Select Page

Book of Moses Essays
#71: The Two Ways (Moses 5)
The Prayer of Adam and Eve
(Moses 5:4)

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central
from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central


Figure 1. Walter Rane (1949–), The Angel with Adam and Eve.

Figure 1. Walter Rane (1949–), The Angel with Adam and Eve.

Moses 5:4 tells us that Adam and Eve offered prayer after they left the Garden of Eden:

And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.

In answer to their petitions, Adam and Eve heard the Lord’s voice calling them back from their place of exile on the fallen earth. Later, He gave them additional instruction and commandments in order to set their feet back on the way toward the Garden of Eden which is, of course, the path that terminates in “the way of the Tree of Life.”[1] In a passage from the Midrash Tehillim,[2] the Hebrew term teshuvah, which denotes “return” but scripturally means “repentance” or “conversion,” is used to describe the way back to the Garden, signifying “the movement that brings every thing and every being back to its supernal origin,” the “return to the celestial abode.”[3] The spiritual movement of turning away from the sinful world and back toward humankind’s heavenly origins is mirrored in the layout of ordinance rooms in some modern temples.[4] (Note that some modern temples have only one or two ordinance rooms, where a given room might represent multiple stages in our return, but only one stage at a time.[5])

In this essay, I will explore sources that purport to give details about ancient forms of prayer rooted in the experiences of Adam and Eve. Notable features of such prayers include uplifted hands, introductions spoken in an unknown language, repetition, and the veiling of the face by women.

Uplifted Hands

The practice of prayer with uplifted hands is frequently mentioned in ancient sources.[6] Indeed, some texts specifically assert that its exercise goes back to the very beginning (e.g., “Adam was then offering on the altar, and had begun to pray, with his hands spread unto God”[7]). Even today, this gesture is widely recognized as a sign of distress, a call for help, and a demonstration of peaceful intent.[8] Not surprisingly, Christians have also long connected the tradition with the posture of crucifixion.[9] This classical orans (= Latin “praying”) position was practiced by priests in temples throughout the ancient world, and was formerly used in Latter-day Saint sacrament prayers.[10] Notably, in the art of the catacombs, the orans posture was specifically associated with prayer offered by or in behalf of deceased souls.[11]

The Psalmist wrote: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity,[12] nor sworn deceitfully.”[13] John Tvedtnes explains:

The message of the Psalm is clear: In order to enter into the temple (the “hill of the Lord,” called “the mountain of the Lord’s house” in Isaiah 2:2), one must have clean hands and a pure heart. In other words, both acts (represented by the hands) and thoughts (represented by the heart) must reflect righteousness, along with the lips that utter the prayer.[14]

Figure 2. James Tissot, 1836–1902, Dedication of the Temple, ca. 1896-1902.

Figure 2. James Tissot, 1836–1902, Dedication of the Temple, ca. 1896-1902.

Parry sees in Psalm 24 a possible reference to ancient prayer circles, noting that “prayer with upraised arms was an essential feature of holy petitions put up to God in the temple of Solomon.”[15] “Clean hands” can also be thought of as a symbol of the justificatory remission of sins while a “pure heart” can be considered as the result of the process of sanctification.[16]

The one whose “palms are innocent, and whose heart is pure”[17] will have the “privilege of appearing before God in his temple,”[18] that he “may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.”[19] The symbolism relates to sacrifice “after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood”[20]—not the Levitical offering of animal sacrifice but an ongoing dedication of one’s own life in a spirit of consecration.[21] Elder Neal A. Maxwell explained that “real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed!”[22]

Prayer Introductions Spoken in an Unknown Language

William Clayton recorded Joseph Smith’s teaching that the “first word Adam spoke” was “a word of supplication.”[23] Accounts purporting to reproduce the words of that prayer have long puzzled interpreters. For example, Nibley cites The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, which says that Adam and Eve “stood with upstretched hands calling upon the Lord, as ‘Adam began to pray in a language which is unintelligible to us.’”[24] The apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew 2:13 gives a post-resurrection account of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the apostles praying with outspread hands. Her prayer likewise begins with words that M. R. James reports as being “hopelessly corrupted,” and that Edgar Hennecke simply omits.[25] While James justifies abandoning any attempt at decipherment in his conclusion that “the matter is not of importance,”[26] Hugh Nibley correctly explains that her “speaking in an unknown language” is actually “the usual code introducing [such a] prayer.”[27]


Repetition is another hallmark of solemn prayer. For example, at the dedication of the Kirtland temple the Prophet prayed following the pattern of “Adam’s prayer”[28] with threefold repetition: “O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! …that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne.”[29] Similarly, Abraham, having “rebuilt the altar of Adam” at the command of an angel,[30] is reported as having repeatedly raised his voice to God, saying: “El, El, El, El, Iaoel…[31] Accept my prayer.”[32] Abraham’s prayer was also in imitation of Adam.[33] The threefold repetition in some versions of the story might be seen as reflecting the tradition that it was not until the third day[34] when Adam’s urgent and persistent request for additional knowledge from the Lord was at last answered with instruction by an angel. This angel is said to have borne a book that “teaches [those who are wise and God-fearing] how to call upon the angels and make them appear before men, and answer all their questions.”[35] Likewise, the Prophet Joseph Smith was anxious to teach the Saints the manner by which they could “pray and have [their] prayers answered.”[36]

Figure 3. Veiled Christian Woman Prays with Uplifted Hands, ca. 300-400.

Figure 3. Veiled Christian Woman Prays with Uplifted Hands, ca. 300-400.

The Veiling of the Face by Women

This illustration, from the catacomb of Priscilla (late second through fourth century), shows a Christian woman in the attitude of prayer, with uplifted hands and wearing a veil. The ritual practice of the veiling of the face by women, as discussed in the writings of the Apostle Paul, raises complex and controversial issues, and has led to many points of misunderstanding that can only be touched on briefly here. While I will cite several Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint scholars on specific points of agreement, they would not necessarily reach the conclusions I outline below. In fact, I myself regard these conclusions as tentative and warranting much further study before they can be wholeheartedly accepted.[37] I am intrigued, however, by the possibility that Paul’s words on the veiling of the face by women might be relevant to the context of temple teachings.

As a general illustration of how Paul is sometimes misunderstood, the brilliant classicist Sarah Ruden cites George Bernard Shaw, whose analysis of Paul’s writings ends with the assertion that he was “the eternal enemy of Woman.”[38] However, Ruden concludes otherwise, stating that “Shaw’s view of Paul as an oppressor could hardly be more wrong”[39] and that, in particular, his instructions to women to veil themselves during prayer was “aimed toward an outrageous equality”[40] that ran completely counter to the cultural and religious traditions of his time. Also arguing for the distinctiveness of Paul’s teachings on the wearing of the veil, Latter-day Saint scholar Lynne H. Wilson writes that “while the Pharisaic tradition confined, the Greco-Roman segregated, and the ancient Assyrian labeled,” the Christian ritual practice, instead, “empowered.”[41]

To understand why this is so, the basic function of veils in temple contexts should be recalled: to hide the glory of what they enclose from individuals who are as yet unfit to behold the splendor within.[42] For example, drawing an analogy between the radiant brightness of God and the unapproachable light of the Holy of Holies, on the one hand, and the celestial firmament and the veil of the temple, on the other hand, rabbinical commentators explained that the wicked are not worthy to enjoy the light of God’s presence, therefore it was hidden away to be enjoyed later by the righteous in the Messianic Age.[43] Certain exceptions, however, could be made in the case of prophets and other righteous individuals who, because of their purity and faithfulness, were permitted to go beyond the heavenly veil and speak with God face to face.

The First Epistle of John reminds us that the essential quality that enables one to see God is to resemble Him not only in image but also in likeness[44] and purity.[45] Part of that likeness is, as Alan Segal observed:[46]

the spiritual glow, radiance, or splendor, the special resemblance of Adam to God before the Fall, which is imparted only to those who, like Moses, have been called into the presence of God. Paul implies that converted Christians have also received this glow from the presence of God. … “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another.”[47]

In his discussion of this topic,[48] Paul cites the example of Moses, whose “face shone while he talked with [God].”[49] Because the children of Israel could not bear to see God’s glory even in its reflected form, Moses “put a vail on his face”[50] while addressing them. However, returning to the presence of God, “he took the vail off.”[51] Beale and Carson observe: “If the Corinthians were already familiar with Exodus 34:33-34 and had heard Paul express something similar to 2 Corinthians 3:13-18, then one could easily see how some might deduce that the women also should act like Moses and remove the veil when entering into God’s presence, since Paul indicates we should ‘all’ approach God with ‘unveiled faces.’” Thus, it becomes understandable why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, might have found it necessary to explain “why women should continue to wear veils even when in the presence of the Lord” as they engaged in sacred prayer.[52]

Both the content and language of Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 11 seem to echo what Latter-day Saint readers will recognize as temple themes. For example, in introducing his remarks about the veiling of women, Paul admonishes his readers to “keep the ordinances [paradosis], as I delivered them to you.”[53] Wilson notes: “The Septuagint (LXX) used paradosis to describe the ritual teachings that Moses handed down orally.”[54] Though it cannot be concluded with certainty that Paul is referring to a temple context for the form of prayer he describes, the Prophet Joseph Smith affirmed that: “Pauln… knew … all the ordinances, and blessings were in the Church.”[55] Referring to Paul’s discussion of Moses’ glorification in 2 Corinthians 3 (discussed above), Christopher Morray-Jones[56] concludes that it must have been derived, at least in part, from the Jewish mystic traditions involving:

the transformation of the visionary who beholds God’s Glory into an angelic or supra-angelic likeness of that divine Image. This transformation is typically described in terms of robing, crowning, anointing, enthronement, and/or reception of (or clothing with) the divine Name. … The sources associate this transformation with participation in the celestial liturgy, through the medium of ecstatic praise.

Discussions of the Jewish quorum of prayer, or minyan, emphasize that when it is “formed in the proper manner below [it] unifies the heavenly realm above.”[57]

Paul’s teachings on the veiling of women during prayer can be only briefly summarized here. As a starting point, it is important to recognize that the hinge point of his arguments in favor of this practice revolve around the relationship of man and woman to God and to each other. Taking 1 Corinthians 11:11 as a key to the interpretation of the entire passage, Kevin Barney comments: “Paul assumes that this whole theme is to be taken in the context of marriage being the normal state for man and woman, that together they form a divine unit.”[58]

Though his eventual conclusion points to the oneness of man and woman “in the Lord,”[59] in the course of his argument, Paul describes their relationship in the form of prayer he describes as intriguingly asymmetric, using “details from Genesis 2 to explain why the man cannot be understood as the glory of the woman, while the woman can be understood as the glory of the man.”[60] There seems to be no question here of the woman being presented as a second-class participant in the ordinances or, for that matter, in eternal life, as some have erroneously concluded.[61] Rather, by way of analogy to the divine radiance of Moses in Exodus 34:33-34, the veil might be understood not only as a woman’s sign of authority,[62] necessary for her own exaltation, but also as a witness of womanhood’s glory, a glory that must eventually be shared with man if he is to attain completeness in God’s sight.

Given the understanding from modern revelation about the order of temple blessings,[63] the pattern of prayer outlined here seems to teach that the sequence of derivation portrayed in the creation account, whereby man is first created and then woman is taken from man, is to be repeated in the culminating steps of the Atonement: Man must first become one with God; only then can He and Woman be made one through the sealing power. Seen in this light, the two parts of Paul’s argument, namely the difference in prayer prescriptions for man and woman presented in 1 Corinthians 11:4-10 and the mutual interdependence and absolute equality in standing before the Lord portrayed in vv. 11-12, “do not present a contradiction, but are presented in parallel form to represent the duality of the sexes, a duality only ultimately resolved through exaltation.”[64] In the meantime, the veil does not hinder—and may even enhance—the moment of woman’s personal communion with God. As Cyril of Jerusalem taught: “But when thine eyes are veiled, thine ears are not hindered from receiving the means of salvation.”[65] Though some differences in the form of Pauline prayer are apparently required for men and women, the blessings ultimately intended are the same for both.[66]

How, then, might the process of perfection of the man and the woman be represented concretely in the veiling of the woman’s face? Through prayer, “with unveiled face,” the man, “beholding the glory of the Lord” could be understood as “being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another,” having “received his image in our countenances.”[67] From this perspective, only when the transformation is complete, after he has become “like” God and seen Him “as he is,”[68] could the glory of the woman, with unveiled face and “power on her head,”[69] be revealed to the man in the presence of God. On the other hand, if a woman were to pray uncovered, prematurely unveiling her face to the unready man standing before the Divine, it would bring “dishonour” upon him,[70] just as it would have brought shame upon an Israelite temple priest to proceed beyond the temple veil while still unprepared.[71] Summarizing her view of Paul’s argument, Wilson writes:

Without the woman, man cannot achieve his glory. Through the spousal relationship, a woman and a man become a whole entity. Woman was created so that a glorious union could potentially be formed. … In this sense, a woman allows a man to achieve his glory.[72]


John Tvedtnes has written that “prayer opens the veil to allow one to enjoy the presence of God.”[73] Similarly, prayer might be understood as a preparation for the enjoyment of eternal companionship between a man and woman who are fit for the fulness of covenant love.

In this light, it is easy to see why marriage between such a woman and man is the perfect similitude of the eventual union of Christ with His Church.[74] As “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed”[75] only when “a glorious church”[76] is ready to enjoy the fulness of His presence, so the glory of a woman is to be shared with a man in its fulness only when he himself has been made glorious, after demonstrating his faithfulness in every respect to his covenant to keep the final law of consecration — including having loved his wife “even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”[77] Scott Hahn writes:[78]

That which is veiled is holy, to be unveiled only in covenant love. What the Apocalypse [i.e., the book of Revelation[79]] “unveils” is history’s final consummation, the marriage of Christ to His bride, the Church.[80] She is “the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”[81] Like the Holy of Holies, Christ’s bride is four-square and resplendent with pure gold.[82]

By “unveiling” the Church, our priestly Bridegroom reveals the gift of His love to His bride—the New Jerusalem—in the “glory and beauty” of the Spirit.[83] And what else? The New Creation—“a new heaven and a new earth.”[84]

This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: ; Spanish:, pp. 185–192.


Notes on Figures

Figure 1. © by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Figure 2. Public Domain, Temple_at_Jerusalem.jpg.

Figure 3. Public Domain, From the Catacomb of Priscilla, Via Salaria, Rome, Italy..



Alexander, P. "3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch." In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 223-315. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Ashraf, Syed Ali. "The inner meaning of the Islamic rites: Prayer, pilgrimage, fasting, jihad." In Islamic Spirituality 1: Foundations, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, 111-30. New York City, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1987.

Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1991.

Barney, Kevin L., ed. Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints. 3 vols, 2007. (accessed February 26, 2008).

Beale, Gregory K., and Donald A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bednar, David A. "Clean hands and a pure heart." Ensign 37, November 2007, 80-83.

Blumenthal, David, ed. The Merkabah Tradition and the Zoharic Tradition. Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader 1. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1979.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014.

Braude, William G., ed. The Midrash on Psalms (Midrash Tehillim). 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series 13, ed. Leon Nemoy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959.

Clark, James R., ed. Messages of the First Presidency. 6 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1965-1975.

Clayton, William. Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1995.

Cooper, James, and Arthur John Maclean, eds. ca. 350. Testament of Our Lord, Translated into English from the Syriac with Introduction and Notes 1st ed. London, England: T&T Clark, 1902. Reprint, BookSurge Publishing, 2000.

Cyril of Jerusalem. ca. 347. "First Catechetical Lectures." In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 14 vols. Vol. 7, 6-143. New York City, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1894. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Eden, Giulio Busi. "The mystical architecture of Eden in the Jewish tradition." In The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by F. Regina Psaki and Charles Hindley. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism, 15-22. Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies in the History of Judaism, Global Publications, State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002.

Emminghaus, Johannes H. 1978. The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Revised ed. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.

Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Gurtner, Daniel M. The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 139, ed. John M. Court. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hahn, Scott W. "The world as wedding." In Catholic for a Reason IV, edited by Scott W. Hahn and Regis J. Flaherty, 1-15. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2007.

Hartley, William G. My Fellow Servants: Essays on the History of the Priesthood. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2010.

Hassett, Maurice M. "Orans (Orante)." In The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and HIstory of the Catholic Church, edited by Charles George Hebermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan and John J. Wynne. 15 vols. Vol. 11, 269. New York City, NY: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1913. (accessed February 1).

Hennecke, Edgar, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1965.

James, Montague Rhodes. 1924. "The Gospel of Bartholomew." In The Apocryphal New Testament, edited by Montague Rhodes James, 166-81. Oxford, England: The Clarendon Press, 1983.

Louth, Andrew, and Marco Conti, eds. Genesis 1-11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 1, ed. Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Madsen, Truman G. Joseph Smith the Prophet. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1989.

Malan, Solomon Caesar, ed. The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan: A Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, and Other Eastern Works. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Reprint, San Diego, CA: The Book Tree, 2005.

Maxwell, Neal A. "Deny yourselves of all ungodliness." Ensign 25, May 1995, 66-68.

Mead, George Robert Shaw, ed. 1921. Pistis Sophia: The Gnostic Tradition of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and His Disciples (Askew Codex). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.

Morray-Jones, Christopher R. A. "The body of the glory: Approaching the New Testament from the perspective of Shiur Koma traditions." In The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, edited by Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12, eds. Pieter Willem van der Horst and Peter J. Tomson, 501-610. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

Nibley, Hugh W. "On the sacred and the symbolic." In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 535-621. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994. Reprint, Nibley, Hugh W. “On the Sacred and the Symbolic.” In Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, edited by Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 17, 340-419. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.

———. 1967. "Unrolling the scrolls—some forgotten witnesses." In Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum and Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 1, 115-70. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.

———. 1967. "Apocryphal writings and the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls." In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 264-335. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.

———. 1978. "The early Christian prayer circle." In Mormonism and Early Christianity, edited by Todd M. Compton and Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 4, 45-99. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987.

———. 1993. "A house of glory." In Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, edited by Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 17, 323-39. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.

———. 1999. "Temples Everywhere." Insights: The Newsletter of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at Brigham Young University 25, no. 1 (2005): 10-16. Reprint, Nibley, Hugh W. “Temples everywhere.” In Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, edited by Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 17, 483-500. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.

Oaks, Dallin H. "The keys and authority of the priesthood." Ensign 44, May 2014. (accessed April 26, 2014).

Packer, Boyd K. "Personal revelation: The gift, the test, and the promise." Ensign 24 1994, 59-62.

Parry, Donald W. "Temple worship and a possible reference to a prayer circle in Psalm 24." BYU Studies 32, no. 4 (1992): 57-62.

Ricks, Stephen D., and Shirley S. Ricks. "’With her gauzy veil before her face’: The veiling of women in antiquity." In Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown, edited by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis and Carl W. Griffin, 345-56. Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2011.

Ricks, Stephen D. "Prayer with Uplifted Hands." In The Temple: Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 6, 197–214. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2021.

Rowland, Christopher. "Things into which angels long to look: Approaching mysticism from the perspective of the New Testament and the Jewish apocalypses." In The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, edited by Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12, eds. Pieter Willem van der Horst and Peter J. Tomson, 3-215. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

Rubinkiewicz, R. "Apocalypse of Abraham." In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 681-705. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Ruden, Sarah. Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time. New York City, NY: Pantheon Books, 2010.

Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Savedow, Steve, ed. Sepher Rezial Hemelach: The Book of the Angel Rezial. Boston, MA: WeiserBooks, 2000.

Schmidt, Carl, ed. 1905. Pistis Sophia (Askew Codex). Translated by Violet MacDermot. Nag Hammadi Studies 9, ed. Martin Krause, James M. Robinson and Frederik Wisse. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1978.

Scholem, Gershom, ed. 1941. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York City, NY: Schocken Books, 1995.

Seaich, John Eugene. A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.

Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostalate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

Shakespeare, William. 1600. "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark." In The Riverside Shakespeare, edited by G. Blakemore Evans, 1135-97. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1974.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. The Words of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1980.

———. 1902-1932. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Documentary History). 7 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1978.

———. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.

Talmage, James E. 1912. The House of the Lord. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998.

Tertullian. ca. 197-222. "On prayer (De Oratione)." In The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Vol. 3, 681-91. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1885. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Tvedtnes, John A. "Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices." Presented at the FAIR Conference 1999. (accessed September 8).

———. "Temple prayer in ancient times." In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, 79-98. Provo, UT: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 1999.

van der Toorn, Karel. "The significance of the veil in the ancient Near East." In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman and Avi Hurvitz, 327-40. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

von Wellnitz, Marcus. "The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon temple." BYU Studies 21, no. 1 (1979): 3-35.

Wilkinson, Richard H. 1992. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London, England: Thames and Hudson, 2006.

Wilson, Lynne Hilton. "Unveiling veils of authority for women in Paul." Presented at the BYU Studies Fiftieth Anniversary Symposium, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, March 12-13, 2010.



[1] Moses 4:31.
[2] W. G. Braude, Midrash on Psalms, 90:12, 2:94.
[3] G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, pp. 16, 17 n. 7.
[4] See, e.g., the layout of the Salt Lake Temple as described in J. E. Talmage, House of the Lord (1998), pp. 118-134. 3 Enoch relates that the “first man and his generation dwelt at the gate of the Garden of Eden so that they might gaze at the bright image of the Shekhinah” (P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 5:3, p. 259). “The entrance to the Garden therefore symbolizes the human possibility of reaching a privileged vantage point from which a higher knowledge may be obtained” (G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, p. 18).
[5] Thanks to Stephen T. Whitlock for this comment.
[6] For a survey on this subject, see, e.g., S. D. Ricks, Prayer with Uplifted Hands.
[7] S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:59, p. 83. See also Moses 7:41; H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, pp. 56-60; J. A. Tvedtnes, Temple Prayer, pp. 81-88; M. von Wellnitz, Liturgy, p. 31.
[8] H. W. Nibley, Temples Everywhere, p. 14.
[9] Commenting on the orans gesture, Emminghaus writes (J. H. Emminghaus, Eucharist, p. 133):

From the point of view of religious history, the lifting of the hands… is an expressive gesture of prayer to the “gods above” [see R. H. Wilkinson, Art, pp. 28-29 for a discussion of the gesture in Egyptian worship] … General anthropology has… shown us that among all peoples, the offering and showing of the open palms, which therefore cannot hold weapons or anything dangerous, is a sign of peaceful intent… Thus open hands uplifted are a universal gesture of peace, confidence, and petition; in contrast, a clenched fist means threat and challenge to battle. In the Old Testament, lifting the hands to God (e.g., Exodus 9:29, 33: Psalm 28:2, 63:5, 88:10), or toward the Temple (e.g., 1 Kings 8:38) was a universal custom. This Jewish gesture of prayer was apparently adopted by Christians for private as well as communal prayer. Tertullian refers to it (see Tertullian, Prayer, 14, p. 685): The Jews, because of their feelings of guilt, do not dare to lift their hands to Christ. “But we not only lift them, but even extend them, imitating the Lord’s passion, as we also confess Christ in prayer.” The oldest depiction of the crucifixion of Christ (still very muted, because otherwise so scandalous to Romans), on the wooden portals of Santa Sabina on the Aventine in Rome (6th c.) shows the crucified Lord with slightly bent arms and open, nailed hands, but without an express depiction of the cross—almost as if he were standing in front of the framework of a house. This is precisely the form of the orans posture as Tertullian pictures it: In the Christians who are praying in this way, the Father also sees the dying son on the cross. Naturally, this interpretation of the orans posture is secondary and allegorizing, but it is still interesting and revealing.

[10] W. G. Hartley, My Fellow Servants, p. 38.
[11] Explains Hassett (M. M. Hassett, Orans, p. 269):

Numerous biblical figures, for instance, depicted in the catacombs — Noah, Abraham, Isaac, the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, Daniel in the lions’ den—are pictured asking the Lord to deliver the soul of the person on whose tombs they are depicted as He once delivered the particular personage represented. But besides these biblical Orans figures there exist in the catacombs many ideal figures (153 in all) in the ancient attitude of prayer, which, according to Wilpert, are to be regarded as symbols of the deceased’s soul in heaven, praying for its friends on earth. This symbolic meaning accounts for the fact that the great majority of the figures are female, even when depicted on the tombs of men. One of the most convincing proofs that the Orans was regarded as a symbol of the soul is an ancient lead medal in the Vatican Museum showing the martyr, St. Lawrence, under torture, while his soul, in the form of a female Orans, is just leaving the body.

[12] Stephen T. Whitlock comments: “This phrase could [also] refer to not worshipping falsely – i.e. not lifting up his soul could be an allusion to not raising the hands to pray to a false god. And the earlier in the verse phrase “clean hands” could, in addition to referring to not using ones hands (bodies) for sin (improper action) also allude to this.”
[13] Psalm 24:3-4; cf. 1 Timothy 2:8; Doctrine and Covenants 109:19; S. A. Ashraf, Inner, p. 125.
[14] J. A. Tvedtnes, Temple Prayer, p. 84; Cf. Claudius in Hamlet: “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. / Words without thoughts never to heaven go” (W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:3:101-102, p. 1167).
[15] D. W. Parry, Psalm 24, p. 61 n. 9.
[16] D. A. Bednar, Clean Hands, pp. 82-83.
[17] Stephen T. Whitlock: “Note also the allusions to both the temple ordinances and the atonement as in Isaiah 49:16.”
[18] D. W. Parry, Psalm 24, p. 60.
[19] Philippians 3:10.
[20] Cited in J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. 55 n. 29. See Mosiah 13:27-35.
[21] See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 609-610. See also H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, pp. 59-60.
[22] N. A. Maxwell, Deny.
[23] W. Clayton, Chronicle, 15 June 1844, p. 134.
[24] H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, pp. 57-58. See S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:5, p. 6.
[25] E. Hennecke et al., NT Apocrypha, 2:493 n. 2; cf. G. Scholem, Trends, p. 62: “original and… bizarre phrases and word combinations.… regarded as the original language of the creature addressing its Creator.”
[26] M. R. James, Bartholomew, p. 171.
[27] H. W. Nibley, Unrolling, p. 164. See also C. Schmidt, Pistis, 4:136, p. 707; G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 5:136, pp. 295-296; H. W. Nibley, Apocryphal, pp. 306-307, 313-314; H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, pp. 56-58.
[28] H. W. Nibley, House of Glory, p. 339.
[29] Doctrine and Covenants 109:78-79.
[30] H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, p. 57.
[31] I.e., Yahweh-El = Jehovah (M. Barker, Gate, p. 153; H. W. Nibley, Prayer Circle, p. 57).
[32] R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, 17:13, 20, p. 697.
[33] “May the words of my mouth be acceptable” (L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:91); cf. Psalm 54:2: “Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth.”
[34] Cf. Moses 5:6: “many days.”
[35] L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:92; cf. S. Savedow, Rezial, p. 6.
[36] To Bathsheba W. Smith, Juvenile Instructor, 27, 1 June 1892, p. 345, cited T. G. Madsen, Joseph Smith, p. 99. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 28 April 1842, p. 226.
[37] For more comprehensive overviews of the veiling of women in antiquity, see S. D. Ricks et al., With Her Gauzy Veil; K. van der Toorn, Significance of the Veil
[38] See S. Ruden, Paul, p. 73.
[39] Ibid., p. 76.
[40] Ibid., p. 87.
[41] L. H. Wilson, Unveiling.
[42] See, e.g., D. M. Gurtner, Torn Veil, pp. 70-71, who concluded that the implicit and explicit function of the veil as described in the Old Testament “was to effect separation between the most holy and the less holy. This is a structural feature based on a theological necessity. Moreover, this separation was executed by means of the veil’s prohibiting physical and visual accessibility to the God enthroned in the holy of holies. Finally, this prohibition is depicted graphically by the presence of cherubim woven into the veil, which resonates with the guardian function they serve in Genesis 3:24, where inaccessibility to the presence of God is first seen in biblical tradition.”
[43] See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 100, 148.
[44] 1 John 3:2; cf. Moses 2:26: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Early Christians saw humankind’s “image” as the similarity to God they were automatically granted through their physical creation, and their “likeness” as that resemblance which could be acquired only by the correct exercise of free will (see, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, On the Origin of Man, cited in A. Louth et al., Genesis 1-11, p. 33; Diadochus of Photice, On Spiritual Perfection, 4, cited in ibid., p. 30).
[45] 1 John 3:3.
[46] A. F. Segal, Paul, p. 152. Wrote President David O. McKay:

Every person who lives in this world radiates light, which affects and influences every other person in the world. Our choices in life determine what we really are. The radiance of the light that emanates from our countenance is determined by the choices we make, and is a powerful force in human relationships. And every person is the recipient of that radiation. The Savior was conscious of that reality; and to a degree so are we.

Whenever Jesus came into the presence of an individual He was conscious of a light emanating from that person’s soul, and which was mirrored in his countenance. He knew the behavior and conduct, and the choices a person had made because that behavior and those choices were reflected by the radiating light in one’s countenance. My dear brothers and sisters, we must make nobler choices. We must not encourage vile thoughts or low aspirations. We shall radiate them if we do. Every moment of life we are affecting, to a degree, the life of every other person with whom we may come in contact, and who comes within the sphere of our influence.

Every person is affecting every other person who lives. We cannot for one moment escape this emanation, this radiation of light that emanates from our countenance. Life is a constant state of radiation and absorption of light. To exist is to radiate light; to exist is to be the recipient of light. And we choose the qualities we permit to be radiated by the light within us, determined by our behavior, and by the choices we make. (BYU Devotional, 1947).

[47] 2 Corinthians 3:18, Segal’s translation.
[48] 2 Corinthians 3:13-18.
[49] Exodus 34:29.
[50] Exodus 34:33.
[51] Exodus 34:34.
[52] G. K. Beale et al., NT Use of the OT, 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, p. 732. Strengthening the analogy to Moses’ glorification, Wilson notes: “Paul’s word “covered / akatakaluptos” refers to something hanging ‘down from’ the face” (L. H. Wilson, Unveiling), not merely a head covering.
[53] 1 Corinthians 11:2.
[54] L. H. Wilson, Unveiling.
[55] J. Smith, Jr., Words, pp. 9-10, cf. pp. 42, 110, 210, 327-331. “Some of the church in Paul’s day had come into the presence of God and an innumerable company of angels and to the spirits of just men made perfect” (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 2:197).
[56] C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Body, p. 503.
[57] D. Blumenthal, Merkabah, p. 147.
[58] K. L. Barney, NT Footnotes, 1 Corinthians 11:11, 2:293 n. f.
[59] 1 Corinthians 11:11.
[60] G. K. Beale et al., NT Use of the OT, 1 Corinthians 11:7, p. 733.
[61] Indeed, without the least qualification, the First Presidency of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay expressed woman’s position as follows: “The true spirit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives to woman the highest place of honor in human life” (J. R. Clark, Messages, 6:5).

Although Jewish and Christian accounts of heavenly ascent often limit access to holy places to men, Rowland notes that Paul’s epistles were addressed to women as well, and sees:

… the transfer of cultic imagery to a community which was inclusive [as] a reminder that ritual impurity does not seem to have been a disqualification from access to the nascent Pauline Christian communities and their communion with the heavenly world (though later we know that menstruation could be a bar on women being baptized). … There is no sense of disqualification here… This may also explain the enigmatic reference to the angels in 1 Corinthians 11:10. There are several passages from apocalyptic texts where humans are refused admission into the presence of God by angels. According to Paul, all those sanctified (1 Corinthians 6:11), women (and children?) as well as men, can expect to understand the mystery through the indwelling Spirit which enables the believer to probe the profound things of God (1 Corinthians 2:10). This meant becoming part of the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). In such circumstances, women who might find themselves otherwise disqualified needed some kind of [sign of authority or power] to indicate their right to be in the divine presence (1 Corinthians 11:10), much as those who accompanied the Lamb had the name of God on their foreheads (Revelation 14:1). Such [a sign of authority or power] equipped women to be part of the assembly which, like the Qumran community, shared the lot of the angels in light (Colossians 1:12f.; cf: 1QH 11:20f.; 1QS 19:6ff.). (C. Rowland, Things, pp. 144-145).

Note that early Christians, when they gathered to “lift up [their] hearts to heaven,” were reminded that God Himself (with the angels and mortals) would be an “onlooker” to their proceedings (J. Cooper et al., Testament, 1:23, p. 71).

[62] 1 Corinthians 11:10.
[63] Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 519-523.
[64] K. L. Barney, NT Footnotes, 1 Corinthians 11:12, 2:293-294 n. g.
[65] Cyril of Jerusalem, First Catechetical, Protocatechesis, 9, p. 3. Thanks to Bryce Haymond for pointing out this reference.
[66] D. H. Oaks, Keys and Authority.
[67] 2 Corinthians 3:18 (Segal’s translation) and Alma 5:14.
[68] 1 John 3:2.
[69] 1 Corinthians 11:10.
[70] 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
[71] N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 26; Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43. Cf. S. D. Ricks et al., With Her Gauzy Veil, p. 350, who argue that the veils of Israelite sanctuaries “were intended not so much to obscure as to shield the most sacred things from the eyes of sinful men, which purpose would also make sense in the veiling of women.” Making a similar comparison with respect to Egyptian mythology, they write (ibid., p. 352):

It is significant that face veiling of women, not generally practiced in ancient Egypt, is mentionedby the Greek writer Plutarch (whose contemporary Hellenic society may not have engaged in veiling, but whose culture historically did) in his Isis and Osiris: “In Sais the image of Athena, whoich one also sees as Isis, contains the following inscription: ‘I am the cosmos, the past, present, and future, no mortal has yet lifted my veil’” (Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 9). “Throughout the ancient world,” observes Hugh Nibley, “the veil of the temple is the barrier between ourselves and both the hidden mysteries of the temple and the boundless expanses of cosmic space beyond. An example of the former is ‘the veil of Isis,’ which no man has lifted” (H. W. Nibley, Sacred, pp. 376-377).

[72] L. H. Wilson, Unveiling.
[73] J. A. Tvedtnes, Rituals; cf. B. K. Packer, Personal Revelation, p. 59; W. Clayton, Chronicle, 15 June 1844, p. 134.
[74] See Ephesians 5:22-33. “Paul’s real object in Ephesians 5:22-33 was to demonstrate the fact that Christ’s marriage to the Church and human marriages follow the same heavenly pattern, and are subject to the same rules of behavior” (J. E. Seaich, Mystery, p. 130). Seaich also notes the “special use of the verb paristēmi (‘present’) in Ephesians 5:27, when he speaks of Christ ‘cleansing’ the bride, so that he might ‘present her to himself a glorious Church, without spot. Several passages from Paul’s other epistles (Colossians 1:21-22; 2 Corinthians 11:2) precede the mystery of union with the same verb, combined with similar adjectives of purity and holiness.… Israelite law especially required that the bride be without ‘spot’ or ‘blemish’ (amomos, Ephesians 5:27); momos ouk estin en soi; LXX Song of Songs 4:7), for such an imperfection would preclude the possibility of even approaching the veil or the altar (Leviticus 21:23; m. Ketuboth, 7:7). Thus Ephesians 1:4 informs us that the Church was preexistently destined to be made ‘holy and spotless’ (amomos) as a prerequisite for union with her Bridegroom. This requirement is especially important, because it shows that purification traditionally preceded the nuptial mystery, and was originally separate from it” (ibid., pp. 131-132).
[75] Isaiah 40:5.
[76] Ephesians 5:27.
[77] Ephesians 5:25. Note also Romans 8:19, 21: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation [Greek, apokalypsin = uncovering, unveiling] of the sons of God. … Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”
[78] S. W. Hahn, World as Wedding, p. 12.
[79] The word “revelation” equates to “apocalypse,” from the Greek word apokalypsis, which means “unveiling.”
[80] See Revelation 19:9, 21:9, 22:17.
[81] Revelation 21:2.
[82] Revelation 21:16-18.
[83] See Exodus 28:2.
[84] Revelation 21:1.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This