Rain

Thank you. Good that it is there

Yes, that goes well with the reminder part.

OK, I did a quick search and the best I can find about garments is this: I'm not finding anything in the manual about garments being a covenant, but the church website is still difficult for me to navigate. I'm actually not finding the quote you had from the handbook either, but I don't doubt you that it is there - it's just showing me that I'm not getting good results on my searching. So is there anything in the manual about them being a covenant rather than just a reminder?

I didn't have a class. It wasn't even offered to me. The things in the manuals have changed over the years just like the CHI has. For many years as far as I understand the manual or instructions really had little to do with the temple and more to do with understanding basic doctrine. Even just when my daughter, who was totally interested in learning more and read as much as she could, the manual was almost totally about the plan of salvation doctrine and not the temple. She was very frustrated and was grateful that I was determined she would be more prepared than I was.

Yes. My BIL was out when it went from 24 to 18, didn’t get a choice to stay longer and was happy about it. Another BIL was out when it went from 18-24, didn't get a choice and was also happy about it - though he was in south america for the first 18 and got very sick with parasites and the last 6 was in Texas where they knew how to treat him better than they did where he was from.

When did you go through? I went in 89. My SIL went around 20 years ago. My friend went around 16 years ago and my daughter about 3. It wasn't till my daughter that they freely gave that you could choose. So I wonder how much is timing and how much the personality of the person giving instruction.

And along with this what women wear on bottom even while on their periods.

You might be surprised how many would definitely not agree with it. I mean there are some pretty strong opinions about wearing it on top.

She is right about that, but so many of us were instructed to wear it over. When I went through with my friend I had heard rumor that they had changed that rule, but the woman instructing did not mention how it should be done. I asked about it and the sister got pretty uncomfortable and said they don't tell people how to do it - one should work it out for themselves.

The thing with that is I have been in the instructions 4 times. Once for myself, once with my SIL, once with a good friend and the last with my daughter. In everyone one of those we were told something different about something. In none of them was a covenant about garments mentioned.

That is how I felt about it. I mentioned above about what happy jack said. Even before that I never thought of it as a covenant, I just didn't really catch that part had been added till he said something.

I don't know the answer s to your other questions, but women are able to serve more that one mission - at least they were 35 years ago when I went. A woman who had gone on 5 missions gave a talk to the sisters while I was there.

So this is a question I thought of: if you don't know you are making a covenant have you made one? My answer would be no or at least God wouldn't hold you to it, but I'm not so sure others would feel the same way. If you find out later it was supposed to be a covenant is it retroactive? Meaning are those people now required to do so? What if they never go to the temple again because they didn't know this at the beginning?

Interesting. I got to thinking that the church has told us what the covenants are so I went looking for them. At first, I found an archived page. If I understand right it is from Feb 2022. So I thought "I've never heard or read anything like this for initiatory so I went looking (first on that page). It says: So the initiatory is part of the endowment. No mention of a covenant. Now one could assume from the wording above that there might be a covenant there, but it is not presented as a covenant like it is in the second part of the endowment and as far as I can tell it has never been mentioned as a covenant when the other 5 have been listed. But, if you go to what it says now: You can see it is considered by church leaders as making a covenant. Did the wording change in the initiatory too when it was changed in the endowment? Interestingly, the wording of what is said about the 5 covenants has changed too: The 1991-1995 Temple recommend question said: That could go either way. Either that part is part of receiving endowments, but not necessarily considered a covenant or it could be a followup to part a as being one of those covenants, but that would be a little odd since it doesn't have follow-up parts C, D, etc for other covenants. Over the years there have been variations in how the question is worded in the temple recommend interview. Some of them had words like "official" and "instructed". I'm guessing the clear connection between covenant and garments came in 1996 as far as the recommend goes. So from all this, I conclude that either they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that one was making a covenant to wear garments at some time before 2022 or that it wasn't considered a covenant until somewhat recently.

On things like this I like to go to reddit. Google "lumbar ablation reddit" and you can find lots of people who have experience. I wouldn't necessarily go to them for good medical answers, but hearing experiences can help you decide. I did it when I got my tonsils out as an adult and it was so helpful.

Nutshell - not clearly, in covenant form since at least 1990. long answer: If you are talking about the covenants that are clearly asked in covenant form and the person agrees or not there hasn't been one about garments since at least 1990. I only went a few times before that so I don't remember the covenants from then. There will be people who will tell you how garments are part of covenants in quite a few ways, but none in the clear, covenant form ways I mentioned above. Where one could find a mention of them together was the temple reccomend interview where it asks if you have been wearing them as you covenanted. I never caught though that you don't covenant (at least in the clear way as you do with the others) to wear them till @HappyJackWagon mentioned so I started paying attention for it and he was right. I then asked by bishop and stake presidency when they asked the question, where the covenant was was that you make it and they couldn't tell me.

Journal of Discourses 17:159; “Joseph used to say that he would have her (Emma)hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her.” – Brigham Young, Lehi City, Utah, August 9, 1874

No, they were right to release me. It truly didn't matter to me what happened as long as I was given the tools I needed for whatever was decided. That particular ward just didn't have a lot of those needs and what few they had leadership could take care of. Most of the ward knew how to do a budget or clean their house etc. My calling just wasn't a need in the ward. I think he had been thinking of me as someone who would teach about food storage (he called my husband as an emergency preparedness specialist at the same time), but that calling wasn't in the handbook. At the time there were wards all over the area that had food storage people so it probably seemed the thing to do. Besides in praying about it I also did that food storage stuff on top of trying to figure out the provident living stuff so the ward had what they needed there as well.

Then why not teach it in the temple? And what kind of thing it too sacred to share out of the temple? The church tells boys and men to be ordained hands will be placed on their heads. They tell the words that should be used. They tell the age it can be done. They tell them the different blessings ordinances they can do in the different offices. The church tells it is a sacred duty. The sacrament is considered to be very sacred, but it allows young boys/men to participate and exactly the words used and the process of it all. What of these kind of things which have to do with women are too sacred to share outside of the temple? If the men aren't getting it then how does that have them on the same level?

I didn't say that. I said, " So many women would like to know more about this power and authority that compliments what the men have and they want to know how and why it is different than being ordained as men do. Until they understand that then talking about the priesthood that women hold? (do they hold it? what exactly is their relationship with it?) feels kind of like empty words to many. " I don't doubt that President Oaks was sincere about all of this. He may even have the answers to questions women are asking, but feel he can't share them. I'm saying that it feels empty to some women when they don't really have any understanding of how this is supposed to work for them and are not given direction except to go to the temple or read their scriptures or get inspiration. Years ago I was provident living specialist. When I read the handbook it did not say to be the food storage lady. It did say to work with my ward leaders as to how I should help people in the ward with their needs. So I talked with my leaders and I talked with them and I prayed over what to do. And prayed more and pondered. And my answer was that I needed to know from leaders who to help or at very least find out what specific areas I need to focus classes or fliers. So I went to the bishopric counselor over me and asked and he said...pray about it. Finally I went to the bishop and I said there are two possible callings here. One is someone who tells all about food storage. The second is someone who finds out from leaders what the needs are (finances, cleaning, cooking - all those basics) and helps those who need help with them. I showed him where the handbook said my calling was the second. Then I told him it didn't matter to me which calling he told me he was giving me, I only wanted to know which calling he meant to give me and if it was the second then I needed the leaders to give me the information I needed to do it. He listened well and he said I was right about it all, that he would talk with the ward council and he would get back with me. When the time came he told me that the ward didn't really need a provident living leader at that time and he released me. So this women and the priesthood is kind of like that. Women are sort of being told they have a responsibility. They are being told it is wonderful. They have been praying for it for years and have been praying for more practical and spiritual understanding of it. But when they want to know the information they need to know in order to do it they are told "pray about it". THAT FEELS empty. I appreciate that.

First topic: instructions for how men or women should work/hold/understand priesthood power/authority as it applies to their sex So if I understand right you are saying that whatever it is that concerns women with the priesthood is so sacred that it shouldn't be shared with anyone who doesn't understand. You feel like sharing these things as they concern women would be trampling sacred things. Kind of like one doesn't share what goes on in the temple? Second Topic: the spiritual states of women and of men When you say this my impression is that you feel women are at a higher place than men, but you had an issue with me stating that so if I'm discussing this for understanding does that mean you believe men and women are on the same level, but we can't get get mortality right without combining our equal strengths?

OK, in all honesty I'm rather ticked off right now so I'm going to take a little bit of time to get me to a place I can listen and be listened to plus I have several things I need to do today. So let's start with this. In case you have missed this, I no longer consider myself a faithful member. I'm a member in name, I have a calling (ward bulletin). I attend church with my husband for him and because I feel called to have loving connections with all people including members. I just don't believe in many of the faith ideas and don't believe the church is the only true and living church. My views about women in the church were there before I found out I didn't believe and they have nothing to do with why I don't believe. So some of what I say here is how I felt as a faithful member and now and some are recognizing how many faithful women still feel. Second, there were a lot if topics here rolled into one. They are related, but not the same. What topic did you feel I wasn't listening to for understanding?

So question. Are you willing to listen for understanding as well?

You're right. I wasn't reading for understanding. I entirely reacted to an idea that has been around for decades and has really bothered many women. But I'm big on listening for understanding. I've talked about it a lot on this board. It's something I learned from 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. What if we both listen for understanding? In the end we may not agree, but at least we would understand each other.

This is the thing where women are put on a pedestal because the men aren't worth much idea. It is not true and it is harmful. Please quit putting down the men I love. The men I have worked with at church and in other places. My husband is my equal. My sons are my daughter's equal. We raise each other up. And stop putting us on a pedestal. We are not just a pretty thing to look at.