Temple stories - good, bad, funny?

[malkie]

This topic is dedicated to stories about your experience(s) related to the Temple.

My hope is that it will have a mix of before, during, and after being in the temple, and of uplifting/faith-promoting stories, as well as others that may not fit in that feelgood category. Humourous stories are definitely encouraged.

Just remember, please, that this topic is Terrestrial, and stick to the rules about temple content.

[malkie]

Let me kick the topic off with an import from another topic:

...

When I was a newish member, on a Friday evening 3 or 4 times a year I drove 90 minutes to the nearest stake center, and got on a bus for a 12-hour trip to the temple. We arrived exhausted, and (some of us anyway ) slept through several sessions before getting on the bus again for the return trip. I usually got home in time for Sacrament meeting.

In Britain, temple marriages are not legally recognized - marriage ceremonies must be held in public. Before a recent change was made by the church, newly-weds had to be chaperoned from the time of the wedding ceremony until their sealing, because if they ... ahem ... acted like newly-weds, then they had to wait for a year before they could be sealed. In the "old" days, when most members were relatively poor, and didn't own cars, that usually meant having a Friday afternoon wedding, then spending their wedding night on a bus with a couple of dozen members constantly making jokes about their situation, being sealed, going through one of more vicarious sessions, and getting back on the bus with the same people who had been tormenting them the previous night.

...

[Tom]

Let me kick the topic off with an import from another topic:

...

When I was a newish member, on a Friday evening 3 or 4 times a year I drove 90 minutes to the nearest stake center, and got on a bus for a 12-hour trip to the temple. We arrived exhausted, and (some of us anyway ) slept through several sessions before getting on the bus again for the return trip. I usually got home in time for Sacrament meeting.

In Britain, temple marriages are not legally recognized - marriage ceremonies must be held in public. Before a recent change was made by the church, newly-weds had to be chaperoned from the time of the wedding ceremony until their sealing, because if they ... ahem ... acted like newly-weds, then they had to wait for a year before they could be sealed. In the "old" days, when most members were relatively poor, and didn't own cars, that usually meant having a Friday afternoon wedding, then spending their wedding night on a bus with a couple of dozen members constantly making jokes about their situation, being sealed, going through one of more vicarious sessions, and getting back on the bus with the same people who had been tormenting them the previous night.

...

I’m confused. The church didn’t view a public, civil marriage as a legitimate marriage? Otherwise, why would the married couple need to be chaperoned?

[drumdude]

I spent way too much time trying to figure out how in the world I was to tie one piece of clothing to another. Two pieces of clothing that I never would have imagined would ever need to be tied together.

I read somewhere they don’t do that step anymore.

[malkie]

Let me kick the topic off with an import from another topic:

I’m confused. The church didn’t view a public, civil marriage as a legitimate marriage? Otherwise, why would the married couple need to be chaperoned?

The church accepted the public civil marriage as legitimate for all purposes other than sealing in the temple less than a year after the marriage.

The accepted wisdom was that the couple was considered to be contaminated by the world if they had sexual intercourse between marriage and sealing, and that a one- year waiting time was needed to ensure that they were really dedicated to the church.

Or something like that.

I don't recall any coherent official explanation, but the practice was known to and accepted by members in the UK. I believe that the same rule applied to civil marriages in Mexico. Before the construction of the first temple there, couples usually traveled separately, or chaperoned, to a temple in the US, which might be a journey of several days. In one case that I know of, because of an issue with timing, after the civil marriage the woman went back to her parents house, and didn't see her husband again until they met at the temple a week later!!!

I understand that common sense has since prevailed, and that the waiting period no longer applies. However, couples are still advised to be sealed as quickly as possible after their civil marriage.

[drumdude]

I’m confused. The church didn’t view a public, civil marriage as a legitimate marriage? Otherwise, why would the married couple need to be chaperoned?

The church accepted the public civil marriage as legitimate for all purposes other than sealing in the temple less than a year after the marriage.

The accepted wisdom was that the couple was considered to be contaminated by the world if they had sexual intercourse between marriage and sealing, and that a one- year waiting time was needed to ensure that they were really dedicated to the church.

Or something like that.

I don't recall any coherent official explanation, but the practice was known to and accepted by members in the UK. I believe that the same rule applied to civil marriages in Mexico. Before the construction of the first temple there, couples usually traveled separately, or chaperoned, to a temple in the US, which might be a journey of several days. In one case that I know of, because of an issue with timing, after the civil marriage the woman went back to her parents house, and didn't see her husband again until they met at the temple a week later!!!

I understand that common sense has since prevailed, and that the waiting period no longer applies. However, couples are still advised to be sealed as quickly as possible after their civil marriage.

It was also, in my case, a way to prevent a mixed family from attending the real civil wedding ceremony first and making the temple sealing an afterthought.

They wanted the temple marriage to reign supreme and anyone who dared get married civilly first had to wait a year with no sex as punishment.

My family had to sit and wait in the temple lobby while my real marriage in the temple took place, and only later could they attend a sham civil marriage ceremony.

The church had to force its way into my non member family’s lives and separate them from their son, lest their pride be ruined. It was petty and pathetic. Exactly what Mormonism does best.

[Tom]

That’s odd, Malkie. Do you mind if I ask what time period in England you’re referring to? The 1983 church handbook, at least, seemed to address the issue in England and in other places where a civil marriage was required:

A couple married outside the temple may not receive a recommend to be sealed until at least one year after the civil marriage. The one-year waiting period does not apply in the following circumstances:

The couple lives in a country in which the laws do not readily recognize a marriage performed out of the country.

The couple travels with a Church-sponsored excursion to a temple in a different country than where they live.

The temple in which a couple will be married is located in a country where the law requires that marriages be performed in a public place.

An unchaperoned couple’s travel to a temple would require one or more overnight stops on the way.

In the preceding circumstances, worthy couples should receive their temple endowments and be sealed as soon as the mode of travel permits, without the one-year waiting period. After a civil marriage, a man and woman need not abstain from marital relations before being sealed.

However, the 1989 handbook didn’t directly address the issue.

https://jasmingimenez.wordpress.com/201 ... -marriage/

[malkie]

That’s odd, Malkie. Do you mind if I ask what time period in England you’re referring to? The 1983 church handbook, at least, seemed to address the issue in England and in other places where a civil marriage was required:

A couple married outside the temple may not receive a recommend to be sealed until at least one year after the civil marriage. The one-year waiting period does not apply in the following circumstances:

The couple lives in a country in which the laws do not readily recognize a marriage performed out of the country.

The couple travels with a Church-sponsored excursion to a temple in a different country than where they live.

The temple in which a couple will be married is located in a country where the law requires that marriages be performed in a public place.

An unchaperoned couple’s travel to a temple would require one or more overnight stops on the way.

In the preceding circumstances, worthy couples should receive their temple endowments and be sealed as soon as the mode of travel permits, without the one-year waiting period. After a civil marriage, a man and woman need not abstain from marital relations before being sealed.

However, the 1989 handbook didn’t directly address the issue.

https://jasmingimenez.wordpress.com/201 ... -marriage/

It was before I emigrated from the UK, so pre-1977.

I don't recall when I heard that the rules had changed.

ETA: Just to make sure I was not misremembering I checked with one of the Mexicans I referred to earlier before I described their situation.

[toon]

1. I remember being told as a deacon prior to perhaps my first baptism for the dead temple trip that the temple was a place where there could be no temptation, because Satan and his minions could not enter. As an insecure young teen (or tween), i had long lived in guilt because I so easily succumbed to temptation. So I looked forward to the chance of being in a place where there could be no temptation. At the same time, I had a little skeptical streak, so while in the locker room of the temple, I wondered if I could swear without being tempted. I then triedto utter under my breath a quiet f-bomb, to see if it was possible. It was. But then I realized that I must be the evil one, because I could swear without even being tempted. That it was me and not Satan. But I also remembered having been told no unclean thing could enter the temple, so I wondered how someone unclean enough to be able to swear without having been tempted could still have been allowed into the temple. This really bothered me for a few hours, until something else more important started disturbing me.

2. The LA temple also had heavy doors that automatically opened out as you approached. As an adult, I would always say, "Thank you Jesus" every time the doors opened. At least my wife thought it was funny.

3. My college roommate had a collection of locker room keys that he stole from various temples.

[malkie]

1. I remember being told as a deacon prior to perhaps my first baptism for the dead temple trip that the temple was a place where there could be no temptation, because Satan and his minions could not enter. As an insecure young teen (or tween), i had long lived in guilt because I so easily succumbed to temptation. So I looked forward to the chance of being in a place where there could be no temptation. At the same time, I had a little skeptical streak, so while in the locker room of the temple, I wondered if I could swear without being tempted. I then triedto utter under my breath a quiet f-bomb, to see if it was possible. It was. But then I realized that I must be the evil one, because I could swear without even being tempted. That it was me and not Satan. But I also remembered having been told no unclean thing could enter the temple, so I wondered how someone unclean enough to be able to swear without having been tempted could still have been allowed into the temple. This really bothered me for a few hours, until something else more important started disturbing me.

2. The LA temple also had heavy doors that automatically opened out as you approached. As an adult, I would always say, "Thank you Jesus" every time the doors opened. At least my wife thought it was funny.

3. My college roommate had a collection of locker room keys that he stole from various temples.

hahaha

What is it with the lockers, and the warnings about securing your valuables? Surely if somebody was able to bring themselves to steal while in the temple, at least they would be detected before they could get away with the goods, right? Surely the temple workers & officials are so in tune with the spirit that they would immediately spot a thief.