Temple Initiatory Change

Sorry for the confusion.

A “patron” is a member who attends to participate in an ordinance. Those who perform the ordinances are called “workers”.

Now, the members (patrons) are dressed exactly like the workers – simply in their temple clothes (dresses for the women and pants, shirts, and tie for the men), plus slippers or shoes.

In a small temple like the one I attend, a member now can do the initiatory for an ancestor and immediately go into an endowment session for that same person without changing clothing in any way between those ordinances.

Ooookay thanks for the clarification that’s a nice change. It always feels kind of odd only wearing that flowy poncho and the garments underneath. Felt almost like I was naked. It’ll be nice to feel fully clothed!

If I remember when I did my own initiatory back in the mid to late 80’s, we were “not well dressed” under the shield — it felt kind of odd given our stance on modesty and other things. So, really, they are saying you don’t have to go through that anymore — just dress like you are going to an endowment — right?

The rest of my first experience in the temple felt almost normal compared to the initiatory- weird hats, green aprons, who cares, at least I’m clothed.

😆

I’m all for the change. The only thing I liked about the old way was that it really did seem like more of a process and progression. It made me think of the old, old days when people (I gather) really did bathe before ordinances, and also Jewish ritual bathing. Just too weird for us today. But pondering that old stuff helped me understand why the temple would have been such a change of pace for pioneers and a place of relative luxury.

I wonder if the initiatory became a bottleneck ordinance?

I know I never bothered doing vicarious initiatories because the the nakedness was a part of the experience that I had to grin and bear. I think there are many people in that camp. It makes me wonder whether there were lots of people doing baptisms and many people doing endowment sessions but relatively few doing initiatories.

I wonder if the initiatory became a bottleneck ordinance?

I know I never bothered doing vicarious initiatories because the the nakedness was a part of the experience that I had to grin and bear. I think there are many people in that camp. It makes me wonder whether there were lots of people doing baptisms and many people doing endowment sessions but relatively few doing initiatories.

Quite possible. I did initiatories for the dead a couple times, mostly my own or my wife’s relatives. They are done in blocks similar to baptisms (that is, several in succession). I really like the blessings given during the initiatory and there is really a lot there to ponder. I’m not particularly “modest” (certainly not by LDS standards) by nature so the naked part didn’t bother me much, but I understand that I’m probably an exception and others probably feel quite uncomfortable with it. I also liked the symbolic touching, but admittedly felt a bit more uncomfortable with that. Being fully dressed should remove all of that discomfort for anyone, and I’d actually encourage people to go do initiatories for the dead and pay attention to the many blessings bestowed there. Even the symbolic touching would be much less “creepy” fully clothed if it were to be reinstituted.

The initiatory was also significantly changed in 2005 (I remember it was that year because I attended the temple while heavily pregnant with my son, who is now 11, and the changes were so recent that the ordinance workers were still using cards to read the wording) and the endowment was last overhauled in what, 1992? There may have been a spiritual reason for this most recent change or it may have been purely practical, but either way, I appreciate the reminder that nothing about the temple is set in stone.