hi brother. This is a difficult topic to research because faithful members of the church from that era who are still alive did make a covenant not to reveal the details of the ceremony. They understandably don't talk about it much, wanting to keep their promise to God. Consequently, the only accounts we have come from ex-Mormons, who are often very anti-Mormon and so are hardly objective sources of information.
I myself first went through the temple in the late 90s, so I don't know the details of this particular symbol. I did once listen to a fascinating discussion on a radio program called "Mormon Miscellaneous" that addressed it somewhat superficially. If I remember correctly, it wasn't that people promised to kill themselves or others if they revealed the details of the covenant. That's the kind of sensationalistic "death covenant" that anti-Mormons like to describe. Rather, the symbol meant only that people would so honor the sacredness of the covenant that they would rather themselves be threatened with death than reveal it to the world.
The distinction is very important. In one scenario, we have a sensationalistic vision of Mormons promising to kill other people in the temple. (Where do anti-Mormons get these crazy ideas?) In reality, we have Mormons promising to honor the sacredness of their covenants to God.
Now, the physical details of the symbol were clearly antiquated by 1990. This is the very kind of thing that would have been, arguably, more appropriate back when it was originally incorporated into the temple ceremony (in the 1800s). I certainly understand why God prompted the leaders of our church to remove so outdated and easily misinterpreted a symbol. However, it's hardly appropriate to call it a "death covenant."
While I don't know all the details of the old ceremony, I can say that there's nothing like that in the modern version. I'm grateful to belong to a church that believes in modern revelation, allowing God to modify symbols like this according to our constantly changing human cultures. In the end, it's the meaning behind the symbol that really matters, not the symbol itself. I hope this answer helps.
I myself first went through the temple in the late 90s, so I don't know the details of this particular symbol. I did once listen to a fascinating discussion on a radio program called "Mormon Miscellaneous" that addressed it somewhat superficially. If I remember correctly, it wasn't that people promised to kill themselves or others if they revealed the details of the covenant. That's the kind of sensationalistic "death covenant" that anti-Mormons like to describe. Rather, the symbol meant only that people would so honor the sacredness of the covenant that they would rather themselves be threatened with death than reveal it to the world.
The distinction is very important. In one scenario, we have a sensationalistic vision of Mormons promising to kill other people in the temple. (Where do anti-Mormons get these crazy ideas?) In reality, we have Mormons promising to honor the sacredness of their covenants to God.
Now, the physical details of the symbol were clearly antiquated by 1990. This is the very kind of thing that would have been, arguably, more appropriate back when it was originally incorporated into the temple ceremony (in the 1800s). I certainly understand why God prompted the leaders of our church to remove so outdated and easily misinterpreted a symbol. However, it's hardly appropriate to call it a "death covenant."
While I don't know all the details of the old ceremony, I can say that there's nothing like that in the modern version. I'm grateful to belong to a church that believes in modern revelation, allowing God to modify symbols like this according to our constantly changing human cultures. In the end, it's the meaning behind the symbol that really matters, not the symbol itself. I hope this answer helps.