Warning: This post is critical of and reveals details of aspects of the Mormon temple ceremony. If you feel that such open discussion is offensive, then do not read the rest of the post.
I was nineteen when I was initiated into the world of temple Mormonism. I was a bright but naive kid who had studied the doctrines of the LDS Church with a passion for three years. I joined when I turned eighteen (my parents’ permission was no longer required) and entered the temple after the minimum one year waiting period. I even took a “temple preparation class.” Even so, I was completely unprepared for the oaths of secrecy and the bizarre rites within.
In the course of a few hours,
- I stripped naked in a modest cell in a carpeted locker room and put on only a stiff, blanket-like “shield” (like a poncho, but without a hood).
- Older men in white suits pronounced blessings on me as they touched water and consecrated oil to my head, face, neck, chest, stomach/hips, and legs.
- Another man helped me put on my first pair of sacred undergarments.
- After getting dressed, I received a new name which I was told to keep “sacred.”
- I watched a movie with dozens of others that told a ritualized story of creation and the Garden of Eden. At the appropriate moments, we took oaths, pantomimed our own violent deaths, learned “sacred” handshakes and passwords, and put on a robe, cap and apron that bears closer resemblance to Masonic regalia than to any other apparel in Western civilization.
There’s a lot more that goes on in the temple, and there are certainly elements of beauty (especially in the building itself), but I’m deliberately crafting this narrative to highlight what I consider to be the most oppressive elements. This is not meant to be a comprehensive or balanced introduction to LDS temple rites. To compensate for this, I will try to include some links in a later post for anyone who wants to learn more details about the inner workings of the temple. I’ll also try to find some more positive (but deliberately ambiguous) descriptions of the experience by devout Mormons (if anyone wants to send me links, I’d appreciate it).
Personally, I find the temple to be one of the most oppressive elements of Mormon practice. Most Saints will disagree with me, but I also know that there are many active members who have similar feelings. While there are a variety of enforcement mechanisms, the dire curses threatened against any who reveal the oaths are a big part of this coerced silence. When I first went through the temple, the mimed consequences for breaking the secrecy were especially gruesome:
The penalties were wholly eliminated from the endowment when the ceremony was streamlined in April 1990. I participated in my own endowment rite a month before these changes were made and had the opportunity to enact the penalties before they were removed. I remember two of the three. When the officiator administered one of the oaths and said (speaking for us), “it would be better for me to take my life,” those of us in attendance mimed, in a stylized manner, slitting our throats from one ear to the other (with our thumb representing the knife). In a later oath we mimed our own disembowelment. Speaking from personal experience, I have a visceral response to this part of the ritual that I do not have to any other elements. The throat-slitting action is particularly strong in my memory, perhaps because it is reinforced by its usage in popular culture outside of the Mormon temple. It is acknowledged that ritual is a powerful teaching tool; I suspect that violent ritual is even more so, because it has the potential to provoke an instinctive visceral response that is then associated with the contextual teaching.
[This is taken from an unpublished research paper I wrote for a seminar on religion and violence (my professor suggested turning it into my Master’s thesis).]
While there are many reasons for secrecy, there is little doubt in my mind that much of what goes on in the temple is morally problematic, coercive, disturbing, and downright weird for anyone who hasn’t grown accustomed to the practices. The penalties described above (which thankfully have been removed) are evidence of this. Another is the “opt-out” portion of the central endowment ceremony. Members are given a momentary opportunity early in the ceremony to leave and refrain from taking the oaths. I think that this only reinforces the illusion of agency. Consider that:
- At this point, we don’t know the specifics of the oaths we’re about to enter into.
- All of the religious leaders we admire and trust have told us that the temple rites are the epitome of LDS spiritual experience (this is reinforced continually in LDS rhetoric).
- We cannot achieve our cherished religious goals (serving a mission and getting married to a faithful LDS spouse in the temple) without going through with the oaths. In fact, most young people are in the temple for the first time precisely because they’re getting married or going on a mission soon after.
- We’re not given more than a minute to reconsider.
- We’re in a room filled with our religious peers.
- Most of us sitting there believe this stuff, and trust God and the Church implicitly.
I highlight this point of the ceremony because it is illustrative of how different people experience the ceremony, the temple, Mormonism in particular and institutional religion in general. To me, this opportunity to opt out is not given in earnest; the full brunt of all the invisible social and cognitive pressures of Mormonism are brought to bear on the temple initiate in this moment. I see it as representative of many of the interactions and relationships in the Church. On the other hand, most devout Mormons see this opportunity to opt out as evidence of the voluntary nature of participation in the Church.
I’ve struggled to understand this disparity in perspective, because it forms a huge divide between how I and some of my LDS friends react to the Church. The Church institution and culture can be likened unto a great river. If you’re happy with where its taking you, you don’t notice the current. But if you decide that you’re not sure you like where you’re headed, your perception of the river changes. You try to backtrack a bit and realize just how powerful, deep and unrelenting that current is. Some of us exhaust ourselves paddling upstream. Others, like me, struggle towards the shore.
Note: Mormons feel that the temple ceremony is the most sacred part of their worship life, and compare discussion of the rites to desecration of the consecrated host or the Qur’an. My personal feeling is that if a religion makes the bold truth claims and exerts the amount of control over its members that Mormonism does, it does not have the right to bracket off the most controversial aspect of its worship from criticism.
I will be moderating the comments for this post closely and will not hesitate to delete trollish comments.
14 responses so far ↓
1 nee // Feb 4, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Well, ya already know some of what I think based on my comments on another thread about the paranoia I developed. I no longer am paranoid. In my next blog post in my journey of faith series I’ll get into my temple experience.
I think your comments about the river and the current are very, very appropriate. Though there are things that I miss about the church, there are aspects of it and Christianity as a whole that are purely about mind control. Who would be a Christian without some manipulation?
2 John White // Feb 4, 2007 at 10:14 pm
You just can’t open your mouth about LDS without blowing my mind, can you?
Now I feel bad about making jokes about secret levels of Quakerism to you. I was honestly joking about Scientology, not LDS (is that better, somehow?). It always stuck out in my mind how taken aback you were.
As for commenting on your actual content and not just my reactions to it, I’ll give it a try, but please realize this is pre-seasoned.
Contrast. The Quaker membership process focuses on introspection and though structured, has essentially no ritual to it.
Compare. All I could think of was a college initiation I went through. I only recently figured out what “Let the Deed Shaw” means.
3 John // Feb 4, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Nee, I’m looking forward to your next chapter. And this post was inspired in part by your comments (and Miko’s). I don’t want to reduce all of Mormonism or Christianity to social control, but it’s definitely a huge part.
John: No worries about the jokes. It’s funny because it just doesn’t apply. And for what it’s worth, I see Mormonism as the Scientology of the 19th century in terms of its strangeness to its contemporaries.
There are huge parallels between fraternity initiation rites and the temple ceremonies. I once sat down with a list of characteristics of initiation ceremonies by Victor Turner and almost every single one applied.
I can’t imagine Quakers surprising their attendees like that. Quakerism has no secrets, as far as I can tell (shoot, you all are openly critical of your own history). It seems that entering would be more like, “Are you sure you want to be a Quaker? Are you really, really sure?”
Um…what does “Let the Deed Shaw” mean?
4 Julia // Feb 4, 2007 at 11:02 pm
“Let the Deed Shaw”, archaic for “Let the Deed Show”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_System_at_Caltech
5 Bored in Vernal // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:36 am
I have a lot of different reactions to the temple, and they are probably not interesting to anyone but myself.
But I also went through the temple after being a member only a year, and in preparation for a mission. It didn’t shock me that much, because the night before I left for Washington, D.C. my friends spent the night and told me all kinds of things that were rumored to happen in the temple: orgies, blood sacrifices, and other bizarre rituals. So although I did have a rough moment when I was told to disrobe and put on a shield, everything was fairly normal compared to their stories.
I thought, and still think that the washings and anointings were beautiful. The first time I went after they were changed, I wept. I really miss the way it used to be.
The part I dislike the most is the vow women make to obey the law of their husband and hearken to their counsel. The change in 1990 to obey the law of the Lord and hearken unto the counsel of the husband as he hearkens unto the Father somehow did not appease me all that much! I guess one of the reasons I do not like this part is because whenever my husband and I disagree he tells me I am not keeping my covenants.
After I had been going to the temple for several years, it got boring. (That’s just me!) So I really kind of turn off the ceremony and spend the time meditating. Which makes it peaceful and introspective. Also I really love symbolism, so sometimes I make up elaborate meanings behind every word, gesture, and item of clothing. For example, this article (see the last two paragraphs) gives an interesting symbolism of the apron. Mine are just as elaborate and possibly only meaningful to myself. But I quite enjoy my time in the temple whenever I come to some convoluted explication of a symbol.
I am so sorry that the temple experience was painful for you and many others. I especially feel for a friend of mine who went to the temple a few months after I did. He walked out during the momentary opportunity he was given to “withdraw” and was never the same afterward.
6 John Remy // Feb 5, 2007 at 6:00 am
Bored, I really appreciate you sharing your feelings concerning the temple (I guess that setting your expectations way low is one way to approach it!) I am concerned that people will encounter this post and be exposed solely to a criticism of the temple, and your description is much more nuanced.
I need to clarify one thing: this post is not meant to be a description of my general attitude to the temple so much as an example of a social control mechanism within Mormonism. My overall experience of it is closer to yours. I married Jana there, which was a beautiful experience, and I loved the relative simplicity of the sealing ceremony. The Los Angeles Temple celestial room is one of my favorite places in all the world, and I spent hours there with Jana holding hands, praying, planning and meditating. The initiatories (the water and oil rite) were my favorite ritual in the temple.
I’m glad you brought up the part about hearkening to the husband (though I am saddened by how it manifests itself in your relationship with your husband). I wanted to work that in as another example of reinforcing social control and hierarchical relationships in the Church. These mechanisms are embedded throughout the lives of the Saints, and not just in the temple.
7 John White // Feb 5, 2007 at 9:25 am
House system at Caltech like the system at Hogwarts? Don’t tell GameBoy, or he’ll end up there.
I wonder whether we Flems were Slitherin? That can’t be right.
8 Andy J. // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm
John, your analogy of the river and current I think is very appropriate in describing this particular topic. Before I was to go on a mission, I went through the temple not only spiritually, morally and ‚ÄúLDS textbook prepared” for the experience, but also with low expectations given everything I had heard from others (my LDS leaders, LDS friends, non-LDS friends and acquaintances, etc.). There are too many reasons for my low expectations to be mentioned here, but to include a couple of examples, once in a while I heard from other endowed members that they sometimes found it difficult to stay awake during some parts of the endowment ceremony. So when everything about the temple and the covenants made there are underscored by everything spiritually important about the Church and the celestial future of its members, there‚Äôs no need to elaborate on this point. I also heard from non-LDS sources that the temple ceremonies were grossly different from other Christian traditions, with oaths and rituals fundamentally manipulative in nature and founded on free masonry practices. As a faithful member, I responded to this with an attitude of ‚ÄúI‚Äôll make that decision for myself once I go through.‚Äù
Now fast-forwarding some, when it came to the “opt-out” portion of the endowment ceremony, as you mentioned, I personally felt aloof when there was no appropriate length of time given to put these oaths under my own spiritual microscope and consider them for myself. For other valid reasons, I felt very alone among my brothers and sisters in the temple, including my own parents. So after the few seconds of time for the ‚Äúopt-out portion‚Äù expired, I then fearfully anticipated the series of oaths I was to make on this day. As a social control mechanism, the fear of consequences‚Äîwhether real or not‚Äîfor breaking these oaths seemed to be one of the main focuses of the ceremony. I was confused. I felt pigeonholed, as if conformity to the events and oaths that were about to transpire on this day were my only option. And one of the more difficult challenges during all of this was struggling to extract any sort of spiritual experience out of this that I could.
Anyway, from my own thoughts and experiences, I think you raise a very valid point. On many levels, social control is built within the framework of Mormonism, whether some members believe this or not. And in this example, I think the oaths made within an LDS temple is just one example of many others that can be brought to the discussion table as it relates to social control within religion. Great topic, by the way.
9 Miko // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“sacred undergarment” I’m sorry, but, “BAHAHAHAHA”. I was weirded out by the Catholic tradition of the scapular, a little brown piece of felt (that gets really dirty and really smelly really quickly) that you’re supposed to wear all the time because, if you die wearing it, you’ll go straight to heaven. I was weirded out not just by the piece of felt and its smelliness but also by the faith attached to it. Like, do you really expect me to believe that this is all it takes?!
In my experience of the Catholic initiation rite, Confirmation (that’s when you “choose” to uphold the Baptismal vows your parents made for you) was that, although we also weren’t “given more than a minute to reconsider”, we did go through a 3 month preparation (much shorter than your year) where we were, basically taught what it meant and (allegedly) given a chance to quit before we made the vows, so as not to end up breaking them later. I felt it was what I was supposed to do, for my family more than for my soul, so I did, but once the ritual started, I knew that the “thinking” period was symbolic of freewill. I don’t know what the Abbot and congregation would’ve done if I’d said, “no wait, I changed my mind, thanx!” And while I didn’t have to pantomime killing myself, I did get a smack to symbolize the agonies of Jesus…
Bored: I know that this will mark me as a PWW and I know my situation is not typical, but if my husband tried to claim that not obeying him meant I was insulting god, that would be grounds for divorce. And not, me packing my bags and leaving him but changing the locks. I’m sorry for all the women (and men) put in the situation that patriarchal religion seems to place all its adherents in. The likening of God to man is one of the reasons I feel more drawn to a Goddess, although I truly believe that the Divine is ungendered. I hope that both he and you can drawn close to each other and the Divine without it standing between you.
10 Steve M. // Feb 5, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Really interesting post.
My first experience in the temple was similar to BiV’s (although, I went through the post-1990 version). I was overwhelmed and a bit confused, but I didn’t come away with negative feelings. Having my family greet me on the other side of the veil in the Celestial Room brought tears to my eyes. But, perhaps more than anything, I was relieved.
Prior to being endowed, I had heard stories of people coming away from their first temple experience weirded out, unsure about whether or not they wanted to continue in Mormonism. I don’t think such experiences are the norm, but they intimidated me nonetheless. I had heard comments here and there about the initiatory ordinance, and I had this picture in my head of myself sitting in the middle of a room, completely naked and vulnerable, being sponged by a couple old men.
I went through the standard temple preparation class, which in my opinion is an insufficient and maybe even insincere attempt at “preparing” people for what they’re about to go through. The course seems to be intentionally vague and needlessly mysterious.
However, my stake president arranged for myself and a couple other soon-to-be missionaries to meet with a high councilman shortly before our temple experience, who gave us a much more frank description of the initiatory. I don’t think this is standard practice in most stakes, but it certainly allayed some of my fears. Then my mother (who came away from her first temple experience feeling like she was a memeber of a “cult,” in her words) took some time to sit down with me, show me each article of temple clothing, and explain how it was to be worn and adjusted throughout the ceremony. I have a really good mom.
Despite these extra preparations, I was still pretty freaked out about the whole temple thing. When I actually received my endowment, I didn’t understand a thing, but it was so much less intrusive and cult-like than what I had imagined that I came out feeling relieved.
Shortly after being endowed, I asked my mom if it ever became clear what the signs and tokens meant and why we did them, and she said that she still didn’t know why we did them, but that the temple had become an uplifting experience for her. As my parents’ golden child (I was pretty stalwart, well-behaved, faithful, and active in the Church), and in light of my impending departure on a mission, I didn’t allow myself to question the temple further. I considered it spiritual and uplifting because it was supposed to be. And eventually I thought up my own symbolism and made my own guesses as to why we did what we did, and the temple did become a special part of my worship.
However, I remember the anxiety I felt as my wife (then fiancee) prepared to receive her endowment. I tried my best to prepare her for the experience, to tell her as much as I could and to help her understand it as I did. Despite my efforts, she still felt like she “was a member of a cult” (her words) after going through.
She’s only gone a handful of times since then, and has suffered constant guilt over her infrequent temple attendance. So often temple attendance is held up as one of the primary indicators of righteousness and devotion in the Church.
Sorry this is so lengthy. I’m rather long-winded. But I just wanted to get around to saying that, even though my own temple experience was not traumatic, your descriptions of the temple endowment are dead-on. It really is a tool for social control, in some ways.
My feeling is that if the Church does not decide to change the endowment, that there needs to be much more honest and sincere efforts to prepare members for the endowment, particularly as it pertains to the commitments they will be expected to make.
11 Andy J. // Feb 5, 2007 at 5:13 pm
#10 “My feeling is that if the Church does not decide to change the endowment, that there needs to be much more honest and sincere efforts to prepare members for the endowment, particularly as it pertains to the commitments they will be expected to make.” Steve M., my feeling is the same, and I think this would be a fabulous change of policy for the future of the LDS Church, or at least a step in the right direction.
However, I‚Äôm also convinced that there is very little currently in development for such change, unfortunately. Just the other day I read a couple recent articles in the “Ensign” and “New Era” that reminded me of this. The gist of the two articles was largely the same, though written to different age audiences. To paraphrase, these articles addressed the question, ‚ÄúWhy do temple ordinances bear some resemblances to other cultural groups and religious traditions found in history?‚Äù In my opinion, the answers were not only weak, but ‚Äúincredibly vague‚Äù and ‚Äúneedlessly mysterious,‚Äù as you put it when you described your experiences from temple prep class. “I went through the standard temple preparation class, which in my opinion is an insufficient and maybe even insincere attempt at ‚Äòpreparing‚Äô people for what they‚Äôre about to go through. The course seems to be intentionally vague and needlessly mysterious.‚Äù So whether in LDS print or in a temple prep class, I guess there‚Äôs still a tradition of the LDS Church being intentionally vague and needlessly mysterious about certain facts of history, especially as they relate to temple ordinances and their course of origin. I bring this up not to ridicule certain LDS beliefs and its members, but to also point out that oftentimes information control‚Äîfrom LDS manuals to teachings discussed in Sunday school‚Äîis another kind of social control used within the framework of Mormonism. I think it will be interesting to see how these social and information controls develop in the future for the LDS Church, or if they will ever dismantle and become something else.
12 Miko // Feb 5, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I think Steve M.’s observation that the Mormon Temple experience (MTe) “really is a tool for social control, in some ways” is true of most, if not all religions.
It seems to me that part of the community of any church is its homogeneity. That is, people gravitate towards likeminded people (see: MoF). Once together, however, new members are encouraged to be likeminded as well (see: MTe). For the established members, this is comforting; for some of the new members, this is stifling; for the large majority, however, the need to belong or be similar trumps any weirdness.
This discussion has lead me to ponder about the fact that membership in most such groups is predicated on a sign that the members know. Whether it is a secret handshake, Temple initiation, or a headscarf, the members require something-which-differeniates a member (the known, the comfortable) from a non-member (the unknown, the scary).
13 Elise // Feb 6, 2007 at 8:45 am
As one who grew up in Mormonism but never went to the temple, it has been really interesting to hear all of you relate your experiences. Thanks for sharing.
I wonder sometimes what my reaction would have been, had I gone. I really can’t say. I do know that, in high school, I asked several very difficult/complex questions to my priesthood leaders and was told that they could not tell me the answers but that one day I would learn them when I went through the temple. I had built up expectations that the temple ceremony would be a radically more elaborate, intellectual, and detailed explanation of all things spiritual and supernatural and that all of my doctrinal concerns would be cleared up there. Later when I found out more about what people experience there, I was disappointed to learn there was not the candid discussion and dialogue about sacred things that I would have expected had I gone.
14 Miko // Feb 6, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I think all religions could benefit from that! I remember my experiences with “Sunday school” including my preparation for Confirmation as being much less dialectic than I expected/needed. A few of my sister’s Bible study groups were much more consistent with the open dialogue I had come to realize I was the only one interested in, but there was no one of supposed authority, so it felt very clandestine. There seems to be an equation of “the sacred” with “the unspoken” that concerns me about religion. While too much discussion of the sacred could very well make it mundane, too little makes it inaccessable.
Leave a Comment