The Ordinance Has Been Changed

In the comment section of a recent post here on LDC, a long-time reader asked some excellent questions about the sealing power, the temple and the ordinances there. His questions caused me to go to the Lord in prayer to obtain greater understanding. I share some of what I have learned here in the hopes it will help others with similar questions.

His asked three questions. This post will attempt to answer the first one. I hope to have the additional questions answered and posted in the next few weeks before the start of the conference on the temple to be held in Colorado the weekend of 19-21 April 2019.

Question: What do you feel is required to “change the ordinance”? There have been numerous changes to the endowment since its inception in the red brick store in 1842. What constitutes “the ordinance has been changed”?


One could make an argument that the ordinance was changed almost immediately after it was first administered by Joseph in the red brick store. My personal studies of the diaries and journals of that time period demonstrate to me that it was expanded after Joseph introduced it 4-5 May 1842.

On the other hand, it has been my observation that, in general, changes after the death of the prophet Joseph have taken away from the endowment. It originally required, by one account, four to five hours to administer. Today, that has been pared down to an hour and twenty minutes.

Of course, much of the time difference can be accounted for by having only one station at the veil. From personal experience, it’s obvious the size of the company and the number of veil workers available will also directly affect the time to complete each session, especially in larger temples.


Joseph assigned Brigham the task of “systematizing” the ceremonies, which he did. The ceremonies were not written down until near the end of Brigham’s lifetime (Aug 1877), reportedly in the period of January through March 1877, before the St. George temple was dedicated in April of 1877.

Unfortunately, Brigham did some freelancing by adding the Adam-God theory to the lecture at the veil. That lecture changed numerous times over the years. I remember participating in that lecture (minus the Adam-God stuff, which had long been removed) and missed that as the years went by.

It is my belief that changes to the endowment ceremony in Joseph’s lifetime (1842-1844) were authorized by him since he was the one who held the keys of a dispensation. The covenant embodied in the endowment, including the sealing, were administered under his authority.


However, the sealings of multiple wives to husbands, in my opinion and according to my limited research, were rarely performed by Joseph, but were promoted by Brigham as a requirement for exaltation. That, to me, is a clear sign that the ordinance had been changed and the covenant had been broken.

Now, let’s apply that to you and me. Was the endowment I received in 1976 and the sealing I received in 1982 valid, authorized and recognized of God? Yes. How can I say that and still argue the ordinance has been changed? Perhaps it’s all in the way it is received. Our faith really matters.

For you and me, the ordinance contains enough of the original focus of what Joseph intended that we were able to receive it in full faith and obtain from it what the Lord requires us to know in order to converse with Him through the veil and to enter into his presence. For us, then, it has not changed.

For those who received plural wives in this manner, it had been changed and was therefore void of the promised blessings, even if uttered. The Holy Spirit of Promise is not going to certify or seal up an adulterous marriage. I know this is an extremely sensitive area and raises additional concerns.


To summarize and to attempt to answer your question directly, I don’t believe you can put an exact date as to when the ordinance changed, nor can you say what constitutes a change that absolutely invalidates it. There comes a point when stuff removed negates receiving the required keys of knowledge.

For example, new initiates today will never fully understand the symbolism of the veil because they never participate in the ceremony with the veil. They can read about it or discuss it with their parents or others who experienced it, but what about personal revelation associated with the sacred symbol?

Another key that has been completely lost is an understanding of the concept of “sealing to the fathers in heaven.” I’m not sure Joseph was ever successful in getting the people to understand it let alone accept it. I’ve addressed this in the previous post but will summarize the doctrine here if I can.

We erroneously conflate the identity of “the fathers in heaven” with our kindred dead. They are not the same group of people at all. Our kindred dead are in need of our work in their behalf. They, like us, need to be sealed to the fathers. This is a critically important distinction that needs to be clear.


When Joseph was instructed by the angel who visited him in 1823, he quoted many scriptures, but perhaps the most pertinent to our discussion here is Malachi 4:6, slightly different from the version of the King James edition of the scriptures. A careful reading helps us understand the Lord’s work:

“And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

Who are the fathers? That’s the question we should really be asking ourselves. What can they do for us that our kindred dead cannot? Joseph taught that the fathers were Adam and Adam’s righteous posterity, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He also taught that they had already been exalted.

When Joseph taught about the temple in the latter days of his ministry, he focused on the family of God and being sealed to the fathers in heaven. We would do well to ponder what Joseph was trying to teach, which we identify today as the law of adoption. Joseph became for us, a father in heaven.

I tried to address this idea in the last few paragraphs of my last post. It is an extremely fascinating subject, one that I have been studying intensely over the past few months in my efforts to prepare for the upcoming conference on the temple. I so look forward to learning more about the temple there.

I hope I have answered the first of your excellent questions. In short, the ordinance is ineffective if it fails to convey what was intended in the original covenant offered. If it does not convey sufficient keys of knowledge to allow us to rise up and enter into God’s presence then it has been changed or broken.

References: History of the Church, 5:1–2. May 1842. One of many online links:

Wednesday, 4.—I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office (so called because in that room I keep my sacred writings, translate ancient records, and receive revelations) and in my general business office, or lodge room (that is where the Masonic fraternity meet occasionally, for want of a better place) in council with General James Adams, of Springfield, Patriarch Hyrum Smith, Bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and President Brigham Young and Elders Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days. And the communications I made to this council were of things spiritual, and to be received only by the I spiritual minded: and there was nothing made known to these men but what will be made known to all the Saints of the last days, so soon as they are prepared to receive, and a proper place is prepared to communicate them, even to the weakest of the Saints; therefore let the Saints be diligent in building the Temple, and all houses which they have been, or shall hereafter be, commanded of God to build; and wait their time with patience in all meekness, faith, perseverance unto the end, knowing assuredly that all these things referred to in this council are always governed by the principle of revelation.

Thursday, 5.— … the remainder of the council of yesterday continued their meeting at the same place, and myself and Brother Hyrum received in turn from the others, the same that I had communicated to them the day previous.

The description from Brigham’s secretary of the introduction of the endowment:

Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation & said when we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room or office were [sic] we were washed and anointed had our garments placed upon us and received our New Name, and after he had performed these ceremonies, he gave the Key Words signs, togkens [sic] and penalties, then after we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo. Joseph divided up the room the best that he could hung up the veil, marked it gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another giving us signs, tokens, penalties with the Key words pertaining to those signs and after we had got through. Bro Joseph turned to me (Press B. Young) and said Bro Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I. . .wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens penalties and Key words I did so and each time I got something more so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo I understood and Knew

Source: L. John Nuttall Diary, 7 Feb. 1877, typescript, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, as found in:

The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony by David John Buerger, Dialogue Volume 34, Spring Summer 2001

or the original:

The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony by David John Buerger Dialogue Volume 20, Winter 1987

Side note: David John Buerger is an interesting fellow. He obviously spent a lot of time researching and publishing this material but became disaffected after publication:

“By 1987, Buerger’s interest in Mormon history and theology had waned. He donated his research files to the University of Utah library and no longer follows the debate concerning the interpretation of the Mormon past and its implications for the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”


You can read a review of the book from the BYU Studies site here:

The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994).


9 thoughts on “The Ordinance Has Been Changed”

    Almost a year later on 6 August 1843, Brigham Young confirmed that the fullness of the priesthood had not yet been given: “[ I] f any in the Church had the fullness of the Melchisedec Priesthood, [I do] not know it.” Clearly, Smith had discussed this concept with Young, for Young added, “For any person to have the fulness of that pristhood must be a king & a priest…. A person may be anointed king & priest before they receive their kingdom &c.” 70

    Two additional ceremonies were introduced in 1843 about a year following the initial conferral of the new endowment: celestial marriage for time and eternity and the fullness of the priesthood or the second anointing.


    *FN 87 Compare the patriarchal blessing Hyrum Smith gave John Taylor on 23 July 1843, that “shall be sealed upon your head in the day that you shall be anointed & your body prepared for its buriel” (Patriarchal Blessing Book, 3: 144, LDS archives). For biblical accounts of Jesus Christ’s anointing for his burial, see Matthew 26: 6-12, Mark 14: 3-9, John 12: 1-8.


    Young’s remarks on kings and priests originated in the endowment ritual. As Heber C. Kimball explained to a Nauvoo temple audience on 21 December 1845, “You have been anointed to be kings and priests, but you have not been ordained to it yet, and you have got to get it by being faithful” (Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, 227). This concept was mentioned again by George Q. Cannon in 1883: “in the washing that takes place in the first endowment, they are washed that they might become clean from the blood of this generation… in the same way they are ordained to be Kings and Priests—that ordinance does not make them… Kings and Priests. If they fully received of another endowment [i.e., the second anointing], a fulness of that power, and the promises are fulfilled in the bestowal of the power upon them” (Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, 2 Aug. 1883, 14, LDS archives). In 1941 Apostle David O. McKay explained that the “first anointing” is conferred in the initiatory ordinances of the endowment where “one… is anointed to become a king and a priest of the Most High; a queen and priestess in the realms of God…. We are anointed that we may become such” (“ The Temple Ceremony,” address at the Salt Lake Temple Annex, 25 Sept. 1941, LDS archives, in Joseph C. Muren, comp., The Temple and Its Significance, rev. ed. [Ogden, UT: Temple Publications, 1974]). In terms of the Nauvoo endowment prior to Smith’s death, it may be that the “first anointing” was an actual, not promissory, ordination, for Heber Kimball’s own diary recollection of the 4 May 1842 ceremony was that he was “ordained a Preast.” Notably the Kirtland endowment actually pronounced recipients “clean from the blood of this generation”; yet Kimball’s 21 December 1845 diary also records him telling the same temple audience cited above of more blessings to come “if you are faithful and keep your tongue in your mouth.”

    temple ordinances, based on the History of the Church, is intended to illustrate this point. Items first revealed in Nauvoo are italicized, while those found in both the Kirtland and Nauvoo ceremonies are not:
    1) Washing of the body with water and perfumed alcohol (set wording);
    2) Sealing the washing;
    3) Anointing the body with oil;
    4) Sealing the anointing (set wording);
    5) Aaronic portion of the endowment;
    6) Melchizedek portion of the endowment;
    7) Marriage for time and eternity;
    8) Anointing with oil; and
    9) Washing of feet (cited in Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 140-41n6, and in his “Introduction of Temple Ordinances,” 169).


    Joseph Smith Store

    4 May 1842 Endowment
    27 June 1842 Prayer Circle
    28 Sep. 1842 Endowment
    5 Nov. 1843 Endowment
    31 Dec. 1843 Prayer Circle
    20 Jan. 1844 Second Anointings

    Joseph Smith Homestead

    26 June 1842 Prayer Circle
    12 Nov. 1843 Second Anointings
    19 Nov. 1843 Prayer Circle

    The Mansion House

    27 Aug. 1843 Prayer Circle
    28 Sep. 1843 Second Anointings
    29 Oct. 1843 Endowment

    Brigham Young Residence
    22 Jan. 1844 Prayer Circle
    25 Jan. 1844 Second Anointings
    1 Aug. 1844 Prayer Circle
    15 Aug. 1844 Second Anointings
    24 Jan. 1845 Prayer Circle

    You have now learned how to pray. You have been taught how to approach God and be recognized.
    -Amasa Lyman (An Intimate Chronicle 222-223)

    The earliest accounts of the Nauvoo temple endowment indicate that initiatory washings followed a literal Old Testament model of actual bathing. Large tubs of water are specified in the separate men’s and women’s rooms.
    The anointing was performed by liberally pouring consecrated oil from a horn over the head and allowing it to run over the whole body.
    Originally everyone participating took the roles of Adam and Eve.
    Early endowment administrations were primarily restricted to a man and his wife or wives, 25 although few men were endowed without their spouse’s participation. Initially all were admitted through the veil by the same officiator. Men began conducting their wives through the veil by 1857.26
    (106-107 Joseph’s Introductions to the Temple Ordinances, Ehat)

    The keys or signs of the Priesthood are for the purpose of impressing on the mind the order of the Creation. In the first place the name of the man is given, a new name, Adam, signifying the first man, or Eve, the first Woman. Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood. The new name should be after some ancient man. Thus with your ancient name, your modern name and the name that was last given you, you enquire concerning things past present and future.
    (28 Dec, 1845, LDS Archives)

    IF NOT CARRIED OUT HOW JOSEPH GAVE IT, MAY NOT HAVE FURTHER ENDOWMENT Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. B. H. Roberts. 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973), 7: 254-55, 258 (hereafter HC). Wilford Woodruff’s handwritten report of Young’s comments expands: “If we do not carry out the plan Joseph has laid down & the pattern he has given for us to work by, we cannot get any further endowment—I want this to sink deep into your heart that you may remember it. If you stir up the flame of dissention will you get an endowment? No! You get a party to run here and another there, and divide our strength, and weaken our hands, and we will be left and our enemies will flock around us & destroy us—in that case you will not get your endowments, but will sink & not rise—go to hell and not to the bosom of Abraham. . . . [W] ould the Lord give an endowment to a people that would be frightened away from [their] duty?” (Brigham Young Addresses, 1843-55, archives, historical department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah [hereafter LDS archives]) 5. HC, 7: 378.

  2. Bonnie: Sorry, both copies of the comment got stuck in the spam filter. I released one of them. Enjoyed reading it again. Thanks for sharing.

  3. Hi Tim,
    Thank you for the time you have spent in formulating answers to my questions. It is sincerely appreciated. I also appreciate the fact that you have gone to the Lord for your answers. I look forward to your other answers.

    From your answer on this question, you are essentially stating that it is subjective – open to perspective. A member, such as myself, could say, “Since there is not a pin-pointed, definitive removal of a key of knowledge and since there is no definitive date to point to, and since our faith matters in its validation, I can still believe with confidence that the covenant has not been broken.” Is that fair?

  4. Hi Mark. I read your summary yesterday. I thought about it, pondered and prayed about it. On the drive in to work this morning I was taken back to my college courses on philosophy and logic, especially the discussion on subjective truth.

    A term used in that class, which I have never used since, is “a priori,” meaning self-evident, or more technically, “formed or conceived beforehand,” which I always liked to think of as truth that is irrefutable, that comes from divinity.

    Without getting into a discussion about God being subject to certain laws, I guess my point on subjectivity is that I’m more interested in God’s point of view on the matter. My subjectivity is irrelevant. My perspective can’t change truth.

    We should be looking at what God has revealed about the subject, especially to Joseph, who was the one who embodied the covenant into the ordinances. I mean, the endowment in our day is different from Nephi’s temple ceremonies.

    I also think it would be helpful to come to agreement on a couple of terms such as covenant and ordinance. What constitutes a covenant? Is it the same as the everlasting covenant? Who offers covenants? Do we make or accept covenants?

    What is an ordinance? Who defines them? Are ordinances the real thing or are they symbolic? Are ordinances preparatory to obtaining something higher? What can ordinances do for us? What constitutes changing an ordinance?

    And that brings us back to the point of this post and your original question. There is no doubt in my mind that there have been changes to the ordinance. The most single, radical change to the temple endowment was in 1990. I remember it well.

    In 2005, washings and anointings were eliminated. Before the January 2005 changes, washing and anointings were literal. The change made them only symbolic thereafter. That has eternal significance – another radical change.

    And now, in 2019, the veil for the sisters has been eliminated as has the donning of the robe on the left shoulder. Obviously this saves a lot of time, but eliminates the symbolism of the Aaronic priesthood that accompanies this ceremonial act.

    I don’t want to go into additional detail about the changes at the veil, changes in the wording of the covenants, the removal of the penalties and much, much more. As a current temple attendee, I’m sure you know this better than I do.

    I hope this answers your question. In my opinion and personal observation, the ordinance has been changed. But has the covenant been broken? I’ll accept your summary that for you, and for me, we have not broken the covenant.

    But what about the young people who are endowed today for the first time? Can we say they are receiving the covenant Joseph had received as a dispensation head and embodied in the ordinances of the temple? I leave it to you to decide.

    1. And one more quote I saw again today that caused me to ponder our dialog:

      “Ordinances that were ordained by God cannot be changed. If they’re changed, they’re broken; if they’re broken, they’re ineffective. Therefore, an altered ordinance can be informational, and if you take it sincerely and if you adhere to the covenants and if you obey, God can work with that because God can work with any soul. And you can ultimately realize every blessing and every promise of the temple, as God, by the Holy Spirit of Promise, works with you to confer upon you blessings that are intended for you. So there’s no downside, but there’s a considerable upside if you’re true and faithful to the things that you obligate yourself to do.”


  5. Eileen C Millsap

    Your “mainstream” ideology seems to leave little room for historical fact finding. Adam God theory? Eliza R Snow attested that Joseph Smith taught that Doctrine to her. BTW, when Joseph Smith taught, and pressed, the Doctrine of plural wives, Brigham Young envied a deceased man, for not having to live it. But Brigham desired to do the will of the Father, and was able to embrace what was so opposite to the beliefs he had previously held. Joseph Smith Jr restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As happened after the death of Jesus and the Apostles who personally knew Him, the Gospel has been being subjected to a continual wearing down process ever since it was restored. Even in Joseph’s lifetime, there were men trying to change parts of the Gospel that didn’t suit them. Today, the mainstream church bares little resemblance to the Gospel as restored by Joseph Smith Jr. Continuing revelation, has been used as an excuse to change anything that has become an embarrassment before the world. But WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THE WORLD. Joseph Smith stated “where there is no change in ordinance, there is no change in Priesthood.” By inference, is not the opposite also true?

  6. Hi Eileen. You might find it helpful to read “Our Divine Parents” at this link:

    Or here:

    Or, if you prefer, a YouTube video presentation can be found here:

    On pages 34-39 (2 Hr, 3 Min and 39 sec into the video), we read:

    Finally, there is one last clarification about the Heavenly Mother that needs to be made. Brigham Young taught a confusing doctrine that has been labeled “Adam-God.” Although he gave some illuminating and true sermons during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, following Joseph’s death Brigham Young seemed to be doctrinally adrift. He made no claims to revelation. But his guesses about what happened in the Garden of Eden have marred all of the largest branches of Mormonism. To be fair, he said he “guessed” and “reckoned” about the subject. But he also called it a “revealment” to him, which led others to regard his incorrect ideas as reliable. Brigham Young’s false ideas have produced a library of material defending or disputing his teaching. There are today both fervent defenders and convicted detractors. Because of this strong partisan divide, it might be more prudent to leave what happened in Eden unexplained. Nevertheless, what follows will either help clarify events or add to the confusion and debate:

    Our Heavenly Mother, the companion of Heavenly Father, was in the garden when man was created. But so were others. In addition to the man Adam and the woman Eve, the plural Elohim who were in Eden included two Divine couples who were parents of Adam and Eve. One Divine couple were the parents of Adam. The other were the parents of Eve. The account of the creation from Moses in Genesis is a parable. The account veils identities of the role players unless the parable is explained. Christ did this when He taught publicly.

    The parable written by Moses relates: And I, God, said unto my Only Begotten, who was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And it was so. And I, God, said, Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the Earth. And I, God, created man in my own image. In the image of my Only Begotten created I him. Male and female created I them. And I, God, blessed them.

    The creation of the man Adam was secondarily in the image of God the Father, but was primarily and specifically “in the image of my Only Begotten”—meaning Jesus Christ. The reason Adam was born “in the image of” God the Father’s “Only Begotten” was because the Only Begotten was the one who begat Adam. God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ in the spirit, and the biological father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. God the Father was also the Father of the spirit of the man Adam. But the biological Father of Adam in the garden was “in the image of the Only Begotten,” or Jesus Christ. Christ and His companion were the physical Parents of the man Adam.

    Jesus Christ was among the “souls” who were “noble and great” before this cycle of creation. The word “soul” as used in the 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham had been defined in a revelation received in 1832: “Now verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead, and the spirit and the body is the soul of man, and the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul, and the redemption of the soul is through him who quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the Earth shall inherit it.” Christ is identified in scripture as a “soul” before this world was created. Therefore, before this world was created Christ had both a “spirit and a body”—having gone through the necessary progression required for all who ascend to be “like unto God.” Christ had the physical capacity to be the biological father of offspring. He did this with Adam. The account continues and describes the creation of the woman. Here the parable distinguishes between the process of creating the man Adam and creating his spouse, the woman Eve:

    And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that it was not good that the man should be alone, Wherefore, I will make an help meet for him. God the Father said to the Only Begotten and that He (God the Father), will be the one to make Adam’s “help meet.” It was not good for Adam to be alone because he was not complete without a suitable companion to help him progress and develop. The creation parable continues:

    And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and I took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof, and the rib, which I, the Lord God had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. The parable of the creation of the woman therefore differs from the creation of the man. She was not formed from the dust of the ground. She was formed from a “rib” –from an already existing part of the man. She was born from something equal to him and able to stand beside him in all things.

    But the parable about the woman Eve means a great deal more. She was at Adam’s side before the creation of this world. They were united as “one” in a prior estate when they progressed to become living “souls” with both bodies and spirits. They were sealed before this world by the Holy Spirit of Promise and proved true and faithful. They once sat upon a throne in God the Father’s Kingdom. In that state they were equal and joined eternally together. She sat beside him and was a necessary part of his enthronement. Her introduction into this world to join her companion was needed to complete Adam. It was not good for him to be alone. They were “one” and therefore Adam without Eve was not complete—or in the words of the parable “not good to be alone.”

    Like the man Adam, the woman Eve was the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. But unlike the man Adam, who was the physical offspring of Christ, the woman Eve needed to be the physical offspring of God the Father and God the Mother. Eve was Adam’s sister in spirit. Eve was also his physical aunt. She had to be the direct descendant of the Heavenly Mother in order to endow her with her Mother’s creative abilities. That power belongs to the Mother. The fertility of Eve, and thereafter of all the daughters of Eve, came because of the power given from direct descent from the Heavenly Mother.

    Men descend from Christ. Christ founded the family of men and is accountable for them. He was placed in that position to enable Him to atone for any failure on their part. Through Adam “sin entered the world” and death was imposed upon all mankind. Jesus Christ, one greater than Adam, made Himself responsible for all mankind’s failures and transgressions. Through the obedience of Jesus Christ all mankind were justified and “made righteous.” The Father made mankind Christ’s posterity. This was necessary to qualify Christ as “the last Adam.” Christ was the rightful “heir of all things” because He always stood at the head. When “all things were made by Him” it included the man Adam. Death came upon all mankind through Adam. Before Adam there was one greater who has made it possible for mankind to inherit life through Him. Christ has the standing to answer for man’s disobedience. He could and did take upon Him the sins of all His posterity.

    Women descend from mother Eve, who was born the biological daughter of Heavenly Mother. Women descend from Heavenly Mother to endow them with Her creative power of fertility to bear the souls of men. Eve was not beneath Adam, nor subject to his rule when first created. Eve was put beside him to complete him and be his helpmeet.

    There was another condition required to enable Christ to lawfully redeem the daughters of Eve as well as the sons of Adam. The parable of the creation includes this step to put Eve under Adam’s responsibility. The account explains that Eve (and by extension her daughters) was put under Adam’s rule. Adam was handed responsibility and accountability for Eve. These are the words in the parable: [T]hy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Adam was made accountable to “rule” in the fallen world. All the mistakes, mismanagements, failings, wars, and difficulties of mortality are the responsibility of the appointed “ruler.” Adam would not have been accountable for Eve unless she was made subject to his “rule.” Once under Adam’s rule, the redemption of Adam became also the redemption of Eve. Therefore Adam and the sons of Adam, and Eve and the daughters of Eve, were all rescued through Christ’s atonement for mankind. The parable continues with another allusion to Heavenly Mother: And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living, for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

    One of the names of Heavenly Mother is “Eve.” She was the “mother of all living” because She was the one who mothered the spirits of Adam and Eve and was therefore parent of them both. Out of respect for Her, Adam called his companion by the same name as the Heavenly Mother.

    Redemption of all mankind, male and female, required Adam to descend from Jesus Christ. It also required Adam to “rule,” or be responsible to teach all those in his dominion. That role assigned to Adam was in order to extend the legal effect of Christ’s redemption to Adam, Eve and their posterity.

    However, for women to bear the souls of men, Eve had to be a direct descendant of Heavenly Mother. Although veiled for present, women’s direct descent from the Heavenly Mother is also required for men to be placed on a throne in the hereafter. The Answer to Prayer for Covenant states:

    And again, I say to you, Abraham and Sarah sit upon a Throne, for he could not be there if not for Sarah’s covenant with him. Isaac and Rebecca sit upon a Throne, and Isaac likewise could not be there if not for Rebecca’s covenant with him. And Jacob and Rachel sit upon a Throne, and Jacob could not be there if not for Rachel’s covenant with him. And all these have ascended above Dominions and Principalities and Powers, to abide in my Kingdom. Therefore the marriage covenant is needed for all those who would likewise seek to obtain from me the right to continue their seed into eternity, for only through marriage can Thrones and Kingdoms be established.

    The creation of woman was designed to fulfill the work and the covenants of the Father in this world and will be critical in eternity. Families come through the union of the man and woman. Women bear the souls of mankind and bring all of us into this world through childbirth. That power was inherited from the Heavenly Mother. But there are other rights belonging to women that will only be apparent in either a completed temple or the afterlife. They have been endowed with an everlasting authority required for any man to occupy a throne in the Father’s Kingdom.

    A fuller explanation of woman’s role will require worthy people willing to be taught, and to build an acceptable house for the Elohim to return.

    And some earlier thoughts, if you are interested

Comments are closed.