Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Garments only worn in the Temple?


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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

Leadership does.  Sometime ago they cut the price in half iirc so as to make them more accessible to all members. I remember it being instructed by Pres. Hinckley.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours 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.

Amazing!  Peculiar people is definitely an understatement for ideas like those. 😆

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Yes, thanks, that sounds familiar.  I guess I wonder why this myth has continued to be understood this way if no church leaders have talked about it for decades.  It’s not like most millennials are reading old materials where they might come across this concept.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, thanks, that sounds familiar.  I guess I wonder why this myth has continued to be understood this way if no church leaders have talked about it for decades.  It’s not like most millennials are reading old materials where they might come across this concept.  

More likely antistuff or just those who like interesting folktales about others making that claim.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

My garments fit perfectly and are comfortable.

Same! They are both physically comfortable and spiritually comforting. I've long said that one of the most painful things of excommunication for me would be losing access to the garment.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

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

In the quorum of the anointed, I believe most of those individuals initiated to that very select group were brought into the polygamy secret as part of the process.  There may be some exceptions, but the two went hand in hand during Joseph’s life.  

Link to comment
1 hour 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.

You’re not shopping around much then.  Similar style briefs in a 5-8 pack at Costco are cheaper per item.  I’m guessing they are way more comfortable too.  I don’t think the church can compete with the cost or quality of the big manufacturers.  

Link to comment
2 hours 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??? 

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???

 

 

My dad was on the brink of being an Atheist in an angry phase. But he wore his until he passed on. I still wear mine, I'm way to used to them I guess.

Link to comment
1 hour 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?

We don't follow his example now, we follow the current prophet's example. 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same! They are both physically comfortable and spiritually comforting. I've long said that one of the most painful things of excommunication for me would be losing access to the garment.

Have you heard about the new men's garments that are out? I think my husband will like them, since my husband's aren't very well fitting for him at all, maybe it's his body type.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-offers-new-stretch-cotton-garments-for-men?lang=eng

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You’re not shopping around much then.  Similar style briefs in a 5-8 pack at Costco are cheaper per item.  I’m guessing they are way more comfortable too.  I don’t think the church can compete with the cost or quality of the big manufacturers.  

Yep. Garments are at least double the price of real underwear. $4 each piece is pretty steep. I’d like to see how much it costs the church to manufacture each article. 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So, if they heard it from an anti source, why would they believe it?  

Antis get some things right, but I added sources that like to pass around odd stories about others, similar to how many confuse FLDS with Saints.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We don't follow his example now, we follow the current prophet's example. 

I was kind of kidding.  Sorry, my humor just didn’t go through.

I understand that the number one thing Good Mormons can do is to follow whatever the current president of the church says and does, and keep all traditions that are current in the church culture.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Have you heard about the new men's garments that are out?

Yeah, I saw the announcement on the Church's website. I have zero interest in being bound up in form-fitting, 'supportive' underclothing. The male body is designed so that certain parts are able to hang free and move about. As I've noted in a previous thread, there might be specific reasons why American men (inlcuding your husband) may prefer this new style. I personally can't think of anything more comfortable than a loose, light, breathable undershirt coupled with a similar pair of boxer shorts.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Garments are at least double the price of real underwear.

I just checked our local 'cheapo' department store's website. The price of a single pair of boxer shorts (whether bought singly or in a multipack) is identical to what I pay for garment bottoms, and the price of an undershirt is almost 50 per cent greater than what I pay for a garment top.

Link to comment

I like the idea of garments but detest wearing them they always come untucked, you have to order them online, the tops wear out and it seems like you are always buying new ones, it's never ending!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I've read this too.  I've also read that it was Joseph's inner circle (those he introduced polygamy to) who wore them.  But I'd like to know more about that too.  

I'd love to hear what @JLHPROF can add to this discussion as he most likely knows the facts surrounding this topic.

When the garments and the endowment were first rolled out in Nauvoo to paraphrase Brigham there was a lot to systematize.

We could start a whole thread on what aspects of the garments were revealed (and potentially are eternal) and what are the conventions of man.  But that thread has been done before.

The endowment at first (and especially the second anointing) was reserved for the inner circle, the quorum of the annointed.  And most of that group were polygamists.  In fact some historians state that acceptance of polygamy was a prerequisite for receiving ordinances.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

... they always come untucked ...

Untucked from what?

Quote

... you have to order them online ...

You'd prefer needing to drive to a shop somewhere?

Quote

... the tops wear out ...

But the bottoms don't?

Quote

...  and it seems like you are always buying new ones ...

The garments I'm wearing now were purchased (online!) nearly two years ago. The set I had before that were purchased in 2010. It took seven years for the first holes to appear.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I like the idea of garments but detest wearing them they always come untucked, you have to order them online, the tops wear out and it seems like you are always buying new ones, it's never ending!!!!!!!!!!

Could always bring back the original style....solve that problem.

Link to comment
Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Untucked from what?

You'd prefer needing to drive to a shop somewhere?

But the bottoms don't?

The garments I'm wearing now were purchased (online!) nearly two years ago. The set I had before that were purchased in 2010. It took seven years for the first holes to appear.

untucked from the bottom and you have to shove them back in and ack, it's annoying. I would prefer to drive but to Cardston would be great! but not feasible, I envy people who can just up and buy them. The bottoms not really so much, but the ribbon part frays and they last maybe 2 years? maybe?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

We don't follow his example now, we follow the current prophet's example. 

Shouldn't they be the same example?

Each should follow their file leader in an unbroken chain back to Christ, not chart a new course.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

Yep. Garments are at least double the price of real underwear. $4 each piece is pretty steep. I’d like to see how much it costs the church to manufacture each article. 

I doubt the church breaks even on the costs to manufacture garments.  I imagine they subsidize the cost for members to keep the cost low.

 It just makes sense to me that they get out of the garment manufacturing business.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...