Temple Transparency

There are only a select few things that people promise not to reveal about the endowment ordinance but culturally we’ve built up a hedge around the entire ordinance.

I wonder whether people that have received the endowment believe the ordinance would come across as a bit odd to the uninitiated so they don’t talk about it due to potential embarrassment.

Of course I’ve heard people draw a line between secret vs. sacred. My interpretation is that people don’t want to open up about something they hold sacred, perhaps out of fear that what they hold sacred would be criticized or dismissed by others, so keeping it a secret avoids any potential uncomfortable outcome. No one wants to share their miracle with someone and the person they tell it to says, “That’s not a miracle, that’s just [fill in the blank].”

I would LOVE for the temple prep class to be updated so that it really talks about the temple ordinance and what to expect in a step by step way.

Do you think that would result in fewer people doing their own endowment? I’ve heard many anecdotes of people only going to the temple exactly once because they were turned off by the weirdness of it all.

I’m not sure whether being more open about the ordinance during a prep class would scare off people in that camp to the point where they never receive the endowment or whether the class would make that first experience less jarring to the point where they might regularly attend the temple.

Personally, I think we should be much more open about the experience. People only promise to keep a small portion of the ordinance secret, everything else should be fair game.

As part of the recent temple endowment changes, it has been reemphasized that there are periodic changes and to expect more changes in the future.

I would like to see a deletion of any promises of secrecy or not to reveal etc.

And when those changes were made they were accompanied by an introductory narration asking temple patrons to never discuss the changes. Another facet to all of this is fear over how members may react to changing ordinances. When I was coming up, that was one of the signs of apostasy that we used to point to. The Catholics changed the baptism ordinance out of convenience. It was presented as a big no-no. Meanwhile, the temple ordinances have changed at least four times in my lifetime.

That introductory narration was probably meant to ward off those and similar conversations that could get uncomfortable.

Roy,

Switching gears… you’re saying that even those small portions of the ordinance should be altered to where people are no longer required to keep them secret? That would be interesting. I think only endless speculation would come out of any church lessons on the subject, but endless speculation is kind of where every other doctrines lives.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng

On that page if you click “About The Temple Endowment” it explains it pretty plainly, including the covenants members make there. It could be a little more detailed, though.

Yes, this would be a great start and really what I might hope to have taught in sunday school or at least in temple prep class. Just talking about all this in church would be a huge step forward.

I did have a few thoughts for revision:

During the ordinance, events that are part of the plan of salvation are presented. They include the Creation of the world, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Apostasy, and the Restoration.

I think I missed the parts about the atonement of JC, the apostacy, and the restoration. Any ideas?

In the first part, you will privately and individually receive what are called the initiatory ordinances. These ordinances include special blessings regarding your divine heritage and potential. As part of these ordinances, you will also be authorized to wear the sacred temple garment and instructed to wear it throughout your life.

This is all that is said about the initiatory. I think these three short sentences are woefully inadequate.

They will ask you questions that allow you to share your testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, His living prophets, and His restored Church.

This is from the explanation of the temple recommend interview. An explanation of the TR interview is helpful but might deserve its own page with all the questions listed out and discussed. I also feel the wording of this sentence is strange. “They will ask you questions” … ok … “that allow you to share your testimony” … what? I wasn’t allowed to share my testimony before they asked me the questions? Do they invite me to share my testimony in the interview? By answering yes, that I have a testimony, does that count as sharing my testimony?

During the ordinance, events that are part of the plan of salvation are presented. They include the Creation of the world, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Apostasy, and the Restoration.

I think I missed the parts about the atonement of JC, the apostacy, and the restoration. Any ideas?

It’s my understanding that when they shifted the presentation from being a movie to being still images that they included a lot more references to Jesus Christ than there were before. I haven’t been since that change, so I couldn’t tell you exactly what those added references were related to.

By answering yes, that I have a testimony, does that count as sharing my testimony?

That’s my interpretation. It’s wordsmithing. When you answer yes/no, you’re testifying to whatever was asked.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng

On that page if you click “About The Temple Endowment” it explains it pretty plainly, including the covenants members make there. It could be a little more detailed, though.

Yes, this would be a great start and really what I might hope to have taught in sunday school or at least in temple prep class. Just talking about all this in church would be a huge step forward.

Agreed that would be a start. It is just an overview, but it’s more than I knew going in the first time.

I did have a few thoughts for revision:

During the ordinance, events that are part of the plan of salvation are presented. They include the Creation of the world, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Apostasy, and the Restoration.

I think I missed the parts about the atonement of JC, the apostacy, and the restoration. Any ideas?

As Nibbler pointed out, it is my understanding they have in the more recent iterations of the endowment placed more emphasis on Jesus. I have not been in recent years, but I do recall wondering what the endowment had to do with Christ other than Jehovah as Creator and some of the veil stuff.

In the first part, you will privately and individually receive what are called the initiatory ordinances. These ordinances include special blessings regarding your divine heritage and potential. As part of these ordinances, you will also be authorized to wear the sacred temple garment and instructed to wear it throughout your life.

This is all that is said about the initiatory. I think these three short sentences are woefully inadequate.

Agreed. There’s actually some neat stuff in there and it’s way less creepy now that we’re not naked. Again, other than the new name stuff it doesn’t appear that we covenant not to reveal that stuff, so why isn’t it talked about more openly?

They will ask you questions that allow you to share your testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, His living prophets, and His restored Church.

This is from the explanation of the temple recommend interview. An explanation of the TR interview is helpful but might deserve its own page with all the questions listed out and discussed. I also feel the wording of this sentence is strange. “They will ask you questions” … ok … “that allow you to share your testimony” … what? I wasn’t allowed to share my testimony before they asked me the questions? Do they invite me to share my testimony in the interview? By answering yes, that I have a testimony, does that count as sharing my testimony?

Yes, that part could be worded better. The questions are published and are on the church website, but why they’re not right there is questionable – you have to go looking for them. Is it my belief they really assess testimony (or encourage the sharing of testimony)? No, they seem to mostly asses which rules you follow. For example, I do have a testimony of God, but it’s likely different from my bishop’s or stake president’s and depending on the individual may not go over so well with them.

P.S. as a complete tangent, I believe that the second anointing was even MORE secret, exclusive, and special.

Here my gut tells me that they keep it secret because it prevents a whole lot of issues for them. Thousands and thousands of members wondering when it will be their turn to get the second anointing. Thousands and thousands of members feeling inadequate because they haven’t been tapped for the ordinance. It’s problematic and making it a secret prevents many things like that.

Sadly, I never enjoyed going to the temple, so issues of transparency and process don’t matter much to me.

When I used to attend I had problems with:

1. Falling asleep in the celestial room and being woken up by a temple worker.

2. Being corrected in how I did things all the time.

3. The idea that you learn a lot in the temple, when I didn’t really.

4. I was a temple worker, at the veil once, and while we were waiting in the ante-room to the veil I got shut down by other workers because I mentioned how I got a ticket on the way to the temple. Apparently I was destroying the mood with my worldly comment….

Which is really funny when years later they change or outright remove bits of the ceremony that once had to be done to a tee. Ordinarily you’d think that would cause someone to be a little introspective and ease up on future policing but orthodoxy is orthodoxy.

It’s been disconcerting (and good) that the temple ceremonial words are changing. I have been giving a lot of thought to what my “Yes” actually met when I got married. I think the wording was “Love, Hearken, and Obey” – and I told my future husband point blank (probably in the Celestial room one of the times we were there) that while I was going to agree to that – I actually wasn’t going to agree to that blindly (and that he should consider that not part of our agreement at all). I figure that God understood at that time (if not before) that that part “for show” wasn’t actually part of our agreement. I figure “hearken” actually means “hear my spouse out” – which is as far as I go in using that paradigm.

I assume at this point that there is a “non-verbal understanding” that my commitment to my spouse is that “love, honor, and cherish in sickness and in health” (though technically I didn’t say that I would) equivalent to the standard wedding vows.

I understand now the appeal to “write your own vows and say them in good company” – though I am not sure that I would do that exactly.