My wife Mary had to wait until she was 23 (read sufficiently ready or prepared) before she could go to the temple to receive her endowments. Someone else I know received her endowments when she was still a teenager; not because she was ready, but because she was getting married two hours later. In fact, I would venture to say she was not at all prepared for the endowment experience. While it would only be guessing, the endowment experience may be the very reason she hasn’t been back for several years and still does not have a recommend.
Anyhow, the point is: why is spiritual preparation important for some, but not important for others? Why is spiritual preparation not a requirement of new brides?
My understanding of the policy is that the preparation required is, in practice, seen as important because it will prevent the person from committing serious sin (read: sexual sin) against the more serious covenants of the temple. In theory, preparation is important for other reasons as well, but this is the only reason that anyone really takes into account.
Brides are much less likely to commit adultery than single sisters are to commit fornication. Therefore, less spiritual preparation is required to ensure that they won’t sin against their new covenants, and most (if not all) brides who are worthy are considered to be prepared.
Besides, telling a bride that she’s unprepared will either cause her to prolong her engagement to get a temple marriage (long engagements are bad) or cause her to get a civil marriage (also bad.) There’s no good way to change the policy to requrire brides to be more ready.
Unless… we stress temple preparation in YW. But I don’t think anyone’s willing to do that. They’re too busy with other things to be able to spend meaningful time helping the girls progress toward temple readiness.
If you asked your bishop whether new brides are supposed to be spiritually prepared to enter the temple, do you think he would say no? If he were interviewing a woman about to be married and considered her spiritually unready for the temple, do you think he would feel bound to issue her a recommend?
The person above is not the only one of which I know who was not ready to enter the temple when she got married. They all had different bishops who issued the recommends, and all of them were engaged for short period of time (a few months).
I won’t go so far as saying it is a practice for all bishops to issue recommends lightly to young women with more than a word of caution for the bride to try to prepare herself; however, the sample I do have to draw from is fairly diverse and widespread to state that ti may be a common practice.
Who’s to be the judge of who is or isn’t ready to go to the temple? Anyone getting married is presumed to be an adult, presumed to be ready to accept parenthood, ready to commit all their might, mind, and strength to the church. I don’t think we can just add another box to a standardized recommend interview process, saying that although this young woman is free from major moral shortfalls and is mature enough to be married, the Bishop withholds the recommend because he doesn’t think she can cut it. It’s not quantitative.
Who gets to decide what “spiritual preparation” is? Its a set of rules, not entirely arbitrary. But, at some point you have to draw a line, and wherever that line is drawn there will be exceptions to it. We dont baptize kids before 8, some kids are more mature than others, does that mean 8 is bad? No, you have to draw the line somewhere. Its the same with the Temple.
Kim, what makes you think the bishops were doing what they did “lightly.” They probably felt satisfied that each of these prospective brides had adequate spiritual preparation. Maybe they were wrong, and maybe your assessment is wrong. Either way, that doesn’t mean they issued recommends “lightly.”
Kurt
You are right. At some point you do have to draw the line.
What I find (or rather found, I don’t know if this is the case everywhere or just where I grew up and what I see)is that the focus in YW is not on the temple so much, but on temple marriage and being worthy to be married in the temple. However, being worthy and prepared are not the same thing. I wish in YW we had hgad more temple preparation and more importance put on the endowment rather than the bulk of it being on the sealing ordinance.
or i should say the bulk of it being on getting married.
Point taken. But, seriously, how much Temple prep does anyone receive? The so-called “Temple Prep Class” has pretty much nothing about the Temple in it, its just a big primer on gospel basics. And when was the last time anyone in Church has a seriously substantive discussion on the meaning or symbolism of Temple covenants or imagery or anything?
i know, but i think maybe the preparation should be on the seriousness of the covenants. the importance of them. but many young brides are so focussed on getting married the only see the endowment as a means to an end.
I was young when I married and when we had been married a year or so we got ready to go to the temple. We took the classes at that time and it didn’t just cover the temples but the covenants as well (well as much as can be discusses outside the temple). The teacher was very serious about the importance of keeping the covenants you make there.
But I was still not prepared for what I went through emotionally and spiritually when I went for my first time. If I could have bolted at that point without drawing attention to myself ( hubby and I were the head couple) I would have gone.
Now it isn’t a problem I love going through but I have never forgotten that first experience and I go out of my way to help those going the first time by talking to them, answering questions that they might have. When our daughter went through when she got married I made sure she knew what she was going to be going through and it was a lot easier for her.
I too agree that in YW there should be more emphasis on being temple ready but having never worked in YW I have no idea how much work and energy is spent on that. You can be a member all your life growing up and you have heard all through childhood about being married in the temple but I truly believe being told about it and actually being prepared is completely a separate thing.
I also think part of the problem is a lot of what goes on in the temple is sacred and can not be discussed. I believe there should be more in depth teachings in the temple preparation classes. Here it is a 3 month course.
I really dislike this practice too. I got married soon after turning 20.
In some ways a temple marriage for a girl is a mission for a boy. If I hadn’t gotten married in the temple, I would have severely This really bugs me that I was disappointed many people. If my family weren’t mormon, I probably would have looked at other options. As it is, I made the covenant towards the church solely to get married. I wasn’t even ALLOWED to take out my endowments until a couple weeks before I was married.
I dislike that the covenant to commit your life to the church is not necessarily motivated by any love towards the church itself, but as a necessary step for the church to allow you to marry (in the temlple).
woops, proof reading is a good thing. The third sentence should read:
If I hadn’t gotten married in the temple, I would have severely disappointed my entire family.
Going to the temple is like serving a mission in that there is no preparation for what one will face. We don’t even explain to people beforehand that there’s a symbolic set liturgy with special clothes akin to a mass (hence the common refrain “I found out I was in the Catholic church after all.â€. In disciplinary matters, the church seems to acknowledge the no real preparation issue by often showing leniency with repentant temple covenant violators. The temple instruction being further updated to suit our times would help a lot, but that’s a different issue from preparation.
The sacred/secret tradition of not discussing temple issues outside the temple doesn’t help matters. Just as USAF secrecy causes some to believe the US Gov’t harbors aliens in Area 51, a common rumor in my youth was you had to consummate your marriage in front of witnesses in the temple, hence all the hush-hush secrecy. That’s what secrecy does.
It is a well documented fact that people whose first marriage is at a very young age (under 21) are much more likely to end in divorce.
A big difference is emotional and spiritual maturity.
Another big factor is the length of the courtship period. Research shows that a big difference in relationships between those that get married after dating each other for less than one year as opposed to dating more than one year.
Marriage is a huge decision and should be carefully planned and researched.
Roland
It’s not marriage though, that is the question here, it is being prepared to go to the Temple, to be endowed and make the covenants and understand the importance of them.
I don’t think there needs to be huge discussion on what goes on IN the temple. But understanding the importance of the covenants being made and being prepared to accept and make them. it is not something that should be taken lightly.
I’m sure the Bishops didn’t make the decision to issue recommends to the young brides “lightly.” The point is that they took the decision to issue a recommend to a single sister much more heavily. I still think it comes back to chastity and the chance for temptation, as well as there not being a good alternative for ill-prepared brides.
Ariel
That’s true, but Chastity isn’t the only convenant involved in the temple ordinacnes, however it seems to be the one that more focus is made on, I personally believe all the covenants made in the temple are as important as that one. Though perhaps, the chastity one is more easily broken.
“Anyone getting married is presumed to be an adult, presumed to be ready to accept parenthood, ready to commit all their might, mind, and strength to the church.”
An inaccurate presumption in some cases, unfortunately. Especially considering some girls are married and divorced before they hit their 20th birthday. Given the reasons why some people I know got married (legitimised sex, another parent to help look after their children, someone to support their lifestyle, etc), I do not think it is a safe assumption to make that anyone getting married is simply doing it because they are mature and responsible and are ready to make a lifelong commitment out based on communication, companionship and substantial love.
“although this young woman is free from major moral shortfalls and is mature enough to be married”
That’s just it. I’m not sure that bishops (or anyone else for that matters) really use any criteria to determine if someone is mature enough to be married. If someone would like to prove this assumption wrong, be my guest. I would be more than happy for someone to show to me that bishops quantitatively determine a girls’ maturity before marriage. Honestly, I would really love to be wrong.
“We dont baptize kids before 8, some kids are more mature than others, does that mean 8 is bad? No, you have to draw the line somewhere. Its the same with the Temple.”
It’s not the same with the temple. It’s completely different. There is one set of rules for children. you have to be eight.
There are three sets of rules for women. You go to the temple if you are going on a mission, are getting married or are spiritually prepared. I can see a correlation between going on a mission and spiritual preparation. I do not see the same correlation when someone gets married.
“telling a bride that she’s unprepared will either cause her to prolong her engagement to get a temple marriage (long engagements are bad) or cause her to get a civil marriage (also bad.)”
Why is a civil marriage bad? Some countries require it. Does that make those marriages bad?
“what makes you think the bishops were doing what they did “lightly.—
The fact that none of the women I mentioned in my earlier comments currently attend the temple, and have not since their first time, and stopped attending because of their experiences in the endowment (and/or initiatory) ceremony. I don’t know what that can be attributed to if not a lack of spiritual preparation.
Maybe it’s not a preparation issue, Kim.
Perhaps some things are so shocking, bizarre or spiritual that preparedness does not enter into the equation.
I would imagine that it’s hard to preaper one’s self for being eaten by a shark, for example.
In a related vein: Why is it presumed that if a woman can simply find someone to marry, that she is prepared emotionally, spiritually or financially to acutal *be* married?
Have you even seen an LDS bishop council against marriage at such a young age? I have not, but I have plenty of personal anecdotal evidence that other faiths bishops, ministers and parsons have indeed given such council. Probably for good reason.
I wouldn’t go so far as to speculate that all LDS bishops simply rubberstamp the marriage process, but I’d be interested to know if anyone has actually encountered a bishop wise enough to tell the couple to wait.
Of course the whole law of abstinence thing does complicate the matter…
Or more specifically, maybe it’s not a spiritual preparation issue. Maybe it’s an issue of not being aware of what to expect.
That being said, I know plenty of people who were completely shocked by what they experienced yet were back there again days later. actually, those I know who kept going vastly outnumber those I know who quit going. For the most part, I assume, they received similar amounts of preparation. If that is true, then we would need to assume it was more than just not being aware of it.
And what is it that makes the difference?
I’d say societal/familial coercion … I’m sure some would disagree with me.
Then again, it’s a common method of recovery to relive the experience, now aware of the safety of the event.
Like hitting the scary roller coaster again, while you’re still on the adrenaline high.
Maybe it’s a spiritual high thing.
Or maybe it’s about wanting to be the same as everyone else.
I mean if Mom and Dad and all your sibs don’t have a problem with temple attendance – there must be something wrong with you if you get weirded out, right?
Maybe if you just keep going it’ll get easier (or you’ll get numb to the whole experience).
Kim,
My brother and his wife decided to get a civil marriage before they went to the temple. Well, they never made it to the temple, it’s been 4 years now.
I think that sometimes there could be better preparation for anyone who is going to the temple.
I really don’t think that it is up to the bishop to decide who is “prepared”. The Bishop can offer advice etc. but if the candidate can answer all of the temple interview questions correctly, then I don’t really know what the bishop can do other than that.
That being said, Ian, several of my quorum members in the last year were sealed after having been married civilly. All younger than me.
“if the candidate can answer all of the temple interview questions correctly, then I don’t really know what the bishop can do other than that.”
But, he did do other than that with my wife. She could answer all the questions correctly, yet he decided she could not go, and there are many others with similar experiences.
“There are three sets of rules for women. You go to the temple if you are going on a mission, are getting married or are spiritually prepared.”
I think this is misstating the truth. I think it would be more accurate to say this:
There are three groups of women who should be endowed: Women who are spiritually prepared enough to be endowed and then married in the temple, women who are spiritually prepared enough to be endowed and serve as missionaries, and women who are doing neither of these two things but are older and are still spiritually prepared.
“Women who are spiritually prepared enough to be endowed and then married in the temple”
How do you know they are spiritually prepared enough to be endowed?
I think you are misstating actual practice.
What I’m saying is that probably none of the bishops you mentioned were sending women to the temple without believing that they were spiritually prepared. So when you ask why spiritual preparation isn’t a requirement for brides, you’re ignoring that bishops do look for spiritual preparation in the women they recommend for the temple–including prospective brides.
You ask how you know they are spiritually prepared enough to be endowed. How did the bishop know Mary was spiritually prepared enough to be endowed? I would suppose a bishop who could judge that Mary was ready could also judge some other woman to be ready.
You say I am misstating actual practice. Undoubtedly some exceptions occur. The bishops of the women you refer to in #3 may well have been mistaken in thinking they were spiritually prepared. But saying that bishops may misjudge someone’s spiritual preparedness is quite a different thing from saying that bishops don’t even look for it.
“I would suppose a bishop who could judge that Mary was ready could also judge some other woman to be ready.”
But that’s just it. How many women do you know were told by their bishop to wait getting married in the temple because he thought they were not spiritually ready? And on the chance you do know some, how many of them were denied temple recommends to be married because the bishop did not consider them spiritually prepared?
My current understanding of Church policy on civil marriages (in areas where temple marriages are recognized as legal marriages) is that it is strongly discouraged except in cases where the couple need to marry right away (such as pregnancy). This is why I said it was “bad-” not that it’s bad for everyone, because obviously it isn’t, but it is discouraged by the Church.
I know chastity isn’t the only covenant, but it seems to be the one most frequently and seriously taken into account when leaders consider whether a single woman is likely to break covenants in a serious way. I still believe that single women are held to a much higher standard of preparation than women who are about to marry. (A girl at a local High School was married in the temple during her senior year to her RM boyfriend. I can’t imagine that a bishop or SP would allow a single sister who was in High School to be endowed, regardless of her apparant maturity.)
That’s because the chastity covenant is something that is concrete. How do you determine if someone is fully consecrating his/her time and talents?
Kim, I can’t think of any women I know in those categories, because I generally don’t stick my nose into people’s very personal matters. Why would they tell me a thing so private as that?
ltbugaf
You don’t? (stick your nose into people’s very personal matters). Hmmm, I wonder if Steve EM knows this?
“How do you determine if someone is fully consecrating his/her time and talents?”
Kim, I think this one is pretty clear, and that sadly, nobody I know does it! Other than say, missionaries and other full-time church workers, don’t we all give away too much of our time and talents to worldly things?
My husband, and every other married elder I know, is spending the next 8 hours working for $ in babylon. this bugs us tremendously.
Mary, I didn’t ask Steve EM to tell me what goes on in his temple interviews. He came out on a public web site and told everyone about it, on his own initiative, explaining which questions he lies about and how he justifies doing so. Frankly, I would have preferred that he keep it private.
ltbugaf
I was being facetious.
I still don’t know what to make of this site…although I like coming here and reading the discussions, I am not so sure what is just a ponderous question or something else.
At any rate, I don’t think anyone can be fully prepared to attend the temple, whether to go on a mission or be married. After all, we aren’t supposed to talk about what goes on in the temple, outside of the temple. AND if you haven’t ever been to the temple how can you talk about what goes on in the temple.
I won’t comment on what makes on person more prepared because I just don’t know. What makes a person prepared for marriage? I don’t know that either. I do know that I got married VERY early, after being a member only 3 years and I have been married for over 10 years now.
I think it is too bad that people have bad experiences in the temple, I have never felt that way and cannot relate in any way shape or form.
One thing though, regardless of age, I am not sure a Bishop can refuse a temple marriage if the person is in a committed relationship and there is nothing that would bar them from getting a temple recommend. It may constitute or be bordering on illegal? I’m not a lawyer…just a thought…
K.
“we aren’t supposed to talk about what goes on in the temple, outside of the temple.”
We’re not? What makes you say this?
I don’t think talking about what happens in the temple is what is needed. What I think is that understanding the importance of the covenants, of the endowment should be focussed on, before entering the temple. In Young Women, I remember being taught the importance of being MARRIED in the temple. And of course, this is true, but not knowing, until I went to the temple, how important the endowment was. Being sealed is only a part of it, it isn’t the end all, be all. But the covenants we make with the Lord in the endowment are vitally important to gaining understanding, strengthening our testimonies and understanding our purpose in life. A wedding, a marriage, these are important and valid issues, but our eternal progression doesn’t entirely depend on temple marriage, but also, more importantly, on the temple endowment. Of course we can’t talk about this in detail. But if, in classes and gospel discussion, young women are taught the importance of the covenants made, the Spirit can testify and help them be more prepared. It isn’t necessary to know the details to be more spiritually prepared.
ltbugaf said that people don’t tell him such private matters, but you don’t have to be told how prepared or not someone is. And of course who can judge how prepared someone is? It is different for everyone. I know one woman who wasn’t ready to go to the temple and her first experience was her last. She was endowed, sealed and it was too much for her. She couldn’t handle it. Because of her lack of preparation, she completely left the Church and as a wife and a mother, is still very bitter towards the Church. For others it isn’t necessarily as severe. I do think that regular attendance, personal scripture study and regular personal prayer can help to recify this afterwards, but it would help if this happened BEFORE, more so. With some it does. With others, not so much. The temple is so very important in the eternal aspect of things, in realising our eternal purpose that truly understanding, spiritually, the blessing of the endowment, wecan be open to the spirit and can be “ready” to grow spiritually. OK, I am probably about as clear as mud.
There is nothing wrong with young marriages. I think, however, that whatever the age, there needs to be a fairly decent understanding at least of the importance of the endowment, of the covenants made, to be able to grow spiritually. It will make us better wives, mothers and individuals. Not saying the potential to be so isn’t already there, but it will certainly save time. Sort of like missionaries who decide to prepare to be missionaries out on their missions. If they had done it before, they wouldn’t have wasted 6 months finding their testimonies so they could let the Spirit teach the investigators. This happens sometimes too.
Getting married doesn’t automatically create a spiritually prepared woman (or man). It takes a lot more work, prayer, study and desire. Not just the desire to be married.
“And when was the last time anyone in Church has a seriously substantive discussion on the meaning or symbolism of Temple covenants or imagery or anything?”
Last Sunday, Temple Prep class in Hyde Park 1st Ward, Chicago Stake :)
Mary said, “many young brides are so focussed on getting married the only see the endowment as a means to an end.”
This has been a problem for a long time. You’ll love what George Q. Cannon said in 1894.
“And of course who can judge how prepared someone is? It is different for everyone.”
Mary, you know the answer to that question, don’t you? Who’s appointed to judge these things?
Jesus Christ. His Bishops are in the position to discern in behalf of Him, but that doesn’t mean they are perfect. More than one person has lied to a Bishop. Not the Bishop’s fault either.
I agree with Ben S.’s statements and quotes.
The problem is that most of these decisions are made arbitrarily by human beings, not the Savior.
I’ve seen most decisions in the church made differently from one ward to the next. For instance, I know of a young couple who erred and the girl became pregnant, they were both excommunicated. They didn’t get re-baptized till their oldest child was 15. That was a bad decision, in my opinion. Most bishops will decide to err on the side of mercy in these cases (the age of the couple was 16, 16 years old and excommunicated).
Same with temple recommends. I was given a temple recommend 6 weeks after taking my last drink, a gamble on the part of my sweet bishop. But I’ve seen others punished for years for stuff like that.
Being a bishop is powerful stuff.
“Being a bishop is powerful stuff.”
And based on my experiences in bishoprics, something I am trying to avoid.
annegb
very true. i know years and years ago they were excommunitcating young and easily. now they are not being as hasty. i believe they are finding that it is easier to work with people who are not excommunicated, especially those who weren’t ever active in the first place, so really had no idea why or what they were being ex’d for. yes, being a Bishop is powerful stuff.
Mumblers and discontents arise…hehe…I have a VERY strong reaction when someone pulls the old argument…’but I know two couples that were in exactly the same circumstance and one was excommunicated and one was not’. It seems to me that we somehow think we are privy to very personal matters of people, situations that sometimes it would have been difficult for them to even tell their Bishop. So how do we KNOW that their situations were EXACTLY the same. WE DON’T. To me that is really a moot question. No two situations are ever alike. In my opinion, because Bishops are called of GOD, I take it on faith that they and their Bishopric are following the promptings of the Spirit. YES, Bishops are ONLY men, but lets give them a little credit people…I think they screw up less than people like to think. (and if you like to think your Bishopric is a major screw up then perhaps you should have a little chat with your Stake Pres.) Unless you have had the opportunity to serve as a BISHOP, then maybe we should spend a little less time criticizing (and yes, people have been criticizing…justify it however you want for “simple questioning”) and more time strengthening OURSELVES in the GOSPEL.
K.
actually some i do know and i know others do as well. when my grandpa was in the stake presidency years and years ago, they were excommunicating basically if someone was inactive and had no desire to come to church (well why would they if they knew nothing about it?) one family in particular he felt really bad about (he wasn’t the decision making person in this). they had two teenagers, both baptised, never been to church, the family was visited and 14 year old girl and 16 year old boy were asked if they wanted to be members of the church. they were somewhat bewildered, had really no IDEA what the church was about, and when they said “not really” were told “ok, then shall we remove your name from the records?” they assented, again without really understanding and actually were excommunicated, didn’t just have their names removed. this was in vancouver, b.c. don’t know if it was like that all over. this was in the 70’s.
anyway, i don’t see that anyone is criticising so much. my first contention and still is, that if more time and effort was placed on actually preparing spiritually for the endowment instead of racing madly towards the altar to be married, then it would make for more spiritually prepared young couples, etc etc. i don’t think any Bishop or Bishopric makes any major screw-ups. or at least I assume they don’t. No one is perfect, everyone works with the understanding and knowledge they gain at different times in their lives.
having been in Young Women, I know that more emphasis usually is put on being married in the Temple, not on the endowment. It wasn’t until I was preparing to be endowed that I fully understood the importance of that ordinance. We don’t need to teach them the details, just help them understand the importance of the covenants being made. Is that so bad?
“We don’t need to teach them the details, just help them understand the importance of the covenants being made.”
For some reason, this kind of a statement makes me uneasy.
Can it be re-stated as ‘It’s not important whether or not you understand what you’re agreeing to … it’s only important that you understand what will befall you, should we decide that you’ve broken the agreement’?
Rick, the covenants made in the temple are the same ones made at baptism. There is nothing outlandish or wierd about them. The difference is the responsibility you gain, making those covenants. When I went to the temple for the first time, I realised that though people talk about the secrecy, it’s not that, that is the issue, it is truly the sacredness.
When I say we don’t need to teach them the details, I mean the details of what exactly happens in the temple. It really is too sacred to be bandied around the world.
You say po-tay-to, and I say po-tah-to…
;)