I blame Western society and its literalism and scientism. The best preparation would be reading Genesis, Exodus, the Pearl of Great Price, and then “The Hero with A Thousand Faces” and/or “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell. Somehow we have to teach ritual and symbolism.

Make sure you take them to Catholic mass for at least a month so they get used to the ritual and imagery of a real ceremony. I think most of the shock comes because our youth are never exposed to ritual, ceremony, liturgy, etc. as are many other youth in different faith traditions. I blame it on our unstructured, social-oriented, sometimes irreverant Sunday meetings. We follow the Baptist – Protestant model too much and then when they go to the Temple, they are expected to accept the ritual they have been conditioned to reject everywhere else.

I went through the temple the week before getting married. On that day, an hour before my scheduled time, my fiancee and I met in the waiting area just past the point where they check your recommend. And he quietly talked me through everything that would happen. I had a very positive experience.

Jettboy: Good point. I haven’t read either book by Campbell, but I’ve heard “The Power of Myth” is very good.

Katherine: I think you’re right that we should at least be told what we will be asked to covenant to do. There are some serious commitments in the endowment ceremony, and it seems right to let people know what they are getting into.

Michael: Interesting idea; not sure how effective it would be, but I definitely agree with your larger point about the need for more exposure to ritual. Who knows? Maybe that’s a practical way to do it.

Ahna: Glad you had a good experience. I think your experience underscores the point of my post. We really need a more formal way to prepare people so that they get the kind of info that you were lucky enough to receive at the last minute.

As I think back on it, I liked learning about the endowment from the endowment. There are few truly surprising or novel experiences at church, and I’m glad one of the few wasn’t taken away from me.

Whoops, hit submit too early. I was going to paste my comment from that thread, where I suggested the following introduction to a temple prep class (and implied overhaul of the curriculum):

“Let me tell you exactly what happens in the temple endowment: after being blessed, washed and annointed, you will dress yourself in sacred clothing, and hear a retelling of the creation story and of Adam and Eve. This story will have some familiar elements, and some new ones. You should understand that this story is meant to have symbolic meaning about your own journey through this life and your relationship with God. You will also make several serious covenants with your Heavenly Father; although very important, sacred, and serious, if you have ever been interviewed by a Bishop, you should not expect anything shocking in the content of these covenants.

In this class, then, we will research the scriptural and historical significance of: the temple, the priesthood, washings/annointings, sacred clothing, the creation story, symbolism as a teaching principle, your relationship with God, the nature of covenants, and the application of scriptural teachings to yourself as an individual. This will prepare you for the teachings, setting, and ritual of of the temple endowment.”

I was actually thinking about posting on this same subject. I think all the suggestions made so far are great. Can I add one?

People should get debriefed after going through from their own endowment. They should be able to ask any question they want to and have someone there that can at least attempt to answer. I think we don’t discuss the temple nearly enough in Church and other appropriate venues. I think a lot of people have negative first experiences because of inadequate preparation and our unwillingness to talk about it. I think that in some ways we blame the person if they don’t have a great experience, when we should be blaming our culture of secrecy at the expense of understanding.

This is a similar story to that of Pres. McKay- he was really bothered by his first temple endowment.

Interesting; got a source?

I don’t remember reading that in the bio that came out a couple of years ago (which constitutes most of my McKay knowledge).

“Do you remember when you first went through the House of the Lord? I do. And I went out disappointed. Just a young man, out of college, anticipating great things when I went to the Temple. I was disappointed and grieved, and I have met hundreds of young men and young women since who had that experience. I have now found out why. There are two things in every Temple: mechanics, to set forth certain ideals, and symbolism, what those mechanics symbolize. I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality… I was blind to the great lesson of purity behind the mechanics. I did not hear the message of the of the Lord…How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing is simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.” From Gregory Prince and Wm. Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005): 277.

There needs to be another temple prep class inside the temple before the actual ordinances are performed.

My escorts left me alone to wait in the changing room while they went to go talk to someone, and a half-blind over-eager temple worker who couldn’t see my tag indicating that I was there for my own endowments thought I was goofing off, and literally laid hands on me and shoved me in the initiatory line. And that was back in 1983.

If I hadn’t had a firm Spirit-borne testimony, I would have walked out and never gone back.

I read this kind of discussion every few weeks in the Bloggernacle, but it occurred to me just this very moment that I had no temple prep whatsoever, beyond having been an active member my whole life. I didn’t take a temple prep class — didn’t know there was such a thing. My parents drove me the two hours to the temple and went through with me, but during that two hours (and whatever years before) it didn’t occur to them to tell me anything about it, and it didn’t occur to me to ask.

I had a wonderful experience from beginning to end, then and every time I went back until I was well past 40 and began to feel that although a beautiful, meaningful, essential experience, it had nothing to do with me because none of the promises and covenants and plans are meant for solitary individuals.

So what’s the difference? Why are some people able to embrace the experience, and others fight it? I don’t think I was one whit less mature, thoughtful, sincere, or independent than anyone who insists she can’t be ready without knowing every step beforehand. I doubt I had been exposed to more ritual, either — just a typical Mormon youth.

Tagore, I think we have to go to the temple with a heart full of trust: trusting our testimonies of the restored gospel (no wonder we are questioned about this in our recommend interviews), trusting the testimonies of those that have gone before us, and trusting the authenticity of the temple. I admit I was a little disappointed that more was not explained about the endowment (the initatory was not a disappointment in the least), but I was taught that we will gain understanding as we continue to go to the temple, and I am trusting that I will.

So, perhaps another idea for a post is, have you, in fact, gained an understanding of the temple ceremonies over time?

Perhaps one should read about Mason rituals as to gain another perpsective of what we experience in the Temple.

Katherine: I was thinking about this recently, as my brother prepares to go through. If this is worded wrong, please take it down. My understanding is that the signs/tokens/names are secret, not the covenants, right? So would it be bad to say “you will be asked to promise (a,b,c,d)”?

You’re understanding is correct. One of the lessons in the Aaronic priesthood manuals is about going to the temple, and I’ve taught that lesson to multiple Aaronic priesthood quorums. When I taught it to the priests, I went into a lot more detail, because the priests I was teaching were all going to be headed to the temple within another 12-18 months. In the part of the lesson that went over covenants, I told the boys: “When you go through the temple, you’ll make the following covenants” and then proceeded to list them on the white board. What’s important is that they’re discussed in the appropriate atmosphere. Also, since the bishop was there in the class (the bishop is supposed to attend priest quorum meetings), I felt like that gave me more leeway.

It seems to me that when I was a teenager (before 1989) there were more references to aspects of the temple ceremony in church, so that members got an idea of what the temple was like just by regularly participating in church for a long time. One of my former bishops told me that when he went through the temple in 1984, it wasn’t very foreign because he’d learned so much of it osmotically over the years attending church, which is in line with my experience. I went through the temple in 1990, and I’m pretty sure (IIRC) that I was even aware of the aspects that you mention relating to clothing. And this was before people attended temple prep classes. (FWIW, my 1st temple experience was terrific — far superior to my fraternity initiation years later, David McKay’s admonition notwithstanding.)

I think that people became more tight-lipped about the temple after the changes April 1990 changes to the ceremony. I think that temple-prep would be much easier if people were just more open about the temple in general, insofar as they felt comfortable discussing it when it’s relevant in the context of doctrinal discussions or talks.

The temple prep curriculum is excellent, but it occurs in too much of a vacuum. It is too isolated. Sacrament meeting attendance, sunday school lessons, auxiliary & quorum meetings, general conference — all of these should also be temple prep. This isn’t to say that this will cause 100% of first-time temple goers to have a great time. Obviously, the pre-1990 situation still wasn’t ideal, because one reason that leaders changed the ceremony is supposedly due to member surveys on temple experiences.

Perhaps the lead sentence of this post should be, “We don’t do sufficiently prepare other church members to go through the temple.”

Tagore, if those who say they had a good initial temple experience are mostly just lying to ourselves or are freaky outliers, then that puts some interesting constraints on your ability to learn how people can have good initial temple experiences. I don’t think you’ll find many useful answers by only listening to those who had bad temple experiences. Indeed, a rejection of accounts of good experiences indicates a belief that encounters with the temple can only be bad, and any efforts to change that are pointless.

Studying failure is useful, but without also studying success, it will be fruitless.

John (29): I completely agree with you about the importance of learning from others’ positive experiences, which is why I think you’ve missed my point in #22. I certainly did not state that everyone who claims to have had a positive experience the first time is lying, and adding “freak” to my phrase “outlier in the dataset” unfairly distorts what I had written. I have rarely encountered anyone who has had a positive experience the first time through, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable, given my experience, to think it is unusual for someone to have a positive experience. That said, I welcome the sharing of positive experiences (one of my objectives in posting on this topic in the first place), especially those that provide possible answers to Ardis’ excellent question of why some people have positive experiences while others don’t (see, e.g., DKL and Mbogo’s comments).

Nifty Fella – “I was recently at a wedding reception where a beautiful, young, recently-endowed bridesmaid gave the bride some advice; she told the bride to go to the temple often because ‘in the temple, all your problems just disappear for a few hours.’ It reminded me of Pedro’s pitch that all your wildest dreams will come true.”

Interesting point. When I attended the temple prep class I was asked to help with after receiving my own endowment, a man there kept going over the point that “we’re all equal” in the temple due to clothing and the focus on the endowment rather than worldly importance. This guy had a huge inferiority complex (in my opinion) and was not as “well off” as some other people in the ward and seemed to relish going to the temple because no one judges you on how you’re dressed or how much money you make. I suppose the temple is a refuge from the world but I feel people would be losing out if that’s the only reason for attending.

On a related note- I have been asked a few times by non-members if I’ve ever seen Mitt Romney in the Boston temple. My mother-in-law (who’s known me for over 10 years) actually asked me if I knew Mitt or had seen him there. I kind of just chuckled because even if I had, what would I do? Stop a session to ask him for his autograph or something?

I love temple star-sightings. I once saw Sheri Dew in a waiting area before a session, and when she walked in, everyone definitely felt her coolness. No, we’re not all equal in the temple, because there are people there who are way more cool than I.

Nifty Fella: I once saw Sheri Dew in a waiting area before a session, and when she walked in, everyone definitely felt her coolness. No, we’re not all equal in the temple, because there are people there who are way more cool than I.

I think that’s on you.

I didn’t really know what to expect when I went for the first time to get my endowment. My parents were there.

I thought the endowment was unusual in some ways but everything that happened was interesting and to a great degree, inspiring. But I was very tired afterwards. It just felt like a lot to think about.

Right afterwards, my very gospel-enthusiastic mother wanted me to witness a sealing. I didn’t know what the ceremony would be like – thought it might be long. I didn’t want to go through an endowment-length ceremony right after the first one.

But my mother insisted. A young couple was being sealed to each other and to their daughter and they were kind enough to let us witness their sealing – they didn’t seem to have much family or friends there – so I think they appreciated the presence of some others in the room.

I was impressed at how simple (and frankly, by comparison, brief) the sealing ceremony was and awed by the wording. Completely floored, really. In some ways, the whole gospel plan clicked for me while I was witnessing that sealing ordinance. It was like a final puzzle piece that made the whole picture that much clearer and pristine.

My first experience was, I am sorry to say, rather underwhelming. I was so used to hearing people say things like “Your first time in the temple will be a real shock / surprise / different experience,” etc., that I think it got a little over-hyped for me in terms of how strange it was going to seem (although I admit that seeing your dad in funny clothes doing secret handshakes is pretty weird). I also had picked up a lot more than I realized by osmosis over the years, funerals, and documentaries on the masons. Anyway, I kept waiting for the shock and ended up in the celestial room thinking, “Was that it?!”

Also, we tend to speak of the beauty of the temple inside and out with such superlatives in the church that I was also kind of let down by the Logan Temple (over-hyped again). I chose to get my endowment there because of its exterior – but the interior is another matter entirely. It looks like some poorly refitted office space in a business park (with the one exception being the wrought iron end pieces on the theater seats). I went back there recently, and it’s just as bad as I remembered. I hope it’s number one on the list for a little remodeling. Even Provo and Ogden, with their interior upgrading, are better than Logan now.

So, my recommendation would be to not over-hype so many aspects of the initial visit too much. We need realistic expectations on all planes (including spiritual) for a first time.

I think it would be interesting to tell about famous people we meet in the temple. When the films first started, my ward went to Provo to the temple and the girl who played Eve was in the session with us. We were pretty excited about that.

On a whole different tack, I do feel the world drop away when I go to the temple. The peace eases my soul. I’ve never seen God or even a dead person but I’m okay with that now.

Tagore-

I’m so happy you were able to get a temple recommend. We’ve been praying for you.

Me too, because running into Tagore at the temple isn’t something that temple prep prepared me for…

Southeast: I’m glad you still have a strong testimony of the chuch and gospel. And as such, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive those who should have been more supportive of you in preparation for your own endowment, and the resolution of questions and awkward feelings afterwards.

That’s pretty much how I’ve tried to process the awkwardness that I had in my first temple experience, and in a “less than optimum” mission. In as much as I sinned, I say “Oh Lord, please forgive me.” And in as much as others “sinned” (in quotes because I’m not totally sure if they sinned, or were just normally imperfect human beings) against me, then I say “Oh Lord, help me forgive those who were less than perfect in preparing me, and taking me through the temple.”

The more I pray to understand and forgive those whom I think dropped the ball, and possibly “sinned” against me, the more my mind is open to my own faults and shortcomings. And when I realize more of my own faults and shortcomings, it’s then easier for me to forgive others, and let go of those offenses, both perceived and real.

That seems to help with every offense, perceived or real, regardless of when or where it occurred.

Another thing that has helped me is focusing on the idea that the Lord’s atonement covers and “pays for” all the sins and offenses _against_ me, as well as the ones I’ve committed. Whenever I get a flashback, and start stressing out over something in the past, I focus on the atonement, and the flashback subsides. “Jesus paid for it” is a good mantra, and it seems to take away the stress.

The “Jesus paid for it” is a much better stress-reliever than other common ones such as “It’s okay” or “It’s in the past.” Because focusing on the atonement doesn’t require one to deny that the offense occured, or deny that the offense was a bad thing. Attempting to deny or suppress the bad things doesn’t heal the wounds, and never makes them go away. Christ is always there, ready to heal the wounds, no matter whose fault they are. After all, He didn’t just pay the price of the sin, He paid the price of healing the wounds. “By his stripes we are healed.” He covered both sides of the sinner/victim transaction. But there are requirements that both the sinner and the victim must meet. The sinner needs to repent, and the victim needs to forgive.

By this process, I’ve learned that I was taught an incorrect definition of forgiveness in my youth. I had been taught that forgiveness meant the victim saying that it was “okay” to be hurt by the offender. But, that’s not true. Being hurt by the maliciousness of another is never okay. Rather, forgiveness on the part of the victim is saying “I accept Christ’s sufferings as having compensated for what happened to me”. Forgiveness is accepting Christ’s sufferings in lieu of the offender having to suffer. There are no denials of reality, pretending or lies in true forgiveness.

Southeast: Imagine I’m Robin Williams and you’re Matt Damon, and I’m hugging you and repeating, “It’s not your fault.” More seriously, thanks for sharing. My first experience wasn’t as negative, but I still felt insufficiently prepared. I still can’t say that I have a burning testimony of what goes on in the temple, but I do attend regularly and feel like it helps my life. I hope you feel inclined to give it a second chance.

Thomas Parkin: “I never believed the church was about being a Mormon.” Great line; very interesting idea.

One reason it seems weird to many is that *it is weird*. Every single interaction portrayed in the ceremony (except the God and Christ/Adam and Eve ones) could *not* have happened. Spirit beings can not pick up physical items nor interact in a physical way with humans. So the entire premise of the ceremony needs to be understood as simply being representative of a generic teaching ideal – not anything which actually happened. But given that it is presented in an historical format the presentation causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for many. (In addition, prior to the ceremony being “toned down” as an earlier poster referenced, the impossible interactions were really weird and antagonistic to the rest of the world.) Further the covenants we make there are done in a manner completely different than any a member would have previously made. So in short the ceremony engenders weird experiences simply because it is weird.

I think the best preparation is to: 1) Receive a spiritual wittiness that you are suppose to go to the temple before you do; and 2) Read the Pearl of Great Price, pretty much everything is in there somewhere, and it is presented in a much more logical and understandable manner.

Well we do know the Fall did not happen in the way it is depicted. For any of the following reasons:
1. Satan is a spirit, he can’t interact with people in the manner portrayed.
2. Satan can not be in the physical presence of God.
3. Satan was not turned into (nor could he exist as) a serpent.
4. God would know what had happened and where people were hiding.

I was completely unprepared but had a great experience, not necessarily in the ritual itself, as it was just so very different. But the feeling of the spirit was so strong and overwhelming afterward I felt certain I never wanted to sin again.

But the digression of the comments into the Adam/Even temple narrative also made me think of a few observations I thought were interesting one time:

It’s delicious/desirable
It will make you wise
If you don’t eat you’ll be alone.

I thought the way these play out represent a microcosm of the way many of us justify sin and transgression. Appeals to desires and appetites if that doesn’t work appeals to ration.

I do often think about other peoples first time experience in going to the temple. I get worried it won’t be a good experience for them, for whatever reason, so I appreciate the post. It does seem though, the quality of the experience is up to the individual and their mindset going into and mindset during the temple process.