"There's nothing in the temple that would make you feel uncomfortable."
I think it was the temple matron speaking. She seemed gentle enough, and I suppose she was saying exactly what she was supposed to say. People need to be reassured to go inside a temple these days.
I do find it sad that she's supposed to say things like that. The mounting "emphasis on temples" is going to create yet another generation of disillusioned members. Maybe they could use some sort of diluted endowment without the threats from Satan, or a series of rotating films to keep the patrons' interest.
BYU Boner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, the temple is like coughing, farting, and > wetting the pants simultaneously while standing in > a crowded elevator—nothing at all uncomfortable > about that.
...yeah. When I went thru for the first time, I refused to wear the dumb bakers cap. My chaperone for the event was very concerned I didn't understand the sacred nature of the cap. So I smashed it down, and reshaped it to look like a beret, then put it on. It actually looked quite dapper. My handler was very upset with my performance......
If I were to go through the temple for the first time today, I don't think I'd feel all that uncomfortable. Nervous, maybe. Confused for sure. But the things that made me so uncomfortable are gone.
In the 70s, the first thing that happend is they separate you from your escort, who you'd been told would be right by your side the whole time, and take you down to a room with a locker and tell you to get naked and put this little poncho over you. Then you stand in line with a bunch of other poncho-clad girls, trying to hold it sort of closed at the side and go into a little room where two old ladies touch your private parts and put your undies on you. That was uncomfortable.
Then, of course, the really uncomfortable part of pantomiming your own violent demise while saying you would allow your life to be taken via throat slitting, heart being ripped out and disembowling if you reveal the secrets. Then the prayer circle that they ask all the newbies to come into and then tell you to put your veil over your face and chant Pay Lay Ale.
I know they still have the prayer circle but they use English instead of Adamic (such a joke). I don't know if they still tell the women to veil their faces. That made me so angry every time. And yeah, maybe the total nonsense of it makes people uncomfortable. But the temple matron surely went through the old ceremony and in her eyes, as those of us who also did, it's just not that uncomfortable. You know, by comparison. It's just nonsensical is all.
Sounds like Jim Jones' 'church'-temple/ lds template.
NOTHING in the temple that would make you/ me feel uncomfortable? Hearing that is like 10,000 RED FLAGs going up simultaneously. Hmmm
I think of things that make me uncomfortable. Mormonism comes to mind (and goes to toilet).
Then why not make them OPEN TO THE PUBLIC/ ALL God's children? Why make it so DIFFIcult to (EXPLAIN it) do 'temple-play'/ "work"? Why wear weird clothing & keep EVERYTHING about it hidden-secret? Why have it so wholly unnecessary and unnatural and sacreligious?
Why have primary children take BS "tests" about something they know NOTHING (true) about [temples] and tell them it is a necessary part of their [forced] life and then make it so WEIRD, extremely diffiCULT and improper, funny (and not in a good way) and really fuNcked up, not to mention wholly inhumane, unrealistic, uninteresting, unnecessary, and truly and certainly disrespectful & personally humanly dishonorable?
Nothing weird or complicated or difficult or ridiculous here, or anywhere. Yea right. Whatever. Such 'BS' [back spin]!
This is a place that won't let you return to an endowment session if you need to leave to use the restroom. They block you from leaving the room and it is reiterated that you FORFEIT your privilege to return to the session. You have to agree to their condition that you "screwed up" if you need to make an emergency restroom visit.
The second time I ever went to the temple in 1984, they brought in a quadriplegic woman in a hospital bed and placed in the aisle on the left of the front row. I think she was receiving her own endowment. The matrons dressed her in the robes and changed the clothing as needed. I do not recall what they did about the death penalties, since she was paralyzed and could not pantomime the death penalties.
It was the most surreal experience of my life. This poor woman, unable to move or breath on her own, was made to believe that this ritual was necessary for her eternal salvation, and probably was motivated to be sealed to family. It blows the mind to think that God created salvation rituals that have physical requirements that many individuals cannot do because of disabilities, advanced age, distance or having died anonymously in the middle of nowhere in a time and place where no one could find you to provide you proxy salvation.
There is nothing in my home that would make me [you] feel uncomfortable [unless the mid-century modern furniture, vinyl upholstery, stained-steal, elaborate native wood carvings, abstract - and unabstractable - art, sharp lines and rounded edges, quaint architecture, deep discussions, rad humor, glamourous simplicity, real hospitality, or anything else, does it].
When I went to the temple for the first time it was the costume the men wore that made me look twice. The weird hat with the string hanging down. No one ever did explain that string to me. And some men wore white jumpsuits while others wore shirts and ties. The women looked fairly normal but the men looked pretty ridiculous. Sorry guys.
Just because the temple doesn't make her uncomfortable, it doesn't mean that it won't make other people uncomfortable. I had a good bishop, who was really open about the temple and the ceremony. I personally wasn't freaked out, but I also wouldn't claim that it's not freaky in a way.
obviously means that a lot of people feel uncomfortable in the temple.
"There's nothing in the temple that would make you feel uncomfortable."
Of course that is true if you're the kind of person who likes putting on shower caps, wearing sashes and aprons and standing around in circles with other similarly clad individuals chanting nonsensical words like Pay Lay Ale.
Of course why would repeatedly pretending to be various dead people to do "ordinances" for those dead people make you feel any more uncomfortable than eating donuts with a friend?
Why would learning a bunch of secret-society handshakes purported to be necessary for entering heaven make you feel uncomfortable?
Which church makes their members separate themselves by gender during sermons? One habit I recall from my mormon days is the tendency for mormons to judge and talk about other religions. Of course a favoirte to judge harshly is the JW's, but I recall in an institute class people making fun of an extreme christian church which made women sit on one side and men on the other during church. It wasnt the JW's, but I wanna say Quakers or some pentecostal type church... This was overwhelmingly viewed as a bad thing and us mormons were so glad that we were enlightened enough to not require this from people. After all, shouldn't people worship with their families?
Then cue going in to the temple for the first time and what happens first thing? Men here, women there. Women veil their faces, Men bring their women through the veil. Basically, mormons are hypocrites when it comes to temple practices.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2018 03:49PM by nonsequiter.
Isn't the division of the congregation into priesthood and relief society the same thing? Men go one way, women the other: they can't worship together.
There are also Jewish congregations that divide the men from the women during worship. But in at least one such congregation, the women got angry when a new rabbi arrived and insisted that the gender difference be enforced in more than symbolic ways. They had him fired.
So Mormonism, in my view, stands out as a religion that views gender difference as spiritually significant rather than just a community tradition. In that context the priesthood/relief society distinction strikes me as barbaric.
I spent years away from Mormonism, living and working in places where gender did not matter. That's the way things functioned in "the world" and everyone was used to it.
When I tried to reintegrate into Mormonism, the separation of the sexes struck me as bizarre. I mean, in today's society who would even consider such a procedure when organizing a new entity?
Yet here the Mormons were, the men pompously heading off to rooms where really important decisions--like who was going to carry whose furniture--were made; and the women heading into a tightly packed room in which various perfumes commingled to produce a gut-wrenching stench.
I always found it interesting that priesthood meeting was supposed to be so special and yet most instructors hadn't taken the time to do more preparation than maybe reading once through the manual. Whereas the relief society instructor likely spent two weeks preparing and had all kinds of props along with a table cloth,flowers and etc. What's up with that?
No one would say that unless there was stuff that would make you uncomfortable. If there's nothing to make you uncomfortable, why mention it? No one ever says, "there's nothing at the grocery store that would make you uncomfortable." That's because there's nothing at the grocery store that would make you uncomfortable.
This is preemptive gas-lighting. They're telling you that when you start feeling uncomfortable (which you probably will) that you shouldn't, and it's because something's wrong with you.