I have a sister who lives in Pocatello,Idaho and she's going on and on about getting a temple there, I guess they had the ground breaking ceremony today. What's funny is non of the apostles showed up because they were busy with the big circle jerk photo op in Rome. Pocatello is low on the Quorum of the Twelve's and First Presidency's priorities even though Pocatello probably generates more tithing revenue than Rome does.

Anyhoo my sis is raving that representatives from several other church's turned some dirt over. The muslims had their representative. The jews had theirs. Several Christian members were there. I guess this is a first for the church.

I love how the church is so community inclusive with it's public relations when these temples get announced and built. There is all this talk about being part of the community and being good neighbors and such and such. Then the exclusion begins when the dedication happens. You now have to be a card carrying member to enter. If you don't pay up and let the church leaders run your life for you, you don't get in.

Now if a mosque, Catholic cathedral, Jewish synagogue or a protestant chapel was built the public would be welcome. You might have to make an appointment but I've been inside several mosques, cathedrals, Jewish temples and synagogue and all kinds of churches.

I remember one day I was walking down South Temple in Salt Lake City and was going by the Catholic cathedral there. I always thought is was a neat building and saw a Catholic priest by the door. I walked up and said I always admired the building and always wanted to see the inside. He couldn't have been nicer. He showed me around and told me some history of the place. He didn't even try and convert me to Catholicism.

I just don't understand excluding people if they respect the place. The Kirtland temple was a public building. It wasn't until the church leaders got involved in secret marriages and polygamy that the temple became secret. At that point the temple became creepy. Maybe a the church is doing people a favor by not letting them in. You have to be somewhat brainwashed to allow some of the stuff to be done or agree to what they expect you to agree to. You have to buy a ticket to the freak show. The Mormons don't allow free admission.

hidden practice of polygamy (with all the related eternal "sealing" nonsense). It was literally a secret society within the larger Mormon society. William Law's reaction when he found out about it speaks volumes about how many regular Mormons were deceived and knew nothing about what Joe, Briggy, Heber and their ilk were getting up to behind closed doors.

But nowadays, there really are only two reasons I can think of for keeping it all sealed off from the public: (1) the tithing angle that is often brought up; and (2) embarrassment.

I sometimes question whether they actually get more revenue by making "temple worthiness" conditional upon being a full tithepayer. But the argument can definitely be made that the Church leadership probably thinks that they do and don't want to risk losing revenue by removing that incentive.

The embarrassment aspect just makes it even more complicated. Opening the temple activities to public view is like inviting people to come take a close look at the Emperor wearing his new clothes (i.e. no clothes at all).

There is literally nothing inspiring to see in the Temple. The wedding ritual is pathetic compared to an ordinary wedding in an ordinary church. The "together for all eternity" aspect is perhaps a bit more romantic. But everything else is cultish and creepy. And all other things that go on in the temple? Even worse.

Most temple-going Mormons are probably secretly relieved that they CAN'T invite non-Mormon friends and neighbors to tag along to see what goes on in the temple. Stupid aprons, ridiculous baker's caps, fiddly games with the sash, nutty Masonic handshakes...pretending to do all that stuff on behalf of dead people. All ridiculous. All embarrassing and nonsensical.

At least in a cathedral, you can sit and listen to a beautiful choir (at relevant events). You can sit during off hours and admire the architecture, the stained glass and the meaning of life. You can light a candle, if so inclined.

What can you do in a Mormon temple, other than being herded around in small groups from movie to handshakes to paylayale chanting to walking through a curtain to a weird lounge area and then told to move on immediately. No loitering. No thinking.

It's all on the internet. You can watch You Tube videos that show everything. The whole endowment ceremony is in print amongst other ordinances.

My mom used to drive an hour to the temple so study the lines she had to know as an ordinance worker. Today she could just study all that stuff at home because it's public information.

Let's say you needed to memorize your acting lines because you participated in a live endowment in Salt Lake or Manti. You could do so on the internet. No need to go to the temple to practice your lines.

So it's all public now except for what the top leadership are doing in there in their meetings. No footage of the holy of holies yet.

Sheesh. Pokey is less than an hour from the Idaho Falls temple. Of course Brigham City and Draper also had temples even closer, yet they got one.

They should put a temple in Malad, Idaho, so all the Mormons going up there to buy Powerball tickets can do a session to remind God that they really deserve to win.

In the SLC/UT area you have temples in:
Brigham City
Bountiful
SLC
W. Jordan
Sandy
Draper
American Fork
Payson
St. George

You forgot a few...…. Ogden, Manti, others?

Provo (2)
Logan
Cedar City
Vernal
Monticello

???

thx for the clarification....i knew i missed a few

Sandy doesn't have a temple. There's one in South Jordan, not far from the one in West Jordan.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sheesh. Pokey is less than an hour from the Idaho
> Falls temple. Of course Brigham City and Draper
> also had temples even closer, yet they got one.
>
> They should put a temple in Malad, Idaho, so all
> the Mormons going up there to buy Powerball
> tickets can do a session to remind God that they
> really deserve to win.

I used to live in Idaho Falls when I was a member of the church and I don't remember the Idaho Falls temple ever being so busy it was turning people away or making them wait in the chapel a long time. I guess they reduced the seating capacity when they remodeled it.

I can see this to make room for bigger seats because the members have gotten fatter or to make it look like the ordinance rooms are more full. Bringing the Rexburg temple and Pocatello temple on line will greatly reduce the load on the Idaho Falls temple. Granted Rexburg grew due to Rick's College become a four year BYU campus.

I don't think the church has grown leaps and bounds in eastern Idaho. Eastern Idaho has grown a bit but not like the Boise area so I think they would have been fine with just the Idaho Falls temple. Cut down the Endowment ceremony and the temples would be able to move a lot of people through. The Endowment is the bottle neck in the whole dumb process.

Good points and discussions here, everyone.

The morning news todsy showed a clip (I wish they hadn’t ) from the NZ shooter livestream as he walked up to the mosque door. He was greeted warmly at the door with “Welcome, Brother” before he killed the greeter.

I’ve never been to a temple but I assume instead of a warm greeting or welcome you are asked to show your card to get in? And turned away without one.

I agree with all the OP points.

mel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good points and discussions here, everyone.
>
> The morning news todsy showed a clip (I wish they
> hadn’t ) from the NZ shooter livestream as he
> walked up to the mosque door. He was greeted
> warmly at the door with “Welcome, Brother”
> before he killed the greeter.
>
> I’ve never been to a temple but I assume instead
> of a warm greeting or welcome you are asked to
> show your card to get in? And turned away without
> one.
>
> I agree with all the OP points.

Entering a temple is like entering a hotel. You walk into a lobby and there is a counter with people behind it where you check in. You give them your temple recommend and they check it out to make sure it's real and they might scan the barcode and you go onto the dressing room to get dressed in your whites. Then you go off to do whatever ordinances your are doing that day.

How friendly people are depends on them. I have had temple staff be very friendly to me and I've had people very grumpy when I asked them a question.

Most ordinance workers are old retired people. Some have health problems and they don't feel well. I can see why some are grumpy. I would be. I heard it's not too uncommon to have an old temple worker die in the temple. Could you imagine giving the five points of fellowship at the veil and the veil worker collapses dead?

Rubicon wrote:
>
> Then you go off to do whatever ordinances your are doing that day.

So you do different things every time you went?
>
> Most ordinance workers are old retired people.

Yet another good reason to have left—-when I retire I don’t want to work as an unpaid tour guide.

> imagine giving the five points of fellowship at
> the veil and the veil worker collapses dead?

Five points—-I’ll imagine each elbow, each knee , that’s four, then you touch noses like the maori??? That’s probably the death point.

http://www.missedinsunday.com/memes/temple/five-points-of-fellowship/

To answer your first question:
There are multiple ordinances performed in the temple.
1) Baptism for the dead - usually performed by youth.
2) Endowments - you do it for yourself the first time you attend, then you do it for dead people every other time.
3) Washing and Anointing - Part of the endowment that you do first when you go the first time for yourself. On subsequent visits, only done by some participants who do it repeatedly in that session for dead people.
4) Sealings (also called temple marriages) - again done for yourself the first time. Subsequently done by selected participants repeatedly for dead people.
5) Second Anointing - done only by certain *special* people for themselves. I am not aware that it is ever done for dead people. Most members will never participate in this one.

The few times I went to the temple, you had to show your "recommend" to some officious temple worker to get inside. Now days I understand the cards are even barcoded so your attendance can be tracked and reported. The barcode thing reminds me of something I heard in Mormon seminary about the Mark of the Beast and how the old Devil would require everyone to have the Mark.

Shinehah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few times I went to the temple, you had to
> show your "recommend" to some officious temple
> worker to get inside. Now days I understand the
> cards are even barcoded so your attendance can be
> tracked and reported. The barcode thing reminds me
> of something I heard in Mormon seminary about the
> Mark of the Beast and how the old Devil would
> require everyone to have the Mark.

I used to be in the bishopric and we never checked a person's temple attendance. They would scanning recommends with a magnetic strip when I was doing temple recommend interviews.

All I know is me and the other councilor hated doing temple recommend interviews. People would let their temple recommends expire and then they had to go to a wedding and it would be this last minute panic. I need a temple recommend interview and I need it now! It got so bad we started to refuse doing interviews without an appointment.

I was the guy would would read through the questions really fast and get the interview done quick because I had things to do and people to see. I hated doing temple recommend interviews.

Rubicon wrote:
>
> I hated doing temple recommend interviews.

You were in the bishopric and now come to RfM? Big change! You obviously were well-respected to be in that position!

Were any of the questions deal-breakers except if they were up to date on tithing? Were any of the interviews ever fun, or funny?

it is anything but friendly. The girl who cuts my hair (a daughter of long-time friends) works in the temple one night a week. She told me that they have been instructed to NOT constantly nag the "patrons" for not doing everything perfect. I was instructed on how to tie the sash in a perfect bow when I failed to do so. That is how ridiculous it got.

Then you get to the oh so holy celestial room and they escort you out fairly quickly for the next group to come in. I never even got to sit down in the damn room.

Personally, I wouldn't set foot in a temple again if you paid me.

cl2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it is anything but friendly. The girl who cuts my
> hair (a daughter of long-time friends) works in
> the temple one night a week. She told me that they
> have been instructed to NOT constantly nag the
> "patrons" for not doing everything perfect. I was
> instructed on how to tie the sash in a perfect bow
> when I failed to do so. That is how ridiculous it
> got.
>
> Then you get to the oh so holy celestial room and
> they escort you out fairly quickly for the next
> group to come in. I never even got to sit down in
> the damn room.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't set foot in a temple again
> if you paid me.

I hated playing temple dress up. You get your robe and sash tied and that dumb little string on the hat ties to the robe and then you have to take all that stuff off and retie it on the other side.

My dad had bad arthritis and had a hell of a time tying on his temple clothes. The whole thing is dumb. It's almost like the Rocky Horror Picture Show. You play dress up and watch a movie and act out certain parts. The only problem is the movie sucks and the whole dress up and acting bit is lame.

My father had lots of problems tying that stupid string/chord. He was almost always the last person standing. A bunch of passive aggressive temple patrons would clear their throats over and over. This was their way of saying "Speed it up. Dammit!"

I had lots of trouble with the sash. It would disappear while changing because it would fall to the ground behind the folding seat. One time I saw an older gentleman tie a second sash around his waist. I would like to believe that he was confused and happened to grab a second one. The guy that ended up "short" was given another one while we waited.

One time, the packet that I rented from the temple was missing the sash. I thought that I could slide by without one. Nope.
I was told that it was my responsibility to verify all of the contents before proceeding into the endowment room. My endowment was nullified that day and I was escorted out. I had the choice of waiting for the next session or changing back into a suit. I gladly changed into my Mormon street clothes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2019 11:53AM by messygoop.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bunch of passive aggressive temple patrons would clear their throats over and over.

OMG this is like a horror show!

> My endowment was nullified that day and I was escorted out.

Gosh! Harsh!!! So glad I never subjected myself to that!!!

by not doing it all perfectly. I can't imagine nowadays with my arthritic hands if I had to tie any of those things.

I have a younger brother who is disabled and my aunt and uncle keep bugging him about going to the temple. He doesn't have very good use of his left arm and left leg as he had a stroke when he was born. He was going to the temple during the summer and finally quit going as he felt he wasn't good enough. I told him NOT to go. I can't imagine how embarrassing it is for him to go. They certainly don't make it for anyone with any handicap.

How many times on this board have I read that they don't allow the handicapped (he is mentally and physically disabled) to be baptized or go on missions, etc. Well, they let him do it all and his mission nearly destroyed him. The kids were so mean to him. So it really irritates me when my aunt and uncle try to get him to go to the temple regularly.

When I got married, the bitches were giving me a difficult time as my sleeves on my wedding dress weren't lined (I bought it at ZCMI and asked the women if they needed to be lined and they said no). The dress had cap sleeves over the long sleeves, so you couldn't see the garment sleeves. So they were hassling me about it and in walks my mother. My mother was very antisocial and reserved, so she wasn't threatening. It was just there was someone there their age so they quit bothering me. They'd always talk about the lovely bride's room in the temple. It wasn't so wonderful to me. I didn't go back there to get my clothes. Someone else did.

The temple, where they strip you bear and then bully you. Lovely place.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2019 12:51PM by cl2.

cl2 Wrote:

> ...his mission nearly destroyed him. The kids were so mean to him.

So sorry about your brother being bullied, CL. I am glad he has you there to stand up for him!!!

>The dress had cap sleeves over the long sleeves, so you couldn't see the garment sleeves. So they were hassling me about it...

And thus yet another emphasis on what is TRULY important in life!

CL, you do have some amazing stories!!!!

The Nauvoo temple, when it was first built, was free of the eternal marriage aspect. Joe was doing his secret marriages in the upstairs of his general store. He was keeping his adultery secret out of fear. When the news of his secret marriages got out he had to devise a method of making it holy. So a last minute wooden sealing room was constructed on the roof of the temple and the "New And Everlasting Covenant" was announced as a revelation from God. This happened not long before his shooting death. Later the wooden part of the temple was taken down but in one of the old photos of the Nauvoo temple you can see the A-frame structure on the top of the temple. Some people I told this to would not believe me even though I learned it from the church missionaries directly on a tour in Nauvoo. It was, of course, white washed a bit to sound more prophetic.

Joseph Smith tried to have William Law murdered when the news got out but Law escaped with his wife and his life to Canada. Joe wasn't quite so lucky.

Interesting history, Pooped! Thanks for sharing. I wasn’t told any of this in my SS classes!!!

The Nauvoo temple was just a larger version of the Kirtland temple except it had a finished basement with a baptismal font. It had an assembly hall on two floors and then a floor of offices and then a well lit attic area that was probably for classrooms. The Nauvoo temple actually had sky lights on the top floor.

From what I understand they were doing the secret temple hocus pocus in the attic. As you said this was all religious justification to have sex with multiple women and probably to justify it to the women who were being abused that God wanted it to happen. The typical brainwashing perverts use on their sexual victims.

When the truth leaked out. Church members even ones who were loyal to Joseph Smith could not tolerate it and it led to the events that got Joseph killed and the church breaking up. It would have been the end of the church if Brigham didn't isolate it in the great basin and grow it. Brigham Young unfortunately was another sexual pervert. It took the US government going after the church leadership and polygamous members to end the practice of polygamy. Fortunately the church had nowhere to run to. Some ran to Mexico and others ran to Canada. Those Mormon communities are still there. Polygamist splinter groups still exist the the main body of polygamy fortunately was busted up.

Rubicon Wrote:

> When the truth leaked out. Church members even ones who were loyal to Joseph Smith could not tolerate it...

Very interesting, Rubi! Thank you for the history.

When I was in SS someone offered to loan me some books on church history. I never borrowed them but I imagine even if I had read them, this would have not been in it, or it would have been whitewashed somehow to make Joe Smith into a victim!

I'm pretty sure my temple recommend had a bar code and they scanned it and I think kept it until you were done and then you had to go collect it before you left.
But that was several years ago.
Besides the proverbial carrot on a string And the tithing it brings in, I have always thought the temple was a big money laundering scheme with lucrative contracts going to inside connections with kick backs.

Why is exclusivity a bad thing in and of itself?

I can't just walk into any gym and start using their equipment. I have to be a member in good standing. The gym determines the guidelines and requirements, and as long as I satisfy those, I can keep using the equipment.

If it's ok for a gym, I think it's ok for a religious building.

Don't you? Or do you think there's something illegal about only letting "card-carrying members" in the temple?

Gyms are for-profit businesses. Gyms pay taxes.

Religious institutions are (in theory, anyway) nonprofit organizations. Religious entities are exempt from taxation.

The point of the OP was that other religions do not require a membership fee to enter. But thanks for pointing out the similarity between TSCC and a for-profit business.

And no one before you said anything about "illegal." Nice straw man… not. You must be a MORMON.

It's not a strawman, though, is it? I never said the OP asserted what mormons were doing was illegal. THAT would have been a strawman.

I asked the OP if they thought there was something illegal about it, otherwise why is this news?

You made a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. What's the point of that distinction?

And here we go again with the "you must be a mormon because you didn't say, 'mormons bad.'"

Guess what? I can be ex-mormon and not think everything they do is somehow evil. It's how reality works.

Oh, FFS.


"It's not a strawman, though, is it? I never said the OP asserted what mormons were doing was illegal. THAT would have been a strawman."

You're the one who brought up illegality when it was neither stated nor implied in the OP. You were attempting to put words in OP's mouth, and whether it was a statement or in the form of a leading question hardly matters.


"I asked the OP if they thought there was something illegal about it, otherwise why is this news?"

Who said it was "news"? Who said it has to be? Another attempt at misdirection.


"You made a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. What's the point of that distinction?"

The point of the distinction wasn't between for-profit and NFP. It was between a *taxed* business and an *untaxed* religion. You were comparing a mormon temple to a taxed entity. In this case, the gym gets the benefit of exclusivity but carries the responsibility of paying taxes. TSCC receives the same benefit without any of the responsibility. I was demonstrating that the two were not similar despite your attempts to link them.

If TSCC wants its temples to remain pay-to-play, fine, but in that case they're not public buildings and should pay the appropriate US taxes. That’s how it's done in the UK, for example. They have to pay property tax on their UK temples because the general public is barred from entering them.


"And here we go again with the 'you must be a mormon because you didn't say, 'mormons bad.'"

The church is a noxious cult. Mormons occasionally show up here, pretending to be exmos, and try to offer up some weak frysauce defense of the church in order to persuade us to doubt our doubts. They sound much like you do, so red flags are going to be raised, like it or not.


"Guess what? I can be ex-mormon and not think everything they do is somehow evil. It's how reality works."

Guess what? I didn't say that everything TSCC does is evil. But this practice certainly is. Splitting up families because not all pay the going extortion rate is evil. Labeling people as "unworthy" until they cough up the cash is evil. The church literally sells its signs and tokens for money, while telling its members that selling signs and tokens for money is the fast track to hell.

Gyms not only pay taxes, they do not offer eternal life or break ground with Popes or such when they open a branch. Gyms pay their workers, don't ask them to volunteer (work for free).

That was a very strange analogy. No relevance at all.

married, could I? No. It isn't that simple. There is a lot more than just a member in good standing, being worthy, being morally clean, blah, blah, blah

Does a gym stick their noses into your sex habits? If you follow gym rules, which are pretty simple to follow for a human being, and you pay to be a member, then you can go. Does membership cost thousands a year? You can go to Planet Fitness for $10 a month. Can you go to the temple to see your daughter married for $10 a visit?

I think you answered all your own questions already:

1. Gyms require dues. Temples require dues.
2. Gyms require you abide by certain guidelines. Temples require you abide by certain guidelines.
3. If you don't pay your dues, both have the right to deny you entrance.
4. If you don't abide by certain guidelines, both have the right to deny you entrance.

The dues are different, yes. But still dues.
The guidelines are different, yes. But still guidelines.

If you paid your dues AND demonstrated you abided by the guidelines prescribed by LDS Inc then you WOULD be able to obtain a recommend.

The point is that you don't want to, which is fine. Neither do I. Nobody here does. But that doesn't make it wrong for LDS to deny you entrance into their temple.

It makes it wrong for your daughter to purposefully exclude you from her wedding.

Her fault, not LDS. And by the way, who introduced your daughter to the LDS church, after all?

Weirdly LDS inc thinks the same way as you do. Not that they should control access to their temples but the reasons they control access.

1. Because they can.
2. Because that's what Jesus would do.

I hope you can see the irony in arguing that the Mormon church is no more than a business trying to eek out a profit in an increasingly diverse consumer atmosphere.

Is it asking two much of a religion to cater to the spiritual needs of it's believers instead of the fiscal needs of it's administrators?

jacob Wrote:

> I hope you can see the irony in arguing that the Mormon church is no more than a business trying to eek out a profit

Well said, Jacob!

So can a gym take your $ and then deny you access on a whim?

For crying out loud, I was denied a TR by the 2nd counselor in the stake presidency.

Paying tithing? Yes
Attending church? Yes
Keeping the commandments-covenants? Yes
Magnifying the PH? Yes

I was the ward clerk at the time. Every week I spent a crapload of time in front of a crummy computer dealing with lousy data on behalf of LDS Corp.

And this bozo leaned in and said. "You're not worthy. The spirit speaketh in my ear and you abuse and mistreat your wife."

Come see me in two weeks and we'll have another talk.

And I sat there stunned. [I now realize that he wanted me to raise my voice and or call him out and thus justify his decision that I had an uncontrollable temper.]

The prick had just interviewed my wife and he signed her TR. My wife lied to him that she believed in a living profit because she had confided in me that she didn't believe in profits.

And yes, we had one helluva fight driving home. That guy set us up to fight over a stupid worthy card. And I went the following Sunday and snagged the 1st counselor and got my last TR.

>>If it's ok for a gym, I think it's ok for a religious building.

I think the closest equivalent to a Mormon temple is a Masonic lodge or temple (from which the Mormon endowment is derived.) Under U.S. tax law, a Masonic lodge/temple is apparently considered a 501(c)(10) "domestic fraternal society" for federal tax purposes. As far as I can determine from a quick web search, this makes Masonic lodges/temples exempt from federal taxes, but not necessarily exempt from local taxes such as property taxes. Plus, not all donations to the organization are tax-deductible. A Mason could correct me on this, but my impression is that tax-wise, it's a mixed bag.

I personally think that Mormon temples should be treated in the same manner. They are essentially fraternal clubs with a spiritual/religious focus (just like the Masons.) As another board member pointed out, Great Britain does not allow Mormon temples a tax exemption because they are closed to the general public, and thus do not have a public benefit. The same argument is used when Masonic lodges are subject to local taxes.

Someone here said the new temples all over look like just another McDonald's franchise.

So true.

I think the temple interiors look like hotels. See for example:

https://gardenandgun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GG0119_Hotels_01-733x1100.png

(From: https://gardenandgun.com/articles/holy-city-grandeur-hotel-bennett/ )

shakinthedust Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the temple interiors look like hotels.

Yes, I am not feeling the spirit and the floors might make me see double.