Temple Secrecy

[sspice]

At face value, the temple is weird and secret and cult-ish. It totally caught me off guard in pre-internet day first visit.

Definitely felt like I was joining a cult. Not something all too comfortable the day before getting married. Especially with your future in-laws (fiance's Aunts and Uncles included) all looking on with such encouraging/adoring eyes. I just felt ambushed. I don't understand why the church encourages women to go through so close to their wedding day.

[sspice]

IMO, garment attractiveness makes a difference about how women feel about themselves and their bodies all day. Even though I think it's to women's benefit to wear modest clothing, it's nice to know that underneath we're wearing something beautiful and sexy. Wearing pretty underwear directs our minds towards our lovers even when we're not around them and even when we choose not to use immodesty to get attention from other men. On a rational/practical level it's silly to care about the attractiveness of what no one but our spouses will see, but feeling great about what we have on underneath during the day makes a difference when things get hot at night. Improving how women feel about their garments has the potential, IMO, to improve everyone's sex lives.

AGREED

[RC Vikings]

I don't understand why the church encourages women to go through so close to their wedding day.

Because if you back out of your wedding it will be awkward to try to explain why you've gone through the temple and yet you're not a returned missionary.

[Solon]

Yes.

I posted a review here:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13818

Highly recommended.

This is a great review by Lebowski. Thanks again for typing all that.

And yes, we need to bring back curse-lists.

[UtahDan]

Spoiler for Law of Vengeance:

"You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

"All bow your heads and say yes."

Praise to his mem'ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest is his ever great name;
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Stain Illinois, while the earth lauds his fame.

[Paperback Writer]

Because if you back out of your wedding it will be awkward to try to explain why you've gone through the temple and yet you're not a returned missionary.

Not to mention that you're stuck wearing the G's as a single person and non-RM.

I still remember the day that my Dad explained that I had to go through the temple prior to serving a mission. For whatever reason, I had thought that people only went through the temple just prior to being married in it. That was almost a deal breaker for my serving a mission as I realized I would soon have to wear G's. Fortunately, 2-piece G's were introduced around that time which mitigated my reluctance.

[Pelado]

To show solidarity I generally spend the first 20 minutes or so with my eyes closed.

There's even a helpful reminder of when you're supposed to wake up...

Spoiler for Snippet from ceremony:

"Adam, awake."

When I got my first recommend, my SP clearly explained to me the covenents I would be making in the temple. I guess that's why I'm surprised that so many people don't have any idea. I'd be interested to know what the ratio is of people who had it explained to them compared to those who didn't.

Count me among those who did not have it explained.

I wasn't sure I'd heard the temple worker correctly when getting ready for the initiatory. I asked my brother, who was acting as my escort, to clarify: "Am I supposed to wear anything under this?"

His resolute reply: "Nope."

I was in the temple a couple weeks ago and this post by RF couldn't leave my mind. I've been thinking about this for a while since I think I experienced the same thing that most people experience. I'm sorry, but those people who say their first time through the temple was a spiritually moving experience are either not thinking coherently or are lying (sorry, I should probably make this sentence a bit softer but I personally think it's reality). My first time was full of confusion and awkwardness. I've since come to appreciate the temple, but it took attending many, many times to finally get some level of understanding.

But to RF's point above, I've been trying to think through all the ordinances that are performed and the differences in how they are performed both for the living and the dead. The main issue I have with the "living endowment" (meaning someone receiving thier endowments for the first time) is that they go through the exact same process as the patrons that are performing work for the dead. For what other ordinances are we doing the work for both the living and the dead at the same time? I can't think of any.

For instance (based on how my ward/stake currently does this):

Baptism/confirmation for living: A special program is done for each ward and each boy/girl is treated special on this day before/during/after the ordinance.
Baptism/confirmation for dead: Understandably this is performed in a more factory-like fashion devoid of personal attention.

Sealings for living: A special time is reserved and oftentimes a sealer that is known personally by the couple/family is invited to do the sealing. Family members are in attendance and people can talk/whisper during the service. The service is somewhat informal and casual.
Sealings fo dead: Understandably this is also performed in a factory-like fashion often times with strangers in the room.

Endowment for living: I think a reservation is made so the temple knows you are coming and you are given an escort to help you through the process. However, once you get into the endowment room you are at the mercy of the recording and the time constraints imposed by the recording. You literally have a couple seconds to make a spiritually life-changing decision based on stuff you don't even know yet. There is no opportunity to ask questions or to receive instruction outside of the normal recording. It is very impersonal and factory like and often times can seem cultish.
Endowment for dead: Same as above.

In summary, my recommendation (which is probably in vain) would be to stop performing the living endowments in the same room and at the same time as the endowments are performed for the dead. I would recommend that a separate room be set aside where the endowment could be read to someone and the ordinance performed on a more personal level. You could have the chance to ask questions and get more information as the endowment is administered. You could have close family and friends in the room with you who are also performing the ordinances for the dead. In fact, you could have a family member be the one to administer the endowment if they are a temple worker and that would be pretty cool. Obviously this would take longer than the typical endowment but I think it would greatly improve the spirituality of the person's first temple experience. You can then let the person know that the next time they attend a session it will be in a mode that is set up for expediency instead of outright understanding.

Just my opinion. Thoughts?

I identify with Robin's original post. I remember being confronted with that invitation to avoid the wrath of God by foregoing the endowment. Being surrounded by lots of family, I figured that if they had all been good with it, then there was nothing to fear for me.

While in the Celestial Room after the ceremony was complete, seeing my parents and uncles and aunts and everyone in their temple garb, I couldn't help but think "So this is what you guys have been doing here all this time? It was less confusion or awkwardness and more surprise of what actually happens in there. I found the initiatory to be much more uplifting than the endowment itself.

When my wife went through for the first time (fiancé at the time), I didn't really tell her anything about the ceremony, but let her know we could talk freely once we got to the Celestial Room. By the time we got to that point, though, she was too weirded out and wanted to get out of there as quickly as she could.

Also, she doesn't like the fit of the G's, doesn't understand why she has to veil her face while the guys don't, and had to have some sort of extension added to her very modest wedding dress to make it temple-compliant.

[PaloAltoCougar]

When our youngest was about to go through the temple for the first time, I embarked on what was to be a series of conversations with him about what to expect along with some of the symbols and meaning, as I saw them. But my wife expressed very strong discomfort with what I proposed to do. She said that when she had attended a recent chapel session the temple president's wife said we weren't supposed to talk about it with newbies at all because, as she said, "We want them to have that 'deer in the headlights' look, as they become more teachable." Out of respect for my wife, but against my better judgment, I didn't continue with those conversations and I regret it, as I think in this internet age the matron's view is very wrong.

[Topper]

When our youngest was about to go through the temple for the first time, I embarked on what was to be a series of conversations with him about what to expect along with some of the symbols and meaning, as I saw them. But my wife expressed very strong discomfort with what I proposed to do. She said that when she had attended a recent chapel session the temple president's wife said we weren't supposed to talk about it with newbies at all because, as she said, "We want them to have that 'deer in the headlights' look, as they become more teachable." Out of respect for my wife, but against my better judgment, I didn't continue with those conversations and I regret it, as I think in this internet age the matron's view is very wrong.

Ignorance is NOT bliss?! Who knew!

There seems to be a few categories of temple attenders.
Those who attend because they enjoy the social experience and don't pay a lot of attention to the actual experience.
Those who attend because members are requested to attend, but don't enjoy it much.
Those who attend only if a close family member is going through because they don't enjoy the experience for a multitude of reasons.
Those who attend and believe they find meaning and value in the experience after a lot of work.
Those who do not attend. "Okay, not an attender class", but you get the pic.

[Eddie]

I was in the temple a couple weeks ago and this post by RF couldn't leave my mind. I've been thinking about this for a while since I think I experienced the same thing that most people experience. I'm sorry, but those people who say their first time through the temple was a spiritually moving experience are either not thinking coherently or are lying (sorry, I should probably make this sentence a bit softer but I personally think it's reality). My first time was full of confusion and awkwardness. I've since come to appreciate the temple, but it took attending many, many times to finally get some level of understanding.

But to RF's point above, I've been trying to think through all the ordinances that are performed and the differences in how they are performed both for the living and the dead. The main issue I have with the "living endowment" (meaning someone receiving thier endowments for the first time) is that they go through the exact same process as the patrons that are performing work for the dead. For what other ordinances are we doing the work for both the living and the dead at the same time? I can't think of any.

For instance (based on how my ward/stake currently does this):

Baptism/confirmation for living: A special program is done for each ward and each boy/girl is treated special on this day before/during/after the ordinance.
Baptism/confirmation for dead: Understandably this is performed in a more factory-like fashion devoid of personal attention.

Sealings for living: A special time is reserved and oftentimes a sealer that is known personally by the couple/family is invited to do the sealing. Family members are in attendance and people can talk/whisper during the service. The service is somewhat informal and casual.
Sealings fo dead: Understandably this is also performed in a factory-like fashion often times with strangers in the room.

Endowment for living: I think a reservation is made so the temple knows you are coming and you are given an escort to help you through the process. However, once you get into the endowment room you are at the mercy of the recording and the time constraints imposed by the recording. You literally have a couple seconds to make a spiritually life-changing decision based on stuff you don't even know yet. There is no opportunity to ask questions or to receive instruction outside of the normal recording. It is very impersonal and factory like and often times can seem cultish.
Endowment for dead: Same as above.

In summary, my recommendation (which is probably in vain) would be to stop performing the living endowments in the same room and at the same time as the endowments are performed for the dead. I would recommend that a separate room be set aside where the endowment could be read to someone and the ordinance performed on a more personal level. You could have the chance to ask questions and get more information as the endowment is administered. You could have close family and friends in the room with you who are also performing the ordinances for the dead. In fact, you could have a family member be the one to administer the endowment if they are a temple worker and that would be pretty cool. Obviously this would take longer than the typical endowment but I think it would greatly improve the spirituality of the person's first temple experience. You can then let the person know that the next time they attend a session it will be in a mode that is set up for expediency instead of outright understanding.

Just my opinion. Thoughts?

This is just a nitpick more than anything - but typically anyone going in for an own endowment does get to have a chat with a member of the temple presidency before going into the session. How that meeting is handled could go a long way in preparing the newbie for what they are about to experience. I seem to remember mine just having to do with what a great blessing the temple is and how great it was to be receiving those ordinances.

I also remember going through for the first time. I admit to having that deer in the headlights look. The first person I saw in the Celestial Room was my sister. The first words out of her mouth, as she walked up to me with a smile, were "The church is still true".

[LA Ute]

I enjoy going to the temple mainly because of the way I feel when I am there. I can't deny that feeling. I also enjoy the idea that I am doing something critically important for the person whose name I've drawn.

What I think about the teaching techniques and symbolism would take too long to explain. I do see all that as a means of teaching. Lately, however, I've been very impressed by a nice little book my brother gave me. It's by Dallin Oaks and is entitled "Life's Lessons Learned." Each chapter is short (2-4 pages) and beautifully written. The one on temple worship breaks the experience into three buckets:

1. Teachings.

2. Covenants.

3. Promised blessings.

For some reason, that little breakdown helps me a lot. It's a bit more of a "forest" view as opposed to a "trees" view,and helped me focus on what seems to me most important about LDS temple worship. Anyway, it works for me. Maybe it will help some others.

I recommend the DHO book highly.

[Uncle Ted]

Early church leaders made no attempt to deny the masonic links. BY called it "true masonry". If one looks at the masonic rituals, the parallels are striking. I have always wondered if the "secrecy" part of our temple tradition is a result of the masonic influences and tradition. Furthermore, it seems to me that much of what has been removed in my lifetime represents some of the more "masonic" elements. I can't help but wonder what changes lie in store for the future. And if we eventually remove ALL masonic elements (signs, tokens, etc.), would there be a need for secrecy anymore?

Dude, I am not sure if I buy the whole connection to the masonic rituals thing. In all my years in going to the temple I have never seen anything like this...

Spoiler for For being PG-13 or so:

[RC Vikings]

Dude, I am not sure if I buy the whole connection to the masonic rituals thing. In all my years in going to the temple I have never seen anything like this...

Spoiler for For being PG-13 or so:

I believe the Vegas temple has copied this part of the ritual.

[SoCalCoug]

Dude, I am not sure if I buy the whole connection to the masonic rituals thing. In all my years in going to the temple I have never seen anything like this...

Spoiler for For being PG-13 or so:

I'm pretty sure that's the second endowment.

[fusnik]

I'm 99% convinced we, as members, misinterpret temple worship.

I think there is no gender value, other than a symbolic difference between flesh and spirit. In other words men/women could be interchanged if taught correctly. Man = spirit / woman = flesh, together they form one person. So Adam and Eve are essentially a complete person with body/spirit.

And

The temple teaches you that the church is a temporary help piece, nothing more. If you think about the ceremony, the church prepares you for the veil, tells you to tell God what the church thinks god wants to say, but ultimately God says, this is what I want you to say and you physically block out the church. At that point you enter into the rest of The Lord.

When viewed that way I think the worship has momentary meaning and becomes a stepping stone to a higher enlightenment with God.