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

Mormon Blood and the Esther Cohen-Tizer-Epstein Letter

With the recent release of nearly 3.5 million pages of the Epstein files, there have been several connections made regarding Jeffery Epstein paying tuition for several students at BYU. The most notable of which is presented in what is known as the Esther Cohen-Tizer-Epstien Letter.    Some are questioning the authenticity of the letter, but some clues seem to point us to a woman named   Esther Cohen .  Lets look at a few connections. Note that these connections are not an attempt at making any accusations and are simply connections made through publicly available information. I will be updating this page as I find more information. EFTA00129111  Reference to the Seven Bowls School of Nutrition From Esther's website: alchemyofnourishment.com She began studying nutrition as a teenager: Which also seems to align with her site. Alchemy of Nourishment Along with the claim of residing in Colorado Alchemy of Nourishment The final piece of the puzzle is a 2017 revi...

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...

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...

Early Mormon Criticisms - 4: Fanaticism

 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 - The article titled “Fanaticism” was published on February 11, 1831, in the United States Gazette , a Philadelphia paper with national circulation. It reprints material from the Painesville Gazette , reflecting local reports from northeastern Ohio rather than direct investigation by the Gazette itself. The author is unnamed, consistent with early-19th-century newspaper practice, and the tone reflects mainstream Protestant skepticism toward emerging religious movements. The piece focuses on Kirtland and nearby areas in Geauga and Cuyahoga counties at a very early stage in Mormon development, less than a year after the Book of Mormon’s publica...

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...

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...

Encouraging Marriage: Lowering the Age for Female Missionaries

 In October 2012, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially lowered the minimum age for missionary service. Before that change, men could begin at age 19 and women at age 21. The update allowed men to start at 18 and women at 19, a major shift in how young Latter-day Saints approached their early adult years. That change dramatically increased missionary numbers, with applications skyrocketing in the weeks after the announcement and women making up a much larger share of those who served.   For more than a decade after that update, the rule stayed the same. Women could serve at 19 and men at 18, with women serving 18-month missions and men serving two years. In November 2025 the Church again changed the rule: the minimum age for women to serve was lowered to 18, equalizing it with men.  What made this new policy notable wasn’t just equality in age; it was the statements that came with it.   In a January 2026 interview with the Church’s own Deseret News, Presid...

The LDS Church Flip-Flopped on the KJV

Recently , the LDS church announced updated guidance on the "approved" list of Bible translation for use in local congregations, spanning both English and international language versions. You can find the specifics of this guidance in the LDS General Handbook . The Updated Narrative On January 6, 2026, an interview was hosted by BYU to highlight the updated LDS Bible recommendations: Josh Sears, Associate Professor of Ancient Scripture [L]anguage just keeps evolving. That's a natural thing. And that's nothing to be afraid of. That's just how language works. And we see out throughout history that as language gets of the scriptures gets too far removed from what people are speaking, there's always a need to update and modernize ... So, when the announcement came about the handbook updates that were going to be more flexible and allow for a variety of translations to work alongside the King James, it didn't really surprise me because to me this was aligned ...

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...

LDS Apologists Try to Beat a Dead Horse

It looks like the topic of horses and the Book of Mormon is going to crop up every few months like a nasty case of eczema, so I feel it’s worthwhile to summarize the debate as it currently stands. There's another post on this blog  about more recent research, but it always goes back to the (in)famous analysis done by Matthew Roper and his colleagues at BYU, John Clark and Wade Ardern, all the way back to 2005. But first, let's look even further back.  What the Book of Mormon Said The word “horse” appears 14 total times in the Book of Mormon in the context of domesticated livestock, with half of those references being connected with pulling chariots of war. Both Lamanite and Nephite peoples equated these horses with those described in Isaiah 2:7 and 5:28, which Nephi expressly quotes in his own record (compare 2 Nephi 12:7 and 15:28), with no distinction made between them. The horses of the Americas, per the Book of Mormon, are intended to be the same in form and function to ...
e
Link copied!