"I learn something new every time I go to the temple"

[Hagoth]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you actually did learn something new every time you did an endowment? I don't mean something about a more efficient way to move the robe from the left shoulder to the right, or some kind of insight into the meanings of the tokens.

Imagine how it would feel to come away every time with some amazing new piece of useful information about the nature of the universe or the meaning of life that could only be learned in LDS temples. Imagine the things that would be accomplished by people who have spent thousands of hours in the temple.

[wtfluff]

Probably like all of us, I heard that saying countless times during my career as a believing mormon.

Funny though, I don't ever remember anyone actually saying what that "new thing" they learned was. Not once.

Anybody here ever "learn something new" at the temple, or hear any details about all these "new things" that temple-goers are learning all the time?

I mean, well... I definitely learned something new the first time through. After that? Well, yeah, I got better at the "secret" repetitions, and putting the toga on correctly, other than that. Yeah... Nothing.

[moksha]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you actually did learn something new every time you did an endowment?

Such as observing the Celestial area from an aerial view and noticing the furniture is arranged in a 666 pattern?

[JustHangingOn@57]

I learned a couple of things:

* If you are not paying attention, your robe will get caught on the chair armrest so that when you quickly stand up it will rip in half, requiring a short break in the ceremony while a replacement is acquired.

* If your mind is wandering when the new name is given you assure yourself of a humiliating experience at the Veil.

I found that the hundreds of temple ceremonies I performed were strange, confusing (differentiation between literal and figurative), and FROM DAY 1 seemed culty.

Did not learn a thing (hangs head).

[a1986]

I learned a couple of things:

* If you are not paying attention, your robe will get caught on the chair armrest so that when you quickly stand up it will rip in half, requiring a short break in the ceremony while a replacement is acquired.

* If your mind is wandering when the new name is given you assure yourself of a humiliating experience at the Veil.

too funny. . .

Yep, this seems to be a common line I heard a lot of people tell me to "prepare" me before I went for the first (and last) time. Wish someone would have told me how awkward I'd feel at the veil giving my new HIDEOUS name to my husband at the veil and nearly bursting into laughter at actually saying the name aloud. Or how terrible I'd feel after feeling tricked into agreeing to "hearken" to my husband while he hearkens only to God. Yep, my whole world came crashing down after attending the temple. I realized the whole ceremony was something created by a man, not God. I began to distance myself from that moment on!

[Palerider]

Back in the 1970's I learned that Jehovah stood on the LEFT hand of Elohim and I wondered why. Shouldn't it be the right hand side?

One of my spiritual advisors told me that maybe at that point Jehovah hadn't earned the right to stand on the right yet. But then somewhere in the 90's with some of the "changes" Jehovah began standing on the right hand of Elohim. So he must have done some good deed that allowed him to move over in the 90's I guess.

I also learned that Joseph Smith taught false doctrine either in the temple or the D&C. They both can't be right. In the D&C he teaches that a good spirit cannot deceive you so if you offer him your hand to shake he will refuse to take it. Yet in the temple we have a very friendly premortal Peter offer his hand to Adam who gladly shakes hands with him.

How does that work???

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This reminds me of Daymon Smith's commentary on the endowment in IIRC, his book of mammon where he says that the interpretation of the endowment probably meant something to the early saints in a more literal way, but today it can mean anything to anyone and has lost meaning.

Anecdotal story: My brother once tried to ask a temple authority the meaning of the string from the hat to the robe loops. Expecting a profound answer for the symbolism, he simply said it was to keep the robe up on your shoulder!

[Palerider]

Right, and the more likely scenario is that the robe keeps pulling your bakers hat off....

[Rob4Hope]

I learned some new things, like twice. Like the 2nd Anointing is advertised right in the beginning of the endowment. That the only thing I said I wouldn't share were tokens and signs (and in my day penalties), but EVERYONE FREAKED OUT if you even mentioned something in there, but not related to that part.

And I learned to deal with feeling freaky when I saw all the women wearing wedding dresses, like it was a giant wedding happening. I've since seen "Moonie" cult pictures, which made the hair on my neck stand up. Yep,...I learned plenty.

I learned that you make enemies really fast if you talk about the ceremony at all!

I also learned that the final covenant is you giving everything to the church. Christ's name isn't even in that one.

[Ghost]

I've always assumed that people mean that they gain new insight by revelation, either into a principle that's tied to something mentioned or into something about themselves that they can improve. I felt as if experienced this sort of thing myself at times while sort of meditating during the proceedings or having a particular line jump out at me in connection with something I had been thinking about.

Perhaps this sort of statement, when spoken aloud, also carries an implication that if this is not happening for you then you aren't approaching it quite right.

[alas]

It actually took me quite a while to learn how very sexist it really was. When they explain things during the ceremony, they explain from the man's endowment, as if they are the same. But they are very different. They talk like the person at the veil is standing proxy for THE Lord, as in Jesus Christ. And for men, the person at the veil is standing proxy for God. But for women, whoever is at the veil is either her husband or is standing proxy for her husband. This "little fact" is never explained in the ceremony, so women are confused by their husband/finance being there when they get their own endowment or having to do the mini ceremony if they get their endowment long before finding a husband. I have heard it said or seen it written a gazillion times that the husband is standing as proxy for Jesus. No, you misunderstand, your husband is your "lord" and in the eternities will be your God. You have to pay very close attention to the ceremony to catch the many ways this doctrine is shown, because it is never explained. You have to actually piece it together by assembling five or six fragments. The woman is told she will be a queen and priestess "unto" her husband, while he is told that he will be a king and priest "unto the most high God." She hearkens (used to use the word obey) unto her husband as he hearkens unto God. This is not a statement that she is to obey him *if* or *when* he obeys God. No, she is supposed to obey him as or like he is supposed to obey God. She does not promise this to God, but to her husband. Her covenant relationship is not with God, but with her husband. She becomes his in the exact same way that we are all taught that we are children of God and we belong to him. Well, women only belong to God because their husband does. I heard someone say once that Heavenly Father does not have daughters, he has daughters in Law. Then at the veil, this relationship is made clear when the man is taken through the veil by Jesus, while the woman is taken through by her personal god. Then, if it s not clear yet, during the sealing, she gives herself to him and he receives her. He does not give himself to her, because he belongs to God, while she belongs to him.

My first time through I was too horrified by how culty it was to see the sexism. The first time through I saw how the BOM says that evil combinations where you promise to keep secrets or give your life rather than give away the secret, are of Satan. So, then in the temple I promise to give my life before revealing the secret. Red lights start flashing and the alarm is going of, and this voice is saying Satan, Satan, Satan, like my fire alarm says fire, fire, fire.

[Hagoth]

I've always assumed that people mean that they gain new insight by revelation, either into a principle that's tied to something mentioned or into something about themselves that they can improve. I felt as if experienced this sort of thing myself at times while sort of meditating during the proceedings or having a particular line jump out at me in connection with something I had been thinking about.

Perhaps this sort of statement, when spoken aloud, also carries an implication that if this is not happening for you then you aren't approaching it quite right.

That's a good observation, Ghost. I wasn't thinking of it that way. Of course, you can abstract the temple right out of it. As far as personal introspection goes, I would be far more accurate if I stood up in Sacrament Meeting and said, "I learn something new every time I take a shower."

[Reuben]

I've always assumed that people mean that they gain new insight by revelation, either into a principle that's tied to something mentioned or into something about themselves that they can improve. I felt as if experienced this sort of thing myself at times while sort of meditating during the proceedings or having a particular line jump out at me in connection with something I had been thinking about.

Perhaps this sort of statement, when spoken aloud, also carries an implication that if this is not happening for you then you aren't approaching it quite right.

That's a good observation, Ghost. I wasn't thinking of it that way. Of course, you can abstract the temple right out of it. As far as personal introspection goes, I would be far more accurate if I stood up in Sacrament Meeting and said, "I learn something new every time I take a shower."

I'm suddenly glad that bishops have the ability to cut the mic.

[Red Ryder]

I learned nothing bad happens to you if you don't take the shoe/slippers off and then put them back on.

I learned I like blonds better than brunettes.

I also learned delusions flow freely!

[Rob4Hope]

It actually took me quite a while to learn how very sexist it really was. When they explain things during the ceremony, they explain from the man's endowment, as if they are the same. But they are very different. They talk like the person at the veil is standing proxy for THE Lord, as in Jesus Christ. And for men, the person at the veil is standing proxy for God. But for women, whoever is at the veil is either her husband or is standing proxy for her husband. This "little fact" is never explained in the ceremony, so women are confused by their husband/finance being there when they get their own endowment or having to do the mini ceremony if they get their endowment long before finding a husband. I have heard it said or seen it written a gazillion times that the husband is standing as proxy for Jesus. No, you misunderstand, your husband is your "lord" and in the eternities will be your God. You have to pay very close attention to the ceremony to catch the many ways this doctrine is shown, because it is never explained. You have to actually piece it together by assembling five or six fragments. The woman is told she will be a queen and priestess "unto" her husband, while he is told that he will be a king and priest "unto the most high God." She hearkens (used to use the word obey) unto her husband as he hearkens unto God. This is not a statement that she is to obey him *if* or *when* he obeys God. No, she is supposed to obey him as or like he is supposed to obey God. She does not promise this to God, but to her husband. Her covenant relationship is not with God, but with her husband. She becomes his in the exact same way that we are all taught that we are children of God and we belong to him. Well, women only belong to God because their husband does. I heard someone say once that Heavenly Father does not have daughters, he has daughters in Law. Then at the veil, this relationship is made clear when the man is taken through the veil by Jesus, while the woman is taken through by her personal god. Then, if it s not clear yet, during the sealing, she gives herself to him and he receives her. He does not give himself to her, because he belongs to God, while she belongs to him.

My first time through I was too horrified by how culty it was to see the sexism. The first time through I saw how the BOM says that evil combinations where you promise to keep secrets or give your life rather than give away the secret, are of Satan. So, then in the temple I promise to give my life before revealing the secret. Red lights start flashing and the alarm is going of, and this voice is saying Satan, Satan, Satan, like my fire alarm says fire, fire, fire.

Great post!

I've heard others talk about this, and it is a type of oppression. It takes a lot of gall when I hear Q15 members explain how God honors his daughters. No he doesn't--the goal is to placate.

I didn't know much about Kate Kelly, but I like her attitude. The "brethren" got rattled--and you better believe the Q15 were involved in her being exed.

[RubinHighlander]

I tried to make this work, digging deep and straining my mental gymnastics to new tricks, but at the end of the day, it diminished for me before I even entered NOMdom. Sometimes temple workers were bumbling idiots and sometimes local leaders were power mongering Aholes who liked to mess with members eternal lives.

Perhaps if they got rid of that ridiculous creation film and showed new episodes of Nova on how the universe really works, using images from our advanced astronomical machines instead of rocks hanging from strings. The COB got money yo! So dial it up and at least get some decent CGI going there. The most exciting thing in the film was the overacting and breaking of the branch off the tree, now what they got? I'm glad I don't have to wade through any of that muck anymore.


The blood oath penalties were freaky scary, but they took those out and keep shortening and dummying it all down. What will it look like in 10-20 years?

[RS Teacher]

She hearkens (used to use the word obey) unto her husband as he hearkens unto God. This is not a statement that she is to obey him *if* or *when* he obeys God. No, she is supposed to obey him as or like he is supposed to obey God. She does not promise this to God, but to her husband.

Thank you for making this point! When I went through the temple at age 21 (right before my mission--30 years ago) this was exactly what threw me for the biggest loop. I'd spent years excusing the sexism in the church because it's a human institution, run by men. But the temple . . . that was supposed to be unfiltered, direct access to God, not at all polluted by human prejudices. These were the exact words God wanted us to hear, the exact ceremony God provided us.

If I hadn't already made a very public commitment to serve a mission, I would have walked away right then. I remember spending the day following my endowment walking around BYU campus in a daze, skipping all my classes, grabbing every friend or acquaintance I happened to bump into who had been to the temple and asking them to help me understand. I felt like I was in a ship that was sinking fast. God hated me because I was a girl. I was nothing to him. Oh, it was horrific.

I tried hard to justify that line you mentioned ("she hearkens unto her husband as he hearkens unto God"). I tried to believe that it meant "if." But you're so right. It doesn't mean that at all. I tried to go to the temple a few times after my mission, but I couldn't stand it. I really hate that place, I hate that ceremony, I hate what it tells women about ourselves and our utter insignificance.

[1smartdodog]

Nothing I hate more in Mormonism than the temple and all its associated trappings and requirements

Anyway I never learned much. Usually just had more questions like:

Are those actors really naked behind those plastic bushes?

Do catholic priests really work for the devil (pre 1990)?

Are films or live action better?

What is a healthy navel?

Now when someone claims the learn something new each time I ask them specifically what did you learn last time? Crickets ensue

[Corsair]

Are those actors really naked behind those plastic bushes?

Do catholic priests really work for the devil (pre 1990)?

Are films or live action better?

Seriously, I prefer the movie over the live action. These are old people just phoning it in and it's hard to take Adam and Eve seriously when they are slowly shuffling along because the post mortal realm is a way closer than pre-Earth life for them.

However, one thing I seriously did learn in the temple came from one live session I attended before 1990. Satan totally wears his own apostate apron and it looked like it was ripped off from the local Masonic temple. It was light blue with a couple of embroidered symbols including a Greek column and probably a square and compass over an angled "grid" background. Since 1990, Lucifer just wears a dark suit and apparently is counseled to not magnify his calling as much as Michael Ballam chews the scenery in the movie. Surely Salt Lake City, Manti, or Cardston has one of Lucifer's old blue aprons stuffed in a supply closet somewhere.

Former Mormons who did work on the film crew of the temple movies have confirmed that Adam and Eve were wearing swimsuits. They are always a real-life married couple, apparently. Security is pretty tight on these film shoots. Scripts are numbered and cannot be taken home at night.

Trinitarian based Christian pastors were working for Satan before 1990, but ignorantly so. The endoment position on the Nicene creed base Christian beliefs is a pathetic straw man of reality. It sloppily ignores two thousand years of Christian thought that might explain the systematic theology of the Trinity. Mormons should not fool themselves over why Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals think they are not Christian based solely on the pre-1990 temple drama.

[Just This Guy]

One of the things that struck me about the temple when I first went there is just how little of it was new. I came out very disappointed that I didn't actually learn anything from it when I took my endowment out.