Garments only worn in the Temple?

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I wonder if that was their original purpose though?  (sincere question....)

I think it's evolved to this being one of their purposes, but do we have any quotes from Joseph (or other early leaders) regarding teachings on this?

Agreed.  I don't think that was part of Joseph's original vision at all for wearing the garment.  I seem to recall reading that one of the reasons he wasn't wearing them at Carthage, was because people would tie the wearing of garments directly with polygamy and he didn't want to be caught as a polygamist.  I can't remember where I read that specifically though.  

[ALarson]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Agreed.  I don't think that was part of Joseph's original vision at all for wearing the garment.  I seem to recall reading that one of the reasons he wasn't wearing them at Carthage, was because people would tie the wearing of garments directly with polygamy and he didn't want to be caught as a polygamist.  I can't remember where I read that specifically though.  

I have read this too.  I would really like to know if there was a connection between garments and polygamy in the beginning.  Did only those who lived polygamy wear them at first....does anyone know?

[Metis_LDS]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I wonder if that was their original purpose though?  (sincere question....)

I think it's evolved to this being one of their purposes, but do we have any quotes from Joseph (or other early leaders) regarding teachings on this?

ALarson made me think about the worldwide church aspect.  Are there countries (places) where faithful members cannot wear them for whatever reasons. I kind of think perhaps very warm humid places etc... just guessing!  Would just Temple wear be another worldwide thing?

Edited May 21, 2019 by Metis_LDS
missing word

[rpn]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

....  When having sexual relations, only 51% of Millenials and 58% of GenX members think its acceptable to remove them?  Thats a lot of really boring sex happening out there.  I'm still pretty shocked about these results. 

Maybe they are simply uninformed as to the Church's position on the matter (and maybe if they are that age, they haven't actually had to consider the matter in practical terms yet.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I wonder if that was their original purpose though?  (sincere question....)

I think it's evolved to this being one of their purposes, but do we have any quotes from Joseph (or other early leaders) regarding teachings on this?

I think that quoting exact temple phrases is verboten on this board, so I'll summarize what the purpose is stated in the initiatory: "If you don't defile your garment (singular, not plural), and keep your covenants, the garment will protect you from the devil's power until you die."

It's weird because if I keep my covenants with or without my garment, won't that keep me out of Satan's power anyways?  I wonder what 'extra power' LDS orthodoxy has taught we are given by wearing the garment.  Paul Dunn's garment acted as body armor from bullets (shot by Satan?)

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have read this too.  I would really like to know if there was a connection between garments and polygamy in the beginning.  Did only those who lived polygamy wear them at first....does anyone know?

I think that everyone who was initiated into the anointed quorum during the early time period was also brought into the polygamy secret, so I'm thinking the two things were fairly synonymous.  I know some historians have talked about one of the purposes of this quorum and reasons Joseph was inspired by masonry was because of its secret structure with penalties for violation.  I think this was all tied directly to polygamy and was used as a mechanism for keeping it secret.  

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, really.  I'm glad I never picked up on that.  If you can find a link to a quote, that would be great, I'd love to read it.  

Honestly it's been so long I am not even sure when or where I heard it, so I would have no idea where to search for it. Along with that was how some people would only bath parts of their bodies while leaving their garments of the other half then reversing the process so as to never be totally without their garments. There were other claims about never seeing their spouse naked for their entire married lives that I remember but can not actually source. So I am happy to retract any of it if someone wants a CFR. 50 year old memories are quite suspect.

[changed]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so I looked this up, from The Next Mormons:  

The third answer from the top in response to the question of when people think its acceptable to remove their garments.  When having sexual relations, only 51% of Millenials and 58% of GenX members think its acceptable to remove them?  Thats a lot of really boring sex happening out there.  I'm still pretty shocked about these results.  

 

 

Wait... so... even if I lose my testimony of the truthfulness of the church, ~25% of members believe that I am still supposed to wear my g's??? 

This might be TMI - but I have not worn g's for a few years now - I took off my G's the same time I turned in my TR (refused to support pedophiles, and the organization who put and kept the pedophile who abused my kids into leadership position.)  Are there members who condemn me for taking them off?  really???

 

 

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Honestly it's been so long I am not even sure when or where I heard it, so I would have no idea where to search for it. Along with that was how some people would only bath parts of their bodies while leaving their garments of the other half then reversing the process so as to never be totally without their garments. There were other claims about never seeing their spouse naked for their entire married lives that I remember but can not actually source. So I am happy to retract any of it if someone wants a CFR. 50 year old memories are quite suspect.

As recently as 1968, the First Presidency had to rein in temple workers who were instructing couples to keep their garments on during sexual relations.  The First Presidency ordered an end to such teaching.

Source: Letter to all temple presidents from the First Presidency, May 22, 1968; archived in "Research Notes on LDS Temples: Temple Clothes," New Mormon Studies CD-ROM: A Comprehensive Resource Library (San Francisco, Smith Research Associates, 1998).

As found here: http://www.ldsendowment.org/clothing.html

[SouthernMo]

Reading David Buerger's writings reveals a lot about the subject of garments: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_87.pdf

Highlights from his piece that some here may find useful:

...the original temple garment was made of unbleached muslin with markings bound in turkey red, fashioned by Nauvoo seamstress Elizabeth Warren Allred under Joseph Smith's direction. Joseph's reported intention was to have a one-piece garment covering the arms, legs and torso, having "as few seams as possible."  Ceremonial markings on the garment were originally snipped into the cloth in the temple during an initiate's first visit.

[In 1927] The committee made some changes: Sleeves were raised from the wrist to the elbow, legs raised from the ankle to just below the knee, buttons used instead of strings, the collar eliminated, and the crotch closed. Nevertheless, the pre-1923 style garment was required in the temple ceremony until 1975 when its use became optional.

While I can't find my source on this, I swear that I've read that the Garment was not initially always worn.  Despite the temple text today instructing the endowed to "wear throughout your life", we know that the endowment has gone through changes, and was not written down for decades after shared by Joseph Smith.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its just such a weird thing because I've never even heard it talked about that you shouldn't remove them to have sex.  If I were crafting that list for Jana's survey I wouldn't have even thought of that as something to include on the list.  Where did that idea come from do you think?  Did some old church leader make comments about that or is it written somewhere in a book or any obscure reference somewhere to your knowledge?  

It was being laughed about when I was married in the early 80s.  I don't remember anyone saying in 45 years where I have been part of a conversation about garments they don't take them off, though I remember some saying their grandparents didn't (usually in a sad or astonished tone).

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, changed said:

Wait... so... even if I lose my testimony of the truthfulness of the church, ~25% of members believe that I am still supposed to wear my g's??? 

Another question that makes me wonder how closely they were reading...

[alter idem]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

IIRC correctly there was some general conference prediction that garments would only be worn in the Temple and it hearkened back to Joseph Smith's day. I am no expert on the history of garment wearing but were garments only worn in the Temple in his day?

Yes, that was one of the failed predictions, but as far as I know, it doesn't hearken back to Joseph's day.  The members wore their garments as we do today--not just in the temple, but they made their own.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't know, it really boggles my mind.  Wouldn't wearing only half of the two piece garments also be in violation of the correct way to wear the garments though, for those people that are trying to follow the rules?  So you just take off the bottom half because you're trying to follow the spirit of the law and keep the top on?    

I'm old I guess, but I remember my grandma and mom's garments years ago, and the men's and women's would open at the bottom, so no need to take off, lol.

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, readstoomuch said:

Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing there garments, while John Taylor and Willard Richards were.  That is my understanding. 

That's because Joseph and Hyrum took their garments off before they went to Carthage.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't remember the exact statistic that I saw in Jana Riess's new book & survey, The Next Mormons, on this question about people believing that you shouldn't take off your garments to have sexual relations with your spouse.  It was broken out by generational segments and it was shockingly high number, and material even among Millennials.  To this day, I still can't even imagine why anyone would think that you're supposed to do that.  I was raised as a very conservative orthodox member with plenty of folk lore beliefs growing up, but I was completely surprised to see these results.  

In one of her interviews, she discussed this. What was shocking is more millennials than older generations thought garments should be worn during marital activities. She pointed out however that the high numbers came from those that weren’t married. 

[alter idem]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think that everyone who was initiated into the anointed quorum during the early time period was also brought into the polygamy secret, so I'm thinking the two things were fairly synonymous.  I know some historians have talked about one of the purposes of this quorum and reasons Joseph was inspired by masonry was because of its secret structure with penalties for violation.  I think this was all tied directly to polygamy and was used as a mechanism for keeping it secret.  

Not all who were endowed were polygamists.  The Garment today is tied to the initiatory, which is a precursor to the endowment.

[alter idem]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They certainly weren't an every day kind of thing. For example, none of the men with Joseph in Carthage (including Joseph and Hyrum) were wearing the garment.

The garment has undergone many stylistic variations over time just as the policy about wearing them has changed. Back in the 1920's there were efforts of returning to temple only wearing, but ultimately it stayed as an everyday thing at that point. I don't recall when it became every day.

Willard Richards was wearing his garments.  The others were not.  John Taylor said that sometimes they did not wear them because of the heat.  Other than the heat, it was an everyday thing to wear them in Joseph's day. 

I've never heard that they considered wearing them only in the temple in the 1920's.  I wonder who was making an effort to do this?

[JAHS]

From FairMormon:

Question: Did Joseph and others with him remove their garments in order to avoid being identified as polygamists?

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

From FairMormon:

Question: Did Joseph and others with him remove their garments in order to avoid being identified as polygamists?

Thx!  If Joseph Smith who revealed the initiatory shed his garment in hot weather, is there a problem with following his example?  Maybe only if I wear the long sleeved and legged garment that he wore when I do wear it?

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why not just allow people to purchase their own underwear, stuff that fits well and feels good, and then have people mark it themselves, maybe they offer discreet little screen prints that you can apply with an iron or something. 

 

My garments fit perfectly and are comfortable. They are also less than 1/4 of a cost of similar store bought items.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

My garments fit perfectly and are comfortable. They are also less than 1/4 of a cost of similar store bought items.

Just curious - when you are making the decision about whether or not to wear garments, do you consider cost in that decision?  😊

[Oliblish]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It makes sense to me from a pragmatic standpoint that the church gets out of the underwear business all together.  I think before they start allowing people to wear the garment just in the temple a kind of middle ground would be allowing people to mark their own store bought underwear, with the symbolic markings.  They've already gone away from stitching to just screen printing.  They've altered the original lengths and style significantly over the years to accommodate more modern fashion.  Why not just allow people to purchase their own underwear, stuff that fits well and feels good, and then have people mark it themselves, maybe they offer discreet little screen prints that you can apply with an iron or something. 

This would also eliminate that whole garment producing industry, which I'm sure is a large expense for the church.  It would also put the power back in the hands of the people more, home centered and all.  They could also get rid of the reminders in temple recommend interviews about wearing the garment and it would gradually become a more individual and self administered idea, which I think over time would have less and less people worrying about the old tradition of garment wearing, and those myths around physical protection would fade into the background.  The idea of protection would be spiritual and not tied to the garment itself, but instead tied to the covenant people make and the way they live their lives, which is the whole point anyway.  

There used to be a website where you could make your own garments, but it is gone now.  

I found it in the internet archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141204044411/http://makeyourgarments.com/

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thx!  If Joseph Smith who revealed the initiatory shed his garment in hot weather, is there a problem with following his example?  Maybe only if I wear the long sleeved and legged garment that he wore when I do wear it?

Different requirements apply to the Word of Wisdom, so following his example in all things isn't considered best practice by church leaders, I am thinking.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

There used to be a website where you could make your own garments, but it is gone now.  

I found it in the internet archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141204044411/http://makeyourgarments.com/

The option of making one's own garments or altering has been excluded by church leaders for as long as I can remember (I would have removed the itchy lace in a heartbeat otherwise)....so preInternet.  People who were suggesting it were ignoring policy or substituting their standards for the Church's, imo.  There is, iirc, an exception for military personnel to get the required clothing and then have Church authorized service to screen print them...going for a nonofficial iron on pattern is creative, but stretching it. Add-on:  I suspect the owners of the site were unaware of the no sew your own policy as it looked a recent development.  With people not sewing as much, instructions not to make your own probably aren't seen as necessary by temple workers as often as they were earlier.

I get the desire because of medical issues.  I have ordered custom made for that purpose (only can wear cotton, so ordered thermal design with cotton fabric once or twice).  I am not much of a sewer, but I think I would definitely do my own especially for sleeping (make them drawstring at waist) if approved.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Calm