1. What is a “Secret Combination”?

A recurring question in the Reform Mormon community is whether the Endowment is the very “Secret Combinations” that are condemned in the Book of Mormon, and therefore should be avoided without prejudice. The Book of Mormon’s “Secret Combinations” primarily allude to Freemasonry, from which the Nauvoo Endowment borrowed heavily. Various iterations of the Endowment I believe still qualify as a Secret Combination, however the Endowment does not have to be a Secret Combination.

Before making that case, let’s examine what scripture and early Mormons actually said about “secret combinations.” I’ll include citations for all references at the end of this article. In scripture, Secret Combinations are consistently portrayed as conspiracies formed to gain power or wealth, often sealed by oaths of secrecy under threat of violence. The first person to create a Secret Combination and serves as their archetype is Cain, called “Master Mahan” (a corruption of “Master Mason”), who first made a covenant to commit murder for personal gain. These societies sought to overthrow governments and destroy liberty, and were willing to murder those who stood in their way.

In short, “secret combinations” involve:

• Secrecy
• Sworn oaths
• Goal to gain power and wealth
• Willingness to kill
• Intent to overthrow governments

One thing I want to note is that nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it forbid handshakes, grips, tokens, or certain ceremonial clothing.

2. Brighamite Endowments Can be Secret Combinations

Using this checklist, the Endowment as practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can indeed appear to qualify as a Secret Combination, especially the versions from the 19th and 20th centuries. Let’s explore each point of the checklist and examine how they could relate to the Brighamite Endowment.

2.1. Secrecy

One of the central elements of the Brighamite Endowment is several oaths of secrecy, and this has been well-documented in early (and contemporary) exposes and transcripts. In transcripts prior to the 1920s, participants in the Endowment covenanted to

“not reveal any of the secrets of the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty.”

Modern Brighamites have tried to mitigate this secrecy, presumably because the Book of Mormon condemns secrecy. In an effort to defend themselves, the thought-stopping cliche of “sacred, not secret” is often repeated. However, the Endowment remains functionally secret, as discussion of any part of any of the ceremonies is considered taboo and non-Mormons are prohibited from participating. 

2.2. Sworn Oaths

The Endowment is built around swearing oaths. Modern iterations tend to use the terms “Covenant” or “Promise”, but again, functionally they are still oaths. Over the decades the oaths within the Endowment have changed, but at some point it has included swearing oaths of:

• Obedience
• Sacrifice/Consecration
• Gospel
• Chastity
• Vengeance

2.3. Goal to Gain Power and Money

Two Endowment oaths particularly serve to centralize power and wealth within the LDS Church’s leadership hierarchy.

“The Law of  Sacrifice” (also called the “Law of Consecration”) specifies that “you will sacrifice your time, talents, and property to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Historically “consecration” within Mormonism is literally giving everything you own to the church, which then provisionally gives you back what they think you need. Unsurprisingly, often when this has been practiced the priestly class has lived in luxury while others do not.

“The Law of Obedience” has also been included in the Brighamite Endowment, but its explicit meaning has been watered down over time. If we go further back to sources such as John Hyde, Catharine (Van Valkenburg) Waite, and Ann Eliza Young, their exposes showed how Endowment participants were to swear obedience to LDS church leaders. In her book, Young said:

“We all promised that we would never question the commands of our authorities in the church, but would grant them instant obedience”

However, as time went on the LDS church modified it to where men covenant to obey God and women were to obey the priesthood (through their husbands). Their Endowment was modified once again in 2023 when both men and women swear to obey God. While this is a step in the right direction, the cultural assumption largely remains that their priesthood leaders are the mouthpiece of God, which can complicate the “Law of Obedience”.

Together, these oaths gave (and still give) immense control – spiritual and financial – to the LDS church’s leaders.

2.4. Willingness to Kill

Until 1990, the LDS Endowment included “penalties”, which were essentially symbolizing and pantomiming violent consequences for talking about the Endowment ceremony. At the time they were removed, the penalty was standardized to be:

“I, (name), covenant that I will never reveal the (token), with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”

However, in the transcripts before the 1920s the methods of execution were much more graphic. They included:

“We and each of us solemnly bind ourselves that we will not reveal any of the secrets of the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, or penalty. Should I do so, I agree that my throat may be cut from ear to ear, and my tongue torn out by its roots.

“… Should we do so, we agree that our breasts may be torn open, our hearts and vitals torn out and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.”

“… should you do so, you agree that your body may be cut asunder and all your bowels gush out.”

Suffice it to say, the willingness to kill was hard-coded into the Endowment for over a century.

2.5. Desire to Overthrow the Government

“The Oath of Vengeance” was added to the Endowment by Brigham Young in 1845. This oath was:

“You and each of you, covenant and agree that you will pray, and never cease to pray, to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation; and that you will teach the same to your children unto the third and fourth generation.”

However, in a court document from December 31st, 1849, William Smith gave an expanded transcript of the oath:

“You do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God, his holy angels, and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach your children; and that you will from this time henceforth and forever begin and carry out hostilities against this nation, and to keep the same intent a profound secret now and forever. So help you God.”

Brigham Young, and all the other Mormons, were angry that their leaders had been killed, and frequently placed blame where it shouldn’t have been placed. The most infamous example of this being the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This oath was later scrutinized in the Reed Smoot Hearings, and was subsequently removed from the Endowment as part of the “Good Neighbor Policy”.

3. Can the Endowment be saved?

At this point you might expect me to reject the Endowment entirely. While I object to many of the historical elements of the Endowment ritual, I’m not convinced we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Endowment is one of the things that distinguishes Mormonism from Protestantism, and I believe it is something worth redeeming.

So, to answer the question at hand, “Are Endowments ‘Secret Combinations’?”, my answer is that they can be, but they don’t have to be.

Evan Shute was a Josephite theologian who deeply loved the Book of Mormon, but saw the grammatical and punctuation errors in the text and believed they should be corrected. In his 1954 Herald article “Shall We Improve the Book of Mormon?” he said:

“I suggest that the 1906 [Authorized Version] stopped short of all it could have done, perhaps for fear of offending good Saints, to whom at the time even a misplaced comma or a childishly incorrect verb was still the oracle of a careless God. Surely we now revere our great heritage more rationally, and no longer want a mutilated text to present God’s teachings to men.

If I saw a lame man going down the street I would offer him an arm or a cane. If I see a crippled text parading through the world, particularly one that I revere and love, should I do nothing to help?”

Today we are at a similar crossroads with the Endowment. The Endowment can be a beautiful ceremony that is unique to our tradition, but I believe that we need to be honest about its pitfalls and work to reform the ritual together as a people. Doing so can make it to where the Endowment remains deeply meaningful while also not meeting the essential qualifications for a “Secret Combination”.

The Endowment changing has theological precedent rooting all the way back to its inception. The “Endowment” began as the ceremonies within the School of the Prophets leading up to the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. These ceremonies were then demoted to be the “Initiatories”, and the Endowment became much more rooted in Freemasonry. After Joseph Smith’s Death, L. John Nuttall wrote in his diary in 1877 that:

“Bro Joseph… 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’”

Brigham Young would go on to incorporate Biblical figures into the ceremony, and the Endowment became a drama that initiates participated in. Gordon B. Hinckley then pioneered adapting the Endowment as a film that is only watched within the Temple.

We can see from this short history that the Endowment has always been evolving, and it should continue to do so. As a living ritual, it should serve the spiritual needs of each generation. Modern versions across smaller Mormon groups show that it can shed its problematic elements while preserving its spiritual purposes.

Let’s revisit the Secret Combination checklist through the lenses of the Endowment reformers.

3.1. Secrecy

The Church of Jesus Christ in Christian Fellowship believes that there should be NO secrecy whatsoever surrounding the Endowment. They believe this so firmly that they publish their Endowment in one of their scriptures, The Book of Remembrance.

Reform Mormons, by contrast, tend to be coy rather than secretive. Rob Lauer does not publish his Endowment anywhere online, but has published quite the archive of Temple prep material. He gives all participants a transcript of the Endowment after being Endowed, and in some cases has given transcripts to those who have not participated in this Endowment. I take a similar but different approach; I publish all of my transcripts online for anyone to access, such as “The Book of the Sacred Assembly” and  “A Reform Mormon Endowment”. However, in the latter iteration I opted to publicly publish it in the Deseret Alphabet (and will do so for future iterations as well). This way, if you want to know what it says it still requires engagement with the Mormon tradition.  Even so, for people participating in an Endowment with me, I give them the standard alphabet version beforehand so they can read it and we can make changes to it if there is anything that is too uncomfortable for them.

3.2. Sworn Oaths

Oaths aren’t inherently wicked; they can embody profound moral commitments. The Book of Mormon contains a couple of oaths that I think about quite frequently, and have made myself.

The first is the Oath of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, which can be found in Alma 14:10-12 (RefMo):

“and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth; and this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood. And this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren, they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother, they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness, they would labor abundantly with their hands”

I believe that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis achieved a Zionic society and were a foreshadowing of the peace that would come in 4th Nephi. I believe this is an oath that is worth taking, and I personally consider myself to have taken it and re-affirmed it.

Another one of my favorite oaths from the Book of Mormon is found in Mosiah 9:9 (RefMo). This scripture was adapted into the RCJC’s baptismal covenant, which said:

“I, <full name>, do solemnly covenant and promise before God and these witnesses that I am willing to bear one another’s’ burdens, that they may be light; to mourn with those that mourn; to comfort those that stand in need of comfort; to stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that I may be in, even until death, that I may be redeemed of God. Amen.”

There are several other oaths present in the Book of Mormon, such as Nephi’s oath to Zoram, the Nephite oath to have judges instead of kings, the Lord’s oath to Abraham, and many others. So, from this we can see that even within the Book of Mormon, oaths are not universally condemned. I think as long as the Endowment contains oaths/promises/covenants to uphold moral and pro-social values then there is no fault in it.

3.3. Goal to gain power and money

Using spirituality to gain power and money is priestcraft, which is a practice that is explicitly condemned in the Book of Mormon. It’s not only unethical; in my opinion it takes the Lord’s name in vain.

It has been interesting how the “Law of Consecration” and “The Law of Obedience” have been handled in various iterations of the Endowment. Some have removed both entirely, and others have attempted to reinterpret or soften them.

For the reasons found in section 2.3, I chose to remove the “Law of Obedience” entirely from my own Endowment texts, a decision independently shared by David Ferriman and Rob Lauer. Eliminating this law avoids the systemic risk of spiritual coercion disguised as divine order.

However, there is not the same united front amongst us in regards to the “Law of Consecration”. Rob’s endowment does not contain it at all, but both David Ferriman and I soften it instead of removing it. As a reminder, the LDS phrasing of the “Law of Consecration” is:

“you will sacrifice your time, talents, and property to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

David Ferriman’s retained the name “Law of Consecration”, but he revised the oath to not specify a hierarchical organization when it says:

“Thy time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed thee, or with which he may bless thee, to the service of the Lord and discipleship”

However, I still felt uncomfortable with this phrasing, as the “mouthpiece problem” isn’t fully addressed. That is why in my revision of the Endowment I call it “The Law of Generosity”, and it is read as:

“they would give their time, talents, and everything with which the Council (of Kolob) had or would bless them with for the benefit of humanity.”

I believe that this fully moves the focus away from promising to empower institutions to empowering those around me and in my communities.

3.4. Willingness to kill

The Endowment is meant to be an ascension ritual, and threats of death and violence, “the penalties”, should have absolutely no place in it.

John Crane and Antonio Feliz of the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ knew this, and in their transcript from the 1980s they removed the penalties. The LDS church would come to their senses and follow RCJC’s lead in 1990. Neither Rob Lauer, David Ferriman, or my own Endowment transcripts have penalties.

3.5. Desire to overthrow the government

As a minority, I understand wanting justice, but how we as Mormons have gone about longing for it has been too violent, which leads to blame being violently misplaced. In my own transcripts I articulate “The Law of Justice”, which is:

“to work and never cease to work for justice for all those that were unjustly persecuted and martyred, and that they would teach the same to their children and all others.”

I believe this keeps within the spirit of us wanting justice, but it corrects our tradition of misplacing blame and having violent overtones towards those we perceive as having wronged us. I believe that we can achieve justice without having to violently overthrow governments.

4. Conclusion

The question of whether the Endowment is a “Secret Combination” is neither a simple accusation nor a settled verdict; it is a charge that invites careful comparison between scripture, history, and conscience. Reading the Book of Mormon’s pattern of secret combinations as a checklist (secrecy, sworn oaths, goal to gain power and wealth, willingness to kill, desire to overthrow governments) shows that historic Brighamite Endowments checked many of those boxes. That history matters and must be named honestly.

But naming the problem is not the same thing as throwing away the whole ritual. Rituals change; the Endowment itself has been reshaped repeatedly since Kirtland. We have models within and outside Mormonism of how to keep what is spiritually valuable while jettisoning what corrupts. When reformers do  their work, the Endowment ceases to resemble the conspiratorial, murderous societies condemned in scripture.

So my verdict is cautious and hopeful: yes, Endowments can be secret combinations, but they need not be. That caution serves as an ethical invitation. If we value the Endowment, then we must also commit to reforming it so it cannot be weaponized for priestcraft, secrecy, or violence. Doing so is not a betrayal of our tradition, but is exactly what our tradition was founded upon!

Reforming the Endowment demands clarity, courage, and communal work: publish what can be published, remove coercive elements, root covenants in mutual responsibility and justice, and build rites that empower rather than enthrall. If we do that, the Endowment can survive not as an artifact of a troubled past, but as a living ritual that resists secret combinations rather than replicating them.

And so, I will leave you with the words Evan Shute gave to the Josephites when he proposed the Revised Authorized Version:

“Saints, ponder these proposals and pray about them. I believe that this is an important project, one long overdue, and that we should attempt it for the glory of God and the preservation of a precious record of [God’s] word – but not to preserve ancient (and admitted) American mistakes.”

5. Scriptural and Historical Citations