Skip to comments.Temple dress guidelines [MormonISM - Open]
Posted on 01/27/2011 3:50:15 PM PST by Colofornian
Editor's note: Third in a series about the Mormon wedding experience.
In his book, The Holy Temple, President Boyd K. Packer provides a wise reason for brides to select an appropriate wedding dress.
When you have the opportunity to go to the temple to participate in the temple ceremonies or to witness a sealing, remember where you are. You are a guest in the house of the Lord. You should groom yourself and clothe yourself in such a way that you would feel comfortable should your Host appear, the senior apostle wrote.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided guidelines regarding appropriate temple wedding dresses and clothing (Source: The Eternal Marriage Student Manual, p. 317).
Brides may wear their wedding dress in the temple to be sealed. Dresses must be white, without heavy (or elaborate) ornamentation, have long sleeves and a modest neckline, have all sheer material lined, and the train must be removable or be able to be pinned or hooked up out of the way. If there is any question about the appropriateness, take the dress or fabric and pattern to the temple for approval.
Guests should be counseled to dress as they would attend a sacrament meeting. Tuxedos or other formal wear is not appropriate. All guests must have current temple recommends....
(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...
No tithing, no temple recommend.
No temple recommend, no wedding ceremony attendance.
No temple recommend, no eligibility to automatically live with your family forever on your own planet.
No temple recommend, no future godhood status for you.
No temple recommend, no living with Heavenly Father forever...you will be subjugated to a lower sphere outside of His presence...[This means, most Mormons aren't even apparently planning for eternal life with God -- kind of like Jehovah's Witnesses as most just hope for living in paradise...tho JWs interpret that as "earth"...]
This means that given that perhaps only 20% of Mormons even have such temple recommends! And the economy has been putting more pressure on wannabe tithers.
The "temple recommend" is the all-controlling caste system and status symbol juncture of the Mormon church. Like the Mormon missionary system, it fuels the Lds, Inc. dozens-of-billion $ coffers. [The missionary system does it by way of turning out higher lifelong tithers...IOW, except for select mission areas, the costs of funding Lds missionary work isn't really worth the 5 or so -- or less -- converts an average missionary might land during his two years...as others have noted, it proves to be a "win-win" situation for Lds Inc. because families fund their children's missionary work...and it churns out more tithers when compared to those who didn't serve missions].
Ah, eternal marriage...LdsISM has to play down all those passages in the Bible about the Lamb of God being the Bridegroom and the Church being the bride in order to emphasize that...
...man-woman eternal marriage or...
...man-woman-woman "eternal marriage" or...
...man-man-woman "eternal marriage" or even group "marriages" (a combo of the above) are eternal.
Now, given that the Lds church has been a sharp defender of "man-woman" marriage in a couple of California initiatives, what do I mean by "man-woman-woman eternal marriage" or even "man-man-woman eternal marriage" when it comes to Mormons?
Well, in 1998 the Mormon church published its LDS Church Handbook of Instructions for LDS bishops. On p. 73, we note:
A deceased woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life.
Sealed in this case = sealed for all eternity to her multiple husbands, rendering her -- were marriage to actually be eternal -- a polyandrous wife forever!
Now a fuller context of this statement reads:
A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime and later: A deceased woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life. (Source of LDS "Church Handbook of Instructions," p. 73 of the 1998 edition, as cited by poster Paridel @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2004551/posts?q=1&;page=283)
Therefore, as you can see, LDS contemporary practices embraces eternal polyandry (a woman sleeping with multiple husbands), not just eternal polygamy. At least it does for its dead...
And...given Lds, Inc.'s propensity of "identity theft" of a personal's religious beliefs during life (post-death conversion via Mormon necrobaptisms)...
...Is it any wonder that a church would also steal a deceased woman's marital status post-death as well...a sort of enforced "conversion" from strict monogamy to polyandry!
Anyway, its the bold-faced line above coupled with historical examples that shows contemporary Mormonism to be a polyandrist religion when it comes to eternal marital relationships. (We are not only talking about historical sealings. We are talking about current rituals sanctioned by the church.) And if Lds, Inc. says a deceased woman can be sealed to multiple husbands...and if one of those husbands is sealed to multiple wives...wow! we're talking about a real swinging Mormon celestial kingdom!
'Cause -- also current practice: The LDS Church, as mentioned above, still allows a husband to be sealed in its temple to multiple wives (but only one "on-this-earth" wife at a time). In these cases, we're talking about men who have been serially married to multiple women--none at the same time on earth--but whom would be part of a heavenly harem if he makes it to the celestial kingdom. If the Mormon church was serious about "eradicating" future polygamy, it'd ban the temple ritual for eternal sealings for a second or third wife. It doesn't. Even some of the Lds general authorities have been sealed to more than one wife for eternity, having become remarried widowers. (Some of you didn't know the Mormon church still embraces eternal polygamists, did you?)
So when Mormons publicly "eschew" polygamy, keep their "private" reservations they've got lined up in mind. What they really mean is that polygamy is no longer for this colony (earth) -- only for colonies like Kolob. And even this earth, well, Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie said another polygamous-era dispensation is acomin' when the Mormon Jesus returns...per his book, Mormon Doctrine.
Therefore, if Lds "trash talk" TV shows like "Big Love" -- or, if they trash talk fundamentalist polygamous MORMONS keep in mind that the mainstream MORMON church apparently views itself as the polygamous feeder system for eternal "Big Love" family life!
Well, at this rate of Internet exposure, perhaps the the Mormon church should shift its "offensive" strategy -- almost 52,000 mishies -- to a "defensive" public-relations spin maneuvering.
Having a dress code isn’t in itself is a bad thing, but the LDS take it to extremes even down to how many pairs of earrings a woman can wear, then it is no longer just a dress code, it is a measure of control.
And the LDS use the need for a temple recommend as a measure of control, it hangs their salvation on if they are do whatever they are told by their leaders.
Meant to ping you on post #3...mention of you as source
Do a Google search on Joseph Smith...
The man had a rap sheet for swindles, fraud schemes, and confidence games a mile long.
If I ever get married I couldn’t care less what she wears. It’s her day and I am just there for ride.
Hopefully her gown will be white and I don’t care if it’s off the Macy’s or Couture off Madison Avenue.
In 1984 my daughter was insistent that we go to the Temple for her marriage. Forget that her non Mormon grand parents and non Mormon friends couldn’t attend.(She too has now left the church)
So I lied to the bishop and the stake president as I knew they would not reject me based on the fact that I knew something about both of them that could be damaging, having been in business in that community. I would certainly not blackmail anybody, however they were both crooks.
Point is, the entire process is a shallow “look at me how righteous I am” process. On Sunday mornings the dummies dress up in their finery and pretend how religious they are. And during the week they lie, cheat and steal in their businesses.
Glad to be an anti, an apostate, an ex and an INMAN.
Good point. ALL: Put "glass looker" or "glass looking" in as a search mechanism, and you'll see that Joseph Smith was convicted of that in the 1820s -- before he came up with his Book of Mormon scheme.
It's kind of like L. Ron Hubbard...btw, you can see another FR thread, Similarities between Mormonism and Scientology -- up to almost 400 posts now...
Anyway, Hubbard wrote science fiction stories until the early 1950s...then said he could make more $ inventing a religion, which he did!
In Joseph Smith's day, "glass looking" was made illegal because it was tied to conman games of such money-diggers who would exploit people.
One Lds apologist thought if the court records were ever found on Smith, that'd be the impossible "proof" to overcome of Smith as fraud.
Well, H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley Walters did find such court records.
Many people duped by flim flam men are oft' too embarrassed to revisit their soft spot. If that's true of one-time rip-offs, think of how difficult it is to face up to a lifetime of such fraudulent spiritual investments? (Especially when you've been the inadvertent "front man" shelling others in, including your own family!)
Mormons are not our enemies...they are among many victims of the true enemy...
Fast Coyote made that similar point repeatedly in his Western states business dealings with many Mormons...and he had access to specific info to know...
So you know my lds family do you?
My parents had some non-LDS friends whose daughter converted to LDS, had a Temple wedding, and, of course, her parents were not allowed to attend.
'Tis all, it seems a "hide & seek" game...or at least, a "hide & secret" game to many...
About a year ago, I posted this post:
Secret, secret, secret
Fulness of the gospel NOT in the Book of Mormon. Secret to prospects - they'd look in vain for the primary Mormon teachings to be taught there.
Original "old plates" Joseph supposedly found. Secreted away.
The founder, Joseph not telling wife Emma about women he had affairs with (Fanny & others) 1831 & beyond. Secret.
Mormons not putting the polygamy doctrine in writing until the 1850s. Secret.
Bloody victims' clothes & orphans from Mountain Meadows Massacre, 1857. Secret for two years.
Mountain Meadows Massacre culprits. Conspired amongst each other to never tell. Secret.
Mormonism openly false 19th century teachings like Adam-is-god and blood atonement. Unacknowledged as former teachings. They wish these were a secret.
Mormon polygamists hiding out from the feds in 1880s. Secret hideaways.
Lds Plural marriages...at least 262 documented 1890-1910. Secret.
Lds temple ceremonies. Secret.
Lds weddings in temples. Secret.
Secret underwear power. Very secret.
Mormons believe thousands of deceased Mormons practicing polygamy in another realm. "Open" Secret.
History not "faith promoting" to Lds church and former leaders. Tendency to tuck away. Secreted away.
fLDS families -- the "living daguerreotype" of what 19th century Mainstream Mormon families were often like -- tucked away in out-of-the-way communities. Treated like the crazy aunt to lock away in the basement closet.
No wonder a BYU history prof wrote a book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." "Magic" is a sub-category of the occult. And what does the word "occult" mean? (Yup, Latin for "hidden" -- as in secret).
I think of that often as I read posts by one particular mormon who's desperation to hold onto the belief bleeds out of almost every post. The frustration is evident in posts that drip with rage against those who have actually pulled away from the lies and found Christ, as though we are to blame for the evil and corruption that began in the 1800s and was documented so that it could be shown in the present day as a warning to others.
Yes. One of the most mammoth Lds FREEPER threads of 2010 (1,670 replies) dealt with a similar situation to what you describe:
A real heart-breaking account!
The Marriott empire is a prime example of the duplicity. Millions banked through sale of porn in their Hotels, yet they are such good Mormons don’tchaknow.
Yes, your family is my family.
They’re all the same. Sad thing is the simple honest little families with nothing but their heritage to live on and believe in go through life here in Utah with their eyes glazed over in the silly mentality.
Correct. (If they indeed have a temple wedding...obviously not all have it @ the temple...and some try to do a "twin billing" @ dual locations to accommodate non-Mormons)
How about the reception, I'd be paying for, could I go to that?
Receptions @ other locales.
Would she and her new husband both have to have the temple recommend?
Yes. (For a temple wedding)
I've seen one article from a speaker @ BYU-Idaho who heavily stressed to Lds young adults NOT to seek temple recommends, especially for say, the wedding of a sibling.
The Mormon church, he said, essentially liked to keep such temple recommends of young adults in reserve for those either going on a mission or getting married.
Hence, it's more subtle pressure upon Lds young adults to do one of those two things during their college years.
Actually, here's the quote: From Elder David E. Sorensen, Jan. 13, 2004:
... The privilege of receiving ones temple endowment is a serious matter...We are concerned...an increasing number of young adults 18 years of age and older are obtaining temple recommends from their priesthood leaders to receive their...endowment without the immediate prospect of temple marriage or full-time missionary service. 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 to recommend one for a temple endowment.
Source: BYU-Idaho devotional presentation Agency, Priesthood, and Black Powder
All, lurkers: Yet another reason to NOT consider the Mormon church; or, to leave it.
What I find amazing that as horrible as they have all been treated by the leaders they continue to dutifully follow all the rules and regulations. Some times it is like watching that old old movie Metropolis where the people just shuffle along doing what they are told.
Two part question/answer.
1. She could marry him as a non-mormon and have a wedding performed at the local church by clergy with those invited in attendance regardless of temple recommend.
2. She would have to convert to mormonism and in about a year qualify for the recommend in order to have a temple wedding. Those without a temple recommend would be barred from attending in the temple.
"How about the reception, I'd be paying for, could I go to that?"
Yes, as that is usually held at a local ward or stake bldg. and is open to those invited.
"Would she and her new husband both have to have the temple recommend?"
For a temple wedding, yes.
Can't say I didn't go with him for the party, however I wasn't a bishop.
Since when is telling the truth starting a flame war?
If my daughter became a Mormon and married in the Temple, I wouldn’t want to go. Nothing against it but I don’t want to go where I’m not welcome.
Plus drinking in the parking lot of the temple is probably frowned upon.
Don’t forget the Planet Kolob and the cork submarines.
Like all things Mormon you must keep it Sacred (secret). That way you're the only one that knows. Come on down....Vodka is flowing tonight!
I’ll have to work on that! : )
The Mormon Temple - Not so sacred secrets revealed
“So I lied to the bishop and the stake president as I knew they would not reject me based on the fact that I knew something about both of them that could be damaging, having been in business in that community. I would certainly not blackmail anybody, however they were both crooks.”
But, but, but... mormons are such nice people!!!
“Glad to be an anti, an apostate, an ex and an INMAN.”
You and colorcountry and reaganaut and greyfox all add authenticity in these conversations. I’m even gladder that you are all flyin’ inmans!
What a beautiful idiot!
Can they drink Kahlua?
Ah, but those pushing the lies and blasphemies of Mormonism will take your telling the truth about their cult as an attack on each of them individually! They will deem your truth to be hate speech, and try to squelch truth in favor of their blasphemies floating freely at FR. And THAT is how the flame war begins on a Mormonism thread. Just wait, it is as likely to come flaming forth from a non-mormon who hates the confrontations as it is to come from one of the feckless mormonism apologists who post links but cannot put three declarative sentences together to explaina ny of their blasphemies and why Mormonism claims the blasphemies are ‘restored Christianity’.
I'll bet Groucho would be accepted in the INMAN crowd as well!
open bar for the reception?? :D
Surely you Hateful ANTIs misrepresent once again!!!
...PD has a LIST of places to find ALL the information you could EVER want!
Hey UB, if I EVER get remotely close to your location, I’ll be stoppin’ by. If you ever come out East, same goes!
Those boats were HOLEY!
I take a cup of instant coffee and mix it with a cup of sugar and vanilla beans and a quart of vodka. Let it just sit there for a week or so and voila...you have Kahlua!
But vodka is all we’re experiencing tonight.
You’re always welcome here. Ask Elsie, he showed up one day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.