“Be sure to drink your Ovaltine” is a famous line from the movie “A Christmas Story”. In the movie, The little boy Ralphie gets a decoder ring to decipher a secret message of numbers from the Little Orphan Annie radio show. He is so excited, and imagines that the fate of the planet may be on his shoulders. He gets to the end and reads the message, which is “Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”. He is disappointed and mutters “A crummy commercial” You can watch the scene here.
Recently my daughter had an “Ovaltine” moment in church. She lives in Utah, and last month it was announced a special Stake Conference would be held in January, and that an Apostle would be attending. The rumor mill started up in the stake, with the splitting of the stake being the most likely outcome of this momentous occasion.
So last week all the stake gathered like Ralphie with their decoder rings to hear some special message for their stake. The fate of the planet (Church) could be on their shoulders! As you can imagine, it was an Ovaltine moment for the Stake. The message from the Apostle was Elders Packers quote “True doctrine understood will change your behavior quicker than study or behavior” A stupid commercial! Lots of disappointed people, though I’m sure it was mitigated by being taught at the feet of an Apostle.
My daughter, being chip off the old block, though it was funny that all the security men for the visiting Apostle wore sun glasses inside the building. I told her these were guys who didn’t get hired by the FBI, so were living out their boyhood dreams by working for the church! I think they were a step above being an ICE agent! Also my daughter wanted to know if she had to stand when the Apostle walked in. I said they do that for the Prophet, but it is not a rule written down anywhere, and that now people are doing it for Apostles. She said if it is just tradition, she will just stay seated, which she did.
So, what have been your “Ovaltine” moments in the Church? What are the biggest let downs you can remmber?
Wheat & Tares 
thx for this posting, as usual. Kudos to the daughter for not standing – that stupid tradition should be resisted whenever/wherever possible.
The biggest let down for me is looking back on the times I thought I would eventually progress from the milk to the meat. In retrospect I now realize that ever letting members get to the meat is not part of the program.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to the practice of standing when any church leader enters the room. We are commanded to worship God, not man.
I also issue my strongest possible condemnation to Ovaltine itself, which is the equivalent of a truck stop hot dog at Thanksgiving. But I take William’s point here, and it is a good one.
I would say that my Ovaltine moment was the banishment of Scouting from the church. For what seems like a millennia we were taught that scouting was essential. Countless parents forced their boys to attend and work on frivolous merit badges because that was the counsel. Enormous stress was expended. And then, in a moment, it was all gone.
The direction to spend all that time on something we were told was important, only to be told that it wasn’t important anymore, was a real eye opener.
And while I’m at it, I ask William and all of you to join me in condemning Praise to the Man. That sort of nonsense is what led to the false tradition of standing for leaders in the first place.
You all remember Sheri Dew? She was an amazing, charismatic woman and putting her in the General RS Presidency was true inspiration. I hung on her every word. During the Gen Conf women’s session (back when that happened), she spoke and she started to build up to an exciting announcement. My recollection is that she said they’d discussed ‘this’ as a RS Presidency, gotten confirmation from the Apostles, truly felt the spirit of the Lord guiding them to this … I’m on the edge of my seat!! Surely something big is coming! And she said they would now call weekly RS meetings Home, Family, and Personal Enrichment. That was it. Sheri Dew changed the name of a mid-week church meeting.
Another Ovaltine moment (love that phrase for letdowns, BB, I’m totally going to use that) that the general membership treated as exciting revelation was the first time the mission age limits went down. I didn’t think there was anything earthshaking about letting 18-year-olds go on missions instead of 19-year-olds, but wow I saw a lot of faithful members treating this as the doctrinal equivalent of the revelation to move to Missouri.
Sounds just like my husband’s recent stake meeting where the stake was split. Possibly was the same meeting, because he came home acting like it was an ovaltine moment. It had really been hyped for months as going to be earth shattering. He went way early hoping to get a seat on the pews because with his back problems he cannot sit on folding chairs without coming home in major pain. Didn’t go early enough. But at least he got a chair. Rumor was half the people got turned away because the building was not big enough to hold 12 oversized wards worth of people. Those building are not big enough for the oversized wards. He had shown some real interest in this meeting, actually seemed a bit anxiously looking forward to it. Kind of worried about what changes would do to his ward. He got home all out of sorts, obviously hurting and I asked him what happened and he said the split the stake and all wards boundaries remain the same. Then he acted like they spent the meeting killing puppies. He wouldn’t talk, so I left him alone.
Well, it was way past time they split the stake and built 4 new buildings so there are not 5-6 wards in each. They are just not keeping up with the growth of all the new subdivisions of town houses, million dollar homes, and new trailer courts. Some wards currently have way too many active members and the overflow seating is filled for all six wards. They have a hard time with things like choir practice because the building is always in use all day Sunday. They often hold it at member’s homes.
But the way they hype a visiting dignitary or general conference as if it is god paying a personal visit or they might really make an important announcement gets old. It is always such a let down because it is just the same old stuff. They cry wolf so often about “this is going to be so important.” And then you wish you hadn’t wasted the time or energy.
Not a collective Ovaltine moment, but a personal one; going to the temple to receive my own endowment. I went into it with eyes wide open, thinking I was about to go on an intense cosmic journey, have the mysteries of the universe opened up to me, learn profound eternal truths, the true identity of Heavenly Mother, etc., and finally find out “the big secret” that all the adults in my life already knew, and it seemed to make them happy and fulfilled in ways that made me envious. Instead, I got a weird quasi-Masonic pageant, heavy on the fear-based rhetoric (including a death pledge), ultimately learning that getting into heaven was a matter of knowing the right passwords and handshakes and wearing the right regalia (which I felt ridiculous in), and nothing to do with love, kindness, compassion or mercy. All of this, punctuated with Michael Ballam’s hammy performance as Satan (I didn’t yet know who Michael Ballam was at the time, so I spent a good amount of mental energy wondering where they found this guy and thinking of the logistics of how it was filmed, while finding the implied nudity of Adam and Eve to be a bit risque for a Church-produced movie). At the end, as I was whisked into the Celestial Room, my head was spinning with the feeling of “what the hell just happened? Is that it?”. Still, I went many times thereafter for many years, straining at gnats to find any deep meaning in any part of it. Then a round of changes came to the ceremony, and some parts that I had ascribed significance to were removed completely, which was an Ovaltine moment in itself. The whole experience was (and still is) much overhyped and oversold, and I am an unsatisfied customer. I demand a refund.
Please don’t compare anyone with ICE.
I suggest we replace the standing for the Q15 with the Asian practice of namaste for everyone. That is the hands coming together and slight bow rather than a handshake. It recognizes that all are children of God and that each has a spark of the Divine in their soul. It also makes germophobes like myself more comfortable.
The April 2020 General Conference… there was going to be a broadcast from Palmyra by the prophet! There will be a big announcement! Changes to be made! We all took it vitamins and were ready (wouldn’t this be an incredible opportunity to ordain women to even the Aaronic Priesthood, when the 51% of the women in the Church who are not married and isolated at home could bless the Sacrament for themselves and their families? Dare we hope? Yes! the Restoration is ongoing!)
We got the new Church logo. And the Proclamation on the Restoration 😐
I drank the Ovaltine too Jack. That was 40 years ago and I’m still wondering what it is I’m supposed to know that I didn’t covenant to at my baptism…
I’m with mitzyforthis. All the hype before the April 2020 general conference. Way too much hype, and nothing delivered. And other early Nelson conferences: oh, if you think this was exciting, wait until next conference! You haven’t seen anything yet! There was way too much hype. I’m glad that the hype slowed way down in recent years.
Jack Hughes correctly identified what is certainly the quintessential “Ovaltine moment” in so many Mormons’ lives: the temple endowment. Years and years of building up expectations in talks, lessons, songs—for *that*??? And then once you receive it, you’re expected to perpetuate the disappointing experience by doing exactly what the older generation did to you.
I also thought of mitzyforthis’ example of the April 2020 GC. So much smoke but no fire!
I would extend this to any GC. “Come with questions! Take notes! Prepare for a spiritual feast!” I’ve never received any real answers to questions, never heard much of anything noteworthy, and certainly never felt like I gorged on a spiritual feast. For me, it’s always been 10 long hours, most of which is boring or disappointing. The recent change to 8 hours (if it sticks this time) is the right move, but it really ought to be reduced much more.
Some other examples:
1. Similar to the temple endowment, my patriarchal blessing was underwhelming. Besides the ridiculous assignment to a “tribe of Israel,” it was just generic guidance that would apply to any member.
2. My stake really talked up a special training meeting for anyone in a leadership calling several years ago (right after the “hasten the work” emphasis was first presented). I normally wouldn’t attend—such meetings are usually a waste of time—but they hyped it so much I decided to go anyway. All they did was talk up how our stake was going to “hasten the work,” which turned out to be normal goals that many stakes set routinely (baptism numbers, home teaching percentages, etc.).
3. The Saturday evening session of stake conference is often talked up, precisely because it’s so poorly attended. I haven’t attended for a very long time because the talks are no different from the Sunday session, which at 2 hours is already too long.
Jack Hughes, thank you for articulating my own temple experience perfectly. Yes exactly! And “straining at gnats to find any deep meaning in any part of it.” OMG I tried so hard. What a massive disappointment.
With a few exceptions, almost every Easter and Christmas sacrament meeting in the last several years when I attended were an Ovaltine moment. It’s a major Christian holiday/observance, yet most of them made a couple brief mentions of the event, but otherwise were an ordinary sacrament meeting. I recognize that there are wards out there that have a lot of musical talent and do a lovely job. While I have experienced that, it was generally the exception, not the norm. Fun fact – my last Sunday attending (6 plus years ago) was an Easter service. As I walked out, disappointed and unfulfilled yet again, I realized I wouldn’t be returning. Haven’t missed a thing.
One of my active brothers died last month and I went to the funeral last weekend. It was my first time in a church meeting in over six years. He was mentioned a handful of times, but both talks gave the plan of salvation (like we didn’t hear it in the first talk, so let’s repeat!). It was a sacrament meeting minus the sacrament, with a couple of short personal examples. It was an Ovaltine meeting – total letdown and disappointment. Not sure who they’re trying to “convert” at a funeral, but for me and those family members who are not part of the church, it did not make us want to join. It made us wonder what is wrong with a church that ignores the deceased and just pushes their agenda, I mean beliefs. I was glad to support my brother’s family, but as a sister, it was incredibly disappointing.
“..in coming days, we will see the greatest manifestations of the Savior’s power that the world has ever seen”. Yawn. Pass the Ovaltine.
It was a long time ago that there was going to be a special session at the temple with some muckety-muck whose name escapes me, someone with loads of “insider knowledge” about the meaning of the temple that was going to blow everyone’s minds. I normally don’t fall for this stuff, but this time I thought maybe… Nope, this person’s “insights” were as anodine as anything you could imagine, literally not one thing I hadn’t heard a billion times. It was just pablum. I didn’t hear a single person say it was a great meeting. It was one of the first times that I had the clear thought that there really wasn’t anything that mystical or meaningful that I was just missing. What you see is what you get, and it’s weird and outdated, but not terrifically deep.
Hawk, that still sounds much better than what we had once advertised as a special session held *inside* the temple so all things could be discussed. We were promised that we got to ask questions of this authority about all the wonderful symbolism blah blah blah. So, anyway, at the special meeting held in the temple so we could ask and receive answers, the dude basically said, the symbolism is important so don’t ask questions. There was not the slightest attempt to allow us to ask, and he didn’t even try to answer. He just talked up how important, so important that we keep it this deep dark secret and isn’t it wonderfully inspiring. That wasn’t even ovaltine, that was pig slop.
That was when I decided there was no deep symbolism because it was just made up and just as meaningless as if I pulled random pictures and random words and said my random picture was now symbolic of my random word. See, isn’t this so inspiring?
I remember there being secret whispers of the ultra deep doctrine in the king follet (sp?) sermon when I was on my mission. Finally reading it was definitely an Ovaltine moment. The big reveal was “as man is God once was, as God is man may become”, more or less, which is (was?) a pretty basic belief of the church as far as I was aware.
mountainclimber479,
At first blush the endowment may seem underwhelming–even a bit odd. Indeed the fulness of the gospel as set forth in the scriptures may seem that way. Even so, I think we need to remember that the gospel isn’t designed to “wow” us. After we’ve taken the initial step of baptism we are, for the must part, led carefully from grace to grace into a deeper understanding of the Lord’s purposes. And over time, a wondrous picture of the splendor and beauty of his Kingdom emerges before us.
Give it time, brother.
Much like the disappointing taste of Ovaltine (advance apologies to any here who enjoy Ovaltine over hot cocoa, and to Bishop Bill who is talking about the decoder ring itself, not the drink), I was disappointed with the temple experience. I thought it would be “sweet to the taste” (spiritually fulfilling, bonding, leaving me wanting for more). After the initial disconcerting experience, I thought I had to develop a taste for it, so I went back over and over again for decades, preparing, praying, trusting to finally have a good experience, a sweet taste. The last time I was there, I broke into tears in the celestial room. Not because I finally enjoyed the Ovaltine, so to speak, but that I knew that I was done trying.
My Ovaltine moment was the temple. It was just bizarre and perpetually uncomfortable. The temple workers obsessed over every slight thing. They got in a tizzy because I didn’t immediately take my beanie off after entering from the cold outdoor weather upon entering the temple. They obsess if you are not wearing the sash on the correct side. I thought Jesus introduced the higher law. I go to the temple and it is non-stop obsession over the most meticulous of rules. Seemed extremely Pharisaical. And this was supposed to be the epitome of the membership experience. The smiles and greetings always seemed so insincere and almost creepy. Never again will I go to the temple. I don’t feel good there nor do I feel God there. In fact I am anti-temple. What a waste of space. Opulence that serves really no purpose. The gatherings there have no interaction. You watch a movie. A really crappy movie. Over and over. These buildings do nothing to help the poor and needy. They don’t serve meals. They don’t house the unhoused. They seem to carry a message that is opposite to what Jesus taught. I remember volunteering at a homeless shelter provided by a local Christian church. I was blown away at my experience there. I thought this is true Christianity. This is what Jesus taught. Repeating vain rituals in an over-the-top expensive building seemed to be what Jesus was preaching against.
Re Security – Security at that level of the Church is more often former law enforcement (typically FBI and secret service) and accomplished military personnel looking for easier hours than it is rejects who couldn’t make it to those levels. (It’s a little weird that you felt the need to sneak that barb into a public blog post.)
I know when I put in the work to have the influence of the holy ghost in my life (insert primary answers), then I get a whole lot more out of my temple attendance and general conference viewership. And when I don’t, I don’t. Just my passing comment…
What if instead of “Drink your ovaltine” (underwhelming) the secret message turns out to be “disembowel yourself” (horrifying)? As a millennial, I first got my endowment after the penalties were removed but with the vestigial echoes of the penalties still in place. Those symbols are truly mysterious if you don’t know the context and I spent a good portion of my temple visits pondering what they might mean and how they might relate to the Savior. When I finally learned what they actually meant, I was beyond disgusted.
A less disturbing but more hilarious example is the Pearl of Great Price facsimile 2, figure 7. Joseph Smith said it represents “God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood.” Egyptologists, however, have identified the figure as the fertility god Min, complete with erect phallus. Not the ovaltine anyone was expecting.
Not necessarily an ovaltine moment but worth sharing:
During my BYU days in early 2000’s, there was a local ward fireside every Sunday. They were always the same: don’t have sex, boys stop watching porn, girls stop having eating disorders. Well. Eventually we all stopped attending. A few Sundays later we were promised by the bishopric that if we would start attending again the topics would be “spiritual” which meant they would make it a supplemental SS lesson instead of talking about the above. I thought it funny. Unintended consequences and all that.
The temple muddled me in 1999 and still muddles me to this day. My entire pre-temple church experience was that God knows our hearts and can judge us in ways we cannot judge each other. Then I go to the temple and it’s like hey guys unlearn everything you learned in primary; God actually only cares about handshakes and new names and hand signals. Which is it?
I can’t say I’ve had many of these experiences because I’ve spent most of my adult life continually lowering expectations of church experiences. Even so, President Nelson’s hype leading up to the April 2020 general conference succeeded in getting me to expect at least a little more than what we got. Nelson in particular seemed very prone to that sort of hype, and I still can’t quite figure out why. Did he believe his own hype? Was the April 2020 conference as awesome in his mind as he led the rest of us to expect?
A number of commenters have mentioned the temple endowment. The frequency with which it seems to be a letdown, or worse, seems to be a function of significant cultural hype around the temple (which I think has actually increased in the last decade or two) and very poor preparation, which seems an endemic problem in the church. There seem to be small efforts to normalize talking about it more with those preparing to go through, but we have a long way to go. In my own case, I am thankful for a stake president who, in the final interview before I went to the temple, spent 10 minutes explaining what to expect. It was so much more helpful than reading that Boyd Packer book (speaking of hype) or taking what passed for a temple prep course. The experience was still a bit bewildering, and yet so much better than what many of my friends experienced at the time.
@Jack,
“At first blush the endowment may seem underwhelming–even a bit odd.” and “Give it time, brother.” My thoughts about the temple endowment are not those of an 18-year-old pre-mission young man. I’ve participated in the ordinance countless times for over 30 years. That’s a pretty long time.
While the “give it time” response feels quite dismissive, I think that many Church members who respond in this way to those who express doubts about the endowment largely have good intentions. Indeed, I think that for some members giving it time does work:
1. For people who are naturally drawn to ritual or “high church”, the endowment can be meaningful. Since the LDS sabbath services aren’t “high church”, many people are able to adjust and even enjoy the ritualistic nature of the temple given time. Unfortunately, I’m not one of them. I’ve done an awful lot of world travel over the past few years. I’ve attended quite a lot of “high church” services in Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, etc. cathedrals and churches. It’s nice that these churches allow outsiders to observe and even participate in their worship services, and my experiences have been very educational. However, I have found that I can’t imagine attending weekly “high church” worship services as a member of any of these churches. The liturgy, the ceremony, the ritual simply doesn’t speak to me. I find it a real distraction to my personal spirituality—just as I do with the temple endowment.
2. Given time, some people are largely able to ignore/look beyond the ritual of the temple to pray or meditate. I guess I fit here a bit, but I still find the required participating in the ritual to be very distracting. Also, I think most (all?) temples near me require that an ordinance be done in order to sit in the celestial room. While sitting in the celestial room is my favorite part of the endowment (no more ritual!!), it’s still not my favorite place to meditate/pray. There are often a lot of people in there making noise, temple workers sometimes police people in annoying ways, you are sometimes asked to leave if you stay too long, etc. My online name here is “mountain climber” for a reason—I’m in the mountains and in nature *a lot*. I am able to experience spirituality much more readily hiking/running/skiing along a trail by myself than I am in the celestial room or anywhere else.
While I think that some members are able to find some spiritual value in the endowment due to these sorts of reasons if they “give it time”, I am apparently not one of these people. Is there any value for people like me to keep “giving it time” and “grinding out” endowment sessions when our experiences remain largely negative? Unfortunately, I don’t think there is. Of all of the core Mormon beliefs, my opinion is that the temple endowment is one of the least likely to originate from God. There is not space to fully elaborate in a blog comment, but I’m talking about things like heavy Masonic influences, constant and significant changes to something that was supposed to have been revealed directly by God, misogyny, almost certainly “fake” Adamic language, death oaths, complete lack of biblical or historical precedent, the heresy of the second endowment which is still performed today, etc. I simply do not believe that the endowment is required for “exaltation”. I’m sure that you would argue that if I continued to participate that my doubts would be assuaged by spiritual enlightenment. I think that is highly unlikely.
For people like me who have been to scores of endowment sessions over 30+ years, the advice to “Give it time” feels dismissive. To avoid shunning and excommunication, I can’t publicly respond to such advice with my true thoughts in a church setting. However, as an anonymous W&T commenter, I would like to say, “I have given it a lot of time. I don’t believe that the temple endowment originates from God, nor do I believe it is required for exaltation. I’m glad that some people are able to find value in it, but I don’t, and no matter how many more times I participate, and no matter what prophets, seers, and revelators say about it, it is highly unlikely that I ever will.”
The strangest thing about all of this is that I’m pretty sure I’m in the majority. I think the majority of Church members don’t find much spiritual value in the endowment, don’t relish the “high church” experience it provides, and are able to find better spiritual connection outside of the temple than they do inside. When they hear people express doubts about the endowment, these people parrot the “Give it time” response for various reasons. Some people are still in the process of “giving it time” themselves. Others are simply signaling to others that they belong in the trusted “inner circle”, even if they don’t truly find value in the endowment themselves. Whatever the reason, the core problem is that it is *always* wrong to express your true feelings in a church where Church leaders are *always* right. And, as long as the endowment remains so secretive, and no one is allowed openly speak of their own experiences, many in the next generation are guaranteed to have their “Ovaltine moments” in the temple when it is their turn.
Thank you, mountainclimber479, for your thoughtful response. The individual’s experience with the endowment is so personal that it shouldn’t be surprising that there exists such a wide range of experiences among the members with regard to temple worship. That said, I remember Boyd K. Packer saying (in so many words) that those who attend the temple on a regular basis over the course of their lives should come to understand the meaning of the endowment by the time they leave this life. And while I can’t say that I’ve attended as often as I should–I can say as one who has been fairly consistent in both attendance and study of the temple over the last 45 years that what Elder Packer said really is true. And there are many who could say the same thing about their experience–I’m not an outlier. My experience isn’t “special” in the sense that I’m only one in ten thousand regular attendees who has learned these things.
Well Jack that sounds like personal interpretation, or revelation, rather than knowledge. If this language were used then I think there would be a lot less distress around the temple. I remember once returning from the temple with my husband both having come to a completely different interpretation of part of the ceremony, which did our marriage no good at all.
If the temple were discussed as an opportunity to withdraw from the world and ponder holy things then I think we might modify our expectations of greater knowledge being imparted. Personally, rather than sit on a motorway and then in the temple for a day I’ve always found it preferable to attend to my sick or raise my children, or indeed ponder a tree.
The temple was also on ovaltine moment- but I think it was an ever more the emperor is wearing no clothes moment.
I too tried for decades to find what I was missing. I gave up.
I also feel like if the temple was that great, and people were having so many great experiences there, then why on earth do we have to harp on going so much at general conference? If was so great people would go without being harassed into it.
Something in the comments brought to my mind something I read in the January FSY magazine. They have a Q&A type of thing with the First Presidency, and, responding to a question about why to stay LDS, Pres. Oaks is quoted as saying, “In the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…are found the answers to life’s greatest questions.” There was a time, I would have agreed, but, as I have reached a point of deconstructing/reconstructing my faith, I suddenly find that the church doesn’t have as many concrete answers. From questions about obedience to morally dubious commandments (see 1 Sam 15 for an example of God/Samuel commanding genocide), to questions about prophetic fallibility (see Topics and Questions in the Gospel Library app for Race and the church where Pres. Oaks counsels us to stop trying to figure out if the priesthood and temple ban came from God because that is something that is not known and maybe can’t be known), and maybe even into the intractable problem of evil. It seems to me that the church has answers for “first half of life” questions, but not so much for “second half of life” questions. I’d venture to say that this is becoming my “Ovaltine moment” in the church — Becoming aware that the church really doesn’t know as much as I confidently thought it did.
It wasn’t an experience of my own, but, while piecing my thoughts together, I thought of the “Swedish Rescue” experience, and how many attending that (and similar) meetings who find themselves disappointed that the church cannot answer some of their hard questions.
Just want to give an amen to Quentin’s comment about the April 2020 General Conference. I was actually shocked by the contrast of the buildup compared to the conference. Also struck by how out of touch it seemed given the conditions.
Also an amen to Mountainclimber’s comment about the temple. After decades trying to get some kind of spiritual nourishment from the temple I am comfortable with the acceptance that it just isn’t meaningful to me and no matter how many times I am told to keep going and keep trying, I’m not going to. I wish leaders would think a little bit harder about whether they are making promises they just shouldn’t when urging more temple attendance. It can be great for some but not everyone and for me, it isn’t where I feel I should be spending my time.
If it is “high church,” it’s a very “low church” version of it.
@Jack, if I’m parsing your last comment correctly, you seem to acknowledge that people have various experiences with the endowment (which is what handlewithcare addresses), but then you seem to bear testimony that there is actually one true, but apparently secret, interpretation of the endowment that may take a lifetime to discern—and that you personally have obtained this hidden knowledge.
First off, there is a very straightforward interpretation of the endowment. The Mormon Plan of Salvation is presented in the endowment: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. Participants symbolically experience humanity’s journey from pre-mortal existence through mortality and into the afterlife. They make covenants and progress as they “level up” through priesthood levels and degrees of glory. In the end, they become gods and goddesses and enter into eternal glory. Some people have a hard time seeing this because Joseph (and the Masons) aren’t very good playwrights, and they get lost in all the weirdness with the ceremonial clothes, signs and tokens, etc. But many people are able to see all of this within a few visits if they’re paying attention. This symbolism and meaning ought to be openly discussed in the Church’s temple prep class, but for some reason it isn’t. Some people just aren’t good at dealing with symbolism—if it’s so important and the interpretation is known, why not just tell people what it all means? Many who do see the Plan of Salvation message in the endowment wonder what the point is of going through it over and over again when it’s just stuff we hear every week in Sunday School anyway.
You say you’ve spent a lifetime uncovering some kind of hidden meaning in the endowment. If you’ve discovered much more than what I outlined above, then I suspect you’re likely reading something into the endowment that Joseph (or, I guess, God) didn’t really put there. That may be a harsh statement, but I’m not sure it’s any more harsh than the “Give it time” comment that those who question the value of the endowment so frequently hear at church.
I’m not sure what Packer quote you’re referring to, but I found this from him: “If you will go to the temple and remember that the teaching is symbolic, you will never go in the proper spirit without coming away with your vision extended, feeling a little more exalted, with your knowledge increased as to things that are spiritual.” Maybe that’s what you mean? While he doesn’t mention the Plan of Salvation framework I outlined above, his statement fits well with my description. He’s basically saying that the endowment will help you remember the Plan of Salvation, the covenants you made, and how you can be exalted and become a god in the future—and that by participating in the ritual repeatedly, you’ll end up more spiritual. It’s that last part of the Packer quote that I’m taking issue with here. I find the endowment to be repetitive and boring where he promises that I’ll be uplifted every time I go.
mountainclimber479,
We learn it a little at a time. It’s like piecing together a mosaic–and each one of us will piece it together at a different pace and in a different sequence. So the picture that each one of us has at any given time will not be identical to anyone else’s. Even so, as time goes on we get enough of the picture put together that it invariably begins to overlap with others’.
Having said that, the great irony is–because we all have our own peculiar path towards completing the picture it isn’t wise to speak of our personal journey too often. Our own experience can be so specialized that by sharing it we risk doing more harm than good to others. Plus, the nature of the elements themselves that pertain to the order of the priesthood are so sacred that they would only be trivialized and mocked by the world.
That (and that) said, yes–ultimately we will be led to a unified understanding of the endowment. But inasmuch as we must grow little by little into a totality of understanding — it can’t be simply understood in intellectual terms — very few of us leave this life having completed the “mosaic” so to speak–I know I won’t.
All of that said–I agree that there is a general flow to the narrative that outlines the plan of salvation. Even so, the symbolic elements are important in the way they lead us to ask the right questions about the “mechanics” involved in the process of our transformation through the atonement of Christ. Aside from living the gospel as outlined in the sacrament prayers seeking, knocking, and asking relentlessly is the key to getting that understanding.
I apologize if I come across presumptuously–I don’t mean to. As I stated earlier–I am not special. There are many who know much more than I do about these things. As Hugh Nibley said:
“If you ask what Joseph Smith knew about real temples, I reply, everything.”
No one will learn the mysteries as quickly as Joseph did–but even he said:
“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.”
I was disappointed they didn’t announce in April 2020 Conference that they were extending the priesthood to women. I really thought there was a good chance that would happen.
But my biggest Ovaltine moment is how throughout my childhood I heard people saying that the Constitution would hang by a thread, but not to worry because the Elders of Israel were ready to rise up and come to its rescue. Well, the Constitution is hanging by a thread now, and I see no special effort by elders of the Church to come to its aid. This is all the more disappointing when you realize the destruction is being done by someone who’s so evil and vain he makes King Noah look like a nuanced and balanced character.
The dominant factor of every single Mormon ritual, scripture, meeting, fireside, talk, conference, or gathering is that each and every one of them is boring as cluck. Although, in fairness, sometime the tackiness is funny. But no LOUD laughter, peeps.
@Jack,
I understand and respect that you sincerely believe what you’re saying about the temple endowment. As someone who views it differently, I find the “give it time” counsel frustrating—particularly when I hear it directed at others in church settings. Since W&T provides an anonymous way for me to share my own thoughts, here are some reasons I don’t believe in the deep, secret, hidden meanings of the temple endowment that you appear to believe in:
First, I think Church leaders would likely say you are “missing the mark” by searching for and claiming to find deep internal meanings in the endowment. You said you thought Packer said you could understand these things if you tried hard enough, but you didn’t cite a specific quote. In my memory, Church leaders consistently tell people that the temple endowment is a place where they can receive inspiration for issues they face in their lives, but they are definitely *not* telling people to look for deep, hidden meanings in the ritual itself. I think if you were to have a private audience with Packer (if he were still alive) and Oaks in the celestial room, and you were to share your discoveries about the temple endowment with them, they would either tell you they had no personal knowledge of what you were talking about or that yes, they’d heard similar things from people in their circles, but those were just speculations.
Second, I have access to circles of people who discuss this kind of thing at certain times and places, often within the temple, in hushed voices and tones. These are people highly respected within the Church. Since they don’t know I am skeptical of their beliefs regarding the endowment, I am privy to the information they share. It all seems to me to be insignificant minutiae. The knuckle on the first joint means this, the thumb extended along the wrist means that, the folds on the robe mean this, linking the pinkie fingers together means that, and on and on. I’m convinced that most of this symbolism was never intended by Joseph (or God). Indeed, much of the specific symbolism I’m referring to comes directly from the Masonic ceremony, where the meaning is known yet completely unrelated to the Mormon interpretations. Even if it originates from God—and, again, I’m convinced most of it doesn’t—it isn’t going to change the way people live their lives in the slightest. It’s minutiae. It’s Ovaltine.
Third, in these private conversations regarding the secret meanings of the endowment, I’ve heard a number of completely different and incompatible explanations for endowment elements. These people are convinced that God has revealed these mysteries to them, yet the interpretations of the very same things are completely incompatible with each other. If, as you say, there is one consistent interpretation of the endowment, which one is right? There’s obviously a lot of confusion out there.
Fourth, Mormons aren’t any better at keeping secrets than any other group of people. This is evidenced by the number of people I’ve heard sharing the deep meanings of the endowment in my presence. You are basically implying that there is a select, but pretty large, group of people who have received the true meanings of the endowment from God, but they aren’t revealing them to anyone else. This is simply not realistic because people, including endowed Mormons, can’t keep secrets—at least when the group is large enough, and you say the group is large. And what about the people who receive the meanings and later apostatize? Apostates often decide to tell all. Indeed, there are even multiple apostates who previously received the second endowment, which I think would be viewed by you as even more sacred and holy than the deep meanings of the endowment ceremony, who have chosen to thoroughly reveal what happens in the second endowment.
Fifth, speaking of the second endowment, which again is seemingly much more sacred and special than the deep meanings of the first endowment, how is it that God fails at revealing who should receive this extremely significant ordinance, yet is so reliable at choosing who should receive the deep meanings of the first endowment? The process for selecting people to receive the second endowment is simply local leaders and others who have received the ordinance providing a list of recommended names to a visiting General Authority, who then makes his selections. That seems like a pretty uninspired way of doing things. The fact that we have multiple apostates who have completely revealed the contents of the second endowment shows that it truly is uninspired (it seems like, given the nature of the second endowment, that it should be impossible for an inductee to ever apostatize). If God can’t get this right, how can He make sure that only the properly prepared people receive the deep understanding of the endowment that they are supposed to receive?
Finally, the Church keeps removing ritual elements from the endowment. I’ve heard people go into great detail on the deep meanings of certain endowment elements that have now been completely extracted from the ceremony. If these things were so important, and originated from God, then why does the Church keep removing them? The obvious answer is that prophets don’t think there really are such deep meanings, so they are just cutting things that actually aren’t important.
In summary, I don’t think there exists an unseen, yet relatively large, group of prophets and prophetesses lurking within Mormon congregations around the world who possess hidden knowledge of the cosmos derived from the temple endowment and/or other sources that is hidden from the rest of us. I think there are Mormons who believe they are channeling God in this way—I have had interactions with some—but I respectfully believe they are mistaken. Even the apostle Paul, who obviously had no concept of the Mormon endowment or its “mysteries,” admitted that his understanding of God, the afterlife, etc. was like “looking through a glass darkly.” I think that’s pretty much how things are for the vast majority of people—Mormons, and even the Q15, included.
Mountainclimber479, I’m sure I’d enjoy going on a trip into the mountains or a good ski with you. I’m a pretty simple guy, and, like you, my most spiritual moments have been in the mountains. The quiet is only interrupted by the call of a jay or a breeze through the pine needles.
My dearest friend has held many of the so called “higher callings” and he has drug me along most of the time. In our conversations of late in our older retirement years, we have joked that many members would probably consider us heretics. We both consider most of the temple ceremony “fluff.” Mountainclimber, if you don’t find much in terms of inspiration or closeness while there, I would advise, if you still attend at all, just go do baptism, initiatory or sealing. Avoid the sesh. My wife is a temple worker one day a week, and she and I have had the same conversations. Most of it is ceremony for ceremony sake only. What we both get out of the temple is a connection to those that have lived before us and recognizing that we are all children of God. Does the “redemption of the dead” really need to done? Who really knows, but for me my relationship to all of humanity is what I have gotten out thinking about those who have passed. Even my relationship to all those currently living and yet to live. I certainly don’t need to be reminded of that personal thought by attending the temple much more than a few times a year. When we try to attend as a ward, there is a group of us that will go out to dinner afterwards, and that is the best part of the evening. Spending time with those you hold closely. That can also be done without “watching the movie/filmstrip” over and over again. So in reality, I’ve come to the conclusion that my relationships are the absolute most important thing in my life. I said I was a simple guy! 😉 My personal recognition about my relationships has helped me be much more understanding of those around me, and that is really my true sphere of influence, and quite honestly that could have been accomplished without the masonic imagery. I truly do appreciate the blessing when my wife and I were sealed, she’s a keeper, and I am most likely the bane of her eternal existence! haha
Additionally, upon watching the series “The Crown” about the life of Queen Elizabeth, the episode with her “Crowning/Anointing” is incredibly similar to initiatory/sealings blessings. That is not a coincidence in my view and is most assuredly where ours originated.
Just my experience Mountainclimber, your mileage may vary. Cheers Brother – Mongo
@17RRider, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on your personal temple experience. It sounds like you and I have a lot of common ground in this area.