I've seen a lot of posts about washing and anointings lately and the change in 2005. I went to the temple for the first time in 2004 so I still had it the "old" way. It was fairly uneventful. The only funny thing is thst I put the shield on "backwards" so when I came out of the dressing room, one of the workers turned it around while it was still on me, so I flashed about 4 old grandpa temple workers and my dad. The worker then realized I had it right the first time, so then I flashed everyone again when he turned it back around.

I was on my mission when my companion and I along with another set of Elders we lived with were told by a brand new senior couple that the had changed it to be more modest. When we all got home we laughed about how we all had battle scars since we all had went through the old way and we all had tree of life showers in the MTC (something else that had recently changed).

It was interesting to hear out compared stories. My Bishop all but told me to be prepared that I might get touched in a place I would consider "private" so I was prepared going into it but I was only touched on my very lower abdomen, which I think is how it was "officially" supposed to be done. My companion got a very quick touch on the "helmet," so to speak. One of the the other guys said he got a full stroke from the base to the tip!

Since then I've heard that a lot of the older temple workers still touched the junk because that was the way it was "supposed to be done", even though officially it was supposed to be a touch to the lower stomach or near the hip.

What were everyone else's experiences? What about women?

I don't remember much, so it must not have been a big deal. Kind of like a high school locker room with some old guys who do the anointing stuff all day long and could care less about my junk.

The temple has mellowed a lot over the last century, along with the rest of society. A century ago, you could take your kids to a public execution. Think how well that would fly today. TSCC can't help but be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. They have a leadership structure that wants to hang onto the bad old days and thinks the future is doom and gloom because their organization can't stay like they built it.

My prediction is that eventually tax law will require financial transparency because TSCC isn't the golden boy it once was. When that happens, all of the skeletons will fall out of the closet.

In the old pre-1990 endowment ceremony, some women reported yet a sixth point of fellowship with the old geezer on the other side of the veil.

I got the full monty -- lovingly stroked with two oily fingers, base to tip.
While stunned, I initially bought the official line that this was how it was "supposed to be" -- and maybe it was, from some stories I've heard. But then when I talked to other missionaries at the MTC, and I was the only one with the full stroke, I figured I'd been lucky enough to get a pervert temple worker.

This was in 1978, long before any changes.
It didn't "scar me for life" or anything, but it was another crack in the shelf. :)

Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that originally washings were done in an actual basin, fully unclothed. Then it progressed to the shield, but still touching private areas. Then in the 80's-ish, it went to wearing the shield and only touching near, not on. And then in 2005 it went to fully clothed. If you went through in the 70's, what you got may have actually been the standard.

Still, I've heard enough stories from others that there was a culture among a lot of older workers to continue to do it the "right" way because the change was only in response to concerns about legal challenges.

I got the "shield." So I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be touching "near" only.
And none of the other mishies in the MTC the same time as me got the "old-style." Just lucky me.

So either the old fart doing mine was insisting on being "traditional," or he was a pervert.
Or both. :)

The washing and anointing the ladies were fine. When I did baptisms for the dead a few times, they would not give us a towel until we had stripped. I was a very modest person and everything the church taught us was to be modest. Then they take you into the "house of the lord" and make you get naked while two old bitches are watching you.

Then in the endowment, etc., wedding, they were constantly nit picking me to death. They were bullying me in the bride's room UNTIL my mother showed up. My mother was very shy and unassuming, yet just the fact she was closer to their age, they quit treating me poorly. One time an old lady didn't think my sash was tied in a perfect enough bow for her. There was not one time I went to the temple where I wasn't made to feel like I wasn't doing the job up to their standards.

I have to add, the girl who cuts my hair is 31 years old. I knew her parents well in the singles' ward. She is a temple worker. We were talking about it recently and she said that they have purposely started calling younger people to work in the temples because there were so many complaints about the older people being so rude. She said they have been told not to correct someone in any fashion UNLESS it is something very important to the endowment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2017 10:53AM by cl2.

I went through in 2002 and was touched on my very lower abdomen as well. It was shocking as I wasn't prepared for it, but dutifully endured it, since that's what God wanted. I remember thinking what a crappy job this old guy had, touching guys all day, and wondered if he washed his hands in between.

Even creepier, maybe this was his dream job.

Uhm..well now I just feel like I need a shower.

Yep, sometimes people gravitate toward certain roles because they want to do that stuff. "The way it's supposed to be," can really mean "I want to keep doing it this way."

For example, pedophiles tend to gravitate towards positions that provide them access to children. Not that all folks who work or volunteer with kids are pedophiles, of course.

Working in the temple apparently was a license to grope other people. Some temple workers probably enjoyed it.

I was not prepared in the least clllleeeear back in the 60's for the temple circus. When i realized i was to put on the shield I thought what does this have to do with my getting married and getting endowed? Well, I soon found out and was mortified at what I discovered.

Seriously......this is what the Lord says members need to do PLUS this weirdness is the mooooost special sacred thing the Lord could come up with?

I felt like I was in a 9 year old tree clubhouse WITH 9 YEAR OLDS LEADING THE CIRCUS.

Was it a joke? Was it for real? OMG, OMG, OMG!

written about his experience in the 1950s with washing and anointing. It is SHOCKING! Does anyone here know where to find it?

I couldn't find the exact article you mentioned, but it should be on this page:

http://packham.n4m.org/#MORMONISM

This is still something I am trying to figure out as I never went through with those temples rites and I keep hearing references to this anointing business..

So if someone can please enlightenment on the whole process and what's it's supposed to be for, I'd appreciate it.

For example.. do men do the anointing for women too? Is it in front of other people? Do they really touch you without clothing on your privates??!!

It honestly seems not just traumatizing and clearly something that can be abused further if the person isn't being watch (the one anointing) but actually sounds criminal to me and something that should be exposed and stopped.

I just remember reading the book 'Secret Ceremonies' from the late 80s I think and the woman who had gone through related how she was a virgin and her whole intro to sex then was to be touched by a stranger in the temple! Talk about wrong and abusive and controlling!!

shapeshifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if someone can please enlightenment on the
> whole process and what's it's supposed to be for,
> I'd appreciate it.

It's supposed to be a "preparatory" ordinance, done to "annoint" you before you go get the full endowment. First you're "symbolically" washed -- sort of like another baptism. Then you're "symbolically" annointed, which in mormon-speak means you get some magic oil rubbed on you. In the temple annointing, it's where the rubbing happens that's creepy.

> For example.. do men do the anointing for women
> too?

No, women do it for women. Which is odd, since all mormon "annointing" is supposed to be done by a priesthood holder. Rumor is that in the early temple days, both the washing and annointing of women WAS done by men.

> Is it in front of other people?

It's usually in a little curtain-enclosed "booth" sort of thing, but there are numerous such booths in a large common space.

> Do they
> really touch you without clothing on your
> privates??!!

Yes, they really do. Supposedly, they're just supposed to "annoint" your abdomen right above your "privates," but as I and many others have experienced, some temple workers are either stuck in the "old" ways and go for the full monty, or are flat-out perverts...and do the same. It's supposed to get magical oil on your "privates" to help you be "fruitful and multiply."

> It honestly seems not just traumatizing and
> clearly something that can be abused further if
> the person isn't being watch (the one anointing)
> but actually sounds criminal to me and something
> that should be exposed and stopped.

Since the person getting the touching has agreed to it, it'd be hard to make it "criminal" -- even for the ones who touch where they're no longer supposed to. It IS weird, disturbing, and off-putting to even "faithful" mormons...

> I just remember reading the book 'Secret
> Ceremonies' from the late 80s I think and the
> woman who had gone through related how she was a
> virgin and her whole intro to sex then was to be
> touched by a stranger in the temple! Talk about
> wrong and abusive and controlling!!

Yep. Exactly.

Thanks so much 'Hie' for the explanation!

Yes I suppose it would be hard to press charges in that case because of the 'consent'.. however it IS unfair in the extreme that that consent is really a last minute one (under a lot of pressure from family, etc) since I don't believe anyone is told that will happen beforehand!

I thought I remembered the author of that book saying it was a man who did the anointing and like you say it's supposed to be a priesthood holder technically. So that may be another thing that's changed.

From all of these posts on this board it does sound like the temple rituals are a lot less traumatic than they used to be just a few decades ago!

But still the anointing and washing stuff sounds traumatizing in it's current practice.

Thanks again!