[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I've heard very dedicated, conservative members say that they don't think the church does a good job with temple preparation.

My own temple preparation class was simply an explanation of the purpose of the temple, and provided no insight into any of the actual events that would take place, nor any of the covenants.

During the actual ceremony--and I am not revealing anything that is not in the church approved public record--you are asked to make covenants. However, you are generally with a group of people who are also making the same covenants (often as proxies), and you are literally given a few seconds to respond. In other words, a careful deliberate examination and decision is not really possible, esp. from a social pressure standpoint.

The actual ceremony is arguably VERY different in appearance and custom than Sunday services in a chapel, or the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, and blessings.

All of these things put together, in my opinion, lead to a less-than-optimal experience for many, and a diminished desire to continue attending the temple in the future for many.

So what could be done that would make for a better experience?
1. Reduce the surprise factor. There was one point in the washing/annointing ceremony where I was filled, just for a moment, with great dread. I think some of you guys know what I am talking about. The dread quickly passed, because what I was afraid was going to happen, didn't happen. But wouldn't it have been nice, if I didn't have that thought in the first place, because I had been prepared? The Old Testament talks about special clothing--why can't we prepare members in the temple preparation class and very briefly explain some aspects of temple clothing.

2. The covenants should be known in advance to the participants. You can't tell people that these are among the most important decisions and commitments they will make in their life, and give them 3 seconds to make a decision, as well as make it incredibly difficult, from a social perspective, to say no.

In my own case, I became more comfortable with my temple experience later, after I had talked to some friends and gone again. But I doubt that my feelings on this are unique.

I fall under the side that believes the bishop should at his discretion discuss some things in detail if he deems appropriate and if the spirit is there. I agree with you on 1. As far as the covenants go, honestly, I don't think they should be a surprise to anyone who has been an active member long enough. It's not like they represent anything they shouldn't have heard before.

But I agree they would probably be a good thing for a bishop to discuss with the person before they go. Actually, that is what my bishop did. I don't think that's considered kosher today but at the time I went it apparently was and I think I benefitted from it. It also assured me that the content wasn't going to be totally foreign to me. It's not like I hadn't heard about things like sacrifice or chastity or consecration. I also think it makes sense to let the person know that the presentation and format is different, but not to be thrown off by that. There is nothing that says every meeting in the church has to be the same.