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William Clayton was a far shadier character than we have been led to believe, and should not be a trusted source for historical documents.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

Part III: The Utah War and an Impossible Cover Up  

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

The Salt Lake Temple Part I: A Sandy Foundation

 Previously: A Masterpiece in Manti

Welcome readers, to part I of a new series on the Salt Lake Temple. Because the Salt Lake temple narrative covers a span of forty years, this will require a deeper dive into LDS historical events and will end up being several posts long. When I'm finished with the Salt Lake Temple I'll return to my Ancient Temple series where I'll cover four more temples I believe were built by a previous civilization: Laie, Hawaii; Cardston, Alberta; Mesa, Arizona; Idaho Falls, Idaho.

How would it affect your life to learn that the LDS pioneers did not build, but instead found the Salt Lake Temple already there when they arrived in Utah? 

Would that change how you look at the entire LDS historical narrative in Utah?  

This world we live in is not what it seems. We're beginning to realize that our history is completely fabricated, simply made up to fit a narrative that is meant to control our minds. 

It is my belief that everything we're told by government, media, or any other establishment source, is a carefully crafted illusion planned to deceive and control humanity towards an end time agenda. 

All the world is a stage, and the "official" history of Utah is a big part of the play. 

Salt Lake City is obviously an ancient city. It is full of incredibly beautiful stone buildings that, in my opinion, have been here for centuries. When Johnston's army came to Utah in the late 1850s, one of his Colonel's described the city as follows:

The city is beyond my power of description. It is beautiful--even magnificent. Every street is bordered by large trees beneath which on either side run murmuring brooks with pebbly bottoms. Not a sign of dirt of any kind to be seen. The houses are surrounded by large gardens now green with summer foliage. All the houses are built of adobe nicely washed with some brown earth, the public buildings large [and] handsomely ornamented surrounded by walls of stone... (Colonel John Van Deusen Du Bois, Circa 1858, quoted in The Salt Lake Temple: A Monument to the People, pp. 52-53, by C. Nina Hamilton, emphasis added)

This was around 1858, only ten years after the city was settled. How were they able to build these stone walls and large public buildings so quickly? Colonel Du Bois doesn't specify which buildings he saw, but they obviously left an impression.  

In addition to stone buildings, there are tunnels all over the city and under Temple Square that have no construction history. They don't even attempt to explain how they got there. 

We're told that many massive stone buildings in Salt Lake City were built in a time when there were no power tools and no cranes. 

We see lots strange photos of majestic stone architecture surrounded by dirt roads full of horse-drawn wagons, making no sense at all.

How can they have built all these technologically advanced buildings and not yet know how to even pave the muddy dirt roads?

You can find 19th century photos like this of every major city in the U.S., and all over the world for that matter. Something is not right here. 

We are being lied to. 

The Salt Lake Temple narrative, like the other three temples I have covered, is full of gaps, anomalies and strange stories that just don't add up. 

Some of what I'll be covering in this series are as follows:

• The inconsistencies surrounding the story of the temple foundation.
• The Masonic origins of LDS cornerstone ceremonies.
• How the so-called "Mormon War" was most likely a psyop meant to bolster Brigham Young's power. 
• The lightning fast speed at which they "built" the railroads and what may have actually been happening. 
• How Truman Angell was not trained as a architect, and how Brigham Young sent him to Europe to study architecture after the temple was already drawn, and how he returned unimpressed.
• How the 22 Greek columns in the Salt Lake Temple Celestial Room were planned to originally have carved faces at the top of them, and what that means for the narrative. 
• Why the LDS people supposedly adorned the with temple facade with astrological symbolism (i.e., earth moon, sun, and Saturn stones, as well as inverted baphomet pentagrams) even though Brigham Young's writings and speeches never mention astrology. 
• How in the world the temple went from a massive empty stone shell in 1892 to a fully finished interior, replete with masterful craftsmanship in wood work, with hand-carved columns, giant granite staircases, an empty elevator shaft, and exquisitely detailed artwork and murals... in only one year.      

The LDS people are renowned for building the Salt Lake Temple, their architectural magnum opus. The stories we're told about the sacrifice, toil, adversity, and hardships that were overcome to build the temple are more than just inspiring for true-believing members of the Church, it is part of the story that weaves the very fabric of what it means to be a Latter-Day-Saint. 

I realize in writing this series I am treading on sacred ground for many people who were raised in the traditions of Mormonism, like myself, but there is much more to this story that needs to be examined.

We encounter logistical inconsistencies, blatantly obvious contradictions, anomalous timelines and strangely manipulated photographs--telling us that men with primitive tools accomplished feats of construction that are physically impossible even with todays technology.

This series begins, as all construction does, with the story of the building's foundation. This part of the narrative lasts 14 years, from 1853 to to 1867 (the date we're told that the temple walls finally rose above the basement layer). 

As you are about to see, there is nothing logical or consistent about the story of the foundation of this temple. 

We're told that it was originally built out of sandstone.

But around 1858, the entire foundation hole, with sandstone block footings, was quickly back filled with all the foundation soil which had been laboriously excavated. This was supposedly to hide the construction from Johnston's army. 

Where would the thousands of tons of excavated rocky soil have been stored? Were they keeping it on the temple site, surrounded by the 14 ft. high stone wall that Brigham Young had built to keep idle men busy? Was it stored nearby and hauled back on wagons with horses and oxen? These are logistical questions we are given no answers for. 

But then after all the massive effort to dig out the foundation, then bring all the dirt back to fill it in and hide it--this massive temple foundation hole was totally excavated again (with hand shovels) in 1861!

Ironically, after all this effort to uncover the 8 year old foundation, it was then found to be "defective" and in need of replacement. And this is where we get the story that the sandstone foundation was "taken up" and replaced with granite.  

But hold on a second, after two renovations where the foundation was exposed (one in the 1960s and the current one in the 2020s), we can easily see that the supposedly defective sandstone foundation still remains and was never "taken up" as the official history tells us.

We also know from a 1963 Deseret News article that the foundation is at least twice as deep (30 feet) as Church historians claims it is (16 feet).

After leaked conversations with modern construction workers, we now know that it is at least four stories deep, and possibly much deeper. 

How ironic then, that such a massive building rests upon a sandy... I mean, sandstone foundation? And does this offer us clues as to the true reality of this narrative--and the entire Brighamite history for that matter? 

Let's dive in. 

Built on a Sandy Foundation

As legend has it, when Brigham Young and his small band of followers rolled into the Salt Lake valley in July of 1847, the 46-year-old leader stopped where temple square sits today, and tapping the ground with his cane, declared, "here will be the temple of our God." 

The temperature that day reached 96 degrees, and Young had been riding in the back of a wagon driven by Wilford Woodruff while suffering from spotted fever, a tick-borne illness with a high rate of fatality. 

Finally finding the abandoned city must've been a welcome reprieve to the LDS leader, who was lucky to be alive on that particular day. 

The perfectly surveyed and laid out grid-patterned streets would have been teeming with magnificent structures like the Hotel Utah, the Church Administration building, the Capitol Building, the City-County Building, the Tabernacle, the Assembly Hall, and of course, the Salt Lake Temple. 

Can you imagine what it would have been like to ride in a primitive wagon into an abandoned city with intact and preserved buildings?

For Brigham, the words of Vatican representative Pierre de Smet would have been vindicated: the Jesuit-drawn maps having shown him exactly where to find the city, and perhaps which specific structures were allotted to him and waiting for him to claim under the conditions of his contract with De Smet.

Young and his followers, "the inheritors", would merely need to settle in and start cleaning and refurbishing the empty and abandoned buildings, readying them for the beginnings of an isolated empire where self-appointed polygamous leaders could rule with uncontested totalitarian authority. 

While researching the official stories about how such a magnificent edifice was said to have been built on a faulty sandstone foundation, the words that Jesus Christ spoke to the Nephites came to mind:

Verily, verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine. And whoso buildeth upon this, buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Nephi 5:9, RE, emphasis added)

In addition to Brigham Young's teaching of a massive amount of doctrine far exceeding anything Jesus ever taught about what His church actually is (i.e., plural marriage, Adam-God, no priesthood for blacks, blood atonement), I found it ironic that the official narrative asserts that the massive sandstone foundation had to be replaced in the 1860s. 

Surely, those who were leading "the Lord's Church" would know better than to build their house of God on a sandy foundation.

Yet ironically, sandstone, if even somewhat protected from wind and rain, can actually last centuries. 

Whoever actually built the Salt Lake temple knew exactly what they were doing, as they were masters of architecture. After all, the building is still standing today, having endured hundreds of years of weathering and earthquakes.

Yet, the story of having to replace the sandstone foundation brings the entire narrative into question. 

On one hand, we see a beautiful stone structure constructed masterfully, and on the other we read about a people who made construction errors of epic proportions but somehow were still able to pull off building an edifice that they said "will last through the Millennium".

But now we are told that it needs hundreds of millions of dollars and several years of upgrades to the foundation to make it earthquake proof so it can actually last into the Millennium.

As you read what follows look for subtle clues that give away the fake narrative, clues, deliberately inserted into the stories, that reveal that the LDS people did not build, but found this temple. 

As the story goes, in 1852 a sandstone and adobe wall, 14 feet in height, was constructed around the temple site. The purpose for this wall, we're told, was to provide security for building the temple and to give otherwise "idle" men something to do. 

However, if Utah was indeed an empty desert full of nothing but sagebrush at this early time period, then building secure houses, planning and constructing infrastructure, and establishing farms and digging irrigation ditches would have been plenty to keep the men busy. Idle men would not have survived--unless of course all of that infrastructure was already there. 

Here is a rare photo of the old wall around the temple site, built before the construction of the temple was even started. 

It's a screen shot and poor quality, but you literally can't find photos like this anymore. As you can see, the wall is falling apart and looks ancient:

According to the LDS Church, the design and specifications of the temple were given to Truman Angell by Brigham Young in January of 1853. The following details were recalled by William Ward, assistant architect to Truman, and cited in an 1892 article published by the Deseret News:

The design was formulated in the following manner: Brigham Young drew upon a slate in the architect's office a sketch, and said to Truman O. Angell: "There will be three towers on the east, representing the President and his two Counselors; also three similar towers on the west representing the Presiding Bishop and his two Counselors; the towers on the east the Melchisedek Priesthood, those on the west the Aaronic Priesthood. The center towers will be higher than those on the sides, and the west towers a little lower than those on the east end. The body of the building will be between these and pillars will be necessary to support the floors. Angell then asked about the height, and drew the following vertical section according to Brigham's instructions. The basement 16 feet high to contain the font. The first story twenty-five feet high, leaving room for a tier of rooms above the side aisles about ten feet high below the second floor. The second story like the first. The construction of the roof was left to Mr. Angell. ("Who Designed the Temple?" Deseret News, April 23, 1892, quoted in Forty Years, p. 92)

The source for the quote above is 39 years after the fact, and was supposedly a recollection by Ward, who died in January of 1893, just a few months before the Salt Lake temple was dedicated. 

How are we to know that the above details were not describing a building that was already there? I mean, how hard is it to look at a building and simply describe it? 

To me, this is just like all those polygamy affidavits written by women who claimed to be plural wives of Joseph Smith, published decades after the fact and simply made up to fit a narrative.

Are we supposed to trust sources like this?

Ward's statement is one of the sources used to cite evidence that the foundation was only 16 deep feet. 

Another source is a Deseret News article published contemporaneously in 1854 that quotes Truman Angell describing the physical attributes of the temple as if it was already there, using words and phrases in the present tense such as "are" and "is" instead of will be. 

You can read this strange description in the appendix of the book, Everlasting Spires, by Wallace A. Raynor.

In 1963 the Deseret News published another article contradicting the 16-foot foundation statements it made 100 years earlier. You can read the article below if you enlarge the photo:

The article clearly states the foundation was 30 feet deep, with a photo to prove it.

So who is telling the truth here? The Church Historical Department, the Deseret News from 1854, or the Deseret News from 1963? What sources, if any, can be trusted at all? How deep does the foundation go and what is it really constructed of?

If we want the truth, perhaps we should ask construction workers who have been part of the excavation crews on the Salt Lake temple since 2020. After all, they are just doing a job and have nothing to lose in telling the truth. 

There are two videos where two different construction workers were interviewed, both are worth watching before you read what follows. 

In this first one, produced by Jon Levi three years ago, we can hear Jon questioning the construction worker around the 4-minute mark. The man tells him that the foundation goes down 4 levels, that he's been down there, and that the workers are not allowed to take pictures. During the video Jon's phone experienced what he thought was a jamming signal:

In this second video, produced by Streets of Tartaria, a construction worker, plainly visible in the video, matter-of-factly states that the temple foundation goes down at least 40 feet and that is where they are installing the hydraulics. In the first few minutes of the video you can see the massive hole that was been excavated and its extensive depth. The construction worker is interviewed around the 15 minute mark:

Now that you have seen just a few of the discrepancies and anomalies surrounding the temple foundation, let's dive into the official narrative. 

LDS historians claim that the groundbreaking for the Salt Lake Temple took place on February 14th of 1853. 

On that day we're told that hordes of Mormon pioneers gathered around Brigham Young as he attempted to break the frozen ground with a shovel, and after he finally managed to scoop up a small offering of earth, the crowed was so thick that Brigham had to yell "get out of my way, for I am going to throw this". 

We're told that this small scoop of earth was extracted from the southeast corner after which a prayer was offered by Heber Kimball, who invoked a blessing on the Architect, Superintendent, Foreman, and all other laborers on the temple according to Freemasonic protocols (more on this in part II).

After the crowed dispersed the workers began the excavation in haste, employing the primitive implements of the 19th century: the shovel and pick axe for loosening the rocky soil, baskets and buckets on ropes for hauling dirt out of the hole, and the horse-drawn wagon for hauling off the excavated dirt. 

We're told that 150-200 men and boys worked daily at the site attempting to have it ready to lay the cornerstones at the April conference, just six short weeks later.

The temple, said to have been drawn by Truman Angell, was to be 186-1/2 feet long by 98 feet wide, covering an area of 21,850 square feet or about 1/2 acre. 

As the story goes, the workers did not excavate the entire foundation area at that time, but instead dug four trenches that would form a rectangle around the perimeter, as this was all that would be required to lay the cornerstones and begin work on the sandstone foundation. Curiously, we are never told when or how the rest of the 1/2 acre area was excavated. 

The trenches were no small feat for a group of newly-arrived pioneers who were likely still attempting to feed themselves while building log homes and establishing farms. 

The trenches were dug 20 feet wide and 16 feet deep, with the north-south trenches running 193 feet long and the east-west trenches running 125 feet. According to Henshaw (author of Forty Years) whom I have already quoted above, this would require more than 200,000 cubic feet of earth to be removed from the area, at a rate of 1,900 tons a day (see p.99). 

All of which was hauled off by horse-drawn wagons. 

(How many tons of dirt could be hauled in a single wagon load? And what distanced was it hauled to and stored? What were the conditions of the roads it was hauled on? Mud, slush, snow?)

Keep in mind that this was in February, and as Henshaw points out in his book, the workers had to navigate winter storms through both February and March, enduring daily freezing and thawing cycles. 

Those 150-200 workers would be digging with picks and shovels in frozen ground when they began work in the morning, and by afternoon wagons would have to haul heavy loads on wet, slushy, or muddy roads. 

Why would they even attempt to tackle this project during the winter and early spring months? It really doesn't make any sense at all.

But as always, we're told the pioneers completed the arduous task, and by the appointed time they had the trenches ready for the cornerstone ceremony. 

Meanwhile, the Sharp Brothers had been at their new quarry extracting large sandstone blocks and shaping them into perfectly cut and squared cornerstones, with hand tools. 

The only task that remained was hauling the blocks four miles to the construction site. These blocks, weighing in at 5,400 pounds each, would need to hauled on a wagon pulled by a team of oxen over muddy spring roads. 

Somehow, and we're not told specifically how, only four wagons delivered the massive stones to the temple site just in time for the April conference.

Was it really possible to have dug out these trenches in the allotted time during the muddy spring? This was certainly not plausible for a people who had just arrived a few years earlier to divert all their resources to such a project when they were in all reality going hungry. 

Before you read on to the next section please take a moment and reflect on the massive discrepancy between what the official history claims (16 feet), and what you have seen in the videos above (40 feet). 

It is NOT HUMANLEY POSSIBLE for men with shovels and picks to dig a 40 foot hole in an area covering 1/2 acre in only six weeks. Not then, not today. 

Someone is lying to us. 

Extracting dirt from a hole that deep would've had to be done one small bucket at a time using a windlass with ropes. (A windlass is a device that uses a series of ropes and pulleys to lower buckets into holes. It was widely used during the 19th century). 

It simply would not have been possible to accomplish in a six-week period. 

Also consider the fact that there are tunnels all over under Salt Lake City and specifically under temple square. 

We're told that some of them were constructed in 1960s during a renovation, but the first mention of tunnels actually goes back to 1889, when John Nuttall wrote in his diary about a tunnel connecting the temple to the annex building. 

The second mention came in 1911, when Gisbert Bossard, a Prussian convert, somehow gained access to the temple interior and took dozens of pictures. He claimed there were tunnels running from the temple to both the Hotel Utah and the Sharon building. Read about that here.

Were tunnels under the "defective" sandstone foundation dug out underneath before or after the granite blocks were added on top of the sandstone?  

After the April conference of 1853 and the laying of the cornerstones, we're told that it only took two more months to finish excavating the remaining area under the temple. Which again, would not have been enough time to excavate the forty foot depth (along with tunnels) that we now know the foundation descends to.

Over the next two years the narrative goes quiet, and as far as we know nothing was done except continuing work on the stone wall surrounding the temple block. 

Then in May of 1855, a report was given to Brigham Young, issued by the church office clerks, stating that 100 men were "rolling down large rocks for the temple foundation". 

We are not told how these men accomplished this feat, but somewhere they managed to roll these boulders that two-ton sandstone foundation blocks were cut out of (See, Forty Years, p. 221), right down to temple square. 

In Truman Angell's journal we find a plan to construct a crane to hoist and set these blocks, but whether or not it was ever built is not mentioned (See Everlasting Spires, Kindle Edition, Loc 401).

Miraculously, and without a crane, we're told that by June of 1853 the foundation reached a height of eight feet, and by July it was completely finished, consisting of 101,056 cubic feet and weighing around 7500 tons (Everlasting Spires, Loc 419).

So let's recap. If we combine the official narrative with the modern evidence of a much deeper foundation and interconnecting tunnels, this is what we're left with: 

In only two years an area of 1/2 acre, excavated at least four stories below ground (interconnected with tunnels) with men using only shovels, pick axes, baskets on ropes, and horse-drawn wagons, was filled with massive sandstone blocks that were set as low as forty feet deep and built up to 8 feet above ground level. This is, of course, completely impossible and absolutely ridiculous.

Yet, the LDS Church has tipped their hand. They, and Russell Nelson in particular, must've known that by digging up the foundation of the temple in recent years the true depth of the temple basement would eventually be leaked and revealed. 

But whatever the reasons for the renovation, Church leaders must anticipate that some powerful earthquakes will hit Utah in the future, and this must be an attempt at protecting their infrastructure under the temple, likely consisting consisting of underground prepper bunkers.

Let's get back to the story.  

From 1853 to 1855 there is another lull in the temple construction narrative, and things seem to go quiet again until a very important character enters the story: Master Mason Edward L. Parry. 

We're told that Parry acted as Master Mason on both the St. George and Manti temples, but he first appears in the Salt Lake Temple narrative, working directly under superintendent A.H. Raleigh (Alonzo Hazeltine).

Raleigh is the man blamed for the "faulty" sandstone foundation that we're told had to be replaced when it was uncovered in 1867. 

This is a strange twist in the plot, but every good story that is believable needs elements of diversity, antagonism, or a scape goat to blame the woes of the people on. 

What is baffling is how these two men, Parry and Raleigh, said to have been experts in stone masonry, could have allowed the temple foundation to get so far out of plumb that the entire thing had to be scrapped and replaced. 

A Giant Bubble Off Plumb

Alonzo Raleigh enters the narrative in 1850 when he's made foreman over the public works masons, and disappears 8 years later when Johnston's army moves into Utah to begin its occupation in 1858.

Raleigh was given "bills & specifications for the temple foundation" from Truman Angell in May of 1855, but strangely, we're told that work on the foundation had already begun two years prior and was finished by July 23 of 1855. 

Here is how author Mark Henshaw describes the progress made in those two years:

The stones laid down in those first layers were called ashlars, and each layer was referred to as a course. By Raleigh's calculations, the workers had set down 101,056 cubic feet of ashlars weighing 7,478 tons in total--almost 15,000,000 pounds. They had been cut by hand, hauled by wagon, then laid and cemented in place in each course with mortar made from lime and sand applied between the courses. The top course of ashlars would be cut precisely enough to establish a level horizontal surface on which to put down a layer of smooth flagging stone ten feet wide. It was upon the flagging that the temple's walls would rest. (Forty Years, p. 134)

If we add up what we know about the true depth of the foundation today, the material to fill a forty foot hole would have been multiplied to at least 18,000 tons, a whopping 37 million pounds of rock--"all cut by hand" and "hauled by wagon" of course. 

I don't believe it would have been possible for workmen in the 1850s to lay 7500 tons of material in just two years, let alone 18 thousand tons. What we are reading here is just a story, a story full of unbelievable irony. 

All that toil during those early years of the 1850s--the quarrying of and transportation of multi-ton boulders, the hand drilling and shaping of the massive blocks, the teamsters hauling the material to the temple site on muddy roads, the lowering down of heavy stones into the excavation site without cranes--just plain not possible.

And then we're told that one man, using a faulty instrument, somehow managed to muck up the entire foundation. 

As the story goes, Alonzo Raleigh, construction superintendent and foreman over all masons, refused to use Truman Angell's level, and instead used his own homemade version. 

Here is how the narrative reads:

The sandstone blocks needed to be cut and laid precisely level in the limestone mortar between courses to bear the weight of the granite walls that would be stacked on them. That required the masons to use a level to check the alignment of each stone to keep it in horizontal line with the rest of the stones in the tier. Truman Angell had such a took, known to be accurate. But the masons told Brigham that Alonzo Raleigh, the foreman, had demurred from using Truman's implement in favor of his own homemade--and apparently defective--level. The false readings from the device had led to the stones being improperly laid. Truman confirmed the problem on December 7. Enough dirt had been removed for him to take a measurement of the exposed basement walls, and he found sections that were two inches off level. (Forty Years, p. 221)

I have a little experience with levels. I've installed cabinets and countertops, set tile, framed walls, ran drain pipe for plumbing, poured concrete for shower bases, installed French drains in lawns, and my landscape crews have installed pavers and retaining walls. 

In my professional experience, 1/4" off level is enough to cause a massive problem for a typical job, but 2", well, you have to consciously trying to be 2" off level.

This story is not adding up. 

If this was true, then why didn't Truman Angell, Edward Parry, Daniel H. Wells, Brigham Young, or literally any other mason working on the temple check the stones for level at every course that was laid? 

Why would they chance having to tear out the whole thing and start over? For supposedly skilled artisans said to have built all that they did in Salt Lake City, this story makes no sense at all, and is a total fabrication. 

Here is what the narrative has Brigham Young saying about this problem:

I shall have to take up one tier of rock all over the foundation, for Brother Raleigh appears as though he wished to destroy that Temple...One quarter of an inch settling of that building would crack it from top to bottom... I do not know as Brother Raleigh realizes what he is doing but it appears to me that he is trying to destroy the architecture of that building. (Brigham Young comments to Wilford Woodruff, quoted in Forty Years, p. 222)

To remedy the problem Raleigh told the masons to used wedge-shaped rocks as shims to level the tiers, a makeshift solution that would have ended in disaster as the weight of the building would have crushed the shims and shifted and cracked the stones. 

This doesn't make any sense for an experienced stone mason. There is not much historical information on Raleigh. The Church History Library grants access to Raleigh's log books for masonry laborers on the temple, but not much else. No journals, and nothing on his background in masonry.

Here is where we return to the 1963 Deseret News article (shown at the beginning of this post) that reported that the foundation of the Salt Lake Temple was at least 30 feet below grade, contrary to what historians still claim about the original excavating in the 1850s. 

The article notes that the foundation is multi-tiered, consisting of both sandstone and granite, contradicting the narrative that the sandstone foundation was pulled up, scrapped, and replaced with granite. 

Here are some more photos of the 1963 renovation:

I found that 1963 Deseret News article on the Nigh Unto Kolob blog. The author of the blog quotes yet another article from The Salt Lake Herald, entitled, "Facts About the Temple", and published in 1891. 

Here is what it said:

The Salt Lake Temple foundation is not laid of granite from Cottonwood canon (sic), as has been stated, but is of the same kind of sandstone as the temple block wall foundation--we call it firestone--and has never been disturbed or taken up and relayed as has been stated. (The Salt Lake Herald, October 22, 1891)

This article's claims are interesting. Firestone is not a type of sandstone, it is made of pyrite, a highly oxidative rock that produces a spark when struck against steel. Firestone is not used as a building material because it is highly corrosive.

So what are we now to believe? The official narrative still trumpeted today by apologist historians, or an 1891 article published before the temple was supposedly finished? 

If the LDS Church lied about the excavation and original sandstone foundation being faulty, then what else are they lying about?

Honestly, probably everything. I can't believe anything we're told about this temple. And as you will see, the further we probe into the narrative of this building, the more anomalies we find. 

The author of the blog also made some interesting commentary on the foundation anomalies which are worth repeating here. He begins by quoting an earlier article by the Deseret News published in 1962:

"The story of the foundation and the back-breaking labors of the pioneers who toiled with oxen to haul giant pieces of granite from Cottonwood Canyon quarries to replace an original foundation has been told." 

[Author's commentary] Thus, if there ever was a full foundation of sandstone up the ground level, then the upper 14 feet of that base had to have been removed and replaced with granite. However, the BYU story stated that the temple structure didn't rise to the ground level until 1867, or 10 years after the threat from the U.S. Army. So, this cast some doubt on the full underground base of sandstone ever existing. 

Notwithstanding, it is a fact that some 14 feet to 16 feet of lower sandstone sub-base still remain below ground. The 1963 Deseret News stated that the sandstone sub-foundation covers an area of 4,850 square feet.

The photograph also reveals how layered in blocks and even partially eroded the sandstone sub-foundation appears to have been in 1963. During the 1963 renovation, cement walls and footings were added to replace the previous rocky subsoil. At the same time of the 1963 underground improvements, underground passageways were added. (Is the sub foundation of the Salt Lake Temple composed of granite or sandstone? By blog author Lynn Arave. I recommend reading the whole blog post.)

Here is the photograph Arave is referencing, the one I already shared from the 1963 article. It is worth a second look:

Now compare it with this modern photo of the ongoing temple renovation:

Notice the large concrete pillars on the right and how large they are compared to the excavators. Ask yourself why they would add this surrounding concrete in 1963 (as told by the blogger I quoted) and why they had to do it at that very deep level, far exceeding the original 16 feet we're told was initially excavated in 1853? 

What are they attempting to cover up with that concrete? What is the real depth and size of this temple? Is there some kind of massive underground palace that this concrete is covering? How deep does the temple foundation really go? And what would LDS leaders be using those underground facilities for during all the years since 1853? Was this building repurposed for benign or nefarious designs? 

We all deserve to know the truth, and I hope God will reveal it to us soon. 

In the meantime, let's ponder what Nephi meant when he said that those who teach things like, "I, I am the Lord's" true church, and that "the Redeemer hath done his work, and hath given his power unto men", who "teach with their learning" and say, "hearken ye unto my precept"--are the same men who "seek deep to hide their councils from the Lord" (See 2 Nephi 12:28, RE).

Are they hiding these councils in deep underground facilities under Temple Square? 

Join me soon for part II, where we'll dive deep into the Salt Lake Temple cornerstone ceremony, a Masonic protocol for claiming founded buildings...

Part II: The Cornerstone Ceremony