Desire to take out my endowment

[Elgama]

You are guided by the spirit and this purely my own experience - for a 21 year old my knowledge was not bad and my maturity was not bad either, I had also been baptised 6 years by then. Like yourself I was desperate to go through the Temple

However I waited until I was 24 and about to get engaged and I am so glad I waited, I had been 10 years in the gospel, and my understanding was so much greater, that experience so much richer than if I had pushed my Bishop and gone through at 21, there is actually usually a lot of growing up happens between 21 and 25 and I think as Sisters we are blessed to be able to wait.

What you can do is prepare, study Isaiah, the works of Paul, read the Pearl of Great Price, do this as in depth as you can and your knowledge when you enter the Temple will be 10 fold what it is now, you initial endownment will be more, and remember although you go through the Temple many times its really the only time its all about You and the Lord. After that its for other people or with a spouse.

Have you had a blessing? Pray, Fast and pray and ask your Bishop for a blessing over it. Then make your mind up. My advice is unless the Lord is certain you need to go (I found my greatest promptings to go came 6 months before I married), start your preparation now and wait. Have you done baptisms? If you haven't already got your limited use recommend get it and use it as often as you can. You can commune with the Lord as much in the Baptistry as you can anywhere else in the Temple - I had what a previous Stake President called a special witness everytime I did baptisms. only had one in the Celestial Room. I really appreciated that time as a YSA doing baptisms and I think becuase of that I appreciated and understood the endownmnet more than I would have

Edited January 28, 2010 by Elgama

[AmyKate88]

Thanks for all your advice guys, I really appreciate it. I went to the temple yesterday and wanted to share the experience I had.

I go every Thursday night to do baptisms, with either family names or just temple names, depending on what I have on hand. I'm such a dork, I keep a paper of family names in my purse to print just in case I end up going to the temple. :)

Anyway, I went with my boyfriend, and when he went back into the office where you print family names, I couldn't go with him because it's behind the recommend desk, so I had to wait in the lobby. I was feeling really rejected by the Church at that point, because I was watching all the other people go past the desk to do sessions, and I couldn't even go 10 yards to print off my own family names. Needless to say I was feeling pretty heartbroken.

We went down to the baptistry and when we were sitting in the prayer room, I was talking to the woman who gives you the little intro. When I told her I come every week she was overjoyed and said it was amazing to see a young adult who is so dedicated to doing temple work. After we prayed, she said she felt inspired to say something to me. She said she had been reading about the Nauvoo temple, and that during that short window of time with the temple, the Saints did as many baptisms as they could, and when they left, it was another 30 years before they could do them again, and when they did get that chance again they were overjoyed to be able to do just baptisms again. She said that a lot of people downplay baptisms in favor of the endowment ceremony, but that baptisms are an integral part of the temple.

I was so happy to hear that, I know that was a direct message from Heavenly Father reassuring me that my spiritual worth isn't diminished because I can't do endowments. That message really helped me put the whole thing into perspective and reminded me of my Father's love at a time when I was honestly feeling pretty alone and rejected by the Church. This just made me realize that I am not rejected by God, and that I can still play an important role doing baptisms. Hard lesson to swallow, but that message was exactly what I needed :)

[Wingnut]

I'm glad to hear you had a good experience yesterday. I don't think you're a dork for carrying your names in your purse "just in case" -- I think it's kinda cool, actually. :)

Truthfully, if I were to think about it, the endowment is my least favorite ordinance to do in the temple. Taken at face value, it's long and boring, and I often fall asleep. That's probably a fault on my part. I'd much rather do baptisms or washings/anointings. I feel much more involved with the ordinance that way, and they're more familiar to me.

[MarginOfError]

I'm really glad you had that experience last night. I've debated whether or not to respond in this thread, and I think I've finally got something coherent to say. But first I want you to read the text of a First Presidency letter from September 7, 2007.

The privilege of receiving one's temple endowment is a serious matter that should be extended nly to those who are sufficiently prepared and mature enough to keep the covenants entered into.

We continue to be concerned that an increasing number of young adults, 18 years of age and older, are obtaining temple recommends from their priesthood leaders to receive their own endowment without the immediate prospect of temple marriage or a full-time mission.

Single members in their late teens or early twenties who have not received a mission call or who are not engaged to be married in the temple should not be recommended to the temple for their own endowment. They can, however, receive a Limited-Use REcommend to perform baptisms for the dead The desire to witness temple marriages of siblings or friends is not sufficient reason for a young adult to be endowed.

We are grateful for your efforts to prepare individuals to receive the sacred ordinances of the temple at the appropriate time.

This same letter was also distributed on November 12, 2002, and June 21, 2005. That's three times in the past 7 years that this letter has been distributed because a large number of young adults are being recommended for their endowment. In other words, bishops weren't listening.

The thing that I find really interesting about these letters is the "desire to witness temple marriages of siblings or friends is not sufficient reason for a young adult to be endowed." Meaning that there was a trend of giving people recommends not because they were ready to enter the temple but because they wanted to take part of a social custom.

What appears to have happened is the instruction was given, the situation didn't improve. The instruction was given again, and the situation still did not improve. The principle of preparing the temple was not given due respect, and so it got brought up in policy discussions enough that now we've begun to focus on policy more than principle.

One of the major reasons I believe the Church discourages recommending young adults for their endowments is that the years between 18 - 25 are notoriously unstable years. People who are so strong and faithful can become very much not so in a matter of weeks. A lot of this has to do with college (every semester can allow for a new beginning), and some of it has to do with asserting independence. It's hard to know if a person who is endowed at age 20 without the prospect of marriage or mission will continue on the same path of development. Married individuals, on the other hand, are more likely to become stable in the church by virtue of the fact that they have a partner to encourage them in that.

Another aspect that plays into this is that your priesthood leaders will get pressure from their leaders about issuing recommends to young adults. If your bishop and stake president begin issuing recommends to young adults, they may be asked to explain why they are not following the counsel given above. It isn't always comfortable to defend such actions to a member of the Seventy.

I know none of that is very comforting. But I think it's fair that you know that--assuming you're prepared and worthy for the temple (I won't say if you are or not because it isn't my place)--you're caught in the middle of a tug of war between principle, policy, and human failings and insecurities. It's okay to be frustrated. But at least know that the Church values you, despite its own temporal short comings. Also, know that your eternal progression will not be forestalled simply because someone decided 24 was the magical number. Just keep doing what you're doing and things will work out just fine.

[Guest mysticmorini]

"I believe the Church discourages recommending young adults for their endowments is that the years between 18 - 25 are notoriously unstable years."

this may be true, however think of all the RM's who fail to keep their temple covenants, I wonder what percent of these young men/ women (18-25) who break their covenants are unmarried RM's vs. unmarried women or men who didn't go on missions.

on another issues, in the letter the first presidency also discourages using a routine criteria such as age to decide when someone should receive temple blessings. so isn't telling someone they cannot receive a recommend until 25 (or whatever magical number) also going against the council given?

[MarginOfError]

"I believe the Church discourages recommending young adults for their endowments is that the years between 18 - 25 are notoriously unstable years."

this may be true, however think of all the RM's who fail to keep their temple covenants, I wonder what percent of these young men/ women (18-25) who break their covenants are unmarried RM's vs. unmarried women or men who didn't go on missions.

But now you're looking at the wrong issue. If our return missionaries aren't living up to their covenants when they finish their tenure, were they really prepared to go in the first place? What you have here is an argument for being more judicious about who we allow to serve as missionaries.

on another issues, in the letter the first presidency also discourages using a routine criteria such as age to decide when someone should receive temple blessings. so isn't telling someone they cannot receive a recommend until 25 (or whatever magical number) also going against the council given?

Yes and no. Try reading it again.

• "The privilege of receiving one's temple endowment is a serious matter that should be extended only to those who are sufficiently prepared and mature enough to keep the covenants entered into."
• "Single members in their late teens or early twenties who have not received a mission call or who are not engaged to be married in the temple should not be recommended to the temple for their own endowment."

[Guest mysticmorini]

ok, i'm sorry what i read was from the CHI immediately fallowing the statement in the letter. which i thought was apart of the letter sent out in one of the years but i may be wrong, it reads

"worthy single members who have not received their endowment in connection with a mission or marriage may become eligible to receive the endowment when the bishop and stake president (establish worthiness)... such eligibility should be determined individually for each person rather than using routine criteria such as reaching a certain age..."

[Guest mysticmorini]

"But now you're looking at the wrong issue. If our return missionaries aren't living up to their covenants when they finish their tenure, were they really prepared to go in the first place? What you have here is an argument for being more judicious about who we allow to serve as missionaries."

maybe in some instances for the vast majority i doubt it. as far as being judicious about who goes, you cant have it both ways; you cant tell a young man he must go on a mission or he is in opposition to the will of god and then tell him he cant go because he's not prepared or the bars been raised.

[MarginOfError]

"But now you're looking at the wrong issue. If our return missionaries aren't living up to their covenants when they finish their tenure, were they really prepared to go in the first place? What you have here is an argument for being more judicious about who we allow to serve as missionaries."

maybe in some instances for the vast majority i doubt it. as far as being judicious about who goes, you cant have it both ways; you cant tell a young man he must go on a mission or he is in opposition to the will of god and then tell him he cant go because he's not prepared or the bars been raised.

We don't tell them that they must go. We tell them that we expect them to go, and that we expect them to meet the requirements of such service. But just because we expect them to go doesn't mean we shouldn't tell them no when they don't meet those requirements.

[MarginOfError]

ok, i'm sorry what i read was from the CHI immediately fallowing the statement in the letter. which i thought was apart of the letter sent out in one of the years but i may be wrong, it reads

"worthy single members who have not received their endowment in connection with a mission or marriage may become eligible to receive the endowment when the bishop and stake president (establish worthiness)... such eligibility should be determined individually for each person rather than using routine criteria such as reaching a certain age..."

Yes, you're correct. But the counsel in the letter still holds, as it was published following the latest issue of the handbooks. You may also notice in the other thread that I stated any interpretation of age is local interpretation.

[Guest mysticmorini]

why do you think they left it at early twenties? instead of further defining it to a specific age?

[MarginOfError]

Because people aren't classified that easily. Spiritual preparedness and maturity are dependent on a large number of factors that include age, scripture study, commitment to prayer, parental involvement, personal trials, cognitive function and development, education, and even literacy. Age is just an easy one to measure and we can expect that by the time a person has reached his or her early twenties he or she may be near sufficient spiritual maturity.

[RachelleDrew]

Have you met with your SP yet? I hope he is able to leave you with an understanding of his position.

[Maureen]

I'd much rather do baptisms or washings/anointings.

I'm just curious - I've always thought that the initiatory was to prepare a person to receive their garments. So I'm curious as to why a person would do proxy initiatories when garments will not be required.

[AmyKate88]

I'm just curious - I've always thought that the initiatory was to prepare a person to receive their garments. So I'm curious as to why a person would do proxy initiatories when garments will not be required.

The initiatory is an integral part of the endowment itself, and so when you do it as a proxy for someone else, they still have to receive all parts of the endowment, just like as if they were receiving it on earth. They obviously can't wear garments, but the ceremony itself is a part of the whole :)

[Guest mysticmorini]

Because people aren't classified that easily. Spiritual preparedness and maturity are dependent on a large number of factors that include age, scripture study, commitment to prayer, parental involvement, personal trials, cognitive function and development, education, and even literacy. Age is just an easy one to measure and we can expect that by the time a person has reached his or her early twenties he or she may be near sufficient spiritual maturity.

i understand that but why not say someone who is emotionally and spiritually prepared and 24 or 25 instead of saying people in their early twenties shouldn't be recommended?

[Wingnut]

I'm just curious - I've always thought that the initiatory was to prepare a person to receive their garments. So I'm curious as to why a person would do proxy initiatories when garments will not be required.

The deceased cannot receive their endowment without having first been washed and anointed. Ergo, proxy washings and anointings must be performed. One cannot be a proxy without having first received one's own endowment (and washing and anointing).

[ferretrunner]

That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the criteria should be the readiness of the individual, not her age.

Edited January 30, 2010 by ferretrunner

[Generally_Me]

generally_me,

are your husband and yourself not already endowed/sealed? it's a little late here and wanted to make sure i read this right. that's awesome you two are going, nonetheless! your sister will be able to go with you soon :)

Eternal Promise,

Sorry, I don't have much online time anymore and didn't see your question right off. Yes, you're right, we are not already endowed/sealed; we have been married nearly 6 years, and have a temple trip planned next month to do all this, and be sealed with our daughter as well. It will be awesome!! And, something I can look forward to, is accompanying my sister when she is able to go and make her own covenants.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Yes, you're correct. But the counsel in the letter still holds, as it was published following the latest issue of the handbooks. You may also notice in the other thread that I stated any interpretation of age is local interpretation.

in this young ladies case i think I would want a better explanation than I hadn't reached a certian age. even if the letter postdates the councel given in the chi the same councel giving in the letter is given in the chi beside the councel not to set age as a standard.

[JThimm88]

At first he said that since it "looked like" me and my boyfriend would get engaged soon (we have been together for 6 months), he said I should wait until I can go through with him. Unfortunately I had to insist that since boyfriend and I have never talked about marriage in the future, I didn't want to pin a personal blessing on something that wasn't realistic. I wish that wasn't the case! haha :)!

Your bishop does have a valid point in stating your boyfriend being able to take you through the temple (of course he'd have to be your fiance at the point, hehe).

I took my endowment out last October just a week before I got sealed in the temple, and my soon-to-be-hubby was able to "take me through." Once I was able to reflect on the meaning of such the act, what was said, and the importance of it all, it made that one time that much more personal and amazing. Aside from our sealing the week later, going through the temple for the first time with my then-fiance was just completely awesome and uplifting.

Sorry, just my random two cents. :)

[martybess]

I remember feeling exactly the same way when I wanted to go to the temple and my Bishop kept telling me to wait. I waited until I was engaged and then was finally able to go.I shared that experience with my fiance and understood then that I wouldn't have wanted anyone else be the one who took my hand to guide me through to the Celestial room. I'm glad my Bishop taught me to be patient in that.

I really think this is a valid point. I'm sooooo glad I was the one to take my wife by the right hand and into the celestial room!!! You will be glad you waited even if it's 10 years from now.

Baptisms are awesome!! They qualify us for the celestial kingdom. Especially since your doing family!!! KUDOS to you!!! Those who you have brought into the gospel will have many kisses for you when you meet. How awesome will that be!....... Wait.

Edited May 24, 2010 by martybess

[Hemidakota]

The title pretty much speaks for itself but let me give a little background!

I am 21, and a convert to the church of two years. I was the first member in my family, but my little brother has since joined and is planning on serving a mission this fall!

I have an extremely strong testimony of the Gospel, and try to be as righteous as possible. Sorry if that sounds arrogant! I go to the temple at least once a week and have been trying to do a lot of my ancestors' work as well.

That being said, I have felt a really strong desire to take out my endowment. My bishop has told me that so long as I'm under 25, I cannot do so unless I am serving a mission or getting married. This bothers me to no end because I cannot find a doctrinal basis anywhere. All the sources I have looked at (prophets, Ensign articles, etc) all state that personal faith and righteousness are the qualifying factors, not age or circumstances.

I have prayed about it for months now and keep feeling the really strong impression to receive my endowment. I am planning on talking to my bishop about it this upcoming Sunday, because it is really weighing on my mind. What do you guys think?

Pam is correct. Only in special circumstance when you will receive your own endowments outside of on what is given for your age.

I asked the Lord whether or not to serve a mission for the church after my second year as a convert. After conversing with the Lord in lengthy prayer, upon receiving the answer, asked the Bishop later, to receive my own endowments and explained to him on what the Lord revealed to me [inner workings of the Temple]. He granted it, using the discernment of the Spirit.

It was under special circumstances, but like you, I had desire one day to take out my endowments. Seek the Lord first to answer this and then apply what I did if the Lord is ok with it.

May the Lord bless you in receiving your answer.

[mnn727]

I go to the temple at least once a week......

I have felt a really strong desire to take out my endowment.

What? that does not make sense. If you are not endowed, then you can not do anything but baptisms for the dead and that by ward appointment.

[AmyKate88]

What? that does not make sense. If you are not endowed, then you can not do anything but baptisms for the dead and that by ward appointment.

I live in Utah and there are temples everywhere (haha). You can go do baptisms without an appointment at most of them. So that is what I do - I go do baptisms whenever I have some spare time - usually twice a month now.