Skip to main content
Some links on this page are Amazon affiliate links. We may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases.

My Temple Experience

I want to share a little bit about my experience going through a Mormon temple. Specifically, I’m going to talk about the expectations that were set up from a young age, what it was like the first few times I went, and how I eventually lost my faith in temple worship overall.

I grew up in northern Utah. My parents were LDS, so I was a child of the covenant. I was baptized at eight and raised in church culture—Boy Scouts, Young Men’s, seminary, a mission. Basically the typical path you’d expect from a Mormon boy.

The point I want to make is that the decision to attend the temple wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment choice. You don’t just wake up one day and decide to go. At least not in my experience. I was born into the church, started attending Primary, and from that point on, I was told I’d get baptized, receive the Aaronic priesthood, receive the Melchizedek priesthood, and go through the temple. That message was repeated over and over from the time I was in Sunbeams until baptism at eight. Baptism, priesthood, temple. Over and over.

When I was baptized, the next step was laid out immediately. Congratulations, now you’ll get the priesthood, then go through the temple. I was baptized in February, so there was snow everywhere. We drove up to the Logan Temple. I was wearing a winter coat—green on top, black on the bottom—holding my beanie. My mom took a picture of me in front of the temple. We printed it, put it in a frame, and next to it were the lyrics from the Primary song “I Love to See the Temple.” That picture stayed on my wall from the time I was eight until after my mission where it probably ended up in a box somewhere after I moved out.

That expectation—to go through the temple and make covenants with God—was present from the beginning. So when I got old enough to actually attend, it didn’t feel like a real decision. The only way I can explain it is that it felt as much like a choice as dropping out of high school. Some people have no problem not going. But for me, it was just the next step. Graduate high school, go through the temple, serve a mission. I knew technically it was a choice, but it never felt like one.

When I first went through, I actually enjoyed it. I didn’t really understand what was going on, which was probably why I liked it. You need to understand that in the Mormon church, worship is very Protestant. The hymns are slow and plain. There’s not a lot of physical ritual or symbolism. So when I went to the temple and suddenly I was wearing special clothes—robes, apron, hat—kneeling at an altar, performing symbolic rituals, it was new. There was a sense of mystery. There was something physical and symbolic happening that I hadn’t experienced before in my religious life. I liked it because it gave me something to think about. There was symbolism I could study. Layers to unpack. It felt like there was more to the church than I’d realized.

But that changed when I started going more often, especially during my mission. I was serving in Spokane, Washington, near the Spokane Temple, and we were encouraged to attend as often as possible. We had a set number of visits we could do. As I kept going, the novelty wore off. It stopped feeling fresh. That was when I realized that the only reason I had liked it was because the experience was new. The ceremony itself doesn’t change, you’re not learning anything new. Sure, there’s symbolism you can think about, but for the most part, it started to feel less like a spiritual experience and more like a way to keep me devoted to the church.

There were a few things that really started to bother me. One was the part in the temple video where Lucifer turns to the camera and says that if you don’t keep your covenants, you’ll be in his power. That line started to really bother me. It felt like a threat. Do I really need a direct threat from Satan to convince me to stay faithful? It didn’t feel right. It felt manipulative. Every time I went, I dreaded that line. It didn’t fit. It didn’t seem necessary. The only reason I could think of for including it was to scare people into staying obedient.

Another part that stood out was the covenant to give all of your time, talents, and abilities—not to God, but to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some will argue that giving to the church is the same as giving to God. But if that’s the case, why not just say God? Why not make the covenant directly to him? That could be flipped just as easily. If giving to God means giving to the church, then giving to the church should mean giving to God. So why phrase it the way they do?

Those two things—the threat from Satan and the covenant to give everything to the church—are common sticking points for a lot of people. For me, they marked the shift. Temple worship started to feel less like a personal connection to God and more like a system designed to keep me in line.

That idea was reinforced by the temple recommend questions. Being temple-worthy is a constant theme in church meetings. Sacrament talks, Sunday School lessons, General Conference—they all emphasize being worthy to hold a temple recommend. But what does that really mean? Let’s look at a few of the questions.

Do you sustain the president of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator and the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Do you sustain your local leaders? If you say no to any of these, you're not temple worthy. That’s not about your relationship with God. That’s about loyalty to leadership.

Do you support or promote any teachings or practices contrary to those of the Church? Are you a full tithe payer? Do you keep the covenants you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garments?

All of that reinforces the same message. Your worthiness in the eyes of God is measured by how devoted you are to the church. It’s not about how much faith you have. It’s not about your integrity or how you live your life. It’s about whether or not you follow the institution.

That just doesn’t sit right with me. Religion should be about you and God. Not you and the church.

So those are my thoughts. Maybe not as clear or polished as I’d like, but the temple experience is complicated. For some people, it’s the ritual that pushes them away. For others, it’s the symbolism that draws them in. Losing faith in the temple happens differently for everyone. For me, it wasn’t because it felt weird or cult-like. It was just the slow realization over time that there was a level of emotional manipulation I wasn’t okay with. 

Comments

  1. All of the above plus I got into the special and limited entry part of the church. Kind of like an exclusive country club. Each of us knew what the double tee shirt and underwear lines meant. We weren’t just special, we were righteous special.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Where Did Joseph Smith Dig for Treasure?

Before Joseph Smith was known as a prophet, he was known locally for treasure digging. An article written by Dan Vogel   mapped out the physical locations connected to that earlier phase of Smith’s life. Drawing from court records, affidavits, neighbor testimony, and later reminiscences, Vogel was able to place Smith on specific hillsides, farms, and riverbanks across western New York and northern Pennsylvania. Show Dan Vogel's Full Article (If you have issues on mobile, you can read the full document  here ) The article itself is a valuable asset to anybody who wants to understand the treasure digging activities of Joseph Smith. However, due to the design of the maps provided it may be difficult to immediate tell where the digs took place. Which in my opinion, may limit the sharing of his research. As such, I took it upon myself to update the map in Google Earth using Dan Vogel's research as my guide. This gives us a bit of clearer idea of w...

The "Mormon" Trademark is About to Expire

 The request for Mormon Stories to rebrand has spread quickly through Mormon spaces. Followers learned that om November 14th 2025, the LDS Church had reached out with claims that the podcast was infringing on the “Mormon” trademark. The demand leaned on the legal idea that the Church owns the word.  The request was shared on social media by @mormstories, but those posts seem to have been removed. Fortunately, copies of the email were  shared on reddit. But there is a significant detail sitting behind this entire dispute. The Church will have to renew the "Mormon" trademark in the 2026 to 2027 window.  Source: USPTO database When that time comes, they must prove that they still use the word “Mormon” in active commerce. USPTO rules are clear on this point. A trademark only survives if the owner can show that it is still printed on actual goods or services that are still being sold or distributed. The official guidelines spell it out at uspto.gov under “ Keeping your r...

The Peacemaker Summit and an Attempt to Silence Mormonism's Critics

 An upcoming event called the Peacemaker Summit , organized by The Holy Rebellion , is being promoted as a gathering for faithful LDS creators. The organizing vision for this event is explicitly about displacing critics of the faith by flooding social media platforms with coordinated, high-volume pro-Mormon content. That goal deserves scrutiny. My initial reaction to the original video The Stated Aim: Outnumber the Critics Travis Lish and Christian Williams from The Holy Rebellion have been clear about their motivation. They believe critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominate online spaces and that faithful voices need to overwhelm that presence. The solution being proposed is to create enough volume to hide criticisms from search results.  ... our goal is 1 billion views per month  collectively  as Latter Day Saint creators. Imagine a world where when you search Mormon or LDS or Joseph Smith  across any platform, what you would see...

How Does the Mormon Church Keep Finding Me?

The “Locating Members” page on the church’s Tech Wiki, now removed from the public site, explains that when a member moves without providing a new address, local leaders are expected to try to find out where that person went. The responsibility usually falls to the ward clerk, working under the direction of the bishop. The record isn’t automatically dropped just because attendance stops.  The full set of instructions is found below, but first, here are some points you need to consider about the religion systematically tracking down "lost" members. Form provided by the wiki First, the system does not recognize disengagement as a valid outcome. The wiki makes clear that when someone stops attending or moves without updating records, the organization treats this as missing data, not a personal decision. Silence is interpreted as a problem to solve. That alone creates an unhealthy dynamic because it removes a person’s ability to quietly exit. Second, the responsibility is instit...

Full Text - Mormons Taking Oaths of the Temple House (1904)

  This article appeared in 1904, during the height of national scrutiny surrounding the LDS Church and the U.S. Senate investigation into whether Apostle Reed Smoot should be seated as a senator. At the center of that inquiry were questions the public had debated for decades but rarely heard addressed in sworn testimony.  What actually happened inside the Endowment House ?  What oaths were required?  Do the oaths conflict with civic loyalty, democratic norms, and basic transparency? The reporting below relies on testimony given under oath to the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections and presents the claims exactly as they were reported to a national audience. This was not written as theology or internal instruction. It was written as political journalism, aimed at informing a non-Mormon public that largely had no access to temple ceremonies and relied on secondhand descriptions. THE WASHINGTON TIMES DECEMBER 14, 1904 MORMONS TAKING OATHS OF ENDOWMENT HOUS...

Early Mormon Criticisms - 3: Delusions

 This series looks back at how early critics of the church reacted to the rise of Mormonism. Some mocked it, others warned against it, and a few tried to make sense of it. Each post features a historical excerpt and some brief context to show how critics viewed the new faith as it was unfolding.  -The full series can be found here - In 1831 Alexander Campbell published An Analysis of the Book of Mormon , one of the earliest full-length critiques of Joseph Smith’s new scripture. The piece first appeared as a review in Campbell’s periodical The Millennial Harbinger and was republished the following year, in 1832, as a standalone pamphlet for wider circulation. Campbell was a prominent religious leader and editor, and he approached the Book of Mormon as a text that needed to be tested, line by line, against the Bible it claimed to supplement. Unlike satirical responses such as Abner Cole’s Book of Pukei , Campbell did not parody Mormonism. He treated it as a serious theologica...

Mormon Church Loosens Grip on the KJV Bible

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has clarified its position on Bible translations. In its official statement, “ Holy Bible Translations and Editions Used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,” the Church explains that it values multiple Bible translations because they help people understand scripture “in the language they know best” .  The statement affirms that the King James Version (KJV) remains the preferred English Bible for Church use, while also acknowledging that some readers benefit from more modern language. That group includes youth, new converts, and people learning English. The recommended English Bible translations are as follows: Source: churchofjesuschrist.org Concerns about KJV comprehension have existed for decades. Yet only now does the handbook clearly frame Bible use around reading level and understanding. The update formalizes what many families were already doing.  The challenge is easy to identify. The KJV was trans...

What the Maine Temple Announcement Signals

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced on December 14, 2025 that a temple will be built in Portland, Maine . The announcement came during a regional Christmas devotional and was delivered by Elder Allen D. Haynie, a member of the Church’s Area Presidency, rather than during a General Conference session or directly by the Church president. What makes this announcement stand out is not the location, but the method. For years, temples were almost always announced during the April or October General Conference, usually by the Church president, at the close of a major session watched by a global audience. Under Russell M. Nelson, this practice became especially prominent, with long lists of new temples read out twice a year. These announcements have often been used rhetorically to imply numerical growth, even in regions with small or stagnant membership.  Announcing a temple outside of General Conference reduces the performative aspect of that claim.   T...

There Is No Curse, Part 5: Then What Is It?

We need to talk about the current apologetics attempting to downplay the Lamanite curse. Nephi Sees Our Day In preparation for my next topic, I was reading 1 Nephi 13:15 , where Nephi sees a vision of the future for his own civilization and the European conquest of America. This passage stuck out to me: And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. This is in direct contrast to 1 Nephi 12:23 : And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. You might notice that there is ample ambiguity in both passages, but in juxtaposing these two peoples, we see a contrast that I just can’t reconcile if the curse is only “symbolic” or “spiritual.” In comparing Gentiles to Lam...

Early Mormon Criticisms - 2: The Book of Pukei

This series looks back at how early critics of the church reacted to the rise of Mormonism. Some mocked it, others warned against it, and a few tried to make sense of it. Each post features a historical excerpt and some quick context to show how critics viewed the new faith as it was unfolding. Part 1 can be read here In 1830 a man by the name of Abner Cole published a criticism of Joseph Smith called the Book of Pukei in the Palmyra Reflector, published under the name "Obadiah Dogberry Esquire".   Cole had access to Grandin’s print shop and saw early pages of the Book of Mormon before the public did. His reaction took the form of a mock scripture that rewrote Joseph Smith’s story into a  joke. That choice wasn’t random. He was simply recounting the events surrounding Joseph smith in a pseudobiblical style, Cole shows us that he likely recognized the Book of Mormon as part of that same genre. Events Parodied in The Book of Pukei     1. Angel Moroni – Cole rewr...
e
Link copied!