Taking our your own endowment in the temple

[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.

[Taq Man]

washing and anointing by old man that looked like the crypt keeper made me never want to attend ever again.

[Bruincoug]

felt like it had nothing to do with my religious experience or religious belief almost. totally different -- and temple prep in my stake had nothing to do with preparing you for what actually happened. my preparation was limited to a strained, uncomfortable 30-second pregame from my dad as we were pulling up to the temple.

the temple remains a sore spot for me -- in part, because of the weirdness and general lack of Spirit, as compared with my other spiritual experience in church -- and also, in part, because i associate the temple with immediate family, a negative association.

i've served a mission and regularly attended church ever since. for most, but not all of that time, i've been temple worthy -- but i haven't done endowment, initiatories, baptisms, etc. since my mission. for now, it's just not part of my religious experience. maybe someday -- with added experience and more of an open-mind -- it will be.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Bruincoug

felt like it had nothing to do with my religious experience or religious belief almost. totally different -- and temple prep in my stake had nothing to do with preparing you for what actually happened. my preparation was limited to a strained, uncomfortable 30-second pregame from my dad as we were pulling up to the temple.

the temple remains a sore spot for me -- in part, because of the weirdness and general lack of Spirit, as compared with my other spiritual experience in church -- and also, in part, because i associate the temple with immediate family, a negative association.

i've served a mission and regularly attended church ever since. for most, but not all of that time, i've been temple worthy -- but i haven't done endowment, initiatories, baptisms, etc. since my mission. for now, it's just not part of my religious experience. maybe someday -- with added experience and more of an open-mind -- it will be.

It's interesting how different members can see it in such different ways. My wife went through for the first time not too long ago and about a month before we got married. She has a good testimony but has some concerns about some aspects of the church, which when talking through those with her we've concluded have little to do with teachings or doctrine but with cultural aspects and practices which don't make sense to her. Since she didn't grow up in an active LDS family, I can see her point of view on most if not all those concerns.

I think she had a few worries about the temple but it turns out it was a great experience for her as she told me she felt like that was where the pure gospel really was, and not about all the stuff we kind of throw around the edges. To her it was simple and clear, as the ceremony is about the creation and why we're here, agency, the need for a savior, and the covenants we make to get back to the Lord. That's what matters. Everything else we add along the edges is hopefully to point us to the center, but I think sometimes it can distract depending on what it is and how it's taught. I personally think we probably worry too much in the church about teaching all the specific do's and don'ts rather than explaining why we live the way we do and how it ties back into our covenants we make with Christ. I don't think we give our youth enough credit for understanding the whys and letting them use their agency to choose to live the gospel because they want to.

[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.

[delux_247]

My experience was pretty different.

Our stake temple prep class gave a general overview of what types of covenants we would be making (basically nothing that isn't in the scriptures), the flow of the presentation, purpose of garments, etc.

I think the biggest influence on my not being surprised was my friend who went through a few months before I did. He explained it as being "brainwashed". That conjured up all kinds of notions which were way worse than the actual experience.

[MikeWaters]

7 of 12 people voting in the poll so far were not 'comfortable'. Obviously not a representative sample from a scientific standpoint.

If people are uncomfortable w/ the temple, they will vote with their feet, i.e. they will not attend. They won't complain, they'll just not make it a part of their lives.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

7 of 12 people voting in the poll so far were not 'comfortable'. Obviously not a representative sample from a scientific standpoint.

If people are uncomfortable w/ the temple, they will vote with their feet, i.e. they will not attend. They won't complain, they'll just not make it a part of their lives.

You could also say 8 of 12 people were not "uncomfortable." You can twist numbers to say what you want them to say.

[Bruincoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You could also say 8 of 12 people were not "uncomfortable." You can twist numbers to say what you want them to say.

i can't say what Mike "wants" the numbers to say. but, if we were talking about the ordinances of baptism or marriage -- i'd say that a ho-hum or neutral experience is falling short of the mark.

true, the purpose of a given ordinance may not be "to make the participants comfortable." also, maybe this informal survey is framed poorly (what if i was uncomfortable at one point and very comfortable / spirit-filled the rest of the time? heuristic biases may lead me to report "uncomfortable")

nonetheless, as with marriage or baptism, where we build up the experience for years, or even a lifetime, talking about how sacred / wonderful / spiritual it is -- and most people don't have a positive experience, I find it somewhat troubling. of course, the easiest (and most faith-promoting) finger to wag is: the problem is in that build-up and / or preparation.

isn't the endowment -- at least according to Bushman's take on it in RSR, which i think is compelling -- designed / advertised / restored to give individual members a significant spiritual experience analogous to ancient Israel hearing the voice of God. again, maybe that experience was not "comfortable" for ancient Israel -- but hopefully it was more positive than negative. (I understand you can criticize the assumption of a such a teleological quality to ordinances. But that's a longer discussion, and I've already pointed to Bushman's treatment of the history)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Bruincoug

i can't say what Mike "wants" the numbers to say. but, if we were talking about the ordinances of baptism or marriage -- i'd say that a ho-hum or neutral experience is falling short of the mark.

true, the purpose of a given ordinance may not be "to make the participants comfortable." also, maybe this informal survey is framed poorly (what if i was uncomfortable at one point and very comfortable / spirit-filled the rest of the time? heuristic biases may lead me to report "uncomfortable")

nonetheless, as with marriage or baptism, where we build up the experience for years, or even a lifetime, talking about how sacred / wonderful / spiritual it is -- and most people don't have a positive experience, I find it somewhat troubling. of course, the easiest (and most faith-promoting) finger to wag is: the problem is in that build-up and / or preparation.

isn't the endowment -- at least according to Bushman's take on it in RSR, which i think is compelling -- designed / advertised / restored to give individual members a significant spiritual experience analogous to ancient Israel hearing the voice of God. again, maybe that experience was not "comfortable" for ancient Israel -- but hopefully it was more positive than negative. (I understand you can criticize the assumption of a such a teleological quality to ordinances. But that's a longer discussion, and I've already pointed to Bushman's treatment of the history)

I've gone on the record several times as saying we could do much better in our temple prep.