Footnote 320
And just when they do they’ll run headfirst into their first major relationship difficulty: his two-year mission for the church. The Church discourages continuing relationships into missions. They want the missionary to be completely focused on serving their purpose; there is something to be said for nipping in the bud anything that creates homesickness. Two years is a long time to be a half a world away thinking of the girl left behind while busting one’s ass for free on behalf of an institution increasingly seen as corporate, manipulative, and exploitive. For every adult member of the LDS Church still practicing the faith because of the sunk cost of his mission, there is one non-participating whose first seeds of doubt were planted when he was a missionary.
The mission is a built-in relationship reset: Mormon girls are taught in their teen years that any romantic relationship prior to dating a Return Missionary is temporary; boys are taught not to have any steady girlfriends before their mission. Church leaders know that steady dating leads to passionate kissing which leads to petting which leads to heavy petting which leads to almost intercourse which, left unchecked, inevitably leads to intercourse and possible some other things they don’t approve of. (321) The prospect of a girl waiting two years in the prime of her youth and not dating with any degree of seriousness is unrealistic. Only high school sweethearts who are true soulmates will attempt to ride out two years apart. At the age of 19-21, young adults change in the process of maturing and becoming adults. Church leaders have taught the Pollyanna view that any male and female can create a happy marriage if they are married in the (Mormon) temple.
A Mission Farewell is the Mormon ritual of separating a child from his/her parents and from whatever romantic attachments he or she has formed. The parents surrender their child to the LDS Church. The romantic interest surrenders to Mormon culture. When the missionary returns home after the mission is completed, the Church has replaced the parents as the authority in his life. The instance of forbidden love when the parents of the girl do not approve of the boy (or vice versa), especially if he is a convert, is particularly difficult to navigate. LDS members who view themselves as Mormon royalty often discourage children and grandchildren marrying first generation converts. When a convert relationship proceeds to marriage is when the institution commits a cardinal sin against non-Mormon families by excluding them from temple weddings. One can posit several reasons why they do this, but it comes down to one unavoidable fact: They are embarrassed for non-Mormons to see their ritual dress and admit what they do in the temple. They claim it’s sacred, not secret but that’s just a trite phrase used to deflect embarrassment and shut down any discussion. (322)
While there is nothing overtly objectionable in the wedding ceremony itself, the affiliated temple endowment ritual is archaic and cannot be defended. It has slowly changed over time to gradually adapt to modern sensibilities but has always been fifty years behind the times. The endowment rests upon polygamy which the church disavows but is still present in its scriptures (D&C70 132). The temple endowment has been changed a few times since I resigned membership in the church. (323)
The hypocrisy, of course, is Mormons expect respect for their beliefs but show little for what happens outside Mormonism. Only rituals sanctioned by LDS authorities have any standing before God. Mormonism was founded upon exclusivity and it is their sole claim to authority.
Individual Mormons rarely consider converting or adopting the religion of their love interest and potential life partner. It wouldn't even occur to the average unmarried Mormon young adult that a person who loved him/her was more important than his/her religious beliefs. What is more important - our specific personal beliefs about God and Jesus or the love and devotion a lifetime companion?
(321) In 1984, LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson issued a formal letter to bishops instructing them to discourage married couples from having oral sex. The directive was quietly rescinded a few weeks later when someone realized telling married couples what God condoned on the marital bed created a rule they couldn’t enforce without prompting local leaders into voyeuristic discussions. One wonders why God didn’t warn them of that problem before issuing the letter.
(322) Secrecy was originally imposed to hide polygamy. Once polygamy was discontinued, the secrecy remained to protect the oath of vengeance (to avenge the deaths of Joseph Smith Jr. and his brother, Hyrum) installed by Brigham Young. Heber J. Grant removed the oath of vengeance in 1927, but secrecy remained because there was still yet more to hide. Until April 1990 the LDS temple endowment contained symbolic penalties to be enacted by each participant including the slicing of one’s throat and the disemboweling of oneself should he or she violate the covenants of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration. I know firsthand because Mrs. RD and I received our endowments a few days before our wedding in 1989 when the penalties were still present.
(323) With the 1990 changes, the endowment became relatively benign even if monotonous. The continued secrecy remains to hide the unique clothing (a robe, sash, apron, and hat) worn during the ritual and maintain the tradition of secret handshakes (common in the 1800’s).