Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Temples, 1896.” You can view other years here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
TEMPLES, 1896.
1896: 8 Jan.: St. George Temple bathtubs.
“A telegram was sent by the First Presidency to William Thompson of St. George in reply to a letter from him in relation to the bath tubs in the St. George Temple. They were getting almost beyond repair, but a man of means had promised to donate new ones providing the Church would pay the freight. The offer was accepted.” (JH 8 Jan., 1896)
16 Jan.: Temple stained-glass window.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] Objection was made to the exhibition, in a show window in this City, of photographs of the art glass windows of the interior of the Temple. Surprise was expressed that it had been photographed, and it was decided that it should be withdrawn from public exhibition.” (JH 16 Jan., 1896)
30 Jan.: Women denied access to men’s prayer circles.
“The subject of permission to the sisters to meet in prayer circles was discussed, as the question had been asked whether it would be right or whether they could be permitted to meet with their husbands in a prayer circle, seeing that sisters had been admitted to prayer circles in the Nauvoo Temple. It was shown, however, that on such occasions it was for the purpose of teaching the order of prayer as it is now the custom in the Temples. It was decided that if the sisters desired to meet for prayer they could do so as members and officers of Relief Societies in their regular places of meeting, but that it would not be advisable for them to meet at circles or to participate in prayer-circle meetings.” (Journal History, 30 Jan., 1896; quoted in D. Michael Quinn, “Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles,” BYU Studies 19(1):95, Fall, 1978)
13 Feb.: Endowment robes at funerals.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] Elder [Heber J.] Grant called attention to the exposure of endowment robes at funerals to which strangers were permitted to attend, and suggested that it would be better for friends to view bodies thus clothed at the home, and thus avoid the unnecessary exhibition in the meeting houses. The council was unanimous in endorsing this view.” (JH 13 Feb., 1896)
26 Feb.: Elias/Elijah.
“On this date (Feb. 26th) H. S. Tanner wrote the following to Pres. Jos. F. Smith:
Dear Brother:
Please find inclosed a clipping from the Sacramento Record Union of yesterday, which speaks for itself. If you haven’t time to look it over and answer two or three questions for me please have some one else attend to it for me and return clipping and answers at your earliest possible convenience, as they are sure to come on to me for an answer. What was the object of S. Brannan & Co. coming around in the vessel? and Did Pres. B. Young agree to meet Brannan in Cal.?
What it the nature of the question he refers to, ‘that 56 years should wind up the scene.’
I would also like your views on the Elija and Elisha business. I realize that the whole thing is a rehash, but I haven’t the books to refer to, to see just how some of those things are. . . .”
(JH 26 Feb., 1896)
Note: See JH entry of 4 Mar., 1896 for the answer.
1/2 Mar.: Suicide: temporary insanity/burial in temple robes?
“Brother John Penman, an old and well known resident of Bountiful, Davis Co., committed suicide by hanging himself this morning. He had become needlessly worried over financial troubles until his mind was unbalanced, and the act was no doubt the result of temporary insanity.” (JH 1 Mar., 1896)
“Elders Geo. D. Grant and Henry Rampton of Davis Stake called on the [First] Presidency in reference to the suicide of brother John Penman of Bountiful. They related several circumstances showing without doubt that he was the victim of insanity, and they wished to know what kind of funeral services should be held over the body, and whether it should be clothed in Temple robes. The Presidency decided that as insanity was the cause of the suicide, regular funeral services might be held, and the body clothed in Temple robes, but that the coffin should be closed at the residence of the deceased, and not reopened at the services.” (JH 2 Mar., 1896)
4 Mar.: Elijah/Elias; Timing of Millennium.
“Prest. Jos. F. Smith having received a letter of enquiry from Elder Henry S. Tanner, President of the California Mission [see entry of 26 Feb., 1896], turned the matter over to brother C. W. Penrose, of the Historian’s Office, and following is the correspondence:
Elder Henry S. Tanner.
In response to your letter of February 26th, addressed to President Joseph F. Smith, by his request I send you the following to aid you in meeting the fallacies of C. E. Malmstrom in the Sacramento Record Union of February 25th. . . .
In reference to what Joseph said concerning the word of the Lord to him about the Coming of the Son of Man, the objector gives only a partial quotation. He says further:
I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the Millennium or to some previous coming, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.
It is not true that the remark of the Prophet Joseph on Feb. 14, 1835, is ‘dropped out’ either of Church history or Church works, as stated by Malmstrom. It is in the public history and also in a foot-note in the Doctrine and Covenants. What was meant by ‘Even fifty six years should wind up the scene,’ was not understood by the early Elders and in the foot-note here mentioned, the following comment is made:
Whether this had reference to the coming of Christ or to the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles is unknown.
In any case, it was simply a remark made by Joseph Smith, when speaking to a number of missionaries who were to go out and labor in the field. There is no proof that either prediction cited by Malmstrom related to the Second Advent of Christ.
As to Elijah and Elias, while every well informed student of the Scriptures is aware that Elijah in Hebrew is Elias in Greek, it does not follow that Joseph Smith did not see two different personages in the Kirtland Temple,–one bearing the name of Elijah and the other the title of Elias. The meaning of the latter name in the theology of the Latter Day Saints is a Restorer. In Matthew 17, where we read that Moses and Elias appeared to Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration, it says in verses 11-13, that ‘Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Then the disciples understood that he spoke unto them of John the Baptist.’ Here are two different persons, each called Elias. In Matthew 11:14, Christ says, ‘And if you will receive it this is Elias which was to come.’
In the Key to the Revelation of St. John, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 77, verse 9, we read,
We are to understand that the Angel ascending from the East is he to whom is given the seal of the Living God over the Twelve Tribes of Israel, wherefore he cried unto the four angels having the everlasting Gospel, saying, ‘hurt not the earth, neither the sea nor the trees till we have sealed the servants of God in their foreheads;’ and if you will receive it, ‘this is Elias which was to come to gather the Tribes of Israel and restore all things.’
In Doctrine and Covenants, section 27, verse 6, mention is also made of Elias, and the special keys committed to him and in verse 7, of his visit to the father of John the Baptist saying that he should have a son who should be filled with the spirit of Elias. Elijah is mentioned in verse 9, as a different person with a different mission.
From all this it is evident that Elijah and Elias are two different persons with two different missions, and that each prophet who comes as a restorer in the spirit and power of Elias, is himself called by the title of an Elias.
It is also possible for the same prophet to hold the keys of two different missions. For instance, John the Baptist could come as a messenger holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood as he appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, he could also come at another time as an Elias, in the spirit and power of a restorer. Whoever the personage was that appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, with the keys of the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham, he was not the same as the personage who appeared as Elijah, holding the keys of the ordinances for the redemption of the dead in the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers.
It is very easy for one who desires to mystify and confuse the public to select here and there a half saying or part revelation, and so mix and mingle them as to obscure the truth.
Yours in the Gospel,
C. W. Penrose.”
(JH 4 Mar., 1896)
7 Apr.: Meeting w/local leaders over various issues, including clothing of dead in Temple robes, 2nd anointing.
“A meeting of the First Presidency, Apostles, First Council of Seventies, Presiding Bishopric, Presidents of Stakes and Counselors, High Councilors, and Bishops and Counselors, was held in the Assembly Hall at 10 A.M. After the opening exercises, President Joseph F. Smith addressed the Assembly which filled the body of the hall. He dwelt on the importance of every officer of the Church being united in spirit and in harmony with the First Presidency and the Twelve. He thought it would be much better for such officers as were unable to be in harmony to ask to be released from their official positions, than to continue in office while entertaining feelings of hostility to those whom God had placed to lead and direct the Church. He expressed regret that he could not speak with that freedom which he desired in consequence of the feeling that there were some present in whom his confidence was not very strong. He did not know that his words would be carried to the Gentiles as soon as the meeting was over. There was nothing in his heart but what might be proclaimed to the whole world, and yet it was a matter of regret that what was said in a meeting specially designed for the Priesthood alone, was liable to be carried to the enemies of Zion. Prest. Smith cautioned the brethren against betraying any trust reposed in them. He took up the subject of the burial of our dead, and spoke against the custom which had grown up amongst us of taking our dead to the meeting houses clothed in the robes of the Priesthood, and exhibiting them to the gaze of the public. He asked would we think of dressing ourselves in our Temple clothing, and inviting people not of our faith to come and look upon us? If we would not do that while living, what propriety was there in exposing such clothing on the bodies of the dead? He announced that the First Presidency and Apostles had decided that coffins should not be opened at the meeting houses, or wherever public services were held, for the purpose of exhibiting the remains of the dead, but that friends of the deceased and others who may have a right to look upon the faces of the dead, should do so at the family residences, and thus keep as private and as sacred as possible the robes of the Holy Priesthood.
President Lorenzo Snow gave some instruction in regard to Temple work, and requested the brethren present to keep the subject of the work in behalf of the dead prominently before the Latter Day Saints.
Elder F. D. Richards emphasized and endorsed the remarks of Prest. Snow, and spoke on the organization of the Genealogical Society, of which he is President, and invited the brethren to become members.
Elder Brigham Young spoke on the importance and benefits of Church schools, and also on the importance of securing the natural reservoir sites, and all sources of water supply in the interests of the people throughout the State.
President Geo. Q. Cannon alluded to the matter of exposing to the public, proceedings and remarks in meetings of this kind. While there was nothing in such meetings that any one need to be ashamed of, they were convened in order that the leading brethren might be talked to on things pertaining to their positions and calling, which might not be applicable to the people generally. Men who would make public what was said in these meetings were not the kind in whom the Lord could repose confidence. President Cannon took up the subject of securing the natural facilities and resources of our country, quoting the language of Prest. Young, who used to ask the Lord to make our feet fast in these mountains; he said this could be done by our occupation of the land, and securing the water supplies. There was danger, he said, of our losing our footing in these valleys through strangers coming here and laying claim to these facilities. He gave some counsel on the subject of recommendations for second annointings. Worthy old people should be selected as a rule, and Bishops should select faithful persons and confer with their Stake Presidents before recommending them for that blessing. He also advised that as far as possible each Stake of Zion should sustain its own poor.
President Cannon explained the subject of Church salaries. He read the resolutions adopted by the First Presidency and Apostles, showed the wrong of establishing a system by which fixed salaries would be come attached to Church offices, and this would be a departure from the order of heaven and the rule that had been in the Church from the beginning. He said that men who labored in the ministry and who needed help should receive necessary assistance, but not in the shape of a salary. The resolutions referred to were read again, and unanimously adopted by the meeting.
The declaration or address of the authorities of the Church was considered, and it was resolved, that it should be read in the various Stakes and Wards of the Church, as the local authorities might arrange.” (JH 7 Apr., 1896)
8 Apr.: Key to Nauvoo Temple.
“Elder Franklin D. Richards called on Presidents Woodruff and Smith, and presented to the President the key of the Nauvoo Temple. He had received it from sister Elizabeth E. Rice of Hooper, widow of Leonard G. Rice of Farmington. She explained how the key came into her possession. The Committee left in charge of the Nauvoo Temple, after the expulsion of the Saints, consisted of Almon Babbitt, brothers Heyward and Fullmer. When the Temple was destroyed, the key was in the possession of brother Babbitt. Martha Babbitt, a cousin of A. W. Babbitt and a sister of sister Rice, was living in the Babbitt family, and thus obtained the key. She came to Utah and lived in Farmington, but on going East on account of her health, she left some things in charge of her sister. Martha died at Kanesville. The key thus came into the possession of sister Rice, who had been solicited many times to sell the key, but she would not part with it even to her children, feeling that she would rather it should go to the President of the Church. President Woodruff was very pleased to receive it, and as sister Rice was in poor circumstances, he made her a present of $10.” (JH 8 Apr., 1896)
2 May: Don’t expose dead w/temple clothes to public.
“[Priesthood meeting] Said it was not desirable to expose them [the dead] to view dressed as they usually were in the robes of the Priesthood.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 2 May, 1896)
7 May: Occasional Relief Society prayer circle.
“Even after the decision of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in January 1896 advising against Relief Society prayer circle meetings, some ward Relief Societies continued holding occasional prayer circles:
We then attended a prayer meeting in the afternoon of the Relief Society. All the sisters are members of our society was presant at this meeting but one member all of us fasting that day. and part of us having kept our fast for two days that the Lord would hear our prayers that me and Cecelia would be healed.
We knelt in three different prayer circles. The I offered up a prayer by my self. I felt if the Lord would heal me I would devote the remainder of my days to His service. [Hannah Adeline Savage Journal, p. 25, 7 May, 1896, HDC; also see diary of Lucy Hannah White Flake, 1 Mar., 1895, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU]”
(D. Michael Quinn, “Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles,” BYU Studies 19(1):96, Fall, 1978)
7 May: Baptism for dead/baptism for health.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] Prest. Lorenzo Snow called attention to the form of baptism used in the Temples on behalf of the dead, in which the words ‘for the remission of your sins’ were interpolated, being different from the form of baptism for the living.
President Joseph F. Smith said he had noticed in baptizing a person for health the words were used ‘for the renewal of your covenants, the remission of your sins and the restoration of your health.’ It was the unanimous sense of the Council that these forms should be corrected by letter of instructions to the Temple Presidents.” (JH 7 May, 1896)
8 May: Letter concerning form of various types of baptism.
“The following letter prepared by President Geo. Q. Cannon to carry into effect the action of the Council of the First Presidency and Apostles, on May 7, was addressed today to the Presidents of the Temples:
In baptizing for the dead in the Temples we understand that the form of words used is as follows:
Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize _____, for an in behalf of _____ for the remission of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.
We might go into explanation as to the reasons which have caused this form of baptism to be adopted; but it is not necessary, further than to say that baptisms for health and baptisms for the renewal of covenants, etc., have led doubtless to the adoption of this form of ceremony to distinguish it from others.
We have had this matter under consideration from time to time, and supposed that our views had been made known to the Presidents of the Temples; but we understand that they have not been informed upon this point, and that the form above given is still the one used in administering baptisms for the dead.
The form that we think proper, and that we desire to have used hereafter in administering the ordinance of baptism for the dead, is as follows:
Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you _____ for and in behalf of _____, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
We understand that in some instances baptisms have been administered in the Temples with something like the following ceremony:
Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for the remission of sins, for the renewal of your covenant, and for the restoration of your health, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
We do not know upon what authority this form of administering baptism has been adopted, but we think it improper. There have been times in the Church when the First Presidency have felt it necessary to call upon all members of the Church to renew their covenants, and at such times it was suggested that the words ‘for the renewal of your covenants’ be used in the ceremony; but it does not follow that at other times, and in individual cases, that form should be used.
We think it improper, speaking generally, for the words ‘for the remission of sins’ or ‘for the renewal of your covenant’, to be used in administering the ordinance of baptism.
Where it may be necessary to baptize a person who is already a member of the Church, the form of ceremony which the Lord revealed to the Nephites, and which has also been revealed to us in our day, is sufficient. It is sufficient for a sinner who joins the Church, for through that ordinance and the words of the ceremony which the Lord has given, his sins are remitted, and it certainly is for a man who is already a member of the Church, if it should be deemed necessary to administer the ordinance of baptism to him. The practice which has prevailed in some instances where members of the Church are baptized of using the words ‘re-baptism’ and ‘re-confirmation’ we think unnecessary. When we strictly follow the form the Lord has given us we are sure to be right.
In cases where people are baptized for their health, we see no impropriety in using the words ‘for the restoration of your health’ in the ceremony. There is a difference between baptism for such a purpose and baptism for admission into the Church. One is an ordinance of salvation–the door provided by the Lord through which his children must enter into his Church, and become entitled to the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant; the other, while it may be termed in some respects an ordinance, is not imperative upon the members of the Church. If they have faith and believe, when they have some ailment, that the administration of baptism in that form will be beneficial to them, the privilege is granted to them. But there is a clear distinction between that form of baptism and the form of baptism which the Lord requires His children to obey to become members of His Church.
Signed by the First Presidency.”
(JH 8 May, 1896)
20 May: No more rebaptisms/baptisms for health in temple.
“In baptizing for the dead in the Temples we understand that the form of words used is as follows:
‘Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you _____ for and in behalf of _____, for the remission of your sins, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.’
We might go into explanation as to the reasons which have caused this form of baptism to be adopted; but it is not necessary; further than to say that baptism for health and baptism for the renewal of covenants, etc., have led doubtless to the adoption of this form of ceremony to distinguish it from others.
We have had this matter under consideration from time to time, and supposed that our views had been made known to the Presidents of the Temples; but we understand that they have not been informed upon this point, and that the form above given is still the one used in administering baptism for the dead.
The form we think proper, and that we desire to have used hereafter in administering the ordinance of baptism for the dead, is as follows:
‘Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you _____ for and in behalf of _____, who is dead [“who is dead” is penciled in on original], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.’
We understand that in some instances baptisms have been administered in the Temples with something like the following ceremony:
‘Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for the remission of sins, for the renewal of your covenant, and for the restoration of your health, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.’
We do not know upon what authority this form of administering baptism has been adopted; but we think it improper. There have been times in the Church when the First Presidency have felt it necessary to call upon all the members of the Church to renew their covenants, and at such times it was suggested that the words ‘for the renewal of your covenant’ be used in the ceremony; but it does not follow that at other times, and in individual cases, that form should be used.
We think it improper, speaking generally, for the words ‘for the remission of sins’ of [or] ‘for the renewal of your covenant’ to be used in administering the ordinance of baptism.” (First Presidency circular letter, 20 May, 1896)
28 May: Special messengers to visit earth (Salt Lake Temple).
“The First Presidency at their office this morning conversed on the subject of the terrible disaster with awful destruction of life and property in the City of St. Louis on Wednesday. President Woodruff remarked that the Lord in the early days of the Church required his servants to make a record of their persecutions and the mobbings they endured from their enemies. The Lor also told them that angels were waiting to go forth and reap down the earth, but were told to keep back for a season. President Woodruff said that at the time of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, the spirit manifested to him that the Lord was about to send special messengers to the earth for special purposes, and he firmly believed as much as he believed anything that some of those messengers had already commenced their work, and that the numerous and great disasters of recend date were the evidences of their presence.” (JH 28 May, 1896)
4 Jun.: Sale of Temple clothing.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] Attention was directed to an advertisement in ‘Bikuben’ for the sale of Temple clothing, and President Snow was requested to see that the matter was investigated, and that the sale of female Temple clothing should be in the hands of the Relief Societies.” (JH 4 Jun., 1896)
9 Jul.: Fraternal organizations and Temple recommends.
“The following letter was addressed to Elder Abram Hatch, President of the Wasatch Stake, which explains itself:
You ask the question, ‘Are members of the A. O. U. W., who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints entitled to recommends to the Temples for marriages and Temple work?’
In reply, we [the First Presidency] would say that we are not in favor of our Brethren joining organizations of any kind outside of our Church. But we are more especially impressed with the wrongfulness of their joining organizations which interfere with the rights of their fellow citizens in regard to labor. To illustrate: We think it is wrong, contrary to our religion, and contrary to good citizenship, for men to combine together in any organization to prevent their fellowmen from working because they do not join them or work for such an amount as they think workmen ought to have. This, we think, states our position clearly in regard to those organizations. But this A. O. U. W., as we understand, is not in the strictest sense an organization of that kind. Still we think it would be better for our brethren not to join it. It would not do, however, to refuse a young man who wanted to be married in the Temple a recommend because of his being a member of that organization. We do not wish to drive our people away from the Church and from its ordinances. At the same time we would not like this to be a precedent and for others to say, ‘Well, the Church has no objection to our belonging to the A. O. U. W., because So and So has received a recommend and he is a member of that Order.’ From this we think you will understand our position. If a man desires a recommend, and this is the only objection, we think you should grant it to him, at the same time giving him these views.
(Signed by Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith.)”
(JH 9 Jul., 1896)
20 Jul.: A. H. Cannon’s body not to be buried for one week.
“The First Presidency were all at their offices this morning, President George Q. Cannon exhibiting remarkable fortitude considering his recent sad bereavement. President Lorenzo Snow conferred with them in reference to the funeral of the deceased Apostle. It was decided that the funeral should be held in the Tabernacle on Sunday, July 26, at 2 P.M., the deceased having expressed a wish that his remains should be kept a week before interment.” (JH 20 Jul., 1896)
22 Jul.: Salaries of temple workers.
“Presidents G. Q. Cannon and J. F. Smith (President Woodruff being at home unwell) had an interview with Elder M. W. Merrill, President of the Logan Temple. Some complaint had been made in regard to the salaries of some of the Temple hands, who had been paid only half their salary during the two months vacation. It was shown that the hands did not work at all on Saturdays, but they were provided with dinner at the Temple, and that the work on Mondays was very light. Taking all things into consideration, the salaries were ample for services rendered. President Cannon said that if the brethren employed in the Recorder’s Office could obtain more remunerative labor they should be at liberty to make the change, and he believed that lady scribes could be obtained at a much less salary than that now paid. The conclusion was that the brethren had no good grounds of complaint.” (JH 22 Jul., 1896)
23 Jul.: A. H. Cannon called away by the Lord.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] President George Q. Cannon expressed his thanks for the sympathy shown him by his brethren in the bereavement he had suffered, but he was satisfied that his son Abraham had been called away of the Lord, and he had therefore been able to reconcile himself to this dispensation of providence.” (JH 23 Jul., 1896)
26 Jul.: White bunting at A. H. Cannon funeral.
“The services commenced at 2 o’clock. The stands were all draped in white crepe, gracefully looped with cord and tassels. The floral decorations were beautiful and imposing; flowers and shrubbery were artistically arranged across and on both sides of the stands: palms, oleanders in bloom, india rubber trees, all kinds of flowers and plants in bloom, various emblems, wreaths, bouquets, mottoes and other designs in flowers in great profusion and variety adorned the stands, the great organ also being handsomely decorated; a magnificent life size bust portrait of the deceased draped in white surmounting the floral decorations on that instrument.” (JH 26 Jul., 1896)
6 Sep.: Members urged to spend 1 week per year in Temple work
“[Salt Lake Stake Conference] Elder Adolf Madsen, assistant President of the Temple, followed on the subject of Temple work, entering in particulars of its nature and benefits, both for the living and the dead. He urged all to attend to this, whether they could donate offerings for the Temple or not, and he thought it would be a good thing if every man and woman in Zion could spend one week at least in the year in Temple ministrations.” (JH 6 Sep., 1896)
7 Oct.: Promise concerning temple work.
“A meeting was held in the Assembly Hall at 10 A.M. of the General Authorities of the Church, Presidents of Stakes and their counselors, High Councilors, Bishops and their counselors. It was a large gathering. After the opening exercises, President Lorenzo Snow spoke on the subject of Temple work. He showed its importance, and benefits to the living, as well as to the dead. The spirit prevailing in the Temple was carried by the workers into their several wards. The expense of the Temple was just as great when few attended as when it was crowded. President Snow promised heads of families that if they would worthily attend to their duty for the dead, they should be successful in drawing their posterity to them.
President Woodruff spoke on the same subject, and showed that it was to the Priesthood that the dead were looking for their redemption. He related how while presiding over the St. George Temple, he was waited upon in his sleeping moments two nights running, by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, who plead with him and demanded of him that their redemption should be wrought out through the Temple ordinances. The spirit of the Lord did not let him rest until he, with others, had accomplished the necessary work in their behalf.” (JH 7 Oct., 1896)
15 Oct.: Temple attire for males.
“[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12 in the Temple] The subject of proper male attire in Temple ordinances was considered, and it was decided that the Presidents of Temples should be instructed in regard to this subject.” (JH 15 Oct., 1896)
1 Nov.: Reminiscence of Kirtland endowment.
“Without doubt the most enjoyable period of David’s life, was that spent at home with his wife, and in council with his Quorum, in Kirtland, during the next eight months. Mingling with his brethren in the most intimate relationship, in the school for the study of languages, in the school of the Prophets, each preparing himself, in mutual bearing and forbearance one with another, to receive his endowments at the dedication of the Temple, David won from all their lasting love and respect.
At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple on March 27, 1836, after giving the interpretation of a discourse in tongues delivered by President Brigham Young, David hinself spoke in tongues.
Receiving his blessings and endowments in the Temple directly after its dedication, David took his eife and started on another mission into Tennessee, where he met for the first time Wilford Woodruff and Abraham O. Smoot.
Of this time President Woodruff writes:
‘Brother Smoot traveled with me constantly till the 21st of April, when we had the privilege of meeting with Elder David W. Patten, who had come direct from Kirtland, and who had been ordained one of the Twelve Apostles.
It was a happy meeting. He gave us an account of the endowments at Kirtland, the glorious blessings received, the ministration of angels, the organization of the Twelve Apostles and Seventies, and informed me that I was appointed a member of the second quorum of Seventies. All of this was glorious news to me, and caused my heart to rejoice.'”
(“Life of David W. Patten,” JI 31(21):633, 1 Nov., 1896)
1 Dec.: Necessity of family records.
“The revelations of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph concerning the redemption of the dead, and the ordinances necessary to be performed in the temples in their behalf, are having a great effect upon the character of the Latter-day Saints. This effect will be more and more noticed as time rolls on. Even now it is not too much to say that the Latter-day Saints are more familiar with their ancestry than any other people of the same number in the world. With the bulk of mankind it is a matter of indifference as to who their progenitors are or where they came from. It is not uncommon to find people who cannot tell the names of their grandparents or of their uncles and aunts. They take no interest in relationship, and are utterly destitute of family pride. . . .
The Latter-day Saints see reasons now for being particular upon this point. The interest which they take in hunting up names of ancestors and collateral relatives excites surprise and arouses curiosity among many of their kindred outside of the Church. They can see no reason for this unless it be for the purpose of laying claim to property which may belong to the family. As the years roll by, the Latter-day Saints will become more and more familiar with their origin and the names of their ancestors. It is a very interesting pursuit to all who will take time to make enquiries and to trace their families back; but it is particularly so to the Latter-day Saints, for they have the strongest of motives to encourage them in the search after the names of their progenitors. The taste for this is increasing among our people, and the best methods of obtaining this very desirable information are being adopted. Familiarity with these methods will add greatly to the store of knowledge, and such knowledge will have the effect to bind the people together. Already there are numerous families among us which find themselves related to each other throgh becoming acquainted with their genealogy. Until they searched the records that they had access to, they never dreamed of such relationship.
The experience people gain in hunting up the names of their kindred, impresses upon them the value of keeping records correctly, and it will lead doubtless to the adoption of a system of family records among us that will be of exceeding value to future generations. Every family should have a record in which births and names and other particulars are carefully kept, and these should be kept in such a way that they can be preserved in the family archives for the benefit of descendants.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 31(23):689-690, 1 Dec., 1896)
28 Dec.: Fast meetings in the Kirtland Temple.
“On fast days in the Temple, and I knew of none held any where else in Kirtland, if the room was well filled, Father Smith as we familiarly called him would cause the curtains to be let down and divide the room into two, three or four rooms as he thought proper.
When so divided he appointed some brother to take charge of each room and he would very quietly go from one room to another during the meetings, which were not always held strictly to two hours or even three hours.” (Oliver B. Huntington, 28 Dec., 1896. In Young Woman’s Journal 8:239, 1896-97)