Originally Posted By ecdc >>I am relieved to hear that that isn't standard practice.<< Far from it, fortunately. There's nuts everywhere, I guess. >>I understand that even close blood relatives (such as even the father and mother of the bride) are not allowed at the wedding ceremony if they're not Mormon.<< My father could not attend my wedding, even though he was a Mormon and was married in the temple himself. But because he'd "fallen away" (he didn't go to church and drank coffee and alcohol) he wasn't allowed in. To me, it's almost worse than a secrecy aspect. They obviously weren't trying to keep anything secret from someone like him who'd already been. It's just elitism. At the time, I was sad but didn't think much of it, since this was how it was done. Now looking back, I can't think of anything more childish, stupid, and asinine than keeping a parent from seeing his child's wedding over a freakin' cup of coffee. At least I'm not bitter
Originally Posted By utahjosh <It's just elitism.> No, it's consistency of keeping the temple a sacred place - a place only people who are living up to the standards to help keep the place clean and holy may enter. It's not the church's fault your father chose not to live in a way that would allow him to enter. It was his choice, not the church's.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <They obviously weren't trying to keep anything secret from someone like him who'd already been.> THANK YOU! What a great point. It's not about "secrecy." It's about keeping the temple a place of worthiness, unspotted from the things of the world.
Originally Posted By Mr X The problem with that sort of elitism (and yes Josh I do see it that way, obviously you're welcome to see it any way you wish) is that it doesn't work. Why? Because many people are capable of LYING. So on the one hand you've got someone who is a decent person and who tries, but maybe has a drinking problem or whatever and slips up and drinks a few times, and gets banned from the place. And then you've got some other slick willy type who goes out and does all kinds of bad stuff, but lies about it. In he goes. And thus, while keeping out someone who's pretty darned worthy but just isn't perfect and won't lie about it, the place still gets "spotted from the things of the world". Unless anyone is trying to claim that all the people who've ever gone into that place are completely honest.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, it's consistency of keeping the temple a sacred place - a place only people who are living up to the standards to help keep the place clean and holy may enter.<< You'll obviously disagree, but if one's definition of "standards" and "holiness" are no coffee and alcohol, then those standards suck. Now that I'm no longer a participant, I couldn't be more ashamed that I let such a stupid, trivial thing keep my father from attending my own wedding. Of all the things in the world to marginalize someone on such an important day.... I might as well have told him he couldn't come to my wedding because his shoes were brown - it's about as important. Here's the irony; my father couldn't go to the temple because of the Mormon health code that forbids drinking alcohol or coffee. But my father is one of the healthiest people I know; he goes to the gym everyday, is right at the weight he should be, he watches what he eats very carefully, never has smoked, etc. But parents who are obese and eat like pigs can go watch their kids get married, just because they have the deep moral conviction and immeasurable courage to "just say no" to that steaming cup of coffee. It's an entirely Pharisaical, "letter of the law" approach.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Restrictions on caffeine and alcohol are nothing. In the religion I grew up with (Conservative Baptist) we were prohibited from: Alcohol Tobacco Gambling Movies Card Playing Dancing Don't believe it? Have we learned nothing from Footloose? <<Baptist Lifestyle Many conservative Baptists oppose gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and some prohibit dancing and movies. Especially in areas where Southern Baptists form a majority of the population, the denomination has been successful in imposing its values on the general population – "dry counties" in the South or the ban on music and dancing in the film Footloose) are examples.>> Source: <a href="http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/baptists.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religionfacts.com/c hristianity/denominations/baptists.htm</a> Makes the Mormons look like a bunch of Wild and Crazy guys, huh?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Still not as bad as the Shakers though.>> The Shakers are dieing out though. They cannot marry or have sex. There are no new members through reproduction, only recruitment. That is where the Baptists are at least a little smart... they have relatively few sexual restrictions compared to other conservative religions. What the hell? If you can't drink or smoke or gamble or play cards or go to movies or dance; what is left? Doin' the Nasty!! There were always be plenty of Baptists…
Originally Posted By Mr X Dieing out? I'd say pretty much dead. According to Wikipedia, there are only four members left! (I think that would qualify as extinct for all intents and purposes lol)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Dieing out? I'd say pretty much dead.>> They have a load of valuable land though. If you can give up the nasty for a few years you could probably join them, outlive them, and have all the $$ to yourself!! (Plus I don't think male Shakers have to do "women's work"!) ;-)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< When I was on my mission ... we had members and investigators >>> What does "investigators" mean in this context?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Movies >>> When I was in elementary school, one of my best friends was the child of a preacher. He very well could have been Baptist, although I don't know for sure. He was prohibited from seeing "movies," regardless of content, that were shown in a cinema. But if the exact same movie was later shown in unedited form on TV, it was okay to watch it. What's the sense in that?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< THANK YOU! What a great point. It's not about "secrecy." It's about keeping the temple a place of worthiness, unspotted from the things of the world. >>> But if it's not about secrecy, why have you admonished people here to not discuss what goes on in the temple? Why have you asked that this thread get shut down? Why have you warned another that he should be careful about what he says since there will be CONSEQUENCES to his actions? None of those behaviors have anything to do with maintaining the purity of the temple, as none of them involve changing the set of people that are admitted. Based on everything that's been said so far in this and the other thread, it seems pretty clear to me that there's both a sacred AND a secret component to what goes on in the temple. And secrecy is inevitably going to lead to suspicion by outsiders. Don't act so surprised when it happens or that people are completely off base for thinking and feeling that way.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Because cinemas are evil? >>> Apparently! Or maybe it was just an arbitrary and capricious rule.
Originally Posted By Mr X (apparently superdry has been corrupted by spending so much time in sinful cinemas!)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< We only go two-by-two. >>> At an individual home, do both missionaries of the pair go to the door, or do they split up once in a neighborhood?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster dlkozy wrote: ">>>"I have answered questions in THIS THREAD honestly and fairly and would ask any Mormon on THIS THREAD if that's not the case."<<< My apologies for not giving you specifics. I was referring to posts 24,64. How about answering questions sans the digs? >>"...ask any Mormon on THIS THREAD if that's not the case..."<<< And I am answering." You are a crazy person. There was nothing hostile or snide in any of your cited posts. Eighthdwarf was giving earnest responses to posed questions. Get off your high horse.
