Temple Recommends for the Disaffected

I'm still interested in everyone's reactions to yesterday's lesson on apostasy, but a post at Feminist Mormon Housewives entitled "Dear fMh: I Don’t Want to go to the Temple Anymore" caught my eye.

It's a heartbreaking story, and until I began frequenting the blog I had no idea so many women felt this way and thus refuse to enter the temple. Some say they only go in for baptisms or initiatory ordinances. More than a few women said they keep their recommend updated for the sole purpose of attending a child's wedding, and I thought...

Why?

If a person has already been through the temple once, surely the dress and the signs/tokens won't take them off guard; it's not as if they do not understand. We should also stop assuming those who refuse to enter the temple are somehow stained from sin and are "unworthy" to attend. We need to give these people the benefit of the doubt unless we know for certain they are out desecrating what many do feel to be sacred. This is a wedding. To deny mothers and fathers (or even sisters and brothers) attendance to a wedding because they don't pay their tithing or cannot/do not observe the Word of Wisdom (or more!) suddenly seems outlandish to me.

After all, when attending a temple wedding, one does not need to dress in the temple garb (Sunday dress is appropriate unless the couple feels otherwise) and no requirement exists for attendees to go through an endowment session prior to the sealing ordinance.

The attendees themselves are never placed under covenant, either.

Correct?

So why can't we just allow disaffected family members a chance to attend their son or daughter's wedding? Issue a temporary, one time use recommend, much like the temporary recommends issued to youth who wish to perform baptisms for the dead.

Would a compromise of this degree be so bad?

(Really, would a one time use recommend be so terrible for even non-member family? What would be the harm? I'm hardly being facetious here, and "because it's sacred" won't satisfy this girl. What would happen? I guarantee everyone a family member rejected from their son/daughter's wedding harbors harder feelings toward the church than would happen if allowed to see something they don't possibly understand (and come on, it would be one thing). Let them have their own "interview" with the Bishop/Stake Pres where they can talk and then let them come if they promise to be good. But that's just me.)

Homey G's

Hahahahahaa. Okay, bad title? Anyone get it?
Anyone?

GARMENTS.

Calm down. I'm not going to desecrate anything or give away meanings of things. This is strictly...well, hell. I guess cultural AND doctrinal. We need to make up a term for this stuff, there's so much of it. It's difficult to combine two words that end the same way, though. Ideas?

To begin, I'm so glad the washing and anointing ceremony changed. I remember my mom asking me if we were bathed in the temple, and I totally knew where she was coming from on that but I had to tell her "not exactly."

See, I had little problem going back to the temple for the endowment ceremony (though I totally preferred the baptisms) or even sealings, but I could *not* go back to do washing and anointing for anyone. I hated that ordinance. Whatever happened to modesty? I get that we're all girls here and whatnot, but after so much talk about modesty, well...it shocked me. Shortly after it changed I went back no problem.

So there's issue #1, but it's been resolved. I do have to admit I'm happy to have been through at least one change in the temple. I imagine it will be the last change I ever experience, but there you go. You hear rumors and stories about past changes in the temple, but it's difficult to know who's exaggerating and who's not. This one I know from memory. I have read stories about what it was like back in the 1800s and 1900s, and I'd love to speak with anyone whose experienced it because...eek.

Anyway.

The garments themselves shocked me because I thought (remember: ex-Molly here) they were a bit more immodest than they should be. Hell, I could show a little cleavage. It might be a pain, but I could. The bottoms always seemed a little nuts to me, going down to my knees and all but perhaps that's due to my short stature ;) Not much leg left. I appear even shorter in long skirts. It's wonderful, really.

With the possible exception of the washing and anointing ceremony none of this...none of his got to me as much as the bra situation. Girls, you hear me right? Guys, if you're married (or do moms run around the house like this?) you probably know what I'm talking about.

It's like Robo-woman. I know the garment is intended to stay as close to our skin as possible but for us *cough*well-endowed*cough* girls, the bra works much better beneath the top. I used nursing as an excuse forever, but after that I just said screw it. I couldn't take myself seriously like that and besides, hello turnoff.

It's no wonder some take this whole thing to an extreme. I worried about periods, could I wear underwear beneath my bottoms? I could? Oh good. *wipes forehead*

Let's not even get into the subject of sex and garments. I've already been there and everyone had hilarious and unbelievable stories to tell - members who reject lingerie (or wear their garments beneath them - I'll admit I thought the same at first) even about those who are scared to bathe with their garments off as if something might happen while showering (you hear the stories of people who die in car accidents and the parts of them covered with the garments are untouched while the accident mangled the rest of the person). What if you die in the shower?! Will we be judged on how diligent we are in our garment wearing? Talk about labor intensive.

(again, of whom? Joseph Smith or President Monson/Hinckley/Hunter...who?!? I thought it was supposed to be Christ. I've been taught both - another entry? okay)

"President, I'm so righteous I even make love to my wife with my garments on. Sex is so holy." (ahahaha, pun!)

Speaking of holy, what the crap is up with the mesh garments? They're cooler in warm weather regions? Yes, I've heard that. But my husband, who served in the midwest of the US, related a story to me about a mission companion who would strut around their apartment in mesh garments.

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

Got a lot of fathers who wear the mesh garments.

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

I don't care how studly, hot, or ripped you are, mesh garments are not sexy. I understand the purpose of the garment is more than just promoting modesty, it's there to also help us remember covenants we've made in the temple, but promotion of modesty IS a large part of it. We're told that if we have to adjust our garments to accommodate our clothing than we need to choose more modest clothing.

So what's up with mesh garments?

As for the necessity for something cooler, hell I know this. Here in July we're graced with 110 degree weather and it is no time for an extra layer of cotton-polys. Winter it's fine, I welcome it, but I've known people who ditch them in the summer 'lest they melt into a puddle. My very obedient friend ditched them during her pregnancy in the summer for her tank tops. Her bishop wasn't impressed, but she got her recommend anyway.

My idea back then was that if we're righteous enough we suffer through it. After all, Christ suffered all things - so we should shut up about a little heat, right? Maybe, I can't say, but are we missing the idea here? Are we worried about things we oughtn't worry so much about?

Seriously.

I wonder if our garment fetishes have much to do with our messed up attitudes toward sex and sexuality and perhaps our bodies. I understand it's good to have a reminder of sacred things, but it's a lot like when I had a CTR ring my friend gave me. Sure it serves as a reminder for a while, but in time it's just another article of clothing even if you do attend the temple. Am I wrong? I can see how I could be wrong, but the thought has crossed my mind.