Disclaimer: I understand that there are many sensitivities surrounding any discussion of the temple. Please know that I avoid specifics and do my best to accord the LDS temple the respect I think it deserves. I hope others who may not be LDS or members will do the same, and I hope we as Latter-day Saints extend the same courtesy to other faiths.
It’s my understanding that the temple ceremony was changed again recently. I haven’t attended and so am unaware of many specifics. I do know that the washing and anointing ceremony is handled differently, though the wording is the same. I was also told that one change may "anger feminists" (a quote from my source).
Changes to the ceremony are not a new concept. Since its introduction in Nauvoo, the temple has undergone many revisions. Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young tried hard to reconstruct the ceremony after arriving in Utah. They reported that they got it "pretty close" to the Nauvoo original. Major changes took place around 1920, when an oath of vengeance was removed. This oath was widely publicized during the Reed Smoot hearings in 1904-06, along with other aspects of the ceremony. In 1990, the ceremony saw another major revision, removing penalties and seeming to make women less subservient to men.
Latter-day Saints covenant to carefully guard against specific information learned in the temple. In the 19th-century, members and leaders were far more open about discussing amongst themselves what went on inside. The only part of the ceremony considered off-limits were the specific signs, tokens, and penalties, along with information at the veil. Today, however, members might read those very words and cringe at my use of them, despite the fact that men like Brigham Young and others used them in public and they are available in Church publications. Orson Pratt published the entire text of the wedding ceremony in The Seer in Washington, DC.
Many Latter-day Saints are surprised to learn that temple exposes are as old as the ceremony itself. Starting with anti-Mormon newspapers around Nauvoo, one could read, with varying degrees of accuracy, what went on inside. This has continued until today; indeed, I don’t think any time period has existed when outsiders couldn’t find out what went on inside if they were willing to hunt around for a book. I’ve heard members express anger when they learn the complete ceremony is online at different websites, and more than once I’ve heard members comfort themselves by insisting that those responsible would go to hell.
Does such anger stem only from the apparent disrespect from posting the ceremony? Or is it from the betrayal of an insider, revealing the secrets of the tribe? I’ll confess, my biggest surprise my first time through the temple was how fraternal it all felt. Even then it seemed to appeal to human nature – passing on knowledge to a select group so they could, as Brigham Young said, pass by the sentinels who guard the gates. I have no doubt that temple-going members believe in the sacredness of the temple, revere and respect it, and participate because of their deeply held beliefs. But there also seems to be a kind of clubhouse aspect to it as well. It’s human nature to be exclusive and feel good when you’re on the "inside." Is that part of what’s going on?