The Salt Lake Temple III: The Utah War and an Impossible Cover-Up

 Previously: The Cornerstone Ceremony

In the recently published Covenant of Christ, or modern English version of the Book of Mormon, Nephi stated that at some point after Zion is established:

...the true history of all nations will be made known. (CoC, 2 Nephi 12:13)

Implicit within that statement is that the history we are being told now is indeed, not the "true history of all nations". If it was, then why would the Lord need to correct it in the future?

What is history anyway? Whose story is his-story? As far as we know, history consists of the words we are given that describe a particular event in the past. Those words come from books, journals, documents, newspaper articles, etc. None of us were there to witness the events, and thus, are at the mercy of others who have gone before us to learn the truth. 

But what if those words have been manipulated? What if the books, journals, articles, and documents have been white-washed? What if what we think is a personal journal is nothing but an AI generated script? The truth is, if we weren't there to see an event, we have no way of verifying that it actually transpired. 

Nephi's statement above rings true to my ears. It informs me that, now more than ever, we should question everything we hear, read, and absorb into our minds. Our intellectual vigilance should be accompanied by humility. Everything we think we understand, be it physics, music, geometry, electricity, architecture, and of course "established" history, should be taken to the Lord and scrutinized with sincerity.

The Lord's injunction to "ask", "seek", and "knock" are applicable to all categories of truth and knowledge. Without the humility to ask the Lord, we'll never be given what we could have known. After all, the plight of mortals is to believe we are wise because of our education, but to suffer as fools while perishing for the lack of spiritual and temporal knowledge. No wonder the ancient prophets called us "vain", "frail", and "foolish".

In what you're about to read, I'm asking you to question the official account known as "the Utah War". A story that we're told transpired in 1857-58, involving Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, Freemason President James Buchanan, Colonel Sidney Albert Johnson, Thomas L. Kane, Alfred Cummings, and even Pierre de Smet.

Most importantly for my research, a major theme of the Utah War is the covering up of the temple foundation, an ardent task that we're told only took the LDS people five weeks to accomplish. Every shop on the temple block was taken down, and thousands of tons of soil was ploughed up, transported to the site, and dumped into the temple foundation, completely entombing it. 

We're told that Brigham Young gave the order on March 25 of 1858, and by the first week of May, the entire temple block appeared as a freshly ploughed farmer's field.

Ironically, (and don't we love irony in our his-stories?) the Salt Lake temple foundation, we're told, was on the cusp of rising above ground level, but would have to wait several years before seeing the light of day.

Because we know that the foundation is actually 40 feet deep and not the alleged 16, the story we are given becomes increasingly impossible. Before we examine the so-called "Utah War", let's engage in a quick exercise in logic.

Remember, the narrators only allow six weeks to excavate the foundation, and five weeks to backfill it.       

Logistical Inquiries  

Men with shovels and oxen with wagons were the only resources the pioneers had to dig the massive foundation hole. An area covering nearly half an acre (the temple dimensions are 180 ft x 120 ft), and at a depth of 40 feet, would require more than 40,000 tons of dirt to be excavated from the site.

We're told that this was accomplished in not more than six weeks, during the winter and early spring months of 1853. 

According to calculations by Chat GPT, this is what it would’ve taken to accomplish this Herculean feat:

• A two-oxen team could haul 1-2 tons of dirt in one load
• At four trips per day (assuming the trip was short), one team of oxen could haul 4 tons of dirt per day. 
•  To finish in the allotted time frame, about 280 teams of oxen would be required, each making 4 trips per day, at 4 tons a piece.
• Each team would require at least one teamster, comprising 280 men.
• If each man on the digging crew could dig 3 cubic yards a day, then 370 excavators would be required for the job. 
• These men would require a support crew of another 100 men to supply shovels, make repairs, provide breaks, and to coordinate other logistics.

In all, we're looking at 750 men, 560 oxen, and 280 wagons, to make this project logistically feasible. Yet, according to historians, only 150 to 200 men and boys were employed on the project. And conveniently, we are not told how many oxen or wagons were used. 

We are not told which blacksmith shop was manufacturing all the shovels, pick axes, oxen yokes, and other metal parts needed for wagons. 

We are not told how these men and oxen were fed and watered.

Keep in mind that this was during the winter, and there was no open range feed for the oxen. A typical 1,600 pound oxen requires 2.5% of its body weight in feed a day, especially one that is working a 10-hour shift hauling dirt. This comes out to about 50 pounds a day, and perhaps 60 pounds for the hardest-working oxen.

This means that the pioneers would've had to harvest alfalfa the previous summer and store it for winter. In order to feed 560 oxen during the six-week excavation period, they would’ve needed to store enough hay to provide 31,000 pounds per day, totaling over 1 million pounds or over 550 tons of feed. 

Of course, there is no record of any alfalfa farming going on in Utah during this time. All farming efforts were going toward food aimed at sustaining human, not animal, life. It wasn't until the late 1850s that alfalfa farms began showing up. 

Now we come to the question of water. A typical oxen needs about 15 gallons of water a day to sustain itself. At 560 oxen, this would require about 250,000 gallons of water throughout the six-week period. The main source of water would have been City Creek, but the process is more involved than just leading the oxen down to the creek to drink throughout the day. 

A team of men employed just for watering the beasts would have been required for tasks such as: breaking ice in the creek, building water troughs, hauling water to troughs in buckets, insulating those troughs with straw, and watering the oxen on timed breaks. According to Chat GPT, this would have required about 175 men, employed full time to just water the animals. Again, this is the total number the LDS historians tell us worked on the temple foundation. 

And what kind of labor force would be required to feed the oxen? 

If oxen needed to eat twice a day, a team of men would be charged with the following tasks: loading hay onto wagons or sleds from wherever it was stored, hauling it to the job site, measuring and distributing the feed, and taking care of maintenance on the sleds/wagons. 

Again, Chat GPT says that feeding the animals alone would require 30-40 men a day, for a total of around 400 man days for the six week period. Also keep in mind that several sheds or shelters would have to be constructed to store the hay, keeping it relatively dry and free of ice, and at least 100 pitch forks would be needed for the feeding crews to keep up with the twice daily feedings. Who is constructing these sheds and making these pitchforks? Who is building and maintaining the wagons and sleds?

Alright, so taking care of the animals would’ve required more men than the total number we're told excavated the temple foundation. But what about feeding the men? What kind of work force would that require?

A typical manual laborer requires about 2,500 to 3,000 calories a day to provide enough energy for robust work, especially shoveling. There would’ve been no fresh vegetables or herbs in the winter so workers would've had to rely on meat, beans, potatoes, and grain. Chat GPT breaks this down as follows:

• Grains: 1-2 pounds per pay per man
• Meat: 1/2 pound per day per man
• Potatoes/beans: 1-2 pounds per day per man
• Bread: 1-1.5 pounds per day per man (if available)
• Dairy: 1 cup per day of milk or butter

This averages out to over 4,000 pounds a day for 750 workers, totaling over 84 tons of food for the six week period. This is just to feed the excavators and teamsters, not the animal feeding and watering crews. 

To serve this many men, 7-8 cooks are needed per meal. You also need servers, plate preparers, as well as dishwashers and cleaning crews. This would require another 40-50 workers per day, employed full time in the kitchen.

Are you beginning to get a picture of what it would really take to pull something like this off? It is just not logistically feasible in the time-frame allotted by LDS historians. 

Someone is lying to us. 

We will return to logistics when we examine what it would’ve taken to bury the temple foundation in the five week period between March 25 and the first week of May in 1858.

For now, let's get back to the Utah War.

Brigham Young: Priest, King, and... Lieutenant General?

In April of 2012, Denver Snuffer wrote a paper entitled Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom, an analysis of Young's tenure as governor and the dynamics of "the kingdom" prior to the Utah War. The article explores an intriguing paradox: why would Brigham establish himself as a king when the Book of Mormon clearly states that this land, the land of America, would be a land of liberty and have no kings upon it?

Yet, as Denver points out, both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were appointed as "kings" in the Council of Fifty, an organization known to insiders as "The Kingdom of God". The difference is that Joseph kept his kingship confined within the limits of a spiritual kingdom, with no governing authority in the mortal realm, reminiscent of Christ telling Pilot that His "kingdom was not of this world." 

Brigham, on the other hand, like king Noah of old, took his kingship quite literally, ruling in early Utah as a theocratic dictator, governing in both church and state. Like Noah, he used public funds to build businesses and luxurious homes, using his status as "high priest" to dictate in all affairs and exercising complete control over women. The latter becoming almost like property belonging to the elites of the Church. 

Brigham made no bones about his dictatorship. By the early 1850s, he was agreeing with the Territorial judges that were accusing him of being a dictator:

I am accused by our honorable judges who have left this Territory last fall entering into the Legislative Hall and there dictating them... I do dictate and I never expect to see the day while I am Governor amongst this people that I don't do it, and I want it published abroad for it is what I believe in, and it is what you believe in... (Quoted by Denver Snuffer in Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom, p. 6, emphasis added)

Sure, Brigham Young was a self-appointed high priest and territorial king masquerading as a governor, but did he hold an even higher rank in a more clandestine organization? Judging by some interesting (and I might add unexplainable) quotes from Brigham Young on the subject of military rankings, I believe there is far more to this story than we're being told.

In September of 1844, just a few months after Joseph Smith was killed, Illinois Governor Thomas Ford appointed Brigham Young as Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion. Here is the governor's official commission:

Know ye that Brigham Young, having been duly elected to the office of Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion of the Militia of the State of Illinois, I, Thomas Ford, Governor of said State, do commission him Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion, to take rank from the 31st day of August, 1844. He is, therefore, carefully and diligently to discharge the duties of said office by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging; and I do strictly require all officers under his command to be obedient to his orders; and he is to obey such orders and directions as he shall receive from time to time, from the Commander-in-chief or his superior officer... (Tullidge, Life of Brigham Young, p. 30)

Ok, so Brigham took Joseph's place as Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, Edward Tullidge, author of the book quoted above, makes quite an interesting statement following his quotation of Ford's commission to Brigham Young. Writing in the 1870s, Tullidge states that he interviewed Brigham himself, and what was said should raise our eyebrows: 

It is a singular fact that, after Washington, Joseph Smith was the first man in America who held the rank of Lieutenant-general, and that Brigham Young was the next. In reply to a comment of the author upon this fact, Brigham Young said: "I was never much of a military man. The commission has since been abrogated by the State of Illinois, but if Joseph had lived when the war [Mexican] broke out, he would have become commander-in-chief of the United States armies." (Ibid, p. 30-31, emphasis added)

This prompted me to do some digging on the ranking of a lieutenant-general. According to official history, John Adams appointed George Washington as lieutenant-general during the Quasi War with France, after Washington had already served as United States president. The ranking, we're told, went dormant another sixty years, until Ulysses S. Grant was given the commission near the end of the Civil War.

In modern times, the ranking has been downgraded and diluted, and only commands 20,000 to 45,000 army or marine soldiers. So the question is: how was Joseph Smith the next in line to command the entire armies of the United States in 1844? And why was Brigham Young given the same commission?

Even though Brigham said that the commission was abrogated, the ranking was passed to Daniel H. Wells, second counselor in the First Presidency. This was documented in the Journal of Discourses:

We have nominated Daniel H. Wells for the office of Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion, the same person who has held that position since our settlement in Utah. (JD 4: 308)

Wells was being re-elected to that commission on April 6th of 1857, but apparently had held it since 1847 when the Brighamites first arrived in Utah. Just five days prior to this "election" on April 1st, Wells had used his ranking to divide the Territory of Deseret into 13 military districts.

Now that's interesting. 

Both the number 13 and the date of April 1 have esoteric significance. 13 is the number for perfect government, consisting of the 12 constellations being governed by the sun (for example, Christ and the twelve apostles). April 1st, or April Fool's day, dates back to the 1500s when Pope Gregory XIII (the 13th) replaced the Julian Calendar with the Gregorian Calendar, changing the new year from April 1st to January 1st. 

Was this number and date, 13 and April 1st, coded language for the leaders of the LDS Church entering into a secret merger with Pope? And was this part of the deal Brigham Young made with Jesuit priest Pierre de Smet when they met at Winter Quarters in 1846?

The Jesuit order was established in 1540 by Ingatius of Loyola as a clandestine military order and secret society. The highest ranking in the order is known as the Superior-General, sometimes called the Black Pope. 

Is the ranking of Lieutenant-General a subordinate of the Jesuit Superior-General? 

Was the post-Joseph Brighamite Church just a front organization for a group of Jesuit coadjutors (in Catholicism, a coadjutor, or "co-assistor", is someone who shares an office with another person, and is next in line to inherit the office as a successor.)

It makes sense that Brigham was working with the Jesuits, but not Joseph Smith. So what was the true significance of Joseph first receiving the ranking of Lieutenant-General? I'm not sure, more research needs to be done on the subject. But this could be another case (like polygamy) of Brigham Young throwing Joseph under the bus by claiming that he (Brigham) inherited a Jesuit (although without mentioning the Jesuits) ranking from the first Mormon prophet. After all, all we have is a second-hand quote from Brigham making the claim that Joseph would have been commander-in-chief of the United States armies if he had lived to see the Mexican War. This is weak evidence to say the least. 

All Jesuits are required to take an oath before being initiated into the organization. The oath names all infidels and apostates as worthy of being not only murdered, but completely annihilated (read the oath here). The first two targets of this annihilation were Protestants and Liberals, the rebels of the 16th century Reformation.

In the Fall of 1857, just a few months after Wells created military districts in Utah, the famous Mountain Meadows Massacre took place.

On September 11th of 1857, a group of Indians and Mormons led by John D. Lee, murdered in cold blood over 100 Protestant immigrants just outside of Cedar City, Utah.

This genocide (including women and children) happened on a date we all know as 911, an occult number with dark underpinnings.  

The number 911 is blasphemy against God. God is represented by the numbers 7 and 10. 7 is symbolic of perfection, and 10 is symbolic of completion. God is both perfect and complete. The number 911, however, skips the number 10, or goes around God. It is how the Mystery Schools (Freemasons, Jesuits, and other secret societies) show numerically that they can ascend to become gods without a Savior; Satan's ultimate imitation of God's plan. 

Is it a coincidence that the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place on 911, and that those sacrificed where Protestant immigrants? 

I do not think so. 

Just four days later, on September 15th of 1857, Brigham Young declared martial law. You can read the historical document here. The most important sentence in the document reads as follows:

Martial law is hereby declared to exist in this Territory, from and after the publication of this Proclamation; and no person shall be allowed to pass or repass, into or through, or from this Territory without a permit from the proper officer.

Martial law is maritime law, and Brigham was setting a precedent for what Lincoln would do just six years later in 1863 when he introduced the Lieber Code and declared it law by executive order (see General Orders no. 100).

And notice that Lincoln, like Brigham, chose the date of September 15th to declare martial law (September 15, 1863). What an interesting coincidence. 

The Lieber Code divided the United States into military districts, and placed them all under martial law, the second article of which states the following:

Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief... (Read the entire document here)

The hostile occupation spoken of above was Lincoln's invasion of the Southern States, as well as his constitutional restrictions he placed on the Northern States. All of which set the precedent for the incorporation of the U.S. government in 1871 (transforming the U.S. government into a corporation, or business operating under maritime law). 

As far as we know, Brigham Young never declared by special proclamation that martial law ceased in the Utah Territory, as he was deposed by Governor Cumming before he had the chance. And no U.S. president has ever declared that martial law ceased in the United States, but instead have used it as a precedent to enact further constitutional restrictions on the American citizenry (FDR actually declared martial law again in 1933 in response to the banking crisis).

Furthermore, the military districts in Utah were seamlessly integrated into the U.S. military districts (specifically the Department of the Pacific) in 1862, as well as parts of Nevada and Idaho, just one year prior to Lincoln's executive order implementing the Lieber Code. 

Was all this a coincidence? 

I don't think so. I believe this was all part of the Jesuit plan to subordinate the United States to the Rex Mundi, superficially the Catholic Pope and ultimately the Jesuit Black Pope. This was accomplished by replacing the authentic Constitution with a corporate one. Read this article and that one for more information on the Jesuit subjugation of America. And watch this video. 

Now we come to October of 1857, when Johnston's Army began to have run-ins with the Nauvoo Legion. Well, the word legion is best not used here, because only a handful of men (between 20 and 40), operating under Captain Lot Smith, were able to burn a train of 74 supply wagons and rustle over half of the Army's cattle--without a single casualty on either side and in a single night no less.  

The Army was on the march to Fort Bridger, some 120 miles northeast of Salt Lake City. But prior to their arrival Lot and his men burned the fort to the ground, torching all the buildings and leaving only a stone wall to shield the soldiers from the bitterly cold wind.

Temperatures at Fort Bridger dropped well below zero that winter, wreaking havoc on what was left of the Army's cattle and horses. The men, already on reduced rations from Smith's wagon raids, now faced freezing to death and starvation. Colonel Johnston would have to wait for President Buchanan to send provisions, and be forced to sit patiently while Congress decided what to do about the Mormon "problem".

Does this make any sense at all? 

Why would the U.S. Army allow a few rag tag militiamen to put 2,500 soldiers out of commission for an entire winter? It makes much more sense to me that Colonel Sydney Johnston was playing a role in a deeper conspiracy, one that implemented controlled opposition for some clandestine scheme.

Did this scheme involve Freemasons and Jesuits? According to one author, it most certainly did. 

Was the Utah War a Planned Military Operation?

According to Eric Jon Phelps, author of the book Vatican Assassins, the Utah War of 1857 was a staged event, planned by Freemasons and Jesuits:

In 1857 Masonic President James Buchanan, controlled by the Jesuits since his early 1857 arsenic poisoning, began a political agitation over the governorship of Utah, igniting the bloodless "Utah War." He dispatched a military force led by Masonic Army Colonel Albert Sydney Johnston to put down Masonic Young's refusal to submit to Federal jurisdiction. In this, Young's "Deseret" only benefited. Johnston allowed Mormon raiders to "steal" 800 Army oxen. That same year Young ordered Bishop John D. Lee to lead a force composed of Mormons and Paiute Indians to murder nearly 130 "heretic" Protestant emigrants at Mountain Meadows--pursuant to Order's wicked Council of Trent and bloody Jesuit Oath. In the Spring of 1858 Masonic President Buchanan arranged for a free pardon if Mormons would submit to Federal authority. The chief negotiator between both parties was the Jesuit, Pierre-Jean De Smet! (Vatican Assassins, p. 313)

Phelps makes some wild claims here, but overall I think he may be onto something. I can't verify that Johnston was a Mason, or that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but if you consider the entire chain of events, along with occult dates like September 11th, there seems to be a planned method to this "random" madness.

It was on pioneer day (July 24th of 1857) that historians claim that Brigham Young first learned that the U.S. Army had begun its march towards the Utah Territory. It was the 10 year anniversary of Brigham's arrival into Salt Lake City, and a massive party was being thrown up in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Similar to the cornerstone ceremonies I wrote about my last post, the celebration was accompanied by hymns, military parades, and cannon fire by the Nauvoo Legion.

Sometime during the festivities four riders arrived in camp, men who had been on scouting missions, one of whom was Porter Rockwell. Returning from the Missouri River plains, they would report that that the federal mail contract had been taken away from Brigham Young and that a new governor and army would soon start for Utah.

Was it a coincidence that the Brighamites were having a ritualized party up in the mountains when news came of Johnston's impending army?

I'm not sure, but curiously, the same man who is claimed to have warned Brigham of the advancing army, Porter Rockwell, would eventually be assigned as military escort to the new Governor, Alfred Cumming, in the Spring of 1858. Cumming and Colonel Johnston disagreed on what to about the "Mormon problem", and ironically, Cumming would choose Mormon bodyguards to escort him to Salt Lake City even though President Buchanan had sent Johnston's army as a posse comitatus (military escort) for the new Governor.  

And though Brigham Young declared that it would take an act of God to remove him from his governorship, he was easily talked into voluntarily stepping down, we're told, by one Thomas L. Kane.

In Eric Phelps' assessment of the conspirators involved in the Utah War, he failed to mention Kane. It was in fact Kane that negotiated peace between the U.S. government and the Mormons, and not Pierre De Smet as Phelps insists. While it is true that De Smet was called to go back to Utah as a negotiator, accompanying General Harney and another 2,500 reinforcements, Brigham Young submitted to federal authority long before De Smet was to arrive. Harney was diverted to "Bleeding Kansas", and De Smet resumed his work among the Indian tribes.

Before we get into the strange connection between Thomas L. Kane and Brigham Young, a brief point must be made on the presidential pardon offered to the Mormons by James Buchanan on April 6th (another interesting date) of 1858. The most important words of which are as follows:

...I offer now a free and full pardon to all who submit themselves to the just authority of the Federal Government...

The question to ask here is: just what were the Mormons guilty of that they needed an official pardon for? 

According to official history, the pardon was for acts of treason committed by the Nauvoo Legion against the U.S Army in the Fall of 1857. But was a little wagon burning and cattle rustling all the Mormons were guilty of? And if we're being honest here, who wouldn't have the right to defend themselves against the advances of a perceived invading army?

I believe the pardon was offered for something far more sinister. 

As you may recall, just two years earlier in 1856, Brigham Young, along with other Church leaders, began a movement called the Mormon Reformation. Home "inquisitorial missionaries" (the beginnings of the Home Teaching Program) were sent out with a list of 27 questions to make sure the lay members were falling in line with the leaders, and the doctrine of blood atonement was being used to intimidate and threaten would-be apostates into submission. 

According to some sources, many people were murdered by the Church during this time; some being accused of apostacy and others while trying to flee the territory. 

The doctrine of blood atonement, according to George Hicks, created an atmosphere of "secret murder":

A spirit of secret murder stalked abroad among the people, and many of the "undesirables" lost their lives by being murdered by unknown assassins, unknown so far as the general public were concerned. (Quoted in Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom, p. 9)

Was it just a coincidence then, that the Santa Clara ambush and the Mountain Meadows Massacre both took place in 1857, following a climate of violent rhetoric?

The following quote is an example of this rhetoric. Notice how Brigham Young took a verse from Isaiah out of context to use for his own purposes: 

The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet, when we shall take the old broad sword and ask, Are you for God? And if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, you will be hewn down. (JD 4:58-59)

Of course what Brigham meant is those who are not on his side would be hewn down, a classic case of using the Lord's name in vain.

In the outside world, tensions were heating up against Utah. In the 1856 Republican National Convention, the party had dubbed polygamy as slavery's evil twin. Rumors began circulating about the violence in Utah and Brigham's defiance of constitutional law. 

President James Buchanan, who had been in England during the previous four years, was elected just in time to deal with an ensuing slavery debate crisis in "Bleeding Kansas." After reading reports from postal serviceman William M.F. Magraw and Utah Territorial Judge William Drummond, Buchanan became convinced that Brigham Young had to be dealt with. Magraw reported the following:

There is no disguising the fact, that there is left no vestige of law and order, no protection for life or property; the civil laws of the Territory are overshadowed and neutralized by so-styled ecclesiastical organization, as despotic, dangerous and damnable, as has ever been known to exist in any country... (Quoted in Forty Years..., p. 170)

As much as LDS historians like to paint Magraw and Drummond as questionable characters (and they well may have been), that doesn't necessarily mean that their reports weren't accurate or sincere.

We know that Brigham Young employed multiple assassins to "use up" his enemies from time to time. One very revealing book on this subject is the confessions of one of Brigham's most able hitmen, Bill Hickman (read it here). Hickman was assigned his first victim in 1846 at Winter Quarters, an Indian warrior who was wreaking havoc among the encampment. Hickman describes each murder he committed in a systematic and matter-of-fact manner. He believed Brigham was a prophet and that it was his religious duty to "use up" those he was assigned to assassinate. 

Hickman's memoirs offer us an honest glimpse at just how despotic Brigham Young was. In fact, after Hickman turned against Brigham and refused to murder an army commander he had befriended, Brigham Young tried to have him killed. Consequently, Hickman left Utah and wrote his "confessions."

While on historical paper it appeared that the U.S. government was concerned about what was transpiring in Utah and was attempting to take action against it, the truth is that the Utah War only bolstered Brigham Young's power. Although he lost his appointment as governor, he retained all of his wealth and priestly power over the Church, and as we've seen with Catholic Popes and other religious leaders, high priests oftentimes enjoy more power than presidents, pundits, and politicians.

Furthermore, and far more dastardly, Brigham Young was absolved of all the crimes he had committed against the people of Utah (we don't even know how many Mormons were blood atoned during this period). James Buchanan, sending Johnston's Army as merely a decoy, pardoned Brigham Young and all other Mormons after several strings of murders had been committed in Utah, including the Mountain Meadows and Santa Clara massacres. 

Was this pardon, done with impeccable timing, just a mere coincidence? Or was it deliberately planned by Brigham's Jesuit puppet masters to absolve him of all crimes and allow him to continue his Jesuit assignment in Utah? 

I, for one, do not believe the official history. And we should be reminded that the Book of Mormon clearly reveals how secret combinations function; always punishing the innocent while allowing the guilty to continue in their crimes:

And seeing the people in such a state of awful wickedness, and those Gaddianton robbers filling the judgement seats, having usurped the power and authority of the land, laying aside the commandments of God and not in the least aright before him, doing no justice unto the children of men, condemning the righteous because of their righteousness, letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover, to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world; and moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills-... (Helaman 3:1, RE)

Thomas L. Kane and Brigham Young: A Strange Friendship

Thomas L. Kane was the most famous non-Mormon friend of the LDS Church that you've probably never heard of. He maintained a friendship and correspondence with Brigham Young for nearly three decades. Like Pierre de Smet, he first appeared on the LDS scene at Winter Quarters in 1846. He had come as a young idealist, (so we're told), crusading for the liberties and rights of the downtrodden, and having the political clout of a son of a U.S. district court judge from Philadelphia, (Freemason John Kintzing Kane), he took the Mormons under his wing as their most avid lobbyist. 

To help the Mormons win favor with President Polk, Kane used his influence to convince the Polk Cabinet to agree to enlist 500 LDS men to serve in the Mexican-American War in what would become known as the Mormon Battalion. With the help of his father, Kane convinced the federal government to allow the Mormons to occupy Indian lands along the Missouri River near Winter Quarters. 

During 1846 and 1847, Kane regularly met with Church leaders in private meetings, many of whom were members of the Secret Chamber. 

Why would Church leaders allow a non-member "gentile" into their secret and closed group?

The short answer is because Kane was their number-one friend in Washington, helping Brigham Young facilitate his every political move, and becoming his most trusted non-Mormon advisor. 

Kane regularly wrote articles defending the Mormons, even after he learned that they were practicing polygamy. Oddly, Kane wrote that he was disgusted with polygamy and felt betrayed by Young and other Church leaders for hiding it from him, yet he still continued lobbying for the Mormons. 

In 1848, it was Kane that applied for a territorial government in Utah. In 1850, President Millard Fillmore asked Kane to become the Territory's first governor, to which Kane declined and recommended Brigham Young.

During the decade of the 1850s, Kane and Young's friendship continued apace. Kane was given money (usually in the form of gold) that came from the coffers of the Church, probably in exchange for his lobbying in Washington. 

Interestingly, both Kane and Young resented Protestant evangelicalism, blaming "Mormon woes" in the form of religious persecution on the movement. This is highly suspect of Jesuit influence, as Protestants were the Order's first anti-Catholic target. 

After the 1856 election, Young wrote a letter to Kane (who was working for his father in Philadelphia) about President-elect James Buchanan, confident the new President would be a "friend" and "not whit behind" President Fillmore.

Yet, in 1857, all hell broke loose against the Mormons, or at least that is what it looked like. In a milieu of anti-Mormon rhetoric, Buchanan would famously send a large portion of the U.S. Army to quell a "rebellion."

In January of 1858, Kane asked Buchanan if he could travel to Utah as a peace negotiator, and was granted permission. On the 5th of January he departed, taking a steam ship from New York to Panama, and finally arriving in Los Angeles. From there he traveled by carriage on the old Spanish highway (now I-15) to Salt Lake City. 

By the way, old maps made by Spanish explorers show already existing cities, with stone buildings, all along I-15 in the 1700s. See the video below to view the maps, he shows them at the 13:30 minute mark:

 

When Kane arrived at Camp Scott things were tense between Colonel Johnston and Governor Cumming. Johnson wanted the Mormons to submit to military authority, while Cumming was seeking a more civilized approach. When Kane showed up, it was almost as if all parties submitted to him. Cumming agreed to give up his military escort, provided by Johnston, and Johnston, although appearing to put up a fight, acquiesced to Kane and Cumming. 

Andrew Love Neff, author of History of Utah, describes Kane's influence on Cumming as follows:

Almost instantly Col. Kane [Kane was also a Col. in the U.S. Army] became embroiled with Col. Johnston, but interestingly enough won the complete confidence of Gov. Cumming. How much was accidental and how much the result of purposeful planning, it is impossible to say. (History of Utah, p. 488, emphasis added)

By April 6th, the Mormons had been pardoned by the President, Governor Cumming had been escorted from Camp Scott to Salt Lake City by Danite assassin Orin Porter Rockwell, and Brigham Young gave up his governorship, even though he stated it would take an act of God to remove him from the position. 

A few months later in late June, Johnston's Army rolled into Salt Lake City, finding it completely empty, as most of the inhabitants had abandoned their homes and headed to southern settlements. The temple foundation, we're told, had been covered up in only five weeks and appeared as a "freshly plowed farmer's field". After a few weeks, the Saints shuffled back into Salt Lake City, after Johnston's men had occupied Camp Floyd, only 40 miles to the south.

Just like that, everything went back to normal again: no casualties, no forced expatriation, no persecution, and no loss of Church property. In fact, the LDS people benefited economically from the presence of the army. When the army left, goods were fire sold to the Mormons for pennies on the dollar, something like $4 million worth of goods were purchased for around $100K. 

All of this was because of Thomas Kane. 

Who really was this man?

Was he a handler for Brigham Young, not unlike the role that Colonel Edward Mandell House filled for Woodrow Wilson? 

All important leaders, in both religion and government, are assigned handlers by secret societies, to ensure that they do what they're supposed to do.

Kane's younger brother Elisha Kane was a famous Arctic explorer who succumbed to poor health during the climax of the Utah War. Elisha had been an assistant surgeon in the Navy in his younger years, and in 1843 had served directly under Caleb Cushing on the USS Brandywine during the China Commercial Treaty mission.

This Kane family connection to Caleb Cushing is very important. 

Cushing was from Newburyport, MA, the same town that Albert Pike was from. Pike and Cushing were friends, both Scottish Rite Freemasons (organized in 1853) and both members of the Knights of the Golden Circle.

This latter group, the Golden Circle, was made up of wealthy New England families with ancestral roots stretching back to Venetian Royalty. They were also known as the Essex Junta, a powerful secret combination that orchestrated both the Mexican War and the U.S. Civil War. They were working with European bankers, the same bankers who assassinated Abraham Lincoln for refusing to take foreign loans to finance the Civil War.

The history of Caleb Cushing is quite a rabbit hole, and I can't get into it here. So I recommend two books that will reveal the complete story:

• Essex Junta: Newburyport and the 3 World Wars, by David S. Brody and Kimberly A. Scott. This is actually a novel that that is in the genre known as "faction", or fiction based upon fact. The authors created a fictional story based upon real historical documents, the crux of which are personal letters written by Albert Pike (Brigham Young is named in one of the letters). 
• Treason in America: From Arron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. This book is a powerhouse of documented evidence of a massive conspiracy to destroy America from the inside, with Caleb Cushing being the major link. Chaitkin begins in Boston and reveals all the players involved in the conspiracy (even abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison were involved; he was a friend of Cushing and also from Newburyport, MA).       

Thomas Kane continued to correspond with, and counsel Brigham Young until Young's death in 1877. Because Kane was also a lawyer, he traveled to Utah in 1877 and oversaw the execution of Young's will, ensuring Young's family fortune by keeping Church and personal property separate. This was done by keeping several Church-owned properties and businesses in Brigham Young's personal name. These properties were eventually transferred to John Taylor, and thus marked the beginning of the Trustee-n-Trust, now known as the Corporation Sole, allowing one man to control the entire financial empire.

Kane was there to assist the fledgling Church empire every step of the way. Truly, without his enduring friendship to Brigham Young, the LDS Church may not have become the financial behemoth it is today.

One important part of this story is how the Mormon people were actually treated by their own leaders during 1858. According to Andrew Love Neff, over 1/3 of the occupants of Salt Lake City did not evacuate willingly:

Two or three Mormons, who had refused to go, had been notified that the military would turn them out of their houses. "We understood that a small guard was left at each of the settlements from which families had been removed." Next comes a statement which requires considerable modification: "We were also informed that at least one-third of the persons who had removed from their homes were compelled to do so." (History of Utah, pp. 501-02, emphasis added).

Were these people "compelled" by the Danites working under Brigham Young?

An Impossible Cover-Up

Once again I consulted Chat-GPT on the feasibility of completely covering the temple foundation in only five weeks, from the end of March to the beginning of May, 1858. (Author Mark Henshaw, in his book Forty Years: The Saga of Building the Salt Lake Temple, makes the claim that the temple foundation was covered by early May of 1858, see p. 205)

Chat-GPT calculated the following numbers based on a 16 foot foundation, and even those numbers are impossible. But we know that the foundation was much deeper thanks to news articles published during the 1960s renovation and conversations with modern construction workers involved in the recent temple renovation. 

17,000 cubic yards would have been required to fill in the temple foundation at 16 feet, and nearly three times that amount would have been required to fill a foundation depth of 40 feet. 

According to Chat GPT's calculations, 17,000 cubic yards alone would have required 458 wagon loads of dirt. If they had a 100 wagons available for hauling dirt, each wagon would have to make over 130 trips from the dirt source to the temple grounds, in just over one month. There are no accounts informing us as to where the soil was sourced, or how long each wagon trip took.

In fact, there are no contemporary journals that mention filling in the foundation at all. 

The story of the foundation being "buried" didn't appear until decades later (like so many other myths in Mormonism).

But the real smoking gun that proves this story is a complete fabrication comes when you actually compare the burial time line with recorded historical events. 

For starters, there were virtually no people in Salt Lake City during the month of April 1858, simply because Brigham Young had ordered them to evacuate. A small skeleton crew of men (calculated by Chat GPT to be between 200-300 men) were left behind to torch buildings and farms if necessary when Johnston's army arrived. 

Could these 200 to 300 men, who were probably busy loading wagons for evacuating Mormons, and hauling hay and straw to vacant buildings to ready them for torching, have also taken care of the temple foundation burial? 

Remember, we're also told they tore down the different shops (blacksmith, et al) around the temple block during the same time period.

Each of those 100 wagons would've had to make 18 trips per day from the soil source to the temple grounds. That would require 200-300 men just to drive the wagons, let alone excavating the soil, loading the wagons, and dumping and spreading the dirt over the foundation. Who is feeding and watering the oxen? Who is doing maintenance on the wagons? 

As always, none of these logistical questions are answered. And when you really look at the timeline of events it becomes certain the temple foundation cover-up never actually happened:

• March 21, 1858: Brigham Young calls a special conference ordering the inhabitants of the city to evacuate. 
• March 25, 1858: Brigham Young gives the order to bury the temple foundation.
• April 8th, 1858: Governor Cummings arrives in Salt Lake City with his Danite escort, finding the city abandoned, and complaining that there is no one to govern. 
• May 8, 1858: The New York Tribune publishes an article reporting on the mass exodus of the Mormons from Salt Lake City. 
• June 17, 1858: The New York Times reports that around 40,000 Mormons have abandoned their homes in Salt Lake City.
• June 26, 1858: Johnston's Army finally arrives in an empty Salt Lake City.  

Tell me dear readers, where in this time line is there room to bury a temple foundation needing anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 tons of dirt? 

If Governor Cumming found the city empty by April 8th, then that means that workers would've had to bury the foundation in less than two weeks. That would have been completely impossible, even for today's standards using modern excavators.

Curiously, Governor Cumming never mentions the temple foundation in his memoirs, nor does Thomas L. Kane. Neither does any other major character in the story of the Utah War, and not a single contemporary journal entry speaks a word about it.

It leaves me to conclude the entire story is nothing but myth, because, of course I believe the temple was already there, and no one mentioned it because these types of buildings were very common and existed all over the country.

More important than any story about a temple foundation, is the fact that Brigham Young and other Church leaders literally got away with murder, being pardoned by James Buchanan just a few short months after two massacres and a string of murders in Utah. 

Remember, the Book of Mormon beckons us modern Gentiles to repent of a host of sins and iniquities that began with the Utah Gentiles:

Turn, all ye gentiles, from your wicked ways, and repent of your evil doings--of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and your abominations... (3 Nephi 14:30, RE)

Join me next time as we explore the architects involved in the Salt Lake Temple, and what LDS historians say took place on the temple grounds during the decade of the 1860s.

The Salt Lake Temple II: The Cornerstone Ceremony

 Previously: A Sandy Foundation

Was Joseph Smith a Freemason?

Proof for his initiation into the lodge at Nauvoo hinges on very weak evidence. William Clayton, who once acted as a scribe for Joseph, was also a scribe for the Masons at the Nauvoo lodge. 

William Clayton is the only link historians use to frame Joseph Smith as the author of D&C Section 132.

Clayton is also the only link framing Joseph with membership in the Masonic lodge in Nauvoo. 

Here is how one author described this weak evidence linking Joseph to the craft:

To link Joseph to Freemasonry (in the short version), William Clayton (a scribe in the Masonic organization) ripped the pages from the Minute Book, and proceeded to created a second Minute Book that would include the records of Joseph joining the lodge. They claim that Clayton made an exact copy of the original Minute Book, but this would not explain why Heber (most likely) ripped the pages out in the first place. The second they did this, they are guilty of history-fixing. The claim that John Taylor deposited the founding documents (including the ripped-out pages of the original Minute Book) into the cornerstone of the Masonic temple, and they took William Clayton's fabricated version to Salt Lake City, where it remains today. Therein, Joseph is framed with Freemasonry. (Ronald Karren, The Exoneration of Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum, p. 269, emphasis added)

As a recent podcast has suggested, William Clayton was a far shadier character than we have been led to believe, and should not be a trusted source for historical documents. 

If Joseph Smith actually had been a Mason, or had studied the craft, his few comments that have been recorded on the subject reveal that he must've believed the fraternity was a counterfeit. 

Val Brinkerhoff recorded some of Joseph's comments in his book, The Secret Chamber. Here is how Joseph felt about secret organizations and secret oaths:

And again, I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies, by covenant or oaths, by penalties or secrecies...Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy. (HC. vol. 3, p. 303)

"...there has been frauds and secret abominations and evil works of darkness going in leading the minds of the weak and unwary into confusion and distraction, and palming it all the time upon the presidency while mean time presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of these things, which were practicing in the church in our name. (Joseph Smith, Dec. 1838, Times and Seasons, vol. 1, no. 6, April 1840, quoted in The Secret Chamber, p. 169)

Do we take Joseph at his word or do we still believe what others have written about him?

And what about these versus from the Book of Mormon further warning us about secret signs and oaths? Do we ignore them too?

And it came to pass that they did have their signs, year, their secret signs and their secret words, and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant... (Helaman 2:32, RE)

And this excerpt from the Covenant of Christ makes it painstakingly clear that secret societies are wicked above all in God's eyes:

They formed a secret society, as they did long ago, a society God considers most corrupt and wicked of all. (CoC, Ether 3:17)

As you read what follows about the Salt Lake Temple cornerstone ceremony, carefully consider the content, and ask yourself the question: 

Did these strange ceremonies originate with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?

What the LDS Church was doing with cornerstone ceremonies in 19th century Utah (and continued until 2023) is based upon Freemasonic ritual. I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything to do with it. But as always, I invite you to decide for yourself the truth of these matters.

To begin, let's examine the differences between the cornerstone ceremonies conducted for the Nauvoo and Salt Lake temples.

Ceremonial Sleight of Hand

According to LDS history, Brigham Young received the instructions for temple cornerstone ceremonies from Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon on April 6 of 1841. On that day we're told that a cornerstone ceremony was performed for the Nauvoo temple. You can read the entire account in History of Church, Volume 4, pp. 329-331. You can also read it online here, the source of the account is the "Times and Seasons", Vol. 2, No. 12, 376, April 15, 1841.

As far as we know there was not a revelation given to Joseph on the proper order of laying cornerstones. The account in the Times and Seasons does not specifically state that the ceremony had been revealed from God (and Joseph did not write it down elsewhere), so I'm not totally sure we can trust it as what actually happened. However, there are some very important differences between how Joseph allegedly conducted the cornerstone ceremony for the Nauvoo temple, and how Brigham conducted the ceremony for the Salt Lake temple.

In both ceremonies the architects laid the stones under the direction of certain entities in the Church. Here is a breakdown how Joseph organized the ceremony for the Nauvoo temple:

• Southeast Corner (First or Principal): laid under the direction of the First Presidency.
• Southwest Corner (Second): laid under the direction of the President of the High Priesthood.
• Northwest Corner (Third): superintended by the High Council as representatives of the Twelve (who were in Europe at the time).
• Northeast Corner (Fourth): superintended by the Bishops representing the lesser priesthood. 

Also important, were the words that each of the Church dignitaries declared after each stone was laid. The laying of the SE Corner was followed by these remarks from Joseph Smith:

This principal cornerstone, in presentation of the First Presidency, is now duly laid in honor of the great God; and may it remain there until the whole fabric is completed; and may the same be accomplished speedily; that the Saints may have a place to worship God; and the Son of Man have where to lay his head.

The SW corner was remarked upon by President Marks:

The second corner stone, of the Temple now building by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in honor to the great God, is duly laid, and may the same unanimity, that has been manifested on this occasion, continue, till the whole is completed; that peace may rest upon it to the laying of the top stone thereof, and the turning of the key thereof; that the Saints may participate in the blessings of Israel's God within its walls, and the glory of God rest upon the same; Amen.

The NW corner was remarked upon by Elias Higbee:

The third corner stone, in representation of the Twelve, is now duly laid; and as they are, in some measure the support of the church, so may this stone be a firm support to the corner, that the whole may be completed as before purposed, and according to the order of the Priesthood.

Finally, the NE corner was remarked upon by Bishop Whitney:

The fourth and last corner stone, expressive of the Lesser Priesthood, is now duly laid; and may the blessings before pronounced, with all others desirable, rest upon the same forever; Amen.

Important to note here is that the Church in Joseph's day did not have a hierarchy, and equality prevailed. There were no priesthood quorums that had authority over any others. Brigham Young changed all that through a coup d'etat and gave all power over the Church to the Twelve and the First Presidency. We can clearly see some symbolism of these changes in the way the cornerstone ceremony for the Salt Lake temple was conducted. 

Now, to avoid confusion, I want to clearly state here that I do not believe that the cornerstone ceremony performed in Salt Lake City on April 6 of 1853 was held for a new building which only had a foundation. I believe it was performed for a building that was already constructed. These cornerstone ceremonies date back to 1793 when Grand Master Benjamin Franklin conducted the ceremony for the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. The Freemasonic cornerstone ceremonies were performed, in my opinion, as a means for inheritors to claim existing buildings at the beginning of the reset. 

I believe Brigham Young became a Freemason in Boston and apprenticed under Albert Pike (this is only a theory and I have no evidence for this except for a letter written by Pike wherein he mentions Brigham Young's name; read the letter here). 

Heber Kimball was also a Freemason and held a high rank known as the Royal Arch. However, after being expelled from Nauvoo, I believe Brigham and Heber fell out of favor with the Freemasons and went rogue, and upon their arrival in Utah, established their own form of the Brotherhood. We can see elements of Freemasonic protocols in all the groundbreaking and cornerstone ceremonies held for many buildings in Utah, beginning with the first: the Salt Lake temple.

Here is how Brigham Young structured the cornerstone ceremony:

• Southeast Corner: laid by First Presidency and Church Patriarch, with oration offered by Brigham Young.
• Southwest Corner: laid by the Presiding Bishopric representing the lesser priesthood, with oration offered by Bishop Edward Hunter. 
• Northwest Corner: laid by the presidency of the high priests, the Stake Presidency, and the High Council, with oration by President John Young.
• Northeast Corner: laid by the the Twelve and representatives of the Seventies and Elders, with oration by Elder Parley P. Pratt.

Comparing the order with how Joseph organized the Nauvoo ceremony, we can clearly see the changes. Brigham kept the SE corner, or the principal cornerstone the same, as well as the SW corner. However, he inversed the NW and NE corners. This seemingly small change holds some significance in Freemasonry. 

The Twelve, the top of the hierarchy in the LDS Church under Brigham's organization (even higher than the First Presidency because the Twelve have the power to restructure that entity), laid the cornerstone for the Northeast corner. 

This is significant because according to Masonic protocols, the Northeast corner is symbolic of the Entered Apprentice, or first degree of Freemasonry (the apprentice is represented as emerging from the north, a place of darkness representing the profane, or those who are not initiated, the apprentice then enters the east, a place of light, the direction from which the sun rises each day).

However, there is no explanation for how the Freemasons came to honor the northeast corner as the preferred cornerstone. Only speculation and conjecture are available to explain this inclination, which leads me to believe that the Freemasons may have stolen this precept from another, possibly far more ancient, source. 

As it turns out, Brigham Young was actually much more favorable toward the southeast corner. On the day we are told that the cornerstone ceremony was held for the SLT, Brigham made this statement in the Tabernacle:

...The First Presidency proceeded to lay the south-east corner, to the lay the first stone, though it is customary to commence at the north-east corner--that is the beginning point most generally, I believe, in the world. At this side of the equator we commence at the south-east corner. We sometimes look for light, you know, brethren. You old men that have been through the mill pretty well, have you been inquiring after light--which way do you go? You will tell me you go to the east for light? So we commence by laying the stone on the south-east corner, because there is the most light. (JD 1:133)

Does the most light emanate from the southeast corner? Not exactly.

Brigham's statement here doesn't make sense when compared to how ancient temples were built and dedicated. The principle cornerstone would often be placed in the northeast corner, because on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, the sun would first cross the northeast corner of a building that was facing east (the SLT faces east).

This is well illustrated by the following diagram, taken out of the book, Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, look at the top-left figure:

As you can see, the sun rises in the northeast on June 21st, the longest day of the year, when the sun is in the constellation of Leo. This is when the sun is brightest and warmest, and shines the most light on the earth. On December 21st, the shortest day of the year, the sun rises in the southeast, and on this day the sun literally shines the least amount of light on the earth. 

This is how the ancients in the northern hemisphere would track the movements of the sun.

Consider the following commentary:

As temples always faced east, so as to catch the first rays of the rising sun, it is almost certain that the cornerstone also, for like religious reasons, would be laid in a line with the rising sun. The sun, as he arose on the longest day of the year, rejoicing in his pride and strength, would be a type of the new temple about to rise majestically from its foundations. On the contrary, to lay the cornerstone of the new solar temple in the southeastern line of the sun's decline and fall, at the winter solstice, or toward the north, the point of darkness, or yet toward Amenti, the western region of gloom and death, would, according to the teachings of astrology, be most unpropitious, if not sacrilegious. (Robert Hewitt Brown, Stellar Theology, p. 169)

Why would Brigham Young contradict the ancient order of things? Why would he go against what Freemasons believed and practiced about cornerstones?

Was Brigham trying to hide the fact that he had found an ancient solar temple? The Salt Lake Temple does, after fall, face east, and its northeast corner would be directly in the path of the rising sun on the summer solstice. (Interestingly enough, the Nauvoo temple actually faces west).

Did Brigham really learn this idea of the southeast corner from Joseph Smith, as he claimed? If he did there are not reliable historical sources verifying this as Joseph never published a revelation on the matter.

Just when I thought I had reached a dead end on the discrepancy between the northeast and southeast corners, I found a short paper written by a man named S. Brent Morris, a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason. Morris argues that Masonic preference for the northeast was derived at arbitrarily and that "its historical roots are rather shallow". Morris further explains that:

It was been widely assumed that the preference for the northeast corner came into modern Masonic fraternity through the medieval building guilds. Bernard E. Jones nicely summarized the historical position. "There may, of course, be a long-lost symbolism to account for the preference, but the records of the stone-laying ceremonies relating to notable medieval buildings do not support any such idea...," neither, in fact, do the earliest records of Masonic ritual. (Morris, The Northeast Corner)

Morris reveals that the oldest Masonic catechism dates back to the Edinburgh (Scotland) Register House Manuscript of 1696. It has the Master Mason placing his "mark on the work... upon the S.E. corner." Another document, The Dumbfries No. 4 Manuscript of ca., dated 1710, states that the the cornerstone of King Solomon's Temple was laid in the southeast corner. Morris claims that other documents (which he does not name) locate the cornerstones for both the 1793 U.S. Capitol (supposedly lost) and the 1798 University of North Carolina in the southeast corners. 

If what Morris is claiming is true, then the question we must ask is what did Brigham Young know?

What is the true significance of the southeast corner? 

It is interesting to note that neither Albert Pike, in his Morals and Dogma, nor Manly P. Hall, in his Secret Teachings of All Ages, mention cornerstones at all, let alone directional significance. The evolution of the northeast corner in modern Freemasonry seems to have emerged quite sporadically during the 18th and 19th centuries. Why did they suddenly incorporate this change into Masonic protocols? What were they attempting to hide or cover up?

Obviously, I don't have the answers. But in light of my discovery of Morris' short paper I find it extremely interesting that Brigham Young favored the southeast cornerstone, flipping the contemporary order of things on its proverbial head. 

Perhaps the following video (which I have shared before) can offer some more clues as to what the Freemasons were actually doing with cornerstone ceremonies:

For now, let's move on to a few more specifics of the cornerstone ceremony that Brigham Young followed in regard to the Salt Lake Temple.  

The Order and Procession of Masonic Cornerstone Ceremonies

The protocols for Masonic cornerstone ceremonies are laid out in a book written by Robert Macoy entitled, Worshipful Master's Assistant: The Encyclopedia of Useful Knowledge, published in 1885. In chapter III, Macoy gives a detailed description of how these ceremonies are supposed to be performed. He begins with the passage below offering a brief history of the practice:

From time immemorial, it has been the prerogative of the Masonic Society to lay ("plant") corner-stones of edifices, not only such as are intended strictly for Masonic purposes, but all constructions of a public character. The National Capitol at Washington, many State houses, custom houses, colleges, hospitals, asylums, public school buildings, piers of bridges, canal locks, post-offices, public wharfs, levees--each in its turn has been the subject of the ancient ceremonial about to be described. To expunge the history of Freemasonry from America would be to draw from twenty thousand edifices the corner-stones planted there by Masonic hands. (Macoy, Kissenger's Rare Reprints: The Laying of Masonic Cornerstones, p. 95, emphasis added)

We should be questioning why so many public officials allowed the Masons to conduct cornerstone ceremonies for buildings that seemingly had nothing to do with Freemasonry. Why would the Masons need to be involved in capitol buildings, state houses, colleges, custom houses, hospitals, asylums, and school buildings?

What was really going in with these ceremonies?

Notice that Macoy uses the word plant. Like so many words in the English language, plant has many definitions. In addition to burying something in the ground, it also means the following:

• To insert firmly
•  Introduce and establish new settlers in
• To station (someone) for a surreptitious or secret purpose
• To place (something) in a concealed place to mislead a later discoverer (see online etymology dictionary)

As we read through these definitions, we can see a pattern of human resets emerging. Hypothetically, after a destructive event happens and populations are destroyed, controlling survivors would need to "plant" new settlers by introducing them into different deserted areas. Surviving buildings would need to be renamed and repurposed. New leaders would be "stationed" in certain areas (like Brigham Young in Salt Lake City), and cornerstones in buildings would be rededicated by placing items inside that would "mislead later discoverers" (planting fake evidence).

Do you see how they are revealing their agenda in plain sight in the definition of a common word?

In an earlier post I quoted a book that was found in the archives of the University of California. It is worth repeating here. The author of the book, a 19th century historian, claimed that expansive infrastructure was built here in America long before Columbus arrived. He names the same type of buildings that are referenced in the quote above by Robert Macoy, which leads me to believe that the Masons were finding and repurposing buildings with these cornerstone ceremonies. 

The Americans had long before Columbus, large cities; built of stones, brick or wood, with walls, ditches, temples, palaces... (The American Nations, Vol 1; pp. 32-33)

Capitol buildings sure look like palaces to me. I quoted this author twice (with commentary) in my post on the Logan temple, near the end of the article.  

Another word that should raise alarm bells is founded.

Many old buildings were said to have been founded during the 19th century. Yet, we have been trained to assume that founded also means built, but this is simply not true. Here is the legal definition of the word founded:

Based upon; arising from, growing out of, or resting upon; as in the expressions "founded in fraud," "founded on a consideration", "founded on contract," and the like. (Online Law Dictionary)

As you can see, nothing in the word founded means constructed or built. If inheritors of these buildings wanted to legally build upon or improve them, they could, since whatever additions they were making were "based upon, growing out of, or resting upon" something else. 

After finishing these improvements or renovations they could say that they had constructed a building. Of course, this legal contract would be "founded in fraud."

Do you see how they use our very language to deceive us? 

Let's get back to Macoy. 

As we go through the cornerstone protocols, you’ll see that Brigham Young followed a semblance of these procedures in the SLT cornerstone ceremony. Keep in mind that this pattern was repeated in many of the old buildings said to have been constructed in Utah during both the 19th and 20th centuries, including the first three temples. 

Not all the details of the cornerstone ceremonies for every Utah building  are available in the historical documents, but when we look into the narratives of the first three temples, combined with all the other buildings I've covered in the "This is the Place Series", we can begin to see a complete picture of the Masonic cornerstone ritual. However, Brigham Young and his fellow leaders conducted the ceremonies according to their own whims, changing protocols and adding nuance to the procedures.  

The ceremony begins with an opening meeting (usually around 10 or 11 AM so that the formalities can be completed in time for the cornerstone to be dedicated at high noon), usually in another building or "lodge" that is close to where the cornerstone will be dedicated. This meeting is conducted under the authority of the Grand Master, who announces the order of the procession. The procession, or parade, is led by the Grand Marshal, and all proceedings are recorded by the Grand Secretary. 

On April 6th of 1853, Brigham Young, acting as Grand Master, opened the meeting and announced the proceedings in the Tabernacle (claimed by historians to have been the "Adobe Tabernacle" but I believe this meeting was held in the already-existing-large-domed Tabernacle that we're told was constructed by 1867). The meeting began at 10 AM, and after an opening prayer and hymn a sabbath day parade was staged.

According to Macoy, the procession can be organized a few different ways. Usually, the Grand Master will be proceeded by marching bands, Deacons, Templars (as in Knights Templars), the Grand Marshal, and the Royal Arch Masons. In the proceedings for a Grand Lodge, Macoy defines the order as follows:

• The Grand Tyler (or tiler, the leader of the outer guard of a Masonic lodge)
• The Grand Architect, with assistants bearing the Plumb, Level, and Square (in my post about the 1917 Church Administration Building, I’ve written more about the Masonic meaning of the plumb, level, and square. Anthon H. Lund followed Masonic protocol during the cornerstone ceremony for that building.)
• Five Master Masons, bearing the five Orders
• The Grand Deacons, with rods
• Grand Treasurers and Grand Secretaries
• Grand Wardens; past Grand Wardens
• Deputy Grand Master; past Deputy Grand Masters

The Grand Master conducts the ceremony. According to author Mark Henshaw, the procession for the Salt Lake Temple was arranged as follows:

A color guard took the lead carrying the United States flag; they also carried another blue-and-white flag featuring stars, stripes, and the embroidered words Kingdom of God across it. The Nauvoo Brass Band came next...

Next followed a twenty-piece band led by Dominico Ballo... Another military guard stepped in behind Ballo's band, and a small group of singers followed the soldiers. Then came Brigham and his counselors in the First Presidency, Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, along with "Uncle John" Smith, the presiding patriarch. The rest of the Church leaders fell in line after that--the Quorum of the Seventy, and other senior and local leaders. Nearing the end of the line came Truman Angell, the architect, and a number of workmen selected to represent their various classes of profession; a final military guard brought up the rear. (Forty Years, p. 105)

Brigham Young doesn't follow Macoy's protocols to the tee, but we can clearly see the pattern of civic, military, and religious leaders being involved in the ceremony. A Grand Marshal is not named for the SLT ceremony, but is for the Manti temple ceremony. His name was General W.S. Snow, called by the title, Marshal of the Day.

According to Macoy, the procession, moving "with perfect discipline and decorous silence", halts when it reaches the northeast cornerstone. The Grand Master, leading in reverse order, "proceeds to the platform and takes his station... the Grand Marshal proclaims silence...", and "if the proposed structure is for public use... a spokesman selected for the purpose will address the Grand Master... If the edifice is strictly for Masonic purposes, the Master of the Lodge having precedence will act as spokesman". Then a hymn will be sung by the choir. (See Macoy, p. 98)

Brigham Young led the procession first to southeast corner, where, we're told, the military separated the crowd from trenches dug for the foundation. The choir sang a hymn, and Thomas Bullock (appointed spokesman for Brigham Young) addressed the crowd, reminiscing about the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples and speaking of temple endowments. Bullock then dedicated the southeast corner stone of the temple, we're told. After which Heber Kimball (Royal Arch Mason) offered a prayer and another hymn ("The Temple" by Eliza R. Snow) was sung.  

The procession then marched to the southwest corner, where Edward Hunter, the presiding Bishop, delivered an oration. Then one of his counselors, Alfred Cordon, dedicated the cornerstone. Another prayer was offered and another hymn was sung. 

The "band played another martial tune" as the procession moved to the northwest corner, where John Young, president of the high priests quorum, delivered the oration and dedicated the cornerstone. Elder George B. Wallace offered the prayer, and the choir sang another hymn. 

The process repeated as the parade moved finally to the northeast corner, laid by Parly. P. Pratt of the Quorum of the Twelve, who then gave a long oration on work for the dead. Elder Orson Hyde offered the prayer, asking "for the construction to be 'speedily erected and finished'". (See Forty Years, p. 116)

An hour after the ceremony the congregation moved back to the Tabernacle to hear an address from Brigham Young, which is now found in the Journal of Discourses: 

I scarcely ever say much about revelations, or visions, but suffice it to say, five years ago last July I was here, and saw in the Spirit the temple not ten feet from where we have laid the chief cornerstone. I have not inquired what kind of temple we should build. Why? Because it was represented before me. I have never looked upon that ground, but the vision of it was there. I see it as plainly as if it was in reality before me. (JD, 1:133, emphasis added)

In my opinion, this statement is full of hidden truth. Brigham (or whoever is writing this history) is telling us in a round about way that the temple was already there... "as plainly as if it was in reality before" him. Every time he looks upon that spot, he sees the temple. This statement contradicts another statement Brigham made six weeks earlier at the groundbreaking ceremony in which he said that a revelation was not necessary to build a temple:

Some might query whether a revelation had been given to build a House of the Lord, but he is a wicked and slothful servant who doeth nothing but what his Lord commandeth, when he knoweth his Master's will. I know a Temple is needed and so do you; and when we know a thing, why do we need a revelation to compel us to do that thing? If the Lord and all the people want a revelation, I can give one concerning this Temple. In a few days I shall be able to give a plan on paper, and then if heaven or any good man on earth, will suggest my improvements, we will receive and adopt them. (Deseret News Weekly, February 14, 1853)

Which is it Brigham, did you get a revelation to build the temple or not? Remember, Brigham Young was not a visionary man. He was a Yankee Guesser. 

Even though Truman Angell was the architect, we're told that it was Brigham Young who drew up the original plan. Brigham was a carpenter, and certainly no architect, but in the narratives of each of the first four temples in Utah, Brigham is alluded to as the original drafter of each building, suggesting that they were drawn by revelation, with architects merely making suggestions or small changes.

However, I believe the "plan" Brigham is alluding to here (as well as the plans for the other three temples) was a plan for the renovation of an existing building. At the end of this post I will show you an article in LDS Living that mentions some of the changes made to the "original plans", and as you will see, the Salt Lake Temple used to appear much more "Tartarian" than it does today.

For now, let's dive into a little ancient history about cornerstone ceremonies, dating back to the Roman Empire, and conducted by none other than soothsayers. 

A Temple Raised on an Old Foundation

In the book Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, the significance of cornerstone ceremonies and the importance of the northeast corner is expounded upon. Under the section The Northeast Corner and the Corner-Stone, the author begins with this introduction:

The ancients believed that the movements, conjunctions, and position of the heavenly bodies influenced not only the destiny of nations, but of individuals, and regulated all the affairs of life. Their temples were dedicated to the worship of the sun, and the whole process of their erection, from the laying of the first stone up to their completion, as well as the details of the architecture, had special reference to astrological conditions, and the movement of the sun in the zodiac, or his position at stated periods therein. (Stellar Theology, p. 166)

It is my belief that the SLT is an ancient edifice dedicated to sun worship. It's shape, position, sun, moon, and earth symbols carved into stone on the facade, and east-facing entrance are all clues that this may be the case.

Albert Pike, who we now know was at least acquainted with Brigham Young, made a statement in his book Morals and Dogma in which he explained that every Masonic lodge is indeed a temple:

Every Lodge is a temple, and as a whole, and in its details symbolic. The Universe itself supplied man with the model for the first temples reared to the Divinity. The arrangement of the Temple of Solomon, the symbolic ornaments which formed its chief decorations, and the dress of the High Priest, all had reference to the order of the Universe, as then understood. The Temple contained many emblems of the seasons--the sun, the moon, the planets, the constellations of Ursa Major and Minor, the zodiac, the elements, and the other parts of the world. (Morals and Dogma, Kindle Edition, Loc 131)

Did Brigham Young really understand the astronomical significance of the symbolism on the facade of the SLT? 

In all of the Journal of Discourses, there are no records of any talks in General Conference attempting to explain the astronomical symbolism carved onto the SLT exterior. There are only a few references made to Solomon's Temple, in one of which Brigham Young made an allusion to Hiram Abiff (see JD 19:220-21).

Pike's statement in Morals and Dogma is interesting. Yes, he most likely understood the astronomical significance of temples, but I question how many lodges/temples were actually "built" by the Freemasons. Did they just find many of these ancient sun-worship temples and simply re-purpose them while claiming them as their own? 

There are more missing pieces to this puzzle found in the book Stellar Theology that I quoted above. The author of this work, Robert Hewitt Brown, is a Masonic apologist. But if you ignore his friendly bias towards Freemasonry, there are massive clues to be uncovered in the book. For instance, Brown reveals that cornerstone ceremonies were ancient, and dates them back to the Roman Empire, where they were conducted by soothsayers. 

A soothsayer is a fortune teller, or "one who speaks truth" or "a candid advisor". The Book of Mormon categorizes soothsayers as a subgroup within the larger umbrella of witchcraft. Christ told the Nephites that in a future day among the Gentiles, witch crafts and soothsayers would be cut off from the land. Joseph Smith explained that soothsayers were among those who were possessed with false and lying spirits:

Having said so much upon the general principles without referring to the particular situation, power, and influence of the magicians of Egypt, the wizards and witches of the Jews, the oracles of the heathen, their necromancers, soothsayers, and astrologers, the maniacs or those possessed of devils in the apostle's days, we will notice and try to detect (so far as we have the scriptures for our aid) some few instances of the development of false spirits in more modern times, and in this our day. (Times and Seasons, 1 April 1842, quoted in T&C 147:10)

According to the History of Tacitus, soothsayers conducted Roman cornerstone ceremonies, and in order to please the gods, temples had to be built upon the ancient foundations of, well..., other temples.

The soothsayers, who were convened by him [Lucius Vestinus], advised that the ruins of the former shrine should be removed to the marshes, and a temple raised on an old foundation, for the gods would not permit a change in the ancient form. (History of Tacitus, quoted in Stellar Theology, p. 166)

Ancient form? What is he talking about? 

Were all temples built upon the foundations of other buildings? Is this some kind of universal law, or a massive deception/psyop to dupe us into believing that ancient buildings were rebuilt several times over on the same foundation?

(As a related side note, if you research any number of historic buildings in major cities, especially churches, cathedrals, and capitol buildings, you will find that many of them are said to have been destroyed by fire and rebuilt several times during the last 100 to 200 years. The more buildings you research the more predictable the narratives become.)

Tacitus further expounds upon the cornerstone ceremony, a grand celebration, featuring soldiers in uniform, a procession with live music, accompanied by priests, magistrates, knights, senators, and ordinary citizens with their frolicking children. Roman gods such as Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva were invoked with animal sacrifices and honored in prayers asking them to "prosper the undertaking" (this phrase is also found on the back of the 1 dollar bill, in Latin: annuit coeptis). The cornerstone was bound with wreaths and cords, and ferried to the site by the participants. The soothsayers had the final words, enjoining "that neither stone nor gold which had been applied to other uses should profane the building". (See Stellar Theology, p. 167)

Ancient cornerstone ceremonies, eerily reminiscent of the 19th century rituals performed by Brigham Young in Utah, were employed for buildings that were built upon existing foundations? 

Interestingly, the word foundation means "the act of founding", and found means "to discover." 

After quoting Tacitus, Brown then proceeds with his own commentary, stating that the Roman ceremony was probably derived from Egypt, and that all ancient temples were dedicated to the sun. These sun-worship temples faced east, with the NE and SE Cornerstones situated in a position that placed them directly in the path of the rising sun during both the winter and summer solstices. 

Thus, both the NE and SE corners, as well as the pillars named Jachin and Boaz, were each there own solstitial point; the distance between these two points was measured in degrees and made the front of a temple the chord of an arc (a portion of circumference between two points; a chord is also a group of musical notes played in harmonic consonance; ancient architecture was built to resonate with the musical scale). 

The chord of the arc is shown below between points A and B:

The spacing between the cornerstones at the front of the temple would depend upon the latitude of the location of the building site. The length of which would increase the farther north the building was located. To accommodate temples in the northern hemisphere, the buildings would have to be constructed in the shape of a double cube or an oblong square. 

An oblong square is simply a rectangle, a four-sided structure with one pair of its sides longer than the other pair, like the building pictured below:

Often, my research leaves me with more questions than answers. With my recent discovery of this description of ancient cornerstone ceremonies, a new list of questions concerning the origin of the SLT come to mind:

• Did Brigham Young discover an ancient solar temple, fully built and preserved, in 1847 when he arrived in Utah?
• Did Brigham find only an ancient foundation (of sandstone and granite) and begin the construction of a new edifice on top of it that would take forty years?
• Does this account for the anomalies in the historical records that attempt to explain the origins of the temple foundation?
• Or, was the confusion surrounding the foundation deliberately inserted into the narrative to parallel the "ancient form" we read about in Tacitus' account?

As always, I don't know the answers. All I know for sure is that the stories we're told by the LDS Church don't add up. 

More Clues from LDS Living Magazine

A 2018 article in LDS Living reveals some of the original architectural plans for the Salt Lake Temple. It is entitled:

What the Salt Lake Temple Might Have Looked Like

These original plans are very interesting to say the least. If they would have been implemented the temple would appear much more "Tartarian" than it does today, which leads me to believe that they may have found the temple adorned with these strange details and removed them when the building was repurposed.

In this first photo, taken from the article, we can see that they had plans to carve Saturn stones onto each buttress, as well as faces in the sunstones. We're told that they did not implement these designs because of the difficulty of carving granite. 

I wonder whose idea it was to include Saturn stones (the article doesn't specify)? 

Saturn has been associated with Satan and darkness for centuries. The Romans worshipped a god named Saturnalia, the Greeks called him Kronos (or Chronos; where we get our modern word chronology), the Egyptians associated him with Osiris. 

Saturn has had many names throughout the centuries: the Dark Lord, the Lord of the Rings, Father Time, the Father of the gods, etc. 

Saturn is the god of punishment and control. Today Saturn is venerated by the black robes worn by judges, as well as the square hats ands tassels used in graduation ceremonies. The planet is represented by the hexagon, the Star of David (Remphan), and the cube. Saturn even has his own day of week, Saturday, or Saturn's day.

(For more on the history of Saturn, I wrote about it here and here.)

Would a supposed Christian religion really adorn a building with such graven images?

Or, were these Saturn stones there when the pioneers showed up in 1847 and subsequently removed?

This next photo is a rendition of the statues that were originally in the empty niches we see by the front entrance of the temple today: 

We are told in the article that the niches were designed to hold statues of Joseph and Hyrum, and that actual statues were added to the niches some twenty years after the temple was completed. These statues, we're told, were relocated to other places in temple square later.

This story is highly suspect to me. Why would they venerate Joseph and Hyrum with these statues? Joseph Smith never got any credit in Utah until the 1990s, when they changed the name of the Hotel Utah to the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Literally everything else in Utah was named after or associated with Brigham Young. 

Furthermore, why would they mold these graven images of mortal men and place them at the temple entrance? LDS scriptures are replete with warnings against making graven images of any kind; why would they ignore these verses when constructing their temple to the Most High God?

Here we can see the one of the empty niches today:

No doubt that countless brides and grooms and their families have taken photos at this very spot. I wonder if any of them were ever curious about these empty statue niches appearing in the background of their wedding albums? 

I wonder what kind of graven images were initially found in these niches? Was it griffins, dragons, lions, wyverns, or any other number of gargoyles that we see on old world buildings today?

Now we come to something otherworldly. The original plans also included:

Carved faces at the top of each of the 22 columns in the Celestial Room.

What? 

Can you imagine having all these faces staring at you after finishing an endowment session in the SLT celestial room? 

Creepy to say the least. And reminiscent of so many faces that we see in, and on, old world buildings today. Here a few from my personal photo album.

This first one I took at a hotel in New Orleans:

 This one is from the inside of a cathedral in Boston:

These are from the Salt Lake City County Building:

And this one is from the room in the Salt Lake City Capitol Building where politicians meet today:

Do you see the lion with the inverted pentagram on his chest? 

I'll get into the symbolism of these pentagrams in a later post. We can find inverted pentagrams all over the SLT temple, at least before renovations began in 2020:

Original plans called for even more pentagrams in the windows:

Here is another original plan for some of the windows: 

This one shows 21 circle and square symbols under one inverted pentagram above the keystone. The keystone represents the Royal Arch, or the highest portion of the Zodiac where the sun is found during the summer solstice. It represents strength and is often associated with lions and kings. The circle in the center of the arch represents the sun in this position of strength.

To read for the LDS Living article for yourself, click here.

I find it interesting timing that this article was released only one year prior to the announcement of the plans for the temple renovations in 2019. 

If some of these details existed in (and on) the SLT when the pioneers arrived in 1847, then what else have they removed from this building?

What did they remove during the 1960s renovations?

Indeed, what have they removed since renovations began in 2020?

I suppose we'll never know. 

Thanks for joining me for part II on the SLT. 

In the next post I'll be getting into the history of the story about covering up the temple foundation at the end of the 1850s, its reemergence in 1867, the occupation of Johnston's army in Utah, and how it actually bolstered Brigham Young's power over the LDS people. 

In meantime, if you want to learn more about Masonic rituals that have been exposed to the public, I suggest checking out the archived book below:

Morgan's Freemasonry: Exposed and Explained

And here are some new photos I have come across of the Salt Lake Temple and the no-longer-existing Saltair Pavilion:

Here you can see the old wall that appears to be falling apart and in the process of being torn down. Notice how mature the trees are. There is no date for this photo but it appears as if we are looking at an ancient temple. And where are the other buildings that were supposed to have been built before the temple?

This one is dated in 1892, the year the capstone ceremony was performed for the temple. Notice how built out the city is for this early time period. Look at the primitive scaffolding next to the spire looking like old world tech. (I will get into the capstone ceremony in a later post)

The rest of the photos are of the Saltair Pavilion (A Moorish temple) and resort that burned down in the 1920s, rebuilt and then burned down again in the 50s and 70s. It was said have been built in three months by the LDS Church in 1893, during winter time of course. The resort was ran by Nephi Clayton, William Clayton's son. I wrote about the Saltair in this post.