snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 15 February 2008, 07:59 AM
surfcitydogdad's Avatar
surfcitydogdad surfcitydogdad is offline
 
Join Date: 21 August 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,706
Dog

Waffles.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15 February 2008, 08:24 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,329
Frying Pan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
You only have to look at their ill fitting suits and their not colour matching shoes.
"I went back to get you some matching ones but the pair at home is exactly like the pair you have on!"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15 February 2008, 08:31 AM
surfcitydogdad's Avatar
surfcitydogdad surfcitydogdad is offline
 
Join Date: 21 August 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero_Mike View Post
I have read that one uses an ID card to identify one's self to enter a temple where they don't know you, and that they often ask people to show this when buying Mormon garments.

But as for "secret" handshakes, there are, I believe, three handshake-style gestures used in their ceremonies. I don't believe they are used outside the temple ceremonies, and it would be highly offensive if a non-Mormon used it on a Mormon in public.
I forgot to mention, yes, you would need a temple reco to buy garments (or a similar ID - such as which congregation you attend, or your membership record number, as not all Mormons who have ever been to the temple in the past are current recommend holders).

You would show the ID - the temple recommend - to enter any temple; there are a lot of members, and temples, and volunteer workers in those temples, so I don't know that there's much chance of the person at the door recognizing you unless go weekly, when it's their shift, or live in their own congregation (in which case they still wouldn't necessarily know if you even had a temple recommend), and even then they probably have to ask to see it.

Also, you are correct that we wouldn't use any temple "handshakes" or any other temple ritual outside the temple.

If you want to know who is a Mormon, I suppose you can just ask, "Are you a friend of Joseph?" Surely, that one won't go over everyone's heads! But don't ask if they're a friend of Mitt, because I'm sure not. BTW, as mentioned by Dr Dave, Romney does have nice hair, I suppose, maybe too nice. But, mine is better, and longer, and more natural (no gel, etc)!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15 February 2008, 08:56 AM
surfcitydogdad's Avatar
surfcitydogdad surfcitydogdad is offline
 
Join Date: 21 August 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,706
Dog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Towknie View Post
Well, there are "secret" rituals to be able to enter the Celestial Room (or is it the Sealing Room?) of a temple are there not? If one were to travel to another temple, how would one properly identify one's self to gain entrance to the room in that temple?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I read a couple books about this written by ex-Mormons, but it was quite a long time ago and the books were quite poorly written.
It's the above mentioned "temple recommend" that gets you in the door (of any temple), but you are correct about the rest.

Those of you Snopesters who have ever toured a Mormon temple prior to its dedication (Silas has, and I'm not sure who else mentioned, in another thread, that they'd gone, or if Towknie has) have seen the various rooms, which include a "Celestial Room," and "sealing rooms." Yes, the various above-mentioned rituals would precede one's going into the celestial room. And some of that would be included in rituals in the sealing rooms, where people are married, for one thing. It's all very lovely. I've done these things many times (except get married!). It's even better now that I have a wife to accompany me!

We were married in the temple in Oakland last May (both married legally, as well as "sealed" together), and now are fortunate to live in ABQ, where the ABQ temple is much closer to us than was the Oakland temple, when we lived in Santa Cruz, CA. There are so many temples now that I've lost track, but well over 100, in all sorts of far-flung places. Till the early 1970s, there were only about 13. BTW, they're not all big and famous, like the ones in Salt Lake, Washington DC, and San Diego, or Rio de Janiero. Many are small, but the same wonderful things go on in all of them.

I'm not revealing anything here that I shouldn't; this is all stuff you could learn at from a video or a missionary at a temple visitors' center, especially if you tour a temple when it's open to the public before it's dedicated, or you can learn more at the church's website, www.lds.org. Or, you know, talk to those guys Cowboy Joe mentioned.

Sorry to make so many posts at once, but I like talking about this stuff. And, I'm nicer, unlike sometimes when I write about politics! Thanks for all your Qs, everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15 February 2008, 02:44 PM
LilacFields's Avatar
LilacFields LilacFields is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 December 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,398
Default

Ok, since you're so willing to give us information, would you mind answering something I've wondered about since reading Laake's book?

How strictly is the wearing of garments thing followed? Is this a practice that is still in wide use or is it something that is gradually leaving the church?

I'm curious mainly because when Laake described the garments I found myself thinking that there are a lot of activities that I wouldn't do if I had to wear those garments - like hiking or any kind of athletics. The last thing I want when doing hot sweaty activities is an additional layer of clothing.

Then again, I guess if you wear it all your life you don't know the difference. My SO and I were hiking in W. Virginia and saw a couple who looked like they were Amish, based on their clothing. Despite it being pretty warm and despite the exercise involved, the woman still wore her long black dress. And the guy was wearing long pants. Granted, the woman wasn't scrambling around on rocks, like I was, but I still couldn't imagine hiking in a long black dress. She looked like she was hot.

LF
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15 February 2008, 03:41 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,268
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbiev View Post
Not sure about all Catholic churches, but in some, at least a few, you don't have to be Catholic to participate in communion, you just have to state you want to take communion (and possibly that you believe in Jesus, I don't remember).
Whoah on that - taking communion in a Catholic church requires that you are baptized and a member of one of the Catholic church, or any of the other churches "in communion" with the catholic church. You commit a grave sin if you don't go to confession first, or abstain from food and drink for an hour before receiving communion.

It's a big deal - the practice is indeed called "closed communion" and explained in the link.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15 February 2008, 11:14 PM
surfcitydogdad's Avatar
surfcitydogdad surfcitydogdad is offline
 
Join Date: 21 August 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,706
Dog

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilacFields View Post
Ok, since you're so willing to give us information, would you mind answering something I've wondered about since reading Laake's book?

How strictly is the wearing of garments thing followed? Is this a practice that is still in wide use or is it something that is gradually leaving the church?

I'm curious mainly because when Laake described the garments I found myself thinking that there are a lot of activities that I wouldn't do if I had to wear those garments - like hiking or any kind of athletics. The last thing I want when doing hot sweaty activities is an additional layer of clothing.
LF
I can't speak for everyone's habits, and I don't have a bishop's handbook or any other sort of church policy in front of me, but from my own extensive experience I can tell you that it's important, but we practice discretion and practicality. I'd wear them to hike, but not necessarily for all sports activities.

When you go to the temple to receive your "endowment" (something an adult church member in good standing would do prior to serving a mission, or getting married or sealed in the temple, or simply because they've never done it yet), you make certain promises, and wearing the garments is part of that. If you are a Mormon who has gone thru the temple, and is supposed to wear your garments, and you don't, then you are not in good standing, and cannot get a temple recommend.

I'm not sure what kind of pictures or descriptions are in the Laake book, but things have changed since many decades ago, and there are a variety of comfortable fabrics and variations available. As a man, mine aren't really any different from the underwear most men wear; for a lady, they might seem different.

I don't wear them when I'm taking a shower, making love, or swimming. If I were to go to the gym, I wouldn't wear them there. People in the military are advised to exercise discretion so as to not make their garments subject to ridicule. We're not supposed to modify them to accommodate fashion.

It is an extra layer of clothing. It also necessitates modest dress - more a change of dress habits for some than others. When I was a teen (before going thru the temple for the endowment), I would wear tank tops and shorts, or no undershirt, if it was hot, but I'm used to them now, and short-shorts or tank tops aren't an option (unless I was in some sort of sports team uniform). It's really not a big deal, but their absence would be. My ex once asked me, during a time when I wasn't active in the church, why I still wore them, and I replied that if I didn't she should worry, because it would mean I'd done something serious, like commit adultery, and wasn't worthy to wear them. If someone gets excommunicated, they aren't supposed to wear them anymore. Wearing them is a privilege, really, and they make me feel special.

Nevertheless, I've known people in my family who didn't wear them; they just didn't like them, and got out of the habit. But we're supposed to. Those people did not have temple recommends, either. I'm pretty comfortable with mine, and I'd feel strange to not wear them.

I know this sort of thing seems odd to most Christians, but I know that some Jewish people wear certain ritual clothing items, as well as Hindus, and there are the traditional garb of priests and nuns, which vary. The Mormon temple rituals, along with the garments that remind us of them, are about drama, ritual, and symbolism, and help us to remember who we are and the promises we've made. I feel very blessed to have been able to experience those things and make those covenants. My marriage is based on those things, too.

It's not been a problem since I was first getting used to them, at age 19, as a new missionary. They're a little better now, anyway. By the way, in case the Laake description was really dated, they're short-sleeved and no longer than knee-length - as I said, not so different from what many men wear. I think my wife has no problems, either; mostly we wear blue jeans, anyway. Also, we have air conditioning. When it's cold, the extra layer is nice (mine are cotton, but since she chooses nylon, I don't suppose they keep her any warmer at all).

I hope I've answered your Qs, and not in excessive detail. It's really kind of a non-issue for me, after all these years, and only their absence would be a problem. If any fellow Mormons feel I'd said too much, or anything inappropriate, please let me know, but I'm always for openness and honesty, as long as we don't talk about anything that is only supposed to be in the temple. Disclosure, to the extent appropriate, is better than all the misinformation that's out there.

It's true that being a Latter-day Saint is a major life commitment, but I find all these things worthwhile and uplifting. It's all about making us better individuals and family members, and getting closer to Christ. It can be challenging, but the rewards - my relationship with my lovely wife (who I met at a church singles' potluck not two years ago), for example - or the opportunities I've had to teach, fellowship, minister or administer, or otherwise serve and socialize with others have been fantastic. Of course, these things are also available thru other organizations, but I feel blessed to be able to have the church in my life. I'm definitely a work in progress, so I need all the help I can get. Cheers, LF!

Last edited by surfcitydogdad; 15 February 2008 at 11:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16 February 2008, 11:22 AM
MacLloyd's Avatar
MacLloyd MacLloyd is offline
 
Join Date: 02 July 2005
Location: Temple City, CA
Posts: 2,152
Default

SCDD - that was a pretty goood summation of garments, their use and meaning. Thanks.

About all I can add is that there is a statement from the First Presidency (the presiding council of the Church) that is to be read at all temple recommend interviews. I don't have it in front of me either, but it hits on all your major points, e.i. wear always, don't adjust for fashion, etc. It also states that the garment should be worn for any and all activities where it can be "reasonably" worn. The definition of reasonable is left up to each individual.

I remember thinking that wearing garments all the time would be burdensome, but, like SCDD, time has proven that, on the contrary, not wearing them feels much more uncomfortable.

MacLloyd

Last edited by MacLloyd; 16 February 2008 at 11:22 AM. Reason: edited for spelling
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17 February 2008, 10:41 PM
LilacFields's Avatar
LilacFields LilacFields is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 December 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,398
Default

Thank you - yes, you have answered my questions.

I am aware that the descriptions of the garments I have read were from two people who were not happy with the church (Laake and Natalie Collins) so I figured I'd ask instead of picture something based on an inaccurate (or outdated) description.

LF
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15 March 2010, 11:32 PM
jlmcbride
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm a fifth generation mormon and it's more like there are secret codes and phrases that you say to each other. Granted, I don't know what they are, but they use it in inclusiveness so that they recognize their friends as "one of them." It has to do with how much money you have. If you don't know the secret phrases you don't get into heaven. The handshake is just a physical representation of this inclusiveness.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 16 May 2010, 12:11 AM
Manxboz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have been researching Mormons (being baptised etc etc) for the last 3 years, I have to say in that time not once have I come across any secret codes or handshakes at all. Alot of what is said about mormons is rubbish, including by said 'ex-mormons'.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 16 May 2010, 03:38 AM
Cowboy Joe's Avatar
Cowboy Joe Cowboy Joe is offline
 
Join Date: 23 July 2003
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlmcbride View Post
I'm a fifth generation mormon and it's more like there are secret codes and phrases that you say to each other. Granted, I don't know what they are, but they use it in inclusiveness so that they recognize their friends as "one of them." It has to do with how much money you have. If you don't know the secret phrases you don't get into heaven. The handshake is just a physical representation of this inclusiveness.
Are you currently active in the church jl? I have been an active temple recommend holder for the last 15 years, and can assure you that there are no code phrases used to recognize other Mormons. Now, there are certain cultural clues that are a dead tip off. Certain patterns of speech, certain phrases or words etc. that might give a clue, but most of the time, if I want to know if someone else is LDS, I will just ask. I am totally confused by your statement, "It has to do with how much money you have."

What? There are no income guidelines or exclusions based upon personal income. Some LDS people have done quite well for themselves, others are on a constant struggle, and the vast majority are somewhere in the middle class. I wonder if you could clarify your statement a little more.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.